I was actually part of a middle school reenactment of Camden while our muskets were just bought from toy stores with tubes at the end of them for us to blow into to puff out smoke, and our cavalry were kids in the dress but who pretend to gallop around on imaginary horses, I think I was a British Light Infantry soldier, however we did not use light infantry tactics, however I can say with complete and utter confidence our reenactment was more historically accurate by miles ahead of this imitation.
To make it more accurate , the teachers forced marched the kids around the cafeteria , and bolstered the army with the asthmatic kid to ensure a greag victory for Team Bear-Bear !
I’m a TA, and that honestly sounds like such a great way to teach kids about history. I’m gonna pitch it as an idea to the head teacher. We’re in Cumbria, so it’ll probably involve Romans, or maybe the battle of Cullodan.
@cappinjocj9316 Plenty of small engagements in Cumbria during the English civil war. Plus you've got Lambert Simnel landing his army on Piel Island in the early Tudor period.
@@andrewspears8891I find it funny how he loves to spit-shine a particular Union Generals balls and never seem to mention how later in life that same guy fanboys over went on to be a genocidal Monster who ordered his men to kill Native American women and children and how he led the charge in almost to driving the American Bison into Extinction. Which is why I find it extremely hard to believe Sherman did not let his men pillage and rape southern women if he was so willing to let them do just that to the Native Americans
I love a scene in one of the "1632" universe of books where the modern Americans try to explain and demonstrate the advantages of modern tactics to the 17th century Swedish and German military. The General Lennart Torstensson hides a smile, lets them go ahead, and get thrashed by the old school fighting. "Of course we have thought of that, it just does not work with our current weapons technology". The smart hero who speaks for a modern style, that is not yet feasible, that all the experts of the period are to dumb to do, is a pretty common trope.
I love how it seems historians have convinced us that, 'people back in the day weren't dumb but knew how to fight with what they have' rather than the opposite
@@weebnonce8327 Since tone is hard to convey through text, do you think that these historians are wrong in their affirmation, or are you agreeing with them?
The previous video in the The Patriot series was released 8 months ago. How can time fly by so quickly? Anyway, 45 minutes of ripping into The Patriot will always be peak Brandon F. content.
You're telling me...I was thinking it was only a few months, then I realised I first made a social media post saying I was working on this video back in March. I was genuinely unaware it was so long until earlier today!
Make the most of the time you have! But also nothing you do means anything outside that which you ascribe to it. Through this thought is found an intellectual and philosophical freedom. I hope your life is meaningful to you my friend
As a South Carolinian, I can barely imagine walking from my front porch to my car in the summer humidity and heat. Let alone walking from Charleston all the way to Camden. 😂😅
In the past people got used to living outdoors. Air conditioning really changed a lot of things from the materials clothing's made out of to our reaction to the temperature. Also as a reenactor I can tell you we get used to wearing those uniforms in 90+ degree heat..... barely.
@@tamlandipper29 Most of his historical films are just as bad or worse than The Patriot. - Braveheart, Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto all treat history with contempt. He often has a very right wing nationalist conservative Catholic slant to his films.
How would I describe Brandon? Well he likes to talk about history, and do videos purposely being overly pedantic for fun. Oh, no, not The Patriot, that movie he HATES with every bone in his body. I think a part of his soul died the day he first saw it, and has been seeking revenge ever since.
PTSD, exhaustion, ambushes, skirmishing, etc has always existed, I feel like this is a detail most media forgets. Just as an American soldier in Iraq might have PTSD from being in constant ambushes and IED detonations while constantly trying to maintain security around him at all times... The same goes for the WW2 soldier who sitting in a bunker, fending off attacks while under constant airstrikes or artillery barrages Same goes for the WW1 soldier marching across muddy terrain and bayoneting enemies in their trenches For the age of musket soldier marching across fields or skirmishing in their fields, trying to make the other side rout. The biggest one that gets overlooked though, is always the medieval period. People for some reason believe that a professional soldier in the medieval period is someone who just... Didn't suffer from specifically PTSD. People so willingly killing each other in media. When in reality, most battles didn't feature a ton of casualties. Most battles involved a handful of men dying between two 50 men parties, and one side routing. Sieges didn't last long, most of the time defenders would give in the moment the besiegers marched up. But we don't like seeing this. We want to see these 2 year long sieges, the immense battles of thousands of men.
That dynamic is one of the big things that inspires my work- that so many disregard the mentally traumatic elements of warfare in historical environments.
No they didn't, sieges lasted for weeks often at the bare minimum because these places were designed to keep enemy forces occupied... Instant surrenders or withdrawals only happened in the most dire of circumstances such as times when walls were pre-ruined by earthquakes but even then there's no guarantee of that happening as even rubble piles can be manipulated into a defensive position. You haven't a bloody clue.
What Mel thinks happened: Redcoats popping Rebels Dropping What really happened: Redcoat 1: Did we win? Redcoat 2: I think so, I’m gonna go take a nap now, I haven’t slept in days.
No, for this type of film you have to show a defeat at the start. And the more hilariously lopsided the defeat, the better. It is necessary in order to establish how powerful the enemy is, which in turn means that your protagonists are that much better. After all, you prove you are the best by beating the best, not by punching a wet paper bag. There is nationalist propaganda that focuses on putting the enemy down, but that was not the goal here. The goal here was to pump up the "good guys"
no this is not nationalistic porn. what this film really is is feeding into the preconceptions of boomer Americans about the revolution. this battle shows it 1. line battles suck 2. America is the underdog because they are not good at line battles like the British 3. the patriots who have common sense know that you should hide in the trees and snipe. i know this because its the popular folk lore in America.
No, it was meant to put butts in seats and make money. It did. Time to move on. Stop looking for nefarious purposes when there's none to be found. What you're looking at isn't porn of any kind, it's capitalism. The same capitalism that made possible the laptop you're working at, or your smartphone, or whatever you use in your daily life.
To be fair, Mel Gibson "historical epics" go down Wrong Street a bit, like the Battle of Stirling Bridge not having a bridge in "Braveheart" (that film inspired my fascination with history as a teenager, imagine my shock in finding out the sheer level of inaccuracy years later).
including the title being a nick name for another historical figure than the title character imagine a movie called lionheart except it about Saladin and he's the hero and king Richard is the moustache twirling pantomime villain
I love the omission of militia (aka guys like Benjamin Martin's unit) who were the first "Americans/Patriots/Rebels/etc" to run away. And not mentioning the Maryland/Delaware continentals who held their ground against the British for a while.
There's something else I noticed about the Patriot's depiction of the British Army - it's all English. At the real Battle of Camden, much of the British Isles were represented in battle - Irishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen, all taking up arms in defence of the realm, the idea of these nations rebellious spirits did not exist during the American War of Independence, but perhaps the biggest omission, and I think you should bring it up in a future video, Brandon - is the fact there were American Loyalists fighting for Cornwallis at Camden, remember, the American War of Independence was in some part a civil war. In fact, Gates was invading a region of South Carolina that was loyal to the British, civilians refused to render aid, and join the Continentals, this is what led to the Continental supply lines to be overstretched, it was a major strategic error committed by Gates. Lots of Americans were pro-British, it was a civil war between Patriots and Tories, the Battle of King's Mountain for example, was also fought in South Carolina in 1780, was virtually an all American battle, but this would get in the way of director Roland Emmerich's hard-on for American lore, because the American War of Independence was suppose to be Americans vs. British, not Americans fighting Americans, where the native valour, vanquishing foreign rule, to build a new republic that will expand to sea to shiny sea. For once, I wish Hollywood would depict the War of Independence as a civil war, examining why some Americans still supported the crown, how extensive their numbers were, and the critical role they played in fighting for the British. By the way, my nation - Canada was in some part founded by Loyalists, fleeing to British territory after independence, ironically, we would have to fight for our independence in 1812, from an American invasion and annexation, it was not a "Matter of Marching" the Yankees thought it would be.
It's been a long time since I watched The Patriot, but I don't recall loyalists being mentioned at all, let alone given any fair treatment or dignity. The movie is full on nationalistic chest-beating. I don't even have a problem with that per se, but I do dislike the revisionism and especially casting the British as basically being the Third Reich of the 18th century. The church-burning scene is straight up WW2 nonsense.
This very battle had Irish and Scots! The 78th Highlanders were renowned elites. All the diversity of both armies is removed- One continental European, one African American soldier, and the rest are either English or English-Americans.
As a kid, I was always confused by the stories of people who spied on the British while providing services to them. I couldn't understand why the British would trust the rebel population. That's because my education, such as it was, completely omitted the fact that a large percentage of the population were opposed to revolution. And it certainly never mentioned American colonists fighting FOR the British! I know you have to lose some detail when telling children about history, but this was dumbed down to the point of being misleading. (Much like The Patriot, though that particular movie wouldn't come along for decades.)
It was a full blown civil war. Nowadays people in the USA do not understand the significance of the years between 1775 and 1783. As the war years dragged on up to 1783 it only became worse. This is because they believe that there was a discernible national character prior to the those years, there was not one. An American national character came as a result of the Revolution. It depends on which historian is read, but essentially if the colonists were divided into a pie of five-fifths only two-fifths supported the rebellion, one-fifth opposed it and two-fifths were indifferent. In any event, this means that three-fifths were not directly in favor of it. I enjoy the poetry of American Romanticism and its poets, but Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper highly mythologized the American Revolution, among others, to the point that events during this time period are for most Americans not factually discernible. For me, the worst part of this film is not the mistakes during the battle scenes, but portraying the British Army as if it were some foreign army that invaded and occupied the colonies. It was the Army of the colonies. The Continental Army was the military of the rebels. They were not fighting a war against a foreign power but against their own.
Reminds me of how the battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart didn’t feature *STIRLING BRIDGE*. Also, when asked why he didn’t include the bridge in the film, Mel Gibson said it was because “it got in the way” to which the reporter who was Scottish replied “it got in the way of the British too.”
Hi Brandon, can you debunk and critique Hollywood's portrayal of the bayonet charge? It seems like Napoleonic line infantry suddenly goes Japanese the moment a bayonet charge is ordered.
the Channel SandRhoman History recently did a video on this topic about the adoption of the bayonet 1650-napoleonic wars ua-cam.com/video/BOpGwQ1J2Ws/v-deo.html@@BrandonF
At least Joaquin Phoenix accomplished a feat in acting. Playing emperor twice. First time was Commodus. Second is Napoleon. I do give him props for that.
Re 29:09 You’ll also notice that the King’s Colour is incorrectly being carried to the left of the Regimental Colour. This would have only have been the case with the Guards regiments (not at Camden), who probably didn’t take their Colours to America anyway. Also, Tarleton and the Legion cavalry are wearing red and not green as the actor, Jason Issacs, apparently didn’t like to wear green 😮
Well, any standing army. The national flag must always be to the right. Even in a modern sense unless your nation has a backwards way of doing things. It's sad even the American population can't even get the flag placement right on the national flag.
This was probably the best installment in the series to date! Really appreciated how you emphasized the real history of the battle. And thanks for the shout-out(s), as usual! :)
I like to hang out in the comments section after every video. Actually thinking about starting a policy of replying to every comment left in the first ~hour or so.
CORRECTION: Turns out the 33rd's Reg't Colours were actually white! Pretty silly mistake on my part! Just goes to show, there’s always an exception in history. Also, if you want to check out Matthew's work, the gentleman who sent me the distance measurements, you can find his drone photography etc. here: instagram.com/vgeraic/ Something to make the final point of this video a little more real- this happened just a few months ago. ua-cam.com/video/gDxH9iIrThM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/TmAJ5fBankE/v-deo.html
What do you think how they depicted battlefield manoeuvring in the movie Waterloo(1970)? I read they used ~15k uniformed extras and troop movements are supposed to be very realistic. Just curious if you ageed? Is the movie historically accurate overall? Great channel, thanks for sharing all your work with us.
Probably the biggest sin in this scene from a cinematic perspective is certainly the O'Hara shot. I agree with everything you said in this video. It does an incredible disservice to everyone who participated in this battle.
I mean, O’Hara did have the honor of surrendering to George Washington at Yorktown in 1781 and Napoleon Bonaparte at Toulon in 1793. I mean, imagine surrendering to two of the greatest military commanders of the 18th Century within the span of 12 years. But yes, that doesn’t excuse what “The Patriot” did to O’Hara and Cornwallis. I don’t think either of them stack up to someone like Horatio Nelson or Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington), but they were far better generals than “The Patriot” depicts them.
@@BradanKlauer-xh3hm Calling Washington, a man that ran away or was defeated for a good chunk of his career one of the greatest military commanders of 18th century is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Especially comparing him to Napoleon 😆 I am sure there are many British, French or Prussian generals that are more deserving of that title
@arwing20 Good enough to beat them out eh? Might want to dive into the sources to see the problems and tribulations Washington had to deal with during the early Northern Campaign in the run up to Trenton and Princeton. Lots of hard choices and dealing with an army whose numbers ebbed and flowed from week to week? I never thought much about him, but after reading on the subject, he was no perfect commander, but he was one who intelligently used what he had to the chagrin of his subordinates at times, but he kept the big picture in mind. Why fight a battle you know you won't win when you can withdraw, preserve your numbers and equipment and to better ground? The he chose his moment: Trenton and then Princeton.
@@goldenhide You know you could shorten that little rant of yours by simply saying "Thank god France and Spain declared war" Saved you some time for future occasions 👍
I mean the sex scene between George Washington and the alien princess in the academy award winning film "1777: The Year the Aliens Came" was pretty accurate.
To be fair, very little history ever is. But the late 18th C. is such a massive blindspot, which is weird given how important it is to American history and culture.
man, what a cool little battle. i like the story of the real battle because its not a giant battle like waterloo or gettysburg or anything, its just a surprise fight in the woods with a few thousand guys that demonstrates the classic tactical elements of battle like envelopment and breaking lines, and it also has some intangible factors like fatigue, morale, and charges and last stands. history wrote a fantastic story, but the writers threw it out for some corny shit instead. wasted opportunity.
So many interesting and compelling details and individual stories about that battle, yet the directors just turned it into a caricature. Almost makes me wish for a Camden movie that focuses on these stories.
Thank you Brandon! I had a really stressful strand of days, and your telling of the battle of Camden (as always backed up by excellent sources) was so immersive, I really forgot about it all for a moment.
It amuses yet also depresses me that a flick (calling it a film seems insulting) can be so bad and poorly researched that it can have multiple, lengthy and in-depth videos about how wrong it is
I love how the patriot has every redcoat dressed in blue facings as if the royal regiments were involved in every little skirmish, i means there’s almost a hundred other regiments to choose from. Yellow, white, green, black, orange, buff, red, purple and all in various shades were available to them and yet they chose the most exclusive regimental facing colour
It was an economy move on the film maker's part. They settled on one look for the British troops for ease of costume maunfacture and continuity purposes as well.
I remember when I was a kid, I saw some adults watching this movie and asked what movie it was. They said "it's like the American Braveheart." I don't think they realize how unfortunately apt that description was.
When it comes to 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot', Gibson produces what we call Brit bashing films. Even in his early acting career He was a central character in a ww1 film called 'Gallipoli 'which was about the campaign in the Dardanelles in 1915 although very good it did away with key points of that 8 month campaign and painted the British Army who also took part as the villian of the piece and not the Turks. Needless to say, I'm not a great fan
As per Brandon's last remarks, there is in movies a specific person responsible for ensuring all the takes match up by and that people don't just hop to different positions or swap places or appear and disappear between camera shots etc, and they are called either a continuity person or script supervisor. By the sound of it whoever was doing this job for the Patriot might want to think about a career change.
I appreciate the gravity you instill with this video and how such portrayals betray not just history as a concept, but real, actual people who lived it. Not to mention, I actually had never researched the whole battle before! That was fascinating to see how it actually played out and, importantly, what had led to this point. Reality is, in fact, quite exciting on its own. Perhaps a somewhat closer picture to what some of the fighting looked like could be seen in the Grimball's Landing battle in Glory, which funny enough is also in South Carolina. It's brief, but hey, it's actually got trees
at 14:27 was SO TRUE cause the patriot was unfortunately my first introduction to the 18th century warfare, i thought the battles depicted in the movie was how wars were done back then which made me prefer other times of historical warfare, it took me a while afterward to realize that linear warfare, in reality, is done in a much complex and intriguing ways, and not stupidly like the movie suggested
The Patriot is just a movie of stereotypes it portrays the British as brutal and heartless villains who order their men to kill wounded which I believe did not happen in actual reality in late 16th century Warfare let's not forget the part where they burn down the church let's not forget about the Americans where they won the war of independence with sweat blood and tears which is technically not true they won the war of independence with the assistance of France and Spain let's not forget the scene where they go into what is essentially a escape slave Village where the main character is welcoming to their homes and they're all friends and happy together where in reality slavery was absolutely brutal and they still haven't acknowledged that to this very day preferring to stick their heads up their asses instead and the one thing that any Army should never do is flea when the Calvary is coming at them that just basically gives them open season
Hahaha, just when you think Brandon has finally buried the hatchet(*CLAYMORE*), this video is posted. Glad to see you’re still up in arms against this movie, Brandon, altough I have to say your must have adopted skirismish tactics, taking potshots here and there from time to time, going straight for the officers.
The way “The Patriot” depicts the Battle of Camden, which was fought in a forested area, that would be like making a movie about the final two years of the American Civil War, where instead of having a battle scene with the Battle of the Wilderness in a thickly forested area as it was historically, the scene was in an open field.
The patriot is pretty much a big shot action here that his education of history is at a middle school level and looked at 1 painting of the the napoleonic war to see how battles were fought
I find it refreshing that the americans gives the british a taste of their own medicine, because the british usually gives the french the same treatment when it comes to movies and getting everything wrong on purpose.
It's incredibly insulting to everyone involved as well as the audience... compared to the skirmish in Barry Lyndon, where the emotional and psychological damage is at the forefront of the experience (I know it's not perfect historically but it doesn't attempt to rewrite history completely), The Patriot seems to be actively making fun of the suffering of everyone who isn't Mel Gibson. It's the way he just sort of smugly narrates, as people are being butchered in front of him, it feels gross watching it.
My 6th and a half grandfather fought to the last breath in this battle. Some of my oldest family members told me he was 28 by the time, enlisted in the Colonial army in 1768 at the age of 16 by the time the war was starting, he was the leader of a small portion of the army. known as (by my family members) Reubert Dúke Vonbaskíoz, probably no one ever heard that name, he was born in prussia, an old time country, where he was one of the few people who allied with the old time continental colonies
I’m glad to hear the mention of the effects of disease and fatigue on the armies. In college I once watched The Patriot with a group of other history majors and -- among many other comments from all of us regarding the film’s historical accuracy and cinematic merit -- someone said “Mel Gibson is deadlier than malaria” because of how no one appears to succumb to illness despite campaigning in the South Carolina swamps. It’s also good that Brandon mentioned the role of Loyalists in the battle. In spite of the fact that they made up a significant portion of the British forces in the southern theater of the war, The Patriot seems to barely acknowledge their existence. The only Loyalist we see onscreen is the Adam Baldwin character, whose only real contribution to the plot is telling Tavington who Martin is (as if Tavington couldn’t have found that out from just about anybody, given how prominent Martin appears to be in South Carolina gentry circles). But I suppose complexity would be too much to ask from such a movie.
I’ve seen TWO SECONDS of this scene. Literally, I haven’t seen past the point where the eldest son is being arrested and Mel Gibson goes into the forest to pick them all off and rescue his boy. I instantly could tell how bad it was. The amount of people so close you could touch rifles MISSING each other. Cannon fire from an unrelated cutaway not being present in the battle. Terrible Cavalry choreography. And there’s Mel Gibson holding an American FLAG running 30 yards to attack a British Field Officer outside his ranks that have been haphazardly placed across this tiny patch of field. Absolutely ridiculous. Pirates of the Caribbean did Naval combat SO much better - and it was still omitted a little bit for story telling.
Alright, well as I did my dissertation on this and consider myself a subject matter expert, I will briefly go and correct everything in the video that I see Brandon getting wrong. Although be advised I'm writing this as I watch the video so I suspect at some point that Brandon's gonna pull the rug out from under me in the second half correcting everything he did for dramatic effect in the first. So, first off. The militiamen "flocking to Gates' banner" from North Carolina were NOT volunteers. They were voluntold and really did not want to be there, these militiamen had been requested (I think by De Kalb, might have been Gates but I think it was De Kalb) from Thomas Jefferson and he, begrudgingly sent them. It should also be notes that Gates complains later that a sizeable chunk of this militia unit DID NOT ARRIVE. So it was not 2,000 but rather 1,500 NC Militiamen. I also don't recall Gates' force ever being called the Grand Army. It was never a huge force, a sizable and significant one but not extraordinary in its size by a long shot and I'd probably be quite sceptical of the credentials of any primary sources that referred to it as such... I should also probably mention that one of the reasons that Gates took command was De Kalbs inability to manage such a force. He'd ended up the commander after the fall of Charleston and was basically on the verge of a nervous breakdown trying to manage something he was not qualified for, demanded another general come and take the force off him. I would also suggest that the battle of Rocky mount was not really a good example of the skirmishing of the campaign, as it was fought not by Gates and Kalb but by infamous militia commander Thomas Sumpter. And although Sumpter did liase with Gates' force on occasion, they spent more time apart than together as Sumpter would take his men off to go do their own thing and meet up again with Gates when it suited them, a habit he and other militia leaders got into that REALLY rankled the regular generals noses. I can't speak for the Historians that Brandon's read, but just about everything I read indicates that Gates was not fully aware of the situation in South Carolina as to the whereabouts of Cornwallis and Tarleton and he expected a force of no more than like 600 defending Camden, so up until the last few days when he was made aware of the presence of a sizeable army under Cornwallis, I have no doubt his plan would have been to force the town. The force that Gates sent away to raid supply lines was NOT a unit of strong infantry but rather the militiamen of Thomas Sumpter, the reason for this I can only assume was lack of trust. Chances are Gates expected Sumpter to abandon him at the last moment and decided instead to try to give them an order that he thought they might actually follow, which funnily enough, they did not. Instead of interdicting nearby supply lines, Sumpter sat around and watched the battle, a move which would bite him in the arse afterwards when Tarleton noticed him and attacked him. The Treacle that Gates fed his men was not intended as a treat, but rather as a supplement to their critically low food supply, he simply didn't have a lot else to give them. It should be noted that a fair few of the historians I read such as Robert Scott Davis were quite critical of this decision and placed a LOT of emphasis on just how much the constant diarrhoea it gave the soldier screwed them up. It was NOT the extreme heat that made Gates' army sick, it was the treacle. I also think I may as well point out that when Gibson criticizes Gates for fighting in linear formations against the British that GATES WAS BRITISH!!! He was not American in the slightest! -I would also disagree with the sentiment that Brandon insinuates that Gates was respected among his men.- -Sure, initially the men would have welcomed the hero of Saratoga to lead them, but as time went on, Gates' men, especially the militia who had been sent there from North Carolina became increasingly frustrated with him, his officers likewise became extremely frustrated with him. That long forced march that he sends them on was not at ALL the best way to go and just about everyone there knew it. De Kalb would complain frequently in his correspondences and his diary, even saying "[The route we traversed] was poor and desolate, hardly reclaimed from it's natural condition. The first rude efforts at civilisation and culture which appeared here and there, had either been abandoned by their owners or plundered by their neighbours."- -And while you can do difficult things like this with regular soldiers and expect them to suck it up, you absolutely CANNOT do it with militiamen. They WILL get annoyed, they WILL get tired, they WILL get worried about whether or not you as their leader are like... fucking stupid or something and finally they WILL up and leave if they don't think you're doing it right.- -This is not helped at ALL by the fact that these NORTH CAROLINA and VIRGINIA militiamen were being forced to fight in SOUTH CAROLINA. Hundreds of miles from their homes.- -Now in the North you can stretch this and make it work because New England had a lot of large community social structures, but in the deep south, if a militiaman died, his whole family was basically screwed. So Dixie militia were a lot more risk averse than New England militia, and just to make this worse the British had been conducting seaborne raids in Virginia, so each and every NC and VA militiaman there was itching with every bone in their body to abandon their out of touch general and get back to their families should the worst happen. The further from a militiaman's farm he is, the more nervous and jumpy he becomes and that just craters morale.- just realised that comment was about Cornwallis, never mind. Knowing that the battle between Kalb and Rawdon was so close is extremely funny to me. Gates fled with the militia. Imagine how humiliating it would have been to have fled the battlefield at the first sign of danger but then have your subordinates win in your absence XD Also I just realised this... A bunch of the patriots at 23:50 have bayonets. Why?
I was about to defend the distances around 33:00 because sometimes, a set designer is going to fudge distances in order to fit things on camera. They wanted both armies visible through the mansion's bay windows, they're not going to hold to realistic distances. Then I remembered the multiple shot continuity errors at 31:30, and all benefit of doubt dribbles away again
I'm been looking forward to this for a long time Forests can or cannot ruin cinematography- on one hand, you have the final duel in the Force Awakens for a forest adding distraction and ruining cohesion. On the other, there's the obvious inspiration for the Patriot, Last of the Mohicans where the forest is incorporated into the choreography and adds a fantasy color to it. The battle at Amon Hen in Fellowship of the Ring is another good example, but it shows more for light, irregular combat with small skirmishes. Notice that even that forest ambush scene, so awfully choreographed, still had the central road featuring and where the actual hand to hand combat took place even though that would favor the bayonets and numbers of the regulars. Personally I would have kept the forest. Remember, this is the American POV. Militia should have the advantage, they have numbers, and suddenly they get steamrolled by professional soldiers. It would add to the terror and confusion- this is supposed to be a scary scene where the bad guys are more than a match for the good guys, who are tired, hungry, and thrown into confusion. But again Mel Gibson insisted that the Battle of Stirling Bridge actually omit the castle and bridge, so I shouldn't be surprised. As usual the context of the battle is lost. That's a big problem with this movie- the battles just...happen. There's no reason for why they happen. It's like Gettysburg and Gods and Generals- they mention the strategy briefly but the battle itself is assumed to be important rather than happening in any kind of context. I find it funny that in medieval movies everything is all grimed up and dirty and brown, it's quite the opposite in this movie. It's a lot more visually appearing, but it's just as inaccurate as the dung ages. I feel the numerical parity was inserted to make the British victory seem like a matter of inevitability rather than this big upset. The Maryland Continentals were among the best units in the entire war. But we can't get them outshining Mel's militiamen. Interestingly enough, in the original script, de Kalb has a cameo and black British soldiers are part of Cornwallis' charge. With Rodat in the writing room, you could get this desperate Omaha Beach scene from this movie, something far truer to the actual battle. Never noticed the oversized Government guns and lack of Patriot guns. Jesu christo. This film introduced me to the skipping roundshot scene. Sure, it's not from the actual battle, but it was a new concept for me when I saw this movie, and I thought it was cool, and terrifying. And given that it's more cinematic to show charges and hand to hand combat since linear warfare is so alien to most viewers, you'd think the bayonet charge would be natural. I think they just saw the big blocks on historical battlemaps and their only takeaway was "blocks". Perhaps the checkboard comes from Spartacus, which was the only part of the Roman army and that battle they got right. That's another trope of Hollywood muskets- the idea of close range is taken to the extreme. They treat 100 yards as 100 feet-. I think part of it is the whole "close range firefight" trope in movies where soldiers can see each other closely and where the shot can have both side at the same time. Star Wars does that a lot. It's more cinematic, but I feel that you could easily intercut the lines shooting at longer range. You have the tension of the rebels firing and firing, but the royals keep on coming and coming until the big bayonet charge and chaos breaking out. This film is extremely insulting to the regulars on both sides. The British are easily beaten by Martin's guys, but the Continentals are easily beaten by the British. It's the militia myth- going to toe to toe is viewed as insanity while irregular fighters are glorified. Rawdon and DeKalb are cut out entirely. I'm glad you had that Decemberist movie showcased- that actually showed cavalry charges and grape as these terrifying things, and had at least token gore and was a lot more honest about the violence in the battle It's just so odd to compare Camden in this movie with Omaha Beach in Saving Private Ryan. One captures desperation, terror, frenetic energy. It gets stuff wrong too but it at least gets the basics right and shows what a suicide-charge, hold-out fight to the finish looks like. This one is a caricature of the weapons, the men, and the entire era. Looking forward to the videos on Cornwallis, O'Hara, Tarleton, and all the guys that got cut.
I live near the Battle of Camden and very close to Bain DeKalb 's burial site and close to the Battle of Hob Kirk Hill. My backyard is one of the locations that Francis Marion hid out during the lead up to the Battle of Camden. That scene in the Patriot drives me crazy
@@LeviathanSpeaks1469 He did that. It was called Apocalypto. That movie is completely detached from history and reality. He may as well have thrown some vampires and goblins in there it's so ridiculous.
Im trying to find a job since my current is... up in the air, so my anxiety has peaked. Back in the day I used to fall asleep to the Patriot videos. Hopefully this helps settle me down for a good nights sleep. Thanks Brandon!
I'm sorry to hear you're having a rough go of things, but am glad to help out a little bit where I can. All bad things shall pass! Except for The Patriot, it seems. Sadly that is an evil that yet persists.
I remember as a kid being so excited about the movie coming out. I was sort of a war nut and looking forward to finally seeing a movie that features the revolution. Would we Trenton, where after abandoning New York, a quick victory sent the Brits into chaos and gave Americans hope? Or the significant turning point at Saratoga? Nah we got a dad's revenge movie.
Love this Patriot series! I grew up with the idea of take-turns combat volley fire because of this mel gibson movie. Thanks to you and other folks for correcting this very big flaw about the depiction the civil war and blackpowder ❤
Can't believe my teachers used this piece of shit (not in its entireity mind you, a lot of skipping through the more gory or raunchy scenes) in class-to actually TEACH us about these events. I probably knew less about the revolution coming out the other side!
Every time i hear about the innaccuracies of The Patriot, i always think "man that would've been so much better had they done it accurately". The point of the battle of Camden scene if i remember right was to show that the contentinal army needed someone like Mel Gibson's character to rally behind right? Well imagine how much more impactful that message would've been had they shown the ferocity of the British, thier coordination in spite of the circumstances, and more importantly how the Continental army and milita just lost a lot of good men fighting to the last.
Sure but I still find it fun to watch to see Continentals get pasted. And OMG, FIGHTING STYLES OF THIS TIME WERE BASED ON MUZZLE TO MUZZLE Martin! That's how it works! Madness?! This is HELLAS!
Recently the remains of 14 of the men that died during the battle were removed and reinterred. As someone who was on site during the recent dig and removal of the remains, thank you for covering this. The battlefield is so starkly different from what was on screen, its crazy. Its a such and important battle that is not well known and the men that died deserve better. 1/4 of the men found were teenagers and they took some horrific wounds still visible when they were removed.
As a South Carolinian who lives 20 minutes from the Camden battlefield, it's an honor to have the history around my patch of Earth covered by you Also, the idea of marching from the coast to Camden in a few days in the summer sounds miserable Edit: Got to the end of the video, and I would like to thank you again for calling out Hollywood and their crappy portrayal of history. You will get a stream of braindead, regurgitated excuses that lack substance, but you are in the right none the less. Keep fighting the good fight
Hollywood can't even get the damn films of the War on terror right. They even botched the 9/11 films. Seriously. Did we not remember that one movie about flight 93 it was made in 2006. I'm also an aviation geek. That 757 cockpit looks like Boeing and Airbus had a child and spit out this so called 757 cockpit and then we should also mention the fact the terrorists don't even speak Arabic. They speak and converse in English. United 93 also made in 2006 did much better. Except for the traditional style of when the plane goes inverted, mysteriously the oxygen masks pop out.
@Airland_combat Actually, taking 3 seconds to mock people online hasn't been hard at all so far. Sounds like you had a hard life if you can't enjoy a movie because a tiny detail which has nothing to do with the plot isn't accurate.
Hey Brandon, at 28:50, it is possible that the infantry would work artillery. The Royal Regiment of Artillery was undermanned during the Revolutionary War, I would have expected some artillerymen, but infantry could fill out crews. I volunteer at Michilimackinac where we have 11 pieces of artillery, but historically they only had 1-2 artillerymen at any given point in time, which resulted in the infantry (King’s 8th) being also trained in artillery. Another note, it was hard to tell based on the lighting, but the guns used by the British appears to be iron and not bronze in the Patriot battle of Camden, which would be highly unlikely given the weight of an iron gun.
I cannot wait to see you talk about Lord Cornwallis. Tom Wilkinson is a great actor, but this movie does Cornwallis SO DIRTY!! The Continentals had already won several pitched battles against the British by this point. So the idea that they couldn’t do it is nonsense. Baron de Kalb being completely absent is a travesty. He went out like a complete badass.
American film has a law that ties the hands of filmmakers and cartoonists. Has been used as another branch for military purposes. Like a department of propagation
Hahaha, all the boomer wannabe historians have so much sand in their vaginas when it comes to historical movies taking dramatic license. Get a life already.
@obi-wankenobi1233 something to do with artistic licence. Like if you were to film a sex scene as example. You are prohibited to film an errection. All about making something look better than what it is. Been a long time since I was in a study room studying art and design & design and communication. I wonder how many film makers have behind scenes or extra content that not allowed to be seen
I'm not an American nor even British, but that's damn interesting. Thank you for telling the story of this battle I've never even heard of before, I deeply appreciate.
Mel Gibson stands unopposed as the director of the most incredible emotional arcs couched in the most flagrantly inaccurate depictions of military history.
Brandon, I was wondering if you could do a video on veterans during the 18th and early 19th century. Since your video about the song "The Cruel Wars" by the Dreadnoughts, I was curious about how veterans were treated and how it was like to be a veteran in the 18th and early 19th century.
@@BrandonF What was wrong with it? The Battle of Camden as depicted in The Patriot did everything it was supposed to in regards to serving the narrative of the film. Did it portray the battle accurately down to the tactics and the men involved? No. Did it portray the battle accurately in that the British won and Gates was put to flight? Yes.
@@RollTide1987 I mean, the video goes over everything wrong with it pretty well, I think. And in the things it gets wrong it actively promotes, alongside the other subjects I've discussed in this review series, a deeply disturbing view of American history.
The encounter directly after the battle between the fleeing Col. Tarleton and Col. William Washington (cousin to George) would have been a much better story. As recounted in the British after action report Washington swung his sword and cut off Tarleton's que and eventually two or three of his fingers.
Talking about missed opportunities 42:30 It also showcases the strong discipline of the British redcoat., that famed discipline and ability to weather fire The rebels shot at a good distance, they caused some casualties, sure But the British just weathered the shot. And they " just kept coming" which is a line from the Sharpe books as spoken by a tipu sultanate man The British discipline and ability to get in close to make it count, and you see it, the British volley seems to drop half the damn yankee line in a single volley It showcases British discipline, the issues of relatively inexperienced officers etc I'd say ANOTHER big issue with this battle being Camden is that Camden was comparatively late in the war, if this was early war, when the continental army was REALLY new. It'd make more sense for them to not be as well organised
At this rate, the total run time of all the videos Brandon has done about why the Patriot is so awful will be longer than the actual war. And I'm totally happy to follow him on that journey.
Brilliant video, greeting from Russia! Well, I suppose that means that some of our modern historical films about the battles are not the only ones that contain horrific mistakes... And I must confess, before I saw this channel kind of year ago, I thought that the battle of Camden in the Patriot was the most realistic demonstration of the linear tactics... what a shame
Many historical films are staggeringly inaccurate, it's such a insult that many people judge these conflicts and pick sides when things are always more complicated. I'm particularly saddened by the film 'Braveheart' which has such a strong grasp on Scottish people's nationalism in the modern day. Deeply frustrating that they don't even know what history to be proud of apart from dramatized insults based upon lies and the opinions of the creators of that media.
Can you do a video on strategy and tactics of this war? Or let me know if you already have one. I haven't seen any videos showing the basic tactical understandings that would be the kinda by-the-book methods.
Living in South Carolina, right now (in march) it is already so warm, and the South Carolina summer is hell. Marching in the long sleeves long pants would be terrible. Just goes to show how bad the movies accuracy is
There was no battery in the rear firing over top of friendly infantry. The guns were up front between infantry lines (as shown in the map in this video) for both armies. Also, Tarleton's legion was not wearing green-faced redcoats as in this movie. They were wearing fully green coats, as Tartleton wanted to emulate the uniforms Simcoe had created for his Queen's Rangers. Furthermore, why were these men from Britain and Maryland not soaking wet in sweat in the South Carolina summer? Good video.
The one part I do understand is giving the British artillery red coats instead of blue coats. Many audience members would have mistaken them for rebel artillery if they were wearing blue.
I know Brandon won't see this comment, but in case he would, I want to point up that the captions of this video sometimes have the wrong timing, staying up for just a split second, way too short for reading, forcing me to reload some passages over and over to read them. I appreciate that he edited and polished the automatic subtitles, BTW, that's something very professional and cool which not many UA-camrs do. But if he sees this, please, try finding a few minutes to browse them again and synch them better!. Very fascinating and informative video, it got me hooked even if I never had any particular interest in this historical period!
While the Patriot was a "historical clusterf**k" it was still so cool to see revolutionary war content in theaters. I too wish they had put in the effort to do it right. It could have been one of the best movies of all time if they had the better attention to historical detail that movies like Master and Commander had. Thank you for a great vid Brandon, and for doing those men justice. o7
I see The Patriot continues to haunt Brandon's every waking moment. May peace eventually find your restless heart, sir.
Give it a few years...I imagine I'll finish the series just before retirement haha
I imagine him like that Ren & Stimpy meme of that guy waking up with to the intro of Metallicas' "One".
@@BrandonFby which time I am sure you will have 165 hours of content on it, one for every minute of the film
I can't blame him. The film is Nationalist propaganda that belongs lodged in Satan's back passage.
I know right, it's been years. lmao!
I was actually part of a middle school reenactment of Camden while our muskets were just bought from toy stores with tubes at the end of them for us to blow into to puff out smoke, and our cavalry were kids in the dress but who pretend to gallop around on imaginary horses, I think I was a British Light Infantry soldier, however we did not use light infantry tactics, however I can say with complete and utter confidence our reenactment was more historically accurate by miles ahead of this imitation.
To make it more accurate , the teachers forced marched the kids around the cafeteria , and bolstered the army with the asthmatic kid to ensure a greag victory for Team Bear-Bear !
I’m a TA, and that honestly sounds like such a great way to teach kids about history. I’m gonna pitch it as an idea to the head teacher. We’re in Cumbria, so it’ll probably involve Romans, or maybe the battle of Cullodan.
@cappinjocj9316 Plenty of small engagements in Cumbria during the English civil war. Plus you've got Lambert Simnel landing his army on Piel Island in the early Tudor period.
I love it. The kids galloping about, gives it a Monty Python feel.
Already that's better than the Patriot
WHO WON?
Brandon's hatred towards THE PATRIOT
vs
Atun Shei's hatred towards GODS AND GENERALS
Aten Shei. He'd definitely find a way to resurrect a Confederate soldier just to prove his point.
@@andrewspears8891I find it funny how he loves to spit-shine a particular Union Generals balls and never seem to mention how later in life that same guy fanboys over went on to be a genocidal Monster who ordered his men to kill Native American women and children and how he led the charge in almost to driving the American Bison into Extinction. Which is why I find it extremely hard to believe Sherman did not let his men pillage and rape southern women if he was so willing to let them do just that to the Native Americans
I'd say it's a draw.
They've formed an alliance and are looking for a third hatred of ahistoric war movies
@@meshuggahshirt *cough* Kingdom of Heaven *cough*
I love a scene in one of the "1632" universe of books where the modern Americans try to explain and demonstrate the advantages of modern tactics to the 17th century Swedish and German military.
The General Lennart Torstensson hides a smile, lets them go ahead, and get thrashed by the old school fighting.
"Of course we have thought of that, it just does not work with our current weapons technology".
The smart hero who speaks for a modern style, that is not yet feasible, that all the experts of the period are to dumb to do, is a pretty common trope.
I love how it seems historians have convinced us that, 'people back in the day weren't dumb but knew how to fight with what they have' rather than the opposite
@@weebnonce8327 Since tone is hard to convey through text, do you think that these historians are wrong in their affirmation, or are you agreeing with them?
I hate that book series
@@walleras 😄You're welcome.
I have mainly lost touch with it, it has expanded too much.
@@dirgniflesuoh7950 Lest Darkness fall is in my humble opinion the best ISOT.
Cross time engineer is alright but far far to power fantasy for my taste
The previous video in the The Patriot series was released 8 months ago. How can time fly by so quickly? Anyway, 45 minutes of ripping into The Patriot will always be peak Brandon F. content.
You're telling me...I was thinking it was only a few months, then I realised I first made a social media post saying I was working on this video back in March. I was genuinely unaware it was so long until earlier today!
Make the most of the time you have! But also nothing you do means anything outside that which you ascribe to it. Through this thought is found an intellectual and philosophical freedom. I hope your life is meaningful to you my friend
As a South Carolinian, I can barely imagine walking from my front porch to my car in the summer humidity and heat. Let alone walking from Charleston all the way to Camden. 😂😅
Before WW1 most soldiers died of disease and exhastion.
In the past people got used to living outdoors. Air conditioning really changed a lot of things from the materials clothing's made out of to our reaction to the temperature. Also as a reenactor I can tell you we get used to wearing those uniforms in 90+ degree heat..... barely.
@@Lonovavirperhaps would help if you soaked them
It does not help and is utterly stupid idea
@@Trebor74- Then all you get are damp clothes and feeling icky.
I feel like I should be sobbing and begging at this point for The Patriot. "Stop! STOP, HE'S ALREADY DEAD!"
😂😂😂😂
Rule number one - NEVER get your history from a Mel Gibson film.
Can’t be said too often.
I believe History Buff pointed out that it's worse than that. Gibson did history in 'We were Warriors. He just doesn't want to here.
@@tamlandipper29 Most of his historical films are just as bad or worse than The Patriot. - Braveheart, Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto all treat history with contempt. He often has a very right wing nationalist conservative Catholic slant to his films.
I don't know We Were Soldiers ended up being different. It's the only of his historical films I can watch.
@@Lonovavir Maybe because it was more recent history? It is different when people are still alive from that era? Really not sure.
‘As Joker approaches the window’. A testament to Ledger’s chameleonic acting that it took me a couple of seconds to register that
How would I describe Brandon? Well he likes to talk about history, and do videos purposely being overly pedantic for fun. Oh, no, not The Patriot, that movie he HATES with every bone in his body. I think a part of his soul died the day he first saw it, and has been seeking revenge ever since.
Usually being overly-petty is at least somewhat ironic. Never with The Patriot.
Brandon will reach 20x times the length of the actual movie before he even considers being done with criticizing The Patriot.
And provide more than that in legitimate entertainment value.
@@Joshf4phannah.
The patriot was peak movie
Shame that it didn't show the brits as the pedophiles they were
PTSD, exhaustion, ambushes, skirmishing, etc has always existed, I feel like this is a detail most media forgets.
Just as an American soldier in Iraq might have PTSD from being in constant ambushes and IED detonations while constantly trying to maintain security around him at all times...
The same goes for the WW2 soldier who sitting in a bunker, fending off attacks while under constant airstrikes or artillery barrages
Same goes for the WW1 soldier marching across muddy terrain and bayoneting enemies in their trenches
For the age of musket soldier marching across fields or skirmishing in their fields, trying to make the other side rout.
The biggest one that gets overlooked though, is always the medieval period.
People for some reason believe that a professional soldier in the medieval period is someone who just... Didn't suffer from specifically PTSD. People so willingly killing each other in media. When in reality, most battles didn't feature a ton of casualties. Most battles involved a handful of men dying between two 50 men parties, and one side routing.
Sieges didn't last long, most of the time defenders would give in the moment the besiegers marched up. But we don't like seeing this. We want to see these 2 year long sieges, the immense battles of thousands of men.
That dynamic is one of the big things that inspires my work- that so many disregard the mentally traumatic elements of warfare in historical environments.
No they didn't, sieges lasted for weeks often at the bare minimum because these places were designed to keep enemy forces occupied... Instant surrenders or withdrawals only happened in the most dire of circumstances such as times when walls were pre-ruined by earthquakes but even then there's no guarantee of that happening as even rubble piles can be manipulated into a defensive position. You haven't a bloody clue.
@@BrandonFI've read a few accounts that have made me ugly cry and I am not ashamed to admit it.
George Robert Gleig's account of the skrimishing before the Battle of New Orleans has a death scene that gets me every time.
There are Reports of a knight who couldnt stand the klinging of Metal and kitchenware to a Point where He would not enter His kitchen.
I remember one of my history professors saying that "historical" movies should be considered as works of fiction.
What Mel thinks happened: Redcoats popping Rebels Dropping
What really happened:
Redcoat 1: Did we win?
Redcoat 2: I think so, I’m gonna go take a nap now, I haven’t slept in days.
The movie was never meant to be Historical, it was ultra nationalist porn. So it's amazing that it showed a British victory.
No, for this type of film you have to show a defeat at the start. And the more hilariously lopsided the defeat, the better.
It is necessary in order to establish how powerful the enemy is, which in turn means that your protagonists are that much better.
After all, you prove you are the best by beating the best, not by punching a wet paper bag.
There is nationalist propaganda that focuses on putting the enemy down, but that was not the goal here. The goal here was to pump up the "good guys"
no this is not nationalistic porn. what this film really is is feeding into the preconceptions of boomer Americans about the revolution.
this battle shows it
1. line battles suck
2. America is the underdog because they are not good at line battles like the British
3. the patriots who have common sense know that you should hide in the trees and snipe.
i know this because its the popular folk lore in America.
You forget the enemy of the ultra-nationalist must be both weak and strong.
Strong enough to be a threat but weak enough to be heroically overcome
@@blixer8384 That movie achieve it's goals then. History is not in anyway factual to the far right, just another tool to be manipulated.
No, it was meant to put butts in seats and make money. It did. Time to move on.
Stop looking for nefarious purposes when there's none to be found. What you're looking at isn't porn of any kind, it's capitalism. The same capitalism that made possible the laptop you're working at, or your smartphone, or whatever you use in your daily life.
To be fair, Mel Gibson "historical epics" go down Wrong Street a bit, like the Battle of Stirling Bridge not having a bridge in "Braveheart" (that film inspired my fascination with history as a teenager, imagine my shock in finding out the sheer level of inaccuracy years later).
Perhaps we should start calling them "Past Epics" as they take place in the past but there is nothing historical about them
including the title being a nick name for another historical figure than the title character imagine a movie called lionheart except it about Saladin and he's the hero and king Richard is the moustache twirling pantomime villain
@@micuu1 for sure, "Past Epics" works, also "Historical Fantasy"
I love the omission of militia (aka guys like Benjamin Martin's unit) who were the first "Americans/Patriots/Rebels/etc" to run away. And not mentioning the Maryland/Delaware continentals who held their ground against the British for a while.
wow so you grew up and realized that historical movies arent as accurate yeah talk about it with the rest of the reddit chumps you hang out with
Happy to see more content around the patriot, one of my favorite historical series on youtube
Glad to provide!
There's something else I noticed about the Patriot's depiction of the British Army - it's all English. At the real Battle of Camden, much of the British Isles were represented in battle - Irishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen, all taking up arms in defence of the realm, the idea of these nations rebellious spirits did not exist during the American War of Independence, but perhaps the biggest omission, and I think you should bring it up in a future video, Brandon - is the fact there were American Loyalists fighting for Cornwallis at Camden, remember, the American War of Independence was in some part a civil war. In fact, Gates was invading a region of South Carolina that was loyal to the British, civilians refused to render aid, and join the Continentals, this is what led to the Continental supply lines to be overstretched, it was a major strategic error committed by Gates. Lots of Americans were pro-British, it was a civil war between Patriots and Tories, the Battle of King's Mountain for example, was also fought in South Carolina in 1780, was virtually an all American battle, but this would get in the way of director Roland Emmerich's hard-on for American lore, because the American War of Independence was suppose to be Americans vs. British, not Americans fighting Americans, where the native valour, vanquishing foreign rule, to build a new republic that will expand to sea to shiny sea. For once, I wish Hollywood would depict the War of Independence as a civil war, examining why some Americans still supported the crown, how extensive their numbers were, and the critical role they played in fighting for the British. By the way, my nation - Canada was in some part founded by Loyalists, fleeing to British territory after independence, ironically, we would have to fight for our independence in 1812, from an American invasion and annexation, it was not a "Matter of Marching" the Yankees thought it would be.
It's been a long time since I watched The Patriot, but I don't recall loyalists being mentioned at all, let alone given any fair treatment or dignity. The movie is full on nationalistic chest-beating. I don't even have a problem with that per se, but I do dislike the revisionism and especially casting the British as basically being the Third Reich of the 18th century. The church-burning scene is straight up WW2 nonsense.
This very battle had Irish and Scots! The 78th Highlanders were renowned elites. All the diversity of both armies is removed- One continental European, one African American soldier, and the rest are either English or English-Americans.
It was entirely a civil war. It was Britons killing Britons.
As a kid, I was always confused by the stories of people who spied on the British while providing services to them. I couldn't understand why the British would trust the rebel population. That's because my education, such as it was, completely omitted the fact that a large percentage of the population were opposed to revolution. And it certainly never mentioned American colonists fighting FOR the British!
I know you have to lose some detail when telling children about history, but this was dumbed down to the point of being misleading. (Much like The Patriot, though that particular movie wouldn't come along for decades.)
It was a full blown civil war. Nowadays people in the USA do not understand the significance of the years between 1775 and 1783. As the war years dragged on up to 1783 it only became worse. This is because they believe that there was a discernible national character prior to the those years, there was not one. An American national character came as a result of the Revolution. It depends on which historian is read, but essentially if the colonists were divided into a pie of five-fifths only two-fifths supported the rebellion, one-fifth opposed it and two-fifths were indifferent. In any event, this means that three-fifths were not directly in favor of it. I enjoy the poetry of American Romanticism and its poets, but Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper highly mythologized the American Revolution, among others, to the point that events during this time period are for most Americans not factually discernible. For me, the worst part of this film is not the mistakes during the battle scenes, but portraying the British Army as if it were some foreign army that invaded and occupied the colonies. It was the Army of the colonies. The Continental Army was the military of the rebels. They were not fighting a war against a foreign power but against their own.
Reminds me of how the battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart didn’t feature *STIRLING BRIDGE*.
Also, when asked why he didn’t include the bridge in the film, Mel Gibson said it was because “it got in the way” to which the reporter who was Scottish replied “it got in the way of the British too.”
Hi Brandon, can you debunk and critique Hollywood's portrayal of the bayonet charge? It seems like Napoleonic line infantry suddenly goes Japanese the moment a bayonet charge is ordered.
That would be a great topic!
the Channel SandRhoman History recently did a video on this topic about the adoption of the bayonet 1650-napoleonic wars ua-cam.com/video/BOpGwQ1J2Ws/v-deo.html@@BrandonF
It can never be worse than casting an old emaciated Joaquin Phoenix as a young Napoleon.
At least Joaquin Phoenix accomplished a feat in acting. Playing emperor twice. First time was Commodus. Second is Napoleon. I do give him props for that.
Yep, typical bad Hollywood casting.
It was a great casting decision, actually. Looks a lot like him.
Re 29:09 You’ll also notice that the King’s Colour is incorrectly being carried to the left of the Regimental Colour. This would have only have been the case with the Guards regiments (not at Camden), who probably didn’t take their Colours to America anyway.
Also, Tarleton and the Legion cavalry are wearing red and not green as the actor, Jason Issacs, apparently didn’t like to wear green 😮
Well, any standing army. The national flag must always be to the right. Even in a modern sense unless your nation has a backwards way of doing things. It's sad even the American population can't even get the flag placement right on the national flag.
This was probably the best installment in the series to date! Really appreciated how you emphasized the real history of the battle.
And thanks for the shout-out(s), as usual! :)
Glad to see Brandon is so dedicated to his fans he is liking comments literal minutes after it's been posted!
I like to hang out in the comments section after every video. Actually thinking about starting a policy of replying to every comment left in the first ~hour or so.
@@BrandonF
Lol don't. Sounds like it'd be absolute hell to actually do that
CORRECTION: Turns out the 33rd's Reg't Colours were actually white! Pretty silly mistake on my part! Just goes to show, there’s always an exception in history.
Also, if you want to check out Matthew's work, the gentleman who sent me the distance measurements, you can find his drone photography etc. here: instagram.com/vgeraic/
Something to make the final point of this video a little more real- this happened just a few months ago.
ua-cam.com/video/gDxH9iIrThM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/TmAJ5fBankE/v-deo.html
What do you think how they depicted battlefield manoeuvring in the movie Waterloo(1970)? I read they used ~15k uniformed extras and troop movements are supposed to be very realistic. Just curious if you ageed? Is the movie historically accurate overall? Great channel, thanks for sharing all your work with us.
Probably the biggest sin in this scene from a cinematic perspective is certainly the O'Hara shot. I agree with everything you said in this video. It does an incredible disservice to everyone who participated in this battle.
I am so looking forward to my video about how the film butchers Cornwallis and O'Hara. They're so hilariously bad.
I mean, O’Hara did have the honor of surrendering to George Washington at Yorktown in 1781 and Napoleon Bonaparte at Toulon in 1793. I mean, imagine surrendering to two of the greatest military commanders of the 18th Century within the span of 12 years. But yes, that doesn’t excuse what “The Patriot” did to O’Hara and Cornwallis. I don’t think either of them stack up to someone like Horatio Nelson or Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington), but they were far better generals than “The Patriot” depicts them.
@@BradanKlauer-xh3hm Calling Washington, a man that ran away or was defeated for a good chunk of his career one of the greatest military commanders of 18th century is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Especially comparing him to Napoleon 😆
I am sure there are many British, French or Prussian generals that are more deserving of that title
@arwing20 Good enough to beat them out eh? Might want to dive into the sources to see the problems and tribulations Washington had to deal with during the early Northern Campaign in the run up to Trenton and Princeton. Lots of hard choices and dealing with an army whose numbers ebbed and flowed from week to week?
I never thought much about him, but after reading on the subject, he was no perfect commander, but he was one who intelligently used what he had to the chagrin of his subordinates at times, but he kept the big picture in mind. Why fight a battle you know you won't win when you can withdraw, preserve your numbers and equipment and to better ground? The he chose his moment: Trenton and then Princeton.
@@goldenhide You know you could shorten that little rant of yours by simply saying
"Thank god France and Spain declared war"
Saved you some time for future occasions 👍
The Revolution has never been done well by Hollywood.
I mean the sex scene between George Washington and the alien princess in the academy award winning film "1777: The Year the Aliens Came" was pretty accurate.
Yes, this has always bothered me. Why can't they ever get it right?
@@alistermycroft7898EXACTLY as my grandfather used to tell me in the stories!
The John Adams miniseries from a few years back was pretty good.
To be fair, very little history ever is. But the late 18th C. is such a massive blindspot, which is weird given how important it is to American history and culture.
man, what a cool little battle. i like the story of the real battle because its not a giant battle like waterloo or gettysburg or anything, its just a surprise fight in the woods with a few thousand guys that demonstrates the classic tactical elements of battle like envelopment and breaking lines, and it also has some intangible factors like fatigue, morale, and charges and last stands. history wrote a fantastic story, but the writers threw it out for some corny shit instead. wasted opportunity.
So many interesting and compelling details and individual stories about that battle, yet the directors just turned it into a caricature. Almost makes me wish for a Camden movie that focuses on these stories.
Thank you Brandon! I had a really stressful strand of days, and your telling of the battle of Camden (as always backed up by excellent sources) was so immersive, I really forgot about it all for a moment.
Now do the Battle of Cowpens which magically turns into the Siege of Yorktown.
It amuses yet also depresses me that a flick (calling it a film seems insulting) can be so bad and poorly researched that it can have multiple, lengthy and in-depth videos about how wrong it is
I love how the patriot has every redcoat dressed in blue facings as if the royal regiments were involved in every little skirmish, i means there’s almost a hundred other regiments to choose from. Yellow, white, green, black, orange, buff, red, purple and all in various shades were available to them and yet they chose the most exclusive regimental facing colour
It was an economy move on the film maker's part. They settled on one look for the British troops for ease of costume maunfacture and continuity purposes as well.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706doesn't even begin to excuse it.
@@ianrastoski3346 It's just a movie. You sound like some kind of nerd with no life.
I remember when I was a kid, I saw some adults watching this movie and asked what movie it was. They said "it's like the American Braveheart."
I don't think they realize how unfortunately apt that description was.
When it comes to 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot', Gibson produces what we call Brit bashing films. Even in his early acting career He was a central character in a ww1 film called 'Gallipoli 'which was about the campaign in the Dardanelles in 1915 although very good it did away with key points of that 8 month campaign and painted the British Army who also took part as the villian of the piece and not the Turks. Needless to say, I'm not a great fan
He'd better not talk smack about James Wolfe!
As per Brandon's last remarks, there is in movies a specific person responsible for ensuring all the takes match up by and that people don't just hop to different positions or swap places or appear and disappear between camera shots etc, and they are called either a continuity person or script supervisor. By the sound of it whoever was doing this job for the Patriot might want to think about a career change.
What a perfect bedtime story. brandon telling me how the patriot is horrible once again.
Just what I needed for a good night of sleep
I appreciate the gravity you instill with this video and how such portrayals betray not just history as a concept, but real, actual people who lived it.
Not to mention, I actually had never researched the whole battle before! That was fascinating to see how it actually played out and, importantly, what had led to this point. Reality is, in fact, quite exciting on its own. Perhaps a somewhat closer picture to what some of the fighting looked like could be seen in the Grimball's Landing battle in Glory, which funny enough is also in South Carolina. It's brief, but hey, it's actually got trees
at 14:27 was SO TRUE cause the patriot was unfortunately my first introduction to the 18th century warfare, i thought the battles depicted in the movie was how wars were done back then which made me prefer other times of historical warfare, it took me a while afterward to realize that linear warfare, in reality, is done in a much complex and intriguing ways, and not stupidly like the movie suggested
The Patriot is just a movie of stereotypes it portrays the British as brutal and heartless villains who order their men to kill wounded which I believe did not happen in actual reality in late 16th century Warfare let's not forget the part where they burn down the church let's not forget about the Americans where they won the war of independence with sweat blood and tears which is technically not true they won the war of independence with the assistance of France and Spain let's not forget the scene where they go into what is essentially a escape slave Village where the main character is welcoming to their homes and they're all friends and happy together where in reality slavery was absolutely brutal and they still haven't acknowledged that to this very day preferring to stick their heads up their asses instead and the one thing that any Army should never do is flea when the Calvary is coming at them that just basically gives them open season
Hahaha, just when you think Brandon has finally buried the hatchet(*CLAYMORE*), this video is posted. Glad to see you’re still up in arms against this movie, Brandon, altough I have to say your must have adopted skirismish tactics, taking potshots here and there from time to time, going straight for the officers.
The way “The Patriot” depicts the Battle of Camden, which was fought in a forested area, that would be like making a movie about the final two years of the American Civil War, where instead of having a battle scene with the Battle of the Wilderness in a thickly forested area as it was historically, the scene was in an open field.
The patriot is pretty much a big shot action here that his education of history is at a middle school level and looked at 1 painting of the the napoleonic war to see how battles were fought
Babe come over.
Babe I can’t, new Brandon F Patriot video just dropped.
… babe what??
I find it refreshing that the americans gives the british a taste of their own medicine, because the british usually gives the french the same treatment when it comes to movies and getting everything wrong on purpose.
It's incredibly insulting to everyone involved as well as the audience... compared to the skirmish in Barry Lyndon, where the emotional and psychological damage is at the forefront of the experience (I know it's not perfect historically but it doesn't attempt to rewrite history completely), The Patriot seems to be actively making fun of the suffering of everyone who isn't Mel Gibson. It's the way he just sort of smugly narrates, as people are being butchered in front of him, it feels gross watching it.
My 6th and a half grandfather fought to the last breath in this battle. Some of my oldest family members told me he was 28 by the time, enlisted in the Colonial army in 1768 at the age of 16 by the time the war was starting, he was the leader of a small portion of the army. known as (by my family members) Reubert Dúke Vonbaskíoz, probably no one ever heard that name, he was born in prussia, an old time country, where he was one of the few people who allied with the old time continental colonies
I’m glad to hear the mention of the effects of disease and fatigue on the armies. In college I once watched The Patriot with a group of other history majors and -- among many other comments from all of us regarding the film’s historical accuracy and cinematic merit -- someone said “Mel Gibson is deadlier than malaria” because of how no one appears to succumb to illness despite campaigning in the South Carolina swamps.
It’s also good that Brandon mentioned the role of Loyalists in the battle. In spite of the fact that they made up a significant portion of the British forces in the southern theater of the war, The Patriot seems to barely acknowledge their existence. The only Loyalist we see onscreen is the Adam Baldwin character, whose only real contribution to the plot is telling Tavington who Martin is (as if Tavington couldn’t have found that out from just about anybody, given how prominent Martin appears to be in South Carolina gentry circles). But I suppose complexity would be too much to ask from such a movie.
I’ve seen TWO SECONDS of this scene. Literally, I haven’t seen past the point where the eldest son is being arrested and Mel Gibson goes into the forest to pick them all off and rescue his boy.
I instantly could tell how bad it was. The amount of people so close you could touch rifles MISSING each other. Cannon fire from an unrelated cutaway not being present in the battle. Terrible Cavalry choreography. And there’s Mel Gibson holding an American FLAG running 30 yards to attack a British Field Officer outside his ranks that have been haphazardly placed across this tiny patch of field. Absolutely ridiculous. Pirates of the Caribbean did Naval combat SO much better - and it was still omitted a little bit for story telling.
Alright, well as I did my dissertation on this and consider myself a subject matter expert, I will briefly go and correct everything in the video that I see Brandon getting wrong.
Although be advised I'm writing this as I watch the video so I suspect at some point that Brandon's gonna pull the rug out from under me in the second half correcting everything he did for dramatic effect in the first.
So, first off. The militiamen "flocking to Gates' banner" from North Carolina were NOT volunteers. They were voluntold and really did not want to be there, these militiamen had been requested (I think by De Kalb, might have been Gates but I think it was De Kalb) from Thomas Jefferson and he, begrudgingly sent them. It should also be notes that Gates complains later that a sizeable chunk of this militia unit DID NOT ARRIVE. So it was not 2,000 but rather 1,500 NC Militiamen.
I also don't recall Gates' force ever being called the Grand Army. It was never a huge force, a sizable and significant one but not extraordinary in its size by a long shot and I'd probably be quite sceptical of the credentials of any primary sources that referred to it as such...
I should also probably mention that one of the reasons that Gates took command was De Kalbs inability to manage such a force. He'd ended up the commander after the fall of Charleston and was basically on the verge of a nervous breakdown trying to manage something he was not qualified for, demanded another general come and take the force off him.
I would also suggest that the battle of Rocky mount was not really a good example of the skirmishing of the campaign, as it was fought not by Gates and Kalb but by infamous militia commander Thomas Sumpter. And although Sumpter did liase with Gates' force on occasion, they spent more time apart than together as Sumpter would take his men off to go do their own thing and meet up again with Gates when it suited them, a habit he and other militia leaders got into that REALLY rankled the regular generals noses.
I can't speak for the Historians that Brandon's read, but just about everything I read indicates that Gates was not fully aware of the situation in South Carolina as to the whereabouts of Cornwallis and Tarleton and he expected a force of no more than like 600 defending Camden, so up until the last few days when he was made aware of the presence of a sizeable army under Cornwallis, I have no doubt his plan would have been to force the town. The force that Gates sent away to raid supply lines was NOT a unit of strong infantry but rather the militiamen of Thomas Sumpter, the reason for this I can only assume was lack of trust. Chances are Gates expected Sumpter to abandon him at the last moment and decided instead to try to give them an order that he thought they might actually follow, which funnily enough, they did not. Instead of interdicting nearby supply lines, Sumpter sat around and watched the battle, a move which would bite him in the arse afterwards when Tarleton noticed him and attacked him.
The Treacle that Gates fed his men was not intended as a treat, but rather as a supplement to their critically low food supply, he simply didn't have a lot else to give them.
It should be noted that a fair few of the historians I read such as Robert Scott Davis were quite critical of this decision and placed a LOT of emphasis on just how much the constant diarrhoea it gave the soldier screwed them up. It was NOT the extreme heat that made Gates' army sick, it was the treacle.
I also think I may as well point out that when Gibson criticizes Gates for fighting in linear formations against the British that GATES WAS BRITISH!!! He was not American in the slightest!
-I would also disagree with the sentiment that Brandon insinuates that Gates was respected among his men.-
-Sure, initially the men would have welcomed the hero of Saratoga to lead them, but as time went on, Gates' men, especially the militia who had been sent there from North Carolina became increasingly frustrated with him, his officers likewise became extremely frustrated with him. That long forced march that he sends them on was not at ALL the best way to go and just about everyone there knew it. De Kalb would complain frequently in his correspondences and his diary, even saying "[The route we traversed] was poor and desolate, hardly reclaimed from it's natural condition. The first rude efforts at civilisation and culture which appeared here and there, had either been abandoned by their owners or plundered by their neighbours."-
-And while you can do difficult things like this with regular soldiers and expect them to suck it up, you absolutely CANNOT do it with militiamen. They WILL get annoyed, they WILL get tired, they WILL get worried about whether or not you as their leader are like... fucking stupid or something and finally they WILL up and leave if they don't think you're doing it right.-
-This is not helped at ALL by the fact that these NORTH CAROLINA and VIRGINIA militiamen were being forced to fight in SOUTH CAROLINA. Hundreds of miles from their homes.-
-Now in the North you can stretch this and make it work because New England had a lot of large community social structures, but in the deep south, if a militiaman died, his whole family was basically screwed. So Dixie militia were a lot more risk averse than New England militia, and just to make this worse the British had been conducting seaborne raids in Virginia, so each and every NC and VA militiaman there was itching with every bone in their body to abandon their out of touch general and get back to their families should the worst happen. The further from a militiaman's farm he is, the more nervous and jumpy he becomes and that just craters morale.- just realised that comment was about Cornwallis, never mind.
Knowing that the battle between Kalb and Rawdon was so close is extremely funny to me.
Gates fled with the militia. Imagine how humiliating it would have been to have fled the battlefield at the first sign of danger but then have your subordinates win in your absence XD
Also I just realised this...
A bunch of the patriots at 23:50 have bayonets.
Why?
I was about to defend the distances around 33:00 because sometimes, a set designer is going to fudge distances in order to fit things on camera. They wanted both armies visible through the mansion's bay windows, they're not going to hold to realistic distances.
Then I remembered the multiple shot continuity errors at 31:30, and all benefit of doubt dribbles away again
I'm been looking forward to this for a long time
Forests can or cannot ruin cinematography- on one hand, you have the final duel in the Force Awakens for a forest adding distraction and ruining cohesion. On the other, there's the obvious inspiration for the Patriot, Last of the Mohicans where the forest is incorporated into the choreography and adds a fantasy color to it. The battle at Amon Hen in Fellowship of the Ring is another good example, but it shows more for light, irregular combat with small skirmishes. Notice that even that forest ambush scene, so awfully choreographed, still had the central road featuring and where the actual hand to hand combat took place even though that would favor the bayonets and numbers of the regulars.
Personally I would have kept the forest. Remember, this is the American POV. Militia should have the advantage, they have numbers, and suddenly they get steamrolled by professional soldiers. It would add to the terror and confusion- this is supposed to be a scary scene where the bad guys are more than a match for the good guys, who are tired, hungry, and thrown into confusion. But again Mel Gibson insisted that the Battle of Stirling Bridge actually omit the castle and bridge, so I shouldn't be surprised.
As usual the context of the battle is lost. That's a big problem with this movie- the battles just...happen. There's no reason for why they happen. It's like Gettysburg and Gods and Generals- they mention the strategy briefly but the battle itself is assumed to be important rather than happening in any kind of context.
I find it funny that in medieval movies everything is all grimed up and dirty and brown, it's quite the opposite in this movie. It's a lot more visually appearing, but it's just as inaccurate as the dung ages.
I feel the numerical parity was inserted to make the British victory seem like a matter of inevitability rather than this big upset.
The Maryland Continentals were among the best units in the entire war. But we can't get them outshining Mel's militiamen.
Interestingly enough, in the original script, de Kalb has a cameo and black British soldiers are part of Cornwallis' charge. With Rodat in the writing room, you could get this desperate Omaha Beach scene from this movie, something far truer to the actual battle.
Never noticed the oversized Government guns and lack of Patriot guns. Jesu christo. This film introduced me to the skipping roundshot scene. Sure, it's not from the actual battle, but it was a new concept for me when I saw this movie, and I thought it was cool, and terrifying.
And given that it's more cinematic to show charges and hand to hand combat since linear warfare is so alien to most viewers, you'd think the bayonet charge would be natural.
I think they just saw the big blocks on historical battlemaps and their only takeaway was "blocks". Perhaps the checkboard comes from Spartacus, which was the only part of the Roman army and that battle they got right.
That's another trope of Hollywood muskets- the idea of close range is taken to the extreme. They treat 100 yards as 100 feet-. I think part of it is the whole "close range firefight" trope in movies where soldiers can see each other closely and where the shot can have both side at the same time. Star Wars does that a lot. It's more cinematic, but I feel that you could easily intercut the lines shooting at longer range. You have the tension of the rebels firing and firing, but the royals keep on coming and coming until the big bayonet charge and chaos breaking out.
This film is extremely insulting to the regulars on both sides. The British are easily beaten by Martin's guys, but the Continentals are easily beaten by the British. It's the militia myth- going to toe to toe is viewed as insanity while irregular fighters are glorified. Rawdon and DeKalb are cut out entirely.
I'm glad you had that Decemberist movie showcased- that actually showed cavalry charges and grape as these terrifying things, and had at least token gore and was a lot more honest about the violence in the battle
It's just so odd to compare Camden in this movie with Omaha Beach in Saving Private Ryan. One captures desperation, terror, frenetic energy. It gets stuff wrong too but it at least gets the basics right and shows what a suicide-charge, hold-out fight to the finish looks like. This one is a caricature of the weapons, the men, and the entire era.
Looking forward to the videos on Cornwallis, O'Hara, Tarleton, and all the guys that got cut.
I live near the Battle of Camden and very close to Bain DeKalb 's burial site and close to the Battle of Hob Kirk Hill. My backyard is one of the locations that Francis Marion hid out during the lead up to the Battle of Camden. That scene in the Patriot drives me crazy
The Patriot is like wrestling. I know it's fake but it's so fun that I don't care.
Has Mel Gibson ever got ANYTHING right in one of his historical dramas? Anything at all?
In accuracy? Well, no, in nonsensical sensationalism defeating the big bad British imagery? Yes.
Mad Max 1 is pretty much a documentary.
Mel would be amazing as a fantasy film director 🧙♂️ 🐉
@@LeviathanSpeaks1469 He did that. It was called Apocalypto. That movie is completely detached from history and reality. He may as well have thrown some vampires and goblins in there it's so ridiculous.
Im trying to find a job since my current is... up in the air, so my anxiety has peaked. Back in the day I used to fall asleep to the Patriot videos. Hopefully this helps settle me down for a good nights sleep. Thanks Brandon!
I'm sorry to hear you're having a rough go of things, but am glad to help out a little bit where I can. All bad things shall pass! Except for The Patriot, it seems. Sadly that is an evil that yet persists.
You are going to find a good job soon.
I remember as a kid being so excited about the movie coming out. I was sort of a war nut and looking forward to finally seeing a movie that features the revolution. Would we Trenton, where after abandoning New York, a quick victory sent the Brits into chaos and gave Americans hope? Or the significant turning point at Saratoga? Nah we got a dad's revenge movie.
Love this Patriot series!
I grew up with the idea of take-turns combat volley fire because of this mel gibson movie. Thanks to you and other folks for correcting this very big flaw about the depiction the civil war and blackpowder ❤
Can't believe my teachers used this piece of shit (not in its entireity mind you, a lot of skipping through the more gory or raunchy scenes) in class-to actually TEACH us about these events. I probably knew less about the revolution coming out the other side!
The only semi accurate scene was the battle of Cowpens, though Cornwallis wasn’t there irl, and the numbers were quite a bit smaller.
Every time i hear about the innaccuracies of The Patriot, i always think "man that would've been so much better had they done it accurately". The point of the battle of Camden scene if i remember right was to show that the contentinal army needed someone like Mel Gibson's character to rally behind right? Well imagine how much more impactful that message would've been had they shown the ferocity of the British, thier coordination in spite of the circumstances, and more importantly how the Continental army and milita just lost a lot of good men fighting to the last.
Sure but I still find it fun to watch to see Continentals get pasted.
And OMG, FIGHTING STYLES OF THIS TIME WERE BASED ON MUZZLE TO MUZZLE Martin! That's how it works! Madness?! This is HELLAS!
Recently the remains of 14 of the men that died during the battle were removed and reinterred. As someone who was on site during the recent dig and removal of the remains, thank you for covering this. The battlefield is so starkly different from what was on screen, its crazy. Its a such and important battle that is not well known and the men that died deserve better. 1/4 of the men found were teenagers and they took some horrific wounds still visible when they were removed.
As a South Carolinian who lives 20 minutes from the Camden battlefield, it's an honor to have the history around my patch of Earth covered by you
Also, the idea of marching from the coast to Camden in a few days in the summer sounds miserable
Edit: Got to the end of the video, and I would like to thank you again for calling out Hollywood and their crappy portrayal of history. You will get a stream of braindead, regurgitated excuses that lack substance, but you are in the right none the less. Keep fighting the good fight
Hollywood can't even get the damn films of the War on terror right. They even botched the 9/11 films. Seriously. Did we not remember that one movie about flight 93 it was made in 2006. I'm also an aviation geek. That 757 cockpit looks like Boeing and Airbus had a child and spit out this so called 757 cockpit and then we should also mention the fact the terrorists don't even speak Arabic. They speak and converse in English. United 93 also made in 2006 did much better. Except for the traditional style of when the plane goes inverted, mysteriously the oxygen masks pop out.
@@Airland_combat Jeez, get a life
@@jake8855 What, I like realism. Every movie has a critic. If you can't accept that. You are gonna have a very hard time in life.
@Airland_combat Actually, taking 3 seconds to mock people online hasn't been hard at all so far. Sounds like you had a hard life if you can't enjoy a movie because a tiny detail which has nothing to do with the plot isn't accurate.
@@jake8855 Ahh, I see where your priorities in life are....
At the very least this scene gave us the "Inept Rustics" line. It's become a running joke among my friend group lol
Hey Brandon, at 28:50, it is possible that the infantry would work artillery. The Royal Regiment of Artillery was undermanned during the Revolutionary War, I would have expected some artillerymen, but infantry could fill out crews. I volunteer at Michilimackinac where we have 11 pieces of artillery, but historically they only had 1-2 artillerymen at any given point in time, which resulted in the infantry (King’s 8th) being also trained in artillery.
Another note, it was hard to tell based on the lighting, but the guns used by the British appears to be iron and not bronze in the Patriot battle of Camden, which would be highly unlikely given the weight of an iron gun.
I cannot wait to see you talk about Lord Cornwallis. Tom Wilkinson is a great actor, but this movie does Cornwallis SO DIRTY!!
The Continentals had already won several pitched battles against the British by this point. So the idea that they couldn’t do it is nonsense.
Baron de Kalb being completely absent is a travesty. He went out like a complete badass.
It is incredibly painful that so many filmmakers still cant grasp that all you have to do is show what actually happened.
After watching Napoleon last night, this remains a sad and frustrating truth.
American film has a law that ties the hands of filmmakers and cartoonists. Has been used as another branch for military purposes. Like a department of propagation
Hahaha, all the boomer wannabe historians have so much sand in their vaginas when it comes to historical movies taking dramatic license. Get a life already.
@@711liljay
That's interesting. Could you cite the law to someone who is curious?
@obi-wankenobi1233 something to do with artistic licence. Like if you were to film a sex scene as example. You are prohibited to film an errection. All about making something look better than what it is. Been a long time since I was in a study room studying art and design & design and communication. I wonder how many film makers have behind scenes or extra content that not allowed to be seen
Just remember "Stirling Bridge" without THE bridge. I don't have to make you remember who had the leading role...
Sorry honey, a new Brandon F video just dropped.
I'm glad I got to watch History Buffs today
I'm not an American nor even British, but that's damn interesting. Thank you for telling the story of this battle I've never even heard of before, I deeply appreciate.
Dear Brandon F.,
I really look forward to your tutorials. on the war please keep up the fine work and as always, I can't wait for your next video
It was great entertainment sort of based on a real historical moment
Mel Gibson is not known for his accurate portrayal of history.
Gotta admire his method acting, though. He played a Scotsman and then turned into an alcoholic racist.
@@alexfilma16 that is the funniest thing I've seen in long time. Well played, Sir.
@@jimmyjohnson7027 Haha I’m glad you liked it. It’s originally a joke from Frankie Boyle.
Mel Gibson stands unopposed as the director of the most incredible emotional arcs couched in the most flagrantly inaccurate depictions of military history.
Brandon, I was wondering if you could do a video on veterans during the 18th and early 19th century. Since your video about the song "The Cruel Wars" by the Dreadnoughts, I was curious about how veterans were treated and how it was like to be a veteran in the 18th and early 19th century.
A deeper dive into that subject would be great, absolutely. One of these days!
Finally you're covering this god forsaken scene. What a dumb movie.
"Brandon, stop watching The Patriot."
"NO. I'M ALMOST ENJOYING MY ANGER."
How many regular Americans (myself included) would have never even known about this battle if not for The Patriot?
I'd rather less people know about it than they have the totally wrong impression, though.
@@BrandonF What was wrong with it? The Battle of Camden as depicted in The Patriot did everything it was supposed to in regards to serving the narrative of the film. Did it portray the battle accurately down to the tactics and the men involved? No. Did it portray the battle accurately in that the British won and Gates was put to flight? Yes.
@@RollTide1987That's the absolute bare minimum.
@@RollTide1987 I mean, the video goes over everything wrong with it pretty well, I think. And in the things it gets wrong it actively promotes, alongside the other subjects I've discussed in this review series, a deeply disturbing view of American history.
The encounter directly after the battle between the fleeing Col. Tarleton and Col. William Washington (cousin to George) would have been a much better story. As recounted in the British after action report Washington swung his sword and cut off Tarleton's que and eventually two or three of his fingers.
Talking about missed opportunities 42:30
It also showcases the strong discipline of the British redcoat., that famed discipline and ability to weather fire
The rebels shot at a good distance, they caused some casualties, sure
But the British just weathered the shot. And they " just kept coming" which is a line from the Sharpe books as spoken by a tipu sultanate man
The British discipline and ability to get in close to make it count, and you see it, the British volley seems to drop half the damn yankee line in a single volley
It showcases British discipline, the issues of relatively inexperienced officers etc
I'd say ANOTHER big issue with this battle being Camden is that Camden was comparatively late in the war, if this was early war, when the continental army was REALLY new. It'd make more sense for them to not be as well organised
Film Director's vision overruling military experts on set. That's the problem.
At this rate, the total run time of all the videos Brandon has done about why the Patriot is so awful will be longer than the actual war.
And I'm totally happy to follow him on that journey.
They did invade and retake the Falklands with a 10:1 disadvantage.
loosely based on historical facts provides good entertainment
Brilliant video, greeting from Russia! Well, I suppose that means that some of our modern historical films about the battles are not the only ones that contain horrific mistakes... And I must confess, before I saw this channel kind of year ago, I thought that the battle of Camden in the Patriot was the most realistic demonstration of the linear tactics... what a shame
Many historical films are staggeringly inaccurate, it's such a insult that many people judge these conflicts and pick sides when things are always more complicated.
I'm particularly saddened by the film 'Braveheart' which has such a strong grasp on Scottish people's nationalism in the modern day. Deeply frustrating that they don't even know what history to be proud of apart from dramatized insults based upon lies and the opinions of the creators of that media.
Can you do a video on strategy and tactics of this war? Or let me know if you already have one. I haven't seen any videos showing the basic tactical understandings that would be the kinda by-the-book methods.
Watching this and remembering the last streams
Are we sure Empire II isn’t based in The Patriot?
Living in South Carolina, right now (in march) it is already so warm, and the South Carolina summer is hell. Marching in the long sleeves long pants would be terrible. Just goes to show how bad the movies accuracy is
Being early to another Brandon-slamming-Mel Gibson video feels surreal
There was no battery in the rear firing over top of friendly infantry. The guns were up front between infantry lines (as shown in the map in this video) for both armies. Also, Tarleton's legion was not wearing green-faced redcoats as in this movie. They were wearing fully green coats, as Tartleton wanted to emulate the uniforms Simcoe had created for his Queen's Rangers. Furthermore, why were these men from Britain and Maryland not soaking wet in sweat in the South Carolina summer?
Good video.
"As joker approaches the window" 😂
The one part I do understand is giving the British artillery red coats instead of blue coats. Many audience members would have mistaken them for rebel artillery if they were wearing blue.
True,
I'll never get enough historical commentary on the patriot. It deserves eternal mockery.
A Brandon F video is always nice to see
When I went to Camden for the Reenactment a few months ago my first thought was "This is nothing like what the Patriot showed." I was right
I know Brandon won't see this comment, but in case he would, I want to point up that the captions of this video sometimes have the wrong timing, staying up for just a split second, way too short for reading, forcing me to reload some passages over and over to read them.
I appreciate that he edited and polished the automatic subtitles, BTW, that's something very professional and cool which not many UA-camrs do. But if he sees this, please, try finding a few minutes to browse them again and synch them better!.
Very fascinating and informative video, it got me hooked even if I never had any particular interest in this historical period!
Still a great movie 🤷♂️
While the Patriot was a "historical clusterf**k" it was still so cool to see revolutionary war content in theaters. I too wish they had put in the effort to do it right. It could have been one of the best movies of all time if they had the better attention to historical detail that movies like Master and Commander had.
Thank you for a great vid Brandon, and for doing those men justice. o7
Brilliant work, as always. The way you manage to rekindle my interest in this deeply fascinating period of history is very much appreciated.