no i dont think its accurate, its only a movie to entertain.
2007-09-19 23:57:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by ultraviewcute07 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure if it is historically accurate, but even if it is you have to understand it was made with bias. All of history is biased depending on what side you are on. If you look at the American Revolution, some of our great American heroes were villains and criminals to the British. It's all a matter of perspective.
2007-09-20 06:23:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Adam K 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is very inaccurate. Edward I reigned for two years after Wallace was executed in 1305 and his son, the future Edward II was only 21 at the time of Wallace's death and did not marry Isabella of France until some years later. Wallace never met her. Edward II was defeated by Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314. He had not had responsibility for the war against the Scots during his father's reign. Edward I died in 1307. Edward II reigned for 21 years but was brutally murdered with a red hot poker up his backside (to leave no visible wounds).
Wallace was hanged, drawn and quartered in London. The method of execution did not include racking with horses.
2007-09-20 06:35:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by tentofield 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Do as you like, but Tentofield's answer is correct and accurate. The movie is great entertainment but it is not historically correct.
2007-09-20 08:58:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Can"t be true,why would an aussie want to fight for Scotland!!!
2007-09-20 09:14:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by crane man 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
well it was based off of a poem about william wallace but it is accurate.
2007-09-20 06:30:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by chewbaer90 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
it is surprisingly accurate.
except for Mel Gibson's accent
2007-09-20 06:21:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by darth tidiot 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
YESSSS VERY MUCH ACCURATE
2007-09-20 07:20:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋