I have read on various places online that it is considered one of the most inaccurate film depictions ever made, but most of the qualms come from Wallace's love life and the fact that he wore a kilt. That being said, is the rest of the overall story really that marred? I am mainly interested in learning about the battles depicted in the film and the overall representation of Wallace and what he stood for.
The Battle of Stirling Bridge, listed in the movie only as "Stirling", was definitely inaccurate. The single most important aspect of the battle was the bridge and that appeared nowhere in the movie.
Wallace patiently allowed 40-60% of the English army to cross the narrow bridge. These men after crossing the bridge were tightly trapped in a loop of the river with their only escape to swim or use the bridge. The bridge was very narrow so that only two men abreast could ride across. When Wallace sprang his trap men with long spears forced charged the English troops. The right flank advanced quickly and secured the bridge ensuring the only escape was to swim. By splitting the numerically superior army and by crowding the cavalry with long spears the Scots defeated a much larger force. The key to the victory was the use of terrain specifically the narrow bridge and the bend in the river.
I loved the movie but I couldn't watch it anymore after I learned that they had shortened "The Battle of Stirling Bridge" to merely "Stirling."
I loved the fact they thought it would be realistic to have Longshanks give the order to fire arrows at his own men, as it worth the risk, to hell with that! It's just false