"Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction

Thanks, Pro-Strangely, Pro's arguments are not quite in line with his thesis. I get the sense Pro might have done better with a thesis like, "Edward I was a really bad guy." Nevertheless, the challenge is "Braveheart is accurate," which I intend to refute. Most historical filmaking takes liberties with history in favor of dramatic storytelling. Many of the innacuracies in "Braveheart," however, are hard to forgive. To quote author John O'Farrell in An Utterly Impartial History of Britain: "Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a "Plasticine dog" had been inserted in the film and the title changed to William Wallace and Gromit."1) Pro has already conceded the fallacy of Primae Noctis. Most historians agree that the practice is not documented in Medieval Europe, although myths about Primae Noctis were popular. [1] Rape in feudal Europe was commonplace. I see no evidence to suggest that the Scots were any less given to rape than the English.[2] William Wallace was not "Braveheart." That attribution belongs to Robert the Bruce, who in the movie is falsely depicted as betraying Wallace. Better known and loved by the Scots than Wallace, and a more longstanding threat to the English than Wallace, Bruce's reputation is badly abused by the movie and which adds insult by stealing his name.[3] Wallace is inaccurately depicted as a highland commoner. This is far from the truth. Wallace was a lowland landowner and a knight sworn in fealty to the High Steward of Scotland. As such, he was a Norman descendant who inherited his plantations from the Norman Conquests much like Edward I. Like Edward, Wallace spoke and wrote in French and would have shared with Edward a mutual contempt for the native inhabitants who served them and worked their lands. Pro has argued that Edward Longshanks was the first Anglo-Saxon King after the Norman Conquest, but as the oldest grandson of King John he was a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. Although "Norman" may have lost much distinction after generations of marrying outside of Norman bloodlines, Edward and Wallace both almost certainly thought of themselves as part of a superior French caste ruling by right over savage natives, Saxon in the South, Scots and Picts in the North. If Pro wishes to consider Edward I as viscous or cruel, I would not argue except to say that Wallace was likewise cruel. When forcing conscripts to join his armies, even pacifist monks, he would hang those who refused to join. Wallace was also known to wear the scalp of Hugh de Cressingham, Edward's treasurer, from his belt.[4] Isabella of France is incurably depicted as serving as ambassador between Edward and Wallace. In the movie, she has a brief dalliance with Wallace and becomes pregnant by him. Scandalously, the movie suggests that Edward III is the son of Wallace. This is false, since Isabella was 3 years old at the time of the Battle of Falkirk and Edward III was born 7 years after Wallace's execution.[5] The Battle of Stirling Bridge is renamed the Battle of Stirling and no bridge is depicted. Unfortunately for history, Stirling Bridge was the single most important geographic artifact of the battle. Since the bridge was narrow, only two calvary could cross side by side. Wallace's army waited until a manageable number of soldiers had crossed and then attacked, blocking the bridge and slaughtering the forces on the North side. The bridge either collapsed or was destroyed by the Earl of Surrey to protect his retreat. Historically, Wallace's principle victory had more to do with the haste and ineptitude of the English, then by any remarkable feat of arms or strategy on the part of Wallace.[6] Conversely, it was Wallace's turn to be hasty and inept at the Battle of Falkirk. The Welsh longbowmen had a much longer range than the Scottish, and cut them down at a distance. No records suggest that the Irish and Welsh came over to the Scottish side as is depicted in the movie. After defeat, the movie depicts Wallace as conducting a guerrilla war after Falkirk. In fact, Wallace fled to France for four or five years while the English rolled over Scotland.[7] Kilts were not worn until 500 years after the Scottish Wars for Independence and then not by lowland gentry. Costuming Mel Gibson in a kilt, then, is roughly as accurate as Christopher Columbus sporting Abercrombie & Fitch.[1]http://www.snopes.com...