Braveheart -Movie vs. Real Life Essay

This Essay is rough the contrasts in the movie BraveHeart vs. accual events in the life story of William W eachace(AKA BraveHeart) a economical peasant and freedom fighter fighting for his verdants freedom from the unfair rule of the English King Edward II(Longshanks). It goes every nonplus differences such as the participation of Stirling Bridge and when and how Hollywood came into play.This essay was delegate in my history class after watching the movie BraveHeart and see about the life of William Wallace in our text books. The appraisal was to learn about his fight for freedom.Braveheart -Movie vs. Real LifeThe name Braveheart refers to a Scottish peasant named William Wallace whom which fought for Scotlands freedom against the English King, Longshanks (Edward II). There is little accredited knowledge known about William Wallace, and what is known is questionable. Recently thither was a movie made about the life of William Wallace, which was titled Braveheart. Overall, the movie visualised a very clear picture of William Wallaces life, but thither were also closely things that happened in the movie that were fiction. Such as there wasnt a bridge at the battle of Stirling Bridge, the relationship amidst the Princess and William Wallace, and the Hollywood stuff in the movie. In this essay I forget talk about these ways in which I feel that some of the movie was fictional.The first thing is the battle of Stirling Bridge. In documentary life, the battle took place on a bridge. In the movie, however the battle took place on a large grassy battlefield. The Scottish were quite loyal to attack the English who were trying to assemble on the other spatial relation of the bridge. That was the way the Scottish won in the actual battle. However in the movie, the Scottish just got lucky and won the highly outnumbered battle. This is probably the most noticeable piece of history poorly portrayed in the movie.The scrap is the relationship that William W allace had with the Princess of England. This is ridiculous for several reasons. First, a royal princess would most seeming never touch a dirty, Scottish peasant forget having aserious relationship with him. And second the princess would have only been about 6 or 7 years old when this situation wouldve taken place. So that is another thing that was quite fictional in Braveheart.The last difference that I want to point out is that there were a split of little things that I think didnt happen in real life, and were used because it was a Hollywood movie. An example is that when they were in battle all of the Scottish mooned the English. It is possible because of their ancestors, the Kilts, fighting style, but it still seems unbelievable to me. Also there is the way that William Wallace killed the Scottish Nobles. He just charged on his horse into their bedrooms in the middle of the night and slit their throats. Things equivalent that probably didnt happen at all.So in conclusion, Braveheart was a quite informative and entertaining movie that showed a good idea of the life of William Wallace. However there were several things such as there wasnt a bridge at the battle of Stirling Bridge, the relationship betwixt the Princess and William Wallace, and the Hollywood stuff in the movie, that made the movie less real than possible. No matter what it was still a good movie, and I would inspire it to somebody wanting to learn about Scotlands past andor the life of William Wallace.