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

Nine rounds in two debates later, Pro has yet to acknowledge my central point. "Mostly true" is a relative term. Since "Braveheart" is generally recognized as a relatively inaccurate film, and since most of my central complaints regarding the film have not been disputed, what is the core of Pro's argument? Pro continues to offer one or two cases to show the movie is not entirely fictional, but that can be done with almost any movie. Some movies do history better than others, and "Braveheart" does history worse than most. Pro must offer some standard to justify "mostly true." Mostly true compared to most historic movies? We have seen that Braveheart is not that. Mostly true regarding the biography of William Wallace? No, in this regard, "Braveheart" is shockingly cavalier with the known facts. With one round left for argument, I have little notion of Pro's thesis or how he intends to justify a statement which flies in the face of conventional wisdom. A short list of the limited overlaps between "Braveheart" and the truth is not going to cut it. I think you mean Mornay and later in the scene, he and the rest of the nobles on horseback are indeed shown. Watch later into the scene. The oncoming Scottish horsemen cause Talmadge to cry, "Retreat!"This is the second example demonstrating that Pro does not read his own cut & pastes from Wikipedia. If Pro had read his own argument in Round 3, he would discover that the historical figure's name is Andrew de Moray. Moray was a more prominent figure in the Scottish uprising than Wallace before Stirling and was Senior co-commander at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Unlike Wallace, Moray actually fought in the Battle of Stirling Bridge and died of injuries sustained at that battle. In fact, he is the only Scottish casualty at Stirling that history knows by name. Mornay is not a Scottish name and there is no figure by that name fighting during the Scottish War for Independence. Mornay is a fiction of "Braveheart." I don't believe that Mornay is intended to be Moray since the real figure has no elements in common with the fictional character. However, if the movie does intend for Mornay to be a representation of Moray, than the movie has made a traitor out of one of Scotland's heroes for a second time (they also did so with the real Braveheart, Robert the Bruce). This point of view is subjective. Obviously when you're oppressed by another country, you're gonna try to fight off your oppressors. Of course in the Anglo-Saxon point of view, the Scottish warriors were savages. But that's not how Scots see it. Depends on who you talk too really.Pro misses the point again. Historians agree that the Battle of Stirling entailed an organized Scottish infantry advancing on an English infantry that had yet to assemble in combat order. The movie has the English charging the Scottish line, I suppose because this seems more valiant than the historical ambush. Braveheart renames the Battle of Stirling Bridge, removes the bridge, removes the river, removes the Scottish commander who lead the assault and died for his efforts, changes the order of battle, adds an English calvary charge, adds speeches from Wallace about "fighting for freedom," takes away the Scottish spears and gives them swords and axes, takes away the Scottish armor and puts them in silly kilts, and doesn't show the Scottish scalping and taking of trophies in the aftermath. Pro would argue, "but the Scottish did indeed win the battle, so Braveheart is mostly true." Baloney. The movie made little to no effort to depict history, Braveheart only offers Hollywood cliché. The battle looks much more like many other movie battles we've seen: "Last of the Mohicans" or "The Patriot" or "Lord of the Rings."I honestly don't know how to respond to that, except I never said "Braveheart" was a 100% true, but mostly true, so maybe they did cut that out.That and many, many other important details. I would say that Braveheart was about 5% true, making it a profoundly ahistorical movie. Since you wouldn't say "Braveheart" was 100% true what percentage do you feel is true enough to call it "mostly true?' Isabella wasn't even born when Wallace was alive, that I agree is the one wrong aspect of the film. So then you must also agree that the movie is false when it shows Isabella warning Wallace, Isabella bearing Wallace's child as Edward III, etc. Some pretty grotesque inaccuracies, wouldn't you say?they behaved as though they were an inferior army towards the Scottish army, and the movie shows this very well.I'll agree with that. Are you saying that's all it takes to make a movie historically accurate? So long as the attitude of one army toward another is accurately depicted, it doesn't matter who did what where? Now this one is matter of opinion. Robert E Lee was actually more of English/Anglo-Saxon ancestry and he was very proud. The English would see him as a hero, not the Scottish, but against that's my opinion. Though I don't think he was a true Confederate for certain reasons, reasons which I'll get into later.Another clean miss of the point. I only mentioned Lee as a famous slaveholder who was also a commander. I might have used Washington or Ramses II or Julius Caesar. Wallace's infantry was composed of serfs, indentured servants. Although they were not property and so were not slaves, they were slaves in the sense that they had no control over their own destiny. They could fight the English or be hanged by Wallace. Wallace was no more likely to give a rousing speech about freedom to these men than Washington might to a group of plantation slaves, or Ramses to the Israelites. To depict Wallace giving that speech is ahistorical and demeaning to the memory of the men he forced to fight. For the purposes of this metaphor, Lee's heritage or allegiance are simply irrelevant.