oh my sweet summer child war is hell no matter the period. further into you viewing this holy fuck you have no idea just how ruthless the British were ask an honest brit
compared to the church burning scene which didnt happen armies through most of the 18tyh cebntury were supposed to be very honourable as in the incident at the battle of fontenoy which if you hav'nt heard of i can enlighten you .
@@shelbynnave You should do a reaction videos for the 🎥 Films Wicked Springs(2002), God & Generals (2003), Gettysburg (1993), Ride With the Devil (2000) Toby Maguire and 💎 Jewel, Copper Heads ( 2014), War Flowers (2015) Christina Ricci and Tom Berenger, Andersonville ( 1996), Cold Mountain 🏔️ (2003), Prairie Rose 🌹 A Civil War Journey ( 2006) Rebecca Sutera Tulloch Films, Lincoln (2012), Killing Lincoln (2013), The Conspirator ( 2011). You are such Angel 😇, So beautiful 😍. * God & Generals is the prequel to Gettysburg, and Neo Confederate/ Lost Causers propaganda 🎥 film.
Oh, on a side note, the battle at the end of the movie actually appears to be an amalgamation of two battles and Mel Gibson's character is two different men. One is, as you said, a British victory (where the British did actually fire on their own men during melee fighting with the rebels), the other is the battle of Cowpens where Daniel Morgan's Rifle Corp defeated Banister "The Butcher" Tartleton. Cornwallis had split his army in two to launch these two battles, and afterwards abandoned the Carolinas and retreated to Virginia where he was trapped. So they're merging different people and battles from the campaign into one for the sake of brevity.
@Blake N I would argue that he is based upon Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox", combined with Daniel Morgan, a legend in his own right and the commander at Cowpens who won a decisive but small battle for the Americans (and decimated Tarleton). The other is the following and much larger battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina, where the British repelled a major American attack by firing grapeshot into the mass of fighting troops like in the movie, except in real life the British held on. Still, given casualties and materiel losses, the British retreated to Yorktown anyway and got surrounded and besieged, before surrendering. The movie seems to have Gibson play Marion for the guerilla scenes, Morgan for the Cowpens scene, and possibly even Greene himself at Guilford Courthouse.
@@Fallschirmjager4242 I'm a northerner, but it would be cool to see them one day. Though with your username, I would assume the Battle of Crete would be more to your liking 🤣
The protagonist of the movie isn't as nice as the "original" was, and the antagonist isn't as evil as the "original" was. But from a dramatic point of view, it's very efficient. Jason Isaacs and Mel Gibson are so charismatic.
Well Mel Gibsons Charector is based off Francis Marian a slave owner who was so brutal his slaves ran away and joined the British army as for Tavington his Charector is a debatable one he was known for giving no quarter to the enemy but my problem with this film is it blatantly portrays the British as Saturday morning cartoon villains overplaying every stereotype and making them as stupid as possible contrary to the real history.
@@samuel10125The Patriot portrays the British soldiers accurately, so apparently the British did behave like Saturday morning cartoon villains. The British generals were often or always from noble houses and were posh and they did speak lowly of the American rebels, so ... The Patriot does not get that wrong. Dunno what else to tell ya. Sorry to burst your false conception of history.
@@mr.warlight9086 The film didn't portray most British soldiers in any particular way, other than as parts of the backdrop. Only Tavington and Cornwallis are featured in substantial roles. And Tavington, himself, admits that if word gets out of his antics, he is finished back home. This clearly indicates that the average Brit wouldn't have any more use for his tactics than we would.
7:33 comment about the "Line Fighting" style of warfare employed by European powers during the 17th-early 19th century was due to the weapons of the time obviously. The muskets were pretty inaccurate, only accurate up to 50 yards, so in order to inflict any real effects, they had to employ mass amount of troops in a large volley to score any hits beyond 50 yards. So thats basically why they stood in a line and took turns shooting each other lol. Basically by the mid-19th century firearm technology had progressed to where breech-loaded caplocked rifled muskets with self contained minnie ball ammunition became common place (prior to this it was smoothbore muzzle-loaded flintlock muskets that shot round lead balls as seen in this movie). This improved the accuracy of firearms caused armies to adapt tactics such as seen in late American Civil War and Crimean war where armies started to dig in instead of staying in an open field shooting each other, though Line Fighting battles still took place, it wasnt completely obsolete yet. Pretty much by end of 19th century firearms had improved more to Breech-loaded clip-fed (with internal magazine) repeating (lever or bolt action) rifles with metallic cartridges' were standard issue in most Western/European armies. This combined with the invention of the self-loading machine gun by Hiram Maxim in 1880s pretty much created the static trench warfare seen in World War I. Beginning of WWI the old guard generals still had these Line Battle tactics in the back of their mind when deploying their troops early in the war, but soon found out that the new firearm technology that allowed for accurate rapid fire had pretty much made Line Battles a bloodbath and obsolete so trench warfare developed. (then the invention of the tank, armored vehicles and airplanes made trench warfare obsolete, but thats a writeup for another day lol). Sorry for the long post, im a history nerd too and my area of interest is military history, so i get passionate about it lol.
There more then a accurate out to 300 yards with some practice, and the effects with them at close range with buck and ball loads were pretty horrific. That being said when they progressed to rifled percussion muskets it increased their range and fire-power quite substantially.
10:05 Jason Isaacs was also the scientific advisor to NASA Ronald Quincy in Armageddon. He also played Captain "Old Man" Waggoner in the movie Fury. He pulled off a fake American accent. Amazing acting talent. :D
This is my first time watching one of your reaction videos. I absolutely loved how interested you were in learning the history behind everything. I love American history, especially around the Revolutionary and Civil wars. This movie, I would define, is inspired by true events. A lot of liberty was taken with the specific characters, but the essence of the war remained true.
Pronunciation of Tarleton without the E. Tarlton is really how it’s pronounced. Lol Btw thank you for doing this movie. The Patriot is in my top 3 fav movies of all time!
in reality the british army along with the other western armies throughout the 18th century had a reputation for being very honourable and civilised rather than murdering civilians .
@@williamfurlong9786 That is a FALSE narrative. There is NO WAY you can get as big as the British Empire without mind boggling levels of cruelty. The British were pretty much IDENTICAL to what the Nazis were doing in Eastern Europe. Most likely WORSE. In the 1950s the British did same VERY SCARY things in Kenya.
Yeah the British empire was absolutely ruthless and brutal just read up on what they did the Scotland, Ireland, India, Australia, Africa and the Americans.
The church burning never happened and had Tavington acted in that fashion he would have been executed for murder. It was based on an incident during ww2 when the Nazis locked people up in a church and set it on fire but the British never did that.
@@thatnorwegianguy1986 Sounds like rubbish. Most German soldiers were Christians and would never conceive of such a thing. It sounds like something the Soviets would have done, there is a case in fact where the communists raped and murdered over 70 women and children in a Church. A lot of the propaganda portrayed as "German" atrocities were in fact Soviet. It is well documented that rape in particular was something the Reds were notorious for doing, young, old it did not matter to them. Not that the British or even Americans were much better, they raped and murdered also, just not to the extreme brutality of the Reds. Allied soldiers have been quoted saying how honorable the German military was, they actually upheld to the Geneva Convention unlike the allies. Bombings of cities such as Dresden were atrocities, they intentionally targeted civilians and burned hundreds of thousands.
Nothing comes close to the horrors Churchill and Eisenhower inflicted upon Germany. More German POWs died in captivity after the war than all of the people who died from both atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Look up the Eisenhower death camps.
@@sleepinggiant8150 the british army like all 18th centuary western armies was far more civilized . At the battle of fontenoy in 1745 the brits and french called on each other to fire first. For real british atrocities see ireland and south africa. As a film it was a sunday afternoon film rubbish compared to braveheart .
You should watch a documentary about why they fought that way it makes 100% sense once you learn why basically you could win the battle if you could force your enemy to retreat whoever was the most disciplined usually worn most casualties were taken in retreat
About the scene when they rescue Gabriel, the British used a smooth bore musket (Brown Bess) the bullet doesn't spin (like a football's spiral) because they were cheaper to make, and faster to reload but at the cost of accuracy hence why tactics at the time had the men stand in line, but most American woodsmen at the time used a long barreled rifle (Kentucky Long Rifle) which has spiral grooves in the barrel that make the bullet spin (like a football) so it flies straight, significantly increasing accuracy with the trade off being it was slower to reload, which made guerilla warfare tactics become more widespread in American militias at the time
Interesting what you say what Francis Marion was "known for". What I have known him for is being one of the fathers of guerrilla and maneuver warfare. Yes, in actuality, the REAL Francis Marion was a slave-owner and veteran of the French and Indian War. He did engage with Tarleton, who chased him unsuccessfully through 26 miles of swamp. Afterwards, Tarleton was quoted as saying, "as for this old fox, the Devil himself could not catch him". This quote led to Marion's nom de Guerre of "The Swamp Fox". I never heard that he was KNOWN for the atrocities you mentioned, but he did fight against freed slaves. He also received an order from Gov John Rutledge to execute Black people suspected of carrying provisions or gathering Intel for the British. Finally, I had to look up your allegation about Marion "raping" slaves. In a biography entitled "The Swamp Fox: How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution", author John Oller says these allegations were FALSE, and that Marion enjoyed generally good relations with his slaves.
Always enjoyed when he melts down his son's toy soldiers , the molten lead to use for musket balls. Then said musket ball has the paint scheme as the original toy soldiers
About the battle in the backyard thing there's a fun history about a man who moved away during civil war because his house was involved in the first battle of bull run (first big battle of civil war) then he moved to Appomattox, and fairly enough the war ended in his kitchen when General Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant, universe is cool
Actually slavery was before the U.S.A. The British went to Africa and African men had slaves and sold them to the British who then brought them to the Americas. Native Americans had enemy tribes as well. More advanced tribes went after lesser tribes. Every culture and people have their good and bad. The French came and helped win the revolutionary war.
you are correct about The British Armies Moral Code During War. The main bad guy in this film was however based on a real life Dragoon Officer who supposedly was as brutal in real life as Tavington in this film. At least that's what I've heard.
He wasn't particularly brutal, his conduct in battle was fairly standard for what was expected if a British officer and gentleman (have quarter when it was asked, gave medical aid to wounded combatants from either side, absolutely did not target civilians) He had a reputation though, and was known as the Butcher. This came about from a misunderstanding in battle - colonial troops were attempting to surrender and had raised a white flag, but someone shot Tarletons horse out from under him and he was knocked out cold. His men thought that the colonial force had killed their commander - under a flag of truce no less - so charged in fury and slaughtered the colonials. Tarleton came to as this was happening but couldn't regain control of his men before it was finished, and he was known as the Butcher from then on. Also "Tarletons quarter" became a phrase meaning no quarter given
I feel like you underestimate the arrogance and entitlement that the British felt at the height of their empire. They basically saw everyone else as beneath them/uncivilized, and once the colonies rebelled, that same perception fell on them as well. Everything was fine so long as they provided goods for England, but once the colonials decided they no longer wanted to be exploited as other British colonies were, all bets were off. This was also long before any sort of international conventions, so basically anything went in war. It was mostly up to individual army commanders how they conducted campaigns, as they couldn't wait days/weeks for dispatches back to the King to reach them giving them orders. They served as they thought their ruler would want them to, but ultimately there were no formal rules in war.
Drums and fifes were used in old warfare. And yes they were fair game to shoot at. The idea was to make the soldiers feel "hyped" while marching into battle. Like good music when you're working out. It was to lift the spirits of the men going into certain death. Bagpipes were also used a lot by the British. Drums were also used to convey orders like "advance, fall back, charge, etc" Warfare was so LOUD, that you couldn't hear the orders. So instruments were used to make everyone know "Hey retreat." or "Hey, charge!"
That final battle was actually based on the Battle Of Cowpens, which is a battle the (the continentals and militia) did win. This is bore out by the plan of battle mentioned in the movie. The plan of battle was devised by Nathanial Greene and Dan Morgan, two guys actually mentioned by the Colonel to Ben Martin in the scene right before the planning session.
The final battle in this movie combined two historical battles: Cowpens and Guilford's Courthouse that both took place around the sametime in the Southern Theater
The movie is actually pretty activities. Benjamin Martin had no slaves. He had Free Blacks work his land for pay. But the Brits took them slaves anyway....until they escaped.
The reason Mel Gibson and his kids were so accurate is civilians had better firearms back than then the military had. They had riffles which are extremely accurate and military's were outfitted with much cheaper muskets. That is also why the warfare at the time was to line up in columns because muskets are so inaccurate that it takes a line of men firing them to hit a other men.
Interesting is the reason why they lined up like that. I heard somewhere that back then it was hard to communicate in the midst gunfire and the line abreast compensated for that also the standard infrantry rifles were not rifled thus meaning they were not very accurate and the ball would tend to deviate in flight. Which is in part why they introduced sharpshooters which had rifled barrels which could shoot further and more accurately. It wasn't until the Civil War that the line abreast formation showed its age with the creation of more accurate rifles.
Hi from England! Just found your channel and really enjoy your bubbly personality. Don't know if anyone's mentioned it but, the church burning scene was based on an event in World War 2 in the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane. An SS unit was heading north to join in the fighting in Normandy and stopped at this village because they thought Resistance units were being supplied by it. They took the men away and machine-gunned them all while the women and children were locked inside the church. The ruins were left exactly how they were found as a memorial to the victims.
The short answer is NO also the scene with the British locking people up in a church then setting on fire never happened. There was never any brutality or summary execution of civillians by British troops the ridicoulus figure of Tavington would have been executed for murder had he acted in that fashion in real life. This entire movie was also critisized heavily by both American and British historians as pure propaganda.
Tavington is based on Banastre Tarleton, a hero of the British Army and later returned home to represent my city (Liverpool) as a Member of Parliament, I think it comes from the fact his nickname was "the Butcher of Waxhaws". There's no evidence he was like this but Jason Isaacs is a fantastic actor. It's Mel Gibson films, drama, Braveheart is more fictional too. Both are only accurate dates etc.
If you want to watch a more accurate account of this, I suggest watching The Swamp Fox. It was a miniseries that was part of The Wonderful World of Disney Frontier Land show. It follows the back and forth fight between Francis Marion and Banister Tarleton.
Mel and the bois were using Rifles - effective point target 200 yards, the British were using Brown Bess muskets (no rifling) effective point target range 109. The only documented burning of a church with the people in it was WW1, German army.
What "history" books have you been reading? During the American Civil War, The Northern Army burned churches with people in them like it was a SPORT. I'm NOT pro-South, but there is a reason people still like the Confederate Flag.
In 1777 on April 21st the British troops attacked Danbury Connecticut. When they encountered little to no Patriotic military resistance the soldiers went on a rampage burning houses, farmhouses, storehouses & more than 1,500 tents most likely not caring if they were occupied. All this was allowed under the command of General William Tryon. So yes they would
I think the “sewing Gabriel into the sack” thing when he’s with Anne, that was a tradition back then. If two people were in love, the man would be sewn into a sack while on a date to prevent him from “doing it” with the woman until marriage. At least, that’s what I heard…
While Tarleton did advocate a harsh policy towards civilians in the war, he is unlikely to have actually acted on those policies. As for the Massacre of Waxhaws, his accounts (as well as those from Anerican sources as well) state that as the surrender of Continental soldiers was occurring, a musket shot took out his horse. His men thought he had been killed under a false surrender, and before he could remount and regain order, they had already ridden into the surrendering Americans. That event is very likely not on him, and he did seem unhappy with the outcome (if simply for what it would mean to have a reputation as an officer that ignored the courtesies of war).
Whether this movie is accurate or whatever is like beside the point to me. The whole point of the American Revolution is summarized best by Thomas Paine: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."
The man Isaac's character is based on, Tarleton. Did lose control of his men at one point and they massacred a bunch of civilians. While he didn't order it, he did nothing to stop it. Also Andrew Jackson was 13 and Scout and Courier in the continental army and eventually a POW. So yeah they would kill a kid, because people we considered kids they would just consider fellow soldiers on the other side.
They didn't take turns, exactly. I don't know about American tactics, but the Brits would usually march up to optimum musket range, stop, fire two volleys then charge with bayonets. The fact that they kept coming under fire while losing men, and had just unleashed two huge volleys in quick succession, and were typically well experienced, hardened professionals, often made the enemy (who were often conscripts or militia) break and run. Even though it's thoroughly obsolete, the bayonet charge is still important in the British military because of the psychological impact on both parties, mainly on the aggression of the charging soldier. They were much less suited to guerilla warfare, which is why they formed the first Ranger and rifle regiments about this time, to make up for this shortcoming. This served them extremely well in the Napoleonic wars later.
One of the biggest problems the Americans had was their lack of supply and readiness. If I remember right, this film had a scene or two that suggested the Americans didn't have boots or replacement winter coats? That was a huge a problem. And of course Bunker Hill ended with the Americans running out of ammunition and having to retreat. The war lasted as long as it did.. Probably chiefly because of that. It took a while for new British troops to come across the pond, and still the Americans struggled when they new they were coming in predictable waves.
@@robtierney5653 Yes American forces struggled greatly, including those without winter coats and shoes during winter season. Some soldiers have to fight even without them, the Army was poorly trained and underfund. But of course credit goes to General Washington for his amazing effort in keeping together such a new struggling, underfund and poorly trained and low morale army against one of the strongest empires of that time.
Because ; the perpetuation of the lie of British savagery,distracts from the truth of the American sedition, being fuelled by a desire to murder native people and rape black slaves......the racism of Washington (who's life was saved by black soldiers) and Jefferson who repeatedly raped 14 year old slave(sally hemmings),should be condemned and not decorated, by the lies of idiotic film makers, who wish to maintain their I'll gotten wealth; based on a racist supremacists ideology...,
British didn't typically aim their muskets. They were trained to shoot in volleys from line formation. Muskets weren't overly accurate, so there wasn't much point in aiming at a specific target, and battlefields were quickly enveloped in smoke anyway, so soldiers often couldn't even see their targets.
I mean not wacky form of warfare, the idea wasn't to kill all the people from the other side, just to make them run in fear, basically who blinks first lose, shooting in a loose way would not deal the same moral effect as a 300 musket firing at once volley, and they would stand side by side and close because of cavalry attacks, if they where spread they would not have time to form up anti cavalry formations and would be routed or destroyed without much difficulty for the cavalry, plus the fact that Muskets takes like 20 seconds to be reloaded
It's very simple with domesticated animals...the dogs "loved " him because he fed them. Cats are the same way...feed a stray cat and pretty soon you'll have a pet cat. And dogs and cats(and other animals) will be loyal to you and maybe even defend you as long as you feed them and show them some positive attention.
The British under the command of banastre the butcher tarleton absolutely did shoot and hang children of the people who were “suspected” of harboring or giving aid to continentals. They burned churches, homes, farms, and murdered men women children and even slaves who refused to fight for king George after being “freed” by the British. He absolutely was a tyrant 3,000 miles away.. that isn’t just hyperbole. In fact, it was worse than what is depicted in this film.
By the way guerrilla warfar tatics is mutch older the first anotations of guerrila warfare was noted on roman manuscripts about lusitanian viriatus tatics wich were bit rustic but effective no gunpowder but the same principle and tatics
The British were not known for their atrocities *normally* but the loyalist militia, like the patriot militia, were quite brutal, particularly in the South where the atrocities were shocking on both sides. Rape, murder, and torture were not uncommon. After one incident where the loyalist militia murdered a family of patriots, cutting off the heads of even the women, and cutting open her womb and breasts with bayonets, they wrote in blood over her own body "Thou shalt never give birth to a rebel". The British were horrified at their own allies.
The point of lining up and shooting at each other was cause of the inaccuracy of muskets. They were smoothbore and the didn't take the time to set the ball tight in the barrel. The brown bess that the British used was so inaccurate that British troops were actually trained not to aim cause of this
Musicians were against military code as were Medics and pastor. So If you played Flute, Drums, were a doc, or a man of the Cloth you were not to be harmed.
If you doubt the're ability to be cruel, you should read up about the prison ships, most of the colonists death came on prison ships!, I think as many as 4000 prisoners died of starvation and exposure, more than died in battle I believe
History buffs made a good video about this movie accuracy and Braveheart and they talk about how Mel Gibson just hates the British and makes them out to be nazis in both movies
Firing at musicians and surgeons like "on purpose" was kinda bad back at this time, since musicians were like 12 years old kids and the kids of Sergeants and or Officers, tho in a line battle ur not really aiming at someone in particular, just firing at their direction
Back then yes England's army's would of done that and worse not everyone but the soldiers HAD to follow orders even from a psychopath. Malfoy guy was based on a real person who did things like this. It carried on as in 1919 the jallianwala Bagh massacre local Indians in Ameitsar had a large peaceful protest about an arrest of a pro Indian leader England's soldiers opened fire and killed upto 1000 innocent men women and children.
Hollywood did the same thing though in film We Were Soldiers lol, when they the US portrayed as the winner in the Vietnam War, not to mention to Islam in a lot of movie, especially in American Sniper (2014).
@GamerKat'71 Battle of Ia Drang both side claimed victory dude, go learn history again! I did learn that Vietnam War from both perspective and i know it's quite embarassing for US in this Series of War against Communism in Southeast Asia in that time, only Indonesia (my country) in SEA can succesfully repel the influence of Communism and that process is without US Army too.
@GamerKat'71 Lie? Just look at that information on Internet about the Battle of Ia Drang dude lmao, both side claimed a victory. I told you a fact, not a lie 🤣, that is why this movie is so bias!
I always feel like I have to point this out the way they portrayed the British is a bit over-the-top I'm French and even I have to say the British were not that bad boats side did some bad things but this movie is really one-sided plus I believe it was like one third of Americans want independence 1/3 didn't seem to care and one-third want to stay with the British that's why we have loyalists in Canada they left after Independence
you talk about the morality of warriors. War will bring out the best of those involved but more often the worst. This is a great movie, of course not truly accurate but more what I would call 'realistic'.
The Revolutionary War began on April 19th of 1775, when King George III ordered the Army contingent in Boston to march out of the city to Concord and Lexington Massachusetts to confiscate muskets, cannon, gunpowder and other armaments the Colonists owned, this is when the shot heard around the world was fired, it took more than a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th of 1776, in that time, the Colonies were in open rebellion against the British Crown, in the "deal" that was struck BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was signed, upon our VICTORY and adoption of a Constitution creating our REPUBLIC, ALL SLAVES that were authorized by King George II and King George III, were to IMMEDIATELY freed and become U.S. Citizens, however, 2 Major political parties emerged from the constitutional convention, the FEDERALISTS, whom later became the Whig party, and then in 1855 became the REPUBLICAN party, and the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS, who in 1822 revised their name to just the DEMOCRAT party, instead of holding up their end of the "DEAL" from BEFORE the war, the Democratic Republicans decided that the slaves they "OWNED" were their "PROPERTY", and refused to free any of them, and for the most part moved into the southern states of Virginia and below, the FEDERALISTS however did in fact free all of their slaves as agreed to, and unfortunately, about 85% of them were captured by bounty hunters hired by the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS plantation owners, both the white ones and black ones, yes, almost half of the slave owners were in fact black, and all of them owned Black slaves about 45%, White slaves (MOSTLY IRISH) about 30%, and Asian slaves about 25%, after almost 40 years of the stalemate about ending slavery, disgusted Federalists, split away from the party and created the WHIG party to be more aggressive to end slavery, after another 20 years of additional stalemate, the founders of the MODERN REPUBLICAN party John C. Freemont, and Abraham Lincoln, created the new Republican party in 1855 with the specific goal to END slavery on this continent once and for all, John C, Freemont NARROWLY lost the Presidential election in 1856 losing to the Incumbent Democrat James Buchanan in a 3 way election with the Whig party candidate and former President Millard Fillmore, with the very distant 3rd place finish, the WHIG party ceased to exist, and most WHIG party members that remained, became REPUBLICANS, and in 1860, the First REPUBLICAN party President of The United Stated of America Abraham Lincoln became our 16th President, the Democrats almost immediately fled to Virginia and lower states, and after Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th of 1861, the DEMOCRATS/CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, started open hostilities against the United States of America, culminating with the bombardment of Fort Sumpter beginning on April 12th of 1861, starting the Civil War! between the Revolutionary war and the Civil war, when the DEMOCRATS were in power, they waged the INDIAN WARS, against Native nations, over the objections of the Federalist, then the Whig parties, then like they did in 1789 with the completion of the Constitution of The United States of America, when they did not hold up their end of the deal concerning SLAVERY, EVERY SINGLE TREATY that they signed with the Native nations that they had conquered, they broke every single one of them, and killed hundreds of thousands of them before sticking them on worthless lands that were far smaller than what they used to have, it has always been the Federalists, Whigs, and now Republicans, have always stood up for what is right, unfortunately, by the time the Republican party came into assistance, the Indian Wars were already over, and the Republicans were unable to help with the plight of the Indians, while the Democrats have always been the most evil people that have infected our great country!
They are movies. Movies are much more compelling than actual history, so when people create their mental picture of what the past was like, it is most likely populated by pictures from movies rather than dry historical documents. This can lead them to believe fairytales, especially if it reinforces what they want to be true about their people and country. We've all seen where that can lead.
@@tSp289 I agree. Just like watching a movie based on a novel. People think they know the story because they watched a 90 minute movie with the same title as an 800 page book. Movies have one purpose, to make money for the studio and people that produced them. It's a product like any other.
I loved your reaction and I especially loved your summary at the end. It was well thought out and I’m glad you recognised that the movie portrayed an inaccurate representation of slavery to say the least. Also loved how you researched the history of the main character. I was not aware that it was based on a real person and I definitely didn’t know that he was actually brutal to native Americans and his slaves. Well done to you for doing the research. Its good to know that you don’t allow movies to blind you to the truth of what actually took place. You’re able to enjoy the movie and not let the lies, inaccuracies, brain washing to effect you. Plus you’re hot!
How did you guys like this one? Give me your suggestions if you want me to do more movie commentaries in the future!
Really enjoyed it hope to see more in the future.
Great job at repeating British propaganda against a Man that fought for American Freedom.
oh my sweet summer child war is hell no matter the period. further into you viewing this holy fuck you have no idea just how ruthless the British were ask an honest brit
compared to the church burning scene which didnt happen armies through most of the 18tyh cebntury were supposed to be very honourable as in the incident at the battle of fontenoy which if you hav'nt heard of i can enlighten you .
@@michaelperussina2835 byrning houses down nd crops and treated the irish far worse in 1798 when they rebelled .
A lesson movie villains never learn..that one guy who always says "I just want to be left alone with my family" you leave him where he's at
If they did leave those people alone, we wouldn’t have great stories. Lol those people are more psycho than the villains
@@Zyphorius when you mess with a mans kids you're in for it it's true in real life also
That’s real life too.!
Man, I always cry when Susan runs after her dad....
ME TOO!!!
@@shelbynnave You should do a reaction videos for the 🎥 Films Wicked Springs(2002), God & Generals (2003), Gettysburg (1993), Ride With the Devil (2000) Toby Maguire and 💎 Jewel, Copper Heads ( 2014), War Flowers (2015) Christina Ricci and Tom Berenger, Andersonville ( 1996), Cold Mountain 🏔️ (2003), Prairie Rose 🌹 A Civil War Journey ( 2006) Rebecca Sutera Tulloch Films, Lincoln (2012), Killing Lincoln (2013), The Conspirator ( 2011).
You are such Angel 😇, So beautiful 😍.
* God & Generals is the prequel to Gettysburg, and Neo Confederate/ Lost Causers propaganda 🎥 film.
Oh, on a side note, the battle at the end of the movie actually appears to be an amalgamation of two battles and Mel Gibson's character is two different men.
One is, as you said, a British victory (where the British did actually fire on their own men during melee fighting with the rebels), the other is the battle of Cowpens where Daniel Morgan's Rifle Corp defeated Banister "The Butcher" Tartleton.
Cornwallis had split his army in two to launch these two battles, and afterwards abandoned the Carolinas and retreated to Virginia where he was trapped. So they're merging different people and battles from the campaign into one for the sake of brevity.
@Blake N I would argue that he is based upon Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox", combined with Daniel Morgan, a legend in his own right and the commander at Cowpens who won a decisive but small battle for the Americans (and decimated Tarleton).
The other is the following and much larger battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina, where the British repelled a major American attack by firing grapeshot into the mass of fighting troops like in the movie, except in real life the British held on.
Still, given casualties and materiel losses, the British retreated to Yorktown anyway and got surrounded and besieged, before surrendering.
The movie seems to have Gibson play Marion for the guerilla scenes, Morgan for the Cowpens scene, and possibly even Greene himself at Guilford Courthouse.
It is inspiring to actually walk the grounds at Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse. As a native Tar Heel I have been to both many times.
@@Fallschirmjager4242 I'm a northerner, but it would be cool to see them one day. Though with your username, I would assume the Battle of Crete would be more to your liking 🤣
“Oh yeah! Daddy’s suitin’ up!”
The protagonist of the movie isn't as nice as the "original" was, and the antagonist isn't as evil as the "original" was. But from a dramatic point of view, it's very efficient. Jason Isaacs and Mel Gibson are so charismatic.
Well Mel Gibsons Charector is based off Francis Marian a slave owner who was so brutal his slaves ran away and joined the British army as for Tavington his Charector is a debatable one he was known for giving no quarter to the enemy but my problem with this film is it blatantly portrays the British as Saturday morning cartoon villains overplaying every stereotype and making them as stupid as possible contrary to the real history.
@@samuel10125The Patriot portrays the British soldiers accurately, so apparently the British did behave like Saturday morning cartoon villains. The British generals were often or always from noble houses and were posh and they did speak lowly of the American rebels, so ... The Patriot does not get that wrong. Dunno what else to tell ya. Sorry to burst your false conception of history.
@@samuel10125 Look up what the British did to pre-teen Andrew Jackson during the Revolutionary War.
@@mr.warlight9086 The film didn't portray most British soldiers in any particular way, other than as parts of the backdrop. Only Tavington and Cornwallis are featured in substantial roles. And Tavington, himself, admits that if word gets out of his antics, he is finished back home. This clearly indicates that the average Brit wouldn't have any more use for his tactics than we would.
Tarleton also wasn't killed in the Colonial War, but survived and returned to England to publish several books on his "adventures".
7:33 comment about the "Line Fighting" style of warfare employed by European powers during the 17th-early 19th century was due to the weapons of the time obviously. The muskets were pretty inaccurate, only accurate up to 50 yards, so in order to inflict any real effects, they had to employ mass amount of troops in a large volley to score any hits beyond 50 yards. So thats basically why they stood in a line and took turns shooting each other lol. Basically by the mid-19th century firearm technology had progressed to where breech-loaded caplocked rifled muskets with self contained minnie ball ammunition became common place (prior to this it was smoothbore muzzle-loaded flintlock muskets that shot round lead balls as seen in this movie). This improved the accuracy of firearms caused armies to adapt tactics such as seen in late American Civil War and Crimean war where armies started to dig in instead of staying in an open field shooting each other, though Line Fighting battles still took place, it wasnt completely obsolete yet. Pretty much by end of 19th century firearms had improved more to Breech-loaded clip-fed (with internal magazine) repeating (lever or bolt action) rifles with metallic cartridges' were standard issue in most Western/European armies. This combined with the invention of the self-loading machine gun by Hiram Maxim in 1880s pretty much created the static trench warfare seen in World War I. Beginning of WWI the old guard generals still had these Line Battle tactics in the back of their mind when deploying their troops early in the war, but soon found out that the new firearm technology that allowed for accurate rapid fire had pretty much made Line Battles a bloodbath and obsolete so trench warfare developed. (then the invention of the tank, armored vehicles and airplanes made trench warfare obsolete, but thats a writeup for another day lol). Sorry for the long post, im a history nerd too and my area of interest is military history, so i get passionate about it lol.
There more then a accurate out to 300 yards with some practice, and the effects with them at close range with buck and ball loads were pretty horrific. That being said when they progressed to rifled percussion muskets it increased their range and fire-power quite substantially.
10:05 Jason Isaacs was also the scientific advisor to NASA Ronald Quincy in Armageddon. He also played Captain "Old Man" Waggoner in the movie Fury. He pulled off a fake American accent. Amazing acting talent. :D
This is my first time watching one of your reaction videos. I absolutely loved how interested you were in learning the history behind everything. I love American history, especially around the Revolutionary and Civil wars. This movie, I would define, is inspired by true events. A lot of liberty was taken with the specific characters, but the essence of the war remained true.
Pronunciation of Tarleton without the E. Tarlton is really how it’s pronounced. Lol
Btw thank you for doing this movie. The Patriot is in my top 3 fav movies of all time!
Oh my gosh no thank YOU for correcting me lol 😅 Also same this movie is awesome and definitely one of my favorites!
in reality the british army along with the other western armies throughout the 18th century had a reputation for being very honourable and civilised rather than murdering civilians .
@@williamfurlong9786 that’s what I figured!
@@williamfurlong9786 Tell that to India . . . . or any other conquered territory.
@@williamfurlong9786 That is a FALSE narrative. There is NO WAY you can get as big as the British Empire without mind boggling levels of cruelty. The British were pretty much IDENTICAL to what the Nazis were doing in Eastern Europe. Most likely WORSE. In the 1950s the British did same VERY SCARY things in Kenya.
13:03 “parkour”…I died 😂😂
Yeah the British empire was absolutely ruthless and brutal just read up on what they did the Scotland, Ireland, India, Australia, Africa and the Americans.
The church burning never happened and had Tavington acted in that fashion he would have been executed for murder.
It was based on an incident during ww2 when the Nazis locked people up in a church and set it on fire but the British never did that.
So we're Americans dealing with black native Chinese the British were no more cruel then most order groups at that time
@@thatnorwegianguy1986 Sounds like rubbish. Most German soldiers were Christians and would never conceive of such a thing. It sounds like something the Soviets would have done, there is a case in fact where the communists raped and murdered over 70 women and children in a Church.
A lot of the propaganda portrayed as "German" atrocities were in fact Soviet.
It is well documented that rape in particular was something the Reds were notorious for doing, young, old it did not matter to them. Not that the British or even Americans were much better, they raped and murdered also, just not to the extreme brutality of the Reds.
Allied soldiers have been quoted saying how honorable the German military was, they actually upheld to the Geneva Convention unlike the allies.
Bombings of cities such as Dresden were atrocities, they intentionally targeted civilians and burned hundreds of thousands.
Nothing comes close to the horrors Churchill and Eisenhower inflicted upon Germany. More German POWs died in captivity after the war than all of the people who died from both atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Look up the Eisenhower death camps.
@@MakemTwitch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre
I enjoyed your review ...well done! I am about to see what else you have reacted to. But I would recommend Braveheart and The 13th Warrior.
This was actually my first movie commentary! I'm glad you enjoyed it, Ill make sure to keep doing them! And those are definitely on my list!!
Yessssss I second 13th Warrior! Such an underrated film. So good
@@sleepinggiant8150 the british army like all 18th centuary western armies was far more civilized . At the battle of fontenoy in 1745 the brits and french called on each other to fire first. For real british atrocities see ireland and south africa. As a film it was a sunday afternoon film rubbish compared to braveheart .
If someone is wondering why they fought in lines it was because muskets was inaccurate so the standed in lines so they would hit someone
You should watch a documentary about why they fought that way it makes 100% sense once you learn why basically you could win the battle if you could force your enemy to retreat whoever was the most disciplined usually worn most casualties were taken in retreat
About the scene when they rescue Gabriel, the British used a smooth bore musket (Brown Bess) the bullet doesn't spin (like a football's spiral) because they were cheaper to make, and faster to reload but at the cost of accuracy hence why tactics at the time had the men stand in line, but most American woodsmen at the time used a long barreled rifle (Kentucky Long Rifle) which has spiral grooves in the barrel that make the bullet spin (like a football) so it flies straight, significantly increasing accuracy with the trade off being it was slower to reload, which made guerilla warfare tactics become more widespread in American militias at the time
Interesting what you say what Francis Marion was "known for". What I have known him for is being one of the fathers of guerrilla and maneuver warfare. Yes, in actuality, the REAL Francis Marion was a slave-owner and veteran of the French and Indian War.
He did engage with Tarleton, who chased him unsuccessfully through 26 miles of swamp. Afterwards, Tarleton was quoted as saying, "as for this old fox, the Devil himself could not catch him". This quote led to Marion's nom de Guerre of "The Swamp Fox".
I never heard that he was KNOWN for the atrocities you mentioned, but he did fight against freed slaves. He also received an order from Gov John Rutledge to execute Black people suspected of carrying provisions or gathering Intel for the British.
Finally, I had to look up your allegation about Marion "raping" slaves. In a biography entitled "The Swamp Fox: How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution", author John Oller says these allegations were FALSE, and that Marion enjoyed generally good relations with his slaves.
Always enjoyed when he melts down his son's toy soldiers , the molten lead to use for musket balls. Then said musket ball has the paint scheme as the original toy soldiers
The editing into this 💯💯🤣🤣🖤🖤
Probably one of my most favorite movies to date
18:34 I lost it at that mug lol
About the battle in the backyard thing there's a fun history about a man who moved away during civil war because his house was involved in the first battle of bull run (first big battle of civil war) then he moved to Appomattox, and fairly enough the war ended in his kitchen when General Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant, universe is cool
“I wanna do something fun and tear down fun movies!” Plinkett did it
41:31 wow that is very interesting since the declaration of independence was signed on 4th July 1776,, 5 yrs before this battle.
Actually slavery was before the U.S.A. The British went to Africa and African men had slaves and sold them to the British who then brought them to the Americas.
Native Americans had enemy tribes as well. More advanced tribes went after lesser tribes. Every culture and people have their good and bad.
The French came and helped win the revolutionary war.
True. British were the ones who bought african slaves and brought them to America, and colonials eventually followed the tradition of slavery.
The Mel Gibson's character is based on Charles Sumter, the patriot of South Carolina called "cockfight of Carolina".
As well as parts of Andrew Pickens, Frances Marion and especially Daniel Morgan who led Cowpens, the final battle in the movie.
you are correct about The British Armies Moral Code During War. The main bad guy in this film was however based on a real life Dragoon Officer who supposedly was as brutal in real life as Tavington in this film. At least that's what I've heard.
Banastre Tarleton was brutal but exactly this brutal.
He wasn't particularly brutal, his conduct in battle was fairly standard for what was expected if a British officer and gentleman (have quarter when it was asked, gave medical aid to wounded combatants from either side, absolutely did not target civilians)
He had a reputation though, and was known as the Butcher. This came about from a misunderstanding in battle - colonial troops were attempting to surrender and had raised a white flag, but someone shot Tarletons horse out from under him and he was knocked out cold. His men thought that the colonial force had killed their commander - under a flag of truce no less - so charged in fury and slaughtered the colonials. Tarleton came to as this was happening but couldn't regain control of his men before it was finished, and he was known as the Butcher from then on. Also "Tarletons quarter" became a phrase meaning no quarter given
"He's got some cheeks!" I was dead LOLLLLLLLL
That little girl actress passed away, unfortunately, some years ago. It might have been suicide or a drug OD =(
Are you serious?!?! oh no :'(((( that's so sad...
You mean the one who refused to hug her daddy?
didnt know she died. She was same age as me. Sad.
Not surprising knowing what we know now about the HORRORS that go on in Hollywood. Poor girl. RIP.
@Bloodied Beserker Nope, that was Skye McCole Bartusiak. She passed away in 2014 at age 21, from what is assumed an OD but she did have epilepsy.
I feel like you underestimate the arrogance and entitlement that the British felt at the height of their empire. They basically saw everyone else as beneath them/uncivilized, and once the colonies rebelled, that same perception fell on them as well. Everything was fine so long as they provided goods for England, but once the colonials decided they no longer wanted to be exploited as other British colonies were, all bets were off. This was also long before any sort of international conventions, so basically anything went in war.
It was mostly up to individual army commanders how they conducted campaigns, as they couldn't wait days/weeks for dispatches back to the King to reach them giving them orders. They served as they thought their ruler would want them to, but ultimately there were no formal rules in war.
Long before the height of the empire, the height of the empire was the early 19th century
@@Dom-fx4kt The height of the empire was at the end of the 19th century
He's definitely going after that and gonna tap that ayyysch😂😂
"I dont believe they would have done this"
War is hell
Drums and fifes were used in old warfare. And yes they were fair game to shoot at. The idea was to make the soldiers feel "hyped" while marching into battle. Like good music when you're working out. It was to lift the spirits of the men going into certain death. Bagpipes were also used a lot by the British.
Drums were also used to convey orders like "advance, fall back, charge, etc" Warfare was so LOUD, that you couldn't hear the orders. So instruments were used to make everyone know "Hey retreat." or "Hey, charge!"
That final battle was actually based on the Battle Of Cowpens, which is a battle the (the continentals and militia) did win. This is bore out by the plan of battle mentioned in the movie. The plan of battle was devised by Nathanial Greene and Dan Morgan, two guys actually mentioned by the Colonel to Ben Martin in the scene right before the planning session.
The final battle in this movie combined two historical battles: Cowpens and Guilford's Courthouse that both took place around the sametime in the Southern Theater
The movie is actually pretty activities. Benjamin Martin had no slaves. He had Free Blacks work his land for pay. But the Brits took them slaves anyway....until they escaped.
The reason Mel Gibson and his kids were so accurate is civilians had better firearms back than then the military had. They had riffles which are extremely accurate and military's were outfitted with much cheaper muskets. That is also why the warfare at the time was to line up in columns because muskets are so inaccurate that it takes a line of men firing them to hit a other men.
Ohhh I see, thank you for enlightening me!
A little history lesson, great reaction and beautyful eyes!
Thank you muchly!!
She would have surrendered at every turn...
Interesting is the reason why they lined up like that. I heard somewhere that back then it was hard to communicate in the midst gunfire and the line abreast compensated for that also the standard infrantry rifles were not rifled thus meaning they were not very accurate and the ball would tend to deviate in flight. Which is in part why they introduced sharpshooters which had rifled barrels which could shoot further and more accurately. It wasn't until the Civil War that the line abreast formation showed its age with the creation of more accurate rifles.
You should watch The Greatest Showman, Amistad, The Messenger, 1492, Last of the Mohicans, Dances with Wolves
Loved the review..the war in the south is largely forgotten in history lessons. Marion the swamp fox is definitely a unsung hero🇺🇸
Well I wouldn't call him a hero he was a slave owner and killed all fee slaves fighting with the British even if they surrendered.
8:46
*The War of 1812 and The Civil War would like to know your location*
Lol ah yes, unfortunately I noticed that as well after I had already uploaded the video and realized how dumb I just sounded 🤦🏼♀️
True, it's definitely not within the code to behave in such a manner but it only takes 1 bad apple to ruin the barrel.
Hi from England! Just found your channel and really enjoy your bubbly personality. Don't know if anyone's mentioned it but, the church burning scene was based on an event in World War 2 in the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane. An SS unit was heading north to join in the fighting in Normandy and stopped at this village because they thought Resistance units were being supplied by it. They took the men away and machine-gunned them all while the women and children were locked inside the church. The ruins were left exactly how they were found as a memorial to the victims.
The short answer is NO also the scene with the British locking people up in a church then setting on fire never happened.
There was never any brutality or summary execution of civillians by British troops the ridicoulus figure of Tavington would have been executed for murder had he acted in that fashion in real life.
This entire movie was also critisized heavily by both American and British historians as pure propaganda.
according to diaries of men that were in that war, your information not exactly correct
His wife died in childbirth w/ the seventh, the little blond girl.
It’s the 1700’s family we’re crossing paths back then on the daily lol 😂
Tavington is based on Banastre Tarleton, a hero of the British Army and later returned home to represent my city (Liverpool) as a Member of Parliament, I think it comes from the fact his nickname was "the Butcher of Waxhaws". There's no evidence he was like this but Jason Isaacs is a fantastic actor. It's Mel Gibson films, drama, Braveheart is more fictional too. Both are only accurate dates etc.
If you want to watch a more accurate account of this, I suggest watching The Swamp Fox. It was a miniseries that was part of The Wonderful World of Disney Frontier Land show. It follows the back and forth fight between Francis Marion and Banister Tarleton.
Mel and the bois were using Rifles - effective point target 200 yards, the British were using Brown Bess muskets (no rifling) effective point target range 109. The only documented burning of a church with the people in it was WW1, German army.
What "history" books have you been reading? During the American Civil War, The Northern Army burned churches with people in them like it was a SPORT. I'm NOT pro-South, but there is a reason people still like the Confederate Flag.
There was natives in the movie the shot of the British camp there was two walking away from the camera to the left of the camera.
In 1777 on April 21st the British troops attacked Danbury Connecticut. When they encountered little to no Patriotic military resistance the soldiers went on a rampage burning houses, farmhouses, storehouses & more than 1,500 tents most likely not caring if they were occupied. All this was allowed under the command of General William Tryon. So yes they would
No cause is lost if there is but one fool left to fight for it.
"Must be so scary to be a horse in this situation" LOL
There was one native American shown on screen, I believe in the bar scene where they go to recruit for the militia.
I think the “sewing Gabriel into the sack” thing when he’s with Anne, that was a tradition back then. If two people were in love, the man would be sewn into a sack while on a date to prevent him from “doing it” with the woman until marriage. At least, that’s what I heard…
While Tarleton did advocate a harsh policy towards civilians in the war, he is unlikely to have actually acted on those policies. As for the Massacre of Waxhaws, his accounts (as well as those from Anerican sources as well) state that as the surrender of Continental soldiers was occurring, a musket shot took out his horse. His men thought he had been killed under a false surrender, and before he could remount and regain order, they had already ridden into the surrendering Americans. That event is very likely not on him, and he did seem unhappy with the outcome (if simply for what it would mean to have a reputation as an officer that ignored the courtesies of war).
This video will give you an idea of why they fought in lines and bright uniforms in the age of black powder. ua-cam.com/video/wtXVhwK45yw/v-deo.html
You should see the Free State of Jones and Glory, both of which are good movies!
Thanks ...
im a history nerd and a movie fan too
The last battle is actually the Battle of Cowpens.
Whether this movie is accurate or whatever is like beside the point to me. The whole point of the American Revolution is summarized best by Thomas Paine: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."
I highly recommend reacting to HistoryBuffs video on the Patriot.
Skye McCole Bartusiak, Susan's actress died in 2014 at 21 from epilepsy 😔
The man Isaac's character is based on, Tarleton. Did lose control of his men at one point and they massacred a bunch of civilians. While he didn't order it, he did nothing to stop it.
Also Andrew Jackson was 13 and Scout and Courier in the continental army and eventually a POW.
So yeah they would kill a kid, because people we considered kids they would just consider fellow soldiers on the other side.
They didn't take turns, exactly. I don't know about American tactics, but the Brits would usually march up to optimum musket range, stop, fire two volleys then charge with bayonets. The fact that they kept coming under fire while losing men, and had just unleashed two huge volleys in quick succession, and were typically well experienced, hardened professionals, often made the enemy (who were often conscripts or militia) break and run. Even though it's thoroughly obsolete, the bayonet charge is still important in the British military because of the psychological impact on both parties, mainly on the aggression of the charging soldier.
They were much less suited to guerilla warfare, which is why they formed the first Ranger and rifle regiments about this time, to make up for this shortcoming. This served them extremely well in the Napoleonic wars later.
One of the biggest problems the Americans had was their lack of supply and readiness. If I remember right, this film had a scene or two that suggested the Americans didn't have boots or replacement winter coats? That was a huge a problem. And of course Bunker Hill ended with the Americans running out of ammunition and having to retreat. The war lasted as long as it did.. Probably chiefly because of that. It took a while for new British troops to come across the pond, and still the Americans struggled when they new they were coming in predictable waves.
@@robtierney5653 Yes American forces struggled greatly, including those without winter coats and shoes during winter season. Some soldiers have to fight even without them, the Army was poorly trained and underfund. But of course credit goes to General Washington for his amazing effort in keeping together such a new struggling, underfund and poorly trained and low morale army against one of the strongest empires of that time.
Why does it matter if it’s not entirely accurate? It never claimed it was
Because ; the perpetuation of the lie of British savagery,distracts from the truth of the American sedition, being fuelled by a desire to murder native people and rape black slaves......the racism of Washington (who's life was saved by black soldiers) and Jefferson who repeatedly raped 14 year old slave(sally hemmings),should be condemned and not decorated, by the lies of idiotic film makers, who wish to maintain their I'll gotten wealth; based on a racist supremacists ideology...,
How much do you know about Francis Marion
British didn't typically aim their muskets. They were trained to shoot in volleys from line formation. Muskets weren't overly accurate, so there wasn't much point in aiming at a specific target, and battlefields were quickly enveloped in smoke anyway, so soldiers often couldn't even see their targets.
I mean not wacky form of warfare, the idea wasn't to kill all the people from the other side, just to make them run in fear, basically who blinks first lose, shooting in a loose way would not deal the same moral effect as a 300 musket firing at once volley, and they would stand side by side and close because of cavalry attacks, if they where spread they would not have time to form up anti cavalry formations and would be routed or destroyed without much difficulty for the cavalry, plus the fact that Muskets takes like 20 seconds to be reloaded
It's very simple with domesticated animals...the dogs "loved " him because he fed them. Cats are the same way...feed a stray cat and pretty soon you'll have a pet cat. And dogs and cats(and other animals) will be loyal to you and maybe even defend you as long as you feed them and show them some positive attention.
That's fair I didn't think about that!
@@shelbynnave Any cat will tell you...they have never been domesticated.
The British under the command of banastre the butcher tarleton absolutely did shoot and hang children of the people who were “suspected” of harboring or giving aid to continentals. They burned churches, homes, farms, and murdered men women children and even slaves who refused to fight for king George after being “freed” by the British. He absolutely was a tyrant 3,000 miles away.. that isn’t just hyperbole. In fact, it was worse than what is depicted in this film.
people forget they were doing atrocities in Scotland and Ireland for hundreds of years. they perfected it by then
When you said you wanted to adopt Susan
Ahhh sadly her actress died at age 21
It is
By the way guerrilla warfar tatics is mutch older the first anotations of guerrila warfare was noted on roman manuscripts about lusitanian viriatus tatics wich were bit rustic but effective no gunpowder but the same principle and tatics
The British were not known for their atrocities *normally* but the loyalist militia, like the patriot militia, were quite brutal, particularly in the South where the atrocities were shocking on both sides. Rape, murder, and torture were not uncommon.
After one incident where the loyalist militia murdered a family of patriots, cutting off the heads of even the women, and cutting open her womb and breasts with bayonets, they wrote in blood over her own body "Thou shalt never give birth to a rebel". The British were horrified at their own allies.
I think its pretty dope that he uses Native American tactics
The point of lining up and shooting at each other was cause of the inaccuracy of muskets. They were smoothbore and the didn't take the time to set the ball tight in the barrel. The brown bess that the British used was so inaccurate that British troops were actually trained not to aim cause of this
21:05 WWWWTTTFFFFFF LOL 😆 YOU SOUND LIKE REALLY EXCITED 😁 😆
Lmao .. she would be the person begging to surrender at every turn!
Musicians were against military code as were Medics and pastor. So If you played Flute, Drums, were a doc, or a man of the Cloth you were not to be harmed.
If you doubt the're ability to be cruel, you should read up about the prison ships, most of the colonists death came on prison ships!, I think as many as 4000 prisoners died of starvation and exposure, more than died in battle I believe
Your not gonna take on the British army with 3 guns , see Samuel Whittemore
18:07 LOL
:D
It wouldn’t be a surprise if there actually were warcrimes committed in that war, even if conventional history might not show it.
History buffs made a good video about this movie accuracy and Braveheart and they talk about how Mel Gibson just hates the British and makes them out to be nazis in both movies
Firing at musicians and surgeons like "on purpose" was kinda bad back at this time, since musicians were like 12 years old kids and the kids of Sergeants and or Officers, tho in a line battle ur not really aiming at someone in particular, just firing at their direction
There's no "malfoy" in this movie. Who the heck are you referring to?
Look at what they did to India. Or the opium wars. 31:34 England was brutal and ruthless.
or scotland/ireland
Your history needs a lot more study, but it is nice that you seem to want to learn more.
I no right but then again Americans don’t like the truth lmfoa
We do like to spell accurately.
Back then yes England's army's would of done that and worse not everyone but the soldiers HAD to follow orders even from a psychopath. Malfoy guy was based on a real person who did things like this. It carried on as in 1919 the jallianwala Bagh massacre local Indians in Ameitsar had a large peaceful protest about an arrest of a pro Indian leader England's soldiers opened fire and killed upto 1000 innocent men women and children.
Hollywood did the same thing though in film We Were Soldiers lol, when they the US portrayed as the winner in the Vietnam War, not to mention to Islam in a lot of movie, especially in American Sniper (2014).
@GamerKat'71 Battle of Ia Drang both side claimed victory dude, go learn history again! I did learn that Vietnam War from both perspective and i know it's quite embarassing for US in this Series of War against Communism in Southeast Asia in that time, only Indonesia (my country) in SEA can succesfully repel the influence of Communism and that process is without US Army too.
@GamerKat'71 Lie? Just look at that information on Internet about the Battle of Ia Drang dude lmao, both side claimed a victory. I told you a fact, not a lie 🤣, that is why this movie is so bias!
Dear , Shelby , i would like to know are you a British subject or American , us citizen ?
I'm American :)
I always feel like I have to point this out the way they portrayed the British is a bit over-the-top I'm French and even I have to say the British were not that bad boats side did some bad things but this movie is really one-sided plus I believe it was like one third of Americans want independence 1/3 didn't seem to care and one-third want to stay with the British that's why we have loyalists in Canada they left after Independence
You were there? Lol
Have you researched what the British did to their own ppl? They're cruelty was a level few could comprehend
you talk about the morality of warriors. War will bring out the best of those involved but more often the worst. This is a great movie, of course not truly accurate but more what I would call 'realistic'.
The Revolutionary War began on April 19th of 1775, when King George III ordered the Army contingent in Boston to march out of the city to Concord and Lexington Massachusetts to confiscate muskets, cannon, gunpowder and other armaments the Colonists owned, this is when the shot heard around the world was fired, it took more than a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th of 1776, in that time, the Colonies were in open rebellion against the British Crown, in the "deal" that was struck BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was signed, upon our VICTORY and adoption of a Constitution creating our REPUBLIC, ALL SLAVES that were authorized by King George II and King George III, were to IMMEDIATELY freed and become U.S. Citizens, however, 2 Major political parties emerged from the constitutional convention, the FEDERALISTS, whom later became the Whig party, and then in 1855 became the REPUBLICAN party, and the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS, who in 1822 revised their name to just the DEMOCRAT party, instead of holding up their end of the "DEAL" from BEFORE the war, the Democratic Republicans decided that the slaves they "OWNED" were their "PROPERTY", and refused to free any of them, and for the most part moved into the southern states of Virginia and below, the FEDERALISTS however did in fact free all of their slaves as agreed to, and unfortunately, about 85% of them were captured by bounty hunters hired by the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS plantation owners, both the white ones and black ones, yes, almost half of the slave owners were in fact black, and all of them owned Black slaves about 45%, White slaves (MOSTLY IRISH) about 30%, and Asian slaves about 25%, after almost 40 years of the stalemate about ending slavery, disgusted Federalists, split away from the party and created the WHIG party to be more aggressive to end slavery, after another 20 years of additional stalemate, the founders of the MODERN REPUBLICAN party John C. Freemont, and Abraham Lincoln, created the new Republican party in 1855 with the specific goal to END slavery on this continent once and for all, John C, Freemont NARROWLY lost the Presidential election in 1856 losing to the Incumbent Democrat James Buchanan in a 3 way election with the Whig party candidate and former President Millard Fillmore, with the very distant 3rd place finish, the WHIG party ceased to exist, and most WHIG party members that remained, became REPUBLICANS, and in 1860, the First REPUBLICAN party President of The United Stated of America Abraham Lincoln became our 16th President, the Democrats almost immediately fled to Virginia and lower states, and after Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th of 1861, the DEMOCRATS/CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, started open hostilities against the United States of America, culminating with the bombardment of Fort Sumpter beginning on April 12th of 1861, starting the Civil War! between the Revolutionary war and the Civil war, when the DEMOCRATS were in power, they waged the INDIAN WARS, against Native nations, over the objections of the Federalist, then the Whig parties, then like they did in 1789 with the completion of the Constitution of The United States of America, when they did not hold up their end of the deal concerning SLAVERY, EVERY SINGLE TREATY that they signed with the Native nations that they had conquered, they broke every single one of them, and killed hundreds of thousands of them before sticking them on worthless lands that were far smaller than what they used to have, it has always been the Federalists, Whigs, and now Republicans, have always stood up for what is right, unfortunately, by the time the Republican party came into assistance, the Indian Wars were already over, and the Republicans were unable to help with the plight of the Indians, while the Democrats have always been the most evil people that have infected our great country!
Tavington is based off Tarleton the butcher. Look it up
Wasn’t it common for men to marry a widowed sister in law back then. Remember seeing it in Deadwood he married his brother’s widow.
Good and funny movie reactions and I love history to but I don’t care if movies are historically accurate. They are movies.
They are movies. Movies are much more compelling than actual history, so when people create their mental picture of what the past was like, it is most likely populated by pictures from movies rather than dry historical documents. This can lead them to believe fairytales, especially if it reinforces what they want to be true about their people and country. We've all seen where that can lead.
@@tSp289 I agree. Just like watching a movie based on a novel. People think they know the story because they watched a 90 minute movie with the same title as an 800 page book. Movies have one purpose, to make money for the studio and people that produced them. It's a product like any other.
I loved your reaction and I especially loved your summary at the end. It was well thought out and I’m glad you recognised that the movie portrayed an inaccurate representation of slavery to say the least. Also loved how you researched the history of the main character. I was not aware that it was based on a real person and I definitely didn’t know that he was actually brutal to native Americans and his slaves. Well done to you for doing the research. Its good to know that you don’t allow movies to blind you to the truth of what actually took place. You’re able to enjoy the movie and not let the lies, inaccuracies, brain washing to effect you. Plus you’re hot!