139shame, alluded to in the opening scene, was
his dismembering of corpses after a particu-
larly brutal battle during the French and
Indian War.
Eighteenth-century Europeans were in
fact preoccupied with reconciling the violence
of war with the need for social order. Their par-
ticular refinement of the military arts was the
ordered massing of musket fire. Because mus-
kets were highly inaccurate, a troop of sol-
diers, dispersed and firing on their own, were
unlikely to drive an enemy from the field. But
when soldiers were brought together in con-
centrated formations and ordered to fire
simultaneously, the enemy would be deci-
mated. The technology of warfare required
intense discipline; and the new penchant for
order imposed seeming coherence upon the
chaos of the battlefield.
The Patriotprovides a vivid rendering of
this juxtaposition. Soldiers in beautifully col-
ored uniforms march in straight, regular
columns to the steady cadence of drums while
officers bark precise commands:“Circle right.
Face forward. Lift weapons.. .” These stately
preliminaries, depicted on ripening fields
beneath a summer sun, provide an unsettling
backdrop for the ensuing violence: Volleys of
musket fire shatter the formations, low-veloc-
ity cannon balls decapitate soldiers, and bayo-
nets pierce their chests.
Martin concludes that the British cannot
be defeated in this type of battle. And they seldom were.
Martin advocates guerrilla tactics, as did many southern
Patriot militiamen. The British had good reason to doubt the
legitimacy of this type of warfare. When men went wild on
the battlefield, or fired shots and then hid among civilians,
they were criminals, not soldiers. If such behavior were con-
doned, warfare would become barbarity.
The movie develops this point at considerable length.
During a truce, Martin confers with Cornwallis, who com-
plains that the Patriot militia aimed at officers at the begin-
ning of battles. Such behavior was inconsistent with “civilized
warfare.” Officers, as gentlemen, were bound by codes of
honor. If they were killed, who would “restrain” the regular
soldiers—keep them from reverting, as did Martin, to a
frenzy of terror and rage?
The movie’s debate over the nature of “civilized” warfare
parallels an ongoing debate at the time. At the outset of the
war, British officers took an oath affirming the British Articles
of War, which protected citizens and soldiers who had sur-
rendered. The American Congress also adopted the British
Articles of War as the basis for discipline and military justice.
But with the outbreak of guerrilla warfare in the South, both
sides frequently ignored these rules.
“Colonel Tavington” was obviously based on Banastre
Tarleton, the actual commander of the Green Dragoons.
Tarleton became notorious after his soldiers raped three
plantation women and killed several militiamen who had
surrendered. This behavior worried Cornwallis, who sent a
dispatch that, while commending his subordinate’s
courage and zeal, also included a warning: “Use your
utmost endeavors to prevent the troops under your com-
mand from committing irregularities.” In a subsequent
engagement at Waxhaws, however, Tarleton again lost
control of his men, who stabbed and slashed vanquished
foes. An American officer discovered that the American
corpses at Waxhaws had each received, on the average,
sixteen wounds.
British and American officers sought to affirm that the
war could be civilized. But such high-minded notions were
repeatedly subverted during tomahawk-wielding guerrilla
warfare and by excessively zealous commanders. The ques-
tion then remained, as it does today, whether unchecked
aggression is, among soldiers, a virtue or a vice.The Patriot
raises these issues but does not resolve them. Martin, surely,
should have kept his tomahawk in its locked box; but if he
had, would the Patriots have won?Mel Gibson as Patriot leader Benjamin Martin with Jason Isaacs as Colonel Tavington, a
barbarous British officer.Questions for Discussion
■Does the justice of a cause warrant the use of violence
to attain it?
■Was guerrilla warfare in the South morally justified?
■In general, how can filmmakers contribute to under-
standing the past? How are they likely to alter the past
to suit cinematic purposes?