Ohio
Col. Tavington mentions towards the end he wants to discuss ownership of the territory of Ohio if the British win the war. So would he become like king or governor of Ohio? Or what does that historical point allude to?
shareI'm a lifelong resident of Ohio and I don't ever remember hearing anything like the movie depicted in any discussions regarding Ohio history (including the Ohio History class I took in 7th grade...been a long time since then, though! 😃). I think that scene was fabricated for the movie (I do find this movie entertaining and I really like Mel Gibson as a director...however, like a lot of his movies, there is some "creative storytelling" involved at times!).
Within the context of the movie...yes, I think Col. Tavington would have become "ruler" over the Ohio Territory (keeping in mind that Ohio didn't officially become a state until 1803, while this movie is set in the mid/late 1770s and ends in the early 1780s). Again, in "real life," the Ohio Territory had large French, Indian, and Welsh populations back then. I believe the "Fur trade" was big back then, so maybe Col. Tavington would have seen that as a source of wealth (again, within the context of the movie).
I'm not sure if that helped or not. Again, I really believe that this scene was fabricated for the movie and doesn't really have any "real-life reference" (i.e., with respect to Ohio).
I think that Tavington was simply asking for property for his own use in Ohio for after the war when he could not return to England nor stay in the South due to his rep for war atrocities. I don't believe he was asking to be the royal governor type of thing---but merely wanted a generous tract of land to build his own home and have a place to live.
Rather thankfully Benjamin Martin ended those plans with a well-placed bayonet. Lucky people in Ohio not having to live next to this creep!
Yes, I could go along with that. However...I'm not so sure that Tavington would have been capable of living a quiet, non-descript life after the war. He seemed to relish having power and being in control of things. But I do concede that the movie doesn't really say what Tavington's interest in Ohio would include.
shareI agree with what you say here. Tavington would NOT settle into the quiet life. He was very cruel and murderous. He was the devil incarnate. But I simply think that Tavington was just taking a look ahead of what awaited him. He already knew that he was a very marked and tainted man. Maybe Ohio appealed to him as he could go there and not have people immediately know who he was and what he had done. He probably thought that Cornwallis or the powers that be could lavish him with a hefty piece of land and the funds to build an estate upon it.
shareFair enough...I get where you're coming from. You make an interesting point regarding the relationship between Cornwallis and Tavington in the movie. Cornwallis obviously despised Tavington...it would have been interesting to see what their relationship would have been, had England won the war.
shareWe know that Tavington was based on the real life British calvary officer Banastre Tarleton (aka the Green Dragoon). Both men were brutal and not very well regarded. I wonder what the relationship between Cornwallis and Tarleton was? i can't say that I really know that. I wonder if Cornwallis lost a lot of esteem in England after his epic defeat at Yorktown? The movie made him seem like pretty much a royal beep. i know that Tarleton lived a rather long life back in England which is a shame that he did. He did not deserve it.
shareMel Gibson did not direct The Patriot. Roland Emmerich did.
shareYes, you are correct...my apologies. I didn't realize Roland Emmerich directed this and not Mel Gibson when I responded to this.
Even though the film isn't 💯 historically accurate, I do like it and thought it was entertaining. I think Jeremy Isaacs was excellent as Col. Tavington and Tom Wilkinson was excellent as Gen. Cornwallis. One thing it does show very well is how much the American colonists suffered. They literally risked their necks for America... I think the movie did a good job of showing that, fictionalized or not.
I agree with you! I saw the film in the theater, loved it, and have rewatched it a number of times over the years. In fact, I just watched it again a few days ago on July 4. It's still a great movie.
I would never recommend it as a source for learning history but as a piece of entertainment, it's excellent. I have it as Emmerich's second-best film, behind Independence Day.
And you're right about the colonists. While it was a relatively civilized war, as the history of war goes, it was still war and people suffered because of it. Those who were pro-independence knew that they were committing treason and that they would hang if they were caught.