Welcome to my RU-vid channel! My name is Quinn and I am a FAA-licensed private pilot and UAS (drone) pilot as well as an Adjunct History Instructor at Antelope Valley College in Lancaster, CA.
Here you will find an assortment of captivating drone videos that I have created and produced that depict various scenes from around the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys in Southern California. In addition, I have published a series of top-notch videos of various topics relating to United States history that I use in the classroom during history lectures.
To think, we went from struggling to win a single battle against the British to the point where our Navy alone has three times the men of all of the UK's fighting forces combined.
Horrible movie... 18th century infantry didn't close distance this close before firing volleys. The muskets were relative dog shit for accuracy, but not that bad.
- "I am not going back." - "No, I did not expect you would! That General Gates is a damned Fool; he spent so many Years in the British Army. Going Muzzle to Muzzle with the 'Redcoats' in open Field would be Madness; this Battle was over before it began."
When training my soldiers I would use the example of these soldiers to describe courageous restraint when teaching about rules of engagement on our modern battlefields. The courage these men displayed is remarkable.
Seeing that cannonball after being fired and hitting the ground decapitating that Soldier was a pretty gruesome way to go out especially if he didn't see it coming from how far away the cannonball was
Anyone who has literally a modicum of knowledge about "Line Infantry" tactics and strategy rolls their eyes when they see comments like yours. The good news is you are on RU-vid. You have internet access. Instead of posting a mindless comment, why not go to Wikipedia and look up Line Infantry tactics, strategy, or better yet... find a RU-vid video that goes into great detail why this style of fighting existed. SPOILER: It was the best for land warfare in Europe given the terrain and the weaponry at the time. Black gunpowder and smooth-bored guns are HUGE factors in why they fight like this. The bright colors of the uniforms (instead of camouflage) was because the black gunpowder burns horribly and creates huge clouds of smoke, obscuring friend from foe; having bright colored uniforms help distinguish everyone so commanders could lead and direct troops. Now, you may have noticed the lack of radios and other communications tech out there. That's because there are not any. Not for a couple hundred years to portable enough at least. The reason drums and bugles and flags are present on the battlefield (along with actual GENERALS) is because communicating to people was limited to shouting but remember that dirty burning black gunpowder?? That is also fucking loud. No one can hear Generals who are perched up on some hill using a fucking telescope to command his troops.. So, soldiers were trained to respond to commands given by drums, bugles, or signals given by flags. Ah, but you are probably calling the Soldiers "dumb" for standing in a line just waiting to be shot. Well, you have a tiny point. This was the last relic of "chivalry" present in most battlefields. A lot of honor was left over from the days of old when officers were likely aristocrats. But the Soldiers themselves were likely low-born peasants or merchant-class. The biggest reason they fought in a "line" and "took turns shooting" is that other thing I mentioned, ... smooth bore guns. Smooth bore guns are fucking inaccurate as all get out. Also, those things have to be reloaded FROM THE MUZZLE. A well-trained Soldier was considered great if he could fire *3 rounds per minute* . Imagine that. A gun that fires 3 rounds a fucking minute and even if the dude is great with it, he likely would miss because the gun is smooth bored. And do not get me started on the delay from trigger pull to the actual gunpowder hopefully igniting and sending your round off. So, what does a glacier-slow reload on an inaccurate weapon have to do with standing in a fucking line? Well, the best way to hit your target was turning all your musket fire into basically a "shotgun" blast with volley fire. One dude may miss but if I have 50 dudes lined up and shooting in the same direction, SOME of the musket fire is gonna hit the enemy. You also may be asking, "Why not shoot and then like, lay down or something?" Great question; the point of a battle is to kill the other dude but also take control of advantageous terrain. I already said the guns have to be reloaded from the muzzle. You cannot take territory while laying down and trying to reload a musket (also, muskets are bitches and do not do well when you put dirt or gunk in the muzzle. It jams them with the ramrod and makes the musket inoperable... which is not good when the other dude is trying to kill you). So, they "took turns shooting while walking at each other" to account for the muskets inaccuracy and reload speed whilst trying to take advantageous terrain. There are loads and loads of more considerations with line infantry warfare. Even the fucking weather can dictate battles. I mentioned the black gunpowder right? that pan is not going to ignite in the rain. Hell, even if the humidity is too great the powder can be unreliable. That's why all the battles you see in this era tend to take place on bright, sunny days (at least in the European theatre). There is a big shift with how the 7 Years War (French and Indian War for the US peeps) was fought in the Americas by the Native Americans but that is a topic all on its own. I guess what I am trying to say is, "Fuck you. You are dumb. Stop acting like you are smarter than literally military generals who devoted their entire lives to killing people with the technology and weaponry that was available during their time. Your retarded self probably struggles to microwave food while you admire your Funko Pop collection."
What's funny is that Camden was a loss because most of Gates' men were militia. Continental regulars were more than capable of standing up and holding their own against British regulars, as shown by the Battle of Monmouth. Even militia, when properly utilized in coordination with regulars, could be of use in a set piece battle, as shown later during the Battle of Cowpens.
One thing I never noticed in this scene is the demeanor of each side. The Americans wore fear on their faces and really showed fear after the first volley as they took off. The British on the other hand were stern and determined and even in the face of fire while soldiers were falling never flinched.
The British were a well-disciplined force. They had men who patrolled behind the lines and were ordered to shoot those who ran. This gave the men incentive to keep moving forward and do their job. If they went forward, they had a chance. If they tried to run, the odds were they'd be killed. An approach like that cannot fail but to instill order.
isn't that young continental also at the end of the movie as well? I think he wasn't killed off, but rather symbolized America as it was- a young, fledgling but fighting-spirited nation and people.
I read some of the thoughts of English parliament members and they believed the war was lost on purpose …. They believed Freemasons brothers on both side played theatre while letting the men truly kill each other and allowed escapes and it was theatre to steal the first country in their new enlightenment world….
Which is a silly thing to think. The Americans got crushed in nearly every engagement until Baron von Steuben taught them how to fight properly, and the militias were never trusted or liked by Washington. It was the Continental Army using traditional European tactics that won the land war, after the French pinned the Royal Navy.
@@DieFlabbergast part of why the militias were so effective was bc they weren't so much "going muzzle to muzzle" with the opposite side. They were a little more stealthy about how they went about fighting, using rocks & trees, etc., for cover & guerilla tactics. At least that is my opinion. I wasn't physically present during those periods of history so I can only base my opinion off things I have read or heard.
2:50 I saw this in the cinema, and I remember blinking away when the cannonball bounced towards the camera, and I swear, I never saw the cannonball take the colonial's head off like that!
Even 90 years later, during the Civil War, combat was exactly the same. Warfare didn't change until automatic weapons were invented in the late 18th century.
Uh... Warfare absolute changed in the American Civil War. Ever heard of a "rifle bore" or perhaps a Minié ball??? The sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg literally had trench warfare.
* In the late 19th century (1800-1899). The 18th century was the period of Bach and Mozart, the American War of Independence, and the French Revolution.
I like the comparison they make in this scene between colonials and the British army. How different their facial expressions are. Ya see absolute fear on the colonials but then shows the British marching and not an ounce of fear on them or hesitation in their movements and even when men around them are gunnee down they continue their march. Training and years experience there just shows how much out of their depth the colonials were compared to the British who had years experience in wars.
I distinctly remember this scene having a man lose hisnleg at the knee from the bouncing cannonball, not a headshot. Was that some sort of tv censorship attempt?
Different battle. The battle where the men lose their legs is the final battle not this one. And why would they show a guy getting his head blown off but not show a few legs taken off?
America unfortunately has forgotten its roots our noble heritage and those reasons are why we have lost as Americans our truly free nation to corruption and legislative oppression...history is who we are and who are any of us that do not know our own history
2:34.....I've always found it interesting when the British officer says 'FIRE' - the soldiers don't all seem to fire quite at once.......it looks like a part of the line starts, and then the fire seems to 'run down' the rest of the line. I wonder if that was a mistake? I do recall reading somewhere about a possible line tactic in how infantry fired, but it escapes my mind at present aha!!
It's more realistic. You can actually see other British officers repeating the order down the line. Soldiers further away will hear the order later and so will fire later.
@@jessiemeisenheimer8675 Yeah I found out what it was called now - 'Platoon Fire' was the method. And the explanation of it makes sense aha - thusly: 'Nearly all line infantry of the period carried smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets. These take considerable time to reload after firing: anything up to a minute for poorly trained or nervous troops. During that time, the enemy can close or return fire unmolested. In the time it takes to reload, a unit can be cut down, its half-loaded weapons useless in the face of an aggressive foe. It is sensible to make sure that not everyone in an infantry unit is reloading at the same moment; this, in turn, means that not everyone should be firing at the same time. Platoon fire was a way of dividing a unit into smaller groups that each fire, reload and fire again in turn. The result is a "rippling fire" down a line formation and, as the last platoon fires its muskets, the first is ready to fire again. In this way, a unit can always give some fire to the enemy at all times, even if this is less than a complete volley. When more than one unit was involved all the troops in every first platoon fired, followed by all the second platoons, and so on, creating several rippling barrages down the battle line.'
