Why Did Soldiers Fight in Lines? Maintaining Communication!
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 26. 05. 2024
- đ Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months free here ⌠nordvpn.com/brandonfvpn Itâs risk-free with Nordâs 30-day money-back guarantee! â
~~Video Description~~
Battles in the Long 18th Century could get pretty big. Like, 'impossible to comprehend' big. The two flanks of an army could practically be a world away! So, how did this impact the way in which militaries drilled and fought during this time? Yet again we explore the question of "Why Did Soldiers Fight in Lines?" this time by looking at the physical limitations of the battlefield
~~Sources & Further Reading On This Topic~~
This video is the third in a series about "Why Soldiers Fought in Lines", find the rest here:
âą Why Did Soldiers Fight...
The British Pathe video I show can be found here:
âą Always Perfect (1934)
~~Other Links & Contact Info~~
You can directly support my work by becoming a Patron & Officer of this channel:
` / brandonf
If you'd like to support this channel without spending any money, you can watch my content early and get access to exclusive content at Recast.tv!
` the.recast.app/user/5mN4d
Find a free digital library, shop for merchandise, and learn more about this channel's charity work at: ` www.nativeoak.org/
Or, another great way to support my work is by booking me on Cameo! 50% of all these proceeds also go to charity:
` www.cameo.com/brandonfisichel...
And of course you can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
` / thenativeoak
` / brandonfisichella
~~Timestamps~~
Intro 00:00
Sponsored Message 01:51
Small-Scale Unit Tactics 04:47
Large Scale Movement & Command 12:25
Conclusion 18:00
đGet NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months free here ⌠nordvpn.com/brandonfvpn Itâs risk-free with Nordâs 30-day money-back guarantee!
Think of Little Timmy, won't you?
In Austerlitz 2022, I can tell you - we in the Grenadier-Battalion as the k. k. Army, with Czechs and Hungarians and us Austrians there, to manoeuvre it in a 50-100 men size was not very easy, but we somehow managed it (with some fails). We are glad that our "foreign" Officers are able to command in german. Now we are heading to Leipzig this year. This will be an interesting experience. With that experience, I can't imagine how much pain it must have been back then - even though they had to drill every day.
DAng, I missed last years Austerlitz. It must have been epic after the plague and restrictions shut down last two years.
@@Cdre_Satori yes, it was definetly awesome
I remember telling my friend that the best alt history scenario would not be giving x army x gun but giving them a 2 way radio and his response to that was "do you think if the enemy got the other radio they would have a diehard moment" and I think about that
Fuck, radio would have helped so much in much more recent conflicts. Imagine the ANZACs with modern radios at the Dardanelles.
@@FlameDarkfire They'd have done almost as well as the similarly equipped, but much more numerous British troops would have done at the same place.
Not that it bugs me that people forget more British troops *died* there than there were ANZACs deployed to the Dardanelles campaign or anything.
Seeing a battle going on should be like looking at an elder god.
A powerless feeling of being shrunken, drenched by horror, overpowered by something you can't even understand, can't even look at all at once without cracking under the pressure
A surging mass of violent humanity and you're trapped in the middle, confusion, death and fear.
*Taking notes furiously*
Make for a good short story
War is organized, murderous chaos
Like Bilbo Baggins in the Battle of Five Armies, from The Hobbit?
I do college marching band and spend a lot of time marching in perfect order with very open spacing with 350 other people and I can tell you that its a lot of work and even something simple like marching a giant block down the field takes hours of weekly practice to get right.
5:33 you made us 43rd blush!! We were so proud of the numbers we were able to put up at Brandywine that weekend, certainly a devil to maneuver đ
Aww, glad to hear it! Thanks, and it was a great showing you guys put on at the event!
Brandon - Iâve been watching since you were at about 2.5k, and admittedly, this is probably the first vid Iâve watched since youâve hit 40-50kâŠand wow, how much youâve grown into your own as a creator is awesome. And to do so without sacrificing what made you original! Thanks and keep it up!
That is very much appreciated, thank you! And glad to have you back!
Nice Texas flag, btw. Sorry, as a Texan I just have to smile at every one I see.
I didn't get the full scale of how large a battle during black powder warfare could be until I toured the Chattanooga/Chickamauga Battlefield
The other big challenge in the age of gunpowder was language barriers, particularly with coalitions deploying armies together in the field, it must have been laborious trying to translate each other's commands and coordination. Perhaps the best example I can think of where miscommunication had tragic consequences was the battle of Karansebes, fought in Romania, on 22-23 September 1788. The Austrian army was a hodgepodge of different nationalities, each with their native language, although German was the language of the officer corps, those officers also had to speak the language of their regiment's nationality, the rank and file on the other hand, had no way to understand the language of other soldiers, so when the battle commenced, it quickly disintegrated into the biggest friendly fire incident in the eighteenth century. The battle started with hussars getting drunk on schnapps, then the infantry demand a taste, but were denied, with the hussars forming a barricade, someone fired a shot and the battle descended into chaos, as each regiment could not understand each other, they were convinced it was the Ottoman army, in the confusion, the language barrier became a major obstacle in the Austrian army, as each nationality shouted in their native language, only to sound Turkish to each other. The actual Ottoman army arrived two days later, only to find dead and wounded Austrian soldiers, they took Caransebes without firing a shot, the best estimate of Austrian casualties was about 10,000, the battle of Karansebes has been called the dumbest battle in history, as the Austrian army fought a self-inflicted defeat against itself.
That sounds hilarious
I can guarantee you there were not 10.000 casualties. Nothing even close to it. While the incident is well sourced, no "mistake" like that would ever result in that many casualties. You need an hour long, full fledged battle for that to happen, with coordination between the units, rather than just a local brawl and confusion.
Estimates are in the hundreds though, which is a huge lot for such an incident.
It is one of my favorite anecdotes how a poorly run Habsburg army basically scattered in a drunken brawl.
Well they lost. But they also won too!
So 1800's-ish Tower of Babel re-enacted with Black Powder
I think actually being on the field really helps out. Sure, a lot of battles on American soil tended to be small- 1812, the conquest of the indigenous nations, even to some extent the Revolutionary War (even the Concord-Boston road is deceptive in showing how many men can get involved). But if you look at the big battlefield, you really get a sense. Gettysburg (a common complaint by Lost Causers is that Longstreet was too slow on the second day- thing is, he was told to put together a grand assault, and that took time just to get every single unit he needed there. It took him something like 7 hours to assemble just his part of the army, which had been scattered the last day) and Antietam are just these big landscapes where you do get 100,000 infantry and horses and wagons and guns just sprawling over the countryside.
Borodino is an good example of a battlefield getting so big it just turns into just unit vs unit with the generals themselves just being vague and not really present in any way over the field. Even a relatively small amount of men can turn into a mess- one of the "larger" battles of 1812 was in Lundy's Lane (less than 10,000 on the field), and even then officers stumbled into the woods to be captured, companies wandered the field looking for officers, and friendly fire was a frequent occurrence as both sides wound up just charging into each other.
True. I've been at the Gettysburg and Antietam battlefields, and they are both enormous. Trying to coordinate anything over such a large area with no radio, that alone would be difficult. Radio would help a lot, but still difficult.
Communication really is important, more important than many people may think.
There's a good reason that during the Vietnam war, they had soldiers whose entire job it was to carry the radio. Because back then, that thing was so heavy, you wouldn't be carrying much else.
Yet people still did it, because the ability to radio in across miles of battle instantly was so important.
The largest formation I called drill for was ~1000 cadets at Royal Military College of Canada. We had to do vocal practice to learn to project properly without screaming out your voice. If it's windy (the college is on Lake Ontario, former base of the RN for the War of 1812, frequently very windy) you are probably not going to be heard on the ends. Even with the band leading, using drums, you can see the wave of sound travelling down the line. Sound travels at 343m/s, each file takes about 1m, ~1000 people in 3 ranks, sound will take about one full second to travel the length of the line.
An army in open order would be a cossack's wet dream. If I recall some of the only troops ever able to effectively fight that way were the border troops of the Austrians, they not only had a great deal of experience against ottoman raiding and also against their cavalry heavy armies but they were by Napoleon's estimate the best troops the Austrians had in an army with many excellent skirmishing formations, there numbers were also limited by being a people in service more so than traditionally trained regiments, though no doubt they were extremely heavily trained to do what they did their serious attitude as a result of their background likely allowed them to be trained to such an extent and to still perform to those standards on the battlefield.
The native American armies fought in more open order than the Old World because they didn't worry about cavalry or stacking up gun formations. Needless to say, this was a disaster when the Spanish used their cavalry. At Otumba, the Spanish were on the brink of defeat when the Cavalry darted out of the Tlaxcallan ranks to ride in, stick a lance into an Aztec general, and then ride out. You can't follow the flag anymore, you're not hearing anything, giant monsters are running into you, and suddenly here comes the Tlaxcallan obsidian buzzsaw. Oh, and the monsters are riding you down and sticking spears in you even as you run away.
But that goes back to the cavalry videos- cavalry was used as screening forces not only because they could quickly find and flee from the enemy, but also take out enemy skirmishers. This proved especially true when skirmishers weren't expected to use bayonets (it's not nearly as good in open order) and in some armies didn't even have bayonets.
Compliments from His Majesty's 43rd Regiment of foot, we present our compliments on being displayed as a prime example in one of your videos, Brandon. It makes feel excellent, knowing that we are being used for great educational purposes. Thank you very much.
P.S - This photograph was taken at the 245 anniversary of Brandywine creek near Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania.
I watched some Documentaries about Battles between the Austrians and Prussians during the Seven-Years-War and what really got me was the Scale as well. Troops streching up for MILES through Villages, Streams and so on. ItÂŽs insane. I remember seeing a Documentary about the Battle of Leipzig where a Courier had to ride half a Day to reach the other Side of the Battlefield.
When you think about it we're not that far away in using line formations and verbal communication. I was in the US Marines as an infantry mortarman. Our mortars were usually set up in a zigzag formation 35 yards apart. Lots of shouting to get target date from the fire direction center to the gun line. On foot patrols were usually in some sort of line and when we engage with the enemy the commands were some variation of turn in that direction and shoot. Sure we took cover when we can and had some distance between each other, but this would add to the chaos as we still had to keep track of each other visually and verbally while getting shot.
It always amused me when people think fighting in lines was stupid back then when we still get on line nowadays. We just hide beyond cover or concealment now
People 1000 years from now:
"Omg those Marines were so dumb. If it was me I'd have them all inside a person flying bunker. DUUUUH"
Marines: "You're a moron."
Army, Air force, and Navy: "okay maybe the crayon eaters are dumb, but you're still a moron!"
I'm a simple koala. I came, I saw, and I smashed a like button when it comes to new Brandon F.'s video. đš
An extra ration of eucalyptus for this man! Err...marsupial!
9:24 I do find it funny in movies and TV, due to the smaller number of extras, they will still have mutiple men shouting down the line yet you can hear the first one shouting it perfectly clearly, making it seem rather pointless to repeat the commands
I've never seen a soldier AND historian ever criticize armies of this era for fighting in linear formations. They may judge the tactics of generals, but never "standing in lines across from each other is stupid". Real military experience gives you a better understanding of why people fought as they did. With all of our modern technology, training, and doctrine communication and organization is VERY difficult - and most people lack that understanding because they've never experienced it. It's important to have some self-awareness before you criticize the past.
A related point is that the few units that employed the "guerrilla " tactics that the armchair generals extoll were elite bands of highly trained specialists, such as the rifleman in Wellington 's army. The linear tactics generally employed allowed ordinary soldiers to fight effectively.
Do people really think the linear formations were stupid and guerilla tactics preferred? I think even those whose history education ended in high school understood muskets were loud, smokey, had limited accuracy, and slow to reload. And the other guys had the same guns. Sure standing in a group is not preferred but given the arms of the time it made sense.
@@SEAZNDragon Its people applying modern lessons from modern battlefields to pre-modern battlefields. People think that because of Vietnam and the Middle Eastern wars, that guerilla tactics are superior to conventional tactics. Which might be true today, but the stuff that makes modern insurgencies so powerful didn't exist in the 1700s.
Like radio or the internet. Private vehicles, cheap, abundant man portable automatic weapons and explosives. Not only logistics and force multipliers, but also force preserving things like canned goods, refrigeration, and cheap access to modern health care. Dudes hiding in caves are far less likely to just drop dead from disease, starvation, and injury today than they were 300 years ago.
@@TheGreatDanish I remember reading about how, during the War of the Spanish Succession, there was a semi-sizeable revolt of a group called the Camisards, who wanted freedom from religious persecution during the reign of Louis XIV. It just so happened that their revolt coincided perfectly with France taking massive Ls on the field against the Grand Alliance of various European states at the time.
The one sent to quell said revolt, Marechal Villars, used overwhelming force to encircle and hunt down the Camisards while offering amnesty with the king's authority to any who would lay down their arms (they would be allowed to leave the country with their belongings peacefully should they do so). By combining brutal efficiency in operation with a hand of amnesty in the other, he managed to divide the Camisards and, eventually, through spies, track down those who still resisted and ousted most of them from their old hideouts.
Many had to flee and go into hiding, conducting guerilla war, but because they were out in the sticks and there were hundreds, if not a few thousand of them, they quickly starved as many were unable to acquire food while being simultaneously harassed by Villars' troops. It is as you say that postmodern logistics really play a huge role and that is most evident in this scenario, where the Camisards hiding in forests and caves couldn't even find enough food to last them a few months. Within just 5 months, Villars had put down the whole revolt.
â@@TheGreatDanish I mean the idea that guerilla warfare is better is already a misconception. The amount of people who think the US military got their ass kicked in vietnam shows just how little the public knows about that conflict. Vietnam was a political loss, and I guess understandably people misinterpret that to a military loss
You've gotta remember that every time you have a communication or breakdown of formation the consequences maybe that enemy cavalry may be able to pounce on you and hack ya'll to ribbons. Cavalry is death to uncoordinated infantry. It was terrifying in Ancient times and in ww2 where it was able to catch enemy units unaware it was terrifyingly effective.
I'd say this, more than anything, shows why discipline was such an important factor in linear warfare.
*PTSD flashbacks from my serjeanting days, having to explain wheeling to people*
This is also one of the reasons WWI had such a defensive bias.
It wasn't just firepower, it was communication. Defenders could use telephones, which were easy to lay down below ground and protect on the defensive, but almost impossible to use on the attack.
Also, people tend to forget that war is about achieving political ends, which is to say, controlling resources and workforces.
People and resources tend to be concentrated in fertile and relatively flat valleys, so you need to send out occupation forces to do policing/exploitation of the local population, which again, is the whole reason you're fighting the war; you are deciding who gets to control and exploit a subjugated population.
Your spread-out occupation forces are vulnerable to being attacked and destroyed by fast-moving cavalry, operating out of fortresses, which also need to be near those fertile flatlands we've talked about before, so the cavalry stationed therein can actually operate.
So what usually happens is this:
1) Attacking army tries to occupy an economically valuable, densely populated and flat area, and exploit the local resources.
2) The attackers are pestered and worn down by light cavalry formations operating out of a fortified position nearby.
3) To stop these raids, the attackers surround and lay siege to the fort, but since fortifications are by their very nature force-multipliers, the attackers need to bring overwhelming force to have any hope of victory.
4) The defending side scramble to relieve the fort, and they must bring a force at least as massive as the one besieging one.
5) Massive-ass battle takes place on flat land, where cavalry can mow down exposed infantry if it is sitting around in open order.
Gallipoli is a pretty good example in ww1 where terrain played a important part in the outcome of the battle.
Needless to say, I learned quickly, after an hour's worth of screaming and wall punching in Mount and Blade Warband's L'Aigle mod, that trying to run a Napoleonic army, let alone an army from earlier periods, the way modern armies do leave the soldiers as nothing more than lambs to the slaughter. Never mind it being flat out impossible to hide anywhere in a half decent formation with how huge armies got back then.
14:44 Spanish Generals in the Napoleonic Wars: You're hired!
Jokes aside, the term "guerrilla warfare" literally comes from the Spanish tactics used during the Napoleonic wars, and it's a mistranslation of a Spanish expression, namely "guerra de guerrillas", which would literally translate as "war of little wars" and would be translated as "war of skirmishes". The idea was that, since the Spanish army was severely outnumbered (not outmatched) but knew the terrain and Spain, unlike other European countries, is a very hilly country perfect for ambushes, they would avoid large engagements, instead focusing on ambushing the French, attacking supply columns and, generally, hitting them where they were weak before quickly withdrawing to hidden bases. Even before the term was coined, the first Spanish victory over the French in that war, the battle of BailĂ©n, was an extremely well prepared ambush over a French army corps that was attacking towards AndalucĂa (Southern Spain). Said corps first came into combat with the Granada division (under colonel Reding), which was the southern part of the pincer and which held them in place for four days in the village of BailĂ©n until the main Spanish force (under general Castaños) arrived behind the French corps. During all that time the French were attacking towards BailĂ©n (and being repelled by Spanish infantry and artillery on a narrow bridge), unaware that a larger Spanish force was about to arrive in a few days, as said force was hidden by the terrain.
I don't know, I'm pretty sure that the Spanish army was more often than not outmatched as well. If not in terms of the individual soldiers, then in the commanders on the field. Bailen was the exception, not the norm. The sheer number of Spanish defeats is absolutely lopsided. Quality-wise, I'm not sure the Spanish and Portuguese armies caught up with the rest of Europe until 1813-1814.
While the French army likely had operational superiority within the theater of war, they were often divided and held down by numerous bands of fighters all across the country in minor skirmishes/revolts/etc while simultaneously fighting Spanish and Anglo-Portuguese field armies. Most historians I've seen seem to portray that the French often won field battles despite possessing a local inferiority in numbers (so it's questionable, on the local level, whether the French severely outnumbered the Spanish).
Tudela, Ocana, Maria. Suchet alone had several sieges where the Spanish were on the defense and had similar numbers to his forces, so by all means, any disadvantages in quality there should have been negated by the defensive fortifications... and those were still clear defeats.
And that's not even taking into account the terrain needed for that- some parts of Spain are excellent for it, others are flat and not so good for hiding, as well as the inherent problem that the enemy is still in your cities. Guerilla war is a war of defensive attrition, slow strangulation by a thousand cuts of an occupation force, usually by only loosely connected groups.
@@doritofeesh Spanish soldiers fought desperately and heroically, but their officers were not good. Add in the British treating their allies like kids as per usual, and it was a rocky alliance.
â@@doritofeesh The problem with the Spanish Army at this point is that, in order to fight the war, it was expanded with volunteers that lacked adequate training. The units that had been established prior to the war had received an extensive training program, but the new units only had a few weeks to learn basic drills. In Tudela there was also an issue with leadership as there were two Spanish armies led by generals of equal rank (Castaños and Palafox) which didn't get along with each other, so Napoleon had it easy when it came to defeating them in detail. Still, even in those defeats, the Spanish defeated battalions managed to regroup and reform into guerrilla units.
@@podemosurss8316 The generals was another thing I kinda take issue with, really. There seem to be Spanish generals with rare bouts of competence, but other times, they just flub their respective engagements.
Personally, for me, the Spanish don't really come into their own during the war until 1813-1814. Freire's defeat of the French at San Marcial was most impressive in comparison. He did not beat them through ambush, but on the open field.
Granted, he had the high ground, but it is still a very solid victory in pitched battle.
I like what you say about tactics, it's so easy for people to forget, especially on a lot of the Ukrainian conflict videos you see, that people panic, make mistakes, don't push forward because they're terrified, or because of something we, the viewer, can't see, like a hidden gun emplacement or something or other.
9:09 = I always love it whenever you use that illustration of the Brit Light Infantry at Brandywine. It breaks so many of the stereotypes many Americans have about Rev War infantry tactics in just one image.
I was in the 21eme de Ligne in 1995 when we had 100 in our ranks, a full company. Our two officers (Chris Perko and Chris Durkin with the Eagle) had been building the 21eme from 1978, we had a strong cadre of veteran reenactors as our sergeants and caporaux that definitely helped. It was tricky and the fact it had rained heavily the night before made things more difficult but they managed it.
15:34 Well, if you're the Spanish Army in the Napoleonic Wars, you switch back to close order fast. Or, as it was said: "ÂĄBatallĂłn, en formaciĂłn cerrada!"
Any computer game simulates this "chaos of battle" good enough, if you play it in multiplayer with enough people (which are talking over each other), then you can see how those fatal blunders happen (Blue on Blue, unsupported charges agains enemy strong points,...)
(And that is even with "perfect" comunication, perfect knowledge of your units positions and perfect understanding of orders by units)
War of rights đ
I started watching this vid just out of curiosity (I have seen some of your other videos), but this was excellent. You spoke so clearly about a subject I've always failed to find any simple explanation about.
Hello Brandon. I always found it difficult enough lining up my wargames figures in a straight line. Never mind enemy fire, your measuring ideas made me imagine the deployment of giant tape measures in battle.
You know, I, like everyone who played any Total War game, would complain about the A.I in the game.
This is making me realize that maybe the A.I isn't bad, but just portraying the difficulty of commanding a real life army accurately.
The first Total War game I ever played was "Empire". I remember, on my first time, to be upset at the soldiers being slowpokes. It took me a while to notice how big battlefields can be.
This and I also had some inccidents involving friendly fire, because I ordered either infantry or artillery to keep shooting and didn't order to stop once friendly units got in the way.
Also, a reason why units go melee that other medias don't use to portray is shown in "Empire" and "Napoleon": sometimes, an unit must help another one, but shooting muskets would result in friendly casualties.
bro that vpn promo was hilarious đđđ
voice took me out đ
bro ur channel is both informative & entertaining asf . love history đŁ
It took us a few weeks to get good at drills and formations when I was in the military. I'm sure it's a lot harder to do it under fire though, but our platoon was about 90 people and we had 3 instructors keeping us tight.
This has been a great series explaining the basics. Can't wait for the Camden video
As a member of the 43rd , thank you for the recognition.
Oddly enough, I think Generation Kill does a pretty good job of putting the scale into perspective. For me, it helped contextualize war through a modern story. Those guys were freaking lost half the time.
I have been apart of an online 5k people battle of waterloo and let me just say, communication broke down across the line. It was every regiment for themselves, you weren't getting help.
What? What game?
@@userequaltoNull Waterloo
Sorry for being late gents! Thank you very much for this video Brandon! Communication and Manoeuvrability would really be difficult...
Still pretty early, I'd say!
@@BrandonF NOT FOR ME GOOD SIR! I MUST ARRIVE WITHIN 10 SECONDS.
Last time I was this early I was able to stop by and watch the entire Anglo-Zanzibar War.
One of these days a "minute by minute overview of the AZ War" would be pretty great
â@@BrandonF
Minute 15
Timmy ate a piece of Bacon.
Thats it for today lads See you with the next Video.
Good shit Brandon. Recent videos have been bangers recently. You earned yourself a new patron.
Very much appreciated, thank you!
"Our battles are directed sir?" - Blackadder 1916
I never perceived linear warfare as insanity, I saw it as warfare at the peak of discipline and tactical precision. To hear that people say it made no sense is baffling.
It makes sense to an educated history buff that understands what they're looking at and the context it existed in. I don't blame the average person for just seeing the core problem of linear warfare: men standing in lines, out in the open, shooting at each other. No one is capable of running, taking cover, or doing anything to defend themselves. It flies in the face of instinct and common sense. Why would you just stand there and die? You need to understand the big picture before this looks rational, and not everyone has that understanding.
What I realized is that functionally speaking, the Warfare of the napoleonic wars was the same as that of ancient battles, except the two sides were a little further apart
Great addition to your series on this topic, thanks!
Thank you!
An often overlooked yet important topic.
Good Video Brandon
Could you please make a video about the West Africa Squadron and it's actions against the Atlantic and Arab slave trade?
Probably is said to be the most greatest, expensive and First humanitarian effort ever conducted on a global scale
Didn't the UK almost have a war with Brazil over the slaves?
Already watched it on recast, but I'm doing it again!
All good points. Completely agree with pretty much everything you say!
That's what a brigade was about. The foot brigade alone in column of fores was between four and five thousand feet long. With a baggage train and artillery train and camp followers the rule of thumb is 3-5 times that for the hole column. These figures are assuming good order. At full strength therefore it would take between fifty and a hundred and fifty minutes from when the front of the column arrived at a camp to wear the rear of the train cout up. That is the maximum start and stop time you want for a unit. Therefore you would have at most a brigade per camp when traveling.
I don't know how to ask this question but during the Battle of Saragarhi I believe there was a system of sun dials or something along those lines being used to communicate across vast distances. Before radios this is a pretty ingenious method to communicate and I am curious if there are any other examples that you might be aware of and would be interested in discussing.Great video by the way.
Heliographs, yes.
Even the Heliograph wasn't perfected until the Second boer war. MIRRORS weren't perfected as communication until literally the 20th century.
BrandonF!!!!!! Love your videos! Been watching you for years I can click like before even starting the video because I know it will be great. Itâs the very least your viewers can do to show support.
Glad you enjoy the videos! Thank you!
I find this especially interesting content having just received my backer pdf of the Nations & Cannons 5e book
BrandonF:"...for that, you'll need todays sponsor!"
Me: Today's sponsor is a bayonet?
I have possibly a dumb question about muzzle-loading guns: when the gun was all loaded, how does it not just all fall out when you tilt the gun downwards?
Mainly because of the wadding that is behind and around the round. You don't just roll the ball down the barrel, rather it is surrounded by the paper of its cartridge which you then use the ramrod to push all the way down. It's theoretically possible if the round is smaller than it should be, but generally the pack was pretty tight. Especially after the musket has been fired a few times and fouling builds up inside the barrel.
Edit- Not a dumb question at all, by the way! I imagine it's a pretty common one!
excellent video!
Interesting Video. Thank you
Only man who's sponsorships I won't skip
Moving large groups of men in an efficient, orderly fashion is STILL difficult. Modern militaries still have to resort to line and column formation in order to get around garrison in lots of situations. If you need to move 100 people from a parking lot to a staging area half a mile away without losing anyone, forming into lines and marching is the most practical way.
As a reenactor of the 15th century, i often have to command a troupe (mostly archer's) and i can say that 25+ men is a LOT to keep up with. And i have the added bonus of no common language in most battles.
I blame the "make square" button on Total War NapoleĂłn for those misunderstandings of how difficult it is to actually re-form into formation
Great video.
great video...
20k men in skirmish formation can take up a hell of a lot of space, I imagin.
Will the left and right be able help the center?
I'd highly recommend reading the manga Kingdom. It's about the Warring States Period of China (from the perspective of Qin Shi Huang and one of his generals Li Xin). It has the most accurate depiction of ancient warfare and does a really good job at showing just how big war can be
10/10 for the ad creativity đ
Communication and manoeuvre is easy. Right click to move. Double click to run.
Sometimes it's a little more complex, though! Sometimes you need to hold and drag the mouse to set a proper shape...
Why you don't use videos (asking the creators) of the Waterloo-reenactment from 2015? I was in bn. of 120-140 fusiliers and grenadiers. It was difficult to move that number over open field. Although historical not accurate we had 2 ranks only. I prefer 3 ranks depth.
I'd love a movie showing the communications from the leader to the ones on the ground. Needing to interpreted it on the fly and to carry it out.
I can somewhat feel how difficult it is to coordinate the turning as one unit and how it only needs one person to make said unit a sad blob of comfused humans lol.
We have mandatory military exercise in collage, and the fact that it is hard enough on a scale of 10 men horizontally and 3 man deep, cant even fathom the ones who quaduple that length and even more so and under the chaos of the battlefield.
Oh gosh that was a hilarious Nord vpn skit, hahaha. Also, awesome video!
Brandon, do you know anything about the etiquette between men and women in the eighteenth century? If you could meet someone from that century from the US, who would you meet?
And all this in a huge cloud of smoke all over the battlefield after few volleys...
I believe most of the military training and drill was about marching in formation, right?
My old jrotc battalion was able to pull off these complicated drill movements after like.. 4 months of once-weekly practice. If a bunch of teenagers can figure it out, I'm sure a professional army that drills every day would find it more or less easy.
For oblique movements, you'd be best off with your unit going to a half-left or half-right face and march like that. Column turns can be a pain, but they're generally only done while moving up to 'the line'; not a lot of time or geometric pressure involved in those. Flank marches are done on 'the line', but they're also much simpler maneuvers.
Maybe your reenactment groups need to practice more, because we were doing this with 3 companies, 2 platoons each.. looking at around 300 people. We had high-school freshmen executing these moves nearly perfectly.
Think about it this way- you're drilling on a regular basis in perfect parade-ground conditions with fit, healthy, young volunteers, and it still took four months to get it all down perfectly. And I imagine that those movements were being done in formations too! Now increase the numbers even more so, doing it all in muddy fields where you can't see all too clearly through the musket smoke, and while being shot at.
*strokes my chair arm* i would have simply invented the radio
You think that one day you could do a bookshelf tour or something? Show us the books you read on redcoat history and 17th/18th/19th century warfare in general?
I do have a 'recommended reading' section on my website, if that would be of interest!
@@BrandonF
oh yes! Ill look now. Thank you
Once again, Abe Lincoln gives the perfect quote- "I do not know that I could have given any different orders had I been with them myself. I have not fully made up my mind how I should behave when minie-balls were whistling, and those great oblong shells shrieking in my ear. I might run away." He was referring to Chancellorsville, a complete fiasco in terms of communication in the US Army.
I used to think you were just odd, but I genuinely like the videos now, appreciate the sarcasm as well đ
I mean, I can still be odd!
Imagine if anyone tries to make a 40K movie or show. You'd need to hire or CG hundreds of thousands to millions of soldiers for a single Astra Militarum engagement.
I once tried to reenact the battle of Tsushima in Shogun 2 FOTS but discovered that at most across all armies on both sides I could have about 10k men when the real battle had 20k on one side, and 300 on the other.
On the subject of open formation and light infantry, it must be said that someone should try fighting with them exclusively on German territory in the 18th century, which at that time was very sparsely forested.
Sure itâs possible to fight in open order like that, without radio communication at a local small unit level; we see it in all wars prior to ww2, and even then quite often. But as you allude to but donât really state, the other technology and theory of the 18th century was insufficient to support those tactics.
Hey Brandon, I am a horse trainer and breeder (andalusian PRE horse). I have an interest in naploleonic cavalry and would enjoy training a horse to cavalry standards. Where would I go to find out what was taught, and how it was taught? was there a standard teaching program for cavalry. I know there is more than one type of cavalry. anyway, interested in the topic, i have watched quite a bit of the library you have here. found some interesting stuff on horsemanship, but the specific skills and the order and methods for teaching them are not something I have yet found.
I know i said, Napoleonic but i mean the era not specifically the french
I am afraid I don't really know anything on that topic. I would suggest that you contact some cavalry reenactment groups for the period- they will be a lot better informed on the topic, and be able to point you in the right direction!
On that note, if you ever do find anything on the subject, I'd appreciate it if you sent me some names for books etc. I can look into! It sounds like a really interesting subject.
@@JCElzingatry Xeme Escadron they are an international group recreating the Chasseurs of the Guard. Theres also the NA in UK and Brigade Napoleon in North America, they have cavalry. In the UK theres a specialist training stables for reeactment horses (they also train police horses). Jason Kingsley might also be worth looking up, he is a busy chap bei g as he is CEO of Rebellion Games (and 2000AD) but he knows his stuff re horses (although more Medieval, but full contact jousting is pretty cool)
Question: Did a specific subdivision and/or regiment fight in the same please position during a war. Meaning that, let's take as an example the 39 Yorkshire regiment (made up name), ALWAYS fought next to the Edingburg regiment on the left side of the formation. Or was their position what the general decided for the day.
Brandons followers are all so smart and civilized, he couldn't find a dumb comment and had to use a joking one to call out armchair generals đ
Question: What do you think is an interesting *limitation* of battlefield command & control that games like Total War fails to incorporate into their interface and simulation? I've been brainstorming the idea of a (less ambitious) indie Total War-styled game with a friend of mine, who works in development, and sort of thinking about what actual limitations would be historically realistic, and also make for potentially fun game mechanics.
The main thing is just the time between giving an order and responding to it. Total War tries to simulate this by having your commander give a morale boost to nearby troops, but if it were going for a more realistic approach then the distance to the commander would dictate how long it takes for a unit to respond - and that's not even taking into account the possibility of the order never getting there for whatever reason.
Then there's also the issue of how quickly those soldiers will actually carry out the orders - less experienced soldiers who haven't drilled much (or at all) will take an eon to change their formation or do anything more complicated than just advance forwards, especially if they are under fire or can see enemies marching upon them.
Morale also matters a lot for controlling your soldiers, which goes deeper than the Total War binary of either completely obedient or running away. Soldiers can be shaken and terrified without losing their resolve and falling out of a commander's control completely. A group of men might be willing to stand their ground and continue to fight but may completely refuse to advance into a situation they know is certain death. On the other hand, over-eager soldiers may charge without orders and fall into a trap, the most famous such example in the Anglophone world being Hastings in 1066. Total War kind of already has this with impetuous units but it's very easy to instantly cancel their attacks if they move on their own and put them back to where they are supposed to be.
@@sulphuric_glue4468 Interesting thoughts: The idea of a "lag-time" for orders (dependent on some zone of control) is something I've thought about myself - the question is how to make it engaging for players, rather than just frustrating as heck.
Perhaps an ability to queue up orders, could be a more central gameplay-mechanic; "Go here, then seize X strategic point, fortify and repel attacks." ~ sort of thing.
On the spectrum of morale:
EU4 kinda tries to reflect how morale is not a single stat, by having both "discipline" and "morale" be stats for armies - personally, I feel like morale worked pretty well in older Total War-titles, but is sort of a mess in the newer ones - and again, the "impetuos"-types of units don't, IMO, make for fun gameplay. They're just more housekeeping for the player to stay on top of.
I'm reminded of someone suggesting that if you could bring any modern technology into the past to win a battle that would otherwise be lost, the introduction of a single pair of radios for long-distance communication, even with only enough power to issue a few commands, would make the difference.
If you want to see, how command and control wins wars, look at Romans. Their tactics weren't that impressive but they were very good at following them, disciplined and their command structure worked very well. That is why they dominated for so long.
How do you feel about Total Warâs representation of formations?
Brandon, what's the flag with the purple tree in the background? Always curious.
It's the logo for my LLC- The Native Oak. (obligatory "find out more at Nativeoak.org" plug)
Everybody who ever served in a modern army knows how hard it is to fast coordinate even a modern mechanized infantry batallion even with briefings and radio on every officer, ngo and vehicle. You will wait for hours, in a real war probably days, to get the go ahead because something which has to happen before you can do whatever your mission is has to happen first. Strategy games makes these complex maneuvers look too easy, because you have instant feed back as a commander, your units always understand what you want (unless for bad pathing), you have a birdseye view and the only thing that makes them stop fighting might be a moral system.
Brandon, I have wondered recently; were soldiers allowed to shoot left-handed, or were they all expected to shoot with their right hand as the primary?
"There's no lefties in the army"! All drill was assuming the use of the right hand- if the soldier wasn't naturally right-handed, it would basically be drilled into them.
Even the schools drilled lefties into using their right hand. They didn't stop until relatively recently, and even then a lot of machines are always right handed. My keyboard is great for me being a leftie, but using a camera is a right struggle.
@@BrandonF Yeah, that makes sense. As Tareltonlives says below left handedness would get drilled out of them even in school, mostly due to religious concerns I imagine. The Devil is depicted as left-handed and even our term sinister, for someone who seems evil, comes from the latin root for 'left.' Interesting stuff to consider, thank you!
@@FlameDarkfire Even more so, it is just a matter of practicality. If you have tight formations,
you have to make sure that everyone holds his musket the same way, preferably right handed.
Neat.
ye
Hi, just an off-topic question but where do you get reenactment gear.
Go to an event. You often find the traders there. In UK we have several big market events where you can either pick things up there and then or order it. However, Iâd suggest joining an existing group first. If you are Stateside then you have the British Brigade, the NW Alliance, and BAR, amongst many others. In UK there is the Pattern who are a super authentic group, although most AWI units in the UK tend to be. Hats Brenkle, uniforms Graves Historical, (amongst others), theres The Quatermasters Stores for all sorts of stuff even down to pocket fillers and GGedney Godwin in US. Those are all a good start.
@@christhorpejunction8982 O
Ok thank you
NordVPN finally infiltrated brandon.
I like the company- I actually do use their VPN whenever I'm travelling.
lol at Russia vs Ukraine where despite having modern instant communication devices thereâs still confusion and poor or lack of communication from the troops in the field vs those in command where a soldier might be facing against a machine gun nest calling in command for support, all the while command HQ are juggling twenty things at once in which the time or resources to aid said troopers isnât coming and are unfortunately left to deal with the situation themselves, much like a cavalry charge where once a charge has been made or enacted, trying to get over fifty men or horses to either stop what theyâre doing or change directions because a there might be a ditch in front of them full of spikes, or there could be other troops hiding in ambush in which once a unit is Engaged in melee combat itâs extremely dangerous and difficult to disengage from the melee without sustaining any more losses all the while hoping that the enemy doesnât run after you or start shooting you in the back, and if you stay in melee combat then you could end up being surrounded or tied for too long when in reality you should have destroyed the enemy unit and them proceed to support the rest of the armyâs advance.
This also highlights why cutting a line/exploiting a gap was actually devastating
In the battle of Poltava did Swedish troops attack a number forts spread out over a large area. The forts that stood most far away were being attacked by Swedish infantry. And Russian cavalry charged those men in a counter attack to crush those regiments.
The situation was very dire.
How could those men beg the Swedish Generals for help in this quickly changing situation when the infantry was so far away that they was barely visable from far away where the Swedish King and his Generals stood?
-
And the answer is that the men desperatly cried "kavalleri fram i Jesu namn!!" (Send Cavalry forward for Christ's sake!!)
And then would the men in the regiment behind them shout the same thing. And then in turn would the men in the regiment behind that regiment also shout the same thing... and so on until that message reached the Swedish King who heard the message and could see from far away how the Russian horse troops was getting themselves ready to attack the Swedish infantry most far away.
So the King ordered the Swedish Cavalry regiments forward to beat back the Russian cavalry attack.
So the men rode forward, and they managed to beat the Russian attack on the Swedish infantry and cut down the Russian cavalry and force it into a retreat.
Sadly enough did not everything else go as well for the Swedish forces that day.
That battle definitely showed scale was an issue- the elite Swedish cavalry simply couldn't be everywhere at once. The Swedish army was spread super-thin, allowing the Russians to fill up the cracks and recover. Rehnskiöld was doing great, Creutz sent Menshikov packing to the rear, but Roos got stuck in and torn up. King Karl was waiting for news so he could come in, but that meant he had to stand still. Creutz finally came in after Lewenhaupt's big Ga Pa charge, but in the time it took for him to reform Lewenhaupt had gotten swamped by King Peter's reinforcements .It was too late, and when Creutz came to the rescue Sheremetev had gotten the men in square, and it was Menshikov's turn to chase Creutz. Swedish victories had been amazing curbstomps with both cavalry and infantry working in unision. But Rehnskiöld needed to be super-organized and have a good idea where everything was for a smaller army to win against a big, fortified one. The King knew how to keep his grip, but Rehnskiöld couldn't pull off a miracle. Add in the fatigue and starvation it was a disaster. Rehnskiöld wound up an office worker in Moscow for the management of Swedish prisoners. His men were shipped to Siberia.
Well, I suppose if one already saw the video on Recast, it's one's moral duty to let this run muted in the background anyway. A view is a view, eh chaps?