Braveheart -Movie vs. Real Life Essay

This Essay is slightly the variations in the moving-picture show BraveHeart vs. accual events in the life of William Wallace(AKA BraveHeart) a Scots peasant and freedom fighter fighting for his countrys freedom from the unfair rule of the face King Edward II(Longshanks). It goes over differences such as the booking of Stirling Bridge and when and how Hollywood came into play.This essay was assigned in my history class after watching the movie BraveHeart and reading about the life of William Wallace in our school text books. The idea was to learn about his fight for freedom.Braveheart -Movie vs. Real LifeThe name Braveheart refers to a sparing peasant named William Wallace whom which fought for Scotlands freedom against the English King, Longshanks (Edward II). There is little true knowledge known about William Wallace, and what is known is questionable. Recently on that point was a movie made about the life of William Wallace, which was titled Braveheart. Overall, the movie portrayed a very clear picture of William Wallaces life, but there were also any(prenominal) things that happened in the movie that were fiction. Such as there wasnt a bridge at the appointment of Stirling Bridge, the relationship betwixt the Princess and William Wallace, and the Hollywood stuff in the movie. In this essay I will whistle about these ways in which I feel that some of the movie was fictional.The first thing is the encounter of Stirling Bridge. In real life, the battle took fix on a bridge. In the movie, however the battle took place on a large grassy battlefield. The Scottish were preferably quick to attack the English who were difficult to assemble on the other side of the bridge. That was the way the Scottish won in the actual battle. even in the movie, the Scottish just got lucky and won the highly outnumbered battle. This is probably the most noticeable typography of history poorly portrayed in the movie.The second is the relationship that William Wallac e had with the Princess of England. This is ridiculous for several(prenominal) reasons. First, a princely princess would most likely never touch a dirty, Scottish peasant forget having a solemn relationship with him. And second the princess would have only been about 6 or 7 years nonagenarian 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 lot of little things that I think of 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 mum seems unlikely 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 darkness and slit their throats. Things like that probably didnt happen at all.So in co nclusion, 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 between the Princess and William Wallace, and the Hollywood stuff in the movie, that made the movie less factual than possible. No matter what it was still a good movie, and I would recommend it to somebody wanting to learn about Scotlands olden andor the life of William Wallace.