I always appreciated that no matter how evil and ruthless Tavington was made out to be, he could still be totally dressed down and humiliated by Cornwallis.
Let's imagine how much more vicious the war in the south would have been had Tavington (or his real-life equivalent, Banastre Tarleton) had been in command of all British forces...
@@1101millie97 there was a book, 'Redcoats and Rebels,' The American Revolution through British eyes' which was mostly primary sources, that had an account from an officer that wanted several of Tarleton's men hung, he wasn't able to, so he gave them other tasks as punishment, while they were still with the Legion.
Cornwallis was actually a very decent man who had great sympathy for the colonist's cause....he was one of only 5 British peers who voted against the 1765 Stamp Act. He was, however, also a professional soldier who did his duty.
@@whitleypedia That was a portrayal of the actual surrender of Fort William Henry and is quite accurate. Montcalm was so impressed with the British Defense of the fort he allowed Monro to leave on what is called "Parole". His troops were allowed to keep their guns, cannon, and colors as long as they marched in peace to fort Edward. That was the only thing the movie got right, but it was spot on. Montcalm begged monro to surrender to save lives, and he did.
Yeah, he was an honorable man with a code of ethics... until he wasn't. In this portrayal at least, after being unable to flush out Martin, he summoned Tavington and gave him free reign to use whatever methods necessary to do so, such as burning townspeople alive en masse. Previously he had admonished Tavington for has lack of honor in using such methods. The real Cornwallis didn't have honor enough to surrender his own sword at Yorktown and had an aide do it instead.
@@bad74maverick1 ah yes, a great film based on a nearly forgotten war. The North American Theater of the Seven Years’ War was just as brutal and saw what would be to come in the Revolution.
Played by Peter Woodward son of the Actor Edward Woodward! .....Met him a Star Trek / Sci-Fi Convention! ....I have a Cool Autographed Picture of him as General O'Hara!
Jason Isaacs is always a treat to watch. His Texas twang in Black Hawk Down, his gangster in the TV series Brotherhood, his recurrent role in the Harry Potter series - he's so much fun.
"It appears that Col. Tavington prefers to follow his own commands." i fucking LOVE the way he says that lol it's the funniest part of the entire movie, it makes me think that's the most "British" piece of acting i've ever seen
His performances in "Valkyrie" and "Batman Begins" were excellent too! The man deserves an award for "best-supporting actor" at least in either of them.
Despite his defeat in attempting to step the American Secession, Cornwallis still went on to glory in the British Empire in Asia. Near Penang, Malaysia you can still visit "Kota Cornwallis" (Fort Cornwallis), built in 1786 just a few years after the end of the American War. And here in South Carolina we still refer to the other guy as "Bloody Tarleton."
@@spencer_fife_and_drum_john9152 no he really wasn’t. He was a soldier and acted as one, war isn’t pretty, and he didn’t do any of the things the film pretends he did (e.g burning down a church/want lands on Ohio)
@@StopFlaggingVideos Hence why it's a marching tune. It's meant to get into your head, to help you keep step, and rhythm. Tunes like this are made for that purpose, to be easy to remember, and so they get called up at the slightest thing.
For those who may not know, the character Tavington was based loosely on Banastre Tarleton who gained nicknames like "The Butcher" as well as "Bloody ban" for his actions at Waxhaws {On 29 May 1780}. After Colonel Abraham Buford refused to initially surrender, he would be forced to after suffering many casualties. Tarleton's forces ignored the white flag of surrender killing 113 American soldiers, captured around 200 men, and wounded about 150 men severely. However, an American field surgeon would write that Buford raised the white flag of surrender to the British Legion, yet, while Buford called for quarter, Tarleton's horse was shot with a musket ball. Seeing this, the British soldiers believed the Patriots were shooting at their commander while allegedly surrendering. Tarleton essentially got a slap on the wrist for his actions at Waxhaw. He would later help Cornwallis in Britain's victory at Camden, but at Cowpens, he would be defeated by Brigadier General Daniel Morgan fleeing with about 200 of his men on horseback. He would later go on to fight in Battles such as Guilford Courthouse {March 15th, 1781} as well as the last major battle on the Revolution Yorktown. However, unlike in the film, Tarleton was not killed but would return to Britain on parole.
In case anyone was wondering, Banastre Tarleton, the man whom Colonel Tavington is based on, only earned the nickname "The Butcher" in the 1950s. An American historian decided he didn't like Tarleton and so he gave him a rather unfitting name. The populace never referred to him as such.
+katie marie Plus, he managed to live a long good life of 78 and holy hell Hollywood, the Battle of Cowpens in the Patriot made it look as if almost 10,000 men were involved, I just checked it, barely 3,000 soldiers were involved.
No he was called "No Quarter Tarleton" for a reason. Apparently a group of patriots tried to surrender and his horse was shot out from him. His men fired in retaliation
America in 1775 was 80% or more English settled. So it was kinda like a civil war really, between brothers with differing opinions. Jason Issacs character "William Tavington" is based on the real life Lieutenant Colonal who was under Cornwallis called Banastre Tarleton. He was called "bloody ban" and "the butcher" and that is where this stuff comes from. He was one of those impossible to kill officers or soldiers, even though he was in the frontline of some big battles during the conflict...
Jason Isaacs could perfectly fit for an Pirates of the Caribbean role, like for example, Captain John Brand, back then the newly proposed villain for the 5th film “Dead Men Tell No Tales”. Ultimately it was Javier Bardem the one who took that role as Captain Salazar.
I'm not going to be that guy and say "Oh see England was good guys back then!" Or anything like that. But this scene sets up the character of Cornwallis. He was there to do a job and he was a professional. He wasn't about slaughtering non-combatants. Now, I'm not a history expert and I don't know enough about what he was really like in the war, and I know that this movie definitely takes some liberties. But in this portrayal, is is set as someone who followed rigidly the rules of engagement, and in so doing probably underestimated his enemy and was unable to adapt to guerilla tactics. But he's painted as a professional soldier who would not dishonor himself or his objective by doing anymore than what was needed.
I believe the restraint that Cornwallis showed at times wasn't about anything other than money. The British government was keenly aware that the Colonies made a lot of money for them and murdering non-combatants was going to make it very hard to do business with their cash cow after the war was over. If I remember right this was also mentioned in the movie somewhere. The British had a long history of brutality, even to their own people, when they thought they could do it without consequences.
@@CaneFu Whatever his reasons were, Cornwallis was sympathetic to the arguments the colonists were making before the war erupted while he was in Parliament. I believe he even argued some in their favor. But he did not believe they had a right to separate from the empire. Once he was sent by the King to the colonies, his focus was to win the war quickly
@@CaneFu the movie line is when Cornwallis is dressing down Tavington about his brutality and the line goes something like this, "The Colonists are our brethren and when this conflict is over we shall re-establish commerce with them!"
Awesome scene.... brilliant acting... if this is how it was, you can see how a relatively small nation of resolute and discipled solders managed to control a quarter of the world..
This isn't how it was. This is a dramatic, fictional film. Almost all of the dialogue was invented for the script. This is not a documentary. Read a book if you want to know the truth of this era.
Tavington certainly went in the tent expecting to be toasted on "sweeping the field". His hasty charge aside. The real issue here is Cavalry always think they win the battle, when lines are already broken before they charge.
Except Tavington and his men are not Cavalry, their infantry. Dragoons are infantry that ride on horses into battle instead of walking. Using dragoons in cavalry role is foolish.
The interesting part about Jason Isaac's role here is that a few years earlier he played General James Wolfe in Battle of the Brave. Appearently taking Quebec wasn't enough for him. lol.
How love how Mel Gibson chose to delete every scene which showed the British as even a little bit Human. Noticeably the ones where Tavington gets berated for being too cruel, by his commander.
The American myth of this War is that the American soldiers were hard grizzled square jawed tough guys whilst the british in their fancy uniforms and powdered wigswere soft and effeminate....Further could be from the truth. The Americans were tough and fought hard for their country but the British soldiers were hard tough and modelled onthe armies of Frederick the Great. These men won more battles in this war and more Americans died.Britain lacked a Great Commanderlike Wellington or Marlborough on land or Nelson at sea.When virtually all of Europe joinedthe US Britain was doomed to defeat.
The general were absolutely pompous assholes, though. They were the Gentry, the wealthy landowners who would shape the new world as their own if they had succeeded.
Chelo Mejias If you were to do a bit of reading, you would find that the thing that won the war for the Americans was the fact that they decided to fight in the European style like the British did. They Americans may have hid behind rocks and stumps but the British hid beheld major cities like Charlestown and New York.
The Brits lost for the same reason the Revolution itself began -- b/c the British authorities (civilian and military alike) did not really know or understand the colonists anymore. The new people had become too different to stay a part of the Empire. At first, the King tried threats and intimidation -- as, his response to the Olive Branch Petition, and various forceful police actions in and around Boston. While that sort of tough-dad, "I'm-stronger-than-you-why-don't-you-just-give-up" thing may work on Germans -- the King himself was essentially German by background -- it was exactly the wrong tack to take with Americans (as we have proven several times in conflicts since). Ironically, the rebel Americans still had far too much Brit in them to knuckle under to that approach. When it became clear after Trenton and Princeton that Britain couldn't suppress the rebellion with just a few sharp blows on the battlefield, and that her resources were being stretched by the sheer size of America and the width of Britain's Atlantic supply line, Brit commanders began hopping from coastal city to coastal city, region by region, seeking the mass outpouring of Loyalist sentiment (and enlistments in Tory units) they had been told to expect. But this was not forthcoming, due in part to the aggressive suppression of Tory activity at the local level by Committees of Safety, in part because of the inherent nature of Tories as prudent, conservative men unused to much sacrifice and mindful of their property, and in part by the difficulty of coordinating a Tory rising with the arrival of a British military force to assist and consolidate it (for which difficulty see, Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge). Once the Tories had failed to show up in numbers and the French entered the fray, peace negotiations were but a matter of time; the Brits could only hope to shape the terms by acquiring territory in battle. From at least 1780 onward the British were playing on the strategic defensive, trying not to lose the Sugar Islands, Gibraltar, parts of India, trans-Appalachia, and other worldwide objectives that their ill-considered and interminable war with America had put at risk.
Can’t remember if I read it or saw it in a documentary, but a military historian was saying that one of the keys to the American victory in the War for Independence was the poor quality of the military personnel sent by the British to North America. That their best troops and officers were fighting wars in other theaters. Anyone else hear this?
TheEmilySnape it is to be wondered if some of the awful shit he did was spurred on by all the shaming and belittling he gets. He says somewhere in the film that his father squandered the family wealth and if he doesnt do awesome in the army . He’ll have no money or land to his name
This movie was filmed about 15 miles from where I live in South Carolina. That being said this movie makes a number of historical mistakes that makes me cringe as a local historian. For starters, the British Legion cavalry uniform was not red. It was green and black. The British regulars and provincials (Loyalists in British uniform) would never have burned a church with people locked inside it. They might have taken people out of their houses before they burned them, some Whigs (Patriots) were hanged, or even shot in front of their homes by British loyalist militia, but would not have roasted people alive to send a message. The movie did point out that the Patriots committed their own atrocities which is true, especially at the Battle of Kings Mountain, and at times killing men trying to surrender -- that was in large part due to the slaughter of Continental regulars at the Battle of Waxhaws. Also the last battle of the movie (a combination of Cowpens and Gulliford Court House) was nothing like either battle, though it did borrow from both.
@@BrotherKevinHunter it’s a movie based on a nonfictional war. You completely miss the point. If you’re doing a historical movie, then it’s best to make it as historical accurate as you can. You’re “it’s a movie” argument is just as dumb when someone tries to defend ridiculous scenes in nonfiction or fantasy movies / shows. They still need to have a sense of realism in them. It’s similar to defending plot armor which is due to lazy writing.
Talk about feeling left out! The "Butcher" must feel like he's been royally kicked in the backside, with the remarks that were made concerning him... and he deserved it! In War, rules are rules, and anybody that disobeys can find themselves standing in dire need of some type of punishment...even if it's something so mild as being excluded from the company of your peers!
Possibly because the fictional "Tavington" committed atrocities that the "real world" Tarleton never did. But in his hometown the citizens were outraged of the Tavington-portrayel.
@@Exodianecross1978 The whole of the UK was outraged by portrayal. It made the British look like a bunch of 18th century Nazis. Even the screenwriter Robert Rodat admitted that the church burning scene was inspired by the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre carried out by the SS 165 years later.
@@Exodianecross1978 Tarleton got a bad rep because of the Waxhaws massacre which wasn't even his fault. His horse was shot out from under him by surrendering Continentals. While he was unconscious, his men went berserk and killed the Continentals for breaking a flag of truce. That's not to say he was an all round nice guy as he tried to block the abolition of slavery when he entered Parliament in 1790 but he didn't deserve the depiction of him by the Americans.
@@ryanwarner5006 Hitler was born 100 years later. Who knows if he would even exist if history had changed that much? Canada and todays USA still a british colony, half of europe under french reign because of Napoleons success who may never attacked russia. No WW1 and 2 (but surely many other unknow wars since then)
I know that it's been a year, but, the crescent shaped piece of brass is called a gorget. It was a badge of officer/command status. It represents a breastplate (knightly gallantry) but is much reduced in size. Best wishes.
@@joelperry8187 I don't refer to the War of Independence but the film itself, great entertainment. At a loss as to what WW1 has to do with it though LOL, maybe I should bring up 1812? or maybe not eh?
Try reading the memoirs of George Washington and or some sort of documentaries that isn't American made, he considered himself British, just like today some Canadians still consider themselves French. When the war started in earnest, he stated that it was a British civil war. Please have some knowledge of the subject you are arguing about. It prevents you from looking like an idiot.
You realise we pulled out of this war as we decided our other colonies were more important? We were fighting the French at the same time and decided you just weren't worth the effort in the end.
The British Empire lost the revolutionary war because they lacked men like Tavington in their ranks, tough brutes prepared to do whatever it takes to win battles. They were too obsessed with being gentlemanly and honourable.
No, the British lost the war because the Americans made it to expensive to continue. Britain did not commit the resources needed to put down the rebellion. Had the British used their full might of the navy and military, they would have absolutely crushed the revolution. Don't forget that Britain was fighting in Europe and the Caribbean. The British felt that other colonies were worth more and essentially let America go.
Nicholas Terry because parliament were too dumb to understand the colonies have matured and you need to treat them like any other Englishmen instead of subjects. If parliament wanted money all they had to do was ask for lump sum of each colonies and let them figure it out and have some type a senatorial person from each colonies representation in London 1 per colonies. Revolution would had been avoided for another 50-100 years
Tarleton is not like him....its all fake and made up stories that he is nasty. Yeah he is tough bugger who just following their orders. He is not that bad like fake film!
+James Stuart Yeah Tarleton killed soldiers who sighed up to die for their country Tartleton was ruthless and took no prisoners but that's not evil it's war
They were soldiers though not civilians war is brutal and ugly and whether or not they surrendered really made no differences die on the battlefield or in prison they would have died either way I agree that what Tarleton did was against the rules of war wrong eh all in all 50/50
Alright Americans and Brits, lets all get along. We're all on the same side now. We've watched each others asses during some of the most major wars in history, and we still do today. I firmly believe that we are and always will be the strongest coalition the world has ever seen.
I always appreciated that no matter how evil and ruthless Tavington was made out to be, he could still be totally dressed down and humiliated by Cornwallis.
Let's imagine how much more vicious the war in the south would have been had Tavington (or his real-life equivalent, Banastre Tarleton) had been in command of all British forces...
of course, Cornwallis was higher ranking
@@1101millie97 there was a book, 'Redcoats and Rebels,' The American Revolution through British eyes' which was mostly primary sources, that had an account from an officer that wanted several of Tarleton's men hung, he wasn't able to, so he gave them other tasks as punishment, while they were still with the Legion.
@@Themaxwithnoname Tarleton was a lucky ass hole. He was asked to invade American in 1812 and wisely declined.
Gives a more realistic insight in the ambiguous command or even strategy of the British occupation force then..
Cornwallis was actually a very decent man who had great sympathy for the colonist's cause....he was one of only 5 British peers who voted against the 1765 Stamp Act. He was, however, also a professional soldier who did his duty.
I wish they had left this scene in, because it shows he was almost as much disliked among his British compatriots as he was the Americans.
Of course he was, he was Lucius Malfoy....
@@alexanderc.4654 lol
Extended cut version put it in along with a funeral for Thomas
I love Cornwallis' character. He's a professional, a gentleman and a tactical genius. He isn't a monster, but an honorable man with a code of ethics.
Tom Wilkinson is an extremely-underrated actor. His portrayal of Cornwallis was excellent! :)
watch the scene in Last of the Mohicans where the one army surrenders to the other
@@whitleypedia That was a portrayal of the actual surrender of Fort William Henry and is quite accurate. Montcalm was so impressed with the British Defense of the fort he allowed Monro to leave on what is called "Parole". His troops were allowed to keep their guns, cannon, and colors as long as they marched in peace to fort Edward. That was the only thing the movie got right, but it was spot on. Montcalm begged monro to surrender to save lives, and he did.
Yeah, he was an honorable man with a code of ethics... until he wasn't. In this portrayal at least, after being unable to flush out Martin, he summoned Tavington and gave him free reign to use whatever methods necessary to do so, such as burning townspeople alive en masse. Previously he had admonished Tavington for has lack of honor in using such methods. The real Cornwallis didn't have honor enough to surrender his own sword at Yorktown and had an aide do it instead.
@@bad74maverick1 ah yes, a great film based on a nearly forgotten war.
The North American Theater of the Seven Years’ War was just as brutal and saw what would be to come in the Revolution.
"It appears Colonel Tavington prefers to follow his ooown command" 😆 i love this scene, man Hollywood really knows how to cut out the best scenes.
They're so hilariously posh
This is in the release
Great quote. Should change it to 'it appears [insert name here] prefers to follow [his/her/their] own command'. 😁
@@Legacy0901 posh is the word I was looking for, lol
Knew, not know
General O'Hara is the poshest Englishman that ever lived
Humphrey Augustus despite being of Irish Descent
And being born in portugal
Played by Peter Woodward son of the Actor Edward Woodward! .....Met him a Star Trek / Sci-Fi Convention! ....I have a Cool Autographed Picture of him as General O'Hara!
O’Hara has the best British accent I’ve ever heard.
James Alexander I never knew that. Cool! Cheers!
Jason Isaacs is always a treat to watch. His Texas twang in Black Hawk Down, his gangster in the TV series Brotherhood, his recurrent role in the Harry Potter series - he's so much fun.
Um how about ZHUKOV in Death of Stalin...😂😂
A favorite quote of mine from him is “I love playing bad guys because they’re the most realistic characters”
I was a fan until discovery then his bad mouthing conservatives started
When the guy who played Cornwallis also played Ben Franklin...
santoslittlehelper06 and played Falcone in Batman Begins and also Latham Cole in Lone Ranger
And played Sir Beaumont, ruthless railroad financier in The ghost and the darkness, and also played German General Fromm in Valkyrie
Rully Madewa What a great actor, each role of his is different. Almost like a sort of less known Daniel Day Lewis.
I remember him from playing the main bad guy in the first Rush Hour film
Yes tom Wilkinson give yourselves all a pat on the back
"It appears that Col. Tavington prefers to follow his own commands." i fucking LOVE the way he says that lol it's the funniest part of the entire movie, it makes me think that's the most "British" piece of acting i've ever seen
Not to mention that smug look on General O’Hara’s face lol.
@@Zer0Mercy83 oh so smug with that wig dressed in cocaine
This movie is secretly a comedy lol.
And the look he gives after O'Hara delivers that line lol.
@@Zer0Mercy83
didnt general ohara surrender to both washington and napoleon? 😂😂
tom wilkinson killed that role. underrated actor
Kinda hard to call an Emmy and Golden Globe award winner underrated but I get ya. He's great in everything he's done.
His performances in "Valkyrie" and "Batman Begins" were excellent too! The man deserves an award for "best-supporting actor" at least in either of them.
"The Full Monty" was his best role
He was incredible in 'Michael Clayton'
he also played the German leader in ' valkyrie ' he does a good job in that role too
Damn him, Damn that man!!
Where did you get that from?
Your profile pic matches gloriously
hahahahah
loved that part..made me laugh a good bit lol can relate having heard my grandfather use that reference alot LOL
Bru your profile pic makes this comment even better
Despite his defeat in attempting to step the American Secession, Cornwallis still went on to glory in the British Empire in Asia. Near Penang, Malaysia you can still visit "Kota Cornwallis" (Fort Cornwallis), built in 1786 just a few years after the end of the American War.
And here in South Carolina we still refer to the other guy as "Bloody Tarleton."
Fun Fact: Not only was Gen. Charles O'Hara made to surrender to Washington at Yorktown, he also surrendered to Napoleon at Toulon.
Give me the horse blanket!!
Haha
That’s my favourite line from the whole movie
Okay
@@MM-eo2oz Very well it's a nice horse blanket.
@@EricWilke1141987 Give me the horse blanket.
Even Tavington is disliked on the British side XD
No, he was brutally efficient and an incredible leader of men.
@ we call them war criminals
@@GiraffeFeatures no everybody hated him its documented he was evil
@@spencer_fife_and_drum_john9152 no he really wasn’t. He was a soldier and acted as one, war isn’t pretty, and he didn’t do any of the things the film pretends he did (e.g burning down a church/want lands on Ohio)
He's like a cavalry gamer in BAI and yet he was hatred because he didn't took orders from Napoleon
I love hearing the British Grenadiers. It's my favorite marching tune, and this movie did it so very well; just the perfect cadence to me.
Hands down my favorite version of British Grenadiers.
i keep whistling it to myself, its almost intrusive
@@StopFlaggingVideos Hence why it's a marching tune. It's meant to get into your head, to help you keep step, and rhythm. Tunes like this are made for that purpose, to be easy to remember, and so they get called up at the slightest thing.
that song slaps, total banger
@@isaacdeida5072 *sips tea with a pinkie up* Quite.
For those who may not know, the character Tavington was based loosely on Banastre Tarleton who gained nicknames like "The Butcher" as well as "Bloody ban" for his actions at Waxhaws {On 29 May 1780}. After Colonel Abraham Buford refused to initially surrender, he would be forced to after suffering many casualties. Tarleton's forces ignored the white flag of surrender killing 113 American soldiers, captured around 200 men, and wounded about 150 men severely. However, an American field surgeon would write that Buford raised the white flag of surrender to the British Legion, yet, while Buford called for quarter, Tarleton's horse was shot with a musket ball. Seeing this, the British soldiers believed the Patriots were shooting at their commander while allegedly surrendering. Tarleton essentially got a slap on the wrist for his actions at Waxhaw. He would later help Cornwallis in Britain's victory at Camden, but at Cowpens, he would be defeated by Brigadier General Daniel Morgan fleeing with about 200 of his men on horseback. He would later go on to fight in Battles such as Guilford Courthouse {March 15th, 1781} as well as the last major battle on the Revolution Yorktown. However, unlike in the film, Tarleton was not killed but would return to Britain on parole.
yeah u can say war is the problem but some people benefit from their psycho effects of war
You forgot to mention British officers were invited to dinner by their American captors… Tarleton did not get an invitation.
In case anyone was wondering, Banastre Tarleton, the man whom Colonel Tavington is based on, only earned the nickname "The Butcher" in the 1950s. An American historian decided he didn't like Tarleton and so he gave him a rather unfitting name. The populace never referred to him as such.
+katie marie Plus, he managed to live a long good life of 78 and holy hell Hollywood, the Battle of Cowpens in the Patriot made it look as if almost 10,000 men were involved, I just checked it, barely 3,000 soldiers were involved.
.
youre most probably right about that..........Reynolds painted Tarleton..
No he was called "No Quarter Tarleton" for a reason. Apparently a group of patriots tried to surrender and his horse was shot out from him. His men fired in retaliation
im pretty sure he and his dragoons slaughtered 100 men who surrendered
0:24 O'hara's face when he sees the colonel lmao
Yeah...no shit. It was almost like. Who's this bitch? Trying to shine up to MY General!
@@mikejohnson9118 sizing him up right from the jump
I wonder what his face looked liked when he surrendered to Washington and then to Napoleon?
@@remeyrune6009 *Cries in British*
@@remeyrune6009 LMAO!!
Like my girlfriend.. "Always to early.. always to eager for glory" :D
Next time you have to wait for her command!
Glory?? what glory she wanna achieve with you??
Tavington had this look on his face of "why do you think you entrusted me with this command?"
I loved Jason Isaacs in this role
Upper class British Officers,
You can see and feel the arrogance pour from them.
Their men just fought in a bloody battle and they are having champagne and feast exclusive to themselves
GUAVcis06 And that's how we took over most of the world. Plus the Patriot is an inaccurate film, which miss represents the British a lot.
Max Tomlinson yeah please tell them it's all american propaganda cause most actually think this is real
Recommend visiting the Cracked youtube channel on the myths leading up to the American revolution and some of the exploits of the revolutionaries.
Max Tomlinson can u provide a link?
or title?
It's a proven fact that since they didn't have Spotify they constantly had 'The British Grenadiers' being drummed all day.
America in 1775 was 80% or more English settled. So it was kinda like a civil war really, between brothers with differing opinions.
Jason Issacs character "William Tavington" is based on the real life Lieutenant Colonal who was under Cornwallis called Banastre Tarleton. He was called "bloody ban" and "the butcher" and that is where this stuff comes from.
He was one of those impossible to kill officers or soldiers, even though he was in the frontline of some big battles during the conflict...
They needed to keep this scene. It shows how the rest of the British staff, not just Cornwallis, looks down on Tavington and his...methods.
Is there a director's cut?
Tavington. Damn him! Damn that man!!!!
Cornwallis speaks so well and in control of a situation. Love his voice
I agree!
"We'll discuss it tomorrow" haha, something to look forward too
Jason Isaacs could perfectly fit for an Pirates of the Caribbean role, like for example, Captain John Brand, back then the newly proposed villain for the 5th film “Dead Men Tell No Tales”. Ultimately it was Javier Bardem the one who took that role as Captain Salazar.
Quite entertaining watching Tavington being treated with contempt by his superiors
One of best parts of the movie, excellent English actors.
I love how the other generals look at him with such disdain like he’s lower then them lmao
Yup, lol. They all have that "ew who invited him" look on their faces.
Funniest part of this is when all the officers were served Champagne, but Tavington was excluded
Yea but tavington was under ranked as a colonel of the dragoons, those gentleman did not see combat anymore, I believe they were all generals
@@noteimporta2880 ''Paper-pusher" generals. Plenty of those at the Pentagon.
I'm not going to be that guy and say "Oh see England was good guys back then!" Or anything like that. But this scene sets up the character of Cornwallis. He was there to do a job and he was a professional. He wasn't about slaughtering non-combatants. Now, I'm not a history expert and I don't know enough about what he was really like in the war, and I know that this movie definitely takes some liberties. But in this portrayal, is is set as someone who followed rigidly the rules of engagement, and in so doing probably underestimated his enemy and was unable to adapt to guerilla tactics. But he's painted as a professional soldier who would not dishonor himself or his objective by doing anymore than what was needed.
I believe the restraint that Cornwallis showed at times wasn't about anything other than money. The British government was keenly aware that the Colonies made a lot of money for them and murdering non-combatants was going to make it very hard to do business with their cash cow after the war was over. If I remember right this was also mentioned in the movie somewhere. The British had a long history of brutality, even to their own people, when they thought they could do it without consequences.
@@CaneFu Whatever his reasons were, Cornwallis was sympathetic to the arguments the colonists were making before the war erupted while he was in Parliament. I believe he even argued some in their favor. But he did not believe they had a right to separate from the empire. Once he was sent by the King to the colonies, his focus was to win the war quickly
Cornwallis is honored even here in America. There's a village in North Carolina named after him.
@@CaneFu the movie line is when Cornwallis is dressing down Tavington about his brutality and the line goes something like this, "The Colonists are our brethren and when this conflict is over we shall re-establish commerce with them!"
@@CaneFu As he says to Tavington basically that these are still our people and when all this is over we'll go back to trading business.
Awesome scene.... brilliant acting... if this is how it was, you can see how a relatively small nation of resolute and discipled solders managed to control a quarter of the world..
Yes, I believe he said "Farmers with pitchforks!"
Susanne Stein ...you are such a half wit....
@@franceleeparis37 just quoting the movie!
This isn't how it was. This is a dramatic, fictional film. Almost all of the dialogue was invented for the script. This is not a documentary. Read a book if you want to know the truth of this era.
IndianaBones ... since you don’t understand how the British establishment works, doubt reading a book will improve your mind... but here we are..
Tavington certainly went in the tent expecting to be toasted on "sweeping the field".
His hasty charge aside. The real issue here is Cavalry always think they win the battle, when lines are already broken before they charge.
+Chuck.Raney Raney But cavalry ensures that the line stays broken, but yeah, this was clearly a cock measuring contest.
The Great Kahn said "you can conquer from the saddle but you cannot rule". Meaning, at some point, infantry has to go in and stand on it.
Except Tavington and his men are not Cavalry, their infantry. Dragoons are infantry that ride on horses into battle instead of walking. Using dragoons in cavalry role is foolish.
Jason Isaacs honestly does not get enough credit for his role in this
Highly underrated actor! Plays awesome villains! :)
The interesting part about Jason Isaac's role here is that a few years earlier he played General James Wolfe in Battle of the Brave. Appearently taking Quebec wasn't enough for him. lol.
here's a guy, who actually fights in the trenches, has blood on his face even, and is disrespected because he loves the battlefield.
I wish he could have been given the line "I've shown no aggression here, hence I cannot be touched".
How love how Mel Gibson chose to delete every scene which showed the British as even a little bit Human. Noticeably the ones where Tavington gets berated for being too cruel, by his commander.
Mel Gibson Neither Produced or Directed The Patriot!
@@jamesalexander5623 Exactly.
People need to stop giving him crap for creative liberties he had no hand in.
@gregory garner Well said. 👌
Great movie! Great performances by all the actors involved! :)
best resolution ever...
For victory my lord.
Back in the day where we "fought like gentleman" .
I always wanted to do an reenactment of the American Revolution!
The "butcher" scene was included in the movie when I watched it. It is not a deleted scene .
Deleted from the original, not the extended versions, shown later.
144p? damn was this video actually uploaded in the 1800s?
No
We know how general ohara felt about tavington.
I love how as soon as he makes his presence known, all the other officers give him the stink eye. 🧐
If I made tomahawks for sale I would use every scene of Tavingtons Loyalalists Dragoons for my ads.
This is actually accurate as the person Tavington is based off of was called the butcher.
This scene was incorporated into the movie with the Blu-ray version
Imagine entering a tent and all of the Commander and Corporals hates you.
They really did call Col, Tarleton "the butcher." He called Francis Marion "the swamp fox."
Which pixel is The Butcher?
the red pixel.
The American myth of this War is that the American soldiers were hard grizzled square jawed tough guys whilst the british in their fancy uniforms and powdered wigswere soft and effeminate....Further could be from the truth. The Americans were tough and fought hard for their country but the British soldiers were hard tough and modelled onthe armies of Frederick the Great. These men won more battles in this war and more Americans died.Britain lacked a Great Commanderlike Wellington or Marlborough on land or Nelson at sea.When virtually all of Europe joinedthe US Britain was doomed to defeat.
The general were absolutely pompous assholes, though. They were the Gentry, the wealthy landowners who would shape the new world as their own if they had succeeded.
So you were there to see this hardcore British soldiers? They lost to farmers with pitchforks, stfu
Chelo Mejias ah yes, I so do love to hear a moron like you talk about history.
Chelo Mejias If you were to do a bit of reading, you would find that the thing that won the war for the Americans was the fact that they decided to fight in the European style like the British did. They Americans may have hid behind rocks and stumps but the British hid beheld major cities like Charlestown and New York.
The Brits lost for the same reason the Revolution itself began -- b/c the British authorities (civilian and military alike) did not really know or understand the colonists anymore. The new people had become too different to stay a part of the Empire. At first, the King tried threats and intimidation -- as, his response to the Olive Branch Petition, and various forceful police actions in and around Boston. While that sort of tough-dad, "I'm-stronger-than-you-why-don't-you-just-give-up" thing may work on Germans -- the King himself was essentially German by background -- it was exactly the wrong tack to take with Americans (as we have proven several times in conflicts since). Ironically, the rebel Americans still had far too much Brit in them to knuckle under to that approach. When it became clear after Trenton and Princeton that Britain couldn't suppress the rebellion with just a few sharp blows on the battlefield, and that her resources were being stretched by the sheer size of America and the width of Britain's Atlantic supply line, Brit commanders began hopping from coastal city to coastal city, region by region, seeking the mass outpouring of Loyalist sentiment (and enlistments in Tory units) they had been told to expect. But this was not forthcoming, due in part to the aggressive suppression of Tory activity at the local level by Committees of Safety, in part because of the inherent nature of Tories as prudent, conservative men unused to much sacrifice and mindful of their property, and in part by the difficulty of coordinating a Tory rising with the arrival of a British military force to assist and consolidate it (for which difficulty see, Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge). Once the Tories had failed to show up in numbers and the French entered the fray, peace negotiations were but a matter of time; the Brits could only hope to shape the terms by acquiring territory in battle. From at least 1780 onward the British were playing on the strategic defensive, trying not to lose the Sugar Islands, Gibraltar, parts of India, trans-Appalachia, and other worldwide objectives that their ill-considered and interminable war with America had put at risk.
"a very advanced and technical government that is mostly immune to corruption."
Please tell me you're joking.
Tom Wilkinson killed it as Cornwallis
Is it possible to repost this video in focus? It's like the "before" image preceding cataract surgery.
The Templar's would love to have him recruited
Can’t remember if I read it or saw it in a documentary, but a military historian was saying that one of the keys to the American victory in the War for Independence was the poor quality of the military personnel sent by the British to North America. That their best troops and officers were fighting wars in other theaters. Anyone else hear this?
Any excuse to explain losing.
DAMN THAT OPENING IS SOME HIGH QUALITY SHIT RIGHT THERE
i love you put it in HD
Poor Tavington. Always made fun of. Sometimes I just want to hug him.
TheEmilySnape it is to be wondered if some of the awful shit he did was spurred on by all the shaming and belittling he gets. He says somewhere in the film that his father squandered the family wealth and if he doesnt do awesome in the army . He’ll have no money or land to his name
@Madeline Tory E that was according to the film. In real life, he was the one who squandered it on gambling and women.
Tom Wilkinson and Jason Isaac definitely added wo much to this movie.
This movie was filmed about 15 miles from where I live in South Carolina.
That being said this movie makes a number of historical mistakes that makes me cringe as a local historian.
For starters, the British Legion cavalry uniform was not red. It was green and black.
The British regulars and provincials (Loyalists in British uniform) would never have burned a church with people locked inside it. They might have taken people out of their houses before they burned them, some Whigs (Patriots) were hanged, or even shot in front of their homes by British loyalist militia, but would not have roasted people alive to send a message.
The movie did point out that the Patriots committed their own atrocities which is true, especially at the Battle of Kings Mountain, and at times killing men trying to surrender -- that was in large part due to the slaughter of Continental regulars at the Battle of Waxhaws.
Also the last battle of the movie (a combination of Cowpens and Gulliford Court House) was nothing like either battle, though it did borrow from both.
It's a movie,they had to show how evil was the movie villain,and I'm sure that stuff like this happened( rare,but it did happen)
Yeah, almost surprising that its a movie, not a documentary...
@@BrotherKevinHunter it’s a movie based on a nonfictional war. You completely miss the point. If you’re doing a historical movie, then it’s best to make it as historical accurate as you can. You’re “it’s a movie” argument is just as dumb when someone tries to defend ridiculous scenes in nonfiction or fantasy movies / shows. They still need to have a sense of realism in them. It’s similar to defending plot armor which is due to lazy writing.
Maybe they should have shown the British POW ships which were nothing short of brutal,inhuman treatment
@@arthurbrumagem3844 They were, and some of those men spent years in the hull of those hell-ships.
except the stacks of journals, newspapers, pamphlets, and posters from that time?
Dude it's 300 years, that's really not that long of a time.
Talk about feeling left out! The "Butcher" must feel like he's been royally kicked in the backside, with the remarks that were made concerning him... and he deserved it! In War, rules are rules, and anybody that disobeys can find themselves standing in dire need of some type of punishment...even if it's something so mild as being excluded from the company of your peers!
Filmed with a toaster, judging by the resolution. That;s why they cut this great scene ;-p
The colonists didn't' deserve the quality of English governance.
It’s strange that they changed Tarleton to Tavington for no apparent reason but let Cornwallis keep being Cornwallis
Possibly because the fictional "Tavington" committed atrocities that the "real world" Tarleton never did. But in his hometown the citizens were outraged of the Tavington-portrayel.
@@Exodianecross1978 The whole of the UK was outraged by portrayal. It made the British look like a bunch of 18th century Nazis.
Even the screenwriter Robert Rodat admitted that the church burning scene was inspired by the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre carried out by the SS 165 years later.
@@justonecornetto80 Well, Tarleton hasn't burned down churches as far as I know, but brutality was a common trait in wars back then and still today!
@@Exodianecross1978 Tarleton got a bad rep because of the Waxhaws massacre which wasn't even his fault. His horse was shot out from under him by surrendering Continentals. While he was unconscious, his men went berserk and killed the Continentals for breaking a flag of truce.
That's not to say he was an all round nice guy as he tried to block the abolition of slavery when he entered Parliament in 1790 but he didn't deserve the depiction of him by the Americans.
I would side with the British no doubt, but what if the US had lose the war? I think it would be quite similar to Canada but smaller
@@ryanwarner5006 Hitler was born 100 years later. Who knows if he would even exist if history had changed that much? Canada and todays USA still a british colony, half of europe under french reign because of Napoleons success who may never attacked russia. No WW1 and 2 (but surely many other unknow wars since then)
I didnt know resolution could get this low on a video....
Then, by charging without orders, he loses Ohio before he loses his life
Tell me about...Ohio
Dumb question, but what is the crescent shaped badge all the officers are wearing?
I know that it's been a year, but, the crescent shaped piece of brass is called a gorget. It was a badge of officer/command status. It represents a breastplate (knightly gallantry) but is much reduced in size. Best wishes.
Thank you so much!@@Lonigo77
About as far from what really happened as it can get....
Excellent analysis, congratulations!
That maaan... INSULTS ME!
"The Patriot" a classic... one of the best comedies out there.
The funniest part is when the British surrendered. Even funnier, when they begged for help in 1917 and 1940
@@joelperry8187 🤣
@@joelperry8187 I don't refer to the War of Independence but the film itself, great entertainment.
At a loss as to what WW1 has to do with it though LOL, maybe I should bring up 1812? or maybe not eh?
Actually, the Romans left Britain of their own accord, they weren't booted out, but I agree with your sentiments
240p video, holy shit what is it 2005?
literally hurts my eyes
Try reading the memoirs of George Washington and or some sort of documentaries that isn't American made, he considered himself British, just like today some Canadians still consider themselves French. When the war started in earnest, he stated that it was a British civil war. Please have some knowledge of the subject you are arguing about. It prevents you from looking like an idiot.
ah, 240p, my old nemesis, we meet yet again
Gentleman soldier = The ultimate march song..
The only historical accuracy shown in this video about the movie is that they were using 240p.
Lmao
This is not one of the deleted scenes
well i saw the movie this wasnt there
This is not a deleted scene.
I never saw it until this morning
I have a copy of this movie. It's not in there.
I've seen this film a bunch of times. This is the first I've seen this scene.
Of course I'm sure. This and all other deleted scenes are included normally. I didnt know about any of these scenes they were deleted ones.
You realise we pulled out of this war as we decided our other colonies were more important? We were fighting the French at the same time and decided you just weren't worth the effort in the end.
Then why did you come back in 1812?🤔
We? Lol! Hold this L
the true butcher is the person that uploaded this video at 240p
Even though I am an American... I DEFINATELY love me some British in that movie... and it seems like they have the hottest guys anyway !
nice to see loyalists aren't extinct, but what do u mean hottest guns?
I didn't say guns... I said guys !
oh sry i was thinkin of guns at the time....
mm..guys i guess youre more than a loyalist....
You're right about that
praisesinger83 wow nice to here
This scene wasn't deleted from the version I saw.
The British Empire lost the revolutionary war because they lacked men like Tavington in their ranks, tough brutes prepared to do whatever it takes to win battles. They were too obsessed with being gentlemanly and honourable.
No, the British lost the war because the Americans made it to expensive to continue. Britain did not commit the resources needed to put down the rebellion. Had the British used their full might of the navy and military, they would have absolutely crushed the revolution. Don't forget that Britain was fighting in Europe and the Caribbean. The British felt that other colonies were worth more and essentially let America go.
Emperor you are wrong by 1760 the colonies account for 35% of Britain trade.
Nicholas Terry Or they could had just negotiated better and keep the colonies...I reality most colonial didn’t wanted to leave
Nicholas Terry There were planets of opportunity to negotiate Ben Franklin was in London for 5 years to negotiate the debt but he failed.
Nicholas Terry because parliament were too dumb to understand the colonies have matured and you need to treat them like any other Englishmen instead of subjects. If parliament wanted money all they had to do was ask for lump sum of each colonies and let them figure it out and have some type a senatorial person from each colonies representation in London 1 per colonies.
Revolution would had been avoided for another 50-100 years
How many other cut scenes are there for this movie?
Tarleton is not like him....its all fake and made up stories that he is nasty. Yeah he is tough bugger who just following their orders. He is not that bad like fake film!
Tavington is loosely based on Tarleton
So fake
+James Stuart Yeah Tarleton killed soldiers who sighed up to die for their country Tartleton was ruthless and took no prisoners but that's not evil it's war
+Peter Pan Actually, killing soldiers who tried to surrender was against the understood rules of war.
They were soldiers though not civilians war is brutal and ugly and whether or not they surrendered really made no differences die on the battlefield or in prison they would have died either way I agree that what Tarleton did was against the rules of war wrong eh all in all 50/50
Can this copy of a copy of a copy of a video be any more blurry?
i have the film on dvd and whats greater is the movie retains a lot of the deleted scenes like this one.
I'm learning a lot about how complicated directing is.
Alright Americans and Brits, lets all get along. We're all on the same side now. We've watched each others asses during some of the most major wars in history, and we still do today. I firmly believe that we are and always will be the strongest coalition the world has ever seen.
Considering the real Banastre Tarleton was nicknamed Blood Ban because of his use of no restraint.