This essay tells what is true and what is false in the movie Braveheart. So it tells the historical accuracy of the film

Very rarely in a historically based film is every action fact but rather there is a mix of fact and fiction in the film. Braveheart follows this mold since it is a historically based film that includes fiction intertwined with true history. These fictious additions to the film make it a better film cinematically but can make the film too over the top, which would take away from the film. Braveheart is able to tell the true tale of William Wallace in a way that is mostly true and the fictions parts only add to the plot and do not take away from Wallace and are easy to point out and don't adversely degrade him. However, in Braveheart, there is a lot of false information regarding the battle scenes. Therefore, Braveheart is a semi historically accurate movie but some details are false.

William Wallace, the patriot fighter for Scotland, was a real person who really fought heroically for his country.

William Wallace Statue. Photo taken by Axis12002

william_wallace_statue

Stirling Bridge. (Stirling, Scotland). Photo taken...

Wallace was an outlawed because he did not the sign Ragman Roll, which bound signatories in loyalty to England's King Edward I, which is true. Wallace like the movie showed organized other outlawed men into an army, however what was not shown was that he had a partner, Andrew Moray, who was killed at Stirling Bridge. The most glaring and important piece of fiction pertaining to Wallace was the fact that he was a landed commoner with a good education, and in peaceful times he might have been a scholar. However, in the movie he was portrayed as a poor man who was secretly married right before he got in trouble with the English. So in the respect of Wallace the movie did truthfully show his greatness but added some fictions information to make him seem more "middle...