The Patriot Movie Historical Accuracy

The movie “The Patriot,” depicts what life was like during the American Revolutionary in the late seventeenth century. Though the movie is considered a historical film, according to some historians, there are many inaccuracies found throughout the plot. Roland Emmerich, the director did want the general plot of the film to be true, so he spoke with historians at the Smithsonian concerning costumes, props, and the set. This is most likely why experts say that the villages, taverns and plantations, all part of colonial Charleston, seem like a historically accurate depiction of the setting. The Fort Carolina set was also called impressive, since the British built many forts that were constructed very similarly to the one in the movie. Emmerich’s

advisor, Rex Ellis, also read through letter and journals, which contained accounts of colonists living during this time, before writing the screen play.
While most of the setting proves accurate, most of the events in the movie are fictional. An example of a fictional event is the last scene of the movie which is a combination of the Battle of Guilford Court House and the Battle of Cowpens. Other events, like Tavington's pursuit of Martin and his fellow comrades who escaped by fleeing into the swamps of South Carolina, were loosely based on history.
The movie begins as the people of South Carolina are voting weather to stay loyal to the Crown of England or join the fight for independence. This vote comes because the citizens are angry over taxation without representation. The main character, Benjamin Martin, votes to stay loyal to the king, because he believes the war will be fought in their front yard. As a single father to seven children, he believes his place is at home keeping his family safe. Unfortunately for Benjamin, the vote passes for South Carolina to join the fight for independence and his oldest son enlists in the Continental Army. Benjamin sees his son’s enlistment as a mistake, because he fought in The French and Indian War and knows how ruthless war can be. At some point, he shares his experiences, describing in detail, the violent and merciless acts that he and others committed, including torture and mutilation. This seems to match up with historical accounts that proved the British to be brutal during this war.
Later in the story, Benjamin loses one son to the heartless General Tavington while his other son, Gabriel, is taken by British troops. He and his other sons ambush the British army, killing most of them, and get Gabriel back. Soon after, Martin is made Colonel of the militia. He trains his men to be skilled fighters, outsmarting the British numerous times. However, many of the men experience heartbreak as their families and houses are targeted by Tavington and his men. This includes the burning of churches, houses, and the murdering of innocent civilians. General Tavington is based off of British officer Banastre Tarleton. Though Tarleton was in fact a fierce leader and committed violent acts, he was not as cold as he is portrayed in the movie and many of these events regarding his behavior are highly distorted. The real Tarleton was known for being harsh on the battle field, burning farms of suspected guerillas, and sometimes killing guerillas in public. He was definitely a ruthless man, but experts say that he wasn’t as bad as the movie makes him seem. There is no evidence that he ever killed innocent people and he only killed wounded Continentals. The British were often very strategical about killing Continentals, since it could attract retaliation, so this behavior seems unbelievable. This movie wrongfully paints, not just Colonel Tarleton, but also the British in general, as villains and monsters. Some critiques have even said that the war crimes in the movie are comparable to Nazis war crimes.
Another major discrepancy found in the movie is Mel Gibson’s character.

Benjamin Martin is a combination of three different leaders that actually lived and were part of the Revolutionary War. These include Thomas Sumter and Andrew Pickens, and Francis Marion. Like Benjamin in the movie, Sumter and Pickens both had plantations that were burned in by the British. Little is shared with Gibson’s character, other than this similarity. On the other hand, Marion, the primary person that Benjamin’s character is modeled after, was a militia leader in South Carolina, like Martin. Nicknamed the “Swamp Fox,” he was known for his swift and sneaky attacks. In the movie, Benjamin’s also shares this quality and is referred to as the “ghost.” Unlike Martin, Marion was not a respected leader though. According to one British historian, he was “a serial rapist who hunted Indians for fun.” Other than these small details, Benjamin Martin’s character is completely

fictional.
The portrayal of African Americans in the movie is another idea that has been challenge. For this time period, it would seem that Martin’s family would have owned slaves, especially since they were living in the South on a plantation. Producers did debate the issue before deciding not to make Martin a slave owner, not wanting to deface the story’s hero. Instead of slaves, Benjamin employs free blacks, an arrangement that in reality would have been nonexistent during this time. Also, Benjamin takes his family to a slave community on the coast, knowing that they will be safe there. In reality, these slaves were hiding from Patriots like him and it is known that some militiamen were even paid with slaves.
Another key issue that historians have with the plot is the almost complete exclusion of the Loyalists.

A significant number of these resided in Georgia and the Carolinas where the story takes place. In fact, much of the fighting that was done here involved civil wars between the Tories and Whigs. The movie introduces only one Loyalist soldier, Captain Wilkins, who is part of Tavington’s dragoon, making it seem as though Loyalists were rare. This seems strange since half of the British army in the South was comprised of Loyalist militia and provincial units. At the end of the story, Martin finally gets revenge on Tavington for the death of his sons, and the Patriots force the fictional General Cornwallis to surrender in the last big war scene. Next, Martin talks about the arrival of the French soon after, who win an important naval battle at Chesapeake Bay, which leads to the siege on Yorktown. This is one of the final blows, which decided the end of the war and the Treaty of Paris. This is one of the few parts of the film that seems to align with

history.
In addition to the plot, there also are many problems with the equipment, tactics, and the uniforms that were depicted in the film. First of all, most Continental soldiers did not have blue coats and white pants and the British did not all wear red. Many soldiers, especially in the southern part of the colonies, did not have uniforms a. They had much trouble finding proper clothing and provisions and had no tents like those seen in the movie. For these reasons, “The Patriot” fails to show just how extreme the depravation was that the Continental army experienced in their fight for independence. Lastly, as far as weapons go, in reality, the artillery that was available then would not have been able to fire exploding shells, as seen in the movie.