Rebels and Redcoats (2003– ) User Reviews

A reverse of the story for once.

[tenkisoratoti · 9/10 · 16 July 2007]

This documentary made its appearance on British television screens 4 years ago and provides a LONG over due reverse history study of the American War of 1775 -1783. American reviews often don't know where to go with this one because it goes against a lot of what is staple in their education system. Richard Holmes, as always, is informative and interesting and often gets hands on and practical with the battlefields. Interestingly, a lot of his motivation for making this was triggered after watching 'The Patriot', so appalled was he of the historical butchering that the film made he even helped in the publication of a book by the same name.

This is a much needed educational history of the war, particularly for anyone British, who knows nothing of it but the rough and sorely one-sided American accounts that are about as easy to believe as a snake flying.

A New Revolution

[joncheskin · 8/10 · 11 August 2016]

Rebels and Redcoats is a BBC Documentary that attempts to relate a history of the American Revolution from a different point of view-- the British side. British historian Richard Holmes narrates the history in four episodes corresponding to the outbreak of war, the pivotal campaign for New York, the Southern campaign, and the climax at Yorktown. In so doing, he gives us a view of the war that is quite new and original, and sure to be fascinating to anyone who wants some distance from the traditional American mythology about the conflict.

Holmes's war is in some ways more of a civil war than a repressive conflict--he is quick to point out that, especially at the beginning of the conflict, Tories were as numerous as rebels, and that much of the war was an attempt by the British to galvanize their support. Large attention is given to the attempt by the British to free Negro slaves in the South in order to gain an ally in the war (although this lost many loyalists in the South). Holmes also corrects misconceptions created by Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot of British atrocities--he shows that atrocities were committed on both sides, although rarely on the civilian population. He also sees the war as a sort of British Vietnam, in which better British soldiers were outlasted by a guerrilla foe with more staying power.

The nice thing about all of these observations is that they are basically true. While not as romantic as typical American views of the war, they give the American observer a chance to see the war from a different perspective. Holmes clearly respects the ideals of the revolution and the American soldiers that eventually developed into a quite effective force, but sees in equal measure the incompleteness of the revolution in its treatment of Negroes, Native Americans and loyalists. Our revolution is not overturned by the documentary, but is fleshed out effectively so we can see it in a truthful light.

Get used to other points of view

[rowland-654-349989 · 8/10 · 28 September 2010]

Holmes is a military historian and as such, not immune to jingoistic lionisation of British military exploits throughout history.

If you accept that this series is not supposed to be "balanced", then it is as others have pointed out an excellent addition your collection of Revolutionary War documentaries. Compare with the superb PBS 6 part series "Liberty!". It is just nice to see the conflict from the perspective of a British historian.

American's may not be aware that many Brits find it obnoxious to have the outcome of a relatively meaningless war lauded over them, and the vietcong references are illustrative of this sentiment.

I've noticed that many Americans view any critical interpretations of their history as "anti-American", this is regrettable but a modern spectator must not ignore the vices and only focus on the virtues of what they believe to be their forefathers exploits. Soldiers were not angels, neither were the founders who are deified by many Americans. The British Empire also perpetrated great evils on countless millions living at that time, and the liberty fought for by Americans clearly did not extend to everyone.

I know its not nice to be reminded of that, but the point is that history is not a simple story of heroes and villains as portrayed by the sanitised and fanciful garbage like The Patriot.

Must see for Americans

[swanson-lee-t · 10/10 · 16 January 2008]

This is an area of history that is very misleading. The educational system within the US, and entertainment industry portray a very different picture of events to actually what went on surrounding the historical time era (before and after) of the battle of independence. I am very proud of the BBC for time after time making real, truth bearing programmes. And at times going against the weight of the world. I know the book and the history, and lastly i have seen the docu -- which i am impressed with.

To say i am writing spoilers is not entirely correct; i am however, giving an outline maybe to entice a little...

The war did not play out as US texts books say.

The war was not won by fearless American farm folk giving their last ounce of fight.

The war was a complete bloodbath with the Americans suffering horrendous losses over and over again, even when the odds were heavily in their favour.

The French were the saviours for the American race, yet who remembers them?, why do they not hail General Rochambeau for handing over their Independence to them?

Why is Paul Revere hailed as the man who sang "the British are coming", when he himself was incompetent and was court Marshalled for such. He also never made the journey as he was caught by the British.

Not all of these questions are answered in the programme(read the books), but this is a must see for Americans who would like to know a little more of what the rest of the world are taught in school.

The war of Independence is quite frankly turning in historical urban mythology, slashing up truth and fact in the process. America please honour yourselves with reality instead of buying into regurgitated lies.

Elementary School Social Studies classes would benefit from this

[gnostic21 · 10/10 · 26 November 2009]

A brilliant revelatory documentary, in spite of the ludicrousness of a bunch of overweight men traipsing around in bright clean British Army Uniforms. I would love to know if they were actors hired by the producers, or actual re-enacters. I've never thought much about the Revolution, but this documentary offered revelations, first,that the loyalists were a much stronger element of the population than American mythology permits; the actual story of the significance of Washington Crossing the Delaware (the battle for Trenton), how touch-and-go American victory actually was, and how much our ultimate victory at Yorktown depended on the aid of the French fleet.In the light of 'Freedom Fries' and our excoriation of the French following 9/11, this is a great correction. Watch it, show it to your children, try to correct the myths that get passed to us as 'American History'. I enjoyed it immensely.

Superb documentary

[grantss · 9/10 · 2 January 2019]

A documentary on the American War of Independence.

Superb. Well-researched and well-told. No agendas or revisions to suit the modern generation, just history, unadulterated.

Shows well what lead to the war, the fighting of it, at strategic and tactical level, and the results of it. Gives a good feel for it must have been like living in those times and at the major battles. Very engaging, interesting and edifying.

British side of the American Revolution

[intj1973-1 · 7/10 · 12 June 2005]

The presenter provides a British interpretation of the American Revolution. As an historian, I know the value of competing interpretations. I also know the value of presenting all germane facts, something the presenter does not do. For example, he ignores the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, and the general imperial disdain for American colonists. Nevertheless, the presenter makes valid points about the mixed motives of our Founding Fathers, whom I hold in more esteem than he does.

This is not the Revolution the way you probably learned about it in high school. For that reason alone, this documentary is worth viewing and pondering. There was another side to the events of 1775-1783. This is it.

Not the British view but the anti-American view

[bwell2 · 3/10 · 5 October 2008]

This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.

For example, in the episode "The Shot Heard Around the World" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely "whited out". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.

Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.