How Historically Accurate is the Battle in Barry Lyndon? | Portraying Linear Combat in Film
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- This video was sponsored by Wren. Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/brandonf. The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!
NOTE: A silly mistake I made in this video- the 7 Years War ended in 1763! For whatever reason I had the start date in my mind as the end date!
Stanley Kubrick's 1975 film, "Barry Lyndon," is a cinematic masterpiece and one of my favourites in the genre. But in terms of historical accuracy, it's a pretty mixed bag. In some ways it's one of the most accurate and period-authentic films out there...but in other ways, it's as severely lacking as you might expect. In this video, I'll go over the historical accuracy of the most iconic battle scene from the film- Barry's first "skirmish" with the French during the Seven Years War. We'll talk about some of the best parts of the scene, some of the worst, and of course, we'll have some nitpicking as well!
Timestamps:
Intro: 00:00
The Good: 01:27
The Bad: 13:34
The Sponsored Message: 27:50
The Petty: 29:40
Conclusion: 36:22
Mentioned Links:
Chris' Channel: / mm60745
Jon's Channel (The Far off Station): / thefaroffstation
How Did 18th Century Armies Shoot Each Other?: • How 18th Century Armie...
My old video about Cocked Hats: • What is a Tricorne/Coc...
You can learn more about my work at:
www.nativeoak.org/
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella
Brandon, this is a great video and I love it.
I agree with you on the bayonet part - the rear ranks should recover arms, while the front rank charge the bayonets in the manner you described. This is a by the way a relic of pike warfare.
It's however not completely unimaginable for them to use the method described in the 1764 manual, as some regiments experimented with this more modern stance. The Treatise on discipline for the Norfolk Militia for example advocates its use.
As someone who is greatly interested in the niche topic that the Seven Years' War is, I only have to criticise one tiny aspect of this video:
Most British regiments had laced coats during the Seven Years' War, but by no means all.
A few famous examples of regiments lacking them would be the 60th, (Royal American), 41st (Royal Invalids) Regiments of Foot.
The 84th (Royal Welsh Volunteers; commonly referred to as Vaughan's) Regiment of Foot also lacked facings too.
The 81st (Lord Lindores' Invalids), 82nd (Parker's Invalids), and 95th (Burton's) Regiments of Foot probably lacked facings too but the information on their uniform is a little sketchy.
Since Gale's Regiment, the Regiment Barry joined, is purely fictional, I have no issues with it.
Notes for the Napoleonic wars buffs jumping at me:
The 95th Regiment I am talking about was disbanded some time after the war ended (1765 IIRC) and has no connection to the Rifle Regiment you think of.
The 60th Regiment was also just a regular formation, but just as during the Napoleonic wars, they had an unusual amount of battalions.
I know little of the seven years war uniforms, plan to learn more. Thanks for the Info mate!
Do you have any book or documentary suggestions for learning about the Seven Year's War?
@RuusterIV Documentaries are hard to find. If you're looking for Frederick the Great there's a bunch in one way or another of biased ones - the older ones stress his military genius and completely ignore his private life (I am referring to something CZcams wouldn't let me write down), the more recent ones neglect the military aspect and stress his benevolence and the good of his economic reforms. The fact that he nearly Bankrupted Prussia twice isn't mentioned at all, or that his social liberalism came out of pure self-interest. Well, both are completely off
Well, then for the North American theatre of the War, the French and Indian War, there's "The War that Made America". It offers some perspective, but it's depicting the Gentleman it's focused on, George Washington a bit too positively (I won't go into the details here, but he essentially played a significant role he played in the declaration of war), and spreads the myth that he lead the Revolution because he didn't get a commission.
The uniforms and commands in the background footage are off too, and their depiction of Carillon is a bit simplified.
It should be here on CZcams.
And the books I can recommend? Well, it depends on what aspect of this "First" world war interests you the most. If you are interested in military organisation, some simplified tactics, and the basics of uniforms, I can recommend buying an Osprey.
I suggest first spending some time on the website Kronoskaf SYW. They usually have all the details and simplify the politics.
@@JH-lw9et For Spain there is also a lot of information if you know how to search. Inmediately after the war the "Ordenanzas de Carlos III", a series of military reforms made by said king, were made. They also included military marches for the Royal Guard, the Grenadiers and the Fusiliers (as a sidenote, the Spanish Grenadiers' march was selected to be the Spanish national anthem, being so to this day). It was also during his reign that the current Spanish flag was designed, though it was designed as a naval flag and wouldn't be adopted as national flag until the 1830s. Those reforms were in large part due to Spain's defeat in the seven years war, particularly Spain tried to invade Portugal and failed spectacularly, which prompted the king to establish those reforms, in order to turn the Spanish military into a far more efficient fighting force.
@Podemos URSS that's interesting. I wasn't fully aware of scale of reforms taken after the war. Interestingly he reformed colonial trade and expelled the Jesuits too.
What Rorke's Drift was as a battle, the Spanish Invasion of Portugal was as a campaign (Well I am exaggerating a bit. The Spanish had a 3:1 numerical superiority compared to 20ish:1).
14 British casualties in combat (~800 from accidents or disease)... out of an army of 7,000 (I am not including the 7-8,000 Portuguese Regulars in here for reasons I will address) compared to approximately 20,000 (that's a conservative estimate) Spanish deserted, captured, killed, or missing, and an additional 5,000 French casualties out of an army consisted of about 42,000 men...
Yes, I know I should include the Portuguese numbers but they didn't keep the same detailed records as the British (A video on the Butcher's list would be interesting, Brandon) so it's just a guessing game. I haven't even seen any estimates anywhere (Mostly because I am focused on other aspects. The Seven Years' War was a world war and it's hard to know details from every front)The fact that most battles were small scale skirmishes, with a bunch of irregulars (Sounds familiar, to those interested in the Napoleonic wars) and almost no information on them available doesn't help either.
I’ve always sensed Kubrickian irony with the mention the skirmish appears in no history books, a quiet but playful admission the thing is entirely a fiction.
Honestly I think stating that is superfluous.
@@andro7862 Apologies.
Congratulations, my gentlemen. Thy argument was nothing short of the grace, civility and gallantry expected of any fellow nobleman.
That may have been his source Thackeray, actually...
Nothing is entirely fiction nor more than the opposite.
To be fair... "Not recorded" could just mean practically no info.
"3rd Regiment engaged enemy rearguard and broke through enemy. 22 casualties."
Could very easily be lost to history, and is hardly a detailed account.
If it’s not recorded - there’s no record of it. Historians sometimes forget how many records no longer exist, or never existed. Or were deliberately suppressed or destroyed. Or were secrets that were successfully kept secret.
@@twood1uis I've seen the phrasing used for things with scarce info as well.
Also the operative word is "history books". It's not that the battle wasn't written about by anyone, merely that it was so inconsequential that it's not going to make it into modern books on the subject.
If you look at the Napoleonic wars, for example, there's endless material on events like Waterloo, Austerlitz, the Battle of the Pyramids, etc. but that's because those battles had some large significance. Even battles like Eylau and Waram aren't written about nearly as much. I feel line, in the world of Barry Lyndon, the battle is known, and its existence might be known to very niche scholars of military esoterica (eg, like Brandon), but it isn't going to appear in "The Seven Years War: An Overview" or similar.
Funny enough, I feel like it's because Brandon is so into military esoterica and knows all the extremely minor battles and whatnot that he sometimes forgets all this knowledge isn't relevant to most everyone else.
Long before I was born, an uncle of mine died during WW2. The unit history for the month runs to nine pages of dry facts. The battalion conducted operations in various French towns, encountering light resistance, some equipment broke, supply shortages are listed. A request is made to vary the rations. The only mention of his death is his name among a list of KIAs. It was a quiet month, the battalion lost only seven killed, including my uncle.
@@therealuncleowen2588 true but compare that now to 19th century record keeping and whole skirmishes could slip out of record.
4:00
I’m sorry Brandon, but I can never forgive you for that error-there were no elephants at the Battle of Pelennor Fields, what the Easterlings had there were *oliphaunts*
They're also known as Mumakils.
Aw crap, don't tell me that LOTR is fantasy as is Barry Fucking Lyndon???
I thought it was the Haradrim not the Easterlings?
The speed of the French volleys is quite coincidental, they just didn't want to take up so much time showing the men reload, it would have been a much longer scene
you waited 4years! XD
That, and reloading en masse would have been a mess. Kubrik wanted the straight lines, not a lot of poorly trained extras tripping over each other as they attempted to reload in close quarters.
When judging his historic fidelity you have to ask whether Kubrick was trying to be true to history, or to Thackeray's novel. I'm pretty sure that if the novel contained something ahistorical, Kubrick would have kept it in, history be damned. Remember that the novel was written over eighty years after the events it portrays, about the same time as between now and WWII. How good was Thackeray's knowledge of the war, given that there were no newsreels, no photographs, no sound recordings, and few memoirs.
Also, Thackeray was primarily a satirist, and the novel is picaresque. Absolute historical fidelity was not high on his list of objectives.
Finally, remember that the movie was made in a time when the only way to see a movie was in a theater. No freeze frame. No watching the same scene over and over. The wrong fabric or firelock would only be seen fleetingly, once, and never again.
The problem you have is (as any subject matter expert enlisted to advise on a film will find)…they don't really care lots. Props, wardrobe etc. work in the film industry. It’s like a a club with new projects coming along. Today you may be on Barry Lyndon, next month a Star Trek, next a western. Consequently the departments knowledge must be very broad and shallow. If you've advised, you'll be familiar with the "We're making a film, not a documentary" line. That’s because they're telling his story to an uninitiated public who want spectacle and entertainment - not appease the one in16 trillion who know better.
@@irejectyourrealityandrepla1140 Kubrick was not like other filmmakers. His attention to detail was ridiculous. The costumes in this film were all either copied from contemporary paintings or just straight up period clothes. Nearly every scene is lit by natural light or candlelight. None of the locations are sets. It took a year to shoot. I can assure you they cared.
@@ze_rubenator I concede to your knowledge of Kubrick and the making of this film. Although I have to admit his procurement and use of NASA lenses to record by candlelight is something truly genius! Having been made in the good old days, when films were made as works of art - and not exclusively as money making ventures- you may be right. I speak only from my recent experience on set with wardrobe, props teams and as an historical advisor.
Uniforms and costumes being copied from contemporary sources and location management is not unique to Kubrick or Barry Lyndon. It’s what the respective departments within the film do, and why they pay for the expertise of dedicated costumier companies and advisors. (When your next job is going from this, to Harry Potter, then to a Conjuring film, to Richard II then there will always be someone smarter than yourself). Hence, they bring in subject matter experts to catch glaring errors or cite major historians to boost the credentials of the film.
But ultimately, whether all these authentic niceties (clothing, vernacular, posture, etiquette etc) are followed or used is dictated by the film makers. It’s their job to make films; make money and hopefully a blockbuster. This is where the lack of “care” charge comes in. Simplistically, the film makers fly in a year after pre-production on the film has commenced. They know nothing of the grace of the period, the fashion or tactics, but simply work from what the script and storyboard tells them. They shoot the film; and fly off to their next job (next script in hand), leaving everything to be sold, returned or destroyed. It’s their “artistic” decisions and choices (or lack of) which ultimately cause debates like this one triggered by Brandon, about what distracts a good movie from becoming and infallible historical masterpiece!
The use of Ryan ‘O’Neal’s terrible accent is my biggest bugbear in this film - can it not be redubbed?
@@irejectyourrealityandrepla1140 I agree with you, in most movies it is very much like that. I don't recall who it was, but one of the people who worked on Barry Lyndon as her very first film thought that was how all films were made; with immaculate attention to detail, and scene rehearsals upon rehearsals until everything was perfect. She remarked that she thought every filmmaker she'd worked with since were "sloppy."
The only directors I can think of who get even remotely close to this meticulousness is Charlie Chaplin, Jacques Tati and Roy Andersson. The sad reality is that making movies this way isn't really profitable. Barry Lyndon was a very expensive flop that caused Kubrick to never make another high budget film. Chaplin luckily had a huge audience so he could spend the time and money he needed. Tati bankrupted himself and lost everything in his effort to build a whole city from scratch in which his films would take place.
Then there's Roy Andersson, whose artistic approach is pretty much the opposite of Kubrick in Barry Lyndon. Every single scene in Andersson's films is a set, even the exteriors. There is no natural light. The camera never movies, zooms or changes focus. But his influences are the same: Paintings! His process, like Chaplin, Kubrick and Tati is also very slow, methodical, meticulous and expensive. The reason he can afford it is that he spent decades doing TV commercials to finance the construction of his film studio. If you're interested I recommend starting with Songs From The Second Floor.
Kubrick sure did pay attention to detail, but his method also contained a lot of improvisation.
He would have no problem changing the script in the middle of filming a scene, and he would always have all actors and extras show up on location, in costume before he started to arrange the shots.
Yeah, the costumes and all the details should be as accurate as possible but none of that matters if the scene doesn't look right.
Btw Kubrick had someone call Queen Elizabeth on the phone, to personally coach him on the proper way to be introduced to a royalty, for the scene where Barry is introduced to the King.
Not beforehand mind you, but while filming the scene.
My guess as to why so many films don’t have a lot of yelling and commands is that filmmakers are really into emphasizing the sounds of the drums, fifes, boots marching over the ground, etc. And they think a bunch of men yelling commands gets in the way of that.
Also from a film perspective, where the audience needs to see what is happening, they probably don’t want a full black powder charge and the ensuing smoke potentially getting in the way of that. But that is just my theory anyway.
It would be interesting to see a film try and more accurately capture how noisy, chaotic, and nasty an 18th Century battle could get.
The opening scene from the movie Glory does a pretty good job of kind of doing that (however that was a Civil War film which begins with the battle of Antietam in 1862 of course).
The other reason of course is if you watch the Brigade Of Guards Trooping the Colour you only ever hear officers shouting commands. What you don't hear, because microphones don't pick it up, is the growling and cursing of the NCO's in the ranks.
Battle of Waterloo 200th Reenactment (CZcams)
sometimes realism has to be taken away to make a movie watchable.
My favoirte example is (not historical just an example) the battle of Helms Deep in LotR. The whole battle is lit up as if there were projectors or four thousand moons in the sky! Compare it to the battle of Winterfell in GoT where the darkness is realistic and you see the difference it makes.
When they asked Peter Jackson on the set of LotR where the lights were coming from he simply answered "same place where the music is coming from."
Realism isnt always fun... or enjoyable to watch.
(and yes I realize my example was a movie about dragons and wizards... but you get my point)
I think the main reason we don't hear officers and NCO's shouting commands is because movie makers don't know how to command regiments.
Having seen men shot in real life i will have to disagree with you on at least one aspects of your detraction segment. Often when a human is pierced by a foreign object, such as a bullet, there may be several seconds that transpire before the presentation of blood appears. Even more so with the introduction of multiple layers of clothing, with the thickness of the material having a noticeable effect on the flow of bodily fluids.
While such is true with modern bullets due to their high amounts of efficiency, when compared to the lead balls of the 18th century, in piercing objects. In theory, a lead ball would both create a larger entry due to the size of the caliber and massive internal injury due to the lead splitting apart and acting more or less as shrapnel inside the body. Of course exceptions can be found but such a massive injury would in all likelihood bleed very quickly. The exception being sucking chest wounds.
Yes I did write this way too technically but I’m tired
A few episodes of vomiting due to inex pp er
Sorry about unintended truncated msg, but torn apart by bullets, or completely riddled by metastatic cancer (my first autopsy, and introduction to how even relatively young women can die), Death is never pleasant.
@@peteroconnell6964 i agree, i suffer it every night i try to sleep
With modern bullets yes.
But with 18th century musket balls, it was different.
Kubrick's attention to detail re: combat is reinforced in his masterpiece "Dr Stangelove" throw away scene where airbourne infantry overwhelm airbase security forces, one of the most realistic enactments of combat in movie history.
Is someone firing a 'grease gun' in the scene ?
@@jefferynelson yes, you can see M1s, a Thompson, 2 M3s (grease gun) and two 30. Cals
@@herrkommandant1876 I remember the scene
I liked the fellow riding the falling atomic bomb like a bucking bronco. Very realistic! 😆
One of the best combat scenes
for those who don't know, Kubrick designed all of BL to be a series of "paintings within film". that's why there are so many "portrait" shots in the movie. it's truly astonishing.
there's no film like it in the whole world...except maybe Lawrence of Arabia, which is probably history's second-best example of truly beautiful, masterful film cinematography.
BL is one my wife's top 3 fave movies, the other two being The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and The Exorcist. and she just turned 42, lol.
it's so nice knowing there are still folks out there who appreciate quality film from the past.
I am so glad you're able to appreciate the scene in the right context, talking about how it fits in with the rest of the movie. Also, epic sponsored message 👍🏼
RE "cleanliness of combat": It was Kubricks artistic vision to tell us the story like a painting of the period, which he fully achieved and makes the film such a stunning visual masterpiece. It was never his intention to show us the battle as realistic. Absence of gore is an intentional decision, gore would have destroyed the elegance so typical for the period. Your criticisim is therefore missing the point, but in step with the modern obsession about "realism" and gore, as if every historical themed film has do be a documentary.
Not to mention how this clean presentation of war is how people of the 18th century (at least in the upper classes) understood war to be, and therefore the film shows us not the reality of what was happening, but how it was perceived, and gave us a "realistic" insight into the minds of the people then. The "narrator" is not a person of today, but also of the 18th century. The camera is subjectiv, not objective.
Nicely put! Thanks for that perspective!
Agreed, well put!
Very good input! While I think that it's good to tell people the realities of 18th century warfare, in the framework of an artistic piece, some liberties are acceptable.
I agree, Kubrick pictured warfare realistically in Full Metal Jacket. The point of Barry Lyndon movie is that it looks so much like and painting that it makes you doubt the message that the painting conveys. Single painting looks ok, but a whole movie made of paintings makes you think: "wait, that is not like the reality used to be".
@@Richard-Vlk Back then they did put so much effort in bright uniforms, shiny steel and colors with gold and silver. Even covered with powder soot and blood it all would have paint like qualities. Maybe like race cars nowadays.
Looks like the French are using 1873 Trapdoor Springfield rifles. It's noticeable with the Bulge at the breach of the weapon. They were center fire, metallic cartridge weapons. Which is why you don't see them reloading.
I think this is correct, Forgotten Weapons has a video on some trapdoors that were converted to look like flintlocks for movie props. I presume that is what is being used and would explain the issue that is being pointed out in the movie.
@@Beavermancer They did the same thing for John Wayne's 'The Alamo.'
@@charlessaint7926 "The Alamo" uses a mix of real flintlocks (in the close-ups, mostly) and Trapdoors. The Duke tried to get it as right as he could.
in Zulu you can clearly see that some of the british are using bolt action rifles rather than martini henry's especially during the fire and advance part.
@@jamieslingsby9907 Right, they're easy to spot if you know what you're looking at.
The problem was the film-makers couldn't find enough Martini-Henry's to go around, and they had to use something.
And sometimes you get a real surprise. I once handled a Martini that British film prop people modified to look like a 17th Century matchlock! Pretty cleverly done too.
The other thing I liked about the regimental flag. Since the regiment wears white facings, their regimental colors would also be white. White regimental colors had the red cross on them. Others regiments faced with actual colors ( yellow, green, etc...) did not have the red cross on their regimental flags. This was a nice detail.
Let me address firing by rank. The prevalence of it is due to the reliance on reenactors as extras. We fire by rank because it's easy, and it works with the small numbers of soldiers we have at small events.
I was , for a number of years, a colonel of an ACW battalion. I would start most battles out with a couple of battalion volleys, simply because spectators liked that. After those initial volleys, I would break into the 19th century staple of Fire by File.
The problem with that, is that our numbers were usually small, and too many of the men came with very few rounds. Continued Fire by File would expend most of the ammunition very quickly. So I would have to do something to slow the rate of fire, to avoid a 10 minute battle and very disappointed spectators .
Now, our "battalion" was often about 40 men. Divided into companies, they would be roughly 10 men each. Firing by platoons, let alone sections, was out of the question. Firing by companies was an option, but most of the company commanders did not have a good grasp of the concept
In a four company battalion, firing by company has the first com-any firing a volley and reloading. Then the third company fires a volley. The second and fourth companies observe the loading progress of the first and third, and when they are largely loaded, they fire volleys form their companies. Each set of two companies continues the process independent of the other set.
It's really pretty easy, but most company commanders only knew the drill form the School of the Company. They simply did not know how that was supposed to fit into the School of the Battalion. I could teach it, but at least half of the one hour morning battalion drill would be spent on that. There was too much else to teach to allow for that.
Therefore, "Rear rank Ready, Aim, Fire", then "Front Rank, Ready, Aim, Fire" became the default. Everyone understood that. If I commanded, as I should have "Fire by company, commence firing", it would have become a mess.
So, if film directors ask reenacting officers what the correct procedure is, they will get the correct "reenacting procedure". Sadly, no film director ever asked me what the correct actual procedure should have been.
Leonidas Jones
Colonel (ret.) 6th Regiment, ANV
The French are using surplus Springfield Trapdoors, mocked up to look like a Flintlock. You see it in numerous movies from that time period and earlier, such as John Wayne's 'Fighting Kentuckian'
As much as I do love the genuine use of flintlocks in films like this, and I will argue until the end of time that it’s better to use the real deal (for obvious reasons), there are a good couple of reasons to use converted .45-70s. Obviously they’re cheaper and more simple to load between takes, which is probably the sole reason they get used, but there’s something I don’t think many people realize. In The Last of the Mohicans, because of the sheer scale, you see several misfires. Normally that’s (more or less) fine, but there are a few times where we see someone have a flash in the pan amongst a crowd of hundreds, but the scene was choreographed with that specific person’s shot killing someone, which as a flintlock nerd was a huge immersion-breaker. Given the scale of the scene, shooting it all over again was clearly not practical :)
P.S. The moment Brandon questioned what type of weapons they were using I instantly shot to the comments to see if someone had already beat me to it. Wonderful work.
In the book Barry explicitly rails against people who speak of battles on large scales, and claims of the actions of great men and purposefully speaks of his personal on the ground experience of being the immediate few metres around him. I think that is a partial explanation for Kubrick's more personal depiction of the battles.
33:10 "After the Seven Years War ended in the 1750s." My petty critique to the petty section of the video... last I checked, the Seven Years War started in the 1750s, but ended in the 1760s only one year before your referenced manual. (1756-1763)
Oh dear, silly mistake to make on my part!
@@BrandonF shame! A flogging offence 😄
@@BrandonF Yes, colour sergeant, this man right here!
Simply Brilliant!!!
@@BrandonF eighteen kneelings on corn will show you.
14:00 - Wellington reviewed a painting of the Battle of Waterloo and liked it, commenting along the lines of '"I like that there's not so much smoke" - even though he was actually riding in one of the most smoke-choked battles of the Napoleonic Wars. He liked its artistic license I guess, over reality.
14:42 - good point; in reality some soldiers would get head shots and flop backwards, or limp as soon as leg hit
No musket volley is that accurate at 100 yards range to cause that big number of hit soldiers.
18:40 - Elite troops can actually maintain order advancing into heavy fire; Imperial Guard attack at Waterloo
34:10 - That's being unrealistic; bayonets would never be perfectly aligned in an advance, for all sorts of reasons each soldier would only kind of have a similar pose as their comrades next to them at any given moment - combat / terrain / stress related reasons, etc. 20 yards away from an enemy officers won't be focused on bayonets one or two degrees not level.
- Did you notice the Drummers have disappeared on the center left front in some shots such as this? Typically, I believe that companies each only had 1 or 2 drummers, but in the opening attack scene we see 4 or 5,
I agree with 37:10 :D
Very nice watching your whole clip.
...goose stepping (the type of marching tactic reserved for heavy infantry) was invented by the Prussians precisely for this reason; maintain order, and provide a uniform, cohesive and disciplined advance into heavy fire...
During the napoleonic war of 1802 to 1815 a company was about 95 privates and 10 companies formed a battalion which structure was:
1 Colonel
2 Lieutenant Colonels
2 Majors
10 Captains
22 Lieutenants
8 Ensigns
1 Paymaster
1 Adjutant
1 Quartermaster
1 Surgeon
2 Assistant Surgeons
1 Sergeant Major
1 Quartermaster Sergeant
1 Paymaster Sergeant
1 Armourer Sergeant
50 Sergeants
50 Corporals
20 Drummers
2 Fifers
950 Privates
Kubrick is the man. He goes the xtra distance for sure. This film n Full Metal Jacket are both spectacular. His earlier WWIy film with Kirk Douglass “Paths Of Glory” often gets overlooked because its more about a trial. The actualf war sequence is only a few minutes long but its spectacular. The FX, cinematography and the accuracy of the scene was cutting edge for the late 50’s and some aspects of the scene still to this day. If u havent already check it out, pretty good movie, awesome battle sequence. Puts u right there im the trenches
Brandon, if you look close; you can tell that they are firing Springfield "Trapdoor" rifles with light blanks. The film industry uses them often to replace muzzle loading rifles or muskets. They are abundant, cheaper, and easier for poorly trained extras to load and shoot. They are also easy to make look like muzzle loaders with a little bit of "set dressing".
If I may add... Drummers and fifers were NEVER in the front ranks on the battle field. They were there to relay signals, and providing the opportunity to be shot first was counter-productive at the very least. They did march the units TO the battle field, butt then were retired to get out of the way and fulfill their job when called upon, and almost never played airs during the battle as it would confuse the signals. So while it is a rather effective tool for drawing the emotion of the movie goers, it is also an anachronism to see them march across the field of battle in the front lines and for paying during the battle like a juke box at the fights!
Now here's a video I've been looking forward to for years. Thank you for your hard and excellent work, Brandon, and please know that it is highly appreciated.
My impression of that battlescene when I saw the movie the first time was that it was a bit dreamlike and still, this caused by Barry actually being kind of being anxious since it was his first battle. Like when you have an accident and fall and seconds feel like minutes before you hit the ground...Like we see the battle from inside his head behind his mental curtain- even when we see it from the outside. Though it has it's flaws it is still one of my favourite movie battlescenes.
Any ideas for new set designs are more than welcome! I have an awful lot more space to play with now than ever before! Also listen to the credits song and let me know what you think- it's something of a new 'channel theme' that I commissioned!
Maybe some sort of commonwealth militaria display? A display of different British headgear from different eras (cocked hats, forage caps, Belgic and Stovepipe shakos, pith helmet)?
@@kinggeorgeiii7515 how is British North America doing, King George?
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 Well…
It’s awesome! However, it’s a little distracting and makes makes it hard to focus on you when you’re on screen. Perhaps muting the colors a bit or introducing a little bit of blur may help? This is more of a nitpick than anything though.
@@kinggeorgeiii7515your family background looks curious to me, sir, as your ancestors were American loyalists fleeing rebels, while my ancestors more or less helped the Americans, as they were Spanish, just to be sidelined 100 years later, with the Hispano American war of 1898
As an aside, in the book that this film is based on, Barry fights in the Battle of Minden. Then again, it's only mentioned in passing with Barry noting that he spent the day with his regiment chasing a couple of French battalions.
Good research - Minden, of course, was quite a significant battle, unlike the skirmish in the film.
Ever since I found your channel I have been waiting for this video, thank you Brandon.
Learning more history in this 40 minute video than any semester of history classes ever, keep up the good work Brandon, loving these videos.
Often with movies if this era, they would use modified trapdoor Springfields. The scene portraying Barry fighting with the Prussians offers close ups of the weapons where the hinge was visible. These can be noticed in Waterloo. It is similar to the movie Zulu where if you look closely at the soldiers reloading, you can spot the extras who were armed with long Lee Enfields rather than martini henrys
yes, up close, they really look like trapdoor Springfields, because everything in them looks weird.
Either Trapdoor Springfields or Enfield Snider conversions. They look "antique-ie" enough and it's easy to teach extras how to use them.
In "Zulu" they couldn't find enough Martini's to go around so they had to use Enfields to fill in.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 antique is an understatement, Wayne, they look really shoddy.
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 Hi Maximiliano! I haven't watched the whole video yet, just a few minute so far, so I can't do an "in-depth" analysis just yet.
As far as Hollywood Trapdoor conversions were concerned some were quite clever. I saw one for sale at a gun show here about 15 years ago ( I'm sorry I didn't buy it!) that was a pretty good approximation of a French Charleville type musket.
Trapdoor Springfields found their way into quite a few movie studio arsenals, post-WW1 and through the 1930's and 1940's, they could be had quite cheaply, and as I said extras could be taught to load and fire them easily.
Trapdoor Springfields in Waterloo? What you're looking at are Mosin Nagant rifles, it was filmed in Russia after all.
For me, the idea of making the battle scene just a skirmish of little note was brilliant. This because for the men who fought in it, it was nonetheless memorable, unforgettable.
Often, when we think of the experience of war, we want to know about the famous and crucial events. While some soldiers land on Omaha Beach, hold out at the Arnhem Bridge, or defend Bastogne, the reality is that for most veterans, the most traumatic events likely occur in an engagement of little historical significance, recorded in a dry official history, some letters home, a memoir, and grandpa's stories when he finally opens up about his war experience in the autumn of his life.
I compare the battle scene's gut punch of trauma to a chapter in George Macdonald Frasier's memoir about his service in WW2 Burma. He opens the chapter describing a patch of forest with a small temple on it, and wonders what it looks like today. He goes on to describe the fiercest fight he took part in, an uncelebrated attack on a Japanese assembly area. During the first assault a close comrade dies, his unit cracks under heavy fire, he asks himself if he hesitated to grab his section's MG after his friend who was carrying it died. Then they pulled back, regrouped, and went in again, this time seizing the patch of forest. He kills a Jap and he doesn't hide the feeling of vengeance he felt at the time, perhaps still felt, while writing the memoir. For Frasier, the battle at Pyabwe was obviously the most traumatic, difficult, lasting memory of his wartime service. Yet no movies celebrate it. The public never heard of it at the time. But Frasier had that traumatic memory as a lifelong companion.
His final word about it, watching a Japanese veteran interviewed on tv in the 1980s, Frasier wonders of the man, "were you there on the ridge at Pyabwe?" Anger rising at the thought he sighs, well, if he was, I suppose I don't mind. I think Frasier knows the reader expects him to forgive the Japanese and let the war be in the past, but for him it will always be an effort to put aside the hatred of the enemy who killed his friend. He probably thought of that otherwise unremarkable woods often, couldn't help it. Those who fought in the Barry Lyndon skirmish likely did the same.
I realize Frasier passed away about 15 years ago (rest his soul) and Barry Lyndon is historical fiction, but there are parallels. My point is, Kubrick knows that combat is traumatic whether it is a famous turning point battle or an unknown skirmish. (Just occurred to me that Full Metal Jacket's sniper scene is the same kind of thing).
I remember when this movie was released in 1975 and the tremendous effect that it had on me. I was a member of the 10th Regiment of Foot at the time and the military scenes from Barry Lyndon fueled my enthusiasm for 18th century warfare for years to come.
I paused the video and read the page you had on the screen. I used to be an historical re-enactor and we practiced this drill for some filming we were going to for a video about the Battle of Culloden. It always struck me as being impractical for use at anything other than The Halt. I'm told that this drill was a throwback to the era of Pike and Shot.
In fact you are almost certainly correct about the pike and shot bit. Compare Bland's "charge bayonet" to the 1607 Dutch drill "charge your pike". (often called Jacob DeGheyns drill, he illustrated it, didn't devise it.) Knowing 1607 pike drill before learning 18th century musket drill I was surprised how much was similar. While the two musket drills are quite different.
I’d love to hear an episode about the weapons and their destructive potential.
Like you said it’s enough for it’s own video.
Oooh finally! I really hoped that some day you would talk about this scene from my favorite film!
I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU TO MAKE A VIDEO ON BARRY LYNDON FOREVER
4 years man......damn you waited for too long XD
What a lovely gift at this difficult time Brandon! Thank you so much buddy! 😊
Brandon, your videos are really education, so much so that my teacher even showed us one of your videos in class. Good job, keep it up!
Cool! It's always a little surreal, on my part, to think about my videos being used in a classroom.
@@BrandonF I'm teaching at 1st year uni level, acting for screen. I showed this to my class regarding both your praise of the authenticity of the historical research and your remaining issues. It's very well done.
14:01 Thank God you clarified, I nearly had my cursor over Unsubscribe!
angry Chris intensifies
Your background is looking better and better my good Sir
Thank you for yet another great video!
also great job on the ad, amusing and informative at the same time :D
I always thought the sound of musket balls passing through the trees was a terrific touch: the musket balls sounding like rain as they go through the leaves....memorable
Great video! Quite a few points i never noticed so far - or never thought about.
💖Love your deep and fascinating analysis as always, Brandon.
Some time before posting this comment I was looking through various scenes from the 1993 Stalingrad movie until I wondered, just now, if you would like the idea of analyzing the historical accuracy of _that_ particular film in the future. From the nature of the small-unit engagements depicted throughout the movie down to the most minute factors of the living conditions and behavior of the soldiers involved between those initial September assaults and the dying days of Sixth Army.
Best wishes,
Jerry
I came here because of the movie but stayed for all the good research and attention to detail. And it's so interesting to read comments, other members of the community are so involved and offer nuance and more insight. I'm so glad I found this channel!
I like your knew setup :D
It's great
The early point about how it can be dry to just show a comprehensive portrayal about who was where when is a good one. I've been in both firefights and been in tactical operations centers where leaders were directing the firefights. Even though the consequences are life and death, a lot of the actual activities aren't all that visually compelling. For example, the drive to my first firefight was incredibly tense -- not just for me as a journalist, but also for the unit I was with since it happened to be their first, too. We all felt it. But in terms of visual images, we were ultimately still just driving in a Humvee. Leadership activities can be even harder to capture the full spectrum of intensity. These are professionals who pride themselves on keeping cool. They don't show much emotion as they're making decisions, consequential as those decisions may be. So photos and videos from TOCs often wind up looking like just another day at the office, albeit an office with more plywood. Videos on CZcams or TikTok show this well. They can appear somewhat tame at first glance because Hollywood and videos games have conditioned us to picture combat in a certain way that doesn't usually comport with reality.
Every Frame a Platoon.
It's great when I hear that a four minute scene is extrapolated out to 40 minutes. That usually means someone who cares deeply about the subject is talking about it!
Great video!
I could nitpick this movie all day long, but for its time and even by today's standards it exceeds most Hollywood "historical" period pieces. The photography and music are what makes it a classic.
good point..compared to the all pile in mad charge seen in many films (incl in films of time such as awful pell mell cavalry charges et cof Cromwell) this looks postively academic. So many films seem to have battle scenes that look like a Total War battle with everyone ending up in a massive scrum
Among my favorite films! This scene is great every time! Great analysis!
Interesting fact - the soldiers are from the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Irish Rangers.
Never knew that! Thank you for that piece of information. This is why I love history, even as a history content creator myself, you’re always learning something knew!
In the book the battle is quite different from the film and all of the battles are named, I think this one is Minden, Barry spends more time looting corpses than acting bravely and boasts about his battlefield prowess when you read between the lines he is more concerned with what he got from his opponents pockets. His desertion is also different, in the book he pretends to be insane and steals an injured officers uniform, an officer actually called "Fakenham" who has previously bullied Barry and he exacts his revenge on him, later on after being pressganged into the Prussian service Fakenham appears too, also pressganged into Prussian service, Barry feels regret as he only got pressganged because Barry stole his uniform and papers. Barry helps him arrange a bribe to get him out of Prussian service. Most of the battle scenes in the film are an invention for the film, though strangely enough everything the Narrator says in the film is something Barry says in the book himself.
Ironic how you recommended Chris' video on cleanliness, I just watched that video yesterday! I found it quite insightful.
I actually really love this scene. The music and the march towards their " obstacle" just makes it " glorious "
Loved this movie. Saw it first at 18 years old about 3am in the morning after a summer's night out.
Wait, I make videos too, how was I not informed of this!?
Sorry, I think I got that one wrong, I've never heard of you before.
@@BrandonF good, glad we got that one straightened out. It’d look bad in the morning papers.
It's a crime I haven't realized you uploaded twice within the last month., I haven't watched you since your anniversary stream...
I accept being drawn and quartered.
And congrats on almost 2k!
@@kinggeorgeiii7515 yes, I’ve been a little less than in the ball when it’s come to content, I do apologize, sometimes life gets in the way. More is planned! I don’t think we can draw and quarter the king, that just won’t do!
@@TheFarOffStation No need for an apology! Life is definitely more important. Besides, whenever you do upload, it’s amazing! I especially enjoyed your RRC video!
Been wanting this one for awhile. Nice!
Barry Lyndon is wonderful art. Every scene is like an oil painting. Composition, depth, mood. My favourite movie. It pains me when people don't like it. Also, "Union of Salvation" which you have covered to get an appreciation of what grapeshot would do. Terrifying.
For what it's worth, "Barry's Friend's" name is Captain Grogan
EXCELLENT PEDANTRY. | Your analyses and ad lib commentary increased my enjoyment of Barry Lyndon. Thank you.
Seems to me that the NCO's can't do their jobs because in all the numerous times I've watched this scene I've never been able to spot a single NCO. Shouldn't they be carrying Half Pikes or Spontoons?
You didn't see spontoons? I did
Officers carried spontoons; Serjeants carried halberds. However, this practice was fading, at the time of the Seven Years' War, and while a Serjeant would carry one in garrison, he might not bring it on campaign. I've reenacted as a Maryland Provincial Serjeant, in the 7-years' (French and Indian) War, and a halberd can be a heavy, awkward thing to manage, when trying to maneuver a line through tall grass. However, it DOES serve has a very visible marker, for both the men in the line, and the officers in the rear, to see.
I'll add, though, that a Serjeant's cost should be edged with white lace, and he should be wearing a waist sash in red, with a longitudinal center stripe of the regiment's facing color. (white, in this case). A Corporal should have a knotted coil of white cord on his right shoulder. I've seen no seen of either, in this scene.
The coolest 18th century warfare youtuber I'm aware of to be sure.
I've been waiting for this video!!
I'm not so sure that's how the British Grenadiers (Lillibulero > British Grenadiers, by the way) was played in the mid-1700s. I don't know if you've mentioned it in the video (after all, it's only been out for around 8 minutes) but I've heard that it was played differently. I may be entirely wrong, but I'm pretty sure the British Grenadiers was played was played the way i's played in the video titled "Old Sturbridge Village, Fife and Drum Demonstration 'British Grenadiers'" by Matt Novosad. I can't post links, as CZcams would probably remove my comment. I'm not so sure of the way it was played during the Napoleonic Wars, but I imagine it hasn't changed much (many War of 1812 reenactment groups near me in Ontario, Canada play it like how it's played in the video, as do many Napoleonic reenactment groups). But I do believe this version is quite fitting for the scene.
Anyways, you're my favourite CZcamsr, and I absolutely love listening to you talk about the 18th century for almost an hour (not sarcasm)!
Oh dear, it was 5 minutes old when I started typing that....
To be honored in this comment section with your presence, my king george
Yes, the British Grenadiers was played differently during the 18th century. It possibly evolved from Prince Rupert's March, a march used by the Cavaliers during the English Civil War.
I think I found a fitting early to mid 18th century version on CZcams, from the Band of the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall. It may sound odd in the beginning, since it's a slow march version (60 beats per minute, as opposed to the 80; play it at 1,25 times speed and it may sound more familiar... Well it will still be a tad too slow.). It's awfully hard to find...
One can hear the strong Baroque elements in that version.
Historically, you wouldn't hear fifes in most occasions anyways, since the fifers were part of the grenadier company (At least in my field of expertise: During the Seven Years' War).
@@JH-lw9et You’re correct. It was only fifers in a Grenadier company during the War of 1812/Napoleonic Wars as well.
I think you are right: the version of "British Grenadiers" played in this movie is the simplified one often heard played by American bands. The famous British Army marching tune played on ceremonial occasions such as those held at Buckingham Palace is much more ornamented and, I presume, more difficult to play (especially if you are under fire!).
I am not sure exit wounds would have been an issue. The round musket balls did a lot of damage but they were also low velocity. If the ball hit someone it would have stayed in the body, for the most part.
Btw, Kubrick did base many of his shots on famous paintings from the era.
@ 32:15
That's not really a big deal, since some regiments really didn't have lace (the 41st and 60th at the time had none, for example).
@ 33:56
Not really. This is the Seven Years War, not the War of Austrian Succession. The British Army was actually using the manual exercise of 1757, and the platoon exercise of 1756 as its two training manuals.
Anyway, the 1757 manual exercise describes the official use of the bayonet (I have a copy in PDF form). Bland's treatise was certainly influential at the time, and does form the basis for what's in those two manuals (including the bayonet exercise), but there are actually a lot of differences too. And (as we'll see), theory and practice were two wholly different things:
See, the 1757 drill manual really is very different to what is shown in the Barry Lyndon movie, and more or less is what you see in Bland's treatise. BUT! even during the Seven Years War, there are descriptions of people using using the method shown in the movie, and it's explicitly endorsed by William Windham's treatise in 1759, which he wrote to train the Norfolk Militia during that conflict (he even helpfully provides an illustration: in fact, you're literally showing it @ 34:10: that's the very illustration! ). Tellingly, he left the original loading and firing procedures intact from the 1757 manual: these he found practical. This suggests that the loading method did remain until 1764, when the new manual introduced the simplified version of loading, but that people were already starting to at least question the official method of bayonet use (and they definitely didn't use the prescribed method of marching: the 1757 manual implies that you should march with your legs bent at a 90 degree angle as you take each step. However, every single depiction of soldiers marching/drilling from this time shows them using the method you're used to, and WIlliam Windham specifically endorces this method, which he specifically states he learned from observing and consulting regular army regiments stationed nearby. This method had been introduced first by the Prussians, BTW. I bring this up, as it highlights that this war was a period of transition--very dynamic.).
One jaded soldier stationed in Nova Scotia poked fun at the official method, when orders came that it be taught in 1758. He compared it to a guy using a pitchfork on hay, and that it accordingly looked ridiculous; this makes sense when you see how the British traditionally held shovels and pitchforks (right hand at the very back of either--as if using a pike). This suggests that these guys, stationed in America long before the war, had long since abandoned the official method--so much so, that it seemed ridiculous to them. Wolfe IIRC made allusions to this method in his letters too, and that Windham guy specifically called it an impractical approach to bayonet combat. This all makes sense, as there was during this time a change in the way the British Army looked at the bayonet--a view in some ways influenced by Prussian practice. In many ways, the aggressive approach with the bayonet favored by the British in the Revolution really has its roots in this conflict: there are quite a few letters where the officers openly talk about emphasizing bayonet drill, and it looks like they were independently experimenting with more efficient methods, despite the regulations. It wasn't the only thing they experimented on, but this is the one most relevant to you.
So by the end of the war, there's a good chance everyone was pretty much using the new method unofficially: all the 1764 manual did, if so, was to confirm what was already standard practice.
I recommend as a primer Destructive and Formidable: British Infantry firepower 1642-1765.
There are, with that in mind, inaccuracies for sure: the soldiers of the front rank would have charged bayonet (old or new style, it matters not), but the men behind them were not supposed to have their arms shouldered: they were supposed to have them at the recover. The overall result should be similar to what you're used to. Further, the spacing is too loose: the frontage of a British soldier in this war was 22", with the space between ranks set at 24"-30" (a face-value reading of the official manuals favors the former). In fact, the 1756 and 57 manuals were the first to finally abolish the idea of adding spaces to the ranks, both during the march and during reloads. That's why, if you carefully compare the loading procedures used in the 1757 manual and the 1735 one (and Bland's treatise beside), there are actually a LOT of differences--and all of them aimed to make the drill work in a confined space.
They're also going too fast: the British hadn't yet officially set a rate of march in their manuals, but we know from descriptions by German observers, and the later 1764 regulations, that they would have been slower than the Germans and Prussians they fought alongside of those guys by then were going at 70-75 steps/minute. The likely rate was ~60 steps/minute, with each step/pace 24-30" long.
@ 35:15
Nope. It was actually very different to what you're used to (or indeed, what was done in the SYW). Seriously, one could make a series of videos on how drill changed from Marlborough's time to 1764 (and beyond).
Great work, if I may suggest a movie that recently came out, its a Maltese-Canadian production focussing on the 1919 uprising of the Maltese against British rule here. Its called Bllod on the Crown but it can also be found as Just Noise. Its a good film to watch to get to know about lesser known or spoken portions of history. Its not a blockbuster but I think you d enjoy it. Cheers and keep up the work. Love your videos
Good video Brandon! I just found it, so I got to it as soon as I could.
With regard to the accuracy of musket fire, I remember Military History Visualized brought up some statistics about the subject. I tried doing a quick search, but couldn't find it. I'll have to try again I'm not about to go to work.
OFFICERS: A detail they had right, that I don't see in other films is the officer's coat skirts weren't turned back like the enlisted men's.
MUSICIANS: I couldn't see the musicians coats well enough, but it didn't look like they were properly white (the facing color) with red facings.
I always figured "not recorded in any history books" meant that this specific skirmish was considered too small to be mentioned in future sources like textbooks, essays, and other major records. Everyone remembers Wolfe at Quebec, but nobody thinks Barry in some nameless orchard
My favourite part of Barry Lyndon is hearing Lillibulero. Warms this old RCEME Rat's heart.
An absolutely smashing job as always! You should also do a review of Regeneration from 1997, which is mainly about Siegfried Sassoon and somewhat Wilfred Owen and their time in a military mental institution.
I personally feel like it sums up the mental characters of late World War One very well. Whilst having many combat scenes which I dub much more accurate than 1917 and so on…
I’m the one who made the comment in the last video on the specific circumstances when the French did in fact fire by rank, and I agree with you completely that this isn’t really one of those circumstances where it would’ve been likely to be used. And they would’ve likely fired in exactly the way you described you thought they would. And it also says a lot that in the last video you said you’d appreciate further info on use of fire by rank in the period, and then actually incorporated that information into a following video. That definitely makes the channel feel like much more of a community.
Thanks for the insights, as well! French doctrine (and really French everything) is a massive frog-shaped hole in my knowledge of the period that I'd do well to improve on.
A quality historical analysis video, the 1756 vs 1764 comparison is on a whole new level... albeit the "bad" & "petty" sections can come across unduly harsh, compared to the conclusion. The keyword, even for an obsessively detailed director as Kubrick, is the Budget. What he saved on uniforms & flintlocks & wound make-up probably went into the infamous NASA lenses to film by candlelight. For all its flaws, these are the scenes that get us hooked on history...and sobered up on that glorious warfare in pretty uniforms. P.S. Just stumbled upon your channel & now I want more :-)
Excellent discussion. Hope you get to film a historically accurate rendition of the astonishing infantry at Minden some day. Would appreciate seeing bone shrapnel, which I’ve read was fairly common with low velocity musket balls, where bone fragments from the gunshot victims hit adjacent ranks.
Another great Video
One of my favourite films based on one of my favourite books, analysed by one of my favourite CZcamsrs. It’s a good day.
The men were using 1873 springfield rifles, you can see the trapdoor in some shots, they just removed the caplock style hammer and put a flintlock one and a frizzen.
Based on modern ballistic testing, 18th century black powder weapons tend not to create gaping exit wounds like modern Spitzer bullets traveling at much higher speeds. CapandBall channel has done some pretty good preliminary testing on it.
That sponsorship script was so well done! Congratulations for being the first CZcamsr whose sponsorship portion I didn't skip.
my favorite youtuber making a video on my favorite movie
Hello again
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
It'd be interesting if you could explore the multiple French Regiments under Napoleon that actually had bear skins instead of a shako. Its very interesting, as many think that only the old guard had bearskins. A Regiment of interest in particular is the 3eme Regiment Infantry of the Line (3ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne).
*Should note that fusiliers did not have the bearskins, only some grenadier regiments (Usually ones which used Bearskins before 1806) and Sappers got bearskins, so to save your time, only look for Grenadiers and maybe sappers, as I said earlier a really good one to check it is "3ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne"
Well also National Guard units ..or at least their grenadiers of units that would have been well funded like Paris, had them
I've been waiting for this video for ages! Ever since you started putting clips in your other videos I knew it was just a matter of time!
Your sponsored ads are some of the best on CZcams!
Swedish Ga-Pa tactics seem to involve firing by ranks, but it's doing so on the advance ( 'According to army regulations of 1694 and 1701, the infantry attack operated as follows: In four ranks with gaps, a Swedish battalion would march "smoothly and slowly" towards the enemy lines, braving enemy fire that often started at a distance of approximately 100 metres. The Swedish soldiers were told not to fire until "you could see the whites in the enemies eyes", a range of roughly 50 metres. When the marching drums stopped the two rear ranks would fill the gaps within the two foremost ranks and fire a salvo, then draw their swords. The two rear ranks would then move back to their previous position, and the two foremost ranks would close the gaps in their lines, after which the battalion would resume their attack. The two foremost ranks would discharge their muskets in a final volley when they were within range to charge-a distance of roughly 20 metres. At these ranges, the powerful muskets usually felled many enemy troops, having a great physical and psychological impact on opponents.') .
Great video Brandon, very organized and detailed. Kubrick was a great director, and it fascinated me to have so many extras to depict a real army (I'm referring to Waterloo).
Does anyone know any Seven years War documentaries. If you do please tell me.
Cheers!
Imagine the textile industry having to provide all the uniforms. Maybe they had house manufacturers. The silk industry in my hometown was famous in Europe during the 18-19th century relying on families working at home for the clothiers and cloth/silk dealers.
Oh yeah, the textile industries of the time must have been immense. It's been said that if your family name is "Draper," your ancestors were LOADED!
Re the uniforms, back in the mid 90s I worked on a few documentaries for Cromwell Productions. One of them was a documentary on the 45 and specifically Culloden. First day of the shoot a truck turns up and in the back are the costumes from Barry Lyndon. And yes, cheap but effective at a distance. Main issue for me is I'm 6'4" so nothing fitted me, I got to be an exploding highlander instead
Point of order: The french drill changed drastically and frequently between the end of the 7 years war, and the 1780's Drill Ian demonstrated in Chris's video.
Source: I'm in Chris's video.
Perhaps because I am an American, the first time I saw linear warfare was as part of documentaries on the Revolutionary War/War of independence/ American Revolution
One series i watched many times was PBS's "Liberty! The American Revolution".
@@mateuszzielonka9007 An even better one was done in the 1990's by the A&E Network. This was pre-History Channel.
My favorite historical moment in a movie is in The Last of the Mohicans. At the 45:00 mark, Gen. Montcalm throws out the offhand remark "Louis-Antoine come join us." Louis-Anton walks past the camera, out of focus with his head is not even in the frame.
You know, a lot of the things you complain are lacking in this scene are very much the focus on the introductory scene from Free State of Jones of the Battle of Corinth, with the musket wounds, blood, gore and military order contrasted with tragedy, similar sound design, but rather than only fife and drum you'd be hearing "left, left, left, right, left" from the officer, commands being yelled by rear officers, and shots and wounds being shown in a very gruesome way.
It's impressive that when i see this scene i don't think of Barry, he isn't the main character anymore on this scene.
The French: A few of my own "pedantic" comments on the French soldiers in this film:
1. They are wearing the same hats, leggings/gaiters and some of the same bags/accoutrements as the British. I realize that this was likely done for simplicity in outfitting extras, but they shouldn't look identical.
2. French Commands/Drill: I hear repeatedly the French command, "EN JOUE!" which is the command to lower the musket and aim at your enemy. Every time I hear this, the soldiers have already lowered their muskets and are aiming prior to this order being given. The officer is not paying attention? The command to fire ("feu!") seems to be given a split second after the soldiers have just fired their muskets. Additionally, the muskets should be lowered immediately after firing instead of continuing to aim at the enemy.
Brilliant Video
People were so enlightened back then that they were even concerned about the enviroment.
you aren't necessarily far off, because some kings undertook a great effort to illuminate the streets of cities.
The major concern people had with the environment back in those days was in keeping it from killing them! :)
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 yeah, but that is like the main concern for our species since our inception,we sort of felt the need to tame the wilderness.
I wonder if the (relative) spareness of the battle sound design was to emphasize the order of war versus it's chaos; the relentless march,, the stoic forward inevitability. Kubrick being a great poet of the screen, I can't help to think that it was very intentional. Just a guess, however. Love your breakdown of this!
23:10 The French soldiers are using converted Trapdoor Springfields that have been tinkered-with to look like flintlocks. Its a technique that was used for many war movies of the period, as it was easier to supply extras and reenactors without firearms with an easy-to-operate "musket" without training them. Usually, these guns could be used for extras far away from the camera, but Barry Lyndon did not take that into account, and every single soldier in the shot has one. Same with the British too. Its kind of similar to the Soviet utilization of Mosin Nagant rifles with artificial brass plating on them for their War & Peace and Waterloo films to make those look like muskets.
If you look at the bones left behind and preserved from the Civil War you'll be shaken.
Kubrick films combat like a combat camera man who works on film. Think of the scenes in Strange love, Paths of Glory , Barry Lyndon, Full metal jacket. In each case the individual is the narrative and that's who we care about.