The clip is of "The Patriot's" rendition of the Battle of Camden. It gets much wrong about the battle (surely it couldn't have all been over in two minutes!) but I think there is a general belief that if the movie is incorrect on the substance it at least gets the style right.
Based on what I read in Spring's book, nothing could be further from the truth.
First off, the regimentals. The battle flags were mostly ceremonial and rarely deployed in battle. It is possible they were there, but more likely than not they were stored with the rest of the baggage.
Then there is the speed of the advance. Here in the movie the soldiers advance shoulder to shoulder, slowly, stoically, silently. In reality, Spring believes the British adopted a more open order which was better suited to deploying units in the rugged North American terrain - there may been 1.5 to 2 feet between men. This was done in the French and Indian War as well.
Because the British sought to end battles quickly to preserve the soldiery the British favored a bayonet charge over exchanges of musketry, and preferred to dislodge the enemy quickly on the battle field. They would try to do this by out flanking the continentals and, if that could not be accomplished, assaulting positions with the bayonet. The goal was avoid a firefight where superior numbers and decent American marksmanship often took heavy tolls.
Spring says typically the British would have advanced quickly towards the enemy and break into a jog when they came into range of continental rifles and musketry (which had a longer range than the British). They would halt quickly, fire a volley into the opposing ranks, and then charge with the bayonet at a run. This is exactly what the British right wing did to Gate's militiamen at Camden, who fled in the face of the charge.
The shock tactic worked well in the beginning of the war, but over time the Continentals became better soldiers and could stand up to a British bayonet charge. This happened at Camden on the American right; twice the British charged and were repulsed, and the British were in danger of faltering. Cornwallis rode up to steady his men, and soldiers from the British right who had smashed through the American lines outflanked the continentals who were standing firm. A firefight ensued with the remaining American forces (about 800 out of 2000 were left) and Cornwallis released the dragoons, which he had held in reserve, to complete the victory.
The silence of the advance? The seeming non-chalance of the British soldiery? Humbug! Balderdash! Fiddlesticks! Spring writes that the British probably would have been hulloing and huzzaying their way forward, trying both to keep their spirits up and to unnerve those of the Americans. There would have been some hatred mixed with the fear in the eyes - the British soldiers held their adversaries in cold contempt, which occasionally manifested itself in giving no quarter to surrendering American troops.
Why did they hate us so? Because it turns out we did shoot from behind rocks and trees at every opportunity. The militia, for their poor reliability in conventional fighting, were excellent when fighting the kind of guerrilla war that The Patriot depicts. The Hessians weren't drunk before the battle of Trenton; they were exhausted, their foraging parties engaged daily by militia, forcing them to be constantly at readiness and forage in force. Their guard on that fateful Christmas Eve was down due to the poor weather, believing that no one would be stupid and desperate enough to cross the Delaware in such horrid conditions.
George Washington was just that stupid and desperate. Good thing too...if he had been unsuccessful in rallying his army with victories at Trenton and Princeton, it would have given the British their best chance to knock the wind out of the Rebellion. Of this I am quite convinced. It was the only time I think they really could have won the war. Otherwise, they never had enough troops employed to effectively hold the entire country.
You'll have to forgive me. It's late, and I am rambling. I'll wrap it up by saying the British were probably better fighters in the woods then the movie gives them credit for (that scene where Mel Gibson and his poor little children take out a squad of British soldiers probably would have never happened...the ineptitude on display is unimaginable, even for British regulars), but not as good as the Americans, who were used to the woods and to shooting behind trees having done so their whole lives. The British actually had to train their light infantry to fight behind trees, which is odd because it is so natural to any American boy or girl who has played with BB guns in the woods.
And the whole thing about American riflemen cutting down officers and the like? Apparently this was a real problem, and one of the reasons the British were so keen to close the distance and dislodge the continentals on the tips of the bayonet. It is telling that after the British experience in the American Revolution they reorganized their light infantry wings and set up a regiment of rifles, which fought across Spain with Wellington against the French with great effect.
Good night everyone. 2 more posts to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment