War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion

by John Knight

The American Loyalist Regiment Led by the Most Charismatic British Commander of the War
The British Legion was one of the most remarkable regiments, not only of the American Revolution, but of any war. A corps made up of American Loyalists, it saw its first action in New York and then engaged in almost every battle in the Southern colonies. Led by a twenty-four-year-old libertine who purchased his commission to escape enormous gambling debts, the Legion gained notoriety for its ruthless tactics. Excelling in “special operations,” they frequently overwhelmed the Continental forces they fought, becoming the most feared British regiment of the war.
    Banastre Tarleton and the Americans he led have always been characterized as brutal, immoral villains—most recently in the movie, The Patriot. But this study subverts our pre-conceived notions of patriotism. The men who filled the Legions ranks were not weak-willed collaborators or treacherous renegades, but free men as motivated by conscience as the Patriots they battled. Few were wealthy. None had a vested stake in the British Government. Each believed that in defending the Crown; they were upholding the rule of law and preserving individual liberty. 
    These men followed Banastre Tarleton clear across America for years, sacrificing not only their families and homes but, in many instances, their lives. Self-interest could not have persuaded them to do this. Patriotism and fidelity did. Relying on first-hand accounts—letters, diaries, and journals—The British Legion is the enthralling story of those forgotten Americans and the young Englishman who led them.

Genres: American Revolution, History, American History, American, Nonfiction, Biography, Military History

320 pages, Hardcover

First published December 18, 2020

About the author

I worked for a couple of London Fine Art auction houses as a Victorian Painting specialist. I then found myself involved in politics...but grew out of it. I love Britain, the United States, Pre Raphaelite paintings, the Beatles and cats. Only the cats have got more out of me than I have them.
I devour historical biographies. No subject is too obscure.

Reviews

[Lissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into this book nearly blind about Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. (I haven't even watched The Patriot yet.) I had heard a bit about Tarleton, but mostly just in brief passing, and not enough to have an opinion on him one way or another.

Tarleton appears to have a bad reputation when it comes to his actions in the American Revolution, and the author clearly wants to change that. Like I said, I really don't know much about Tarleton except what was in this book, so I can't really weigh in on that in a well-researched way. My general impression after reading this book is that Tarleton was rather impetuous and rash. It also seems that he didn't have a particularly good grip on his men. He can be contrasted with John Graves Simcoe (and the Queen's American Rangers), who ran a tighter ship with his men. However, I don't think it is fair to paint Tarleton with an "evil" brush, either.

The writing style was good, and I found myself laughing out loud a few times (particularly over the captured rebel soldier who was hoping for Tarleton's defeat, only to belatedly realize that his captor was none other than Tarleton himself - LOL). I think the book could have used a bit of a tighter editing job - there were several errant commas, and at one point the Santee River is called the Sautée River (p. 142 [this is a quote from Cornwallis, so if this indeed how Cornwallis wrote it, a [sic] would have been helpful - as it stands, however, I feel that this was a spelling error in the book and not on Cornwallis' part]).

I feel like I learned a great deal about the British Legion, and I am looking forward to learning more and cross-referencing this book to others.

[William Guerrant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-written, well-researched, entertaining, and informative, this book will surely be enjoyed by anyone with an interest in the history of the American Revolution and is a particularly valuable resource for those with a special interest in the British Legion. This book is an important contribution to the historical literature and is definitely recommended.

One caveat however: in seeking to correct what the author regards as historiographical injustice to Tarleton, it seems to me he has fallen guilty of the same kind of imbalance and bias he is seeking to overcome. Of course some of the stories told of Tarleton are exaggerated or fabricated. But it is equally obvious that anyone who reads a book like this will already know that Parson Weems and Mel Gibson are not reliable sources of history. In seeking to counter those sorts of tales, it seems to me that the author has gone too far in downplaying and excusing the undeniable atrocities committed by Tarleton and the men under his command. Perhaps most astonishing is the author's endorsement of a claim that during his raid through central Virginia in 1781, Tarleton "showed a kind spirit," citing as his source a 1925 interview with "an elderly matron" who recalled her grandmother having said so! While acknowledging that such a source has little real historical value (the anecdotes "should be treated with some caution, being unsubstantiated oral folklore," he writes in an endnote) he concludes nevertheless that "the author believes them credible attestations to Tarleton's character." So there. Weighing against the elderly matron's recollection of her grandmother's recollection of how Tarleton behaved while napping in her home, we have an abundance of contemporaneous accounts (including some from Tarleton himself) describing a regular practice of brutality, arson, and the merciless slaughter of surrendered soldiers. To be fair, this is a scholarly work, so the credible evidence supporting the traditional historical judgment of Tarleton is not ignored, but the author's attempts soften the historical judgment of Tarleton are unconvincing, to this reader at least.

It is telling that even a portrayal by a sympathetic biographer reveals a subject with no virtue or positive moral qualities, other than personal courage.

[Kedavra Mandylion · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my best reads of the year.

This is a colourful, humorous and moving portrait of a character larger than life - a man sure to ignite powerful feelings in the modern history enthusiast, as he did back in the day. Knight does not gloss over Tarleton's vanity and mistakes but puts his actions in perspective, dispelling the myths and propaganda most opinions on this character have been based on so far.
You get this powerful, vivid image of this young redheaded, hot blooded commander running in his shirt, saber in hand, with shave lather on half his face, chasing the sound of fire on his own; him riding for hundreds of miles across the swampy countryside in South Carolina; him ungraciously blaming his defeats on someone else. After so many historians put a lot of effort in painting him like a monster, blatantly following the propaganda, the idea you get of Banastre Tarleton from this book is that of someone who was very human, very flawed, and extremely capable in what he did. I got so many interesting points to follow up and develop in my novels, in which Tarleton is a major character.
I will read more about him and I will likely give this brilliant book a re-read.

[Gerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers the nasty ugly backcountry war between Patriots and Tories, mainly in the Carolina upcountry. Because the victorious Patriots wrote the history—and their descendants the silly The Patriot—Colonel Tarleton/Tavington comes out the villainous worse. War at Saber Point, by British author John Knight, presents a more evenhanded look at him and the British Legion.

Tarleton was no saint, but no malicious demon, either. In charge of light cavalry, he proved to be an effective raider and fighter. As Cowpens showed, light cavalry leaders should not be given charge of mixed forces.

The book covers a number of topics not covered in the simpler books from the 1960s and 70s. Among them are the prostitutes of London, yellow fever in the Low Country, recruiting for the Legion, horses, and the failed British Southern strategy (comfortable Loyalists do not make soldiers). This proved to be an interesting read in a little-known subject.

[Joseph Hamilton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having recently finished John Oller’s “The Swamp Fox” I came across this lone copy in Barnes and Noble and thought it would be a good adjunct to that earlier work.

One thing Knight does that Oller did not was to scrutinize Revolutionary War veterans’ pension applications for telling details and anecdotes. Tarleton and many of the British officers above and below him in rank published memoirs which made Knight’s job easier as did the fact that “who lost the war" was a lively topic in Britain for about ten years after the war until revolutionary France diverted public attention.

I would estimate that about a third of the book is about Tarleton himself, another third about the British Legion he commanded and the remaining third about the conduct of the war from the British perspective, something that as an American I had not previously been exposed to in any detail. In some ways the latter third was the most interesting for me. The British dilemma in the colonies was similar to what the U.S. would face in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq even down to the resettlement of political refugees. The dilemma can be summed up as “We lose by not winning and they win by not losing."

The main takeaway for me was that Tarleton was not the war criminal he has been made out to be and that this maligning began as propaganda during the Revolution. The problem with a cavalry charge is the same as with an armored assault: both are shock attacks in which the initial momentum makes the taking of prisoners unlikely.

The book contained a wealth of detail about Tarleton that I had not previously come across such as his incapacitation by yellow fever, losing the index and middle fingers of his right hand and having to learn how to write and wield a saber with his left hand, and capturing Daniel Boone among other Virginia legislators.

Another reviewer here, who blocks comments and replies, feels there is a misspelling of “Santee” as “Sautee.” Obviously the handwriting the author referred to looked like a “u” rather than an “n."

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

War at Saber Point-Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion
John Knight

“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 1st King’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.

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.

Under Tarleton’s leadership, the British Legion fought an action against the 2nd Continental Dragoons capturing its flag. (Chapter: Surrender You Dammed Rebel)

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.

My 1779, and the fall of Charleston to British forces, 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, Tarleton was outraged by the rapes, 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 Wxhaws 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 more accusations until being stopped cold at the Battle of the Cowpens, where American General Daniel Morgan effectively used the militia and his few Continentals as Tarleton failed to appreciate the chosen ground of the Americans.

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. 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.

[Lacey Loves cats! · Rating 5 out of 5]

The only History biography to actually make me laugh out loud. Loved the numerous characters in this book, not just Tarleton. A moving story in some ways particularly the struggle to survive the wastelands of Nova Scotia when the war ends. The slavery issue was a fascinating. I could have done without so much on the regiments formation, but I suspect most people will actually want this kind of detail. A northern colonies map to match the southern one would have been handy. Beautifully written, more like a historical novel than a biography.

[Linda M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Banastre Tarleton was an interesting person to read about. I also learned quite a bit about the British legion during the Revolutionary War. Ban quit law school to go to war against the patriots across the pond. The war, Tarleton, & other British commanders were well researched. The writing style was easy to read and very interesting. At points during the book I would laugh. Having lived in South Carolina since the early 1980s, I well understand the mindset of the people. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox.

This book helped me to better understand Tarleton. He wasn't as bad as he was portrayed in the movie "The Patriot". I also enjoyed the fact that the book concentrated more on the Southern campaigns of the war. I read somewhere in the book that there were approximately 200 battles fought in S.C. I have had the privilege of going to the Cowpens Battlefield & Kings Mountain Battlefield.

[Kerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic read! I knew nothing about Tarleton or the British Legion and very little about the Revolutionary War but this book gave me plenty to absorb.
Well researched and detail-oriented with lots of references from source material while still laced with humour and warmth made it a thoroughly enjoyable historical journey.

[Craig Hipkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bought a copy of this book after visiting the Cowpens battlefield over the summer. I found it to be a compelling read. Tarleton was a womanizing rake but definitely had talent when it came to the battlefield. The author does a great job giving the reader a sense of the times and brings to life some of the other interesting characters of the age.

[Dave Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a likeable fellow.