Funny how the MSM today portrays the English as "benevolent spreaders of democracy", except when they're fighting Americans. Also, if the same situation were repeated today, but with Americans instead of the British and some colonized people instead of the Americans, then they would be called "terrorists".
Despite the rather blatant historic a Inaccuracies..This is Emmerich's best movie to date. Rousing battle sequences...solid performances all around boosted by a terrific score from John Williams
The only good thing about the movie were costumes, everything else sucked balls, and it was boring as hell and annoying at times to see such ridicuouls things happen
Zardan Hussain And the soldiers in the convoy were grouped so thickly that there was no chance a stray shot could pass all the way to the opposite friendly line.
hectorbolshevik Yeah, but you would still be pisspoor at shooting with that thing at such a distance. Yes, this goes for rifled flintlocks too. Soldiers expended thousands of rounds to kill one person in World War 1, I doubt the rate was any better during the revolution. It's just a movie; there's not that much explanation to go here lol.
A lot of people don't realize just how important soldiers holding their formations together is to winning those types of battles even more so than their casualties sustained by enemy fire. For them it was, literally, united we stand and divided we fall.
@@-_prankster104kogama_-3 You clearly don't know American history if you think the guerilla tactics were what we preferred. The guerilla militia tactics definitely did have an effect in the war, but the major and important victories all usually came out of line battles from the Continental Army, not militias.
I hate when I hear normies say shit like "bruh das so dupid day standin out in da open like da" STFUUU. They had fucking muskets not rifles, it increased the odds of actually hitting targets. The chances of you hitting shit with one musket were not very great.
@@tachy1801 it's like getting into a fistfight but beforehand you both agree not to do nutshots and faces. If you were civil enough to agree on rules you should've been civil enough not to declare war.
@@tachy1801 i was commenting on the other guy's statement going on about how juvenile and stupid war is. Reality is how we just settle for the lesser evils instead of trying to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
says everyone who has no artistic sense or taste. We did know, they did surrender. This sentence is only good if you're ok with murder. but anyone who needs to be told that is already a monster.
imagine being such a bad ass that someone 200+ years in the future who isn't born yet decided to go back in time and join the revolutionary army defeat our kings army. You know, the guy who has machine guns comes back to the day and age where they can fire 3 shots in a minute, and that is what made joker think the revolutionary was a bad ass, he could kill 3 people in a minute.....that honestly sounds the definition of retarded
I see a few comments that underestimate the effective ranges of the muskets. Point targets can be hit at 100 meters (109 yards). That's close to the length of a football field. Volley fire, like shown in these scenes, is effective out to 300 meters (328 yards). The colonists also had long rifles, that had twice that range (200 yards or more).
There was also the idea that, unlike a handful of raw recruits, these men were used to living off the land. Most hunted almost daily to live. They weren't handed some quartermaster's version of a generic weapon, they KNEW how their guns would shoot. Still, firing in the rain? Not so much. It all looked good though.
@@Comicsluvr Right. Most were using their personal hunting rifles which to survive on the frontier back then you had to be an expert in your rifle at all ranges. These guys could take head shots at 150 yards with these open sight round ball firing rifles.
00:41 Crossfire danger much? Lmfao I mean the militia were literally shooting directly at the Militia on the other side of the wagon. I'll let this one slide since Muskets are inaccurate as fuck but god damn! I feel like the Militia should have almost wiped itself out with that Crossfire!
+tankmaster1018 i thought about it too, thought you can just agree that the second line of men wil stand up after the first one fired. the first line will duck to give the second line a clear shot. but yeah in this case, idiots
+Gzus70 Not really why you are making comparisons with the civil war, but no, the average person with a musket wasn't very accurate, hence the volley tactics employed at the time. A rifle is not a musket or blunderbuss, a rifle is a rifle because of the rifling of the barrel, not anything else. While smoothbores are generally thought of as inaccurate for infantry use, they can be employed by larger things, such as most modern tanks (with the exception of the british challenger's L30a1)
In 1775, the militias (16,000+) who surrounded Boston brought their own weapons with them. At Saratoga, more than 10,000 militia supported the Continental Army from upper New York and New England, including at the battle of Bennington, with their own muskets and rifles. In the Carolinas, too, the Whigs primarily used their own weapons which is why a number of them had rifles while the Tories had only British muskets. They didn't have enough for large-scale pitched battles, so skirmishes it was.
Very accurate weapons for the time and beautiful things ... almost useless in actual battle though with a rate of fire of like a round every 2 and mins or so and no bayonet. They made for great force multiplier type weapons used correctly but the musket was superior in actual combat situations. Easier and faster to load , steel instead of wood ram rod , more robust, and the ability to fix a bayonet.
@@williammontroy9024 different firearms for different purposes. The Pennsylvania rifles were for distance. Muskets are smoothbore and only useful in volleys with near by targets.
Musket accuracy is always a question. When carefully loaded they are capable of hitting a mansized target out to 100 yards consistently. However, when using preloaded paper cartridges meant to fit everyone's musket, even when badly fouled from multiple shots, the ball would be undersized to the bore meaning accuracy was sacrificed for keeping the gun in service. The resulting inaccuracy was often compensated for by loading the muskets with what was called "Buck and Ball". That load consisted of one standard sized ball and three buckshot. This escentually gave each musket four projectiles per firing rather like a shotgun. This made the probability of scoring hits much higher along with the danger to those on the opposite side of the wagon.
how far do you think they are from each other? Since you are so smart, why are you missing the most obvious answer? you can load the gun with less black powder meaning the shot has less velocity and slightly more accuracy when used up close. At this time they were always low on ammo and black powder. They probably didn't add that buckshot as youd have to be AN IDIOT! to do that, seriously for how smart your statement is you really missed the obvious. There is 0 chance that the ball is going to go through its target and keep going to get the crossfire going. Loaded right, a musket can both kill someone and fail to pierce the canvas of a wagon. A majority of the velocity is reduced upon being hit, regardless of how much black powder used. Until the modern bullet was made, most bullets didn't exit their target. now the musket ball going into the wagon making it explode, right....they don't understand how muskets worked in this movie
@Bradely Watson: agreed. I think his best character was as the Joker, in Batman. By then, I think he was getting a little messed up in the head from life. IMO, it was difficult to determine if he was acting or really struggling with life and it came out in his character.
true, but the only rifle that was really accurate ( in its time ) is the Kentucky long rifle and that had rifling and its accurate to 100 yards and if your a very experience shooter you can shoot at 200 yards and for the rest they had the common 1766 Charleville musket and the Brown Bess musket which both have smooth bore.
mhmm, well, I guess the militia aren't actually shooting from too far away though? the muskets could still hit reliably within 50 yards with an experienced marksman
With practice, you can hit a man-sized target (an outline) four out of five times at 100 yards with a Brown Bess musket. And that's with tap-loading after the first shot.
David Frigault To explain the many bullets fired in ww1, take into consideration that there were trenches and cover available which promoted snap shooting and therefore less accuracy. Meanwhile the americans and brits were mostly standing in lines facing each other en masse and still they barely hit each other. give the poor ww1 rifles their credit, they didnt know the soldiers were afraid of getting hit XD
David- you must either not be american or never shot a gun to say what you just said. I can assure you, the rifles of ww1 were not accurate to the point of 1 kill for hundreds of shots. If that is an accurate statement, I have no doubt there were many more factors involved. I have grown up shooting my whole life, shooting a man sized target with a musket within 50 yards is very reasonable
A civil conflict brings out the worst in us. Similar thing occurred during the American Civil War, especially on the Missouri-Kansas border. The idea behind their atrocities were that if they didn't join you, they would likely tell the other side where you were. There are no wars more gruesome than civil wars.
@KRandMJ True. Not only British, in fact other European armies have studied this kind of de facto guerilla warfare, and adopted their tactics by creating units of lightly armed mobile soldiers, which were dispersed between lines of each side and were providing uncoordinated, but continuous fire support, which protected own formations while they were regrouping, and was disrupting formations of enemy, having impact on morale and causing kind of confusion.
At that close of a distance, the inaccuracy of muskets doesn't even come into play. Muskets were accurate up to about 100-150 meters, depending on the type, manufacturing, quality, angle, and well, luck.
Doesn't seem too far fetched considering lead balls at the time ranged from 50 to 67 caliber. Think about a lead ball that size hurling through the air. It's bound to have some impact but it is however a dramatized movie.
@@jaanjam8432 Polish partisan brutally killed German bastard. - Why you didn't just shoot him? -They burned alive whole my family. Give my 50 of them and I will do it with everyone.
not killing surrendering enemies has a lot of advantages outside of the ethical ones. First of all, having a reputation of taking no prisonners is a bad idea, because that means that the enemy is gonna surrender less and fight to the death, which make you take more casualties. They will also offer no mercy to your side in return. Prisonners of war are also a precious currency, as you can potentially use them to gain intel, exchange them against your own POW, or as leverage when it's time to make peace.
Killing soldiers attempting to surrender wasn't necessarily a war crime back in the 18th century. It wasn't until the 20th where the Geneva Conventions created the strict rules in handling Prisoners of War.
Michael Moen prisoners cost food to keep and if supplies run thin taking prisoners is unwise :P i understand that logic but still killing someone who surrenders is low
At the distance they are firing, most of the bullets should hit. A smooth bore musket is accurate at about 40-50 meters, and they are much closer than that. I do have a problem with the pistol accuracy and hitting people moving on horses though.
I love how this movie made muskets much more accurate than they are. Either that, or these militiamen were trained to be expert sharpshooters in the matter of days.
Rifled barrels actually did exist back then. Many militia members were better armed than regular army who only had to stand in groups and fire into other groups.
When the french turned their backs on Wellington at a diplomatic function in Vienna after Waterloo one of the hosts apologized for their rudeness and Wellingtons response was "that's fine madame i have seen their backs before".As for the above gibson garbage of the Brits burning people in churches he got that from William Wallace who did that in the 13th century.
British burning civilians alive is a pivotal part of their culture simply look at the Dresden fire bombings for example or all the natives in Canada , NZ, America, Australia and pacific that were brutally murdered or displaced
In fact,this Wellington's quote had never been heard before Geoffrey Reagan wrote it in a book in the 90's. But this guy is more a journalist and an author than an historian,he wrotes the book 2 centuries after the facts,and he's english. So we can seriously doubt the veracity of this quote. And let's not be naive! telling a joke or inventing an humiliating scene for the French is always a good way to boost the sales of a book or a movie in UK and US...
@@ratofvengence Then why was your comment necessary? He made a point about how the British did horrid things- you just added that both nations did horrible things so what exactly is the problem?
One can only hope. I'm totally ready and willing to die to save my country from tyranny. I'm not married and don't have kids, so what do I have to lose?! 🇺🇸
@RayPall Another thing is that the militia (and the French during the FOA war too) used Indian tactics to gain the advantage. That's practically how we got modern tactics, like fighting in groups instead of formations (now known as squads), take cover when being fired upon, shoot the officers first then work your way down, and even stealth tactics (attack the enemy at night and use knives or silent weaponry).
How many Kentucky long rifles did we have at that point in time? Because I’m pretty sure we didn’t have enough for every common soldier. (Though I have heard that the rifle was actually a shockingly big contributor in America’s victory. Admittedly I don’t know that much though, I’ve mainly focused on Roman history).
Do you know what the engagement was called? I tried looking up "revolutionary war snipers kill indian guides" and other various combinations thereof, but I can't find it.
I like the node to the french officer training them. I doubt the producers knew, but the tactics of light infantry waging a guerilla war were learned from the french and the indians, especially les troupes de la marine, or the french marines. They spent the better part of 150 years holding back and often defeating superior american/british armies with little resources beyond the native allies. Something the british had as well, as they supported the Iroquois against the french backed Algonquins, especially after the beaver wars. Les Troupes de la Marine became a major influence on what would become the US Rangers.
Depends what you consider battles. They weren't so outnumbered in NYC or Charleston, and in most of the major pitched battles the numbers were comparable. The fact is that the Americans won through a combined regular/irregular series of campaigns which made it impossible for the British to win. Victories like Saratoga and Yorktown were preceded by irregular campaigns which set the stage for a decisive victory. It's a lot more complicated than just the numbers and training of fighting men.
No, he meant that the militia were simply an auxiliary to the main fighting force, the regulars. The continental army did most of the fighting (they could engage in guerrilla warfare too). It takes a tremendous amount of food, gunpowder, shot, rifles, supplies to keep an army equipped. The militia were short on all of those things. I know it sounds cooler and more heroic to think that there was a "Red Dawn" type scenario, with rag tag rebels taking out the enemy, but that wasn't the case.
@Paul Mathew These men were probably just common people who decided to join the army. They're thousands of miles from home, fighting a war someone told them to. And they knew "they were about to lose"? A more accurate way to say it was they didn't want to die. Simply put, if you were surrounded, and you had no chance of fighting back, wouldn't you want the enemy to show mercy and spare your life? Or are you one of those people with a misplaced sense of warrior mentality who believes that surrender is never an option?
@Paul Mathew Actually what he's saying is part of the rules of engagement in wartime. If violated, you become a war criminal. The fact you ignore that makes you more likely to be a traitor.
The problem is what could a guerilla force do with prisoners. If I take them as a prisoner I have to take care of them but guerilla forces lack the logistics of an Army so taking care of them is going to be a pain. If I kill them I become a "war criminal" even though there are no rules in war. I could let them go but what good does that do.
I know that the Frenchman was just a Major, but he must have been held in very high esteem by the King of France. Perhaps it was because he knew that the Major hated the English with a passion more than others? Interesting. Fantastic acting to play that role.
eh sorta depends. A lot of military muskets were inaccurate because of under sized balls used to speed up reloading, but a musket with a good sized ball could potentially be accurate from 50-100 yards. Plus, the Americans did use rifles as well.
those muskets are basicall just shotguns, they aren't that INACCURATE either. It's distance that makes them ineffective. 50 yards or more. don't forget people duck hunt all the time with shotguns, and those ducks are shot in the air. Deer, hogs. Easy kill with 00 Buckshot. That is why it's called BUCKshot.
That we were, they were our original mentors. We will miss you Frenchies, the way you talk, the way you eat, the way your mustaches curl upwards, everything
The way they surrounded that wagon in a circle and all fired is maybe the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life. Certainly one way to kill not only all of the enemy, but all of your friends too.
Lovs the close up in this movie with people shooting flintlocks and all turning their heads away when yanking the trigger. Should have spent a little time training them.
Here's a little fun fact, guerilla warfare actually could have very well saved us in the American Revolution. American guerilla were the only defenders of the Southern states when Gates and the other general (sorry I forgot his name) were defeated by the British and the fearsome general Cornwallis. While Greene, the American general who took Gates's position, took quite a long time to actually get to the South. And the only thing holding back Cornwallis were the American guerilla. So any American here who doesn't like guerilla ambushes like this, just remember that guerilla pretty much saved the South, which means that guerilla could have also saved America. That doesn't mean you have to change your opinion, I'm just saying that you should be a little more grateful and respectful to guerilla.
@Shekelton what do you mean, the patriots won by numbers multiple times. Bunker hill, cowpens, and Yorktown. either way the british in the end lost more than militiamen and enlisted line infantry.
***** It was meant ironic ;) The sad truth is, that tere will be war crimes in every war by both sides....but that dosn´t justify you to commit them yourself
Toby- really? You honestly think if America had not entered ww2, the soviets would have defeated Germany, Italy and Japan?? That's a pretty ignorant statement. The soviets were saved from the Germans by their winter and the fact that the axis was occupied fighting America and Britain in Africa, Italy, France and the pacific. Learn your history before making outrageous claims
brhsbass1 1. the british had pretty much won the war in africa before america joined. 2. the germans had been on the retreat for about a year in the east before d-day happened. 3. japan had no intention to fight the russians so mentioning the pacfic war is irrelevant so tobys right in saying the soviets stopped hitler
There's a metal cap that covers the primer powder. It's a short term solution though. The cap is intended to keep the primer in place and provide a metal surface for the flint strike when you pull the trigger. It might keep water out for a while but as soon as they need to reload they're gonna have problems.
+hemmingwayfan yea and they usually wrap a piece of cloth around the whole thing to keep it dry until they get too battle. i guess it was tricky with the rain aye???.
If you liked this film, watch Master and Commander. Often touted as the best historical representation of naval warfare. Still...the scene where Mel Gibson turns a Redcoat into a canoe in front of his boys was moving. I would have done no less to people who invaded my home and killed my boy.
*Red coat tries to surrender*
Patriot: "I'm about to do what's called a war crime."
What war crime
@@alisholst255 under international humanitarian law it is unlawful to directly target an enemy who has surrendered.
@@davidcarcamo5010 but it doesn’t exist yet
Not in 1777
Those who draw no quarter deserves no quarter.
Best statement in the movie, "Perhaps, we will never know."
Did you know that line translates to "We commited a war crime" in Bastardese?
freezaplanet419 did you know you’re a pussy?
@@MeecosMeh Did you know that I'm gay?
😇 Tis my Favorite 😇
@Plo Koon he should have Done It there and then
Gotta love how the son tells his father they're wrong and he stands there like "Oh shit, he's right".
Never mind that he was a Scottish that’s kills English soldiers
@@pancakemacbuttery9142 yeah wrong movie mate
Funny how the MSM today portrays the English as "benevolent spreaders of democracy", except when they're fighting Americans.
Also, if the same situation were repeated today, but with Americans instead of the British and some colonized people instead of the Americans, then they would be called "terrorists".
Despite the rather blatant historic a
Inaccuracies..This is Emmerich's best movie to date. Rousing battle sequences...solid performances all around boosted by a terrific score from John Williams
1:22 For the love of God we😵😵
I didn't know John Williams did the score. Brilliant work.
I mean it’s still a good movie very historically accurate and dramatised but still
This is movie is not historically very accurate: there's lots of drama here added
The only good thing about the movie were costumes, everything else sucked balls, and it was boring as hell and annoying at times to see such ridicuouls things happen
"For the love God, we sur........!"
He didn't actually say it :)
Maybe he was just trying to say they were surrounded 🧐 We will never know
fast forward to 1942 Singapore.....We sur..........
We sur...ely fight on!
What was that he say?
He said "for the love Of God, we sur...prised you"
0:37 Attacking from opposite sides. Brilliant. How did they manage not to kill each other.
Zardan Hussain And the soldiers in the convoy were grouped so thickly that there was no chance a stray shot could pass all the way to the opposite friendly line.
With muskets you took care to aim before shooting. One shot, one hit.
Sam, pls. You already got Boromir out.
ServantOfPriss Sam Gamgee hasn't spoken, dude.
hectorbolshevik Yeah, but you would still be pisspoor at shooting with that thing at such a distance. Yes, this goes for rifled flintlocks too. Soldiers expended thousands of rounds to kill one person in World War 1, I doubt the rate was any better during the revolution. It's just a movie; there's not that much explanation to go here lol.
To be honest the French guy was right, his weapon was mid swing before the guy talked. We will never know 😁
British soldier was already on his knees, a sure sign of surrender. But there was a lot of anger in the rebels for atrocities committed.
He’s French, he’s probably looking for a reason to kill an Anglo because the British and French have always been at war.
@@AlexKS1992 also the french join the war beacause they want a revenge
@@rikk319 not to mention rebels don't have the resources to keep prisoners. And releasing them just means they can kill you again
Yeah I mean the lobsterback navy wiped out whole Franco-Spanish fleets even after a surrender so not much sympathy there
A lot of people don't realize just how important soldiers holding their formations together is to winning those types of battles even more so than their casualties sustained by enemy fire. For them it was, literally, united we stand and divided we fall.
Though we preferred the guerilla tactic, but we did do line warfare in big events and United we fall sounds awesome!
I mean "UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL"
@@-_prankster104kogama_-3 You clearly don't know American history if you think the guerilla tactics were what we preferred. The guerilla militia tactics definitely did have an effect in the war, but the major and important victories all usually came out of line battles from the Continental Army, not militias.
I hate when I hear normies say shit like "bruh das so dupid day standin out in da open like da" STFUUU. They had fucking muskets not rifles, it increased the odds of actually hitting targets. The chances of you hitting shit with one musket were not very great.
Hopefully we weren't quite silly enough to pop up in lines on either side of a column. Ouch!
“These men were going to surrender”
“Perhaps , we’ll never know “
Lmao
HAHAHA WARCRIMES ARE HILARIOUS
All war is a crime. The idea that you can make rules and have it be more acceptable is a joke
@@tachy1801 it's like getting into a fistfight but beforehand you both agree not to do nutshots and faces. If you were civil enough to agree on rules you should've been civil enough not to declare war.
@@tachy1801 i was commenting on the other guy's statement going on about how juvenile and stupid war is. Reality is how we just settle for the lesser evils instead of trying to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Except they were literally shouting "we surrender" before they were shot.
"Perhaps, you will never know". Best line ever.
Should get the quote right then (you didn't).
Perhaps, I will never goal
says everyone who has no artistic sense or taste. We did know, they did surrender. This sentence is only good if you're ok with murder. but anyone who needs to be told that is already a monster.
Imagine being such a badass killer that even the Joker is willing to remove his face paint and join your ranks to kill Redcoats. The Ghost is the GOAT
Not to mention that The Joker was the one who got upset at killing surrendering Redcoats.
Why so serious?
imagine being such a bad ass that someone 200+ years in the future who isn't born yet decided to go back in time and join the revolutionary army defeat our kings army. You know, the guy who has machine guns comes back to the day and age where they can fire 3 shots in a minute, and that is what made joker think the revolutionary was a bad ass, he could kill 3 people in a minute.....that honestly sounds the definition of retarded
"Patriots win again"
Superbowl MDCCLXXVI colorized
simunator this deserves more likes lol
I see a few comments that underestimate the effective ranges of the muskets. Point targets can be hit at 100 meters (109 yards). That's close to the length of a football field. Volley fire, like shown in these scenes, is effective out to 300 meters (328 yards). The colonists also had long rifles, that had twice that range (200 yards or more).
Shooting muskets at long ranges I can buy, shooting muskets in a torrential rain, no.
can be most likely not
especially under combat conditions
There was also the idea that, unlike a handful of raw recruits, these men were used to living off the land. Most hunted almost daily to live. They weren't handed some quartermaster's version of a generic weapon, they KNEW how their guns would shoot. Still, firing in the rain? Not so much. It all looked good though.
@@Comicsluvr Right. Most were using their personal hunting rifles which to survive on the frontier back then you had to be an expert in your rifle at all ranges. These guys could take head shots at 150 yards with these open sight round ball firing rifles.
And muskets had a 20% misfire rate on a good day. Standing knee deep in water firing a musket...
"The men where about to surrender!!!"
"Perhaps...we will never know" that gets me everytime.
And then you realise it's an American thing, killing people when they can't fight back to look strong.
Irregular forces don't get the luxury of surrendering and rarely extended that to their enemies.
What the hell does Mel Gibson have against England?
Aidan Cox He's an Australian, that should explain it all.
Rex9399 a prisoner* you mean
_shots fired_
He fought the English to save the English from the English
Aidan Cox think it has more to do with England being a superpower for many centuries
They drew first blood not him
00:41 Crossfire danger much? Lmfao I mean the militia were literally shooting directly at the Militia on the other side of the wagon. I'll let this one slide since Muskets are inaccurate as fuck but god damn! I feel like the Militia should have almost wiped itself out with that Crossfire!
+tankmaster1018 i thought about it too, thought you can just agree that the second line of men wil stand up after the first one fired. the first line will duck to give the second line a clear shot. but yeah in this case, idiots
+tankmaster1018 it wouldn't be cool enough then
+tankmaster1018 Hollywood makes anything possible m8 ^^
true but muskets have poor penetration, if it hit the wagon it would not go through someone.
+Gzus70 Not really why you are making comparisons with the civil war, but no, the average person with a musket wasn't very accurate, hence the volley tactics employed at the time.
A rifle is not a musket or blunderbuss, a rifle is a rifle because of the rifling of the barrel, not anything else.
While smoothbores are generally thought of as inaccurate for infantry use, they can be employed by larger things, such as most modern tanks (with the exception of the british challenger's L30a1)
In 1775, the militias (16,000+) who surrounded Boston brought their own weapons with them. At Saratoga, more than 10,000 militia supported the Continental Army from upper New York and New England, including at the battle of Bennington, with their own muskets and rifles. In the Carolinas, too, the Whigs primarily used their own weapons which is why a number of them had rifles while the Tories had only British muskets. They didn't have enough for large-scale pitched battles, so skirmishes it was.
I love those Yankee Rifles. The "Kentucky Long Rifle"
Very accurate weapons for the time and beautiful things ... almost useless in actual battle though with a rate of fire of like a round every 2 and mins or so and no bayonet. They made for great force multiplier type weapons used correctly but the musket was superior in actual combat situations. Easier and faster to load , steel instead of wood ram rod , more robust, and the ability to fix a bayonet.
They were actually Pennsylvania Long Rifles. Kentucky wasn't part of the thirteen colonies until years later.
@@williammontroy9024 different firearms for different purposes. The Pennsylvania rifles were for distance. Muskets are smoothbore and only useful in volleys with near by targets.
Rifled barrels we're used in the U.S. until about the 1850's. There is no such critter as an "accurate" smooth bore.
@@whiskeybuilder6335 were used till the 1850's? I hope you mean weren't commonly used or issued.
That one part where they shoot a musket-ball into a wagon and it literally explodes always makes me giggle
Musket accuracy is always a question. When carefully loaded they are capable of hitting a mansized target out to 100 yards consistently. However, when using preloaded paper cartridges meant to fit everyone's musket, even when badly fouled from multiple shots, the ball would be undersized to the bore meaning accuracy was sacrificed for keeping the gun in service. The resulting inaccuracy was often compensated for by loading the muskets with what was called "Buck and Ball". That load consisted of one standard sized ball and three buckshot. This escentually gave each musket four projectiles per firing rather like a shotgun. This made the probability of scoring hits much higher along with the danger to those on the opposite side of the wagon.
how far do you think they are from each other? Since you are so smart, why are you missing the most obvious answer? you can load the gun with less black powder meaning the shot has less velocity and slightly more accuracy when used up close. At this time they were always low on ammo and black powder. They probably didn't add that buckshot as youd have to be AN IDIOT! to do that, seriously for how smart your statement is you really missed the obvious.
There is 0 chance that the ball is going to go through its target and keep going to get the crossfire going. Loaded right, a musket can both kill someone and fail to pierce the canvas of a wagon. A majority of the velocity is reduced upon being hit, regardless of how much black powder used. Until the modern bullet was made, most bullets didn't exit their target.
now the musket ball going into the wagon making it explode, right....they don't understand how muskets worked in this movie
R.I.P Heath Ledger. (1979-2008)
@Bradely Watson: agreed. I think his best character was as the Joker, in Batman. By then, I think he was getting a little messed up in the head from life. IMO, it was difficult to determine if he was acting or really struggling with life and it came out in his character.
Great clip from a good film,. Thanks for sharing.
Good video keep the good work up I love the battles of this time period !!!!!!
"the average british redcoat can fire their musket up to three times a minute, thats what i will expect from you all!"
That’s soldiering..
@@leifewald5117 making references to sharpe, that's soldiering.
I love how when the militia didn't fire the British guy yelled "hold your ground!!" And then they fired lol
One of those movies you'll never be able to pinpoint how many times you've seen it.
*Bang*
“These men were about to surrender”
"Oh, my bad....."
There is no bloody way muskets are that accurate unless they had rifling in them...
true, but the only rifle that was really accurate ( in its time ) is the Kentucky long rifle and that had rifling and its accurate to 100 yards and if your a very experience shooter you can shoot at 200 yards and for the rest they had the common 1766 Charleville musket and the Brown Bess musket which both have smooth bore.
mhmm, well, I guess the militia aren't actually shooting from too far away though? the muskets could still hit reliably within 50 yards with an experienced marksman
With practice, you can hit a man-sized target (an outline) four out of five times at 100 yards with a Brown Bess musket. And that's with tap-loading after the first shot.
David Frigault To explain the many bullets fired in ww1, take into consideration that there were trenches and cover available which promoted snap shooting and therefore less accuracy. Meanwhile the americans and brits were mostly standing in lines facing each other en masse and still they barely hit each other. give the poor ww1 rifles their credit, they didnt know the soldiers were afraid of getting hit XD
David- you must either not be american or never shot a gun to say what you just said. I can assure you, the rifles of ww1 were not accurate to the point of 1 kill for hundreds of shots. If that is an accurate statement, I have no doubt there were many more factors involved. I have grown up shooting my whole life, shooting a man sized target with a musket within 50 yards is very reasonable
A civil conflict brings out the worst in us. Similar thing occurred during the American Civil War, especially on the Missouri-Kansas border. The idea behind their atrocities were that if they didn't join you, they would likely tell the other side where you were. There are no wars more gruesome than civil wars.
"We surrender! We surrender!"
"No surrendering!" *bang*
Wow.
"Perhaps we will never know" I always crack up there. What would those guys have possibly done that were surrendering there at the end? Haha.
@KRandMJ True. Not only British, in fact other European armies have studied this kind of de facto guerilla warfare, and adopted their tactics by creating units of lightly armed mobile soldiers, which were dispersed between lines of each side and were providing uncoordinated, but continuous fire support, which protected own formations while they were regrouping, and was disrupting formations of enemy, having impact on morale and causing kind of confusion.
At that close of a distance, the inaccuracy of muskets doesn't even come into play. Muskets were accurate up to about 100-150 meters, depending on the type, manufacturing, quality, angle, and well, luck.
I had family ancestors on my dads side (Walker, Kline) that fought in Pennsylvania’s Continental Army!!
Very proud of these ancestors
The way the French guy said "precision" was so satisfying
"This is murder!"
"Well, they're redcoats, Reverend. They've earned it."
Fun fact, that's Renee Auberjonois, aka Odo from Star Trek.
Chernov will blame for this...
When those redcoats get hit in this movie, they really feel like they're getting hit by heavy calibers.
Doesn't seem too far fetched considering lead balls at the time ranged from 50 to 67 caliber. Think about a lead ball that size hurling through the air. It's bound to have some impact but it is however a dramatized movie.
0:55 How do they not notice the snout of the musket ?
Was it as brown as the surroundings ?
Whenever someone tries to point out a mistake you might have made. Just use the line “Perhaps... we will never know” lol
“These men were going to surrender!”
somebody who was almost hung by the enemy wouldn't say something like this, ever.
"Hanged", not "hung."
and you would know right?
@@jaanjam8432 Polish partisan brutally killed German bastard.
- Why you didn't just shoot him?
-They burned alive whole my family. Give my 50 of them and I will do it with everyone.
depends if they are a good person of not. Of all things to nitpick with this movie, you pick on basic human behaviour?
not killing surrendering enemies has a lot of advantages outside of the ethical ones. First of all, having a reputation of taking no prisonners is a bad idea, because that means that the enemy is gonna surrender less and fight to the death, which make you take more casualties. They will also offer no mercy to your side in return. Prisonners of war are also a precious currency, as you can potentially use them to gain intel, exchange them against your own POW, or as leverage when it's time to make peace.
Killing soldiers attempting to surrender wasn't necessarily a war crime back in the 18th century. It wasn't until the 20th where the Geneva Conventions created the strict rules in handling Prisoners of War.
it wasnt a war crime but it was seen as disgraceful behaviour a leftover view from the days of chivalry
It wasn't a war crime but extremely frowned upon as dishonorable, and rightly so.
Michael Moen They were trying to surrender? They could have been, I guess we will never know.
Chuck.Raney Raney despite the fact they shout we surrender repeatedly, that could have meant anything
Michael Moen prisoners cost food to keep and if supplies run thin taking prisoners is unwise :P i understand that logic but still killing someone who surrenders is low
The squibs used in this film are very satisfying to watch. Not to over the top but very graphic.
That last scene was shot in Cypress Gardens, Monck’s Corner, SC
Ambushing with superior numbers is just not fair with rifled muskets that magically never miss.
At the distance they are firing, most of the bullets should hit. A smooth bore musket is accurate at about 40-50 meters, and they are much closer than that.
I do have a problem with the pistol accuracy and hitting people moving on horses though.
1. Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.
2. There were more redcoats than rebels.
3. Concentration of force.
4. Destruction in detail.
I love how this movie made muskets much more accurate than they are.
Either that, or these militiamen were trained to be expert sharpshooters in the matter of days.
Nah man they're used to hunting with the damn things. I'd bet you nearly every colonist had a musket and knew how to use it.
Rifled barrels actually did exist back then. Many militia members were better armed than regular army who only had to stand in groups and fire into other groups.
great incredible scenes from a great classic movie
I like the part when I the French guy says "FIRE!" :3
War is sad , but when you watch this you know how to feel patriotic.
When the french turned their backs on Wellington at a diplomatic function in Vienna after Waterloo one of the hosts apologized for their rudeness and Wellingtons response was "that's fine madame i have seen their backs before".As for the above gibson garbage of the Brits burning people in churches he got that from William Wallace who did that in the 13th century.
No they got it from the SS in world War 2
British burning civilians alive is a pivotal part of their culture simply look at the Dresden fire bombings for example or all the natives in Canada , NZ, America, Australia and pacific that were brutally murdered or displaced
In fact,this Wellington's quote had never been heard before Geoffrey Reagan wrote it in a book in the 90's. But this guy is more a journalist and an author than an historian,he wrotes the book 2 centuries after the facts,and he's english. So we can seriously doubt the veracity of this quote.
And let's not be naive! telling a joke or inventing an humiliating scene for the French is always a good way to boost the sales of a book or a movie in UK and US...
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 Oh, like the firebombing of Tokyo and the impact of US colonialism? Both nations have done horrid things.
@@ratofvengence
Then why was your comment necessary? He made a point about how the British did horrid things- you just added that both nations did horrible things so what exactly is the problem?
When a enemy far more larger than you attacks, use hit and run tactics.
Planning out my guerilla techniques like this in the Frontier upon unaware Patriot and Redcoat soldiers is satisfying to do in Assassin's Creed III.
Cameron Johnson Cause I don't exist in the AC universe. I belong to Capcom and Moto Kikaku x)
Cameron Johnson Why thank you sir! and so are you.
The bromance is strong here!
Independence day 2020. We might be doing this for real come November.
Agreed and when that day comes will we pull the trigger or will we let them surrender. I know what I will do but do you?
One can only hope. I'm totally ready and willing to die to save my country from tyranny. I'm not married and don't have kids, so what do I have to lose?! 🇺🇸
Good luck to all the people in The USA
Say what you want about the film
I love the practical effects and it’s formation
"Perhaps, we will never know."
That makes you the redcoat.
@RayPall Another thing is that the militia (and the French during the FOA war too) used Indian tactics to gain the advantage. That's practically how we got modern tactics, like fighting in groups instead of formations (now known as squads), take cover when being fired upon, shoot the officers first then work your way down, and even stealth tactics (attack the enemy at night and use knives or silent weaponry).
Although it’s not the most historically accurate movie man it’s one of my favorites definitely the best Mel Gibson movie
How many Kentucky long rifles did we have at that point in time? Because I’m pretty sure we didn’t have enough for every common soldier.
(Though I have heard that the rifle was actually a shockingly big contributor in America’s victory. Admittedly I don’t know that much though, I’ve mainly focused on Roman history).
Do you know what the engagement was called? I tried looking up "revolutionary war snipers kill indian guides"
and other various combinations thereof, but I can't find it.
1:20-1:23
Damn he went John Wick on that Red Coat
1:12 "Quick, slowly trot into the woods along the wide open path!"
Yeah, the key really is resilience. As long as your forces keep fighting, the enemy hasn't fully won yet.
Benjamin trying to save his son: “Please sir, by the rules of war!”
Benjamin after seeing a surrendering soldier: *your life is not my priority*
I like the node to the french officer training them. I doubt the producers knew, but the tactics of light infantry waging a guerilla war were learned from the french and the indians, especially les troupes de la marine, or the french marines. They spent the better part of 150 years holding back and often defeating superior american/british armies with little resources beyond the native allies. Something the british had as well, as they supported the Iroquois against the french backed Algonquins, especially after the beaver wars.
Les Troupes de la Marine became a major influence on what would become the US Rangers.
I think everyone knows this, but your probably right about the producers not knowing, given how historically inaccurate the Patriot is.
@@colin8696908 I honestly dont think its ignorance. I think its utter indofference.
I thought Richard Rogers was the father of the Rangers.
@@Rockhound6165 He was thr first to write the english training manual for light infantry, but his inspiration was the french marines.
@@Rockhound6165 See more about that in 'Turn: Washington's Spies"
Friend: Gives me pencil
*Friend the next day: hey what happened to my pencil
Me: 1:28
I love this film!!
Greeting and love from Indonesian
"Perhaps we will never know!"
I Love that Frenchman!!!! ☺
Depends what you consider battles. They weren't so outnumbered in NYC or Charleston, and in most of the major pitched battles the numbers were comparable. The fact is that the Americans won through a combined regular/irregular series of campaigns which made it impossible for the British to win. Victories like Saratoga and Yorktown were preceded by irregular campaigns which set the stage for a decisive victory. It's a lot more complicated than just the numbers and training of fighting men.
If the British decided fuck India let's focus on America it would be different but history didn't go that way
Except it wasn't a decisive victory or a victory at all
I always start laughing when the credits come up in this guy's vids lol!
I never realized this world had so many people who are experts in muskets. LOL
No, he meant that the militia were simply an auxiliary to the main fighting force, the regulars. The continental army did most of the fighting (they could engage in guerrilla warfare too).
It takes a tremendous amount of food, gunpowder, shot, rifles, supplies to keep an army equipped. The militia were short on all of those things. I know it sounds cooler and more heroic to think that there was a "Red Dawn" type scenario, with rag tag rebels taking out the enemy, but that wasn't the case.
these men were about to surrender!
French dude: Perhaps... we will never know!
lmao love that
@Elliott Cournoyer stfu u creampuff
@Paul Mathew Ah, so this is where basic human empathy ends.
@Paul Mathew These men were probably just common people who decided to join the army. They're thousands of miles from home, fighting a war someone told them to. And they knew "they were about to lose"? A more accurate way to say it was they didn't want to die.
Simply put, if you were surrounded, and you had no chance of fighting back, wouldn't you want the enemy to show mercy and spare your life? Or are you one of those people with a misplaced sense of warrior mentality who believes that surrender is never an option?
@Paul Mathew Actually what he's saying is part of the rules of engagement in wartime. If violated, you become a war criminal. The fact you ignore that makes you more likely to be a traitor.
The problem is what could a guerilla force do with prisoners. If I take them as a prisoner I have to take care of them but guerilla forces lack the logistics of an Army so taking care of them is going to be a pain. If I kill them I become a "war criminal" even though there are no rules in war. I could let them go but what good does that do.
I know that the Frenchman was just a Major, but he must have been held in very high esteem by the King of France. Perhaps it was because he knew that the Major hated the English with a passion more than others? Interesting. Fantastic acting to play that role.
During this period Majors did most of the heavy lifting as far as administration and training.
Something tells me i heard someone shouting fire commands from the woods i might suspect an ambush
"These men were about to surrender!"
Like the number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie pop, we'll never know.
0:20 When you see a swarm of Thots at school....
"These men were about to surrender"
"Perhaps. We will never know"
*literally saying "We surrender"*
Meanwhile in IRL if they crossfire: Accidentaly friendly fire and 80% of those Redcoats would probably survive
Militia ambushes Ultra HD? What country are the Ultra HD from?
Smooth bore muskets were not that accurate.
This is a movie, a 2000 movie, what do you think?
It's epic so it's ok, deal?
eh sorta depends. A lot of military muskets were inaccurate because of under sized balls used to speed up reloading, but a musket with a good sized ball could potentially be accurate from 50-100 yards.
Plus, the Americans did use rifles as well.
those muskets are basicall just shotguns, they aren't that INACCURATE either. It's distance that makes them ineffective. 50 yards or more.
don't forget people duck hunt all the time with shotguns, and those ducks are shot in the air.
Deer, hogs. Easy kill with 00 Buckshot. That is why it's called BUCKshot.
people in the south typically used rifled hunting rifles which were A LOT more accurate, not just as accurate as the movie, but pretty close
They did shot from almost melee distance - that's a good distance for muskets of that time
Too bad the French citizens kinda hate us now, we were a bad ass team..
That we were, they were our original mentors. We will miss you Frenchies, the way you talk, the way you eat, the way your mustaches curl upwards, everything
One moment they are giving us BFF statues and the next they are calling us loud, arrogant, and politically ignorant :(
Chuck Finley Are you kiding we love u guys :)
Guy Talele well shit *fist bumps**
Guy Talele Thank goodness! Somebody needs to stand against the Goddamns.
looks like a cool movie, especially since playing and completing AC3!
The way they surrounded that wagon in a circle and all fired is maybe the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life. Certainly one way to kill not only all of the enemy, but all of your friends too.
"These men were about to surrender"
"Perhaps. We may never know."
LoL...
Ye ikr war crimes are so fucking funny
yeah lol that stupid redcoat got shot in the face when he was surrendering and defenceless, hahahaha I'm dying rn, this is truly peak comedy
"Perhaps you will never know"
What is my favorite line in this movie? Perhaps, we will never know.
Lovs the close up in this movie with people shooting flintlocks and all turning their heads away when yanking the trigger. Should have spent a little time training them.
look how pissed off Britain is over a movie. LOL
We are. Yes, we are.
Teacher: Okay class today we're going to learn about the Revolutionary War.
Girls: The Rev- what now?
Boys: 0:08
Well i only have one question, da heck is '' ULTRA HD '' ?
I love sounds when dozen of muskets fire together
Here's a little fun fact, guerilla warfare actually could have very well saved us in the American Revolution. American guerilla were the only defenders of the Southern states when Gates and the other general (sorry I forgot his name) were defeated by the British and the fearsome general Cornwallis. While Greene, the American general who took Gates's position, took quite a long time to actually get to the South. And the only thing holding back Cornwallis were the American guerilla. So any American here who doesn't like guerilla ambushes like this, just remember that guerilla pretty much saved the South, which means that guerilla could have also saved America. That doesn't mean you have to change your opinion, I'm just saying that you should be a little more grateful and respectful to guerilla.
Casualties:
Brits: countless
Patriots: 0
I mean if you don't count European troops, the Americans lost less than the British, by about 6000-10000
@Shekelton what do you mean, the patriots won by numbers multiple times. Bunker hill, cowpens, and Yorktown. either way the british in the end lost more than militiamen and enlisted line infantry.
You can tell that for movie purposes not one horse was hit by a stray bullet. I just noticed that.
Join your local militia today
Love the smell of dead redcoats in the morning
I wonder how many people cant take a joke
Perhaps we will never know.
@@LunarLizard You guys are killin' me lol
What a stupid scene.
The soldiers were yelling, "We surrender!"
And the Americans acted like they had no idea.
seems like nothing changed in all that time
***** It was meant ironic ;)
The sad truth is, that tere will be war crimes in every war by both sides....but that dosn´t justify you to commit them yourself
The British at Beaufort's Massacre didn't seem to hear either
Toby- really? You honestly think if America had not entered ww2, the soviets would have defeated Germany, Italy and Japan?? That's a pretty ignorant statement. The soviets were saved from the Germans by their winter and the fact that the axis was occupied fighting America and Britain in Africa, Italy, France and the pacific. Learn your history before making outrageous claims
brhsbass1 1. the british had pretty much won the war in africa before america joined.
2. the germans had been on the retreat for about a year in the east before d-day happened.
3. japan had no intention to fight the russians so mentioning the pacfic war is irrelevant
so tobys right in saying the soviets stopped hitler
Its a movie people. Just enjoy it you don't need to complain about everything that happens in your life.
you don't win wars by dyeing for your country you win wars by making the other guy die for his
How can they fire muskets in the rain?
There's a metal cap that covers the primer powder. It's a short term solution though. The cap is intended to keep the primer in place and provide a metal surface for the flint strike when you pull the trigger. It might keep water out for a while but as soon as they need to reload they're gonna have problems.
+hemmingwayfan yea and they usually wrap a piece of cloth around the whole thing to keep it dry until they get too battle. i guess it was tricky with the rain aye???.
+Red I always wondered how the ball stays in the barrel when you see them point their guns toward the floor...
hutchy1k94 They've got paper stuffed on the ball
***** cool didnt know that. thanks i really like stuff from this era.
If you liked this film, watch Master and Commander. Often touted as the best historical representation of naval warfare. Still...the scene where Mel Gibson turns a Redcoat into a canoe in front of his boys was moving. I would have done no less to people who invaded my home and killed my boy.
into a canoe, hahahaha