New and improved debate -- "Braveheart" was mostly true

OK, I get what you're saying. I don't think so. If you did get what I'm saying you'd offer some kind of standard for historical accuracy by which Braveheart could be shown to be more accurate. As I've said before, in the movie, Battle of Stirling (and they even acknowledge that there was indeed a bridge) happens almost exactly as it did in history. Who is they? Are they associated with the movie? If so, in what way did they represent Stirling Bridge in the movie? The small bridge at Stirling was only broad enough to allow two horsemen to cross abreast. No bridge in the movie, so this is a major divergence from the geographic facts of the battle.Hugh Cressingham... persuaded the Earl to reject this advice and order a direct attack across the bridge. No bridge Wallace and Moray's hold over their men was tight. Moray's role at the battle of Stirling Bridge was essential... why isn't he depicted in the movie?They had held back earlier in the day... Not depictedThe two commanders now waited.... until "as many of the enemy had come over as they believed they could overcome." The movie shows them defending against an English charge, not charging the English as actually happened. Isn't it essential to depict who was on offense and who on defense? The movie shows the English foolishly withholding the infantry and sending the calvary into a static Scottish line. As you have cut & paste, history tells us that the English force north of the river was almost entirely infantry.In the narrow space of the bridge, the massed English cavalry were incredibly vulnerable to the line of Scots spearmen holding the end of the bridge Surrey's vanguard was now cut off from the rest of the army. Dramatic stuff. Why then did Bravehart choose to go with the old movie cliché of two massed lines clashing?due, in part, to the strewing of caltropsNo caltrops in the movie, although that might have been cool to see. Caltrops were little twisted nail tetrahedrons that pierced the hooves of horses. Here's a picture: their comrades to the south powerless to help Hugh de Cressingham, whose body was subsequently flayed and the skin cut into small pieces as tokens of the victory. This would have been interesting to see in the movie, although it might burst the illusion that the Scots were the good guys.Losses among the infantry, many of them Welsh, were also high. Braveheart depicts the Welsh as friendly to Wallace, which is belied by the factual account.Those who could throw off their armour swam across the river." This sounds exactly like what happened in the film. Since there is no river in the movie nobody is depicted as swimming. Why would you say that's exactly like the film?The English were indeed weak compared to the Scots. The movie got that right. More foolish than weak, but okay."The Battle of Stirling Bridge was a shattering defeat for the English: IT SHOWED THAT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES INFANTRY COULD BE SUPERIOR TO CALVARY." Well, any worthwhile knight of Wallace's time would have already known this to be true. If infantry were never superior to calvary, why bring them?Basically that's how it played out in the movie too.Not even close. For voters' sake, re-read Pro's cut & paste from Wikipedia than watch this clip from the movie. Is there any resemblance?http://www.youtube.com...Let's also remember that knights and horses on both sides would have been heavily armoured. Wallace wore armour from head to toe and was mounted. The movie shows him running around in a kilt with Roman era Pictish warpaint. Braveheart shows Wallace giving a rousing speech just before battle about fighting tyranny as free men. He addresses the men as 'my countrymen" and "sons of Scotland." "They may take our lives but they will never take our freedom." Now imagine the spirit of one those poor unfortunate lowland farmers or monks that were actually forced (under threat of hanging) to fight at the Battle of Stirling Bridge for a foreign French lord for whose squabbles he cared little. While Wallace watched the battle from a hill to the north, these commoners fought and achieved victory for him. Few of the ordinary fallen would have been commemorated or their families compensated. Imagine if that peasant could see this movie and see how Wallace is depicted. How deeply ironic and offensive Wallace's freedom speech would seem to the actual combatants; roughly the equivalent of depicting Robert E. Lee preaching freedom to his slaves. In Braveheart, history has been replaced by heroic fantasy, and per usual, the ordinary soldier gets the shaft.http://www.youtube.com...