I think a story must be epic and must make you feel involved and dreaming. I mean great feelings, great carachters and great actors.
Who said the plot isn't so good?
I don't think that.
John Ford was a real filmaker, and this is a very great movie.
Francesco Zampa
This may have already been mentioned but this movie was based very much on a true raid during the war. It is known as Grierson's raid, who before the war was a railroad man specifically brought in for it. The raid started at LaGrange, Tennessee, about 40 miles east of Memphis, and went straight down thru the state of Mississippi to near Jackson and then turned west to Vicksburg during the seige. This raid pretty much proved to the northern people that the state was pretty much a shell with most of the men off to other parts of the war. Nathan Bedford Forrest was running wild thru out the mid south and most of the northern troops were afraid to have a pitched battle with him. But he never had more that 2000-3000 troops at best, defeated every northern force he encountered until the end of the war and surrendered his entire force in either Alabama or Georgia. You are correct it's a great movie but it's sour grapes for me. My family was in one of the counties that Grierson rode thru back then and were all Confederates.
Bill Landers
Hernando, Mississippi
anne-billlanders ,
Grierson was a school teacher. Much of the rape attributed to Sherman were actually Forrest's il-disciplined troops.
I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed!share
"Grierson was a school teacher. Much of the rape attributed to Sherman were actually Forrest's il-disciplined troops."
That's total *beep* If the Confederacy hadn't been outnumbered 10-1 and had won the war, Sherman would definitely have been hanged as a war criminal. General Forrest was probably the best cavalry general of the War for Southern Independence.
As many or more confederate leader could have been hanged as war criminals. And the confederacy wasn't outnumbered 10-1. it was more like 3:1 in infrastructure and EQUAL numbers in forces which means they shoudl have won given they were mostly fighting on their home turf and had the advantage of interior lines as well.
The Confederate older was simply no better, nor braver, than federal troops. And their generals made as many mistakes (despite the absurd hagiographic treatments in the south of quite mediocre generals like Lee, Stuart, etc).
and forrest's troops were FAMOUSLY unruly an ran rapine thought the southern boarder states.
First of all, Forrest's men and Sherman's men both committed atrocities but such activities were by no means restricted to the troops of these men. There were no established rules of war in the 1860s. Forrest's men did in fact murder an entire troop of ~800 black men wearing Federal uniforms at Fort Pillow. There wasn't a single instance where Sherman's men did anything like this. After the war Forrest help found the KKK, proving conclusively that his murder of black troops was no accident or anomaly. Forrest was a dyed in the wool racist and for any objective historian this stains his name. The Joint Committee On the Conduct of the War immediately investigated the Ft. Pillow incident, concluding that Confederates shot most of the garrison after it had surrendered. A 2002 study by Albert Castel concluded that the Union forces were indiscriminately massacred after Ft Pillow had ceased resisting or was incapable of resistance. In 2005, historian Andrew Ward reached the conclusion that an atrocity in the modern sense occurred at Ft Pillow, including the murders of fleeing black civilians, but the event didn't appear premeditated or officially sanctioned by Confederate commanders. The accounts of Ft Pillow conflict to some degree but what's clear is that 300 Federals died, most were unarmed when they were killed, and most were black.
As for the so called 'War for Southern Independence;' forgive me but that the worst sort of historical revisionism. When the country was founded, Southern states ensured their slaves were counted for representation but these poor people had no status as human beings. As long as the South got its way, e.g., continuation of slavery unhindered, they were happy. For 41 of the first 71 years of the nation's existence, the southern states controlled the Presidency for 52 years, and owing to the 3/5s compromise, the South had far more representation in the House of Representatives then they deserved (4 million slaves equaled 2.4 million whites with respect to apportionment). The South voted as a 'Slave Black' and this is what enabled them to literally control US government for much of the first 61 years years of the country's history. The south began losing control with the election of Fillmore in 1850 and that's when things began to seriously unravel. The South wouldn't accept that they could be out voted by the north so they figured to leave the union. They figured wrong.
The Civil War was a war entirely about slavery and anyone who doubts this simply needs to go on line to read the articles of succession of the 11 rebelling states. In each instance, the reason for succession was stated: Slavery. The north went to war to prevent the dissolution of the Union but a significant number of northerners supported war to free slaves. Both preservation of the Union and freeing slaves were worthy causes.
The Civil War was a rebellion and nothing more. Frankly, after more than 150 years I am disgusted that anyone would continue to claim Confederate leaders were anything but traitors to their country. Yes, traitors. The mistake the Union made after 1865 was not eradicated the southern antebellum way of life because in failing to do so, that culture was resurrected as Jim Crow and it continues in a watered down form to this day. I haven't thought through how the Union should have treated the south after 1865 but kissing their behinds after winning a bloody war was, in hindsight, a huge mistake. In spite of all the whines heard about Reconstruction, in fact that period permitted antebellum southern attitudes to survive and thrive. Reconstruction equality laws protecting blacks were overturned in the 1870s and it required almost another 100 years before black American gained rights they should have had after the Civil War ended.
I have zero tolerance for southern apologists and historical revisionists. As far as I can tell, the south had little commendable meriting preservation beyond its own sordid history. State's rights was a fiction created by Calhoun in the 1820s and any legitimate excuse for southern rebellion was predicated on that fiction. Moreover, the Civil War should have ended the state's rights fantasy...but it didn't and today Calhoun's fiction thrives in the same places it thrived during the antebellum period: The Old South. What a surprise. Slavery was always an abomination and the Confederacy merited consignment to history's ash bin if only for that one reason. The Union couldn't outlaw display of Confederate flags as treasonous because that would violate the Bill of Rights. I value free speech and can live with vulgar displays of a flag representing treason but make no mistake: The flags of the Confederacy are to me as heinous as the swastika. Some will claim Confederate flags stand for the cause of state's rights and are thus ennobled: Some would claim the swastika represents German nationalism and Aryan purity. It's hardly a surprise that some people hold all of these symbols in high regard, which I think says a lot about the unstated symbolism of the Confederacy. It's long past time that Americans cease viewing the Confederacy through rose-colored glass. The Confederacy started the war at Ft. Sumpter: the Union finished the war at Appomattox Courthouse. In hindsight, the south got off rather easy since their pre-war way of life continued. Although the planter class lost much of their wealth (slaves) and while blacks were legally no longer slaves, blacks gained the distinction of being non-entities and if they complained about this they were likely to be lynched. This is a culture people hold in high esteem?
In 1871, Gen. Forrest was called before a congressional Committee. Forrest testified before Congress personally over four hours .
Here's part of the transcript of Forrest's testimony to that 1871 hearing:
"The reports of Committees, House of Representatives, second session, forty-second congress," P. 7-449.
"The primary accusation before this board is that Gen. Forrest was a founder of The Klan, and its first Grand Wizard, So it shall address those accusations first."
Forrest took the witness stand June 27th,1871. Building a railroad in Tennessee at the time, Gen Forrest stated he 'had done more , probably than any other man, to suppress these violence and difficulties and keep them down, had been vilified and abused in the (news) papers, and accused of things I never did while in the army and since. He had nothing to hide, wanted to see this matter settled, our country quiet once more, and our people united and working together harmoniously.'
Asked if he knew of any men or combination of men violating the law or preventing the execution of the law: Gen Forest answered emphatically, 'No.' (A Committee member brought up a 'document' suggesting otherwise, the 1868 newspaper article from the "Cincinnati Commercial". That was their "evidence", a news article.)
Forrest stated '...any information he had on the Klan was information given to him by others.'
Sen. Scott asked, 'Did you take any steps in organizing an association or society under that prescript (Klan constitution)?'
Forrest: 'I DID NOT' Forrest further stated that '..he thought the Organization (Klan) started in middle Tennessee, although he did not know where. It is said I started it.'
Asked by Sen. Scott, 'Did you start it, Is that true?'
Forrest: 'No Sir, it is not.'
Asked if he had heard of the Knights of the white Camellia, a Klan-like organization in Louisiana,
Forrest: 'Yes, they were reported to be there.'
Senator: 'Were you a member of the order of the white Camellia?'
Forrest: 'No Sir, I never was a member of the Knights of the white Camellia.'
Asked about the Klan :
Forrest: 'It was a matter I knew very little about. All my efforts were addressed to stop it, disband it, and prevent it....I was trying to keep it down as much as possible.'
Forrest: 'I talked with different people that I believed were connected to it, and urged the disbandment of it, that it should be broken up.'"
The following article appeared in the New York times June 27th, "Washington, 1871. Gen Forrest was before the Klu Klux Committee today, and his examination lasted four hours. After the examination, he remarked than the committee treated him with much courtesy and respect."
Actually, the "kuklos" was started in Pulaski, Tennessee, just before Christmas 1865, by six ex-Confederate officers, and was a sort of social club for Confederate officers:
1. Captain John C. Lester - Knight Hawk
2. Captain John B. Kennedy - Grand Magi
3. Frank O. McCord - Grand Cyclops
4. Calvin E. Jones - (son of Thomas M. Jones)
5. Richard R. Reed - Lictor
6. James R. Crowe - Grand Turk
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Then we have Fort Pillow.
Fort Pillow
More than fifty Union soldiers that were present at this battle who gave sworn testimonies contradicting these findings first presented in the press.
LT Van Horn's report makes no mention of any "massacre" or misconduct on the part of Forrest or his men and was for a time a prisoner himself, reporting "I escaped by putting on citizen's clothes, after I had been some time their prisoner. I received a slight wound of the left ear"
LT Van Horn reported that "Lieutenant John D. Hill, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery, was ordered outside the fort to burn some barracks, which he, with the assistance of a citizen who accompanied him, succeeded in effecting." This accounts for the barracks allegedly burned by Confederates in which wounded Union soldiers were supposed to have perished.
Union officers were in charge of burials and made no such report of living burials.
The report of Lieutenant Daniel Van Horn, Sixth U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery confirmed this in which he reported: "There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter."
“Some of our men were killed by both whites and Negroes who had once surrendered"
Numbers 16. Report of Lieutenant Daniel Van Horn, Sixth U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery, of the capture of Fort Pillow - Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. 32, Part 1, pp. 569-570
HDQRS. SIXTH U. S. HEAVY ARTILLERY (COLORADO,
Fort Pickering, Memphis, Tenn., April 14, 1864.
COLONEL: I have the honor to submit the following report of the battle and capture of Fort Pillow, Tenn.: At sunrise on the morning of the 12th of April, 1864, our pickets were attacked and driven in, they making very slight resistance. They were from the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry
Major Booth, commanding the post, had made all his arrangements for battle that the limited force under his command would allow, and which was only 450 effective men, consisting of the First Battalion of the Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery, five companies of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, and one section of the Second U. S. Light Artillery (Colorado, Lieutenant Hunter.
Arrangements were scarcely completed and the men placed in the rifle-pits before the enemy came upon us and in ten times our number, as acknowledged by General Chalmers. They were repulsed with heavy loss; charged again and were again repulsed. At the third chargee Major Booth was killed, while passing among his men and cheering them to fight. The order was then given to retire inside the fort, and General Forrest sent in a flag of truce demanding an unconditional surrender of the fort, which was returned with a decided refusal.
During the time consumed by this consultation advantage was taken by the enemy to place in position his force, they crawling up to the fort. After the flag had retired, the fight was renewed and raged with fury for some time, when another flag of truce was sent in and another demand for surrender made, they assuring us at the same time that they would treat us as "prisoners of war."
Another refusal was returned, when they again charged the works and succeeded in carrying them. Shortly before this, however, Lieutenant John D. Hill, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery, was ordered outside the fort to burn some barracks, which he, with the assistance of a citizen who accompanied him, succeeded in effecting, and in returning was killed. Major Bradford, of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was now in command. At 4 o'clock the fort was in possession of the enemy, every man having been either killed, wounded, or captured.
There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter. [emphasis added, ed.] As for myself, I escaped by putting on citizen's clothes, after I had been some time their prisoner. I received a slight wound of the left ear. I cannot close this report without adding my testimony to that accorded by others wherever the black man has been brought into battle. Never did men fight better, and when the odds against us are considered it is truly miraculous that we should have held the fort an hour. To the colored troops is due the successful holding out until 4 p. m. The men were constantly at their posts, and in fact through the whole engagement showed a valor not, under the circumstances, to have been expected from troops less than veterans, either white or black.
The following is a list of the casualties among the officers as far as known: Killed, Major Lionel F. Booth, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored); Major William F. Bradford, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry; Captain Theodore F. Bradford, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry; Captain Delos Carson, Company D, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored); Lieutenant John D. Hill, Company C, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored); Lieutenant Peter Bischoff,* Company A, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored). Wounded, Captain Charles J. Epeneter, Company A, prisoner; Lieutenant Thomas W. McClure, Company C, prisoner; Lieutenant Henry Lippettt, Company B, escaped, badly wounded; Lieutenant Van Horn, Company D, escaped, slightly wounded.
I know of about 15 men of the Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored) having escaped, and all but 2 of them are wounded.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, &c.,
DANIEL VAN HORN,
2nd Lieutenant Company D, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored).
Lieutenant Colonel T. H. HARRIS,
Assistant Adjutant-General
Source Library of Congress; Congressional Investigation held by John Sherman.
Stick to watching movies and leave historical content to someone else. ALL of Sherman's wrath was inflicted upon the South, by his OWN quotes, OWN words and writings, atleast until you tried to come along and change that.
shareHow about providing sources for that statement. Thanks
share>>You are correct it's a great movie but it's sour grapes for me. My family was in one of the counties that Grierson rode thru back then and were all Confederates.<<
So? The war has been over for almost 150 years. It's way past time to stop being such a sore loser, especially since you never personnally experiened the war. Your ancestors are dead now and guess what; even they don't care anymore.
Forrest often had more than 3,000 men with him, and while he won more fights than he lost he had his share of defeats. He lost at Tupelo though he had 6,000 men there (and fought against Ben Grierson, incidentally). He was also decisively beaten at the 3rd Battle of Murfeesboro and was by his own admission "whipped" by Wilson's cavalry in the 1865 Alabama campaign.
shareForest is considered a great general by some but he stained his name with racism and after the war he should have been hanged for war crimes. Joe Wheeler was I think a better general and he was certainly a better man than Forest but then so was Morgan, Mosby, and Hampton. Forest was flamboyant. It would have been interesting to see Forest engage Custer: A cock fight.
Grierson's Raid is not well known today and this film while a great deal of fun gets some facts correct, employs stereotypes much of the time, and grossly over-simplifies an incredibly complex operation. This web site provides a nice overview: http://www.historynet.com/griersons-raid-during-the-vicksburg-campaign.htm.
A few facts: Grierson had nothing to do with railroads before the war: He was a music teacher who distrusted horses! This raid was perhaps the only Union cavalry engagement that could compare to the exploits of Mosby and Morgan. Grierson was a true gentleman. He treated his men well and he treated Southerns better then most Union commanders. I this sense, The Horse Soldiers gets the facts correct: Grierson's men burned legitimate contraband where and whenever they found it but in two instances, fire spread to civilian property. Grierson employed his men to fight these fires rather than leave civilians to deal with the situation. He did this at considerable risk to his command. Grierson fought many engagements over the 16 day raid but he lost only 3 men killed. The success of this raid in no small part permitted Grant to establish a base of operations on the east bank of the Mississippi. I'm happy to say that will all the fighting he did, he killed no civilians, killed very few Confederate soldiers, and his troopers captured more than 100 whom he pardoned.
Forrest was never involved in pursuing Grierson but Grierson did gain the attention of all of Pemberton's Confederate cavalry, a couple of infantry regiments, and two regiments of artillery. These were men that Pemberton desperately needed to repell Grant's advance but he couldn't let Grierson run wild through Mississippi without a chase. Grierson ran circles around the lot of them, which wasn't so bad for a music teacher who wasn't a natural born horsemen. After the raid, Grierson observed that the South was essentially a hollow shell,their men spread far to thinly to effectively repel an invasion. A year later, Sherman proved Grierson's observation correct.
Grierson's men covered more than 600 miles in 16 days, meaning that they hardly stopped to sleep and they survived on one fixed meal a day, often eating in the saddle. Grierson became something of a national hero and was brevetted a Brigadier and later a Major General. After thew war, he remained in the military reaching the full rank of Major General, retiring in 1890 after fighting Indians with the 10th (Buffalo Soldiers). He lived to see the automobile, telephone, and wireless, passing away in 1911 and the age of 83.
And yes, Grierson's major objective was Newton Station!
Great summary, as an Australian learning about the Civil War of 1861 i'm confronting history with preconceptions but the more I read the more disturbed I am regarding the atrocities committed during the war by Unions boarder forces moving South out of Kentucky. Was this one of the raids that inspired B. Bill Anderson & Capt. Quantrell's raiders to seek bloody vengeance?
shareThe plot has definitely not that good. The film has no real climax and an strangely unmotivated ending. Besides it glorifies militarism and it has simply disgusting moments to it in the viewing of people. I'm especially thinking of the scene, in which the two deserters are left by the John Wayne-Charakter to the sheriff to get murdered.
Though the film has strong moments in charakterbuilding, I couldn't give a better vote than 4, and even that was very generous.
I guess you were not watching the same movie. Anachronisms aside, John Wayn'e character was a reluctant officer and frankly, did not seem to enjoy the destroying of "contraband" duing the war.
This movie really does not militarism and you must understand that this film is set duing the Civil War, and ther was nothing civil about the American Civil War, often considered to be the first modern war.
The fact is the Col Marlowe (Wayne) did leave those deserters in the local civil authority and even gave him a weapon. How was that disgusting?
The ending followed days and miles of going through enemy county and fighting their way to safety. Sorry if this move does not meet up with your specifications and needing a big bang ending. The did blow up a bridge to escape to friendly territory.
Crazy,
What's wrong with glorifying 'militarism'? A lot of people in history won their liberty thru 'militarism.'
Simply the best western ever!
shareI'm especially thinking of the scene, in which the two deserters are left by the John Wayne-Charakter to the sheriff to get murdered.
The movie The Horse Soldiers, directed by John Ford, and starring John Wayne and William Holden, is loosely based on Grierson's Raid.
and Grierson was a music teacher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grierson's_Raid
Brent LeRoy: Now, no more dirty talk. Hand me that big tool so I can mount this. (Corner Gas)
I didn't get the feeling that the old sheriff was going to execute them. That would be outside his authority I believe. He could , however, turn them over to military for that purpose. Desertion during war has always been and still is punishable by execution.
share[deleted]
Ford never liked the script for the Horse Soldiers. He liked the idea for the film but the script bothered him, subsequently it went through many re-writes which unfortunately shows on the screen.The script problems were compounded by casting complications. The role of Marlowe was originally written for Clark Gable and Wayne for the role of Kendall, then Gregory Peck expressed an interest in the Marlowe part. Ford then decided that Wayne would make a better Marlowe than Kendall. Jimmy Stewart was his next choice for Kendall, but Stewart was reluctant to play someone so cocky and cynical. The first choice for Hannah was Elizabeth Taylor who had impressed Ford with her Southern Belle impersonation in Raintree County a couple of years before but to keep the costs down it was decided to go with an unknown actress. For someone of Fords temperament, all of these issues ran the danger of making the movie more trouble than it was worth.
Re the apparent abrupt ending mentioned in a previous post, the script actually called for seven more camera scenes beyond the battle of the bridge including the preferred ending written into the script from the beginning. This aligned with actual events of the Grierson raid of an impromptu parade for the victorious raiders in Baton Rouge. The earlier allusions in the film that had been designed to set up the parade were kept. Hence Marlowe telling his Commanding Officer General Hurlbut that he spread a rumour about a parade in Nashville, then Wilkie and Dunker discover that they were actually riding south into Reb territory.The last scene was meant to be Marlowe's cavalry troop being greeted by the garrison commander and him ordering a spick and span escort to lead this filthy, bedraggled, saddle sore column down the main street. The next camera shot was to be a grinning Wilkie who turns to the trooper next to him and says "Well it ain't Nashville-but we sure got our parade". Then to the final shot of Marlowe taking his column past the Union Officers of Baton Rouge who are mounted to receive them with the final line of "Eyes....Right, with the music of "The Girl I Left Behind Me"......Fade Out.
Why didn't Ford film these final scenes which were scheduled on the Hollywood backlot? That is open to conjecture. The myth is that Ford lost interest in the film after his old friend Kennedy was killed performing a simple stunt on the last day of location and did not want to end the film on a "happy" note. Truth is know one really knows.
Another thread mentions the rousing film score especially "I Left My Love" which still stirs the blood when you hear it today, it was written by Stan Jones who had worked for Ford many times before. Ford reckoned he looked a lot like Ulysses S Grant so much so that he cast him in the role in the all important first scene. Even with all of it's flaws it still remains a favourite film of Fordian followers and I personally watch it at least twice a year with much enjoyment. I thoroughly recommend a superb book on the making of this film and the true facts of Grierson's raid which is entitled; Fiction as Fact; The Horse Soldiers & Popular Memory by Neil Longley York which gives the reader a full and concise history of the making of this superb but flawed Ford classic.
Does anyone know what Kandal(Holden) meant when he said to Wayne after taking the bullet out of his leg that he "bought him some time...maybe a couple of hours" ? That Wayne's charactor was going to die, become bed ridden or what?
shareMarlowe (John Wayne) was not going to die. "Bought him some time ... " could refer to the emergency treatment and bandaging that would be enough to get him going until he could relax somewhat (or change his bandages).
John Wayne's character did mellow a great deal during the last part of the film. His dislike of the medical profession was justified in his eyes, and he came to appreciate Kendall's knowledge and application. I would loved to have seen the full shot of the Wayne/Towers' parting. You see her reaction and the worn out appearance of the once proud Southern belle. The "Tell her the rest when you get back quote" and the couple's reaction does give you the impression that there will be a happy future in store for the Marlowe and Hannah Hunter after all.
The sheriff in the film is obviously a upstanding citizen with morals. He would have held the deserters until the first oportunity to turn them over to military authorities who would then try them for desertion.
>>At that time, soldiers that deserted were executed. <<
This was not always a universal practice. Although some deserters were shot during the war, others were sent to prison, and still others were sent back to their units to be put in the front ranks during the next battle.
Simply the best western ever!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't a Western!! Its a WAR film. And its NOT the best of either, though it IS entertaining.
John Ford may well have directed the best Western ever made (there are several candidates), but this isn't it.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=29663098
This isn't a Western!! Its a WAR film.
You are so right. I don't see how anyone could confuse this with a Western when it doesn't even take place in the West for cryin' out loud! Its also not really fair to hold this film up against something like The Searchers because that film is a genuine Western with beautiful backdrops and larger-than-life characters whereas this film features subtler locations and attempted more realistic, down-to-Earth characters.
One thing is for sure though, this is one underrated movie! Its hard to believe this is considered one of John Ford's "lesser" films. There's a shot towards the end of the film that is taken from a cannon's point-of-view that I think can stand with the best shots of Stanley Kubrick!
Each new Ford film impresses me more than the last...what an amazing director.
Next up for me is the "Cavalry" Trilogy (Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Rio Grande). I've heard these films blur the line between War film and Western a little more than The Horse Soldiers...have you see any of them?
I have to credit Turner Classic Movies for getting me into Ford and many other classic directors. Along with the Independent Film Channel (IFC), its the best movie channel on TV, bar none!!
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=29663098
Next up for me is the "Cavalry" Trilogy (Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Rio Grande). I've heard these films blur the line between War film and Western a little more than The Horse Soldiers...have you see any of them?
[deleted]
I just dug up my copy of the DVD after not watching it for over a year (just got my first HDTV and wanted to see how this movie looked on it) and noticed that the dust jacket actually says "Western Classic" above the title. The video stores screwed up its genre because the DVD distributor screwed up its genre!
Not helping it is the fact that the uniforms, weapons, equipment and, actually, the "Charge" bugle call are all post-1872. I guess John Ford wanted to cut corners with the budget by using the same stuff from his Cavalry Trilogy: the wide stripes on the officers' pants (as opposed to piping during the Civil War), the revolvers and carbines, the finished-leather McClellan saddles for the Enlisted Men (which were actually rawhide-covered during the Civil War) etc. (I was actually the last horse cavalry officer in the New Jersey National Guard; I actually formed a ceremonial horse team within my armored cavalry unit and laid out a couple of thousand bucks out of my own pocket for uniforms and equipment just to lay claim to that distinction, so I'm very conscious of horse cavalry uniforms and equipment!) This is already entered in the Goofs section for this movie here on IMDb, and is equivalent to shooting a Korean War movie with troops wearing Vietnam jungle fatigues and using M-16s!
Wow, reading the epical number of replies to this thread has been almost as entertaing as watching a movie!
I am going to point out, as I have on another thread, that though the movie was based mostly on Grierson Raid, it incorporated elements of Wilson's Raid in Alabama, particularly the cadets attacking. My great-grandfather participated in Wilson's Raid as a private in the 4th (Union) Kentucky Mounted Infantry. I always have mixed emotions watching movies or reading books about the Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression, as we Southerners often think of it, because I had anscestors on both sides, all Southerners. The Horse Soldiers did do a good job of being fair in its presentation and showing the futility of the war.
My great-grandfather whose father was on the Confederate side had a half-black half-sister, though he never acknoledged her as such. She lived in a little house on the back of his property most of her life and died there. She outlived him by a good bit, and when she died, my great-grandfather's widow, whose father was on the Union side, had "Old Black Mary" buried in the family cemetary plot!
For you MadTom. No wonder you are mad if you let little details of clothing and guns in a movie bother you so much. You are right, of course, and the Indian War era uniforms bothered me more than the Indian War era carbines. But most of the actual cavalry carbines used in the Civil War were paper cartridge "capping" breechloaders. I think Greirson's men had the Cosmopolitan carbine, which was a capper. You couldn't expect actors in a movie to use the paper cartridge firearms, as they leaked gas in a way that is dangerous to the eyesight. All of the breecloaders using metalic cartridges at the time used the rimfire variety which would be impossible to supply today. The best that could have been done would to have used the later center fire Sharps models, which do not look materially different from the capping Sharps used in the Civil War. Actual antiques would have had to be rounded up, as all the repos available now were not in 1959. And not worth it, because to most people a rifle is a rifle, and they are not sure what the word carbine means. Anyway, your postings are interesting, and thank you, sir, for your service to our country, if you are a Yankee!
P. S. MadTom, You will be gratified to know, I am sure, that I have always stored my DVD of The Horse Soldiers in the box marked "Drama, Historical, War", not the one marked "Westerns".
He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45
Re the apparent abrupt ending mentioned in a previous post, the script actually called for seven more camera scenes beyond the battle of the bridge including the preferred ending written into the script from the beginning. This aligned with actual events of the Grierson raid of an impromptu parade for the victorious raiders in Baton Rouge. The earlier allusions in the film that had been designed to set up the parade were kept. Hence Marlowe telling his Commanding Officer General Hurlbut that he spread a rumour about a parade in Nashville, then Wilkie and Dunker discover that they were actually riding south into Reb territory.The last scene was meant to be Marlowe's cavalry troop being greeted by the garrison commander and him ordering a spick and span escort to lead this filthy, bedraggled, saddle sore column down the main street. The next camera shot was to be a grinning Wilkie who turns to the trooper next to him and says "Well it ain't Nashville-but we sure got our parade". Then to the final shot of Marlowe taking his column past the Union Officers of Baton Rouge who are mounted to receive them with the final line of "Eyes....Right, with the music of "The Girl I Left Behind Me"......Fade Out.
I personally consider She Wore a Yellow Ribbon to be the only one of the three to be as good as The Horse Soldiers
Hi duncmacdonald thanks for your comments on The Horse Soldiers glad you found them interesting. I also found your comments just as interesting especially your views on She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.
I found Yellow Ribbon to be one of Ford's most extraordinary visual achievements, although the script is a loose collection of incidents, it is in fact a reverse of a take on Fort Apache. The earlier film is about a military disaster transmitted into heroism by posterity. Where Yellow Ribbon is about a military success in which bloodshed is averted but it's overweighed with a melancholy air of reverie and grief. This is indicated at the very start of the film with a shot of the flag of the 7th Cavalry and a voiceover of "Custer is dead" which is more or less where Fort Apache ended.
The earlier film is about men in their prime while the later is about old men having to face retirement, I consider it one of Fords most visual movies almost like a series of Remington paintings, his way of compensating for the film's extremely loose ballad like structure-it's really nothing more than an accumulation of vignettes, yet some of those vignettes have a sheer cinematic brilliance such as: The very moving death scene of Trooper Smith (ex-Confederate general); Brittles discussions with his dead wife over her grave(filmed under protest by Wayne, but Ford always got the best performances out of the Duke simply by bullying him into it); Ford's gamble with the fading light during the thunderstorm sequence (Winton Hoch the cinematographer also filmed this under protest yet won an Academy Award for the film, Ford never let him forget this); And most of all Waynes overall moving performance as Brittles his very name suggesting a fragile hold on existence and not above indulging in self pity as when he exclaims "God help this troop when I'm gone!"
However, I fully agree with your comments that the script spends far too much time on the tiresome romantic triangle involving Cohill, Pennell and Miss Dandridge (although the "Picnicking Mr Pennell!" scene is still amusing).This I'm sure was Ford's fault based on his intolerance of a young generation who would never reach the stature of himself or as in this case Brittles. This came more pronounced in Ford's later works as he got progressively older.
Therefore and in conclusion is why I believe Yellow Ribbon when viewing the complete cavalry trilogy to be the better film and also just has the edge on The Horse Soldiers which is my all time favourite Ford War/Western movie. I found out long ago that personal favourites are not necessarily the better films.
D. Alexander Brown's "Grierson's Raid" is an excellent historical account of the raid the movie is based on. Although factual, it reads like a novel. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know the truth as oposed to the fiction.
Not that I'm complaining about the fiction, mind you. This remains one of my favorite John Ford, John Wayne and Civil War films (taking each category separately.) Although taking great liberties with the facts (it is after all loosely based on Grierson's raid, and never claims to be factual) it captures the feel of the time.
To answer a point from early in the thread: The raid was designed to avoid combat if possible. This was not due to any fear of Forrest, but simply sound operational tactics. Grierson's was one of four cavalry raids intended to be diversions, distracting Pemberton at Vicksburg while Grant made his big move to cross the Mississippi and advance on the town. Grierson's worked to perfection, drawing off most of what little cavalry Pemberton had, and some infantry, in a futile chase. Two of the other three raids contribued a little. The last was Abel Streight's disastrous "mule raid," when he mounted infantry on second-rate mules and raided in east Tennessee and north Georgia. Not only was this escapade a poor plan to start with, but he ran afoul of Forrest and ultimately surrendered his 1200-plus men to Forrest's 400. (But the raid did at least draw Forrest away from Mississippi and west Tennessee at a crucial time.)
The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006
An excellent post splatt99!
I just finished Dee Browns "Griersons Raid" an excellent account of the raid as you point out.
The troopers involved were mainly the 6th & 7th Illinois Cav Regts and the 2th Iowa Cav Regt. plus some 2 pounder light artillery which gave a good account on several occaisions during the raid. Why Ford chose to call them Michigan Cav is a mystery to me, and is a real disservice to these great Illinois Cav Regts.
Unfortunately, the film spends most of the time on fictious characters and the tensions between them then the REAL tension of operations behind enemy lines---but thats Hollywood and what sold tickets to the theaters. Too bad for HISTORY lovers like me.
Benj. Grierson was a musician/teacher not a RR man, and according to my reading not very fond of horses, but he was intelligent, and used his gifts to make good decisions as the raid unfolded, keeping his adversaries most of the time, guessing, and well behind, his Brigade.
This story could have been told in a taut, gripping manner, with some sprinkling of females and Mississippi folk (black & white) that figure in books like Dee Browns and other accts of the Raid for variety and interest.
Someone has already pointed out the uniform and equipment discrepancies---a common fact in most earlier films, but due to CW reenactors and their requirements for accuracy something that is now relatively corrected in recent films----view the film "The Colt" for a good example of uniform/equipment and the real grime of cavalry and infantry in the field in the 1860's. Not perfect, but as near as needed, and in a low budget film at that.
Just my two cents!
Another bit of Grierson trivia: He feared horses, because as a child he was kicked in the head by a horse and nearly killed.
shareFORD AND WAYNE ALWAYS MADE THE BEST MOVIES TOGETHER.
shareThis is definitely one of my top 5 John Wayne movies (my favorite is She Wore a Yellow Ribbon followed by The Searchers, both also Ford-Wayne collaborations)! I enjoy that it is not "PC" like a lot of War Between the States movies nowadays, showing the good and bad of both sides during that very bloody conflict. It also shows that, while this war is widely considered to be the first "modern" war, it also was one of the last that had some of the old "chivalry" of previous fighting. Several examples (though sometimes explained in the movie cynically instead) are Hannah Hunter's "word of honor", Colonel Marlowe's dealing with the Confederate deserters, the admiring of the Rebel charge at Newton Station, and Dr. Kendall saving Colonel Miles at the end of the futile charge, just to name a few. Once again a great and enjoyable picture!
Courage is being scared to death- and saddling up anyway
Yeah I agree this was very entertaining.
share