MovieChat Forums > 'Northwest Passage' (Book I -- Rogers' Rangers) (1940) Discussion > Splitting up was the rangers' fatal erro...

Splitting up was the rangers' fatal error, not Major Rogers

posted 10 years ago by jeffyoung1
3 replies | jump to latest

The movie depicts the Rogers rangers as collectively making the mistake of splitting up into small groups to look for food. But Major Rogers warned it would subject the small groups to ambushes and he was right. Rogers was not a tyrant leader and in the situation he was in, to have been a tyrant leader would have been fatal for him. He knew when he had to give in when his subordinate leaders and men wanted otherwise. But Rogers was right. In the end out of an original force of some 250 rangers or so, only 50 or 52 made it to Fort Wenworth. It's difficult to judge those men given their dire situation. Only Major Rogers had the mind and will of steel but he was above an average man, like so many great leaders are.

[–] movies789 8 years ago

Throughout the movie, I was struck by the utter absence of basic noise discipline by the Rangers. The nonstop talking, yelling, shouting, screaming, clanking of canteens and pots, banging of boats, and unnecessary gunshots would have horrified today's Rangers. All that pointless noise would have drawn the attention of Indians and French troops anywhere in the vicinity, and would have subjected the Rangers to endless ambush attacks. Absolutely stunning!

[–] jeffyoung1 8 years ago

You have a good point. The director had no prior military experience so it shows in the movie. The rangers in the movie do show silence discipline when it was most needed, in the presence of enemies.

Much of the noise is from Major Robert Rogers who has to constantly encourage, cajole, and wheedle his men to keep going. I notice that Roger's leadership style is unique. I never see him lose his temper or resort to verbal abuse and threats. I know from history that early Americans despised authoritarian leadership and would have reacted negatively to a strong-handed leader. And I don't mean a hard-a$$ or a Captain Bligh type. The kind of well-trained, disciplined leaders of today's American military would have had a hard time with yesterday's American militia and volunteers who would not have put up with today's more disciplined leaders. That was Roger's problem. He had to constantly be the voice of optimism.

I sense you are a military veteran. Was the movie Roger's leadership style realistic to you? I once knew an Army battalion commander whose leadership style came close to the movie Roger's leadership style. The officers and enlisted in his battalion greatly respected him and actually felt bad if they fell short in their duties. Then again, there were a lot of examples of military officers who felt that being a hard-a$$ made them effective leaders. But I don't think so.

[–] movies789 8 years ago

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's when in the presence of your enemy that you can let loose with lots 'n lots of noise. The well-disciplined unit adheres to noise-discipline protocol when seemingly less needed, so as to detect the enemy before the enemy detects them. Particularly a unit fashioning itself as the original Rangers. But, I risk splitting hairs, especially since we're observing actor portrayals, not the actual Rangers.

I found that it takes all kinds to flesh out the leadership ranks. I was exposed mainly to company-level leaders and below. Some were more feared than warm 'n fuzzy, yet still got the job done. Others, of whom I think back with fondness and reverence, seemed to be born-not-made natural leaders, who were down-to-earth sorts who managed a delicate balance between a human connection when appropriate and a hard-nosed edge when needed. Still others (new platoon leaders, mainly) were overly familiar with their men, which generally made for a breakdown in respect and responsiveness.

As a low-level (infantry fire team) leader, I never acquired the natural-leader attributes that others seemed to have; but, we all came home, so all's well that ends well.