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

OK, I get what you're saying. However "Braveheart" is a little more realistic than we give it credit. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org.... "The Earl of Surrey had won a victory over the aristocracy of Scotland at the Battle of Dunbar and his belief that he was now dealing with a rabble proved that he had greatly underestimated the Scottish forces. The small bridge at Stirling was only broad enough to allow two horsemen to cross abreast. The Scots deployed in a commanding position dominating the soft, flat ground to the north of the river. Sir Richard Lundie, a Scots knight who joined the English after the capitulation at Irvine, offered to outflank the enemy by leading a cavalry force over a nearby ford, where sixty horsemen could cross at the same time. Hugh Cressingham, King Edward's treasurer in Scotland, was anxious to avoid any unnecessary expense in prolonging the war and he persuaded the Earl to reject this advice and order a direct attack across the bridge. The Scots waited as the English knights and infantry made their slow progress across the bridge on the morning of 11 September. The disorderly Scottish army of 1296 was gone: Wallace and Moray's hold over their men was tight. They had held back earlier in the day when many of the English and Welsh archers had crossed, only to be recalled because Surrey had overslept. The two commanders now waited, according to the Chronicle of Hemingburgh, until "as many of the enemy had come over as they believed they could overcome." When the vanguard, comprising 5,400 English and Welsh infantry plus several hundred cavalry, had crossed the Bridge, the attack was ordered. The Scots spearmen came down from the high ground in rapid advance towards Stirling Bridge, quickly seizing control of the English bridgehead. 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. The heavy cavalry to the north of the river was trapped and cut to pieces (due, in part, to the strewing of caltrops[citation needed] to unseat the cavalry making them easy targets for the Scottish forces), 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. The Lanercost Chronicle records that Wallace had[3] "a broad strip [of Cressingham"s skin] ... taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a baldrick for his sword". Losses among the infantry, many of them Welsh, were also high. Those who could throw off their armour swam across the river." This sounds exactly like what happened in the film. The English were indeed weak compared to the Scots. The movie got that right. "The Battle of Stirling Bridge was a shattering defeat for the English: IT SHOWED THAT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES INFANTRY COULD BE SUPERIOR TO CALVARY." There you have it, bro. Basically that's how it played out in the movie too.