That last battle, called Cowpens, is where one of my American ancestors died. Cheeky Brits ;-). That is also where, last year, unmarked graves were found, and a Scot was returned to his native land courtesy of both armies.
@@RamblersInc Oops, battle of Camden. The story about the graves, the identification of the Scot by his regimental buttons and the honors ceremony was well covered if you want to look it up. "UK troops lay British soldier killed in US nearly 250 years ago to rest"
You gotta understand that most warfare up to this point is two armies in an open field hitting each other with ranged weapons before charging. It feels weird and illogical because they have guns but if it was a line of archers it would seem perfectly normal. It is an archaic form of war but appropriate based on the weapons of the time. Muzzle loaded black powder rifles have limited range compared to modern rifles so you have to move in relatively close. A skilled soldier could fire three shots per minute. The most effective use of these types of guns is large unified volleys of fire. And while guerilla style raids and ambushes were highly effective during the Revolutionary War there were still important and decisive victories on the open battlefield. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
the lack of an accurate shot at a distance was because a lot of the muskets had non-rifled barrels. "Muzzle to muzzle" was exactly that, old warfare with new weapons. -12:15 "Thats when the evil British Major, messed up..." -13:38 The kids didnt know what their father had the capacity to be...but they learned right then.
Not only limited range and accuracy, but also a high rate of misfires. Most of the major powers (Britain, France, Prussia, etc.) conducted studies during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Under ideal test conditions (fresh flints, dry powder, no wind or rain, etc.) a flintlock musket could be expected to misfire 15-20% of the time.
@RamblersInc There also tends to be the expectation that they be fought using the strategies and tactics of previous wars. I'm sure the builders of the Maginot Line were annoyed to no end by the Germans and their Blitzkrieg
Wrong! The American militia during the Revolutionary War had access to rifled firearms, also known as flintlock muskets with grooved barrels. These rifles were more accurate than smoothbore muskets and were a powerful weapon for scouts and skirmishers. The grooves inside the barrel caused the musket balls to spin when exiting the rifle, making them more deadly at long range. American long rifles could be accurate up to 300 yards, compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. However, rifles were also slower to reload, often taking a minute or two, and they couldn't be fitted with a bayonet.
The rocking chairs were built by a Master Craftsman near me. He built them the way he always did, to last. When filming, the crew couldn't get the chairs to break because they were made so well. They kept cutting them until they finally broke. They were used to props, not real furniture built by a Master.
This genre of film is what we can call 'Historically realistic" rather than 'historically accurate. It doesn't focus on Real historic characters or events, but does portray what many real people had experienced, in similar events which did occur. War is a horrible thing, but at times we must be called upon to face it, let's it find and overwhelm us unprepared.
Historically true..one of the greatest military victories..Cowpens..in the Carolinas..the war had shifted south..before finally shifting to Saratoga, New York..and finally victory..with England loading their soldiers onto ships for transport back to England..My family got here in 1646..a full 130 years before the Revolution..
@@carlchiles1047 The Saratoga Campaign (1777) was well before the Carolinas (1780-81). Aside from effectively destroying a British Army, the victory at Saratoga persuaded the French to become directly involved, and the ultimate victory over Cornwallis at Yorktown VA in 1781 was very much a Franco- American victory.
This is loosely based on the competition between South Carolina resident Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion and British General Banastre "The Butcher" Tarleton.
Fun fact -- Lord Cornwallis claimed to be sick so he didn't participate in the surrender ceremony. His deputy, General O'Hara, attempted to surrender to the French commander. The French commander refused to accept Cornwallis' sword and indicated he should surrender to General Washington. As O'Hara was Cornwallis' second in command - he was directed to surrender to Washington's second-in-command, General Benjamin Lincoln. Lincoln (no relation to the president) commanded the forces which were captured at Charleston, the Americans' greatest defeat of the war. Lincoln had orchestrated the escape of the South Carolina militia before the surrender.
Have fun with this one. It's a conglomerate of several personalities that existed during the war. Gibson seems to be modeled after Francis Marion "Swamp Fox" with typical cinematic embellishments. The British calvary officer is based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton (known as "the butcher" he did fight very dirty). He was soundly defeated by the Americans at the Cowpens battle, lived through it and went on to fight in many more British Empire battles around the world. The scene after he gets Gabriel back is "Don't annoy daddy".
The British blew a 13 colony lead! Wilderness campaign was a campaign in the French and Indian War (7 Years War) - Washington gained his initial fame on that front. As others noted the firing in rows was due in part to the inaccuracy / lack of range of muskets - these weren’t rifles. The guerrilla tactics shown in use by Benjamin’s men did occur in the Revolution and were seen by the Brits as uncivilized / un gentlemanly conduct.
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? What fates befell them for daring to put their names to that document? Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.
But not liberty for slaves or the native Americans. Liberty to take more land, colonise more. There were also worries about the abolitionist movement. They were traitors to the British government. They joined with the very enemy that the British army had protected them from (and which they wouldn't pay taxes for). Also many crimes were committed by the rebels. Going to Canada and burning down government buildings. They thought the Canadians would join them, they didn't. Burning down the homes of those who were on the other side after the war. Many of the 'founding fathers' later went back to the UK.
@@joebloggs396 apparently you don't know history very well..... The right thing was done and slavery in the US ended in 1865 thanks to the Republican party.....Colonialism in the US also ended in the late 1800s....
@@jasonhager524 This is completely irrelevant, and slavery was a necessity before countries had technology. They still use slavery through prisons today. Did you know that the North kept slavery going well after they forced the south to give it up? Did you know they used slavery out west to build the transcontinental railroads? Or how about the child labor? In fact, wherever you find debt... a constantly dying economy... you find rich people making killings off of cheap labor. This is America as a whole, they use cheap labor, and that is why some F***** running this place are making it so expensive to live here. It's easy as hell to run peoples well being into the ground, and profit off of their debt and forced labor. Paying someone peanuts to work 24hr shifts in the 1800s is slavery, but because it was allowed to pay such minimum wage it was technically not slavery. Same today, they replaced the gold standard with USD, to provide themselves with a way to continue on slavery through inflation and monetary debt. Now you have credit cards too, which is a nightmare. It's a dog eat dog world, slavery is basically a reality anywhere in the world, and it doesn't matter what skin color a person is, everyone is a prime candidate for such a scheme unless they're rich. What happens when the economy goes bankrupt, the IRS or whoever will come and seize your assets because you won't be able to pay your stupid f***** taxes. It's not obvious, but it's just because no one thinks of things with a nihilistic perspective, I guess life would be miserable if we did though. Let's say you become homeless, you need food, no job available anywhere. Do you go fish? Ah, there is a Game Warden, you need to pay to fish... OR, you need to buy a lifetime license which might cost you $300 USD... which under a bad economy might become even more expensive. Everything is an entrapment scheme, it's not like one sort of people is safe from it dog. What about communism? Forced labor, peanuts. It's the same thing everywhere, just some people got it better than others. America is wealthy, we're lucky.
What does America do to traitors now a days, Considering how prisoners in gitmo have been treated, Maybe times don't change as much as people like to think they do, And no one is as pure as driven snow as the proverbial saying goes..
If you're still interested: There were three main reasons why armies of this time period fought like that. 1. Command and control. Remember, there are no radios. Officers have to relay orders via shouted commands, flags, drums and other instruments. Troops had to be formed up so close together to actually see and hear their orders. 2. The inaccuracy of muskets. These weapons were only effective up to about 80 metres. They are also very unreliable, having 1 in 5 misfire rate even in ideal dry conditions. Such formations concentrated firepower and presented a literal wall of lead to the enemy. It also provided a workaround regarding the unreliability of the muskets and their slow rate of fire. If your musket didn't work it wouldn't matter since the other several hundred of the men in formation with you probably did. When the first line of men fired they usually stepped to the side or kneeled to allow the second line of men to fire. The third line of men were usually handed fired muskets to reload while they sent loaded muskets to the front ranks. This allowed for a constant volume of fire of fire. The slow rate of fire of muskets (usually 1 - 2 rounds in battlefield conditions) wouldn't be a problem. 3. Defense against cavalry. Scatteted infantry are easy targets for horsemen. By forming up into dense lines like that the infantry could fire concentrated volleys into charging cavalry or form squares. The all-round defensive formation allowed for fire in all directions and prevented actual charges from forming as horses aren't dumb and will not charge directly into a wall of bayonets and men (mostly). There were exceptions of course but the horses were often extremely aggressive and their riders near suicidal in their bravery and morale. It's a propaganda myth that the Americans were the first to use guerilla style warfare. All major European powers had light infantry skirmishers in their armires. Men whose job was to scout, spread out and use cover and specifically target officers. The British were no different. Skirmishers can't win a battle by themselves though. Think of it this way. Skirmishers did exist in pre-gunpowder armies; these being archers, javelin throwers, slingers, etc, light infantry meant to scout, harass and disrupt enemy formations. But once the main battle started they would fall back while the main army fought in dense formations. What this movie leaves out of course is the French providing the overwhelming majority of the gunpowder, muskets, artillery cannons and uniforms, and both France and Spain declaring war on Britain. The British had to fight both the French and Spanish and put down the revolution.
Thanks for the information. The formation makes sense seeing the type of weapons that were used. I had no idea the Spanish were massively involved as well.
As I understand it, the colonists were basically divided into roughly thirds, where 1/3 were Torres, 1/3 were Colonial separatists and the final third didn’t really care either way, possibly because they were simply trying to eke out the necessities of life. It’s also of note that of all the colonials at that time, only 3% took up arms against the Crown, literally THE superpower of the period.
You are correct.....up to a point in time. Initially, the populace was in three camps: loyalist, patriot, and those who just wanted to be left alone (the largest group and especially in the northwest of SC toward the mountains.) The problem arose when the British took Charles Towne (today, Charleston) and Cornwallis published an edict that, in so many words said that "you are either for us or against us." Thus, there was no longer playing both sides and the populace was polarized into two camps. It became neighbor against neighbor.
By the time of the Carolinas Campaign, the War had been going on for several years in the Northern Colonies, with mixed results. The Americans commanded by Washington had successfully forced the British out of Boston in 1776, but Washington's defense of New York City failed. NYC was held by the British until the end of the War. A major American victory culminating with the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 defeated the British forces sent to secure upstate NY and led the French to become directly involved. More direct engagements were won by the British forces. In fact, there were thousands of Loyalist ("Tory") troops fighting along with the Royal Army, but the presence of standing armies using up and depleting the colonist's farms and being quartered in homes led to a greater antipathy to the British. Due to regional and social differences, the Carolinas were regarded as friendlier to the Crown than the Northerners, but in the event of the war coming home, the Carolinians became increasingly part of the Patriot side.
Many people can't understand the tactics generally used at this time because their conception of guns is modern. Those used took 20-30 seconds to load, were only truly accurate at about 50 metres and simply failed to fire often. If they spread out cavalry would quickly destroy them and firing would be nearly useless. Guns at this time usually didn't even have sights, so massing fires was the way.
@@RamblersInc For the most part. There were also influences from pre-firearm warfare still lingering, too. Line tactics had been the norm for battle in the old world for literally thousands of years, and changes to the tactics and weapons came slowly. Many Americans will boast about quickly changing to improve combat capabilities, but this is mostly bragging without much knowledge. It was the creation of more accurate, reliable and quick reloading guns over the 19th Century that led to what we think of as combat tactics today.
@@RamblersIncthat and like he said if they spread out to far Calvary would run them down like you see in the first battle, funny thing is that battles in the americas were pretty small compared to Europe consistently usually less then 10k men combined from both sides. Another thing about this warfare is communication its hard enough getting 10 people to march in line now image trying to get 1,000+ to not only stay together but to maneuver over rough terrain, to not break at a moments notice, and to fire together.
@@RamblersInc Basically, if you blob up and shoot these muskets at the same time or in sequence... you create an area effect much like a shotgun or the 1800's version of something called a Canister Shot (a cannon fired canister used at close range, inside the canister were a bunch of metal balls that were designed to spray outward at approaching enemies looking to do harm to an artillery team (which consisted of just a few people). You can probably look up a video of some people shooting this thing, it actually is terrifying beyond words, you could destroy the side of a barn with just a few repetitions I imagine.
If you’re interested in seeing a more realistic portrayal of America’s story of Independence, I’d highly recommend the 7 part miniseries from HBO (Max), titled, “John Adams.” All star cast and critically acclaimed.
Tarleton is said to be the one who gave Andrew Jackson the scar on his cheek. Legend says that he ordered Andrew Jackson to shine his boots. Jackson refused and Tarleton dragged his sword across his face.
It's a visually attractive film and I enjoy some of the performances but it takes shockingly indecent liberties with history, which other comments have touched on. One of the more uncomfortable aspects is how the film squares slavery and the plantation economy with a war for freedom. It mostly weasels out of it by pointedly making Benjamin Martin an "employer" of free people while avoiding the status Aunt Charlotte's workers. Benjamin also has Occam make his own mark, but it doesn't change the fact that Occam had no choice; his owner handed him over for Benjamin to use and he expected him back when it was over. Also, while much is made about Occam being able to earn his freedom for 12 months of service, it is never mentioned that the British offered freedom to any runaway slave who would join the army. This is one of many, many Mel Gibson films where he plays widower. In fact, in his first 30+ years of screen roles, most of his characters either begin as widowers or see their wife or partner/girlfriend die during the film.
"most of his characters either begin as widowers or see their wife or partner/girlfriend die during the film." - If that's true....then that's CRAZY. Do people just want to watch him crying on screen or something😂
@@RamblersInc Totally true, and that doesn't even take into account the roles where a wife is mentioned but is non-existent in the story (eg, Gallipoli) It was good marketing. 1) It makes him a guy with a tragic/romantic backstory. 2) it gives the audience "permission" to lust after him unashamedly 3) relevant to 1 & 2, it allows him to be a dad with being attached (the Patriot, Signs, etc.) 4) it allows him to hook-up on screen while still being 1, 2 & 3
A criticism by an historian "There are so few films depicting the Revolutionary War that it’s hard to criticize them. I knew one day I would have to give my review of The Patriot, starring Mel Gibson, but I have put it off for a long time. Before I begin, I need to put forth the disclaimer that I own this film and sometimes will leave it running in the background while I do other things. It’s a little like an alcoholic turning to mouthwash in desperation. “Hi, I’m Dan and I am an 18th Century addict”--admitting your problem is the first step, right? From a film critic’s point of view, The Patriot is a dodgy movie. It has an uneven script with overly villainous villains, pacing problems, and a tendency to shift from soppy sentimentality to vicious brutality. Many of the faults fall right in the lap of director Roland Emerich, whom you might remember from such campy sci-fi romps as The Day After Tomorrow or Independence Day. Why you would hire an over-the-top Hessian sci-fi director to tell the story of America’s birth is beyond me. The best things about The Patriot as a film are the talented cast, beautiful cinematography, and excellent score by John Williams. These elements save this film, to the extent it can be saved. From an historian’s point of view, this film is a nightmare. The problems range from inaccurate costuming choices (apparently we viewers are too stupid to understand anything but red and blue uniforms) to complete butchery of battles, motivations, morals and actions. To enumerate the errors would take as long as the war itself. The problems may have begun when they took what was originally a script about Patriot hero Francis Marion and decided to improve history through re-writing, but it’s hard to say when the first big blunder occurred. You could argue that they made their changes to make a better story, but the results are something like making a film of 9-11 with Italian Hijackers. The meaning of the history is lost, and our understanding is compromised. I know I am being hard on what is, in fact, simply an entertainment. Still, a film such as this bears a certain responsibility. Many people take their only knowledge of Revolutionary War history from some dim distant grade school memories and whatever they see in this film. In fact, because we have no photographs or recordings from the 18th century, a film like The Patriot will actually have a more powerful place in people’s memories than all the hours spent learning in school. So I beg you, if you watch this movie, treat the history in it like perfume and not fine wine; sniff, don’t swallow. I will be watching The Patriot again, of course. After all, I’m addicted to the 18th century; I can complain about the air all I want, but what else is there to breathe?" Reviewed by Dan Shippey Breed's Hill Institute October 2009 (Breed's Hill was the other hill in the Battle of Bunker Hill that was at the beginning of the American Revolutionary War).
He needs to understand the difference between a documentary and a movie made to entertain an audience. It's like the difference between what I've I heard referred to as a good film and a good movie. People in the industry like well-made films, while the public likes entertaining movies. The technical aspects can make a movie more entertaining, but they are no substitute for entertainment.
He’s not wrong but I don’t know of a person who’s watched this film thinking it’s a documentary or that it was a true story other than militia existed, we fought the British, and the French sent support . And Cornwallis existed. With that said I’d love to see a historically accurate mini series detailing major elements of the revolutionary war
@@gailseatonhumbert Oh, get over yourself. It doesn't claim to be a documentary. Also, even if it does subvert history the fact that it exists proves that entertainment can do exactly that. According to entertainment, ancient Greeks and Romans spoke English with a British accent. How does that fit into your narrowminded view?
The reason the children were excited about the mail is because it was the only communication there was from the outside world. It's how the colonies got their news from England and other colonies.
Tarleton was real and the last battle happened just that way..they say it is one of the greatest military victories ever..convincing an opposing enemy force that you are retreating the field of battle only to fall back ..re-group and have regular army on both flanks for support of new positions..to take the English by surprise…stopping them cold..and making the English commander to leave the field of battle..at the time..South Carolina was the scene of major battles..before the battle up north..at Saratoga, New York..soon after..
Col. Tarlton was very well known for extremely brutal treatment and tactics, in fact he would have made the SS look like chior boys, wars at this time frame was very different from what we're use to today. Some things are embellished for the story but all the tactics were used by the British army all over the world (the church scene was common in Scotland)
Saw a great t-shirt recently here in the States, just in time for July 4th: "Make America Great Britain Again!" with the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes side by each. Cheeky 😀
The tactics that you're looking at going muzzle to muzzle is basically the concept of the numbers game you psychologically scare your opponent with larger numbers the larger the numbers the greater influence you have on the battlefield secondly the dragoons were more of a cavalry special forces, and as far as the children dying that has then because Britain had been in so many wars for the last 1000 years that they've had so many psychological impacts on them that it was easier just to kill any male child or man that basically held a weapon against them
The tactics of just standing in a line and firing actually had a lot of sense given the weaponry they had at their disposal. Those guns were LOTTA inaccurate and in order to actually make it worth, you had to have a lot of people in a line shooting in the same direction. That's why it almost always ended up with a charge.
Saving Private Ryan also lost Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love. Hollywood gonna Hollywood. Folks need to get over equating everything bad with Nazis. I realize it's convenient, but not at all accurate. Tavington was the only Brit portrayed as truly bad, and Cornwallis called him out for it, though he did give him permission later on because his pride was stronger than his sense of honor.
Banastre Tarleton ("Tavington") waged a brutal war in that Southern Campaign and treated all colonials as potential if not outright supporters of the Patriot cause. His methods and tactics were very far from the accepted norms of conduct, so the Tavington character is not far from the truth.
The tactic of firing in lines was a means to maximize the weapon accuracy and area of effect given they were vastly inaccurate due to being smooth bore muskets. They were slow firing, slow reloading muskets without the rifling grooves in the barrel caused the weapons to struggle at distance. Usually the line battles were fought at enough distance to allow people to either push forward or retreat based on losses and manpower, too close and the weapons become significantly more accurate resulting in significant casualties too fast, the musketballs were typically larger than 50 caliber bullets of today and were often made of lead so you can imagine getting hit has horrible consequences, while they were not designed to penetrate flesh the damage was probably horrible if the musketball were to shatter through flesh and organs, or if it did not shoot clean through you would then have a person with a huge gaping hole in them and incredible blunt force trauma on top of a potential lead poisoning. So the battles were fought in a measured way I'd say, lots of light infantry fighting behind cover with longer range rifles were used to screen the main body of infantry as to prevent the enemy from advancing closer, also to intercept retreating units dispatched from battle... but against lines of infantry the tactics we have today probably struggle without the technology of our time. So virtually all forms of line battles at the time were designed around 'show of force' and 'fire superiority', and the losing side in this case Americans were vastly outnumbered in some of these battles especially going up against field artillery. The field artillery was used as a means to dissuade enemy troops from advancing, usually fired ahead of advancing enemy troops. I imagine it is hard for a group of infantry to move towards cannons that are designed to maximize area of effect, some kinds of cannon could take out many troops at once. This was the case into the 1800's, and Napoleon Bonaparte revolutionized formations so troops could move safer to avoid being wiped out by artillery, he also learned to use towns and villages with roads as a form of supporting troop movements so that he could not only scout out enemy advancements but also keep the army well fed and coordinate troop concentration with flexibility. Many battles he fought he seemed to have the edge in because of how well structured his logistics and intel was, but also his brilliant strategical and tactical use of different types of units on the field.
That makes sense now in terms of using the guns to their maximum efficiency. What did everyone use before the local towns/villages? Just set up camps in open fields and hope they have enough supplies?
Napoleon was a brilliant tactician and strategist, but he did not invent anything new in troops maneuvering formations or the use of towns and villages--that had all been done earlier by others. Not sure where you got that from.
Ramblers, I love your reactions! The American Revolution was officially from 1776-1783. The American Civil War was 1861-1865. Actually, Benjamin "The Ghost" Martin in the film is based on the real-life Brigadier General Francis Marion, known in those days as "The Swamp Fox. "Butcher" Tavington in this film is based on the real-life Colonel Banastre "Butcher" Tarleton, who commanded a regiment of dragoons--mostly colonials who remained loyal to King George III. On May 29, 1780 Tarleton won the lop-sided Battle of The Waxhaws in northern South Carolina. Tarleton lost control of his men, who believed Tarleton had been killed, and they then murdered many of the surrendered Continentals. The British lost 5 killed; the colonials lost 113 killed. (The disparity in those numbers reflects the killing of prisoners.) As a result, Tarleton earned the name of "Butcher" among the colonists. Surrendering was referred to as "quarter." Many Continentals subsequently shot surrendering British soldiers and called such an act "Tarleton's Quarter" in revenge. Tarleton was eventually promoted to general officer and later WAS a member of Parliament. So, whatever shame may have accrued from his men killing surrendered soldiers certainly did not hold him back from advancement. (The Waxhaws is what Gabriel briefly alluded to at 8:15 when he said that the British dragoons charged into the Virginia regulars). It was indeed a bloody, terrible war. (I graduated college in South Carolina with a major in history and had the great opportunity to visit the battlefields and key locations of both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Regards the Revolution, SC was surprisingly the scene of more engagements than any other colony. As the war dragged-on, and as the populace became more and more polarized over actual and rumored war crimes, the fighting became neighbor-against-neighbor and for all practical purposes, people could no longer play both sides. it was a civil war within the state.)
Oh the ghost existed? Amazing. So the movie does base itself in facts then Why was South Carolina the scene of more engagements. Was it a key state at the time strategically?
Your reaction warms my American heart. I've always said that in recent times, our best, most reliable allies are the British rather than the Canadians.
You never heard of Tarleton's quarter. Look it up. Yes, higher officers dress him down. Oh, the baddie is Banister Tarleton. Mel Gibson's character is loosely based on Francis Marion.
our ancestors took their rights much more seriously than we do, today... back then, if the supreme court had ruled a president had almost unlimited power while in office, as ours did, the people would have dragged those justices into the street and... well, we'd need to nominate and confirm a bunch of new supreme court justices.
That is NOT what they ruled. "Official acts committed by the President within his constitutional powers" are immune from criminal prosecution. Get your facts straight before opening mouth. The ignorance...
This movie was a smipleton cartoon that didn't care a lick for historical events. And even though Banastre Tarleton was indeed a real @ss, If I were a Brit I would be pretty offended by some of the BS.
I love this movie and I love seeing Mel Gibson at his best but my favorite of his movies is "The Year of Living Dangerously", a Peter Weir film also starring Sigourney Weaver at the peak of her hotness and Linda Hunt, who won an Oscar for an incredible performance. No one remembers this one so no one will recommend it. Oh, well.
They butchered the history. It is a mish mash. I know a lot of Brits got upset with how they portrayed Cornwallis. Tarleton was a bastard but the move did go over the top. There are historical people, battles and combination of people and events as the foundation but it gets all Hollywooded. The final battle is based on the battle of Cowpens or Gilford Court House. The Colonials put the militia out, knowing the British had no respect for them. They broke and the British broke ranks in pursuit. The regulars were in the woods and routed the British that were advancing in disorder. The French fleet was damaged in a storm crossing the Atlantic. Once Cornwalis entrenched in Yorktown the southern army linked up with the Frenach and Washington's armies. The French fleet defeated the British in the Chesapeake Bay. General Clinton, for some unknown reason, didn't move his army or fleet down to support Cornwallis. Upon news of the surrender hit London, Lord North was said to say: 'My god. It's all over.' Yorktown was the last major battle of the American Revolution . The American Revolution was a slow burn that ramped up. It really began years before but came to a head in the mid 1970's. Massachusetts is where a lot of the insurrection occurred. They burned the Governor's home. They routinely tarred and feathered different government reps when the British passed laws in London with no Colonial representation.
I do not agree with taking POW's. They agreed to kill and be a soldier, only when they lose, they take the coward's way out and say "we surrender." Suppose he's the one who did Madeye? (Harry Potter reference)
I mean I'm glad POW's exist otherwise we would have lost a lot of men in other wars. I haven't watched the Harry Potter movies past the second one 😭 (I'll get to it soon hopefully)
Have to stop watching fifteen minutes in. . .so much talk that is so wrong about the situation, the people, the whole war in the Colonies. Oh well. I trust you gained some Roland Emmerich tainted knowledge by the end. Enjoy most of your reactions, this one just frustrated me.
It is entirely possible to enjoy a movie that's bad history--of course! But as everything in America has become politicized, and history is THE academic area that most often provides the battleground for those seeking to seize control of the future, I think that it is important to preserve the truth. (Feel free to stop reading here.) Most importantly: THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE WAS. This movie does the reactionary thing of presenting _WASP_ history as American history, in which other groups are lucky to occasionally play supporting roles. The historical experience of Americans who were enslaved is no less legitimate and no less American than those who held slaves. Of course movies follow characters, and it's a fool's errand to make one character somehow aspire to be universal. But that does not excuse the portrayal of black people in this movie. If they are to be supporting characters, they still deserve the dignity of a plausible existence. This is very, very much like making a history of the British Raj and portraying a Bengali (to pick an ethnicity) family in the middle of the 1880s famines as being super eager to help the British and absolutely crestfallen that they can't do more to make the sahib's family more comfortable. This pretends to avoid a political point while actually making a horrifying one. There's also a strong and ridiculous undercurrent of "American manly, British sissy" running through this. Gibson seems primarily concerned with being the biggest badass around, including always having the "best" ideas as though everyone else fought wars in obviously stupid ways instead of ways that reflected reality. Furthermore, as other comments have noted, the British atrocities were bad but not this kind of N**i bad in general. Oh, and "tarring and feathering," done mostly by the colonists, was coating a person in hot tar (a torture of burning), and then coating with feathers to humiliate; the colonists often did worse. I could _definitely_ keep going. I am as patriotic as anyone and I love my country. I just think love involves truth. And that, to me, is the ultimate sin of this movie: making history to make yourself out as the untarnished good guy is the coward's way, and my country can be better than that. Eff the reactionary sissies who can only love this kind of parody of their country. ...But, I mean, it can still be an entertaining movie. Braveheart was better.
Yeh, if they made a British Raj movie like that, I don't think it'd do well. I get what you mean. Look at it as pure entertainment rather than based on true events. Now that I'm sitting here thinking about it, do all patriotic movies (no matter the country) have a certain level of "embellishment" to make it that much more patriotic?
@@RamblersInc Like Samuel Johnson said, "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"... Whether it's what it ought to mean or not, yeah, patriotism usually means "eager to overlook truth in the service of partisan fervor." ...Sorry for the rant. Was just arguing this with a friend of mine the other day and I guess it spilled over.
@@schiusano9307 Don't think I need to explain that enslaved people weren't happy. History isn't about personal experience, obviously. As for the movie not laying any claim to history, why set it during the American Revolution at all? It is using a specific (inaccurate) version of history to get my money, and I object to that. And as for history being written by the winners, how exactly would that excuse untruth?
That last battle, called Cowpens, is where one of my American ancestors died. Cheeky Brits ;-). That is also where, last year, unmarked graves were found, and a Scot was returned to his native land courtesy of both armies.
Amazing that you were able to trace your lineage back to then.
Glad he was returned. There must have been a hell of a lot of unmarked graves.
@@RamblersInc Oops, battle of Camden. The story about the graves, the identification of the Scot by his regimental buttons and the honors ceremony was well covered if you want to look it up. "UK troops lay British soldier killed in US nearly 250 years ago to rest"
You gotta understand that most warfare up to this point is two armies in an open field hitting each other with ranged weapons before charging. It feels weird and illogical because they have guns but if it was a line of archers it would seem perfectly normal. It is an archaic form of war but appropriate based on the weapons of the time.
Muzzle loaded black powder rifles have limited range compared to modern rifles so you have to move in relatively close. A skilled soldier could fire three shots per minute. The most effective use of these types of guns is large unified volleys of fire. And while guerilla style raids and ambushes were highly effective during the Revolutionary War there were still important and decisive victories on the open battlefield. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
the lack of an accurate shot at a distance was because a lot of the muskets had non-rifled barrels. "Muzzle to muzzle" was exactly that, old warfare with new weapons.
-12:15 "Thats when the evil British Major, messed up..."
-13:38 The kids didnt know what their father had the capacity to be...but they learned right then.
Not only limited range and accuracy, but also a high rate of misfires. Most of the major powers (Britain, France, Prussia, etc.) conducted studies during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Under ideal test conditions (fresh flints, dry powder, no wind or rain, etc.) a flintlock musket could be expected to misfire 15-20% of the time.
@mikewhite6138 Yeh. It's a reminder that tactics used no matter the war is always based on the weapons available.
Thank you for your Ted Talk 😂.
@RamblersInc There also tends to be the expectation that they be fought using the strategies and tactics of previous wars. I'm sure the builders of the Maginot Line were annoyed to no end by the Germans and their Blitzkrieg
Wrong! The American militia during the Revolutionary War had access to rifled firearms, also known as flintlock muskets with grooved barrels. These rifles were more accurate than smoothbore muskets and were a powerful weapon for scouts and skirmishers. The grooves inside the barrel caused the musket balls to spin when exiting the rifle, making them more deadly at long range. American long rifles could be accurate up to 300 yards, compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. However, rifles were also slower to reload, often taking a minute or two, and they couldn't be fitted with a bayonet.
"I don't know if that tomahawk's gonna do much." 😆.
They should watch "The Last of the Mohicans" to see how much a tomahawk can really do.
🤣Oops
@@fusiliers that is a must watch. Mann at his finest. Daniel Day Lewis is insane and worked his butt off to make it realistic.
@@RamblersInc You really should react to "The Last of the Mohicans". Beautiful film.
@@fusiliersI concur. Great movie.
The rocking chairs were built by a Master Craftsman near me. He built them the way he always did, to last.
When filming, the crew couldn't get the chairs to break because they were made so well. They kept cutting them until they finally broke. They were used to props, not real furniture built by a Master.
😂 They should have given him the note to build them "badly".
This genre of film is what we can call 'Historically realistic" rather than 'historically accurate. It doesn't focus on Real historic characters or events, but does portray what many real people had experienced, in similar events which did occur.
War is a horrible thing, but at times we must be called upon to face it, let's it find and overwhelm us unprepared.
Yeh that's a better way to put it.
“I’m pretty sure they didn’t fight like this” …. Oh they absolutely did.
Historically true..one of the greatest military victories..Cowpens..in the Carolinas..the war had shifted south..before finally shifting to Saratoga, New York..and finally victory..with England loading their soldiers onto ships for transport back to England..My family got here in 1646..a full 130 years before the Revolution..
@@carlchiles1047 The Saratoga Campaign (1777) was well before the Carolinas (1780-81). Aside from effectively destroying a British Army, the victory at Saratoga persuaded the French to become directly involved, and the ultimate victory over Cornwallis at Yorktown VA in 1781 was very much a Franco-
American victory.
This is loosely based on the competition between South Carolina resident Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion and British General Banastre "The Butcher" Tarleton.
Ahh ok. So it is based on a true story. Crazy.
Fun fact --
Lord Cornwallis claimed to be sick so he didn't participate in the surrender ceremony. His deputy, General O'Hara, attempted to surrender to the French commander. The French commander refused to accept Cornwallis' sword and indicated he should surrender to General Washington. As O'Hara was Cornwallis' second in command - he was directed to surrender to Washington's second-in-command, General Benjamin Lincoln.
Lincoln (no relation to the president) commanded the forces which were captured at Charleston, the Americans' greatest defeat of the war. Lincoln had orchestrated the escape of the South Carolina militia before the surrender.
Sounds like O'Hara was holding onto that sword for a looong time. Go to him....no, go to him....no, go to him. 😂
Have fun with this one. It's a conglomerate of several personalities that existed during the war. Gibson seems to be modeled after Francis Marion "Swamp Fox" with typical cinematic embellishments. The British calvary officer is based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton (known as "the butcher" he did fight very dirty). He was soundly defeated by the Americans at the Cowpens battle, lived through it and went on to fight in many more British Empire battles around the world. The scene after he gets Gabriel back is "Don't annoy daddy".
"The scene after he gets Gabriel back is "Don't annoy daddy"." 🤣🤣🤣
The British blew a 13 colony lead!
Wilderness campaign was a campaign in the French and Indian War (7 Years War) - Washington gained his initial fame on that front.
As others noted the firing in rows was due in part to the inaccuracy / lack of range of muskets - these weren’t rifles. The guerrilla tactics shown in use by Benjamin’s men did occur in the Revolution and were seen by the Brits as uncivilized / un gentlemanly conduct.
"A 13 colony lead" 😂 Had to be poor team tactics. What was the coach thinking.
The Patriot is in my top 5 fav movies of all time! Glad you enjoyed it
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? What fates befell them for daring to put their names to that document?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.
Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.
That's sad. They had to endure so much. That should never be the price of liberty.
But not liberty for slaves or the native Americans. Liberty to take more land, colonise more. There were also worries about the abolitionist movement.
They were traitors to the British government. They joined with the very enemy that the British army had protected them from (and which they wouldn't pay taxes for).
Also many crimes were committed by the rebels. Going to Canada and burning down government buildings. They thought the Canadians would join them, they didn't. Burning down the homes of those who were on the other side after the war. Many of the 'founding fathers' later went back to the UK.
@@joebloggs396 apparently you don't know history very well..... The right thing was done and slavery in the US ended in 1865 thanks to the Republican party.....Colonialism in the US also ended in the late 1800s....
@@jasonhager524 This is completely irrelevant, and slavery was a necessity before countries had technology. They still use slavery through prisons today. Did you know that the North kept slavery going well after they forced the south to give it up? Did you know they used slavery out west to build the transcontinental railroads? Or how about the child labor? In fact, wherever you find debt... a constantly dying economy... you find rich people making killings off of cheap labor. This is America as a whole, they use cheap labor, and that is why some F***** running this place are making it so expensive to live here. It's easy as hell to run peoples well being into the ground, and profit off of their debt and forced labor. Paying someone peanuts to work 24hr shifts in the 1800s is slavery, but because it was allowed to pay such minimum wage it was technically not slavery. Same today, they replaced the gold standard with USD, to provide themselves with a way to continue on slavery through inflation and monetary debt. Now you have credit cards too, which is a nightmare. It's a dog eat dog world, slavery is basically a reality anywhere in the world, and it doesn't matter what skin color a person is, everyone is a prime candidate for such a scheme unless they're rich.
What happens when the economy goes bankrupt, the IRS or whoever will come and seize your assets because you won't be able to pay your stupid f***** taxes. It's not obvious, but it's just because no one thinks of things with a nihilistic perspective, I guess life would be miserable if we did though. Let's say you become homeless, you need food, no job available anywhere. Do you go fish? Ah, there is a Game Warden, you need to pay to fish... OR, you need to buy a lifetime license which might cost you $300 USD... which under a bad economy might become even more expensive. Everything is an entrapment scheme, it's not like one sort of people is safe from it dog. What about communism? Forced labor, peanuts. It's the same thing everywhere, just some people got it better than others. America is wealthy, we're lucky.
What does America do to traitors now a days, Considering how prisoners in gitmo have been treated, Maybe times don't change as much as people like to think they do, And no one is as pure as driven snow as the proverbial saying goes..
If you're still interested:
There were three main reasons why armies of this time period fought like that.
1. Command and control. Remember, there are no radios. Officers have to relay orders via shouted commands, flags, drums and other instruments. Troops had to be formed up so close together to actually see and hear their orders.
2. The inaccuracy of muskets. These weapons were only effective up to about 80 metres. They are also very unreliable, having 1 in 5 misfire rate even in ideal dry conditions. Such formations concentrated firepower and presented a literal wall of lead to the enemy. It also provided a workaround regarding the unreliability of the muskets and their slow rate of fire. If your musket didn't work it wouldn't matter since the other several hundred of the men in formation with you probably did. When the first line of men fired they usually stepped to the side or kneeled to allow the second line of men to fire. The third line of men were usually handed fired muskets to reload while they sent loaded muskets to the front ranks. This allowed for a constant volume of fire of fire. The slow rate of fire of muskets (usually 1 - 2 rounds in battlefield conditions) wouldn't be a problem.
3. Defense against cavalry. Scatteted infantry are easy targets for horsemen. By forming up into dense lines like that the infantry could fire concentrated volleys into charging cavalry or form squares. The all-round defensive formation allowed for fire in all directions and prevented actual charges from forming as horses aren't dumb and will not charge directly into a wall of bayonets and men (mostly). There were exceptions of course but the horses were often extremely aggressive and their riders near suicidal in their bravery and morale.
It's a propaganda myth that the Americans were the first to use guerilla style warfare. All major European powers had light infantry skirmishers in their armires. Men whose job was to scout, spread out and use cover and specifically target officers. The British were no different. Skirmishers can't win a battle by themselves though. Think of it this way. Skirmishers did exist in pre-gunpowder armies; these being archers, javelin throwers, slingers, etc, light infantry meant to scout, harass and disrupt enemy formations. But once the main battle started they would fall back while the main army fought in dense formations.
What this movie leaves out of course is the French providing the overwhelming majority of the gunpowder, muskets, artillery cannons and uniforms, and both France and Spain declaring war on Britain. The British had to fight both the French and Spanish and put down the revolution.
Thanks for the information. The formation makes sense seeing the type of weapons that were used. I had no idea the Spanish were massively involved as well.
As I understand it, the colonists were basically divided into roughly thirds, where 1/3 were Torres, 1/3 were Colonial separatists and the final third didn’t really care either way, possibly because they were simply trying to eke out the necessities of life. It’s also of note that of all the colonials at that time, only 3% took up arms against the Crown, literally THE superpower of the period.
You are correct.....up to a point in time. Initially, the populace was in three camps: loyalist, patriot, and those who just wanted to be left alone (the largest group and especially in the northwest of SC toward the mountains.) The problem arose when the British took Charles Towne (today, Charleston) and Cornwallis published an edict that, in so many words said that "you are either for us or against us." Thus, there was no longer playing both sides and the populace was polarized into two camps. It became neighbor against neighbor.
@@4325air Thanks for sharing that information! I wasn’t aware it ultimately came down to that after Cornwallis said that.
Wow. Only 3% ? That's a tough revolution to start up.
@@RamblersInc Indeed! But after Cornwallis' edict of "for us or against us", that 3% really grew!! It is called "The Law of Unintended Consequences."
By the time of the Carolinas Campaign, the War had been going on for several years in the Northern Colonies, with mixed results. The Americans commanded by Washington had successfully forced the British out of Boston in 1776, but Washington's defense of New York City failed. NYC was held by the British until the end of the War. A major American victory culminating with the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 defeated the British forces sent to secure upstate NY and led the French to become directly involved. More direct engagements were won by the British forces. In fact, there were thousands of Loyalist ("Tory") troops fighting along with the Royal Army, but the presence of standing armies using up and depleting the colonist's farms and being quartered in homes led to a greater antipathy to the British. Due to regional and social differences, the Carolinas were regarded as friendlier to the Crown than the Northerners, but in the event of the war coming home, the Carolinians became increasingly part of the Patriot side.
Tavington’s character was based on the real-life Banastre “the Butcher” Tarleton. Damn him, damn that man.
That line 😂
Many people can't understand the tactics generally used at this time because their conception of guns is modern. Those used took 20-30 seconds to load, were only truly accurate at about 50 metres and simply failed to fire often. If they spread out cavalry would quickly destroy them and firing would be nearly useless. Guns at this time usually didn't even have sights, so massing fires was the way.
So essentially they had to arrange it this way because of the limitation of the guns?
@@RamblersInc For the most part. There were also influences from pre-firearm warfare still lingering, too. Line tactics had been the norm for battle in the old world for literally thousands of years, and changes to the tactics and weapons came slowly. Many Americans will boast about quickly changing to improve combat capabilities, but this is mostly bragging without much knowledge. It was the creation of more accurate, reliable and quick reloading guns over the 19th Century that led to what we think of as combat tactics today.
@@RamblersIncthat and like he said if they spread out to far Calvary would run them down like you see in the first battle, funny thing is that battles in the americas were pretty small compared to Europe consistently usually less then 10k men combined from both sides.
Another thing about this warfare is communication its hard enough getting 10 people to march in line now image trying to get 1,000+ to not only stay together but to maneuver over rough terrain, to not break at a moments notice, and to fire together.
@@RamblersInc Basically, if you blob up and shoot these muskets at the same time or in sequence... you create an area effect much like a shotgun or the 1800's version of something called a Canister Shot (a cannon fired canister used at close range, inside the canister were a bunch of metal balls that were designed to spray outward at approaching enemies looking to do harm to an artillery team (which consisted of just a few people). You can probably look up a video of some people shooting this thing, it actually is terrifying beyond words, you could destroy the side of a barn with just a few repetitions I imagine.
Based on Francis Marion “the Swamp Fox” who led a band of raiders from the swamps where no Brit organized unit could follow.
One of my favorite movies!!
Fun Fact: The cinematography for this movie was done by Caleb Deschanel, Zoe Deschanel (New Girl)'s father.
He nailed it. Especially the intense battle scenes
Master and Commander was only 25-30 years after this movie so it was kinda close enough to be the same time period.
Very perceptive commentary guys. Love it
If you’re interested in seeing a more realistic portrayal of America’s story of Independence, I’d highly recommend the 7 part miniseries from HBO (Max), titled, “John Adams.” All star cast and critically acclaimed.
Tarleton is said to be the one who gave Andrew Jackson the scar on his cheek. Legend says that he ordered Andrew Jackson to shine his boots. Jackson refused and Tarleton dragged his sword across his face.
Daaaamn. For that? Could've just said no and walked away 😂
It's a visually attractive film and I enjoy some of the performances but it takes shockingly indecent liberties with history, which other comments have touched on. One of the more uncomfortable aspects is how the film squares slavery and the plantation economy with a war for freedom. It mostly weasels out of it by pointedly making Benjamin Martin an "employer" of free people while avoiding the status Aunt Charlotte's workers. Benjamin also has Occam make his own mark, but it doesn't change the fact that Occam had no choice; his owner handed him over for Benjamin to use and he expected him back when it was over. Also, while much is made about Occam being able to earn his freedom for 12 months of service, it is never mentioned that the British offered freedom to any runaway slave who would join the army.
This is one of many, many Mel Gibson films where he plays widower. In fact, in his first 30+ years of screen roles, most of his characters either begin as widowers or see their wife or partner/girlfriend die during the film.
"most of his characters either begin as widowers or see their wife or partner/girlfriend die during the film." - If that's true....then that's CRAZY. Do people just want to watch him crying on screen or something😂
@@RamblersInc Totally true, and that doesn't even take into account the roles where a wife is mentioned but is non-existent in the story (eg, Gallipoli) It was good marketing. 1) It makes him a guy with a tragic/romantic backstory. 2) it gives the audience "permission" to lust after him unashamedly 3) relevant to 1 & 2, it allows him to be a dad with being attached (the Patriot, Signs, etc.) 4) it allows him to hook-up on screen while still being 1, 2 & 3
I'm never looking at a Mel Gibson movie the same way now 🤣
A criticism by an historian
"There are so few films depicting the Revolutionary War that it’s hard to criticize them. I knew one day I would have to give my review of The Patriot, starring Mel Gibson, but I have put it off for a long time. Before I begin, I need to put forth the disclaimer that I own this film and sometimes will leave it running in the background while I do other things. It’s a little like an alcoholic turning to mouthwash in desperation. “Hi, I’m Dan and I am an 18th Century addict”--admitting your problem is the first step, right?
From a film critic’s point of view, The Patriot is a dodgy movie. It has an uneven script with overly villainous villains, pacing problems, and a tendency to shift from soppy sentimentality to vicious brutality. Many of the faults fall right in the lap of director Roland Emerich, whom you might remember from such campy sci-fi romps as The Day After Tomorrow or Independence Day. Why you would hire an over-the-top Hessian sci-fi director to tell the story of America’s birth is beyond me. The best things about The Patriot as a film are the talented cast, beautiful cinematography, and excellent score by John Williams. These elements save this film, to the extent it can be saved.
From an historian’s point of view, this film is a nightmare. The problems range from inaccurate costuming choices (apparently we viewers are too stupid to understand anything but red and blue uniforms) to complete butchery of battles, motivations, morals and actions. To enumerate the errors would take as long as the war itself. The problems may have begun when they took what was originally a script about Patriot hero Francis Marion and decided to improve history through re-writing, but it’s hard to say when the first big blunder occurred. You could argue that they made their changes to make a better story, but the results are something like making a film of 9-11 with Italian Hijackers. The meaning of the history is lost, and our understanding is compromised. I know I am being hard on what is, in fact, simply an entertainment. Still, a film such as this bears a certain responsibility. Many people take their only knowledge of Revolutionary War history from some dim distant grade school memories and whatever they see in this film. In fact, because we have no photographs or recordings from the 18th century, a film like The Patriot will actually have a more powerful place in people’s memories than all the hours spent learning in school. So I beg you, if you watch this movie, treat the history in it like perfume and not fine wine; sniff, don’t swallow.
I will be watching The Patriot again, of course. After all, I’m addicted to the 18th century; I can complain about the air all I want, but what else is there to breathe?"
Reviewed by Dan Shippey Breed's Hill Institute October 2009 (Breed's Hill was the other hill in the Battle of Bunker Hill that was at the beginning of the American Revolutionary War).
He needs to understand the difference between a documentary and a movie made to entertain an audience. It's like the difference between what I've I heard referred to as a good film and a good movie. People in the industry like well-made films, while the public likes entertaining movies. The technical aspects can make a movie more entertaining, but they are no substitute for entertainment.
He’s not wrong but I don’t know of a person who’s watched this film thinking it’s a documentary or that it was a true story other than militia existed, we fought the British, and the French sent support . And Cornwallis existed.
With that said I’d love to see a historically accurate mini series detailing major elements of the revolutionary war
@@Knightowl1980 it is filled with lies.
@@Educated2Extinction entertainment cannot be lies fed to people that subvert actual history.
@@gailseatonhumbert Oh, get over yourself. It doesn't claim to be a documentary. Also, even if it does subvert history the fact that it exists proves that entertainment can do exactly that. According to entertainment, ancient Greeks and Romans spoke English with a British accent. How does that fit into your narrowminded view?
The reason the children were excited about the mail is because it was the only communication there was from the outside world. It's how the colonies got their news from England and other colonies.
Good point
Tarleton was real and the last battle happened just that way..they say it is one of the greatest military victories ever..convincing an opposing enemy force that you are retreating the field of battle only to fall back ..re-group and have regular army on both flanks for support of new positions..to take the English by surprise…stopping them cold..and making the English commander to leave the field of battle..at the time..South Carolina was the scene of major battles..before the battle up north..at Saratoga, New York..soon after..
It was a smart plan banking on his pride/arrogance.
Saratoga was 1777, the Carolina/Southern Campaign was 1780-81. Look it up.
Col. Tarlton was very well known for extremely brutal treatment and tactics, in fact he would have made the SS look like chior boys, wars at this time frame was very different from what we're use to today. Some things are embellished for the story but all the tactics were used by the British army all over the world (the church scene was common in Scotland)
Oh wow. I thought it was just to make him look more villainous. That's really messed up if it really happened (even if it was somewhere else).
Saw a great t-shirt recently here in the States, just in time for July 4th:
"Make America Great Britain Again!" with the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes side by each. Cheeky 😀
🤣
The tactics that you're looking at going muzzle to muzzle is basically the concept of the numbers game you psychologically scare your opponent with larger numbers the larger the numbers the greater influence you have on the battlefield secondly the dragoons were more of a cavalry special forces, and as far as the children dying that has then because Britain had been in so many wars for the last 1000 years that they've had so many psychological impacts on them that it was easier just to kill any male child or man that basically held a weapon against them
The tactics of just standing in a line and firing actually had a lot of sense given the weaponry they had at their disposal. Those guns were LOTTA inaccurate and in order to actually make it worth, you had to have a lot of people in a line shooting in the same direction. That's why it almost always ended up with a charge.
I suppose, in the very least, it makes the ammo efficient.
When this came out reviewers trashed the film. Making the British army into straight-up Nazis was a-historical to say the least.
Saving Private Ryan also lost Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love. Hollywood gonna Hollywood. Folks need to get over equating everything bad with Nazis. I realize it's convenient, but not at all accurate. Tavington was the only Brit portrayed as truly bad, and Cornwallis called him out for it, though he did give him permission later on because his pride was stronger than his sense of honor.
@@Educated2Extinctionit is an historical fact that the church burning is Nazis in WWII but the British in the Revolutionary War.
@@gailseatonhumbert And your point is?
Banastre Tarleton ("Tavington") waged a brutal war in that Southern Campaign and treated all colonials as potential if not outright supporters of the Patriot cause. His methods and tactics were very far from the accepted norms of conduct, so the Tavington character is not far from the truth.
The tactic of firing in lines was a means to maximize the weapon accuracy and area of effect given they were vastly inaccurate due to being smooth bore muskets. They were slow firing, slow reloading muskets without the rifling grooves in the barrel caused the weapons to struggle at distance. Usually the line battles were fought at enough distance to allow people to either push forward or retreat based on losses and manpower, too close and the weapons become significantly more accurate resulting in significant casualties too fast, the musketballs were typically larger than 50 caliber bullets of today and were often made of lead so you can imagine getting hit has horrible consequences, while they were not designed to penetrate flesh the damage was probably horrible if the musketball were to shatter through flesh and organs, or if it did not shoot clean through you would then have a person with a huge gaping hole in them and incredible blunt force trauma on top of a potential lead poisoning. So the battles were fought in a measured way I'd say, lots of light infantry fighting behind cover with longer range rifles were used to screen the main body of infantry as to prevent the enemy from advancing closer, also to intercept retreating units dispatched from battle... but against lines of infantry the tactics we have today probably struggle without the technology of our time.
So virtually all forms of line battles at the time were designed around 'show of force' and 'fire superiority', and the losing side in this case Americans were vastly outnumbered in some of these battles especially going up against field artillery. The field artillery was used as a means to dissuade enemy troops from advancing, usually fired ahead of advancing enemy troops. I imagine it is hard for a group of infantry to move towards cannons that are designed to maximize area of effect, some kinds of cannon could take out many troops at once. This was the case into the 1800's, and Napoleon Bonaparte revolutionized formations so troops could move safer to avoid being wiped out by artillery, he also learned to use towns and villages with roads as a form of supporting troop movements so that he could not only scout out enemy advancements but also keep the army well fed and coordinate troop concentration with flexibility. Many battles he fought he seemed to have the edge in because of how well structured his logistics and intel was, but also his brilliant strategical and tactical use of different types of units on the field.
That makes sense now in terms of using the guns to their maximum efficiency.
What did everyone use before the local towns/villages? Just set up camps in open fields and hope they have enough supplies?
Napoleon was a brilliant tactician and strategist, but he did not invent anything new in troops maneuvering formations or the use of towns and villages--that had all been done earlier by others. Not sure where you got that from.
Ramblers, I love your reactions!
The American Revolution was officially from 1776-1783. The American Civil War was 1861-1865.
Actually, Benjamin "The Ghost" Martin in the film is based on the real-life Brigadier General Francis Marion, known in those days as "The Swamp Fox. "Butcher" Tavington in this film is based on the real-life Colonel Banastre "Butcher" Tarleton, who commanded a regiment of dragoons--mostly colonials who remained loyal to King George III. On May 29, 1780 Tarleton won the lop-sided Battle of The Waxhaws in northern South Carolina. Tarleton lost control of his men, who believed Tarleton had been killed, and they then murdered many of the surrendered Continentals. The British lost 5 killed; the colonials lost 113 killed. (The disparity in those numbers reflects the killing of prisoners.) As a result, Tarleton earned the name of "Butcher" among the colonists. Surrendering was referred to as "quarter." Many Continentals subsequently shot surrendering British soldiers and called such an act "Tarleton's Quarter" in revenge. Tarleton was eventually promoted to general officer and later WAS a member of Parliament. So, whatever shame may have accrued from his men killing surrendered soldiers certainly did not hold him back from advancement. (The Waxhaws is what Gabriel briefly alluded to at 8:15 when he said that the British dragoons charged into the Virginia regulars). It was indeed a bloody, terrible war. (I graduated college in South Carolina with a major in history and had the great opportunity to visit the battlefields and key locations of both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Regards the Revolution, SC was surprisingly the scene of more engagements than any other colony. As the war dragged-on, and as the populace became more and more polarized over actual and rumored war crimes, the fighting became neighbor-against-neighbor and for all practical purposes, people could no longer play both sides. it was a civil war within the state.)
Correct.
Oh the ghost existed? Amazing.
So the movie does base itself in facts then
Why was South Carolina the scene of more engagements. Was it a key state at the time strategically?
@@brandonflorida1092 Thank you, sir.
2:57 Julia from Nip/Tuck... will never be anyone other than Julia to me lol
Oh yeeehh. That's where she was from.
What a show that was. Too wild (Especially Christian). Probably can't make a show like that now.
I’ll watch until the revenge scene…. If you’re good I’ll watch the whole thing. This movie is long but really moving. 🇺🇸
Your reaction warms my American heart.
I've always said that in recent times, our best, most reliable allies are the British rather than the Canadians.
I would Love to see a George Washington Movie
Same
Americans paused the charge @47:25 to avoid getting shot point blank, which would have drastically increased casualties.
That's true........although......ducking would've also helped 😂
You never heard of Tarleton's quarter. Look it up. Yes, higher officers dress him down. Oh, the baddie is Banister Tarleton. Mel Gibson's character is loosely based on Francis Marion.
our ancestors took their rights much more seriously than we do, today... back then, if the supreme court had ruled a president had almost unlimited power while in office, as ours did, the people would have dragged those justices into the street and... well, we'd need to nominate and confirm a bunch of new supreme court justices.
That is NOT what they ruled. "Official acts committed by the President within his constitutional powers" are immune from criminal prosecution. Get your facts straight before opening mouth. The ignorance...
Very true
This movie was a smipleton cartoon that didn't care a lick for historical events. And even though Banastre Tarleton was indeed a real @ss, If I were a Brit I would be pretty offended by some of the BS.
I love this movie and I love seeing Mel Gibson at his best but my favorite of his movies is "The Year of Living Dangerously", a Peter Weir film also starring Sigourney Weaver at the peak of her hotness and Linda Hunt, who won an Oscar for an incredible performance. No one remembers this one so no one will recommend it. Oh, well.
Just saw the poster. That is a very very very young Mel Gibson.
@@RamblersInc And he's never looked better. At the time, he was considered one of the hottest guys on the planet.
First like. Wooo!
It’s not tin soldiers it’s lead soldiers
That's the one 😂
You're correct. It wasn't guerrilla warfare. It was terrorism.
Terrorism is against civilians
You’re rooting for the wrong team !! 🇬🇧
They butchered the history. It is a mish mash. I know a lot of Brits got upset with how they portrayed Cornwallis. Tarleton was a bastard but the move did go over the top. There are historical people, battles and combination of people and events as the foundation but it gets all Hollywooded.
The final battle is based on the battle of Cowpens or Gilford Court House. The Colonials put the militia out, knowing the British had no respect for them. They broke and the British broke ranks in pursuit. The regulars were in the woods and routed the British that were advancing in disorder.
The French fleet was damaged in a storm crossing the Atlantic. Once Cornwalis entrenched in Yorktown the southern army linked up with the Frenach and Washington's armies. The French fleet defeated the British in the Chesapeake Bay. General Clinton, for some unknown reason, didn't move his army or fleet down to support Cornwallis. Upon news of the surrender hit London, Lord North was said to say: 'My god. It's all over.' Yorktown was the last major battle of the American Revolution .
The American Revolution was a slow burn that ramped up. It really began years before but came to a head in the mid 1970's. Massachusetts is where a lot of the insurrection occurred. They burned the Governor's home. They routinely tarred and feathered different government reps when the British passed laws in London with no Colonial representation.
Heh heh heh ... I bet you meant "1790's."
This is OK. Try "Braveheart" for Mel Gibson doing this story right.
This type of warfare showcases chivalry. However, bushwhacking tactics, although smart, effective, and even necessary, breaks the chivalry.
Very true.
I do not agree with taking POW's. They agreed to kill and be a soldier, only when they lose, they take the coward's way out and say "we surrender." Suppose he's the one who did Madeye? (Harry Potter reference)
I mean I'm glad POW's exist otherwise we would have lost a lot of men in other wars.
I haven't watched the Harry Potter movies past the second one 😭 (I'll get to it soon hopefully)
Garbage movie.
This movie sucked.
Have to stop watching fifteen minutes in. . .so much talk that is so wrong about the situation, the people, the whole war in the Colonies. Oh well. I trust you gained some Roland Emmerich tainted knowledge by the end. Enjoy most of your reactions, this one just frustrated me.
Was a lot of it wrong? Or some truth, some embellishments for the sake of entertainment ?
It is entirely possible to enjoy a movie that's bad history--of course! But as everything in America has become politicized, and history is THE academic area that most often provides the battleground for those seeking to seize control of the future, I think that it is important to preserve the truth. (Feel free to stop reading here.)
Most importantly: THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE WAS. This movie does the reactionary thing of presenting _WASP_ history as American history, in which other groups are lucky to occasionally play supporting roles. The historical experience of Americans who were enslaved is no less legitimate and no less American than those who held slaves. Of course movies follow characters, and it's a fool's errand to make one character somehow aspire to be universal. But that does not excuse the portrayal of black people in this movie. If they are to be supporting characters, they still deserve the dignity of a plausible existence. This is very, very much like making a history of the British Raj and portraying a Bengali (to pick an ethnicity) family in the middle of the 1880s famines as being super eager to help the British and absolutely crestfallen that they can't do more to make the sahib's family more comfortable. This pretends to avoid a political point while actually making a horrifying one.
There's also a strong and ridiculous undercurrent of "American manly, British sissy" running through this. Gibson seems primarily concerned with being the biggest badass around, including always having the "best" ideas as though everyone else fought wars in obviously stupid ways instead of ways that reflected reality. Furthermore, as other comments have noted, the British atrocities were bad but not this kind of N**i bad in general. Oh, and "tarring and feathering," done mostly by the colonists, was coating a person in hot tar (a torture of burning), and then coating with feathers to humiliate; the colonists often did worse.
I could _definitely_ keep going.
I am as patriotic as anyone and I love my country. I just think love involves truth. And that, to me, is the ultimate sin of this movie: making history to make yourself out as the untarnished good guy is the coward's way, and my country can be better than that. Eff the reactionary sissies who can only love this kind of parody of their country.
...But, I mean, it can still be an entertaining movie. Braveheart was better.
Yeh, if they made a British Raj movie like that, I don't think it'd do well.
I get what you mean. Look at it as pure entertainment rather than based on true events.
Now that I'm sitting here thinking about it, do all patriotic movies (no matter the country) have a certain level of "embellishment" to make it that much more patriotic?
@@RamblersInc Like Samuel Johnson said, "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"... Whether it's what it ought to mean or not, yeah, patriotism usually means "eager to overlook truth in the service of partisan fervor." ...Sorry for the rant. Was just arguing this with a friend of mine the other day and I guess it spilled over.
You chose the correct channel to rant. No apology needed .
@@schiusano9307 Don't think I need to explain that enslaved people weren't happy. History isn't about personal experience, obviously. As for the movie not laying any claim to history, why set it during the American Revolution at all? It is using a specific (inaccurate) version of history to get my money, and I object to that. And as for history being written by the winners, how exactly would that excuse untruth?