@@siazonmarcusr.9434 They could, and they would. What Barry Lyndon did there was potentially a court martial offence. Unless ordered to pick up a wounded NCO, one is not supposed to leave one's position without orders. A junior naval officer on the USS Chesapeake was court-martialed for the very same thing in the early 19th century, and his family struggled to get his named cleared even over 100 years later. Imagine what would happen if everyone decided to break formation to pick up wounded comrades? That's part of the reason why the inane argument that it is better to wound enemy combatants than kill them outright is a myth. No trained or disciplined soldier would break off the fight without orders to tend to the wounded until the threat is resolved. Every military force in this world trains its soldiers to neutralise the threat _then_ aid the wounded. Wounding one man just takes him out of the fight, but depending on how badly you wound him. Killing him guarantees he won't trouble you again until Judgement Day.
The "Sweden vs. Russia" scene is actually from a movie about the Great Northern war. It portrays the battle of Poltava, which was not fought in a Seven Years' war
7yr war was Austria France Sweden and Russia going against the prussians and losing and russia withdrew I count that as a prussian victory even though the new tsar was just biased to prussia and Britain just for the most part threw Colony fights with the French and Indians and I guess that one country in the hre forgot the name but Britain barely did anything in Europe even stopped financially helping prussia even though its 1 v 4 in Europe
Imagine training like 10 men for like a whole three month, feeding them, giving them a place to sleep, just so you can have all of them get rekt by a canon ball before they could even fire a volley
And imagine being one of those "10 men" . Time for me to run towards the opposite direction .. as far from that shiite as possible . Catch me if you can Napoleon 😆
Let's not forget that these are films, and as such they are meant to be entertaining. For the most part muskets were levelled, not aimed, with no allowance for range. This, combined with the fog of gunsmoke and other factors such as misfires, resulted in an actual hit rate under battle conditions of around 2% or less. This is how you got veterans of several campaigns and old soldiers in general. Most battles were decided by moral, not casualties.
It’s nice to see a reply about this era that doesn’t consist of “god, look at how stupid this is, there all just standing there!?” Like people 170 years from now won’t say the exact same thing about us.
@@sauerkrautjrare you that stupid that you think 18th century Era Combat can not be displayed and recreated in film? That this is all just inaccurate and never once could be like this
The british actually did the science to determine how many steps a soldier could take while the enemy was reloading. Everyone firing at once can be devastating but there is a lag while reloading which allows the enemy to close. Most effective would be to fire by ranks as portrayed in the film Zulu. That way you keep the enemy under constant fire.
Fire by rank was rarely done during this era. With breach loaders Like in "Zulu" it was very effective. But Not in the 18th century. And If you want to keep the enemy under Constant fire "fire by platoon " was More effective.
Not really. That is a popular misconeption. Most armies at the time tried to minimize the exchange of fire. The Caroleans for example had a very strong focus of hand to hand combat. The entire swedish warmachine were built for that purpose. The same with the redcoats, they were very fast and agile on the battlefield. At the time, only about 2% of the shots fired hit their targets so a lengthy exchange of shots on open grounds would in addition to the casualites and disorder it bring also mean shortage in powder and shot. And artillery for that matter. And lack of powder could mean the end of a campaign.
@@Kramplarv I've read that the Brits fought according to the Dutch-Swedish school (how Gustavus Adolphus armies fought in the 17th century) in the 18th century; meaning they prioritized firefights over melee. The French school, however, was more focused on the melee and columns etc.
For those who asks why they waited to be fired and some other questions. It was considered that firing a volley the second has some tactic advantages: instead of reloading you can send men in charge right after they shot, and the enemy line would not be ready by the time they meet. Moreover seeing your mates being killed makes you more angry so you charge with more ferocity. Why would they stay in lines? Three main reasons: low accuracy, managing troops and morale. People standing shoulder to shoulder tend to feel more... comfortable.
firing in lines also defended against cavalry and because of the low accuracy of muskets firing in volleys helped ensure a hit and was much more intimidating than individual fire
It's how humans fought for thousands of years, pretty much up until WWI. You can't really tell what's happening when you're in a large battle with thousands of people on both sides. There's too much dust, smoke, shouting, banging, etc. This means you're wide open to get body slammed by a 900 pound animal, ridden by a guy who wants you dead, who then tramples you to death, all out of fucking nowhere. For most of human history, battles were basically giant games of "Chicken," where the side who lost their nerve first was ran down by cavalry. To get around this problem of communication and defending yourself from mounted enemies, you need close-knit formations. By standing close together, you can hear the instruments and songs of your unit that give audio cues of what you're supposed to be doing. Your unit's standard (or flag) is used to communicate with leaders who can see what's happening from afar above all the dust and smoke. It also turns out horses really don't like running into walls of sharp metal, and their riders really don't like getting flung from their mounts. Bayonets, pikes, and spears serve this function and it only works if you have groups of troops standing together. If one guy with a spear tries to stop a horse, the horse isn't going to give a shit and you'll likely get killed by the rider anyway. If ten guys with spears try to stop a single horse, that horse isn't going anywhere near them. This all changes with the invention of barbed wire, chemical weapons, machine guns, aircraft, radio/telegraph, and artillery that can hit targets 45 miles away. With WWI, battles no longer became questions of morale and cavalry maneuvers, but the question of how many troops your side actually killed and not just captured or routed.
@@nekrataali Yes and no. You've LITERALLY just said warfare was the same for THOUSANDS of years and magically changed in WW1. You honestly think the Seven Years' War was fought the same as a war 150 years earlier, like the Thirty Years' War, or Agincourt in 1415, or Salamis in 480 BC? Really ignorant comment.
@@nekrataali If you think "just about" every war "until" ww1 was fought with cavalry, destroying infantry then you've skipped just about all of history. We still use bayonets because horse cavalry is a massive threat, right? You know little.
@@FieldMarshalYT Wasn't Sweden pretty much played out by the Seven Years War? I thought they were effectively impotent about the same time as the death of Charles XII
@Mooseheads True, if your willing to forget that they modeled their republic after the Dutch, and they suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus at the drop of a hat. Not to mention they occasionally choose to install dictators to lead them.
Gotta say, linear warfare gotta be the most unique and cinematic type of battle to watch and the most horrifying to participate. The way each faction are colored and the way each platoon are set up in perfect rectangular shaped form just looks unique. It also must be extremely horrifying and stress. You're literally slowly walking up in a field just to get shot by a musket or a canon ball.
It's fascinating because for the most part how these battles worked was not who was the most advanced in tech (there wherent many huge improvements in these wars anyway) but rather just a _contest of wills_. Who broke first died, because cavalry could obliterate any routing force
This Is gentleman's warfare. Everyone is formally dressed People are so polite they will let you reload if not dead And they play some music to lift the moods of the battles
There is actually a really good reason why these Swedish soldiers just wait patiently before the charge: Once the enemy has fired, they cannot do so again before the charge hits, so they cannot fire into the charge at point-blank range.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
@@normalnoodles9383 And these films don't show the bloody business of war being shot at doesn't seem that bad when a few men fall down instead of blood flying everywhere and the screams of the wounded & dying are absent this I feel like doesn't show the bravery of the soldiers of the time
call what you guys want but these kind of engagement required huge courage and guts. walking straight into enemy sight of fire with zero cover is what i called a well earned respect.
@@philpants44do not disrespect your ancestors like this. Without them, you would have nothing. These tactics were the most advanced strategies for the geometric war of the time.
As Keith wortelhock said, there was only a 2% chance of you hitting someone, it was on the late 1700s and early to mid 1800s where you started seeing muskets actually hit heir target, since then they started shoving musket balls the size of the barrel down then barrel, before musket balls would rattle down the barrel. Remember. 1860s is where you started seeing armies use rifling and bullets, the American civil war was deadly because they were still using linear warfare with very accurate weapons.
Bullshit. If you aim, even with an undersized ball in an old smoothbore musket (remember that 'undersize' is very rapidly going to close up to just be 'size', if you've ever shot black powder guns) you can hit a mansized target at 50 yards reliably and 100 yards with good chance. Multiply that by a formation. The real issue is the chaos and smoke. You volley all at once otherwise you can't see shit, and even then you may not be able to see shit. The improvement wasn't the rifle but expanding bullets that could be loaded with loose tolerances (necessary for black powder, see above) but then still have a tight fit on the rifling grooves once fired. Then you'd be right that everything got proportionately that much deadlier. Muskets get a bad rap, there's a reason they were so prized by everyone who first got access to them
@stephenheath8465 yes though I would add that the prussians adapted their tactics by the mid 19th century with looser line formations and more use of cover. Part of what made the civil war partocularly deadly was they used essentially napoleonic formation density and general tactics
I don’t know why movies like to do that, the combat was nothing like that, a lot of times they would be fighting in trenches and using forests and buildings to there advantage
Sweden Vs Russia Just...WHAT Alright I Have To Clairify Sweden Was Not In The Seven Years War What So Ever this is is wrong but they did not fight Russia in it The Evidence That I Got Is That That Is In The Great Northern War And The Battle You Played Was Poltava....
@@annaphilip2188 yes i know. What i'm trying to say is that in the seven years war, sweden DID fight, but against prussia, not russia. So i'm trying to be ironic against the creator here.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
Kinda where the term originated. I'm sure it goes back to ancient times. Idea is to put your weaker troops in front to absorb most of the damage and then use your best troops to do the real attack
For the video of the battle of Poltava, that is not how it went down. The Swedish army at that time had a tactic called 'Go Po' essentially to win by charging before the enemy had a chance to fire twice - once at the maximum range where it had the worst hit rate, and before a second or third shot closer up. The idea was to get into melee where the mixed rifle, bayonet and pike combo of the Swedish army would win the day, like it did many times. With Poltava the Russians had built several armored squares (as we see on the initial part of the battle) and by the time they fought beyond those, the Swedish army was so mauled that it couldn't win a charge. They were basically slaughtered trying. What we see is wrong. They didn't stop within 25 feet of the other army, fired and waited for them to fire their volley. That might be true of some other nations battles - but not Sweden and not during that time period. anyways, just a small correction. Russia found a great way to defeat the Go Po tactic and after that Swedens small empire crumbled and I believe that type of tactic was abandoned.
Russia didn't "find a great tactic," they did what Russia does and sent 80,000 (with an extreme terrain advantage and multiple forts) against 20,000 starved and undersupplied soldiers. I agree with you on everything else, but I think that saying the Russians did something right is a massive overestimation of their abilities at the time.
@@Hello-eq4db 1 to 4 is not something the swedes couldn´t handle. Besides it were 30.000 vs 75.000 We are still talking about Peter the Great here. The forts were the base line of the strategy. It was the charge of the Swedes that was devastating. Force them into a longer engagement and they lose. They relied on breaking the enemy moral to win. By spreading out his forces and preparing his positions Peter made it basically impossible for them to win.
@@therac197No the swedes lost 50% of their army (from 40k to 20k) after having to chase the scared russians through one of the greatest winters in europes history, typical russian tactics, Charles XII was always better than Peter he kept one of the greatest armys in europes history and fought with them to the end. Peter just through more soldiers at the problem untill he won, that’s not a king with glory.
Sorry what tactic did the Russian use to defend agenst Gå på? Beside be 3 time more and be in a fortified position, and have Charls XII shot repeatedly so he lost consciousness, and no orders was given.
@@temujin5743 Bayonet charges were the reason why Europeans were able to take so much ground in such a short amount of time, and have such a low casualties in battles, because the bayonet charge is scary and will decide the battle right then and there, and it almost always went to the attacker, go look at the Crimean war, The British bayonet charged the Russians completely out numbered and pushed back that unit
One of the things you really miss in these reproduction videos is just how bad visibility was on these battlefields. Modern firearms fire smokeless powder, but these powders were not widely available until almost 20 years after the American Civil War. In reality, after a few volleys the entire battle would basically be taking place inside of a rolling fog bank. Smoothbore muskets have atrocious accuracy under the best of circumstances, and when visibility is
I look forward to when sensor tech reaches such a point that visual camouflage is obsolete. Then we can go back to looking FABULOUS on the battlefield.
knight keeper no don t worry I got my ways to get my daily endorphins dose. Yt or fb likes aren t among them. Apparently it works for you .. I find it sad but hey whatever makes you happy!
@@washizukanoricoto be honest I was drunk when I watch this video, and wrote this comments. I didn't think that I'll get that much likes. I guess everyone appreciate my geniusness if that make sense. English is not my first languages just so you know.
Typically Battles were much more chaotic. Many Officers wrote about battles they had and they said sometimes it was hard to tell which side you were on.
Well they didn't really had the choice, if they spread up, one cavalry charge and they are fucked. This why during this time, all the formation were tight, because cavalry charge destroyed any spread formation. It ended when rifle were introduced, so the infantryman could shoot the cavalry before it get to too close.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
The charge witnessed in Barry Lyndon was a common tactic used to simply overrun the enemy with the mass of your troops. The slow speed of reloading and inaccuracy of muskets made it worthy of use in some occasions. Like any tactics, the correct use of it is determined by timing.
That must be the most gutwrenching thing, just standing there seeing all your comrades falling dead just feet away from you and staring your fate down the barrel just hoping a stray bullet from a volley doesn't find you.
@@whiterosecicero4802 the war the second video is about is the great northern war (1700-1721). Yes, the first clip is in the 7 years war. But i was talking about the second clip, Battle of Poltava.
@@Kramplarv Then there's me who made a bootleg one for about 250 by buying a bunch of stuff off of amazon. But I know I'd get laughed off any battlefield if I showed up wearing that.
Again a stereotype. Russia is not China. Our population has always been less than in Europe. We have always fought not by numbers, but by skill. And what the litigators say about us is only their miserable excuses.
the battle with the prussians shot from behind through the window is a really clever way to make the battle feel full scale when you're maybe short on extras and budget. kubrick was a fantastic film maker.
The Seven Years War was a global conflict which ran from 1756 until 1763 and pitted a coalition of Great Britain and its allies against a coalition of France and its allies. The war escalated from a regional conflict between Great Britain and France in North America, known today as the French and Indian War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War
A cool fact that the Russian v Sweden part gets somewhat incorrect: it’s become a more popular idea that line infantry rarely charged each other head on with bayonets as no one is wearing armor except maybe cavalry, so everyone would just be slaughtered. Yes charges occurred, but they were more likely to result in one side running away before people actually started bayoneting each other. Again, not to say it never happened, but that it doesn’t appear to be the goal to get into extended melee with the other side, but instead to take the ground
Iv'e also have heard that bayonet charges were seldom used because they were very unpopular with soldiers. However, there is a huge and consistent catalogue of primary source material produced by the army provosts apposing Sweden during the reign of Charles XII. They all report that Swedish forces habitually advanced quickly with bayonets at the ready to within 50 meters without firing.. Each rank would fire a single volley followed by a full charge without reloading, This was so well documented because conventional military practitioners were attempting to develop adequate countermeasures to defend against Sweden. The assaults were usually executed so quickly that mass artillery had no time to deployed. These tactics seldom resulted in huge bayonet related casualties because frankly, the defenders were often compelled to bolt. At Poltava, they used bayonets extensively but they were responsible for very few battle deaths. Casualty reports at the time would only include a primary cause of death, Non mortal battle casualties gave no specific information except name and date of wound or date of capture.
@@gorangustavsson4608 Yes, the principle of Ga Pa, firing close range volleys then charging while the opponent reloads, am I right? I'm never sure how it's pronounced though as I've never learnt to speak Swedish.
@@michaelrobinson2687 you are correct. Thats how the Charles the XII trained his smaller army to train and how his son used it in battle against a larger army. Violent action prevails against larger armies with low morale.
The reason the marching units don't shoot back is that it would take valuable time to reload. The objective was to get in close, unleash one volley and then charge with the bayonet
@@teviottilehurst Like British Empire wasn't an empire of poor peasantries as Russian. British Empire had also many poor people, which began to conquer Indian lands in the North-East coast of North America and not only in North America. British literally have the most blood on their hands because the British conquered literally the most of the world. British were really cruel comparing to French to Indians.
@@musicilya6674 out of the British Empire came wealthy city states like Hong Kong and Singapore. Stable democracies were formed in what is now Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The British Empire speeded up/gave rise to the Industrial Revolution, an epoch making event that changed how we live our lives. Name a comparable empire? Certainly not the French or Russian. I acknowledge that evil was done by the Brit Empire . It's the nature of empire that others are oppressed. All empires are evil in that respect.
@@teviottilehurst You're right about the fact that all Empires are evil, but the British Empire was the evilest with the most huge amount of the blood on its hands. I meant that I love French Empire more than British because French wasn't as cruel as British regards to Indians in North America.
@@musicilya6674 most native American Indians sided with the British in the 7 years' war against France because of the level handed approach of the Brits. If you want an example of an evil empire, read up little Belgium's empire in the Congo.
Quick reminder: this Style of combat made sense. There were no real alternatives. If you dont understand why people acted Like they did in 99% of the cases they were not stupid but you are.( Or just not educated about the topic)
5:02 Everything before this was a gentleman's war. But finally the order for some old school savagery rolls in. No matter how respectfully you fight the war. The final moments are pure madness.
There is an error in the scene of the battle of Swedens against Russians, it is from the movie "Sluga Gosudarev" from 2007 and is set in the 30-years war (May 23, 1618 to May 15, 1648). The 7-years war took place from May 17, 1756 to February 15, 1763.
Here is why war was fought like this. Quick history lesson: 1. Guns were smoothbore in this period, meaning there was no rifling in the barrel. The bullet would wobble through the barrel and go into a random direction, being pretty inaccurate. So the best way of killing the enemy was to all fire at once like a line of shotguns. 2. Bullets were spherical, also adding to how poorly accurate they were. So once again "just everyone shoot at once". 3. Tight formations gave Officers/Generals where everyone was, so they could command the battle. Also it prevented heavy cavalry charges that could SMASH through if they were too loosely formation. 4. Also, usually the method was to do maybe a few volleys, fix bayonets, then charge. So you drop the front row of your enemy, then charge right after before they have a chance to reload and fire. These guns took a solid 20 seconds to reload (if you were good at loading). Now imagine trying to beat that time, but you're in panic mode as the enemy is charging with bayonets. Good luck with that. 5. As the 19th century began, rifling became more standard in muskets. Also the invention of the Minie Ball bullet was introduced which was pointy and more like the bullets we have today. So now instead of hitting 40 yards, now you could hit over 100 yards easily. Also the percussion cap was invented, making battle in the rain much easier and less prone to misfiring. Hence why the Civil War was a damn slaughterhouse. Using this video's tactics, BUT now everyone basically has sniper rifles.
@@colinm8200 Not everyone likes history and many just buy whatever tripe movies push to them. Just look at how many people still think that WW1 was just about soldiers charging towards MG-fire.
@@Pikkabuu Well...WW1 was kinda that. Basically a bonzai charge if you were doing an offensive. People getting mowed down. So yeah WW1 was basically a slaughter fest. So usually it was just waiting in the trench. The Eastern front was different.
@@colinm8200 Not really. People understood quite quickly that just rushing towards the enemy trenches was a bad idea. So all sides developed new tactics to attack the enemy positions, creeping barrage, tactics, small unit tactics, infiltration tactics etc. WW1 being nothing more than human wave attacks is one of the biggest urban myths around.
There is something hilarious about an era where people in brightly colored clothing just calmly would walk straight into the enemy's line of fire to the beat of marching music.
Even though the tight formations were good against cavalry, they were highly exposed to artillery. They also take a long to reload due to it being muzzle loaded
