Historical (In)Accuracy: "The Patriot"

So I'm going to start a new series grading the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of various films. Because everybody loves history, so long as its not coming to you through the whitewashed Eurocentric filters imposed on public education since the 1700s. Case in point: North America was not discovered by Christopher Colombus in 1492 AD, but rather (probably) by Siberian nomads travelling across the Bering Land Bridge (probably) 12,000 years before Jesus was (probably) born.

First up: The Patriot (2000)

What the Film Teaches: Benjamin Martin, a peaceful widower with a troubled past, who doesn't own slaves and therefore doesn't beat or rape anyone, reluctantly joins the Revolutionary War effort and begins training a militia, partially in an effort to avenge the murder of his son by the evil British cavalryman Col. Tavington. The militia, despite a few setbacks, is a resounding success, as most of the British forces are inept mamby-pambies who can't even tell the difference between an explosion and a fireworks display. In a climactic battle, Martin leads the charge where his militia marshals the entire army and pushes back the British oppressors. Tavington is killed and the British surrender a few years later.

What Actually Happened: So Benjamin Martin is based on the real-life Revolutionary War militia leader Francis "Old Swamp Fox" Marion, who did indeed lead a guerilla war in the swamps of South Carolina against the British during the Revolutionary War, so well-done there. But that's where the similarities end.

Francis Marion owned slaves. Everybody in America, including the north, in fact, owned slaves, so I don't know how the filmmakers went without actually depicting any slavery. Marion didn't just own them though-- he beat and raped them, fathering an unknown amount of mullato children left to undisclosed fates. The movie depicts Martin as possessing great guilt over his mistreatment of the Native Americans during the French and Indian War, but the real Marion expressed no such remorse, taking pot-shots at Native Americans with his rifle for "sport."

Col. Tavington was based on a real guy, too, though only in name and rank are they similar. Col. Tarleton was indeed a cavalryman who led the British forces at the battle of Cowpens, and he had a reputation for brutal guerilla tactics, but in reality his methods were probably only meant to match the pressure applied by Marion. He burned buildings, but not when there were people inside them. Oh, and he didn't die at Cowpens. He lived to be 78 years old and died in Shropshire.

Then there's the militia. They did their part in the swamps, on the guerilla front, but only participated in the battle of Cowpens for two volleys, essentially just to provide a brief (though tactically valuable) distraction. They didn't lead the charge, as depicted in the film. You might remember there was talk in the film of participating in the battle for only two volleys, but then the militia stuck around and fought it out anyway. Not so in real life. I haven't been able to find any sources which say that Marion was there.

So where does this film stand? On the one hand, the events of the film synch up rather well with what happened in history, but the characterizations and sentiments are all wrong. What more could you expect from a film directed by Roland Emmerich? I mean, yes, tidal waves occur on planet earth, but The Day After Tomorrow (2004) isn't exactly a documentary on their formation.

Final Grade: A rousing film, indeed, but only at the expense of the poor British, who were only trying to recoup the investment-costs they had poured into the Colonies during the French and Indian War! C

--Serge