"Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction

This is not to say that "Braveheart" was based on a true story. Never said that. But historically a lot of it is accurate. I am arguing the opposite: "Braveheart" was based on a true story, in as much as William Wallace did exist, fought the English, and was executed by the English for treason. The movie, however, is inaccurate in many important historical details, some of which I defined in Round 2. I note that Pro has not yet disputed any these inaccuracies, but offers instead that "a lot is accurate." Well, okay, but that's a pretty low bar to qualify as "true historical fiction." The movie can't help but get a lot of details right: the grass was probably green and Wallace was probably a man, etc. There are standards, however, for historical accuracy. Do the customs and locales resemble the those of the historical period? Are the characters accurately portrayed? Are the events in keeping with the historical record? By these standards, "Braveheart" is a weak effort and unreliable as a work of history.The Battle of Stirling Bridge did indeed happen.Yes, it did, and therefore filmmakers have some responsibility to at least try to get some of the details right. See Argument 5 in Round 2: "Braveheart" removes the centerpiece of the battle: Stirling Bridge and renames the event "The Battle of Stirling." (which leads to confusion, since there was another, less renown engagement known as the Battle of Stirling). At Stirling Bridge, Wallace was fortunate. The English assumed that all real resistance was defeated and that Wallace's army would not engage. In spite of cautions from more experienced leaders, Surrey crossed the bridge in view of the enemy. The Scottish force waited until a sufficiently large but achievable number of knights crossed the bridge and then pounced. History is not certain whether the lopsided victory can be credited entirely to Wallace's charge. It is possible that Stirling Bridge collapsed during the battle and drowned or mired some part of Surrey's force. We do know that Wallace did not enter into combat himself, but commanded from high ground nearby. The movie makes no effort to depict any of this. Gibson admits that he modeled his tactics on the Battle of Bannockburn. It wasn't about Longshanks, but that England was indeed brutal with the Scots. And the Scots were indeed brutal with the English. These were brutal times.The opposition argument that some would have stated, was that Normans were to blame, not the English, but the English were the ones who behind the invasion, since Longshanks was the first Anglo-Saxon king after the Normans. As I stated in round 2, the landed aristocracy on both sides of the conflict were french-speaking descendants of the Norman Conquest. Both Wallace and Edward were Normans. In fact, Edward is a direct decedent of William the Conqueror. Pro may be confused by the name Edward, which is an Anglo-Saxon name given in veneration of Edward the Confessor. Nevertheless, to have called Edward Anglo-Saxon would have been insulting, the equivalent of calling him a conquered peasant.Battle of Falkirk did indeed happen too.And again, is totally inaccurate. Wallace and his thousand calvary were arrayed behind 5,000 infantry formed into hedgehogs, thick circles of spears. As Edward's knights approached both the left and right flanks of the army, Wallace and his calvary left the field without engaging. The English knights quickly eliminated the remaining bowmen and then withdrew while the English archers slaughtered the spearmen from a distance. Wallace essentially ran away and so was forced to resign from his position as Guardian of Scotland in disgrace. The movie gets none of this right, choosing instead to show Wallace as a valiant swordsman hacking and slashing against superior numbers. The movie suggests that the Scots would have won except for the betrayal of two lieutenants and the ruthless Edward firing on his own men. False. Of the two commanders at Falkirk, Wallace was undoubtedly the less noble and more cruel, running away and leaving most of his peasants behind for slaughter. Now mind you, Robert the Bruce wasn't the traitor as portrayed in the film. Agreed. He switch sides a few times but that was normal behaviour for the era.That part of the movie was indeed wrong, but the point is that "Braveheart" is true historical fiction, whether Anglo-Saxons like it or not. In what respects? By what standard? Why wouldn't Anglo-Saxons prefer historical accuracy as much as the next guy?Even the execution of "Braveheart" was true. Whether it happened exactly the way that it happened in movie or not, historians agree that a Scottish noble handed Wallace over to the English lords and he was tried for treason in front of an audience. The more graphic parts of his execution were tamed down in the movie but England was brutal with Scotland, make no mistake of it. On this much we can Agree. By all accounts, English execution for treason is about as horrible as it gets. Any accurate depiction would be deemed unpresentable by Hollywood Studios.