I just saw the Mel Gibson US revolution film “The Patriot” last night on video. I have a question about the soldiers who fought in those firing line things.
Now, when the British and colonial army dudes are lining up and shooting at each other, I noticed a supreme lack of nervousnous on the faces of the individuals at the front lines. By contrast, the US soldiers depicted in those amphibious boats preparing to land at Normandy in “Saving Private Ryan” were puking and stuff before the battle and looking massively scared - as any normal human would be. I can only assume that “Saving Private Ryan” is the more accurate portrayal of what it’s like before a military confrontation at the front lines.
QUESTION: What was wrong with the folks in the 1770s that they showed (at least in movies) no fear of their impending demise? I don’t care how much they wanted to put on a big show of being gentleman or whatever - they should have been pissing their pants. What’s the real story of how these men behaved?
They just made a pretty movie. Read a few historical biographies of the account and you’ll see. Washington had a terrible time keeping troups. They could walk away any time. But so did the British, with their Austrian and German mercenaries. Every time there was a battle looming, there was attrition in the ranks.
Actually, at least the European troops were pretty much that stoic. The discipline in the armies the great nations of the day was truly vicious (by our standards), and the (for lack of better words) ‘Cult of Manliness’ really did cause people to front amazingly well. Revolutionary War Colonial troops were far less disciplined, and broke often in the face of the red-coated killing machine that was the British army. One of the reasons that so many Europeans were contemptuous of colonial/local troops is that they wouldn’t accept old-world discipline, and wouldn’t stand in the battle line. This ended up costing the English plenty, as the Colonials found more effective, less risky ways of fighting. Towards the end of the Revolution, however, people such as Count Casimir Pulaski had tought Colonial boys to be just as stoic, and just as dead, as the English boys.
Look towards the letters and accounts of the American Civil War, which was pretty much the same style of war as the Europeans were using in the late 1700s, and you’ll see American boys fully grown up into the same kind of stoic, disciplined killers that the Englich were.
They had a very common disorder called Bad Movie Syndrome. The soldiers in Shaving Ryan’s Privates had a milder case of the same disorder; hence the difference.
Well, I’m sure soldiers would have been considerably more nervous than depicted in The Patriot. In fact, soldiers who bolted and fled the battle were a recurring problem for the Americans during the Revolution. Generals would sometimes position their men with their backs to a river to prevent them from doing just that. (Battle of Cowpens, e.g.)
On the other hand, the muskets used during the Revolution were far less accurate than modern weaponry, so maybe there would have been some justification for being less nervous than those poor soldiers/targets dumped on the beach at Normandy.
Indeed, as did all armies of the era: To desertion, disease (the REAL killer in those days), as line-of-communications troops, and other causes. Those who did make it the battle, though (mostly: There were always ‘runners’, in every army), fought like demons in conditions that we just can’t wrap our poor, modern, sensibilities around.
In some ways, were are far less than our ancesters were; In some ways, far more…
True enough. However, in defense of the Colonials, it should be pointed out that perhaps the British troops didn’t break as easily because they had no place to go.
For the Colonials, if they got tired or scared, they could flee to their farms and families.
For the British troops, it was different. Their homes were thousands of miles away, across the ocean. They were fighting in hostile territory. They had to look to their own ranks for comfort and security. Much easier to maintain unit cohesion under those circumstances.
First of all, in Saving Private Ryan, you saw the soldiers acting frightened before the battle, not during it. Once they got out of the boats, their training and adrenaline kicked in, and they fought very well indeed. And no, they were cowering behind those tank traps because they were smart, not because they were afraid. The situation on the beach had disintegrated into a state of chaos, with no clear chain of command, and most soldiers are reluctant to advance into enemy fire alone, without ome concentrated plan of attack. Once the officers seized control of the situation, the troops went on to attack the sea wall, and then the enemy fortifications.
Second, 18th century troops were well disciplined because discipline was all they had. A soldier of those times had no need to think at all, only to march, fire, reload and follow orders. Without somebody telling them what to do, they were quite useless. It’s easy not to be afraid when you tun your mind off. A modern soldier, on the other hand, has to be professional rather than disceplined, and has to know how to think. Even the simplest rifleman has to be able to figure out lines of fire, keep a well-spaced line, find cover, figure out an optimal line of advancment, keep in touch with an oficer who could be 50 meters away… in short, use his mind as much as his body. Troops today have to be intelligent and independent, as well as disciplined, and as such, they have more opportunities to panic.
… In the discusion of who broke, and who didn’t. Just pointing out the general behavior. Frankly, if you stood me up in a line of fools, 300 feet from another line of fools, and asked me to start blazing away, I’d be gone before you could blink. And this is from a combat Vet. I’ll always prefer to hide behind something (or at least make myself as small as possible) if I /must/ be in a shooting war, thank you very much.
It might be interesting to note, however, that the English soldier has never been terribly prone to running away, even when fighting close to home. I doubt the distances involved had much to do with their behavior. It helps to understand the social/cultural issues involved: The English soldier basicly didn’t /have/ a home to go back to, even when in barracks in the UK. His regiment was his home, and even today, that stands largely true with long-service UK troops. This has enabled “Tommy” to do some amazing things. Also some very stupid things. Read Kipling to get a good grip on musket-era English army behavior.