On on of these History Channel shows on accuracy in military movies, they said one problem with the battle depicted at the end was the wrong sized cannon. Too big. Land forces used smaller cannons as it was easier to transport. Gibson used cannon on Navy ships.
“Waterloo” is available on youtube? Thanks for mentioning it. Now I don’t have to use my old copy on Beta that had commercials mixed in from the tv broadcast.
Also, if you surround an enemy they may very well decide they won’t surrender and will fight to the death. You don’t want that. You want them to surrender, and if not that, at least route. Then, while they all throw away their arms and run away, you can mow them down with your cavalry.
Another reason for standing very close, in addition to all the great answers so far, is for morale. Robert Middlekauff, in “The Glorious Cause” talks about how Americans did really bad in the Revolution when their numbers, or lack thereof, necessitated a large spacing between soldiers. There’s the obvious “someone won’t run because they all came from the same community and don’t want to be branded a coward by being the first to break” but also it is very uplifting having your buddy right there to your left and to your right, quite literally rubbing shoulders.
Yes, and the climactic battle in The Patriot is pretty clearly based on Cowpens.
The “Aim for the officers!” part is significant in that. It was considered extremely barbaric that Americans did this- officers were traditionally to be spared while Americans specifically sought to kill them.
And the American Revolution was relatively bloodless compared to the Civil War. About 8,000 Americans were killed in or by combat, with twice that many dying from sickness, in 8 years of fighting and you could count on one hand the number of battles that had more than 500 deaths on both sides combined.
For perspective almost as many men were killed in 3 days at Gettysburg as were killed in 8 years of the Revolution and there were several battles (G’burg, Cold Harbor, Antietam, etc.) where hundreds of men were killed in a matter of minutes and the battle was still raging. Most soldiers were still using single shot guns (albeit they could be loaded in half the time) and the marching in a firing line pattern was still used in some battles.
Really? Cite away, dear fellow.
Jesus, it was a joke, man.
Historically, war has always been pretty up close, shoulder to shoulder, and barbaric. Pretty much all soldiers before medieval times would stand shoulder to shoulder, close to within feet of the enemy, and then poke each other to death with spears. Absolutely barbaric, but those who fought in a more individualistic way would be slaughtered by those who could fight effectively in formation, or by cavalry.
Generally, the militaries of the world have adopted the most effective tactics available with their weapons at the time, so whatever happened was probably the best they could do. There are certain exceptions to this (WW1 being an obvious one) but generally militaries know what they’re doing.
With the limitations of the time - the short range of muskets, their slow and difficult reload, the lack of communications, the resurgence of the importance of cavalry (musketeers were far more vulnerable than pikemen), etc. fighting in big lines was the most effective tactic. Those who would fight otherwise would either get destroyed in an actual battle, or cause modest hassle in ambushes and minor skirmishes.
The side with the disciplined battle lines would crush the forces fighting in a way that appears more modern, with widespread troops bounding from cover to cover, etc.
I just thought I’d comment on the extinction of pikes from the battlefield.
The one to finally do away with pikes was the Swedish king Gustaf Adolphus, who introduced several concepts to the battlefield which made the classical tertio largely useless:
First of all was towed artillery. Gustaf Adolphus introduced the concept of light artillery which could either be moved with the infantry, or be drawn by cavalry. This meant that tight and slow moving formations (such as pike) could be slaughtered by cannon and grape shot as soon as they braces for a cavalry charge. Later Napoleon would perfect this tactic against infantry squares, using cavalry to force the infantry to brace while horse drawn artillery mowed them down.
Secondly was iron hard disciplin, along with an all musket infantry. When approaching an enemy line, the Swedes were trained not to break, and not to fire until at close range. Against a force of equal strength containing pikes, the larger Swedish volley would be far more deadly, and at close range it would be fatal to morale. The single volley would be followed by a bayonet charge. This tactic would hold true until Peter the Great met Carolus XII at Poltava with equally disciplined infantry, and the Russians would in turn keep using that basic tactic until the Crimean war, where they were slaughtered by British rifles. (This is an oversimplication, I know)
Lastly (and probably leastly), each branch was trained in the others’ disciplines. Infantry and cavalry knew how to work captured artillery, most infantry were taught to ride of necessary, and cavalry could fight standing on foot. This allowed for opportunities (such as abandoned artillery) to be exploited.
So to put it simply: The pike was made useless by advances in infantry training, artillery and tactics, while its role of defending against cavalry was superseded by the bayonet.
Personally I always thought that this stanza described it best:
Just to save people a search, here is the Stanza Ex-Tank is thinking of:
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Miller’s right in that there is post-colonial controversy around, and about, Kipling and his works. Just wiki Kipling. I think it PC bullshit, personally, but to each his/her own.
But the line I was referring to goes:
I didn’t think there was anything in that stanza that referenced ordering the “wogs to fetch another gin-and-tonic, and don’t skimp on the gin you filthy pisshead bastard! What, what?” sentiment.
Back OT. Sorry for the distraction, folks.
Agreed, ExTank. The Tommy narrating Gunga Din tells matter-of-factly about how his messmates used to wallop the native water-bearer for taking too long to bring them a drink
but also praises Din for his bravery and admits
and neither in authorial voice nor through the mouth of any sympathetically written character does Kipling ever order a damned coolie to bring him a gin anywhere in the canon that I ever read. :rolleyes:
More later, maybe.
I think I posted this before in another thread but they got the uniforms wrong in that movie. British artillerymen were shown wearing red; in reality they wore blue uniforms. Also, the villain was fictitious but his character was plainly based on the real colonel Tarleton, and he and his men wore green, not red as shown in the movie.
I’m going to have to disagree a bit.
1.) Gustaf Adolph did not do away with the pike. All of the Swedish armies continued to use a ‘pike and shot’ combination and widespread use of bayonets did not come into practice until after the Thirty Years War, well after GA’s death. At any rate it appears to have been more a French innovation ( hence the French name ) than a Swedish one.
2.) The Tercio was not rendered useless as the Swedish forces at Nordlingen could attest. The tercio in the first half of the 17th century was not yet an inherently inferior formation. It would become so as musketry improved in quality, but in Gustaf’s day it allowed for easier command and control and more stability. The thinner lines of Dutch-style battalions ( adopted by the Swedes ) offered more firepower at the cost of weaker fronts.
3.) Lighter towed field artillery had been around since the 15th century. GA’s innovation was more in the way of abandoning heavier field guns that had co-existed with the lighter ones, to some degree standardizing them and increasing the proportion of them in the army.
4.) He did not introduce march discipline. “Spanish” soldiers in a tercio was just as disciplined as “Swedes” in battalions ( a majority of folks in both armies would have usually been non-Spanish or Swedish of course ). And in terms of units, tercios were almost certainly more stable, if less agile and more effective in terms of shock than firepower.
GA was an innovator in some respects, less out of far-sighted genius than out of necessity. His military conscription scheme was necessary for poor, underpopulated Sweden to raise armies, his military tactics ( checkerboard arrangements of mixed pike and shot in mutually supporting 400 man units, thinner ranks, musketeers detached to support cavalry ) were largely adopted to deal with his difficulties with superior Polish cavalry.
He was also a general of some talent - the Battle of Lech was probably his masterpiece. He had a good eye for military ability and his legacy produced several quality generals ( one could argue that at least Torstenson’s record on the battlefield outshone his ).
But he wasn’t as much an innovator as is sometimes claimed, but more a very good imitator and adapter ( itself worthy of praise ). His light artillery was nothing new, his infantry tactics slightly modified versions of Dutch innovations. He was also not unbeatable in the field - outfought at times by Koniecpolski in Poland and by Wallenstein at both Alte Veste and Lutzen.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
The side with the disciplined battle lines would crush the forces fighting in a way that appears more modern, with widespread troops bounding from cover to cover, etc.
[/QUOTE]
There are numerous examples of a much smaller but well disciplined force winning over an incomparably larger (and armed) foe: Boudicca v. the Romans, Bar Kokhba v. The Romans, Zenobia v. the Romans, most peasant rebellions. The superior numbers and surprise usually will have a major victory at first when they initially and unexpectedly overwhelm the foe, but then the survivors of that one reinforced by a second disciplined force comes in and mops the floor with the much larger and even possibly just as well armed but undisciplined rabble.
Just as an aside: this line:
May require some explaination … it’s a reference to a notable action of discipline of the 19th century, in which a group of soldiers stood in ranks and drowned when a ship that did not have sufficient lifeboats for all of the passengers sunk.
I won’t argue, just to thank you for such a well written reply. This is why I love this place.
This new PBS documentary miniseries may interest you; it premieres tonight. Check local listings: Ground War | PBS
See also British v. French at Agincourt, 1415, and British v. Zulus at Rorke’s Drift, 1879.
The reenacting season is upon us, and I would encourage anyone with questions about the various 18th & 19th century battles to find a reenactment and ask the questions of those of us who study this in detail. I will be attending a Brigade of the American Revolution event in Needham MA with the King’s Rangers this upcoming weekend to defend the colonies against this unnatural rebellion that seems to be causing good King George III so much trouble of late. (Come see us if you’re local!)
The movie has a great number of inaccuracies, but those are mostly in the details, not the overall concepts such as the battles.
While a few units did form up with rifles, most Militiamen (at least in the Northeast) carried an assortment of fowlers (shotguns of the day), or muskets of various age and manufacture. While I’m sure there could have been a rifle or two in the Lexington/Concord battle, actual evidence of such has not been found. As you move south in the colonies, some rifles did appear, but they were generally not the favored weapon of militia or line troops for the reasons Spoke details. Additionally, the work required to rifle a barrel, would have increased the cost.
In the event of a cavalry charge, the men would have held fast behind charged bayonets. They would have served as fairly formidable pikes against mounted troops. Having dedicated pikemen, would reduce the number of muskets that were in the line.
Someone mentioned armor. Simply put, it would have been too heavy. This was the days of a soldier carrying everything they needed with them on the march, with limited pack space. British troops, who were already in wool uniforms and not used to the heat of the colonies, would have died with the extra weight of body armor. (Yes, the uniform jackets were worn at all times “on duty.” They may have been removed during work details, but were certainly worn for guard and battle duty).
Another thing to keep in mind, which has been mentioned, battles in the RevWar era were not all-day affairs. The sides would meet, engage, shoot a dozen or so times each over a couple of hours, then charge bayonets and try to run through the other line. It was not the quick action that is portrayed at a reenactment, where much of what we do is “for the show.” The British line troops carried cartridge boxes holding between 18 & 36 cartridges (Paper tubes filled with a ball and powder), and rarely would a box be emptied at the end of an engagement. Overall casualties were very low compared to modern warfare, and out of 100 men, perhaps 2 or 3 would be killed, another 5-6 might be injured. Many of the early British victories were simply due to the Colonial lines breaking in sheer terror at the British bayonet charge.