Bloody Tarleton,” “Bloody Ban,” or “Tarleton’s Quarter” is how Banastre Tarleton is known, if known at all today. Movies like The Patriot, starring Mel Gibson, created a fictional Colonel Tavington loosely (very loosely) modeled on the real Banastre Tarleton. In the film, Tavington earned the epithets “Bloody Tarleton” and “Tarleton’s Quarter.”
In his War at Saber Point, John Knight seeks to set the record straight by giving a far more nuanced view of Tarleton and the British Legion.
Knight describes Tarleton as a libertine, a term rarely used today—libertine acts without moral restraint; a self-indulgent person.
The use of the term fits Tarelton (and other young gentlemen in Georgian London, p7) as he was a gambler with little restraint and a womanizer until late in his life after he married.
Tarleton’s mother, Jane, bailed him out of a gambling debt. She also purchased a commission for him in the 1stKing’s Own Dragoon Guards. The Horse Guards were dominated by aristocrats, which Tarleton was not. A commission purchase would have cost 1600 pounds, of which Tarleton received 800 from his mother.
On the outbreak of hostilities in the American colonies, British officers were allowed to volunteer their services in other units going to the colonies. Thus began a long association with Major General Charles Earl Cornwallis.
The British Army was well-trained and usually well-led but small, with many commitments. For this reason, George III turned to his German connections and hired Hessian, Brunswick, and other Germans for service in North America. These troops are usually described as “mercenaries,” but the only people that made money from them were the German princes who hired them out.
The British also came to depend on Loyalist units, called Tories, by the patriots or rebels, depending on your point of view.
 |
| This unit of "Tories" was named Emmerich's Chasseurs, The unit featured a mounted and dismounted element. For game purposes in Rebels and Patriots I show them both ways. The figures are Jack Scruby 25mm for the mounted figures and Airfix infantry. |
The British sent two cavalry (light dragoons) to America, the 16th and 17th. Lieutenant Colonel William Harcourt was the commander of the 16th. Harcourt, a well-placed aristocrat, would sponsor Tarleton’s career (p.19).
Tarleton did not look down on Loyalists, as did many British officers: his charismatic personality and openness led to the formation of the British Legion in 1778.
A “legion” was a combined arms formation of cavalry: infantry and artillery. The British Legion originally consisted of four infantry companies and three troops of light dragoons. A Royal Artillery contingent would be assigned as necessary and available. Many soldiers who served in the British Legion were deserters from the patriot cause. This is not surprising given the divided loyalties of the time, where it was said 1\3 of the population favored the patriots, another 1\3 favored the crown, and the remaining 1\3 did not care one way or the other.
The use of cavalry in the American Revolution was quite limited, given the nature of the terrain and the expense of raising horse troops. The Americans raised four regiments of light dragoons, but they were tiny.
The British 16th Light Dragoons soon departed back to England, leaving the 17th Light Dragoons and British Legion’s Light Dragoons as the two major cavalry forces on the British side.
 |
| My Queen's Hussars and 17th Light Dragoons from Jack Scruby miniatures in 25mm. |
Under Tarleton’s leadership, the British Legion fought an action against the 2nd Continental Dragoons, capturing its flag. (Chapter: Surrender You Dammed Rebel)
 |
| Standard of the 2nd Continental Dragoons, painting by Don Troiani. |
 |
| British Legion Light Dragoons from my collection. Figures are 20mm size from Irregular Miniatures in the UK. |
After the northern campaigns bogged down for the British, they turned their attention to the Southern Colonies, where thousands of Loyalists were believed to rally to the crown. In the south, the British Legion would gain fame and infamy.
After the fall of Charleston to British forces in 1779, Tarleton already had a reputation for being an aggressive cavalry leader. Light Dragoons are not meant to be primarily battle cavalry in the sense of charging home with the saber. They are better suited to scouting, serving as pickets, foraging, escort duties, and skirmishing with their opposites.
While the British Legion horse indeed performed all those duties, under Tarleton, charging home with the saber was the norm rather than the exception.
Tarleton surprised a patriot camp at the Battle of Monck’s Corner by leading a saber charge straight into it. The American General Huger was careless and primarily responsible for the one-sided British victory. Accounts of atrocity followed the success, including sabering soldiers trying to surrender and rape. Contrary to American propaganda, the rapes outraged Tarleton, but a higher-up in the chain of command showed leniency to the culprits (pgs. 88-89).
The incidents at Monck’s Corner pale compared to what happened at the Battle of the Waxhaws.
A small force of patriot Virginians under Abraham Buford was on their way to Charleston when the city fell. Aware of this force, Tarleton was sent to destroy them, catching them in an area known as the Waxhaws (pgs. 95-07).
It was not much of a battle. Inexplicably, Buford ordered his men in line of battle to hold their fire until the British cavalry (British Legion and a contingent from the 17th Light Dragoons) were within 50 yards. This allowed for only one volley before the cavalry was upon them.
Predictably, the Virginians lost formation and fled as the dragoons broke through, sabering the fleeing soldiers and causing further panic.
The Americans lost about 260 killed and wounded compared to the British, losing 17 dead and injured. The lopsided ratio was not typical of a battle during this period, giving rise to accusations of atrocity and massacre.
But was it a massacre? Asks John Knight as he carefully unpacks the evidence from primary sources.
From the evidence presented, it was not a massacre in the sense of killing off soldiers trying to surrender or the wounded later. This is not to say things like that did not happen; it was, after all, a brutal civil war with plenty of opportunity for both sides to commit atrocities upon each other.
The Americans lost little time turning the debacle into a potential rallying point. Knight concludes the Battle of the Waxhaws like this:
But Waxhaws turned out to be a poisoned chalice. Although the battle had been a military disaster for the patriots, it galvanized rather than subdued resistance…” Remember Tarleton’s Quarter” became a rallying cry that provoked hundreds into the militia ranks (Pg. 103).
Tarleton and the British Legion would go on to more victories and accusations until they were stopped cold at the Battle of the Cowpens. American General Daniel Morgan effectively used the militia and his few Continentals as Tarleton failed to appreciate the Americans' chosen ground.
 |
| American militia performed well at Cowpens because Daniel Morgan recognized their limitations, and he chose the ground well. The figures are Airfix in 1\72, painted by my friend J.Z, in 1976 as part of our bicentennial project. (The flag was painted by hand.) |
I have read War at Saber Point twice, relishing the detail in this great book. Knight’s research and use of primary sources make the book a gem, and his writing style simply adds to the enjoyment.
Fittingly, I picked the book up at a South Carolina bookstore where Tarleton gained his fame and infamy.
