"Tarleton... a brutal officer." Topic
13 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 25 Sep 2017 10:19 p.m. PST |
Interesting reading here… "I haven't seen 'The Patriot' in recent years, so my memory is pretty spotty on that section, but I do know who the character of William Tavington, Jason Isaacs character, was inspired by, or based on – Banastre Tarleton. The short answer is that, yes, it does seem that brutality of the nature you described (Killing wounded patriots and slaughtering surrendering forces) did occur during the war. Though, while some elements of the movie was exaggerated heavily for dramatic effect, other elements stayed true to history – however, I do not know of any children that Tarleton or his men has personally killed, nor do I have any knowledge of him burning a church filled with innocent civilians. Since the primary cause of Tarleton's infamous actions occurred on the battlefield, which was not exactly a place for children or innocent individuals, I find it hard to believe he might've had a hand in killing children. The individuals wounded in the primary battle that I'll be focusing on were however taken to a church, the Waxhaws Church, where a young Andrew Jackson helped alleviate the suffering of the wounded, together with his family.
To understand the massacre that occurred at the Battle of Waxhaws, you have to understand the circumstances that allowed it to happen, and who the man at the center of it was. Tarleton was a merciless commander, an excellent officer, and a daring strategist. He had started out in the British army in just 1775, and had propelled himself up the ranks from the lowest commissioned rank to Lieutenant Colonel in barely three years. He had fought with distinction during the campaign for New York, aiding in the capture of General Charles Lee, which was part of his dazzling rise through the ranks. Robert D. Bass & John Ferling describes Tarleton as: "… Stocky and powerful, with sandy red hair and a rugged visage that disclosed a hard and unsparing nature, Tarleton had the reputation of one who was anxious of every opportunity of distinguishing himself."…." Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
saltflats1929 | 25 Sep 2017 11:03 p.m. PST |
|
Supercilius Maximus | 26 Sep 2017 12:09 a.m. PST |
Interesting that the writer blames Tarleton for failing to stop the "massacre" of Buford's men, despite acknowledging that he was trapped under his horse and most likely unconscious, or at least semi-conscious, at the time. The writer also ignores the fact that Buford was "summonsed" more than once during the pursuit and rejected each and every one, deciding to fight on; as such, the Crown forces were under no requirement to give quarter, under the rules of war at that time. Compared to "Pyle's hacking match" where "Butcher" Lee's troops were allowed to kill men who did not even have their weapons drawn and thought they were dealing with friends, Waxhaws was a fair contest. Even the name of the latter incident has been sanitised to hide its true nature and absolve the sainted Bobby's ancestor. I demand that a statue be pulled down! (Anybody got one handy?). |
Mick the Metalsmith | 26 Sep 2017 4:46 a.m. PST |
Supercilious is living up to his name. |
FreemanL | 26 Sep 2017 4:49 a.m. PST |
I think the best thing I ever heard about Tarleton came from the Park Ranger at Hannah's Cowpens. He said when considering Ban, you have to remember his view of the war was 25 miles per hour off the back of a horse. It was an epiphany when I heard it and I still think it probably is the most correct sentence about the man I have ever heard. It was also very illuminating to discover that Cowpens was a battle where the US forces gained strength immediately after the battle (another ranger tidbit). Apparently more than a few soldiers who marched with Tarleton were ex-continentals. They used the initial volley to play dead and rejoined their old regiment after the battle! The proof was in the muster rolls where Camden showed them captured after Gates' defeat and their miraculous coming back on the rolls after Cowpens! I definitely highly recommend going to the battlefield and taking the Ranger walk. The battle makes so much more sense when you are there. Larry |
Bill N | 26 Sep 2017 9:19 a.m. PST |
Challenging myths is harder than challenging facts. Waxhaws is very similar to another famous massacre in American History-Fort Pillow in 1864. Both start out as legitimate military missions. Both involve defenders who had the opportunity to surrender, but did not do so. Both involve defenses that suddenly collapse in the face of determined onslaughts. Both feature commanders on the attacking side who were removed from effective control of the situation by the time the defense had collapsed. In both the attackers blood was up when the defense collapsed. Both involve troops on the defending side who continued to resist after the collapse, troops that attempted to surrender and troops that attempted to flee. Both also involve higher than normal bloodshed, arguably due in part to personal motives of the attackers to kill their defeated enemy. In neither action do you have clear evidence that the commander of the attacking force ordered the slaughter. I do not see how you can consider one action a massacre and not the other. The importance of Waxhaws wasn't that it was objectively a massacre inconsistent with the "rules of war" at the time. Its importance was that it was perceived as one by the Americans. Similar types of slaughters had occurred in frontier fighting. They had occurred in fighting between irregular militias, and they had happened in skirmishes and even at Paoli. However British regulars choosing to cut down American regular troops that they could easily have rounded up and taken off as prisoners was something new, especially in the south. Waxhaws changes the rules. I agree the attack on Pyles' troops was worse, but it happened after Waxhaws, was consistent with the rules as they were understood to be in light of Waxhaws, and so Lee and William Washington get passes. (Being on the side that wrote the histories also helps for them.) Tarleton's reputation isn't helped by him and his men being shifted after Waxhaws to dealing with the partisan rising in South Carolina against British rule. However I think this more confirmed Tarleton's reputation from Waxhaws than created it. My personal view is that Tarleton was not exceptionally brutal towards his opponents. He was an extremely bold commander, and that worked in his favor at times, and worked against him at other times. |
Bill N | 26 Sep 2017 9:35 a.m. PST |
I have my doubts whether many of Tarleton's troops "played dead" to get the opportunity to switch sides. Some of Tarleton's troops had previously served on the American side, and were willing to switch back after Tarleton's defeat. Seizing the opportunity to be on the side you prefer isn't the same as creating the opportunity to switch sides. From the British perspective Cowpens seemed to be a victory until the British collapsed in the face of the volley and counterattack by the third line coupled with Washington's cavalry charge and the militia returning to the action. Until that moment soldiers of suspect loyalty would have known to act inappropriately would have risked punishment or death if the British had prevailed. Another point is that a number of American prisoners in the south who joined the British after Charleston had started out as Loyalists who joined American forces, quite often the militia, to avoid being punished for starting out on the wrong side. |
Tango01 | 26 Sep 2017 10:22 a.m. PST |
Quite interesting boys… thanks!. Amicalement Armand
|
historygamer | 26 Sep 2017 11:28 a.m. PST |
IIRC, wasn't the insinuation that at Cowpens, the British Legion cavalry (not sure about the infantry) had a lot of recent turncoats in their ranks? When ordered to charge they refused. Or so I seem to recall. |
Bill N | 26 Sep 2017 11:59 a.m. PST |
To understand the British Legion cavalry's performance at Cowpens, start at Blackstock. Because of the check inflicted by Sumter on the British horse there, the Legion cavalry wasn't the same confident force at Cowpens that it had been earlier. Then witnessing elements of the horse beaten at earlier stages of Cowpens and seeing the British infantry attack collapsing the remaining Legion cavalry was unwilling to throw itself into the fight in an attempt to stave off defeat. At least that is my interpretation of what happened. |
Cacique Caribe | 26 Sep 2017 6:35 p.m. PST |
Then good think that Mel Gibson put an end to him! :) Dan |
greenknight4 | 28 Sep 2017 7:35 a.m. PST |
The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson I have just started reading this book and wil review it soon on the website. historybooksinreview.com Chris |
Supercilius Maximus | 28 Sep 2017 10:10 a.m. PST |
Worth noting that none of the nicknames for Tarleton used in that book were contemporary. |
|