"Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction

As I said before, Pro seems much more interested in making some unstated generalization about the nature of English people than in discussing the facts of William Wallace's biography and how inaccurately those biographic details are transmitted by the movie "Braveheart." My suspicions are increased by Pro's recent submission of a new debate discussing Cromwell in Ireland. If Pro is less interested in Wallace than in some thesis about English people, then Pro should concede this debate in favor of some more direct approach.What I was trying to say in regards of Longshanks being the first truly English king was that the Norman aristocracy finally ended by that time. Historians may have stopped calling the aristocracy Norman by Edward's time because Normandy was no longer a part of the same feudal kingdom as England. Nevertheless, Edward and his peers were descendants of the Norman conquest. It would be false to suggest that Edward was not a Norman descendant or that a tiny minority of French-speaking aristocrats still ruled over an Anglo-Saxon serfdom.Based on some sources, we can say Longshanks was Anglo-Saxon. "Edward, being an Anglo-Saxon name, was not a common name..." So yes he probably was Scandinavian. Neither Wikipedia nor any other source states or even implies that Edward was Scandinavian. Being named after an Anglo-Saxon saint is not the same thing as being Anglo-Saxon nor are Anglo-Saxons Scandinavian (they are Germanic), any more than naming my bulldog Pierre would cause him to become a poodle. If Pro has some evidence that Edward was Scandinavian or Anglo-Saxon, he has yet to present it. Nor has Pro explained how Edward's heritage reflects on the inaccurate biography of William Wallace presented by "Braveheart."You can say this is almost similar to the film. (Regarding the rebellion of 80 Welshmen the week before the battle of Falkirk).In as much as a few Welshmen rebelled, yes, that is almost similar to the film. If Pro contends that he need only find a few anecdotes that are not entirely dissimilar to the truth in order to establish that "Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction, he is mistaken.Edward did indeed show up at the battle. Whether this was because of what was shown in the movie -- Wallace challenging Longshanks to face him like a man -- and whether the Irish and Welsh did fight with the Scottish as shown in the picture is a mystery. Nope. No mystery. There is no evidence that Wallace challenged Edward before the battle (since he was trying to hide from Edward and scampered as soon as Edward's army approached, such a challenge would probably have been noted.) Colin McArthur notes that Wallace made "overtures to Edward I seeking less severe treatment after his defeat at Falkirk" [1] So he did beg for mercy after running away.There were few if any Irishmen documented at the Battle of Falkirk. Since Welsh bowmen are credited with the destruction of the Scottish pike formations, we know that the Welsh fought with the British.Scotland may have been brutal, but it wasn't unprovoked. England did indeed intrude on their land.As Scotland intruded on British lands. After Stirling, Wallace led a large-scale raid into Northern England, sacking towns and landholdings throughout Cumberland and Northumbria.********One last chance, Pro. I have demonstrated that Braveheart is a generally inaccurate biography of William Wallace. At best, Pro has so far only argued that Braveheart did not get every single fact wrong. This is clearly not a standard that approaches "true historical fiction." Indeed, Pro has made no effort to define that standard. Pro seems to prefer to focus on the portrayal of the English and Edward as cruel. By any modern standard, both the English and Scottish of Feudal Britain were undeniably cruel. This in no way promotes Braveheart as a serious work of biography or an accurate depiction of Wallace's character.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...