There are quite a number of inaccuracies in the representation of battles in general including other incidents surrounding the war. These other occurrences were regarding equipment, uniforms, and customs. To start with, there were not many “official” battles; it was more like utter chaos. The fighting was done in many small sneak attacks done throughout the forest and in the middle of towns. The two near the beginning of the film were conveniently fought in open fields visible from the upper windows of houses 200 yards away, so bystanders have incredible seats for the show and can sit and talk about it during. I’m sure battles were fought like that, but would Colonel Martin let his kids stand in the window and watch? The way the few “formal battles” were fought was relatively accurate in that it was done in waves where one side fired and the other side fired while the first side was reloading. These “realistic” battles were very dramatic in how the soldiers slowly marched into the fire and, if they survived, drew their swords to swarm the enemy. Once the “lineups” were over, each side rushed each other and it seemed like anarchy. This was war in 1776. There was only mention of actual battles (such as Charlestown, Hillsborough, Yorktown, Monmouth, and Elizabethtown) because this way, Robert Rodat (the writer) did not have to stay true to the facts and statistics. He could make up his own battles and have them go any which way he pleased. In terms of equipment and customs, the fifers and drummers in the Revolutionary War wore coats of the opposite color of the army that they were a part of. In The Patriot, both British and American fifers and drummers wore the same color as their militia. Also, in the film they marched in front of the troops whereas they would’ve been in the back where it makes more sense being as they don’t have guns! Another anachronism is when Benjamin Martin rides in with the American flag. It was originally created to identify US merchant and military ships. The first time it was actually carried into battle was in the Mexican War (1846-1848). During the movie, there were battles that take place in Camden and Cowpens, there’s two places are very far inland, yet the troops march there in a day from the shoreline. One more anachronism is in the scene where the militia are about to be hanged. Just before Martin rides in, the British are preparing the gallows by test tying sandbags to the noose and opening the trap doors. These types of gallows weren’t introduced until after the war.
Another thing historically wrong with the film is the actual portrayal of the characters. The militia in general was not “in character”. There is no way that a militia officer would be given so much power. This man went in and bargained with the General of the enemy alone as well as come up with battle plans for the whole army, that is absurd. The real militia fought when called upon and didn’t go off on their own to pursue the enemy and make their own battles. The regular army viewed the militia as a joke. Also, the freed blacks on the Martin plantation would without a doubt not stay and work, they’d head to the city. Colonel Tavington is supposed to represent the entire British army in regards to compassion for the enemy. This was entirely untrue, the British still believed in “old-fashioned warfare”. Yet the character was loosely based on Col. Banestre Tarleton who was Cornwallis’s cavalry commander. Cornwallis threatened to have him court martialed several times due to his brutal behavior. He was also vain, impulsive, and disregarded orders. In fact, the Americans would’ve been more likely to act like him than the Brits. Also, the slaves are too happy for their own good. The one black actor in the militia sticks around for 12 months to earn his freedom, and then the only thing he says is, “It’s time we built a whole new world, why not start right here? And why not start with you own home?” HA! So much for freedom!
“‘The Patriot is a fable arguing the futility of pacifism merely set against the backdrop of the Revolutionary War,” Roger Ebert wrote that in his review of the film in the Chicago Sun-Times. I think he might be right; none of this film has much to do with the historical reality of the Revolutionary War besides costuming. It is a crowd-pleaser first and the context comes later. The British are seen as gentlemanly fops or sadistic monsters, and the Americans were either brave or braver. This movie is about as historically accurate as Shakespeare in Love. Martin is only shown as good, caring, and loving so the audience roots for him and cares about what he does; Tavington is so “hissable” just to make the audience cheer for Martin more. This is a movie about the Revolutionary War that was made for and by Americans. Its release date is July 4th. It’s called The Patriot; it’s obviously going to be biased! But then again, any and all history is recorded through the eyes of individual humans, many of whom either have “an agenda” or are simply unable to put their own biases aside.
Noble, Matt. SparkNote on The Revolutionary War (1775-1783).
Betsy Ross Homepage. 25 July 2003
DVD commentary for “The Patriot” 2000
Hoberman. The Village Voice, issue 26. 6 July 2000