The Patriot - History Buffs Reaction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2024
- See the original video - • History Buffs: The Pat...
Tour and meetup announcement video - • Upcoming Tours and Mee...
See my new channel Stories of the Great War here - / @storiesofthegreatwar
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
Follow me on instagram here - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook here - profile.php?...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
Check out the VTH Podcast
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/2lMCaIT...
Apple - podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
#history #reaction
10:30 "The new aristocracy will be ... landowners!" Lolwut!? What did they think the old aristocracy were?? 😂
I think what they’re trying to get at is in a specifically American context. So the idea is that the Thirteen Colonies were built by common, poor, decent, hardworking men and women while the aristocrats only came over later. So after the war, they’re going to seize up all the land and turn North America into a new version of England, where the rich profit off the labour of the hardworking commoners. And the Patriots, fighting for that common man, resist this to make America a country of equality and opportunity.
That’s the fairest interpretation of this scene that I can muster at any rate. 😂
Idk it’s actually funny that I saw people commenting recently about “ending the royal family “ (British). Saying it’s “outdated”.
Except… it’s not. The names have changed, not much else. The politicians are the aristocracy and the corporations are the royalty. We are still the “commoners” and serfs .
bitcoin traders
I'm sure plenty of the aristocracy in Britain owned country houses on modest lots. They weren't doing much with the physical land, their wealth coming not from the land but from the overseas Empire, from commerce and the rise of the industrial revolution.
@@Edax_Royeaux You're thinking about bourgeoisie. The aristocracy was always about land.
I love history buffs old intro
their original intro is still my favorite
Same, shame he removed it.
Same, the painting transition to live action with the music build up is so good
Anyone know if this is an original made for the channel or something I could get somewhere else ?
@@hubertboisvertboucher2071 the song is called Paladio, I don't remember the artist, but it's in the description of his old videos
My favorite single clip from this movie to watch out of context is the line “tell me about… Ohio.”
Our host will, and gladly!
Dun dun dun!!! All movies need to include that line, along with a dramatic music sting
As an Ohioan I’ve always found that line particularly funny.
"Tell you about Ohio?.... ok... seemingly everybody from Ohio will eventually move to Charlotte, North Carolina, and complain about the housing prices and traffic they helped cause to spike with other carpetbagging Yankees moving south"
It reminds me of a line from the movie , where Evil says something like “Tell me about computers”.
The revelation that Charles O'Hara is the only general with the distinction of having surrendered to both Washington and Bonaparte is just 🤌
You wanna see Nick rip into a Mel Gibson movie? Watch the History Buffs review of Braveheart.
Or Apocalypto. Dude doesn't like Mel Gibson
Yeah Braveheart isn't historical fiction it's fictional history. 😂 Clearly Mel hates the English.
@@marcushertz4434 Gibson also doesn't try to use real history in any of those movies. Braveheart would have been dressed just as well as the English and the Battle of Stamford Bridge would have had troops wearing the same type of clothing, armor and weapons. That tends to be Nick's biggest issues, after storytelling.
Mel Gibson didn't direct or write the Patriot. He was just an actor. Can't pin that one on him.
@@VloggingThroughHistory No obviously not, but it sure seemed like he was picking projects that were anti-British. Then again, he also directed The Passion of the Christ. I think a lot of people don't know or forget that Mel is American-born, although later moved to Australia, was educated and started acting there.
As someone who is neither American or British, there were parts of the movie that were just too on the nose and made me roll my eyes. The scene with Cornwallis' dogs suddenly liking Benjamin more than their owner who by all acounts treated them well and choosing to abandon him made me roll my eyes. Also the coincidence that the main character was a guy from South Carolina(the first state to join the confederacy) who had free black workers and was also oposed to slavery in the 1770s is just a really forced coincidence to make the main character more likable, this comes up when the British were offering freedom to those who fought for them.
@@Cookiesr9565 the part of the dogs is not so much about history but from a cinematic perspective. The whole "the main character is so cool and awesome that even his oponent's dogs love him more than their owner who cared for them for years" scene, is just cringey. It didn't add any flavour it was just a cringey scene to diferentiate between the awesomeness of the protagonist and the loser oponent, in this case Cornwalis that just fell flat. You didn't need to make a bad atempt at sarcasm.
@@masterplokoon8803 Yea it just screamed "let's do everything we can to let the audience know who the good guys and bad guys are" when any fan of history knows it's never that simple. Fact is, the entire 1st world was racist back then, even if they weren't for slavery, that doesn't mean they were exactly fair to black people. At least they did show white American troops being racist (although that changed quickly by the end of the film). And the whole idea of them earning their freedom after the war of course was a bunch of bullshit.
Those dogs were the real traitors of the movie 🐕
@@amalgam777 Rofl
Whitewashing that the American revolutionaries were not idealistic angels of justice is common in American media.
It’s our national creation myth.
I feel as tho Americans view the film as pro-American whilst us Brits view it as anti-British. Also I have legit had someone online say to me that they believed the church burning scene in this was based on history so Hollywood films definitely do influence certain people
the british and european armies were far more ciivilised than the way they are portrayed here throughout most of the 18th century ie the fontonoy incident . . It comes across as nationally libellous . all tarleton did was kill 150 soldiers afdter they surrended.
Now i see how the Iranians felt when that cool action movie 300 came out hah. But movies are an effective way of portraying people from all sides of life for sure.
deepens if the persians comitted atrocities . The british army had a reputation for being civilised because the upper classes had so much influence throughout most of the 18th century@@Sparrows1121
@@billfurlong5954 All he did was kill 150 people who surrendered? How the fuck do you just brush off a detail like that? That is a literal war crime, and its far from the only thing he ever did. You don't get called "butcher ban" for no reason.
@@princeofgreece9054 this is very misleading. The killing of surrendered soldiers occurred during the Battle of Waxhaws. The British attacked and the Americans surrendered so the British slowed a little and someone shot Tarletons horse and trapped him under it. Tarleton’s men seeing it as an act of deceit to fake surrender and kill their commander, then began to kill the Americans all whilst Tarleton was trapped under his horse. So it only occurred because of a stupid patriot shooting after his fellow men had surrendered and Tarleton never gave any such order as he was trapped and most of his own men believed him to be dead
As a "History Buffs" longtime subscriber, I really like when he gets worked up a little bit. As a latin american, I like the passion he shows in learning and portraying history. That said, there are other episodes when he is more calmed and composed, and still manages to deliver. Anyways, good video!
Nick is a brit, so I kind of give him a bit of a pass because he is seen his people be villanized while the other side is basically angels. I mean, if we saw a movie that portrayed us latin americans (one too) as evil while the americans were good set in the cold war we would flip out fast too.
And as a fellow latin american, I wish you luck in our attempts to finally escape from Latin America
@@javieraravena5345 I've got myself worked up in the same way for "Napoleon" too and I'am not British or French. Just love the truth.
As I have said over and over again that the same people whining about the border have conveniently forgotten that our intelligence services and government have destabilized their countries because they thought someone elected legitimately *MIGHT* not be as friendly to US businesses… sorry, “government”.
So we arm, train, and fund rebels. Or we have a DEA that is happy to drop banned pesticides on small villages based on a “source” (in which tens of millions are paid to these “CIs” who have a successful prosecution rate of 2%.. but they get millions and protection). So they give BS info but based on that they drop these chemicals and ruin their way of life, leaving them with nothing.
I dont like it. Its always cringe
Yeah I agree. My skin always crawls a little whenever I hear people telling others to calm down. Sometimes it's valid if the person is clearly hysterical, other times it's just very condescending. Unfortunately this instance comes across to me as the latter. It's invalidating of another person's emotion and passion for a topic. I realized that I personally always enjoyed Nick getting worked up, but when someone passionately makes a case, I'm also more interested and invested in that topic. Not saying every sentence has to be yelled, but when used sparingly, it's a good thing.
I can’t believe this is how I found out Tom Wilkinson passed away. 😢 R.I.P to one of the greats.
Same
Me too?!
As a Brit, I have to say that I too take this movie personally. The reason is that I have many American friends and they mostly believe this movie to be a good representation of what happened. They think I'm mad when I try to explain the real history
Exactly
Its more wild to me that you and your American friends talk about a random battle in the revolutionary war lol. Don't take it personally, it's an over the top film.
@@SpartanArmy117 what a strange comment.
@@chrislyne377 I'm confused on why that's strange. I'm in discord channels with multiple people who live overseas and I've never had a single conversation about the Revolutionary War, much less The Patriot lol. And my last sentence is just saying its a silly film meant to foster pride in the nation, you shouldn't take it personally.
@@SpartanArmy117 I'm sure you and your friends talk about things that I and my friends don't. I don't find this to be 'wild' but completely normal that different people like and talk about different things.
I have explained why I find the film to be annoying to me and nothing you have said has changed that. You don't take it seriously and that's fine, but many Americans do.
Even as a kid, I was like "Wait, he's a plantation owner in South Carolina, but has all these black people working as freed men?" That never made sense to me, even when I was, like, seven years old.
Yeah I guess they figured it would be hard to root for a slave owning hero (though Americans lionize George Washington). I mean economically it doesn’t make sense. How does Gibson compete With other farners when he’s paying his workers and his competitors aren’t?
This movie may not claim to be historcally accurate, but people who dont know about history will accept it as it.
People also think Days of Thunder was real racing.
One of the silliest lines I've ever heard, and the moment I knew I could never take The Patriot seriously:
Benjamin Martin : May I sit with you?
Charlotte : It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
I love that intro, especially the transition between the painting and the cavalry charge from Waterloo
The regiment charging are the Royal Scots Greys one of the oldest British regiments their unofficial motto is ‘second to none’ 😊
That was pretty badass.
I wish i knew why he changed it. The old one is so badass
@@texasarbiter8454 I believe it's because Escala's Palladio (the theme music in the old intro) was a highly copyrighted music. Plus, Nick wanted an intro he felt was more his. So he, imo, he massively downgraded.
Nick's rant on Apocalypto is LEGENDARY
Small side note: I met Jason Isaacs at a comic con in Michigan (Motor City Comic Con), and he was an absolute delight. He was a true gentleman, shook hands with and had a smile for everyone meeting him for pictures (as I did), and was laughing and joking with everyone meeting him for autographs.
Love hearing that!
Yeah, its great when an actor can make you just Despise them, but then you see thrm normally or in a comedy...smashing it.
Biff, from Back2the Future is hilarious and often hosts Comic Con related things.
At least, I thought.
"Calm yourself down a little bit Nick" 😂😂😂
Reminds me of the big lebowski quote "you're not wrong - you're just a fucking asshole".
I mean... Nick has a bloody good point
@@jordanhooper1527American hypocrisy about “freedom” coming from slave owners was well recognized at the time.
@@jordanhooper1527LLLLLLLLLLL you blew a 13 colony lead. Your country is now smaller than most of our states. Lololololol
I kept finding that reaction hilarious. American Midwesterners have no idea how to deal with an angry Brit.
5:59 Not a VTH video without Chris’s family tree!
Take a shot!
The laughs in British meme might be the only good thing out of this movie
That tell me about Ohio thing could really be a meme too.
He has a valid point, see the patriot was screen around the world, so cultures that barely know about the U.S history and British history assumed this was true, just like with braveheart and apocalypto.
This has to be one of the most moot points I’ve ever heard. So it’s dangerous because people abroad would use a non historical movie as their case for non historical facts? That’s ridiculously absurd.
@@TheLeadGexactly lol. Every historical fiction ever could be classified as “dangerous” in that way. It’s not the filmmakers’ fault if some ignorant people decide to base their understanding of war on a single Mel Gibson movie.
This is all so stupid. It's literally called The Patriot. It's an over the top fable about the American revolution. I swear America is the only country\culture that isn't allowed to do this stuff.
Blazing Saddles is more historically accurate
Blazing Saddles is certainly more accurate about racism.
17:45 yup, René Auberjonois, maybe best known as Odo from Star Trek Deep Space Nine, although I was first introduced to him in Police Academy V. And yes, Napoléon sister married into the Murat family and further down the line a female Murat married an Auberjonois and their son was René Auberjonois, the actor. RIP.
I've always liked Rene Auberjonois as an actor. He did do a good job as Odo on DS9. He has been in many productions. My first exposure to him was as Clayton in the TV series Benson. And he was Father Mulcahey in the original MASH movie. Great actor, may he rest in peace.
I first was introduced to Rene through the character of Clayton Endicott III on the show Benson. He was riotously funny there in the same way he was believably serious as Odo or the Rev in this movie. The man had a ton of range.
Just to add to the Auberjonois love, he's also the chef in the animated The Little Mermaid, and sings the song, "Les Poissons".
@@ashleighelizabeth5916yeah that’s right and I also like how in the patriot he used his iconic Odo voice. And what’s interesting is it’s not his normal voice because I’ve heard him at interviews and his normal voice sounds way different. He just likes using it a lot for roles.
He was also the voice of Mr. House in New Vegas, a character based on Howard Hughes if he'd hooked his brain into a computer to survive a nuclear holocaust lol
As an american that at a young age watched the patriot and took its portrayals very seriously i appreicated nicks review educating me more on the subject necause sadly school doesnt do a good job of it either, as a lover of history now as someone "older" i relate to nick being so angry when history is needlessly changed or ignored to make a movie excellent review and reaction to the review :)
I think ultimately the reason history buff goes hard at the movie is that it feels like one of those super jingoistic, you're either with us or against us, types of media that was popular after 9/11. Despite the fact it was released in 2000 it really feels like a film that would be made in in 2003 as a way to get people to support invading iraq.
"The new aristocracy will be landowners."
You mean... exactly like the old one?
I must say your response at 29:15 was kinda funny, considering that was how British people probably felt during the entire movie.
Except the movie was more unfair
Exactly
Im british and i will say one good thing about this film, the battle of camden scene is done so well
It looks amazing, the setup, music, the action and the camera, all 10/10.
Sadly it did not go down like that, it wasnt fought on a grassy plane, both sides were in very bad shape after marching without sleep or food, the Continentals put up a valiant effort and almost broke through british line, and some lines fought to the last man. It was mainly the patriot militia routing so early that allowed the Brits to win, but it was by no means as easy as the movie depicts, ESPECIALLY this "great insight" that "going muzzle to muzzle with redcoats" is stupid. Thats literally how the americans won the war and many battles.
@@aquilaFUN Yup, the Americans were essentially the "Viet-Cong" of the this war.
A lot of the battle scenes are done incredibly well. The costuming is a treat to the eye and much of this was filmed in the same states where it all takes place. The movie is entertainment though. Sadly too many people are ignorant of history but THAT isn't something this movie created. Exploited maybe but not created...
@@anthonyanderson9303 They really weren't. The idea of the American War of Independence being like Britain's Vietnam is very ahistorical and just part of the militia myth.
@@thecynicaloptimist1884 the Revolutionary War is the most painfully misunderstood event in American history as it's become more myth than historical event
Jason Issacs is like Alan Rickman. He is perfect for playing bad guys. It is too bad he did not reprise his role as The Grand Inquisitor in live action.
I saw Jason Isaacs play a captains role in one of the Star Trek series (Strange New Worlds, I think). Actually not a bad guy here, and I almost didn't recognize him at first. But you are right, he nails those bad guy roles to a T. He has the look and the voice.
@@robertwillhite9077 He’s an intruder from the Mirror Universe in STD. Not SNW.
Honestly, lack of Jason Isaacs brought the show down a few notches. The guy they got for GI is a good actor but I did not like him in the role.
he is awesome playing general Zhukov in the death of stalin.
Might I suggest Midway (2019) by History Buffs as your next reaction to his channel.
Now, as for the film. Fun FICTIONAL movie for Mel Gibson and Jason Isaacs, but I'm right beside Brandon F (another history YTuber) into historical blasphmeny of The Patriot. 😂
Brandon F. Is good. He gets boiling mad at the dumb staging of the ambush scene. Portraying well trained and constantly drilled professional soldiers like Keystone Kops was egregious.
You keep commenting on how angry he’s getting. That’s kind of Nick’s thing. He gets worked up. That’s why I watch lol
I agree with Nick that the movie heavily twists the narrative to be incredibly biased for Americans and against the British
Whether or not a movie overtly claims to be historical, there is still an expectation that a history movie be somewhat accurate to the known context
For example, if the colonists in the Patriot wore Swastikas and spoke German, Americans would be in uproar, because we clearly recognize that this misrepresents a known history in a way that could be easily seen as insulting
This applies whether or not a movie “never claims to be historically accurate”
They showed this to me in my 5th grade class when we were studying the AWI. Mainstream education believes this movie to be historically accurate enough to be played in public schools as part of curriculum. This is a propaganda piece sure but the public at large does not recognize that.
Exactly
One thing has always amused me in The Patriot is the irony during the Heath Ledger scenes where he's talking to the black dude about how beating the British means they could build a free country for all. It's a wonderful cheesy scene until you remember that the people they are fighting, The British Empire, are the ones who end up abolishing the slave trade and pressuring the future United States to actually do this.
And that slavery in America would last for over 80 more years after the revolutionary war and legal segregation for a century after that.
One thing that peeves me about this is actually the Battle of Camden scene. In particular the close ups of the continental and British soldiers before they open up on each other. The British are portrayed as emotionless automatons, doing the bidding of their masters, and if you include their proclivity for war crimes in the film you get a very distinct SS feel of the redcoats. Yes they were full time, professional soldiers, and maybe that’s what they were going with in the Camden scene, especially when contrasted with the scared shitless looks on the Americans faces, trying to emphasise a hastily assembled militia (which wasn’t true as the continental army was very experienced by 1780). But in reality you’d have similar looks on the British faces. New recruits facing their first battle, men who were blackout drunk to give them courage. These were ordinary men, most of them from rural backgrounds who joined the Army to avoid starving, or because a recruiting sergeant tricked them into joining. I know it’s a bit ranty and probably quite nitpicky but just felt the rank and file were done somewhat of a disservice by the film
It's always interesting to see different youtubers takes on the Patriot. Brandon F is so passionate in his hatred of the film.
If you think he hates "The Patriot", you should check out what Brandon F. has to say about it.
I don’t think the problem with the scene where the boy is telling Mel Gibson that he’s glad he killed redcoats is a problem because the boy isn’t remorseful because, of course, it’s reasonable that he would be coming from that culture and time.
The problem is that the movie not only doesn’t question it, but seemingly excuses and even justifies it. The takeaway from the scene isn’t that war is a horror that has scarred a young boy into becoming a vicious killer when he and his brother should still just be boys, the takeaway is that what he did was a good thing and he shouldn’t have any remorse or regret about it. There’s a few places where the movie does posit the question of “Maybe Americans are le bad too?” but it quickly reverts back to the overall point that the British are monsters who deserve what’s coming to them.
You don’t need to have Gibson’s character be some deep philosopher who understands the cyclical nature of violence, it makes sense he would be brutal towards the British soldiers given what he’s lost. But just a moment where he looks at his son like “No, you shouldn’t be taking as much joy from doing this as you are,” that would be enough to make the scene complex enough to show that the boy is understandable in what he’s feeling without justifying that bloodlust at the same time.
I don't think the boy took joy from it at all. It's not as if he was being all giddy and happy go lucky when he said it. Simple fact is, they killed his brother and he wasn't going to be remorseful over their deaths. Would you be remorseful over someone who killed your family member and then you subsequently killed them?
@@anthonyanderson9303That’s different from actively being “glad,” in his words, about it.
And as I said, at length, no, I don’t blame the kid for his feelings or reaction. I blame the film for not offering any deeper introspection or analysis of those feelings and even though it’s understandable, to what extent they’re right.
@@Longshanks1690 Well I think the film does offer that introspection through the main character and his constant remorse for his actions during the French and Indian War. That point is pounded home throughout the film and how is sins have caught up to him so to speak.
I don’t think it portrays it as good or that he gets joy out of it, but more justified. And I don’t have a problem with the latter bc until one is in said situation, it’s quite easy for us to act morally superior. All soldiers need reason to fight (otherwise are we not saying they’re all morally bankrupt for killing people). And wanting to take vengeance to those he considers “responsible” for his brother’s death makes sense to me. Seeing your brother be murdered would force you to grow up quicker regardless if there’s a war on or not.
I think this scene is still supposed to be somewhat shocking that he is ok with killing them though. The fact Mel Gibson’s character at first tries to make him feel better is proof of that since clearly he thinks he should be feeling remorse. When he’s not, it’s left up to the audience to interpret.
But seeing your sibling gunned down by a soldier of some army would obviously alter one’s perspective. And while you say different time and culture, I think the feeling of wanting vengeance for a family member’s murder is still very much around, especially during war in which rules seem to often go out the window which we are still seeing today in certain areas of the world.
I disagree with this characterization of the movie's intention. Right after this scene, Mel Gibson goes to comfort the other son, and the son rolls over in bed to avoid his father. Additionally, the oldest son played by Heath Ledger emulates his father's revenge later in the movie and is killed for it.
The movie makes a big deal out of the atrocities committed by Mel Gibson and the Americans. It opens with a qoute from later in the movie where Mel Gibson says he has long feared his sins would revisit him and the cost is more than he can bear. He is praised several times for his massacre during the French & Indian War but he is personally ashamed of his actions, so much so that he only spoke of it once with his late wife and never with his children. He is also called out for it a couple times.
The movie is 100% American patriotism, but Mel Gibsons character is an extremely reluctant and flawed protagonist and his brutality is condemned by the overall film.
The Patriot is about as historically accurate as Inglorious Bastards...
As I recall, South Carolina was rather fond of slavery…
As a Brit, I was more annoyed by Nick constantly saying "BriDDish" than how shit the film is.
I also am in the camp about having a bit of a issue with movies making radical changes to history, history is already so interesting, and in todays world with ppl trying to rewrite things constantly, it is important to try and hold ourselves to a certain standard. Great reaction, cool tidbits about some characters. =)
I have to apologise to the British (and to Hollywood) for my german countryman - director Roland Emmerich! The scene with the burning of the church was very nasty, The german newsmagazine "Der Spiegel" wrote about it when the picture was released, pointing out exactly what History Buff is saying here. It is a famous atrocity made by Germans in WW2. So I get why a british audience does not like the movie. It's comparing the Redcoats to the Waffen-SS... very painful to watch!
My 5x great-grandfather, I think, enlisted in the Pennsylvania Militia for one year in 1776 and after his enlistment was up, he switched sides and joined the British army for the rest of the war. Apparently he knew some people because he wasn't kicked out of the country after the war and was even allowed to become a sheriff later on.
The one picture you didn’t mention in the history buffs intro was the famous painting of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo.
I’m a proud son of a former Grey and an administrator on the Royal Scots Greys group.
Second to none 😊
As always I thoroughly enjoyed your reaction to the original video 👍
The Scot Greys got wreaked harder at Waterloo than the Light Brigade in the valley of death. Interesting how differently we view the Greys and the Light Brigade.
@@Edax_Royeaux Tennyson didn’t write a poem about the Royal Scots Greys is my guess.
@@Edax_Royeauxthey broke all 17,000 men of D’Erlon’s Corps before the French counter charged, so overall it was well timed and a massive success on balance
@@charliereader3462 The Scots Greys practically wiped themselves out to scatter D'Erlon's Corps for an hour before they reformed. I'm not sure "massive success" would be the right word to describe that. The Greys charging artillery from the front with blown horses and then getting flanked by lancers and cuirassiers was pretty disastrous and it would have been disastrous for any calvary unit that this happened to.
@@Edax_Royeaux I agree, what happened to the Greys was very bad, and it was a costly victory. Another example of British cavalry ‘galloping at everything’. And yes D’Erlon’s Corps reformed after the chaos (though they had suffered massive casualties). However before the charge took place the British line was beginning to find itself under severe pressure from D’Erlon’s Corps and had the Union Brigade not broken the French infantry attack then they may very well have overwhelmed the allied line through sheer numbers.
The cast in this movie is unreal. I love and agree how entertaining this movie is despite the inaccuracies. The British portrayal in this is also so comically over the top and camp and I love it. So damn entertaining.
There absolutely are people in America who believe this is real, accurate history.
My 7th grade history teacher got special permission (with permission slips and all) to show us this movie. And before showing it he said
“This is exactly how it happened, what you’ll be seeing is history coming to life. I got special permission for this movie because of how accurate it is to the history of the American revolution”
Was your teacher being sarcastic or serious when he said that? Cause if that’s what he said word for word, it sounds like there’s a possibility he may have been being sarcastic.
Yikes
Official history taught in school is often little more than nationalist propaganda.
Students generally don’t start learning about how ugly it was until high school, and maybe only at the AP level there.
That’s changing somewhat - starting to see a little bit of daylight creeping in, but Florida’s insistence that students learn that slavery benefitted some slaves is more typical.
Homeschooling materials are often worse than the public equivalent in how worshipful they are of the glorious past.
@@joeyhenriques7289 oh he was 100% serious, he’d stop the movie and comment on the accuracy of certain scenes and tell us that this could just ready us for the test.
He gave the test 2 classes later. The class between the movie and the test was a review… of the movie.
@@boltman7000292 Okay, yeah, that’s…pretty poor teaching on his part then. Do you happen to know if he still teaches at your old school or not?
I think Nick is more offended by Mel Gibson than the way the Brits were portrayed in The Patriot. I completely agree with Nick about the church scene though. It's just so inflammatory (no pun intended), that it completely distorts real history and his point that some people watching the movie it will accepted it as fact.
oh this is going to be fun.. i've watched history buffs for years.. and yes he does rip into this movie pretty harshly but well deserved to a degree
edit: his old intro was fire
History buffs master and commander overview is amazing :) I would recommend checking that out!
11:30 say what you will about the Patriot, the rendition of "The British Grenadiers" at the opening of the Battle of Camden absolutely smacks.
The historic figure that the British cavalry officer is based upon, Banastre Tarleton was a supporter of the slave trade till it was abolished by the British.
Im glad you found History Buffs, been watching for years the chanel is so good.
I agree with you that not all historical movies need to be accurate, but they DO need to be authentic, otherwise what's the point other than propaganda? You can watch Saving Private Ryan and you will finish it with a better understanding of WW2 even though the specific story told is fictional. Heck even the Death of Stalin in its absurdity manages to be authentic with the motivations of the characters. However with the Patriot you finish it with a factually incorrect and misleading understanding of the Era.
I personally share a lot of his anger for this film because I was unironically shown this movie in an 8th grade US history class with my teacher claiming it was accurate. I didn't know any better, and the movie presented itself like any other historical film, so I just accepted that the British were awful until probably late high school or early college. I think it is naive to think that your average Joe will watch this movie and assume it is false just because the movie doesn't explicitly claim to be true.
Exactly so
I loved the old intro, iirc he said he wanted to make it seem like an intro for a historical tv show or something similar and it was great. But because it was so long people either skipped it or just leave the video all together so he had to change it
His video on Midway was really good as he praises the film for its accurate representation of the battle and how much it shows the importance of the code breakers.
"Taxation without representation" was a slogan, and the issue was resolved in the 1760s. The colonies had taxation -- it paid for the functions of gov't.
That "anti-taxation" propaganda was actually a defense of smuggling while avoiding talking about smuggling.
I can't speak for all Americans, but as an American, I can say that I have never thought of this film as historically accurate. However, I can say that I have always enjoyed this film as a truly entertaining film.
Thank you all that you do man I’ve been watching you for a while you made me love history and start studying it myself :)
The Loyalist British Legion were dressed in a green dragoon uniforms which were nearly identcal to the uniforms worn by Col. Washington's dragoons. I don't know about the rest of the British Legion, but my ancestor was sent to Nova Scotia after the treaty was signed in 1783, when New York was evacuated and maybe 10 years later was granted land in Belleville, Ontario as next door neighbors to the Mohawk Reservation. The red uniforms are an improvement over the infantry officer's uniforms worm by the British Legion in Disney's "The Swamp Fox" when I was a kid in the 1950's.
Yes Nick is wrong; The Boston Massacre happened in 1978 when the Yankees beat the Redsox 42-9 over four games culminating with the famous Bucky Dent home run.
I’m just saying as someone who’s high school history teacher made them watch this movie and then rewinded it at the part where the cannonball takes the dude’s head off multiple times I do think there are some people who watch this movie and take it as factual
I agree with nearly everything the history buffs guy says here, the only problem for me is that it’s not supposed to be a historically accurate documentary, it’s a Mel Gibson schlock movie lol
The problem with films like The Patriot is they wanna have their cake and eat it. They wanna present it as history but also wanna make it Star Wars or Cowboys & Indians without having a mechanism to indicate that “yeah we’re making up shit to cater/pander to a broad audience”.
Actually, the history buff is wrong on a lot of things about this movie.
it's a lot more close to reality and historical events that really did happen then he seems to understand or want to acknowledge.
If you research the Southern campaign during the revolution, there were British officers that were notorious for being vicious, they shot wounded and surrendering colonial soldiers, they hung innocent civilians, they burned down farms and homesteads, there were women that were raped, there was torture, there was absolutely horrible things.
That happened. And the movie does a decent job of trying to combine all of that into a 2 hour film, regardless olif everything is exactly accurate or not.
as you said. It's not a documentary.
There was also free blacks in the colonies comma there was thirty thousand free blacks in the colonies when the war started period that's another thing, people don't seem to know or realize.
You find these kind of movies in the history section and there are teachers that shows these kind of movies in class. That's the main and enormous problem.
I disagree cause just yesterday I was trying to talk to someone about the revolutionary war and mentioned Cornwallis and the gun instantly was like, oh the guy from the patriot...
Copied from my other comment "This is all so stupid. It's literally called The Patriot. It's an over the top fable about the American revolution. I swear America is the only country\culture that isn't allowed to do this stuff."
Maybe you could do "The Crossing" starring Jeff Daniels. Also "Ike: Countdown to D-Day"
That movie about Ike is really really good.
U571 from 1990 was also a great movie for great pile of dung on history. So much so the British Government complained to the Americans
Ha, I mean I agree Nick gets a little over the top, but I agree with all the criticisms. The Patriot would have been way better if it was less over the top. It doesn't need to be 100% based on history, but could have at least been a little realistic. Like you said about Saving Private Ryan, it's fictional, but gets away with it because it's at least authentic. Of course Master and Commander being the crown jewel of such a thing
The old 'Historical fiction vs fictional history' thing.
21:40 Couldn't agree more that Jason Isaacs was fantastic in Harry Potter. It was a bit weird seeing him as Malfoy considering he's playing a child, but regardless he killed it.
This comment is underappreciated.
Playing a child? You might be confusing Lucius Malfoy with Draco Malfoy
@@gigatank1854 That's the joke 🤪Go to the time stamp
@@lovelyhatter Sorry! That went right over my head 😅
I have seen your reaction, Nick's video and Dr Jared Frederick's video and I find it super interesting how the three of you react to the different events in the film. I feel that Nick is passionate about historical accuracy, you focus more on the curious and interesting facts about the movie and Dr Frederick simply laughs at the movie and then corrects its errors, it is very fun to watch the three videos one after the other
I really enjoy watching you react to History Buffs.
Hey Chris, I just wanted to suggest you see their video on The Death of Stalin. If you haven’t seen the movie, I’d highly suggest it. It’s an excellent, smart satire that really didn’t take very many liberties with the real story, and their video on it is really interesting. Just thought I’d suggest it, as it’s probably my favorite movie of all time! No pressure or anything, though 😁
If you ever pass through South Carolina, you should go tour all of the sites. So much history here.
I'm hoping to do an on-site series on the Revolutionary War battles down there at some point.
The Patriot is essentially the American's Braveheart... Hell it's the same star in the lead. Braveheart was more about entertainment than accuracy, the same as the Patriot.
Just a heads up, Saving Private Ryan is fiction, but also not completely made up. There was a real mission to send home a soldier who lost his brothers.
You’re telling me a movie from the guy who made 10000 BC isn’t historically accurate??
Except 10000 BC is totally based on history duhhhh
Jason Isaac's is the best. I love to hate him. When he is a villain he just has the most punchable face. When he is not a villain I love him as well. Amazing actor.
Loving theses reactions
TIL, through another podcast, that the British didn't want the colonists to go west of the Appalachian mountains, but they were going to build forts out west and have the British regulars garrison those forts. This was due to the aftermath of Pontiacs' rebellion and the bad relation with the natives at the time. I think that's one reason that often gets overlooked when discussing why the British didn't want the colonists going west of the Appalachian mountains.
Yep, that’s what the taxes were largely for, they were mostly for the costs of maintaining the colonies not lining the King’s pockets as some seem to think
As an American, I’m much more on Nick’s side concerning this film’s representation of history. I feel that more could have been done to celebrate American ideals without resorting to turning the British into bloodthirsty war criminals. It kinda feels like straw manning the British. If the American cause was that pure and righteous, why villainize the British to such an extent?
EDIT: Chris, I’d also recommend checking out Brandon F. He does a much more in-depth analysis of the scenes from this movie. Be warned, he’s also a harsh critic of this film, but his takes are much more detailed.
Exactly
While I do understand the entertainment value in such movies, the fact they are based on real historical events is giving them a kind of a obligation.
I think that these kind of movie, by law, should have image at the start saying 'while this movie is based on true historical events most (or some) of the scenes and characters in it are fictional'.
Because, taking from my example, if I watch this movie and nothing afterwards tells me otherwise I will take the events happening in it as real. When I watched 'Patriot' as a kid I really thought that British burned a church full of civilians, something I found out was not true until I started studying history later on in life. How many more millions that were shown this took it as true and never discovered that it did not happen but believe it to be true to this day? Shaping now only their view of history but also political views toward certain countries/people today?
This is why historical movies need to take responsibility for this, becasue sure as hell the schools will not try to correct the damage done by them.
A lot of them do have those disclaimers. Based on a true story, based on historical figures and the like are quite common at the beginning of historical works of fictions. Anybody who sets about trying to learn history only by watching movies doesn't really have an interest in learning history in the first place and no amount of disclaimers or warnings is going to address that problem with such people.
@@ashleighelizabeth5916I think that ignores the point that the OP was getting at. Yes, we should be more cautious and must question what we watch as true or accurate however there is so many films especially in the 90s-2000s where accuracy was put on the back burner to entertainment so thoroughly that it did lead to casual viewers forming ignorant opinions on historical facts. Especially when you have children who are much more easily influenced (I didn’t learn until much later the church burning never happened and took a lot of what the Patriot portrayed as fact or close to fact). Lastly, what’s understated is that films like this are inherently Nationalist Propaganda: it’s meant to paint us as absolute good and our enemies (this case the Brits) as bad-which can be dangerous as many did feel that the film had to more non-fiction than a loosely based story on American history.
It's a damn movie made by Hollywood. It's not a documentary or anything like that. Jesus Christ you people take this shit too seriously.
Jefferson included the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Independence but was forced to take it out to get the southern states to join in the fight for independence. The same goes for the Constitution. Concessions had to be made to get the three fourth of the states needed to ratify it. And the slave states made it clear that if slavery was abolished, they would not ratify it and, in fact, the United States could have died at birth!
Big fan of history buffs channel definitely loved hearing your take on it.
About as accurate a movie as U-571 regarding the enigma machine recovery.
A man of culture. I salute you.
No way! 😂 Just started a spin-off reaction channel inspired by VTH, been reacting to Brandon F’s series on “The Patriot” all week. The timing is impeccable lol
I’ve actually never seen History Buffs so very much looking forward to this, love and appreciate how Chris is always tempered in these reactions.
Love your videos ! Hi from chile
For as much as you love "The Death of Stalin" i'm surprised you haven't reacted to his commentary on that, but i understand! Love your work, another great video!
"They never show the americans committing war crimes" *showed a clip of the militia executing surrendering men a minute earlier*
up to yanks if they want to portray us war crimes fictional or real.
@@billfurlong5954 Cry into your tea
armies were far more civilised in the 18th century than they had been before or after@@benn454
Freedom from the tyranny of the elected parliament...
I guess that doesn't have the same ring
Also - the church is just Jallianwala Bagh set in the Revolutionary War.
Yeah, Nick is not a fan of Mel Gibson. For a more in depth analysis of The Patriot's historical short comings, Brandon F has a series he's been working on for a while. I still enjoy The Patriot and have even seen it being played on British television on the Fourth of July.
On a quick note about the slavery line, Colonel Tavington may be referring to Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore being the Royal Governor of Virginia at the time (he was also a former Jacobite). What a lot of people miss about that proclamation is that it only applied to slaves in Virginia, where Lord Dunmore was governor. He had no authority to issue any proclamations for wider British North America.
Greetings from Alliance, Ohio. Love your channel, one of my favs on youtube. As soon as I seen you done a reaction to the patriot I knew I had to watch. Take care god bless sir.
Just down the road from me!
@@VloggingThroughHistory Being from just outside Alliance myself (now outside of Akron), I'm kind of glad that "Tell me about... Ohio" hasn't become a meme with all of the other Ohio bashing that goes around. Unrelated note, my dad is from Youngstown. Grew up in the city near the border with Struthers.
Honestly, watch Brandon F.'s series going into detail about this god-awful bit of film.
He now has about twice as long a review as the movie it. Its chocked full of information and sourced material.
This! :)
I think this was genuinely one of the first times where I've very firmly sided against VTH.
I think Mr. Hodges didn't go far enough. I think that, if you are going to do a historical movie, you have to stay based in reality and have a duty to show the truth of the situation.
Mel Gibson's Film is crap I still hear coming from the mouths of Conservatives, namely those wearing Red Hats. I spend my time studying to be on the Frontlines of this historical degradation. The amount of people who use this film to retrench their own positions is astounding.
Great breakdown on the nuances of this period, this period is so important to the history of the US it should be mandatory to know about the reality of taxation and that the majority wanted to remain British subjects. The entire agenda of taking lands west of the Ohio country was completely on the American colonies and it was the British military that stopped them.
I mean, if you’ve ever seen the DVD commentary, the director clears a lot of stuff up.
I’m paraphrasing because it’s been years, but this is what I remember:
“I wanted Tarelton to be my devil, to be Satan. He corrupts everyone he meets through temptation. And you can see it on the face of the villager as he throws the torch - he has just sold his soul to the Devil.”
In all honesty I really believe there is a very interesting conversation to be haved in regards to when we as an audience are suposed to take it as historical fiction and where we should draw the line with said fiction, that is because it is fair to have fictionalised stories within a historical setting, but some movies ( I don´t think is the case with the patriot) can and do go a little to far with their fiction elements, overall is just a thought on the matter, great video man love your work. Greetings from Spain
I think there is a difference between historical fiction and stuff like the patriot.
There is no problem with making up a story in a historcial context... but if you do it is your duty to get the facts of the time period right.
In the case of the patriot that would mean that it would be ok to make up characters, battles and places, but please portray the spirit of the people of the time and the culture correctly.
@@meganoob12 Yeah I think that´s fair enough, I guess is about historical responsability to not be biased when representing different time periods and the complexitys people back in those times faced, I agree with you.
Thanks for the reply 👍
Over the top legends that inspire nationalism are allowed in every other culture. This video is just an example of how Americans are the only ones that should be 100% historically accurate and nuanced all the time. It's insane, its just supposed to be an entertaining film with some light historical points.
Great reaction! And you will go to the Waterloo battlefield? Damn thats in the top 5 of my bucket list to visit, along with Havana, Cuba, the austerlitz battlefield among others. I have been to Milan recently, and the arc near the fort has the name of Napoleon on it. Also a statue of Napoleon III nearby
My grandmother was an amateur genealogist with a deep interest in family history. And she found that one of our ancestors, Shadrach Pinkston served in the American Revolution. 11th Virginia Regiment, also known as Morgan's Rifles. From December 1777 until June 1778 he is listed in a muster roll for the 11th Virginia but now in Brigadier General William Woodford's 3rd Virginia Brigade as part of Washingtons's Elite Life Guard (Also known as the Commander-In-Chief's Guard) in Captain Caleb Gibbs' unit and later under William Colfax.
Before I watch this - I really wanted to hear your take on this movie since you did your 1st history buffs video!!
Keep in mind this video is 8 years old and people tended to get more worked up in their commentary so it was from a different time
Probably true but it's crazy to think that 8 years is enough to be a different time.
@@Practicality01 In the digital age, it's a lifetime, depressingly so.
Turn: Washington's spys for the most part was a good, nuanced show about the American Revolution.
God the first season of that show sucked, but it really pick ups later.
Yay for Donal Logue in Gettysburg and this one!
Hi Chris, hope you enjoy your time in England!