Reasons for the red coat: 1. Historically, being able to field a uniformed army was a sign of power and could rout enemies at the sight of them because it suggested they were all regulars. This occurred during the English Civil War with the New Model Army, probably the first fully professional army in the early modern era. Previously, people would be levies and turn up in whatever, you see that with the militiamen here in this film who wear ordinary clothing except for the officers. 2. Red dye was cheap and easily available in Britain, but relatively expensive in many other parts of the world. This gave the impression that the army was not only fully professional and trained, but had enormous amounts of money spent on them. 3. In long campaigns, the dye would fade to being brown, so it was practically perfect. First arrival on scene, huge, striking, morale affecting on the enemy. Then if the war drags on, it becomes more and more camoflagued. 4. Some people argue it prevented the sight of their own blood when shot, which was important for morale and confused and frightened enemy soldiers. 5. During the musket era, smoke from the guns would quickly obscure the red anyway. 6. By the time of repeater rifles, the redcoat was already a symbol of British power and authority. 7. It was eventually dropped when machine guns became more normal as no longer practical.
Officers (even in the US Army) wore maroon sashes as a quick way to bind wounds and cover the bloodstains. But as for red coats turning brown, no, that's not accurate. The British soldiers had to spend a great deal of energy and time keeping their coats red and their leathers pipeclayed white as per regulations. Uniformity was a plus as intimidation in battle. As a front rank thinned, the others would step up and fill in. If everyone was wearing their own choice of color, or even different shades of red, the casualties were more obvious while a solid wall being presented obscured losses. I have yet to see any reference to "red coats fading to brown".
George Washington wrote extensively about militias and how they should be trained, uniformed and ready to take orders in the field. He was a guy that ended up having to command them and he didnt care to use them as cannon fodder and for the most part that's all they were good for.
My Scottish ancestor Shadrach Duff died on the steps of the courthouse in the battle at the end of the movie when Cornwallis ordered his canons to fire on both the Americans and the British. That engagement was called the Battle of Guilford Courthouse March 15, 1781. He had two children who had to become indentured servants until one was 18 and the other 21. Life was harsh back then.
Cornwallis actually won the Battle of Guilford Courthouse but his casualties were so high that he had to withdraw first to Wilmington, NC then to Yorktown. I was confused at first about the battle scene in the movie. I also thought it was the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, but as it turns out it's supposed to be the Battle of Cowpens. Cornwallis was not at Cowpens. The commander there was Tarleton. Cornwallis was at Guilford Courthouse but Tarleton was not. The Patriots won the Battle of Cowpens but were defeated at Guilford Courthouse. The movie mixes both battles into one.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Dude, people who lived on the frontier didn't care about "regulations." You're just projecting Republican talking points onto people who would have had no connection to them because you think it somehow gives them legitimacy.
@@Lbdataz1469 there’s a reason no society has ever been like this 😂 it’s only pacifists sitting in industrial society being protected by others who say it
That's always been that way, its where the ancient saying comes from, "If peple want peace, they mksut be prepared for war." Or "A wise man never seeks out war, but must always be ready for it." Kind of why some of the most relaxed most chill people in the world are probably blackbelts who could incapacitate you in three moves or less, they jsut dont advertise that they can.
It's important to remember this is a fictional movie about a father and his sons, based loosely on historical events but it's not a historical film exactly
Warfare of that time does look very strange to us today, but there are good reasons why they had to fight that way. This was before the days of rapid fire guns and radio, so the only way to receive orders, act with purpose, and have organized firepower was to stand shoulder to shoulder like that. The goal in those days was to panic the enemy and cause him to run so that your horsemen could charge in and cut down the fleeing soldiers safely.
Wow, I'm over 40 y.o. and I never thought of it that way. Had focus on the Revolutionary War in middle school history class and a U.S. history class in HS, but don't remember a reason for the seemingly dumb tactic of marching to your death, but makes perfect sense hah
@@OptimusPrimeribs Yeah, except for guerilla style hit and run ambushes, trying to spread out and take cover would've been a more sure fire way of dying back then.
@@davestang5454 I looked it up "On July 19, 2014, Bartusiak died at the age of 21 in her apartment behind her parents' Houston home. While her mother, shortly after Bartusiak's death, stated she believed that her daughter's history of epileptic seizures may have had a role in her death, the coroner ruled the death resulted from an accidental drug overdose."
@@Movie.Munchies He's so strict. He HAD to be, life was so much more unforgiving then as contrasted with now, people back then were a lot more disciplined out of necessity.
@@Movie.Munchies Late to this, I realize, and I'd imagine that someone has already mentioned this, but they would hang King George in effigy which is just a fancy way of saying they were hanging puppets. They were actually quite aggressive to the King's tax collectors, in one case the Sons of Liberty tore down a tax collector's house brick by brick.
@@Movie.Munchies Where he asked permission to write Ann, it was a joke where the father was acting like he said RIDE Ann. Now that joke, such as it is, probably would've never been made in that era.
@@Movie.Munchies Benjamin Martin melting down those lead soldiers to make musket balls. After the Declaration of Independence, the Americans pulled down a statue of King George III and melted that down to make ammunition out of.
Those men were called Minutemen. They could assemble in minutes and ride into battle. Now, our intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles are all called Minutemen 2 missiles. They can strike anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.
Minutemen were New England militia that were prepared before the war broke out and engaged in the first battles at Lexington and concord. By this point these are just militia and regulars.
I love it too that they don't just make a 45 minute video out of long movie. Seems like they are at least trying to make at the minimum of half of the movie shown in these reactions. And since they make a lot of comments during the movies (in the past maybe sometimes even too much 😀 but they've gotten much better with that 😉) I think there's no question if it belongs in to the Fair Use so no production should ever have anything to complain about these reactions. Actually I think these girls are probably making a lot of more money for these productions with their high quality reactions so they should keep doing these longer reactions without any worries about someone trying to take down their videos. But they should still keep having their patrion versions. Thanks for these reactions, girls and regards from Finland 🇫🇮❤☺
Now if you watch "Firefly" one of the best American Sci-fi TV shows, you'll see Adam Baldwin (the loyalist) in his finest role that isn't "Animal Mother" from Full Metal Jacket.
The armies lined up on the battlefield like that because of how the firearms were designed. The barrels lacked something called rifling, which are twisting grooves on the inside of the barrel that cause the projectile to spin when fired, drastically increasing accuracy and trajectory. These are just small musket balls so there's little to no accuracy. The only hope they have at hitting anything is to stand in a giant wall and trade volleys of fire. Very brutal age for the infancy of firearms.
@@thecatthinks Based on hand written accounts from the revolutionary war all the way to the Napoleonic wars. Yes. Line battles were fought like that and had nothing to do with soldier intelligence but simple physics. Even back in pike and shot warfare of the late medieval age, soldiers stood in giant groups and volley fired. Not a coincidence it stopped the moment rifling became standardized. Read a history book or journals from the officers of the day.
@thecatthinks in Napoleonic warfare? Yes, they indeed lined up, granted different formations for different instances, but yeah mainly line and kneel for the second row volley or second rank step through and volley. Small skirmishes would compromise of a fire and reload in a single line.
@thecatthinks As others have already pointed out, yes, wars were absolutely were fought in this manner. Napoleonic tactics and victory by attrition was the standard all the way through to the American Civil War. They were still even used after the rifled musket had been invented. That's why the ACW was such a God awful, bloody bloodbath. In fact, there were so many casualties sustained in the ACW, that America's just recently caught up to the number of casualties sustained by all other subsequent conflicts it's been involved in since then.
@4:22 Burning those "puppets" is referring to as burning someone in effigy. It's a symbolic thing. It was more common during this time frame than now but I think it still occasionally occurs.
It still occurs in the Middle East where some countries burn American flags and Presidents in effigy to protest when the US is involved in a conflict over there. It was very common in 1979 and a few years later when the Ayatollah Khomeni took over Iran and held American people hostage at the US embassy in Tehran. Many of his followers protested that way for years.
Ah, that scene always makes me tear up of the little girl Susan begging him not to leave her. "Tell me what you want me to say, I'll say anything you want me to say." She's just dealing with the loss of the people around her and not wanting to lose her father as well. Probably doesn't want to say 'Goodbye' because it sounds so final.
I know... I watched this movie with a bunch of my chick friends a while back... they had never seen me cry before but this movies just so darn beautifully done.
@@KMEnterprise Aw, I had no idea. I was going to look up the cast after I watched this reaction because I thought, for a kid, she really did an exceptional job. Skye Bartusiak, gone at just 21 years old. That's terrible.
@@codyritner3826 I was crying just writing this the other day. I'm a guy too, but I'm pretty in touch with my own emotions. Hella crying like she did was precious, I appreciate her emotion.
@@LucidDream absolutely man. I don't cry much in life ever, when my best friend killed himself, I cried for like a week before coming to terms with it but that scene with the little girl is beautiful. If you don't cry at that, you're a psychopath.
1st timer. Great reaction! Your empathetic attitudes were beautiful to watch in a World that could use alot more of it. Keep it going and Good Luck in the future!!!
I see some similarities between this movie and the Gladiator. • Their son was murdered. • Both have a face-to-face with their son's killer where they proclaim a vow of vengeance. • Both end up killing their son's killer by stabbing them in the throat with a dagger type weapon. • Both movies released the same year. The Patriot was released about 3 months before the Gladiator.
Gibson was born in the US and was accepted by Aussie's as Australian till the whole Anti-Semetic remark ordeal and now don't claim him anymore saying he's a "Yank".
@@Gutslinger black folks were proud of Tiger Woods to when he was on top, till he had some scandal then he was "Asian". Gibson left the US when he was 5 and grew up in Australia till the popularity of Mad Max brought him back to the US. They also claimed Russel Crowe, though every Aussie knew he was a Kiwi (New Zealander).
@@Gutslinger no doubt and it's even weird when some people don't know Elon Musk wasn't from the US or John Candy or Jim Carrey. Not sure if any have citizenship or keep paying for that work Visa... except Candy, obviously.
Reasons for why armies of this time period fought like that. 1. There are no radios. Officers have to issue orders via shouting, flags, drums and other instruments. Troops had to be formed up so close together to actually see and hear their orders. 2. Muskets are inaccurate and slow to reload. Trying to hit anything past about 80 metres was extremely difficult. Having the men grouped up into dense lines like that maximized the chances of hitting a target. A literal wall of lead. Most soldiers would be able to load and fire 3 shots in a minute but that assumes a calm environment. In battlefield conditions the rate of fire would drop significantly, usually to only 1 round per minute. So to get around the low rate of fire officers would usually have the first line of men step to the side or kneel after firing to allow the second to fire, while the third rank (line) of men handed the ranks in front of them loaded muskets to fire while they recieved fired muskets to reload. The process would thus be repeated. This allowed for a workaround regarding the slow rate of fire of muskets. 3. Defense against cavalry. Scattered infantry are easy targets for horsemen. Being formed up into line formations allowed them to unleash concentrated volleys of musket fire. If the cavalry attempted to flank the formations then the infantry would form a square with bayonets fixed. The all round defense allowed the men to fire in all directions and prevented actual charges from forming. Horses are not stupid and will not charge directly into a wall of bayonets. Only the most aggressive horses and suicidal riders would charge down infantry squares. And just to clear up a few myths. The British did use specialists whose job was to specifically target officers and spread out and use cover. These light infantry skirmishers wore camouflaged uniforms and used rifles. Rifles of the time were more accurate and have greater range but had a greater misfire rate and were more expensive to manufacture and maintain. Hence only the elite skirmishers using them until the mid 1800s. The idea of the Americans being the first to use this type of warfare is a propaganda myth spread after the war. The French had light infantry skirmishers, the British did, the Russians, Austrians, Prussians, all of them. The militia lost almost every single battle they fought against the British regulars. George Washington even has several famous quotes regarding the unreliability of the militia. He complains in one that they break far too easily and often refuse to listen to orders. He viewed them as expendable cannon fodder. The actual regular American army, the continentals, were trained by Frenchmen and Prussians and was turned into a proper fighting force able to take on the British in open combat. The French were involved from the very start of the conflict. They provided the majority of the Americans' weapons, uniforms and gunpowder and sent advisers to help train the American army. Fredrick the Great of Prussia even remarked that Britain should have launched an attack on the French fleet before the war dragged on for too long. Britain eventually also had to fight the Spanish, French and Dutch besides the colonists. The Americans did not beat Britain on their own. If you taken your time to read this then thank you.
The British did have a revolutionary rifle that was years ahead of its time, Ferguson rifle. The Ferguson rifle was invented by Patrick Ferguson, who was killed in the Battle of Kings Mountain. The rifle was a breach loader and could fire as fast as the smooth bore muskets yet hit a target 300 yards away. There were some British sharp shooter units equipped with Ferguson Rifles but not enough to make a big difference in battles. I don't know why England did not adopt the Ferguson as standard issue.
@@mikealvarez2322Economics if I had to guess. It was cheaper to equip soldiers with other weapons. We see this repeated across history. That and resistance to change. The effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles and sub-machine guns over bolt action rifles were apparent very early but armies were still mostly equipped with the former. Even the Americans were somewhat slow in adopting the Garand.
You actually had a solid grip in the first half of your comment: explaining tactics like line formations, musket limitations, and defense against cavalry was insightful and well-written. But then you took a sharp nosedive into "America didn’t really win" territory, making excuses for Britain and downplaying American achievements. Let’s break down this condescending mess of half-truths and smug revisionism at the latter part of your comment, piece by piece: Light infantry skirmishers and rifles: Yes, Britain had light infantry, and while they occasionally experimented with rifles during the Revolutionary War, these were neither widespread nor central to their strategy, as the majority of British forces relied on smoothbore muskets. In contrast, American sharpshooters like Morgan’s Riflemen effectively used long rifles, such as the Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifle, known for their superior accuracy and range. These riflemen played a critical role in key battles like Saratoga, where their precision disrupted British leadership and contributed to one of the war’s most decisive victories, showing how Americans effectively leveraged this technology while the British largely stuck to conventional tactics. "The Americans didn’t invent guerilla warfare": No one said they did, Einstein. The key is how effectively Americans used it. Guerilla tactics by militias disrupted British supply lines, ambushed troops, and bled them dry in battles like Lexington and Concord. Sure, other nations had skirmishers, but the Americans popularized these tactics in this war, making them central to their success. "Militia were unreliable cannon fodder": Washington criticized militias, but painting them as useless is nonsense. Militia forces played critical roles in numerous battles, including the pivotal Battle of Cowpens, where they outmaneuvered Tarleton’s troops with a strategic feigned retreat. Far from "expendable cannon fodder," militias were essential in complementing the Continental Army’s efforts. "The French did all the work": Oh, the French helped with gunpowder and some training? Welcome to how alliances work in wars. Britain wasn’t alone either, they relied heavily on loyalists, Hessians, and Native allies. But let’s be clear: the French didn’t win the war for America. The Battle of Yorktown, the final blow to British forces, succeeded because of combined American and French efforts. It was Washington’s leadership and American troops on the ground that sealed Cornwallis’s fate, not just French fleets waving from the Chesapeake. "Britain was fighting everyone else": And whose fault was that? Maybe Britain shouldn’t have spent decades antagonizing France, Spain, and the Dutch while treating its colonies like second-class citizens. If the British Empire couldn’t handle the heat, that’s a reflection on them, not America. Crying "we were spread thin" after losing your biggest colony is hardly a defense, it’s an excuse. "Americans didn’t beat Britain on their own": Nobody seriously claims they fought in isolation. But dismissing the Revolutionary War as "just France and others beating Britain" is absurd. Without American resilience, strategy, and leadership, no amount of French aid would have mattered. America didn’t just win battles, they orchestrated a global effort against Britain. That’s called playing smart, not losing. In short, your argument is a masterclass in missing the point. No victory in history happens in a vacuum, and alliances don’t diminish success-they amplify it. America didn’t just survive the war; it reshaped the world order. But hey, keep downplaying that-whatever helps you sleep at night.
Mel Gibson does military roles very well. He was also in Vietnam War movie called We Were Soldiers. It's about the very first battle between the US and Vietnam. The Ia Drang valley battle.
@@johnfriday5169love that movie!! I really liked how it showed that the Vietnamese fighters weren’t inherently evil, they were fighting for their land and to have the right to align with whomever they chose. It also showed that while they were brutal so were we when it came to our tactics. And how the Vietnamese commander was essentially on par with Gibsons character, they weren’t just some backwater farmers , they were organized, disciplined and worthy of respect as warriors willing to die for what they thought was right for their country. Ironically the American government sent thousands of our young men to die against an enemy that used tactics not too far off from what we used against the British in order to secure our own sovereignty. They sent a bunch of drafted 18-25 years olds to fight against a people that were fighting for their land/home, that shit was never going to work and is one of the worst decisions we have ever made as a society.
"Now you've got the consequences of the thing that you created." Damn. Never have I heard a more succinct and accurate summation of the British in the American Revolution.
Two well made films dealing with American history that you will enjoy are "The Last of the Mohicans" on the colonial era Seven Years W.ar / French & Indian War from 1756-1763 and also "The Outlaw Josey Wales" with Clint Eastwood on the American Civil War & its tyrannical aftermath from 1861-1868.
They stood in big lines because fighting back then was about showing you have more people. you would march at the enemy and hope they would just run away, but if they didn't both sides would start firing. until one side starts to get hit a lot, gets scared and decides to run away. it's very hard to keep 4,000 people organized and not shooting at each other, so they had to stay in big groups
There's not very many movies that cover the American Revolutionary War, probably because America used a Fabian strategy to achieve victory. (wear down your opponent through attrition, and destroy their home economy by forcing them to support expensive supply lines, rather than defeating them on the battlefield) We only won a handful of the battles against the British, but we won the most important one - the last one. Coincidentally, it's very similar to how Vietnam fought against America. So Americans are proud of our country for the same reasons that both of you are. We took on the dominant world power at the time, and we won our freedom. As for the best American Civil War movie, I'm almost evenly split between "Glory" and "Gettysburg." Both are historically accurate, very informative, and entertaining.
The anger towards King George really was a multitude of different policies all having to do with the French and Indian war which was costly to the British Government. It has been argued that it was the very first world war which tells you how costly it was. Pretty much everywhere there was a British or French colony the war expanded to. So that gets pretty costly because you need troops and warships to fight that not including material and supplies. So, who ends paying the bill? The Americans did through all kinds of taxation from tea to stamps. Yes, you read that correctly even tea was taxed. It didn't stop there American families were also forced to house British Soldiers and the families had to feed and clothe them British Soldiers were given authority to arrest and even search homes without legal authority, which today we call a warrant. In other words they didn't need suspicion to arrest you just hearing you say something they didn't like was enough to get you arrested and your house searched. It was a whole list of things. You can actually find the full list of grievances on the Declaration of Independence there were 27 total grievances we had against King George.
If you are interested in more movies about the Vietnam war I highly recommend "we were soldiers" which also stars Mel Gibson. One of the few that at least makes some effort to portray the North Vietnamese side of things a bit.
The only problem is these young women cheer against the Americans, fighting alongside the Southern Vietnamese, not the Communist and the Chinese. Check out earlier reactions if you do not believe me.
I don't see that as a problem. Everyone Cheers for their home team and I've seen their other reactions. They've never been disparaging towards the Americans who fought in Vietnam.
What was the home team again, the Communists or the Southern Vietnamese. Clearly it was a messy war politically, but unless the history Americans have been taught is a complete fabrication. The Americans were helping millions of Vietnamese fight Communists-Americans were fighting Vietnamese, but Communist aligned Vietnamese. Alight with the USSR, China, Cuba. Tens of thousands of Americans died and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese in a losing war against the Communists. That’s my take, what’s yours?!? Go Communists?!? It’s not so bad.
I saw this movie in theaters, Jason Isaacs as Col. Tavington is one of those villains you love to hate everyone in the theater clapped and cheered when he finally died.
All these conflicts are the result of the maintenance of empire. The French helped America gain its independence to strengthen itself in relation to Britain, but the debts France accumulated would then lead to their own revolution about a decade later. Then a little less than 200 years after that, America would assist France in their colonial project in Vietnam. That was obviously more about the U.S. fear of the spread of Communism than it was about the interests of the French. Regardless, the tactics used by France, and the U.S. in Vietnam were arguably far more brutal than those used by the British in America.
Mel Gibson's character represents a real historical patriot named General Francis Marion who was strategic in planning ambushes against the British and he vanished into the swamps of South Carolina. The British named him Swamp Fox .
during the wars in this time of Era would been the late 17th Century, Line fire was a column of 5 to 10 row of soldiers marching and standing there reloading their muskets then firing again and the row behind them fires to give them enough time to reload, they didn't Run nor retreat, they stood their ground not daring to put one step away from the battle. the Patriot is a lovely movie and i have always adored it.
People like Captain Williams were not traitors they just didn't want to break away from England. The US was divided on the issue. It was the same in the US war in Vietnam. Many South Vietnamese people did not want to join the North under Communism. The US sadly got in the middle of that dispute resulting in the tragedy that was the Vietnam War. It is heartbreaking to know that thousands, if not over a million innocent people had to die because of politics. Another parallel to Vietnam is the fact that very young people (teenagers) had to fight in the War.
Chi and Hella, it was so heartwarming to hear you be concerned about the kids back home. It was the same concern I had for the American soldier's families that never made it home and for the families in Vietnam that suffered so much during your War of Independence. BTW, my best friend served 2 tours of duty in Vietnam and died in 1997 as a result of that war. I know the Vietnamese people continue to suffer from the same chemical that killed my friend, Agent Orange.
It is sickening how the government refused to take any responsability for their own soldiers who were poisoned by Agent Orange. If they acknowledged what it did to American soldiers and properly conpensated them, then they would eventually have had to also pay compensation to all their Veitnamese victims. And we all know the state isn't forking over that kind of cash.
I've enjoyed this film for many years; it's brilliantly done. At the film's start, the Benjamin Martin character is wildly opposed to war with the British. A huge part of it is his desire to protect his family from the war's devastation (a fear which is justified). As the story unfolds, we learn that he's not only very intelligent and a supremely talented military battle planner... but also that he has a dark side that is incredibly scary and powerful, that emerges in combat. This side helped him smash his enemies in the previous war, the 'French and Indian War,' (in this film, called 'the Wilderness Campaign), and then (later) to kill a squad of 20 troops (to rescue his eldest son) with only his pre-teen sons for assistance. Martin has spent years trying to move on from that earlier Dark period of his life (trying instead to raise his sons and to do carpentry); he doesn't want that part of himself to emerge again, or for his sons to see it (which they do, when he hacks the British officer into pieces). (I think it's this reason - the desire to separate his current self from his Dark past-self, that is the actual main reason that Martin opposes the new war.). But with this story, it turns out that his Dark Side, coupled with his military brilliance, are what the American side needed all along, to win one of the most important wars in history.
Glad to see you got around to watching the Patriot. Cannot wait to see your Star Wars reaction. I actually have ancestry from colonial Virginia and the house and property my grandmother was born on almost 100 years ago is very similar to the house at the beginning of the movie. So this movie reminds me of my own heritage. I also recommend A Knight’s Tale and The Fifth Element in addition to the Star Wars series (just remember to watch episodes 4, 5 and 6 before 1, 2 and 3. Also the reason why the rebel wounded were killed is because the British viewed them as traitors, not enemy soldiers. That being said the atrocities committed by the British never happened. While I like Mel Gibson, he has a hatred of the English because they deported his Irish ancestors to Australia back when Australia was a penal colony. Cornwallis had zero tolerance for brutality or atrocities committed by his soldiers and if any of his officers had deliberately harmed any civilian, let alone a child, Cornwallis would’ve had such officer hanged. The church burning is actually based on an event that occurred in Nazi Germany, not an actual event in the American Revolution
Benjamin Martin is styled after Francis Marion, "The Swamp Fox". Francis had a nephew by his brother, named Gabriel. Colonel Tavington is styled after Lt. Colonel Banistre Tarleton, a Brithish Dragoon serving under Cornwallis. The final battle in the film is patterned after the Battle of the Cowpens in South Carolina, in which Tarleton's command was decimated and routed. The film's terrain is completely different, but the tactics are similar. It is believed to be the American Army's first example of a "defense in depth".
00:55 By the way, dearest Hela, if you wanna learn more about History, go to the books. Hollywood movies are just for entertainment and take a lot of (propagandistic) liberties while "adapting" the stories. The result are as amazing as entertaining and thrilling, however, they are mere tales. I truly admire your intelligence and wit, please don't be offended in any way. *People who are not Hella or Chi can come and tell me whatever they want. Ideas are spooky for the sheep herd.
At 7 minutes that was the way European Armies fought. It was in line formation and it was always in mass. As a result, if you were in the Infantry, on either side American or British, chances were good you were getting shot if you were lucky and killed if you were not lucky. You will hear Mel Gibson's character talk about how this was madness and it was true it was because one of the lessons the Americans had to learn at this point in the war was that they didn't have the training nor the ability to replace their losses like the British did. Several leaders including General Washington knew this and adapted in several ways, for Washington he needed help from a Prussian General named Von Steubon and a French Aristocrat named Lafayette who taught the Continental Army how to properly soldier. In the south Generals, such as Gates and Nathaniel Greene, took their Militia and Continental soldiers and learned to use Guerilla Warfare which involved sneak attacks, raids, and hit and run tactics.
There are no radios. Officers have to issue orders via shouting, flags, drums and other instruments. Troops had to be formed up so close together to actually see and hear their orders. 2. Muskets are inaccurate and slow to reload. Trying to hit anything past about 80 metres was extremely difficult. Having the men grouped up into dense lines like that maximized the chances of hitting a target. A literal wall of lead. Most soldiers would be able to load and fire 3 shots in a minute but that assumes a calm environment. In battlefield conditions the rate of fire would drop significantly, usually to only 1 round per minute. So to get around the low rate of fire officers would usually have the first line of men step to the side or kneel after firing to allow the second to fire, while the third rank (line) of men handed the ranks in front of them loaded muskets to fire while they recieved fired muskets to reload. The process would thus be repeated. This allowed for a workaround regarding the slow rate of fire of muskets. 3. Defense against cavalry. Scattered infantry are easy targets for horsemen. Being formed up into line formations allowed them to unleash concentrated volleys of musket fire. If the cavalry attempted to flank the formations then the infantry would form a square with bayonets fixed. The all round defense allowed the men to fire in all directions and prevented actual charges from forming. Horses are not stupid and will not charge directly into a wall of bayonets. Only the most aggressive horses and suicidal riders would charge down infantry squares. And just to clear up a few myths. The British did use specialists whose job was to specifically target officers and spread out and use cover. These light infantry skirmishers wore camouflaged uniforms and used rifles. Rifles of the time were more accurate and have greater range but had a greater misfire rate and were more expensive to manufacture and maintain. Hence only the elite skirmishers using them until the mid 1800s. The idea of the Americans being the first to use this type of warfare is a propaganda myth spread after the war. The French had light infantry skirmishers, the British did, the Russians, Austrians, Prussians, all of them. The militia lost almost every single battle they fought against the British regulars. George Washington even has several famous quotes regarding the unreliability of the militia. He complains in one that they break far too easily and often refused to listen to orders. He viewed them as expendable cannon fodder. The actual regular American army, the continentals, were trained by Frenchmen and Prussians, as you said, and was turned into a proper fighting force able to take on the British in open combat. The French were involved from the very start of the conflict. They provided the majority of the Americans' weapons, uniforms and gunpowder and sent advisers to help train the American army. Fredrick the Great of Prussia even remarked that Britain should have launched an attack on the French fleet before the war dragged on for too long. Britain eventually also had to fight the Spanish, French and Dutch besides the colonists. The Americans did not beat Britain on their own.
55:22 Why is there ALWAYS someone cutting onions next to me, when I watch this scene??? 😢😑❤🩹😇😉💯 The little girl actress Sky McCole Bartusiak delivers such strong performances in this movie. Sadly miss Bartusiak passed away in 2014 because of a drug overdose. ☹ RIP 💯
The actor playing the eldest son also played the joker in the Dark Knight. If you havent reacted to it yet you gotta. Its his most iconic perfomance and he died shortly after. His name is Heath Ledger
Great movies: Apollo 13 Ben Hur (Original 1959 with Charlton Heston) Lord of the Rings (In order - Fellowship of the rings, The Two Towers, The Return of the King) Star Wars (In order - starts with #4, A New Hope, #5 The Empire Strikes Back, #6, #1, #2, #3) The Mark of Zorro (1940 version with Tyrone Power) The Star Spangled Banner as You've Never Heard It (just 11 minutes but terrific part of American History)
When this movie came out there was a college intern from Hong Kong working with me at a large company. He just passed his citizenship test so I gave him some cash and suggested he go to see this movie about the history of his new country. The next week he told me he went to see it that weekend and asked if I went to it also. I said no, I went to see Shanghai Noon, a Jackie Chan movie. I think he was more impressed that I liked Jackie Chan.
Please, please don't look at this movie as history. Don't get me wrong, I love this movie for entertainment purposes and it does have an element of history in it. My biggest objection to THE PATRIOT is the portrayal of Tavington, who is supposed to represent Banastre Tarleton (British Cavalry Col. during the Revolution) as a blood thirsty killer. In battle, Tarleton was brutal, but he never piled people into a locked church then burned it down. That never happened during the Revolution. The Revolutionary War was as much a civil war as a Revolution. American Loyalist fought against American Patriots, and many were tarred and feathered, hanged, and shot ( on both sides.) I live very near where the battles in the movie took place. I also taught North Carolina History for years. The character Benjamin Martin is supposed to represent the live hero patriot, Francis Marion, also known as The Swamp Fox. Francis Marion; however, owned slaves. The last battle where Benjamin Martin kills Tavington detracts from the fact that it was Brigadier General Daniel Morgan that devised the plan that defeated the British at the Battle of Cowpens. Many slaves fought on both sides, but most supported the British because they believed the British would grant them their freedom. Sadly many that fought with both sides were returned to slavery. If you want to learn more about US History, check out OVERSIMPLIFIED. It's great and funny.
No one should EVER take Hollywood at face value - EVEN when they actually call something a "documentary", but definitely not a general entertainment movie such as this. Braveheart was also far from historically accurate except in the broadest of strokes. Fine entertainment, but definitely NOT accurate history. Hollywood is NEVER accurate history, though some try a whole lot harder than others (Band Of Brothers was quite good, for example).
@@BigTroyT Hollywood sometimes gets the essence of history right and at times gets the hardcore facts right too. I'm thinking along the lines of the 1970s movie Napoleon. A classic we will only see this once without CGI.
@@billthomas478 There are countless other examples of German soldiers murdering civilians and prisoners of war. People can reference those actual stories.
@@BigTroyT You should never take any documentary or movie at face value. Everyone has a bias. Some people are less biased than others, but there is no such thing as an unbiased piece of media.
I already had seen this movie before, but I really enjoyed watching this. It's fun watching something like this with non-Americans, it just gives a different perspective.
Another beautiful and heartfelt reaction from two genuine ladies and yes family even though there is disagreements and conflict are so important, great film TY
Some of the history of wars is always inspiring to see how it plays out from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War in the U.S. like the movie of Troy young men dying and old men talking.
12:10 - 12:38 Let me try to help explain. At the time of this war (the 1770's), Western countries had certain "rules of gentlemanly warfare." Wounded men were supposed to be treated, whether they were yours or the enemy's. Civilians were off-limits, and so were officers (how lucky for them). Ofcourse, these rules were not always followed.
Benjamin Martin character is (the swamp fox). The safe location was near Pawley's island South Carolina, the Spanish Mission is in the Santee area of South Carolina, the remnants of the mission still exists, it wasn't a movie prop. During that time 13 British colonies voted to go to war with Britain to win their Independence after repeated trespasses, and no representation. Most of the remaining North America lands were owned by Spain, France, & Russia. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the United States after negotiating a purchase with Frenchman Napoleon, under the louisianna Purchase.
Cornwallis was not at the Battle of Cowpens. Col. Banastre Tarleton led the troops at Cowpens. Cornwallis was the Commander at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. He won the battle but had so many casualties that he had to retreat to Wilmington first then to Yorktown where you see Benjamin Martin say goodbye to his French friend.
As you may know, a lot of these characters are based on real people from that war and that time period: The Colonel of the British Green Dragoons/the main villain Tavington, is based on Banastre Tarleton, and in real life he died in England, with full honors and respect of his countrymen, of old age. Benjamin Martin (Gibson's character) is based on at least 4 different men including "Swamp Fox" Francis Marion. The British General Cornwallis, his real name was used. Cornwallis' second-in-command the Brigadier General Charles O'Hara was also a real person. The American General Gates that ran from his post and left Martin's friend Harry (who was also based on a real officer by the name of "Light Horse Harry" Lee) in charge, his real name was used. The traitor who left the Americans and burned the church was eventually known as Benedict Arnold and he also died in England, but decades sooner than Tarleton did and he died of illness, in some debt, and his name tarnished, somewhat even in England, for all time. His name is even a nickname for traitors and betrayals here in the US. American General Nathaniel Greene, who you saw discussing strategy before the big battle at Cowpens, was a real person. American General George Washington, who Gabriel saw briefly early in the film as a regular soldier (the same man who became our 1st President later in his life), his real name was used. I'm probably missing a few, and as you can see some of the characters are re-named for this film, as I pointed out on my list when needed. The film was pretty fun. So yeah, unfortunately, there are people or situations in life where words are no longer sufficient for. In these situations, war is sometimes necessary to produce change. A senseless war is a war that never ends because of trivial reasons or a failure to even attempt to talk about anything first, and the deaths keep accumulating needlessly because of this senseless war. However, a war for freedom, or to take down a monster (like Hitler in WW2, or the Ukraine-Russia war) has purpose, meaning, and was proven to be necessary. I don't care how many of your friends say otherwise, the fact is, we can't have everything in life go our way, peace is not always the way to solve these global issues, especially when one side makes it unfeasible by pushing too far. War is very costly, people will die, but that's just the way it is.
My grandfatherx8 Robert Partin, father of Britain Parton, was a British captain who was hung in Edgefield, SC by the Swamp Fox. That's through my Mom's dad's dad's side, but even stranger, on his mom's and grandmother's, my grandfatherx7 is Robert Mercer/Messer. A colonial captain who was hung in NC. I found all this out taking a DNA test.
I love your reactions and how intuitive you are to American cinima....never stop...and continue viewing....you two reign and make my cinema viewing more enjoyable
Hi my two Angela! It's Hela and Chi, yes? You are so gentle and sweet but as you watch the movie you say, Kill Him, Kill Him! So funnr! This is why ì love watching you! There are others on line but you are the best! ❤❤❤
Your personalities and they way you compliment each other's spirit reminds me so much of Michelle and Ellie from The Homies, two other empathic reaction ladies with good moral compasses. Hella and Ellie are understandably and justifiably often crying where appropriate, while Chi and Michelle are usually calm and collected with stiff upper lips (a phrase for keeping the emotions under the surface instead of shown), while verbally expressing distain for evil calmly.
Your reaction was great! The storytelling is good and the characters are awesome! What more can you ask for from a movie! I was entertained by you girls comments and reactions! Thanks for sharing Chi and Hella ❤️💛
That's the difficulty of raising good men... his son wants to fight because he's a good man, he heads back to war because he's a good man, he fights for his nation because he's a good man... the father us upset because he knows the dangers of war and is blinded by his love for his son... he can't see how brave of a man it is that he raised and for that, he should be damn proud.
22:00 Europeans all fought like this back then, it’s “ceremonial”. You just stood in a field and shot at each other. The Americans took lessons from the various Native American tribes style of fighting which is closer to modern tactics
Before the Revolution, America wasn't it's own country, it was a colony of the British and the people who lived there considered themselves British citizens. Things were going well until several wars broke out on the American continent between France and Britain. Britain won but nearly bankrupted the government in the process, they had to generate money quickly so they imposed a series of taxes on their American colony. The problem with that is under British law, the government wasn't allowed to tax you unless you had representation in Parliament which the colony did not have. That's why you hear people saying "No taxation without representation" in the movie and why that phrase was so used during the Revolution. Here's where things get complicated. In that time period it took months to cross the Atlantic Ocean separating the the colony and Britain and the number of representatives you had in Parliament was determined by how many landowners your area had. In Britain only the wealthy could afford land since many of them were descendants of feudal lords during the Middle ages. Almost everybody in the American colony was a land owner so if Britain followed through with giving the colony representation, the colony would have more representation than its parent country! So on one side, you had the American colony who was angry that their rights were being violated, on the other you had Britain who couldn't give in to their demands without losing control of their country. America was willing to compromise but the British attitude was that the colony was beneath them so weren't willing to budge. So Americans became angrier and angrier as Britain tried to impose one tax after the other, which led to America rebelling and the Revolutionary War. Hope that helps explain some of what was going on and sparked this whole thing.
That was how wars were fought from the beginning of large group warfare... we lined up against each other on an open field and marched or ran towards each other until we had engaged with one another, and then whoever was left standing at the end was the winner. Then we invented guns, and even tho they were fairly inaccurate, one shot was almost always death, and you didn't need to be big and strong or particularly gifted to operate one. front loaded black powder rifles were very easy to learn how to use, and were used by literally everyone. The European aristocracy, still being in charge, never bothered to try to fight another way. So, when the United States was just an idea, and we were still a part of the British Crown, we fought like the European aristocracy. After the invention of the Minie Ball, those front loaded black powder rifles turned reliably accurate, and warfare began to change. Now that you could reliably hit what you were aimed at over longer distances, the use of cover from oncoming fire became a thing. Then the repeating Gatling Gun was invented. And now we can drop a Precision Guided Munition from an unmanned drone 30,000 feet in the air and kill someone hiding in an underground bunker on the other side of the world. Progress.
Something to remember, something similar to this did, play out. Amazing men, women and children fought and died for what we are today.. Too often now, we let their memory down, and disgrace ourselves. younger generations know nothing of this, and society takes the fall. We have forgotten the face of our fathers......
Actually the war really didn't end until 4 years later and that was after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. Except Cornwallis's surrender symbolized how the British lost the momentum and for the British went from a war to subdue a rebellion to a war to keep whatever they can keep which turned out to be Canada. In 1812 the British tried to reclaim the United States as a British possession but that too ended in disaster for the British. What made it worse was that they realized Americans were in fact a separate people from the British and a people that are in fact willing to fight and die to preserve their liberties. The British will make more attempts to reclaim the USA but they all failed. Someone correct me if this is inaccurate but I believe there last attempt was during the American Civil War when the British tried to support the Southern States and that failed because after the disastrous defeat of the Confederate troops in Gettysburg Pennsylvania the Confederate Army lost it's momentum and slowly became a shell of what it was in the beginning of the Civil War. That's the last attempt I know of.
We tried to do this in Vietnam exactly what we did in America against the British… but we were confused and not well informed of the situation. We messed everything up.. but our intention was to help, not to hurt.. definitely not to hurt. We love our Vietnamese ❤
This is so cool of you two for watching a movie touching a crucial piece our nation's history and how we fought to be free of British rule. The Patriot isn't very accurate in aspects of the Revolutionary War, but it did give us insight into what the colonies went through to win our Independence. And it is a fantastic movie. I adore your reactions. You ladies feel things deeply which is beautiful to behold.
Fun fact: A lot of the "Loyalists" aka Colonists/Americans that fought against the Colonial/American army on behalf of the British went north after the war and became Canadian and fought the USA again in 1812.
Reasons for the red coat:
1. Historically, being able to field a uniformed army was a sign of power and could rout enemies at the sight of them because it suggested they were all regulars. This occurred during the English Civil War with the New Model Army, probably the first fully professional army in the early modern era. Previously, people would be levies and turn up in whatever, you see that with the militiamen here in this film who wear ordinary clothing except for the officers.
2. Red dye was cheap and easily available in Britain, but relatively expensive in many other parts of the world. This gave the impression that the army was not only fully professional and trained, but had enormous amounts of money spent on them.
3. In long campaigns, the dye would fade to being brown, so it was practically perfect. First arrival on scene, huge, striking, morale affecting on the enemy. Then if the war drags on, it becomes more and more camoflagued.
4. Some people argue it prevented the sight of their own blood when shot, which was important for morale and confused and frightened enemy soldiers.
5. During the musket era, smoke from the guns would quickly obscure the red anyway.
6. By the time of repeater rifles, the redcoat was already a symbol of British power and authority.
7. It was eventually dropped when machine guns became more normal as no longer practical.
Officers (even in the US Army) wore maroon sashes as a quick way to bind wounds and cover the bloodstains. But as for red coats turning brown, no, that's not accurate. The British soldiers had to spend a great deal of energy and time keeping their coats red and their leathers pipeclayed white as per regulations. Uniformity was a plus as intimidation in battle. As a front rank thinned, the others would step up and fill in. If everyone was wearing their own choice of color, or even different shades of red, the casualties were more obvious while a solid wall being presented obscured losses. I have yet to see any reference to "red coats fading to brown".
Cromwell wanted blue coats but there was no blue dye available....its that's simple, no other fancy reason.
George Washington wrote extensively about militias and how they should be trained, uniformed and ready to take orders in the field. He was a guy that ended up having to command them and he didnt care to use them as cannon fodder and for the most part that's all they were good for.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523
Mollo, John (1972). Military Fashion
Is the source. It could well be wrong though.
Why do you think the Canadian RCMP wear red?...it's the old affiliations to England.
My Scottish ancestor Shadrach Duff died on the steps of the courthouse in the battle at the end of the movie when Cornwallis ordered his canons to fire on both the Americans and the British. That engagement was called the Battle of Guilford Courthouse March 15, 1781. He had two children who had to become indentured servants until one was 18 and the other 21. Life was harsh back then.
A great many of the people living on the American frontier were formerly indentured servants who migrated west for "free land" and less regulation.
I honor Shadrach Duff, one of many Americans throughout history that have given their lives for the cause of freedom.
That's amazing lineage. Bless you and your family.
Cornwallis actually won the Battle of Guilford Courthouse but his casualties were so high that he had to withdraw first to Wilmington, NC then to Yorktown. I was confused at first about the battle scene in the movie. I also thought it was the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, but as it turns out it's supposed to be the Battle of Cowpens. Cornwallis was not at Cowpens. The commander there was Tarleton. Cornwallis was at Guilford Courthouse but Tarleton was not. The Patriots won the Battle of Cowpens but were defeated at Guilford Courthouse. The movie mixes both battles into one.
@@johannesvalterdivizzini1523 Dude, people who lived on the frontier didn't care about "regulations." You're just projecting Republican talking points onto people who would have had no connection to them because you think it somehow gives them legitimacy.
You need to create a Movie Munchie's “Chi’s Go To Hell Count”. I think it might be over 10 by now
"This is more like a shooting contest than a war.".
That sounds about right😂😂😂
Yep too bad gerilla tactics took ages to learn by Europeans
Choosing to not fight isn't always the most peaceful decision
We are coming closer and closer to this again...
Facts, having this never fight mentality in every conflict situation is how you wind up being forced onto a train that goes to certain camps.
@@Lbdataz1469 there’s a reason no society has ever been like this 😂 it’s only pacifists sitting in industrial society being protected by others who say it
That's always been that way, its where the ancient saying comes from, "If peple want peace, they mksut be prepared for war." Or "A wise man never seeks out war, but must always be ready for it."
Kind of why some of the most relaxed most chill people in the world are probably blackbelts who could incapacitate you in three moves or less, they jsut dont advertise that they can.
Chi: ..."old men talking, young men die." I don't think I've ever heard a more succinct description of war.
Pretty sure that's a quote from FDR
These girls are scary smart. Their commentary is excellent.
Isn't that from Troy
@@SethBarbrick Troy got it from Franklin D. Roosevelt
@@sana-cm7oc bruh this is like the most basic modern isolated society interpretation of war ever 🤣 I swear to God your bar is so low it’s in the floor
Chi has such a bloodlust lool she says about Cornwallis:"This guy has to die too" lool
Weirdly enough i like that about chi lol.
He's a good villain. If the audience hates him, then the writer(s) did a good job.
She just says out loud what everybody thinks. It's called hating villains. LOL.
Do not sis-respect the Viet-Con! ;)
Wolf Style Diplomacy 😂
Chi and general Hella drink in hand directing the battle
It's important to remember this is a fictional movie about a father and his sons, based loosely on historical events but it's not a historical film exactly
I really like the respect you two show for parents and elders. It shows that you were raised with exceptional values.
Vietnamese culture 🧫❤!
Warfare of that time does look very strange to us today, but there are good reasons why they had to fight that way.
This was before the days of rapid fire guns and radio, so the only way to receive orders, act with purpose, and have organized firepower was to stand shoulder to shoulder like that.
The goal in those days was to panic the enemy and cause him to run so that your horsemen could charge in and cut down the fleeing soldiers safely.
Wow, I'm over 40 y.o. and I never thought of it that way. Had focus on the Revolutionary War in middle school history class and a U.S. history class in HS, but don't remember a reason for the seemingly dumb tactic of marching to your death, but makes perfect sense hah
@@OptimusPrimeribs Yeah, except for guerilla style hit and run ambushes, trying to spread out and take cover would've been a more sure fire way of dying back then.
When Susan says Papa always gets my eyes sweaty 😢 I knew it would get to both of you sweet ladies.
@@davestang5454 I looked it up "On July 19, 2014, Bartusiak died at the age of 21 in her apartment behind her parents' Houston home. While her mother, shortly after Bartusiak's death, stated she believed that her daughter's history of epileptic seizures may have had a role in her death, the coroner ruled the death resulted from an accidental drug overdose."
"You must understand the love of your father for you" you girls are the sweetest human beings, you earned a new subscriber 😊
Thank you 🙏 😀
@@Movie.Munchies He's so strict. He HAD to be, life was so much more unforgiving then as contrasted with now, people back then were a lot more disciplined out of necessity.
@@Movie.Munchies Late to this, I realize, and I'd imagine that someone has already mentioned this, but they would hang King George in effigy which is just a fancy way of saying they were hanging puppets. They were actually quite aggressive to the King's tax collectors, in one case the Sons of Liberty tore down a tax collector's house brick by brick.
@@Movie.Munchies Where he asked permission to write Ann, it was a joke where the father was acting like he said RIDE Ann. Now that joke, such as it is, probably would've never been made in that era.
@@Movie.Munchies Benjamin Martin melting down those lead soldiers to make musket balls. After the Declaration of Independence, the Americans pulled down a statue of King George III and melted that down to make ammunition out of.
Those men were called Minutemen. They could assemble in minutes and ride into battle. Now, our intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles are all called Minutemen 2 missiles. They can strike anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.
Just standing outside those silos make me feel uneasy and make my butthole pucker...very intimidating😊
I'm pretty confident that the US uses minutemen 3 missiles, not 2. Although i may be wrong.
@Zyxi7 there's some still going through transition to the 3's and it's almost done.
@@Zyxi7 you are, we only have Minutemen 2's. At the moment.
Minutemen were New England militia that were prepared before the war broke out and engaged in the first battles at Lexington and concord. By this point these are just militia and regulars.
Oh wow, a Movie Munchies-video that is over an hour long. I love this!
I love it too that they don't just make a 45 minute video out of long movie. Seems like they are at least trying to make at the minimum of half of the movie shown in these reactions.
And since they make a lot of comments during the movies (in the past maybe sometimes even too much 😀 but they've gotten much better with that 😉) I think there's no question if it belongs in to the Fair Use so no production should ever have anything to complain about these reactions.
Actually I think these girls are probably making a lot of more money for these productions with their high quality reactions so they should keep doing these longer reactions without any worries about someone trying to take down their videos. But they should still keep having their patrion versions.
Thanks for these reactions, girls and regards from Finland 🇫🇮❤☺
Now if you watch "Firefly" one of the best American Sci-fi TV shows, you'll see Adam Baldwin (the loyalist) in his finest role that isn't "Animal Mother" from Full Metal Jacket.
I forgot he was Animal Mother in FMJ, he'll always be the Hero of Canton to me haha
I like to think Jayne Cobb is a descendant of Animal Mother.
@@johnfriday5169 Ya know, I never thought of linking the 2, but I can definitely see it haha
The armies lined up on the battlefield like that because of how the firearms were designed. The barrels lacked something called rifling, which are twisting grooves on the inside of the barrel that cause the projectile to spin when fired, drastically increasing accuracy and trajectory. These are just small musket balls so there's little to no accuracy. The only hope they have at hitting anything is to stand in a giant wall and trade volleys of fire. Very brutal age for the infancy of firearms.
@@thecatthinks Based on hand written accounts from the revolutionary war all the way to the Napoleonic wars. Yes. Line battles were fought like that and had nothing to do with soldier intelligence but simple physics. Even back in pike and shot warfare of the late medieval age, soldiers stood in giant groups and volley fired. Not a coincidence it stopped the moment rifling became standardized. Read a history book or journals from the officers of the day.
@thecatthinks in Napoleonic warfare? Yes, they indeed lined up, granted different formations for different instances, but yeah mainly line and kneel for the second row volley or second rank step through and volley. Small skirmishes would compromise of a fire and reload in a single line.
@@thecatthinks How would they fight then? Educate us
@thecatthinks As others have already pointed out, yes, wars were absolutely were fought in this manner. Napoleonic tactics and victory by attrition was the standard all the way through to the American Civil War. They were still even used after the rifled musket had been invented.
That's why the ACW was such a God awful, bloody bloodbath. In fact, there were so many casualties sustained in the ACW, that America's just recently caught up to the number of casualties sustained by all other subsequent conflicts it's been involved in since then.
@@thecatthinks Why do people say stuff so confidently when they clearly know nothing about it?
@4:22 Burning those "puppets" is referring to as burning someone in effigy. It's a symbolic thing. It was more common during this time frame than now but I think it still occasionally occurs.
Being from Vietnam I presume they would fully understand effigy burning as it's part of the modern culture there.
It still occurs in the Middle East where some countries burn American flags and Presidents in effigy to protest when the US is involved in a conflict over there. It was very common in 1979 and a few years later when the Ayatollah Khomeni took over Iran and held American people hostage at the US embassy in Tehran. Many of his followers protested that way for years.
Ah, that scene always makes me tear up of the little girl Susan begging him not to leave her. "Tell me what you want me to say, I'll say anything you want me to say." She's just dealing with the loss of the people around her and not wanting to lose her father as well. Probably doesn't want to say 'Goodbye' because it sounds so final.
That young actress died in real life sadly. 😢
I know... I watched this movie with a bunch of my chick friends a while back... they had never seen me cry before but this movies just so darn beautifully done.
@@KMEnterprise Aw, I had no idea. I was going to look up the cast after I watched this reaction because I thought, for a kid, she really did an exceptional job. Skye Bartusiak, gone at just 21 years old. That's terrible.
@@codyritner3826 I was crying just writing this the other day. I'm a guy too, but I'm pretty in touch with my own emotions. Hella crying like she did was precious, I appreciate her emotion.
@@LucidDream absolutely man. I don't cry much in life ever, when my best friend killed himself, I cried for like a week before coming to terms with it but that scene with the little girl is beautiful. If you don't cry at that, you're a psychopath.
I love watching the most BEAUTIFUL reactors watch American films. Thank you, ladies. Just, thank you.
So nice to say this thank you!
@@Movie.Munchies When you two said hello, everyone it was almost like harmony. Have you guys considered trying to sing a song together?
@@Movie.Munchies They did an excellent job with the lighting in this movie.
@@Movie.Munchies Young death was common then because they lacked the vaccines and treatments we have now.
It's probably been mentioned before, but the inspiration for Mel Gibsons character was a real life hero named Francis Marrion, AKA The Swamp Fox.
@@davestang5454 Is that the one near the ocean with the pentagon design, large walls, and chambers within the walls?
1st timer. Great reaction! Your empathetic attitudes were beautiful to watch in a World that could use alot more of it. Keep it going and Good Luck in the future!!!
I see some similarities between this movie and the Gladiator.
• Their son was murdered.
• Both have a face-to-face with their son's killer where they proclaim a vow of vengeance.
• Both end up killing their son's killer by stabbing them in the throat with a dagger type weapon.
• Both movies released the same year. The Patriot was released about 3 months before the Gladiator.
Gibson was born in the US and was accepted by Aussie's as Australian till the whole Anti-Semetic remark ordeal and now don't claim him anymore saying he's a "Yank".
@@leefischer5814 So people saying he was "Australian" were saying so tongue-in-cheek, or were misguided?
@@Gutslinger black folks were proud of Tiger Woods to when he was on top, till he had some scandal then he was "Asian". Gibson left the US when he was 5 and grew up in Australia till the popularity of Mad Max brought him back to the US. They also claimed Russel Crowe, though every Aussie knew he was a Kiwi (New Zealander).
@@leefischer5814 I see.. Well, that certainly causes confusion.
@@Gutslinger no doubt and it's even weird when some people don't know Elon Musk wasn't from the US or John Candy or Jim Carrey. Not sure if any have citizenship or keep paying for that work Visa... except Candy, obviously.
Reasons for why armies of this time period fought like that.
1. There are no radios. Officers have to issue orders via shouting, flags, drums and other instruments. Troops had to be formed up so close together to actually see and hear their orders.
2. Muskets are inaccurate and slow to reload. Trying to hit anything past about 80 metres was extremely difficult. Having the men grouped up into dense lines like that maximized the chances of hitting a target. A literal wall of lead. Most soldiers would be able to load and fire 3 shots in a minute but that assumes a calm environment. In battlefield conditions the rate of fire would drop significantly, usually to only 1 round per minute. So to get around the low rate of fire officers would usually have the first line of men step to the side or kneel after firing to allow the second to fire, while the third rank (line) of men handed the ranks in front of them loaded muskets to fire while they recieved fired muskets to reload. The process would thus be repeated. This allowed for a workaround regarding the slow rate of fire of muskets.
3. Defense against cavalry. Scattered infantry are easy targets for horsemen. Being formed up into line formations allowed them to unleash concentrated volleys of musket fire. If the cavalry attempted to flank the formations then the infantry would form a square with bayonets fixed. The all round defense allowed the men to fire in all directions and prevented actual charges from forming. Horses are not stupid and will not charge directly into a wall of bayonets. Only the most aggressive horses and suicidal riders would charge down infantry squares.
And just to clear up a few myths. The British did use specialists whose job was to specifically target officers and spread out and use cover. These light infantry skirmishers wore camouflaged uniforms and used rifles. Rifles of the time were more accurate and have greater range but had a greater misfire rate and were more expensive to manufacture and maintain. Hence only the elite skirmishers using them until the mid 1800s.
The idea of the Americans being the first to use this type of warfare is a propaganda myth spread after the war. The French had light infantry skirmishers, the British did, the Russians, Austrians, Prussians, all of them.
The militia lost almost every single battle they fought against the British regulars. George Washington even has several famous quotes regarding the unreliability of the militia. He complains in one that they break far too easily and often refuse to listen to orders. He viewed them as expendable cannon fodder. The actual regular American army, the continentals, were trained by Frenchmen and Prussians and was turned into a proper fighting force able to take on the British in open combat.
The French were involved from the very start of the conflict. They provided the majority of the Americans' weapons, uniforms and gunpowder and sent advisers to help train the American army. Fredrick the Great of Prussia even remarked that Britain should have launched an attack on the French fleet before the war dragged on for too long. Britain eventually also had to fight the Spanish, French and Dutch besides the colonists. The Americans did not beat Britain on their own.
If you taken your time to read this then thank you.
The British did have a revolutionary rifle that was years ahead of its time, Ferguson rifle. The Ferguson rifle was invented by Patrick Ferguson, who was killed in the Battle of Kings Mountain. The rifle was a breach loader and could fire as fast as the smooth bore muskets yet hit a target 300 yards away. There were some British sharp shooter units equipped with Ferguson Rifles but not enough to make a big difference in battles. I don't know why England did not adopt the Ferguson as standard issue.
@@mikealvarez2322Economics if I had to guess. It was cheaper to equip soldiers with other weapons. We see this repeated across history. That and resistance to change. The effectiveness of semi-automatic rifles and sub-machine guns over bolt action rifles were apparent very early but armies were still mostly equipped with the former. Even the Americans were somewhat slow in adopting the Garand.
You actually had a solid grip in the first half of your comment: explaining tactics like line formations, musket limitations, and defense against cavalry was insightful and well-written. But then you took a sharp nosedive into "America didn’t really win" territory, making excuses for Britain and downplaying American achievements. Let’s break down this condescending mess of half-truths and smug revisionism at the latter part of your comment, piece by piece:
Light infantry skirmishers and rifles: Yes, Britain had light infantry, and while they occasionally experimented with rifles during the Revolutionary War, these were neither widespread nor central to their strategy, as the majority of British forces relied on smoothbore muskets. In contrast, American sharpshooters like Morgan’s Riflemen effectively used long rifles, such as the Pennsylvania or Kentucky Rifle, known for their superior accuracy and range. These riflemen played a critical role in key battles like Saratoga, where their precision disrupted British leadership and contributed to one of the war’s most decisive victories, showing how Americans effectively leveraged this technology while the British largely stuck to conventional tactics.
"The Americans didn’t invent guerilla warfare": No one said they did, Einstein. The key is how effectively Americans used it. Guerilla tactics by militias disrupted British supply lines, ambushed troops, and bled them dry in battles like Lexington and Concord. Sure, other nations had skirmishers, but the Americans popularized these tactics in this war, making them central to their success.
"Militia were unreliable cannon fodder": Washington criticized militias, but painting them as useless is nonsense. Militia forces played critical roles in numerous battles, including the pivotal Battle of Cowpens, where they outmaneuvered Tarleton’s troops with a strategic feigned retreat. Far from "expendable cannon fodder," militias were essential in complementing the Continental Army’s efforts.
"The French did all the work": Oh, the French helped with gunpowder and some training? Welcome to how alliances work in wars. Britain wasn’t alone either, they relied heavily on loyalists, Hessians, and Native allies. But let’s be clear: the French didn’t win the war for America. The Battle of Yorktown, the final blow to British forces, succeeded because of combined American and French efforts. It was Washington’s leadership and American troops on the ground that sealed Cornwallis’s fate, not just French fleets waving from the Chesapeake.
"Britain was fighting everyone else": And whose fault was that? Maybe Britain shouldn’t have spent decades antagonizing France, Spain, and the Dutch while treating its colonies like second-class citizens. If the British Empire couldn’t handle the heat, that’s a reflection on them, not America. Crying "we were spread thin" after losing your biggest colony is hardly a defense, it’s an excuse.
"Americans didn’t beat Britain on their own": Nobody seriously claims they fought in isolation. But dismissing the Revolutionary War as "just France and others beating Britain" is absurd. Without American resilience, strategy, and leadership, no amount of French aid would have mattered. America didn’t just win battles, they orchestrated a global effort against Britain. That’s called playing smart, not losing.
In short, your argument is a masterclass in missing the point. No victory in history happens in a vacuum, and alliances don’t diminish success-they amplify it. America didn’t just survive the war; it reshaped the world order. But hey, keep downplaying that-whatever helps you sleep at night.
I just now realized that the guy who played the reverend also played Odo in the TV show Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Mel Gibson does military roles very well. He was also in Vietnam War movie called We Were Soldiers. It's about the very first battle between the US and Vietnam. The Ia Drang valley battle.
The best war movie ever in my opinion.
@@johnfriday5169love that movie!! I really liked how it showed that the Vietnamese fighters weren’t inherently evil, they were fighting for their land and to have the right to align with whomever they chose. It also showed that while they were brutal so were we when it came to our tactics. And how the Vietnamese commander was essentially on par with Gibsons character, they weren’t just some backwater farmers , they were organized, disciplined and worthy of respect as warriors willing to die for what they thought was right for their country. Ironically the American government sent thousands of our young men to die against an enemy that used tactics not too far off from what we used against the British in order to secure our own sovereignty. They sent a bunch of drafted 18-25 years olds to fight against a people that were fighting for their land/home, that shit was never going to work and is one of the worst decisions we have ever made as a society.
One of the best war movies ever made!
The Son that was stabbed, is played by Heath Ledger. Heath is FANTASTIC in "A Knights Tale" I highly recommend it.
Even better as the Joker in The Dark Knight.
My favorite "guilty pleasure" movie.
@@davestang5454 According to wikipedia, the actress who played Susan died of a drug overdose.
"Now you've got the consequences of the thing that you created." Damn. Never have I heard a more succinct and accurate summation of the British in the American Revolution.
1:16:17 To say goodbye we say "au revoir"! (until we see each other again)
Two well made films dealing with American history that you will enjoy are "The Last of the Mohicans" on the colonial era Seven Years W.ar / French & Indian War from 1756-1763 and also "The Outlaw Josey Wales" with Clint Eastwood on the American Civil War & its tyrannical aftermath from 1861-1868.
"The Last of the Mohicans" defiantly.
You ladies are great reactors. Even without English as a first language you pick up on more nuances and details than a lot of American watchers.
They stood in big lines because fighting back then was about showing you have more people. you would march at the enemy and hope they would just run away, but if they didn't both sides would start firing. until one side starts to get hit a lot, gets scared and decides to run away.
it's very hard to keep 4,000 people organized and not shooting at each other, so they had to stay in big groups
There's not very many movies that cover the American Revolutionary War, probably because America used a Fabian strategy to achieve victory. (wear down your opponent through attrition, and destroy their home economy by forcing them to support expensive supply lines, rather than defeating them on the battlefield) We only won a handful of the battles against the British, but we won the most important one - the last one. Coincidentally, it's very similar to how Vietnam fought against America.
So Americans are proud of our country for the same reasons that both of you are. We took on the dominant world power at the time, and we won our freedom.
As for the best American Civil War movie, I'm almost evenly split between "Glory" and "Gettysburg." Both are historically accurate, very informative, and entertaining.
The anger towards King George really was a multitude of different policies all having to do with the French and Indian war which was costly to the British Government. It has been argued that it was the very first world war which tells you how costly it was. Pretty much everywhere there was a British or French colony the war expanded to. So that gets pretty costly because you need troops and warships to fight that not including material and supplies. So, who ends paying the bill? The Americans did through all kinds of taxation from tea to stamps. Yes, you read that correctly even tea was taxed. It didn't stop there American families were also forced to house British Soldiers and the families had to feed and clothe them British Soldiers were given authority to arrest and even search homes without legal authority, which today we call a warrant. In other words they didn't need suspicion to arrest you just hearing you say something they didn't like was enough to get you arrested and your house searched. It was a whole list of things. You can actually find the full list of grievances on the Declaration of Independence there were 27 total grievances we had against King George.
If you are interested in more movies about the Vietnam war I highly recommend "we were soldiers" which also stars Mel Gibson. One of the few that at least makes some effort to portray the North Vietnamese side of things a bit.
The only problem is these young women cheer against the Americans, fighting alongside the Southern Vietnamese, not the Communist and the Chinese. Check out earlier reactions if you do not believe me.
I don't see that as a problem. Everyone Cheers for their home team and I've seen their other reactions. They've never been disparaging towards the Americans who fought in Vietnam.
What was the home team again, the Communists or the Southern Vietnamese. Clearly it was a messy war politically, but unless the history Americans have been taught is a complete fabrication. The Americans were helping millions of Vietnamese fight Communists-Americans were fighting Vietnamese, but Communist aligned Vietnamese. Alight with the USSR, China, Cuba. Tens of thousands of Americans died and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese in a losing war against the Communists. That’s my take, what’s yours?!? Go Communists?!? It’s not so bad.
@Gregory-my5vv maybe you need to see someone else's perspective on worldviews
Apocalypse Now would be the best reaction.
The statue of liberty was a gift from the french . The statue originally was brown as well
I saw this movie in theaters, Jason Isaacs as Col. Tavington is one of those villains you love to hate everyone in the theater clapped and cheered when he finally died.
If you Ladies had joined the ranks of the soldiers in the beginning, the film would have been over in 5 mins 🤣
All these conflicts are the result of the maintenance of empire. The French helped America gain its independence to strengthen itself in relation to Britain, but the debts France accumulated would then lead to their own revolution about a decade later. Then a little less than 200 years after that, America would assist France in their colonial project in Vietnam. That was obviously more about the U.S. fear of the spread of Communism than it was about the interests of the French. Regardless, the tactics used by France, and the U.S. in Vietnam were arguably far more brutal than those used by the British in America.
Mel Gibson's character represents a real historical patriot named General Francis Marion who was strategic in planning ambushes against the British and he vanished into the swamps of South Carolina. The British named him Swamp Fox .
during the wars in this time of Era would been the late 17th Century, Line fire was a column of 5 to 10 row of soldiers marching and standing there reloading their muskets then firing again and the row behind them fires to give them enough time to reload, they didn't Run nor retreat, they stood their ground not daring to put one step away from the battle.
the Patriot is a lovely movie and i have always adored it.
So you ladies have watched 2 Mel Gibson movies: Braveheart and this
And one directed by him: Apocalypto
Please watch Signs and We were Soldiers
All titles are excellent
People like Captain Williams were not traitors they just didn't want to break away from England. The US was divided on the issue. It was the same in the US war in Vietnam. Many South Vietnamese people did not want to join the North under Communism. The US sadly got in the middle of that dispute resulting in the tragedy that was the Vietnam War. It is heartbreaking to know that thousands, if not over a million innocent people had to die because of politics.
Another parallel to Vietnam is the fact that very young people (teenagers) had to fight in the War.
Chi and Hella, it was so heartwarming to hear you be concerned about the kids back home. It was the same concern I had for the American soldier's families that never made it home and for the families in Vietnam that suffered so much during your War of Independence. BTW, my best friend served 2 tours of duty in Vietnam and died in 1997 as a result of that war. I know the Vietnamese people continue to suffer from the same chemical that killed my friend, Agent Orange.
It is sickening how the government refused to take any responsability for their own soldiers who were poisoned by Agent Orange. If they acknowledged what it did to American soldiers and properly conpensated them, then they would eventually have had to also pay compensation to all their Veitnamese victims. And we all know the state isn't forking over that kind of cash.
I've enjoyed this film for many years; it's brilliantly done.
At the film's start, the Benjamin Martin character is wildly opposed to war with the British. A huge part of it is his desire to protect his family from the war's devastation (a fear which is justified).
As the story unfolds, we learn that he's not only very intelligent and a supremely talented military battle planner... but also that he has a dark side that is incredibly scary and powerful, that emerges in combat. This side helped him smash his enemies in the previous war, the 'French and Indian War,' (in this film, called 'the Wilderness Campaign), and then (later) to kill a squad of 20 troops (to rescue his eldest son) with only his pre-teen sons for assistance.
Martin has spent years trying to move on from that earlier Dark period of his life (trying instead to raise his sons and to do carpentry); he doesn't want that part of himself to emerge again, or for his sons to see it (which they do, when he hacks the British officer into pieces). (I think it's this reason - the desire to separate his current self from his Dark past-self, that is the actual main reason that Martin opposes the new war.). But with this story, it turns out that his Dark Side, coupled with his military brilliance, are what the American side needed all along, to win one of the most important wars in history.
Glad to see you got around to watching the Patriot. Cannot wait to see your Star Wars reaction.
I actually have ancestry from colonial Virginia and the house and property my grandmother was born on almost 100 years ago is very similar to the house at the beginning of the movie. So this movie reminds me of my own heritage.
I also recommend A Knight’s Tale and The Fifth Element in addition to the Star Wars series (just remember to watch episodes 4, 5 and 6 before 1, 2 and 3.
Also the reason why the rebel wounded were killed is because the British viewed them as traitors, not enemy soldiers.
That being said the atrocities committed by the British never happened. While I like Mel Gibson, he has a hatred of the English because they deported his Irish ancestors to Australia back when Australia was a penal colony.
Cornwallis had zero tolerance for brutality or atrocities committed by his soldiers and if any of his officers had deliberately harmed any civilian, let alone a child, Cornwallis would’ve had such officer hanged.
The church burning is actually based on an event that occurred in Nazi Germany, not an actual event in the American Revolution
Benjamin Martin is styled after Francis Marion, "The Swamp Fox". Francis had a nephew by his brother, named Gabriel. Colonel Tavington is styled after Lt. Colonel Banistre Tarleton, a Brithish Dragoon serving under Cornwallis. The final battle in the film is patterned after the Battle of the Cowpens in South Carolina, in which Tarleton's command was decimated and routed. The film's terrain is completely different, but the tactics are similar. It is believed to be the American Army's first example of a "defense in depth".
My ancestors fought on both sides. This was a civil war. Especially in the south.
Treasonous southerners
To call it a civil war ignores that it was truly revolutionary.
This was a revolution against Britain, not a secession. And it was a revolution from North to South. All 13 colonies participated.
Omg I cried like 3 times watching this with you girls.
My favorite movie munchies are back. I always wait for the brutal nature of Chi and empathy of Hela. Both so beautiful with their reactions ❤❤❤
00:55
By the way, dearest Hela, if you wanna learn more about History, go to the books.
Hollywood movies are just for entertainment and take a lot of (propagandistic) liberties while "adapting" the stories.
The result are as amazing as entertaining and thrilling, however, they are mere tales.
I truly admire your intelligence and wit, please don't be offended in any way.
*People who are not Hella or Chi can come and tell me whatever they want. Ideas are spooky for the sheep herd.
At 7 minutes that was the way European Armies fought. It was in line formation and it was always in mass. As a result, if you were in the Infantry, on either side American or British, chances were good you were getting shot if you were lucky and killed if you were not lucky. You will hear Mel Gibson's character talk about how this was madness and it was true it was because one of the lessons the Americans had to learn at this point in the war was that they didn't have the training nor the ability to replace their losses like the British did. Several leaders including General Washington knew this and adapted in several ways, for Washington he needed help from a Prussian General named Von Steubon and a French Aristocrat named Lafayette who taught the Continental Army how to properly soldier. In the south Generals, such as Gates and Nathaniel Greene, took their Militia and Continental soldiers and learned to use Guerilla Warfare which involved sneak attacks, raids, and hit and run tactics.
There are no radios. Officers have to issue orders via shouting, flags, drums and other instruments. Troops had to be formed up so close together to actually see and hear their orders.
2. Muskets are inaccurate and slow to reload. Trying to hit anything past about 80 metres was extremely difficult. Having the men grouped up into dense lines like that maximized the chances of hitting a target. A literal wall of lead. Most soldiers would be able to load and fire 3 shots in a minute but that assumes a calm environment. In battlefield conditions the rate of fire would drop significantly, usually to only 1 round per minute. So to get around the low rate of fire officers would usually have the first line of men step to the side or kneel after firing to allow the second to fire, while the third rank (line) of men handed the ranks in front of them loaded muskets to fire while they recieved fired muskets to reload. The process would thus be repeated. This allowed for a workaround regarding the slow rate of fire of muskets.
3. Defense against cavalry. Scattered infantry are easy targets for horsemen. Being formed up into line formations allowed them to unleash concentrated volleys of musket fire. If the cavalry attempted to flank the formations then the infantry would form a square with bayonets fixed. The all round defense allowed the men to fire in all directions and prevented actual charges from forming. Horses are not stupid and will not charge directly into a wall of bayonets. Only the most aggressive horses and suicidal riders would charge down infantry squares.
And just to clear up a few myths. The British did use specialists whose job was to specifically target officers and spread out and use cover. These light infantry skirmishers wore camouflaged uniforms and used rifles. Rifles of the time were more accurate and have greater range but had a greater misfire rate and were more expensive to manufacture and maintain. Hence only the elite skirmishers using them until the mid 1800s.
The idea of the Americans being the first to use this type of warfare is a propaganda myth spread after the war. The French had light infantry skirmishers, the British did, the Russians, Austrians, Prussians, all of them.
The militia lost almost every single battle they fought against the British regulars. George Washington even has several famous quotes regarding the unreliability of the militia. He complains in one that they break far too easily and often refused to listen to orders. He viewed them as expendable cannon fodder. The actual regular American army, the continentals, were trained by Frenchmen and Prussians, as you said, and was turned into a proper fighting force able to take on the British in open combat.
The French were involved from the very start of the conflict. They provided the majority of the Americans' weapons, uniforms and gunpowder and sent advisers to help train the American army. Fredrick the Great of Prussia even remarked that Britain should have launched an attack on the French fleet before the war dragged on for too long. Britain eventually also had to fight the Spanish, French and Dutch besides the colonists. The Americans did not beat Britain on their own.
you ladies are a bright spot in our lives.
Thank you!
I enjoy hearing your Foreign Girls perspective. A lot of what you say represents values less talked about in post-modern thought.
55:22 Why is there ALWAYS someone cutting onions next to me, when I watch this scene??? 😢😑❤🩹😇😉💯
The little girl actress Sky McCole Bartusiak delivers such strong performances in this movie. Sadly miss Bartusiak passed away in 2014 because of a drug overdose. ☹ RIP 💯
That is very tragic about the young actress sorry to hear
"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among Yankee slavedrivers?" - Samuel Johnson
Congratulations Ladies for reaching 40k subscribers richly deserved. TC and keep the great reviews coming
54:33 - "The star witness". That comment was everything. I doubt many people caught the significance/symbolism of that moment like you did.
back then, getting the mail was like your favorite tv show or movie about to come on.
The actor playing the eldest son also played the joker in the Dark Knight. If you havent reacted to it yet you gotta. Its his most iconic perfomance and he died shortly after. His name is Heath Ledger
It was a very good performance... However, I personally think "A Knights Tale" is one of his best (and a far better movie than, Dark Knight)
I would enjoy a reaction to the Batman Begins trilogy.
Troll😂😂@@johndough8115
Problem is that was the role that killed him: the crap he did to play the Joker is too much for the human condition.
Great movies:
Apollo 13
Ben Hur (Original 1959 with Charlton Heston)
Lord of the Rings (In order - Fellowship of the rings, The Two Towers, The Return of the King)
Star Wars (In order - starts with #4, A New Hope, #5 The Empire Strikes Back, #6, #1, #2, #3)
The Mark of Zorro (1940 version with Tyrone Power)
The Star Spangled Banner as You've Never Heard It (just 11 minutes but terrific part of American History)
I think Chi might have a bloodlust lol .
When this movie came out there was a college intern from Hong Kong working with me at a large company. He just passed his citizenship test so I gave him some cash and suggested he go to see this movie about the history of his new country. The next week he told me he went to see it that weekend and asked if I went to it also. I said no, I went to see Shanghai Noon, a Jackie Chan movie. I think he was more impressed that I liked Jackie Chan.
@@davestang5454 Cool. I always liked her.
Please, please don't look at this movie as history. Don't get me wrong, I love this movie for entertainment purposes and it does have an element of history in it. My biggest objection to THE PATRIOT is the portrayal of Tavington, who is supposed to represent Banastre Tarleton (British Cavalry Col. during the Revolution) as a blood thirsty killer. In battle, Tarleton was brutal, but he never piled people into a locked church then burned it down. That never happened during the Revolution.
The Revolutionary War was as much a civil war as a Revolution. American Loyalist fought against American Patriots, and many were tarred and feathered, hanged, and shot ( on both sides.)
I live very near where the battles in the movie took place. I also taught North Carolina History for years. The character Benjamin Martin is supposed to represent the live hero patriot, Francis Marion, also known as The Swamp Fox. Francis Marion; however, owned slaves. The last battle where Benjamin Martin kills Tavington detracts from the fact that it was Brigadier General Daniel Morgan that devised the plan that defeated the British at the Battle of Cowpens.
Many slaves fought on both sides, but most supported the British because they believed the British would grant
them their freedom. Sadly many that fought with both sides were returned to slavery.
If you want to learn more about US History, check out OVERSIMPLIFIED. It's great and funny.
No one should EVER take Hollywood at face value - EVEN when they actually call something a "documentary", but definitely not a general entertainment movie such as this. Braveheart was also far from historically accurate except in the broadest of strokes. Fine entertainment, but definitely NOT accurate history. Hollywood is NEVER accurate history, though some try a whole lot harder than others (Band Of Brothers was quite good, for example).
@@BigTroyT Hollywood sometimes gets the essence of history right and at times gets the hardcore facts right too. I'm thinking along the lines of the 1970s movie Napoleon. A classic we will only see this once without CGI.
@@billthomas478 There are countless other examples of German soldiers murdering civilians and prisoners of war. People can reference those actual stories.
@@BigTroyT You should never take any documentary or movie at face value. Everyone has a bias. Some people are less biased than others, but there is no such thing as an unbiased piece of media.
I already had seen this movie before, but I really enjoyed watching this. It's fun watching something like this with non-Americans, it just gives a different perspective.
The Patriot is one of my favorite movies. I am so glad to enjoy your good reaction to this!
Another beautiful and heartfelt reaction from two genuine ladies and yes family even though there is disagreements and conflict are so important, great film TY
4:28 probably the cutest explanation I've ever heard.
Some of the history of wars is always inspiring to see how it plays out from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War in the U.S. like the movie of Troy young men dying and old men talking.
I love it when Chi and Hella show their intelligence and quote from history and scholars. They are both very observant.
thank you for your great reaction and comments.
No problem 😊
12:10 - 12:38
Let me try to help explain. At the time of this war (the 1770's), Western countries had certain "rules of gentlemanly warfare." Wounded men were supposed to be treated, whether they were yours or the enemy's. Civilians were off-limits, and so were officers (how lucky for them). Ofcourse, these rules were not always followed.
Oh no.... The "Papa don't...." moment.....
Ooooh noooo.
I've seen this movie so many times but that scene gets me every time. Don't know why.
Benjamin Martin character is (the swamp fox).
The safe location was near Pawley's island South Carolina,
the Spanish Mission is in the Santee area of South Carolina,
the remnants of the mission still exists, it wasn't a movie prop.
During that time 13 British colonies voted to go to war with Britain to win their Independence after repeated
trespasses, and no representation.
Most of the remaining North America lands were owned by Spain, France, & Russia.
Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the United States after negotiating a purchase with Frenchman Napoleon,
under the louisianna Purchase.
Cornwallis was not at the Battle of Cowpens. Col. Banastre Tarleton led the troops at Cowpens. Cornwallis was the Commander at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. He won the battle but had so many casualties that he had to retreat to Wilmington first then to Yorktown where you see Benjamin Martin say goodbye to his French friend.
As you may know, a lot of these characters are based on real people from that war and that time period:
The Colonel of the British Green Dragoons/the main villain Tavington, is based on Banastre Tarleton, and in real life he died in England, with full honors and respect of his countrymen, of old age.
Benjamin Martin (Gibson's character) is based on at least 4 different men including "Swamp Fox" Francis Marion.
The British General Cornwallis, his real name was used.
Cornwallis' second-in-command the Brigadier General Charles O'Hara was also a real person.
The American General Gates that ran from his post and left Martin's friend Harry (who was also based on a real officer by the name of "Light Horse Harry" Lee) in charge, his real name was used.
The traitor who left the Americans and burned the church was eventually known as Benedict Arnold and he also died in England, but decades sooner than Tarleton did and he died of illness, in some debt, and his name tarnished, somewhat even in England, for all time. His name is even a nickname for traitors and betrayals here in the US.
American General Nathaniel Greene, who you saw discussing strategy before the big battle at Cowpens, was a real person.
American General George Washington, who Gabriel saw briefly early in the film as a regular soldier (the same man who became our 1st President later in his life), his real name was used.
I'm probably missing a few, and as you can see some of the characters are re-named for this film, as I pointed out on my list when needed. The film was pretty fun. So yeah, unfortunately, there are people or situations in life where words are no longer sufficient for. In these situations, war is sometimes necessary to produce change. A senseless war is a war that never ends because of trivial reasons or a failure to even attempt to talk about anything first, and the deaths keep accumulating needlessly because of this senseless war. However, a war for freedom, or to take down a monster (like Hitler in WW2, or the Ukraine-Russia war) has purpose, meaning, and was proven to be necessary. I don't care how many of your friends say otherwise, the fact is, we can't have everything in life go our way, peace is not always the way to solve these global issues, especially when one side makes it unfeasible by pushing too far. War is very costly, people will die, but that's just the way it is.
My grandfatherx8 Robert Partin, father of Britain Parton, was a British captain who was hung in Edgefield, SC by the Swamp Fox. That's through my Mom's dad's dad's side, but even stranger, on his mom's and grandmother's, my grandfatherx7 is Robert Mercer/Messer. A colonial captain who was hung in NC. I found all this out taking a DNA test.
One more thing, the tavern place with "God save king George" thats basically how the US Marines were formed, just imagine the French guy as a Prussian
45:05 😂😂😂"You son-of-a-bitch." "That's dirty!"😂😂😂
I love your reactions and how intuitive you are to American cinima....never stop...and continue viewing....you two reign and make my cinema viewing more enjoyable
Hi my two Angela! It's Hela and Chi, yes? You are so gentle and sweet but as you watch the movie you say, Kill Him, Kill Him! So funnr! This is why ì love watching you! There are others on line but you are the best! ❤❤❤
I love how thick Chi's accent is 😍.
Your personalities and they way you compliment each other's spirit reminds me so much of Michelle and Ellie from The Homies, two other empathic reaction ladies with good moral compasses. Hella and Ellie are understandably and justifiably often crying where appropriate, while Chi and Michelle are usually calm and collected with stiff upper lips (a phrase for keeping the emotions under the surface instead of shown), while verbally expressing distain for evil calmly.
Your reaction was great! The storytelling is good and the characters are awesome! What more can you ask for from a movie! I was entertained by you girls comments and reactions! Thanks for sharing Chi and Hella ❤️💛
❤❤❤ Hella❤❤❤ , your eyes are very expressive!!!...
The evil Colonel also in Fury and Blackhawk Down and Armageddon!
He also does the intro for Resident Evil!
_(the "Umbrella Corporation" speech)_
That's the difficulty of raising good men... his son wants to fight because he's a good man, he heads back to war because he's a good man, he fights for his nation because he's a good man... the father us upset because he knows the dangers of war and is blinded by his love for his son... he can't see how brave of a man it is that he raised and for that, he should be damn proud.
Really enjoy your reactions. Thanks!
22:00 Europeans all fought like this back then, it’s “ceremonial”. You just stood in a field and shot at each other. The Americans took lessons from the various Native American tribes style of fighting which is closer to modern tactics
You should watch Misery. It's a Stephen King book. Very tense.
Before the Revolution, America wasn't it's own country, it was a colony of the British and the people who lived there considered themselves British citizens. Things were going well until several wars broke out on the American continent between France and Britain. Britain won but nearly bankrupted the government in the process, they had to generate money quickly so they imposed a series of taxes on their American colony. The problem with that is under British law, the government wasn't allowed to tax you unless you had representation in Parliament which the colony did not have. That's why you hear people saying "No taxation without representation" in the movie and why that phrase was so used during the Revolution.
Here's where things get complicated. In that time period it took months to cross the Atlantic Ocean separating the the colony and Britain and the number of representatives you had in Parliament was determined by how many landowners your area had. In Britain only the wealthy could afford land since many of them were descendants of feudal lords during the Middle ages. Almost everybody in the American colony was a land owner so if Britain followed through with giving the colony representation, the colony would have more representation than its parent country!
So on one side, you had the American colony who was angry that their rights were being violated, on the other you had Britain who couldn't give in to their demands without losing control of their country. America was willing to compromise but the British attitude was that the colony was beneath them so weren't willing to budge. So Americans became angrier and angrier as Britain tried to impose one tax after the other, which led to America rebelling and the Revolutionary War.
Hope that helps explain some of what was going on and sparked this whole thing.
In that Era with Armies lined up with muskets was basically a match "Test our Gangsta and Find out." Back and forth.
That was how wars were fought from the beginning of large group warfare... we lined up against each other on an open field and marched or ran towards each other until we had engaged with one another, and then whoever was left standing at the end was the winner.
Then we invented guns, and even tho they were fairly inaccurate, one shot was almost always death, and you didn't need to be big and strong or particularly gifted to operate one. front loaded black powder rifles were very easy to learn how to use, and were used by literally everyone. The European aristocracy, still being in charge, never bothered to try to fight another way. So, when the United States was just an idea, and we were still a part of the British Crown, we fought like the European aristocracy.
After the invention of the Minie Ball, those front loaded black powder rifles turned reliably accurate, and warfare began to change. Now that you could reliably hit what you were aimed at over longer distances, the use of cover from oncoming fire became a thing. Then the repeating Gatling Gun was invented.
And now we can drop a Precision Guided Munition from an unmanned drone 30,000 feet in the air and kill someone hiding in an underground bunker on the other side of the world.
Progress.
I'm ahead. I'm advanced. I'm the first mammal to wear pants.
The character Mel Gibson plays, is based off a real life character named Thomas Sumter. They called him "The Swamp Fox".
Something to remember, something similar to this did, play out. Amazing men, women and children fought and died for what we are today.. Too often now, we let their memory down, and disgrace ourselves. younger generations know nothing of this, and society takes the fall.
We have forgotten the face of our fathers......
Actually the war really didn't end until 4 years later and that was after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. Except Cornwallis's surrender symbolized how the British lost the momentum and for the British went from a war to subdue a rebellion to a war to keep whatever they can keep which turned out to be Canada. In 1812 the British tried to reclaim the United States as a British possession but that too ended in disaster for the British. What made it worse was that they realized Americans were in fact a separate people from the British and a people that are in fact willing to fight and die to preserve their liberties. The British will make more attempts to reclaim the USA but they all failed. Someone correct me if this is inaccurate but I believe there last attempt was during the American Civil War when the British tried to support the Southern States and that failed because after the disastrous defeat of the Confederate troops in Gettysburg Pennsylvania the Confederate Army lost it's momentum and slowly became a shell of what it was in the beginning of the Civil War. That's the last attempt I know of.
We tried to do this in Vietnam exactly what we did in America against the British… but we were confused and not well informed of the situation. We messed everything up.. but our intention was to help, not to hurt.. definitely not to hurt. We love our Vietnamese ❤
This is so cool of you two for watching a movie touching a crucial piece our nation's history and how we fought to be free of British rule. The Patriot isn't very accurate in aspects of the Revolutionary War, but it did give us insight into what the colonies went through to win our Independence. And it is a fantastic movie. I adore your reactions. You ladies feel things deeply which is beautiful to behold.
Fun fact: A lot of the "Loyalists" aka Colonists/Americans that fought against the Colonial/American army on behalf of the British went north after the war and became Canadian and fought the USA again in 1812.
Yeah, wars were pretty weird back then. Line up, take your shot, reload while hoping you don't get hit, then shoot again.
Son of the Revolution here. My ancestors were English Colonials, fought to make America! Got the documents to prove it.