It's crazy, the infantry tactics of this war, as well as the wars all leading up to WW1 - mass infantry literally walking or charging up against gunfire without cover, without attempting to evade or shield themselves. By the time machine guns were introduced, it was absolutely horrendous. It is crazy to think that commanders just used men as cannon fodder in battles of attrition.
It's not walking toward the men aiming at you that took guts. Muskets, especially during the stress of battle, were very inaccurate. The real guts (and very reason they stood shoulder to shoulder in formation) came from standing strong while facing a down full frontal calvary charge. As evidenced by this clip, it was the deployment of the calvary that caused a retreat by the Continental soldiers.
@@macbeasty Cavalry probably takes the cake but artillery would also be terrifying. A distant boom followed by a score of people suddenly being blasted apart. This would've been even more horrifying when cannister shot became possible. An entire cadre of soldiers suddenly being shredded a couple seconds after you hear "Thump".
That kind of discipline was brutal. You were forced to walk on a slow pace (not run!) while being shot at, your comrades falling left and right and when an artillery shell explodes right next to you and splatters your face with blood and guts, guess what, you are still meant to walk. On a side note, cavalry in that age of warfare was meant as a shock unit. If the Infantry line kept steady or even formed a square, the cavalrists had no chance. They were more the guys who, whenever there was a small breach in the enemy line, would charge in and exploit it. Or, as seen in this video, pursue routed infantry to prevent them from re-assembling.
Ironic fact. By 1779 there was more men of American birth fighting in the British army than there was fighting in the Continental army. Indeed, it could be argued that the revolutionary war was a civil war.
0:59 this is one of the best British grenediers I have ever heard, and the trasnsition to the march of British side with the flags and uniforms is soo gorgeous
the french tended to trounce them in the open field, along with the prussians, and spanish, britains force was very good at shooting at militias and natives, proper european armies?, that's what the navy was for, to ensure they didn't had to.
@@lastprussian71 i have yet to see any self respecting historian that even dreems of thinking the british army can do jackshit to a prussian army, they indeed have defeated the french or the spanish, but more often than not, they lost, and hard, the british army was at its best when it could abuse it's fleet to fight it's enemies in the worst conditions possible, spreading them thin , like in the seven years wars or most of the wars agaisnt spain. Even with this advantage the british were massacrated both by argentinian militia in the napoleonic wars and in cartagena by blaz de lezo, for example.European powers had larger and better armies than the british, so they doubled down on quality and still this was barely enough to be a match for them , brittain owns it's existance to having the best fleet in the world for centuries.
@@cseijifja you are right the British army has always been small its navy best but Prussia and Britain has been allies and its royal married together so they never fought each other. And yes Prussia was matched with French army which is the reason both were most successful armies but I think you should not dismiss the major victories English had on their enemy like France in hundred years war and the Spanish armada or burning the Americans white house. Its why I replied to you
+keeperofthecheese and the scots even turned down the chance recently to peacefully and democratically go independent, wtf? William Wallace is turning in his grave, maybe it is more like Mark renton says in trainspotting Some people hate the English, but I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We can't even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any fucking difference
Yeah Bee The scots chose to stay in the UK simply out of greed. They know that without English investment, free universities, subsidies, and tourism they would basically become a poor, naked, third world state with no standing army and not enough income to tarmac the streets. England, Wales and Norn Iron literally keep scotland afloat. Its a country of 8 million people trying to control a country of 65 million people - and they still ask for discount in the shops.
1:35 Anyone ever noticed how this guy constantly participates in battles throughout the movie yet manages to come back in one piece either way? This man has to be so lucky to be able to survive through all that.
@@FOAB-Carlos Being in the infantry in 18th century wasn’t a death sentence, many men survived. Most casualties were actually due to disease especially on ships transporting them or from injuries but this film isn’t a great example of 18th century warfare. The clips in Barry Lyndon were more accurate bout what it would’ve been like.
A small detail I really like on this scene is the contrast at the muskets alignments when the Continental Army is shooting VS when the British Army is shooting. It shows clearly the difference between an army fighting their first war VS a veteran army, used at aiming on shooting with muskets.
I noticed that as well and also the continental first rank fired their volley all at once vs the British were they fire their volley down the ranks in a motion, so by the time the last man reloads the first man is ready to fire keeps a steady rate of fire going down range.
The key there is experience in firing on other humans. A lot of people didn't want to aim their weapons at another person. That was a thing that had to be trained out of people.
Even if you hate this movie, you have to admit that they nailed the basics of "show, don't tell." Take 1:35 for example - the Colonial Regulars look nervous. Compare that to the next shot at 1:39, where the British soldiers are completely cold and have that thousand-yard-gaze going. It shows that, at an individual level, the Continental soldiers are barely more experienced than the militia, whereas the British maintain a battle-hardened army. Mel Gibson points out the disparity at an institutional level about 30 seconds later.
can someone tell me why they'd hate the movie? I get some parts are over dramatized and has some obvious patriotic themes (its an independence film, its literally impossible to not have those themes) but nothing very outrageous?
@@manipulatortrash Well, it literally portrays the British setting fire to churches with innocent civilians inside, which never happened. It was something the Nazis did during WWII, not what the British would do during the American Revolution
Imagine how the Americans must have felt facing the highly disciplined redcoats, the soldiers who could fire 3 volleys per minute more than any other army on the continent! Brave lads.
@@llanfairpwlgwyngyll7331 California is a S**t-hole. I say as a 22-year-old Californian. Young men like me, and my boys will happily put this disgrace of a state in the dirt when push comes to shove.
@@23715 In a way, for sure 😂. Though there is also the matter of 1/3 of our Continental Army being Irish. Including 1,500 officers and 22 generals. Not to mention the Scotts.
Old comment, but I have the exact opposite, french and Celtic ancestors but born in England, proud of my French ancestry Edit: to clarify my ancestors were French Huguenots who came to England, the rest to the Carribbean.
also during that era of warfare. Despite how the movie designed it, Fife and drummer uniform colors were inverted or looked like the British against their own comrades. The art of war and rules of engagement meant that your enemy would respect and not fire or try to avoid firing on your fife and drummers. The same goes for your troops, that you would not fire on them as well. Its stupid but at that time they saw themselves as respected gentlemen fighting like gentlemen.
The movie was surprisingly accurate here with the slightly different drill commands, the Continental Army says 'Make Ready, Take Aim, Fire' while the British say 'Make Ready, Present, Fire'.
@@user-si2hm1no1zOfficer gives the commands, and if the company is particularly big, the NCOs will repeat it so the rankers can hear. I don’t think it’d be practical, nor historically accurate for the rankers to shout the commands back at the officer in a battlefield situation. That might be different during drill like you said, though.
@@daniel_sannguyen The Regimental officer gives the initial command. The battalion officers and NCOs repeat it so all soldiers in the line hear it over the noise of battle. A good example of this is the bayonet charge scene from Gettysburg.
PoltergeistHakusho Im about to watch this movie in a few days and i would have watched it in fifth grade if the teacher didnt leave the year after i went into 4th grade.
1:35-1:40 it was here were you see the stark contrast between troops, you had the scrappy young 17 year old farm boys in raggedy yet straight formation compared to the seasoned 20-30 year olds in almost perfect marching unison.
That's just what Americans want you to believe, in reality the British army was made up of teenagers and young men who wanted good pay and to see the world.
I actually really like this detail. The redcoats don't even seem to notice, or at most are mildly perturbed by the guy right next to them getting shot, whereas the continentals look terrified while still advancing The British volleys look a lot cleaner and better coordinated, sweeping more or less perfectly from right to left on command. As much as this movie sucked, they really hammered home the might of the British Empire in this scene
3:21 "We need to make the British look both villainous *and* effeminate, is there a way to do that?" "But sir, it's never been tried." "And yet we must succeed."
You can't deny that the British Uniform DOES look a bit dandy. They might be a force to be reckoned with, but they do look like a bunch of Miss Nancy boys.
@C caymer Muslims aren't taking over Britain, dumbass. Don't swallow everything the media shits on you. And still, the British are way less effeminated than the Americans.
@@atomicexistentialism8428 No they diddn't, lol, a volley had a decent effective range, this is portraying The much better disciplined British army marching to point blank in the face of gunfire to annihilate the opponents
Yeah this way of fighting looks weird and crazy! You have your enemy in front of you with their guns pointed at you and you just walk towards them as if nothing happened? That's suicidal!! Why not take cover behind any objects, or at least why not lay on the ground so you become harder to hit?
@@JustRememberWhoYoureWorkingFor this is before the invention of the rifle so the musket ball had no back spin and came out of the gun not straight and was not accurate at all . only when in lines firing could you cause damage . once they shot they run to the back of the line to reload so its constant gun fire using single shot muskets
@@harleyokeefe5193 semplistic is not the opposite of exaggerated. I meant that it potrays linear warfare as: Two lines face each other, shoot at point blank, and half the men on both lines fall down. That is retarded, battles were fought at much more distance than that and consisted of many, many units operating at the same time.
Not even close. The British troops left their musical instruments in camp, they advanced in a loose formation with several feet between each troop, and they only fired one volley then bayonet charged. This tactic worked well against poorly led American forces.
This was quite possibly the greatest defeat for the USA ever, They deployed 3700 troops while the British only had 2100 yet the casualties are so far apart. USA lost just under 1000 and another 1000 captured. Britain lost 68 men. 68! Among 245 being wounded. Still this goes to show that superior tactics and training decide the outcome not numbers.
macfly ice Everyone played their part without Britain the Portuguese and Spanish guerillas would have fallen apart, without the British funding the entire coalition it is unsure of what the end result of the war would have been.
He's referring to the Americans being predominantly rural and unsophisticated peasant-like people for the most part. From his point of view, all the American soldiers are uneducated peasants who are unable to grasp the idea that they had no chance of winning.
Units expressed in this short clip: American: South Carolina Infantry Various Militia from South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina British: Grenadier Guards British Royal Marines Light Dragoons I spent too many goddamn years studying the power of the British military from 1752 to 1816. Don't judge me.
I did forget one thing: The British and Americans both had Artillery, but the Americans were too slow to set them up before most of the infantry units got attacked. The Royal Artillery usually sets up HOURS before the infantry units deploy.
GillsFan91 Historically, they did. You actually see some in this scene. Watch the ones the furthest away from the camera. Those are bearskins. And the Marines? Look at the regular infantry. Some wear neckmasks, which were signs of Marines because it helped prevent the scent of blood.
British order of battle for the Battle of Camden, as you can see not a single mention of Royal marines or British Grenadiers. Right Brigade: Commanding Officer: Colonel Williams Heavy Infantry 23rd Regiment of Foot (Royal Welch Fusiliers) 33rd Regiment of Foot 2 guns Left Brigade: Commanding Officer: Lord Rawdon Volunteers of Ireland Infantry, British Legion Loyalist Militia: The Royal North Carolina Regiment Bryan's Loyalist Militia (North Carolina) 2 guns Reserve: Commanding Officer: Fraser Two battalions, 71st Regiment of Foot (Fraser's Highlanders) Dragoons, British Legion
Fun fact: in the original Battle of Camden, the British marched to such a range that one Sergeant commented that he could see "the hair of one man's beard." When they fired, one regiment completely shredded two American regiments with three ranks of fire. Similar tactics are used today. In one engagement, the Royal Marines deployed in the north of Kandahar Province and didn't fire until they were within 30 yards of Taliban encampment. They firefight lasted 2 minutes, and all of the enemy forces were either killed, wounded, or were mutilated to the point where they couldn't be identified. God Bless Great Britain!
Sean Peabody Well, hear hear! (from America). Courage itself, is courage indeed, and very well earned! May Great Britain endure as she was, and may forever shall she always! For your country’s right is a special right. From the Azure Main! Oh! What great fruits this world has gained!
00die00991 Hear! Hear! British Empire shows disgust as they need the tax so they can continue to defend the colonist's lives from Total War by the French, Spain, other Countries, and head scalping by Native Indians. Colonists still ungrateful.
This is probably one of the most accurate portrayals of a battle. Undisciplined and inexperienced Colonials quickly break line and run away from the battlefield while battle hardened British advance despite the heavy fire. By breaking the line and retreating in mass Colonials becomes easy target to the cavalry charge, which was the biggest blow against infantry. My source? : M&B with fire and sword
I saw this movie during my 8th Grade American Studies class and a few kids, including myself, were shocked to see that poor guy whose head was briefly replaced with a cannonball.
@@alexdoesstuff9439 I'm just glad I was lucky enough to learn a history lesson during my college education on how the MPAA ratings system actually started, because it has easily come under fire for being somehow treated as a set of artificial barriers from core audiences in which certain films most likely deserve to be shown to.
@@MrrShadoww Now I know why my mind was easily blown when I learned a history lesson during my college education on how the MPAA ratings system actually started!
Don't know why they'd show you a completely inaccurate anti-British movie unless they told you Mel Gibson's character was actually a slave owner in real life, Brits never burned down any churches with people in it etc.
Britain: So we’ve just conquered the whole of North America for you, do you mind helping us to pay for it? US: So you’ve chosen war. *mutters about ungrateful colonists*
They weren't even allowed to go in that land. also most of the people who fought in the French and Indian war on the British side were in the colonies and were being taxed for it.
Bunch of bollocks. Many black Americans fought for the British and they were fine with it. Plus, with the Native Americans, the British let them keep their own land and were fine. When the British lost, many black Americans were enslaved, which was illegal in Britain, and the Native Americans had their land taken, their herds taken, and were even hunted. They lost everything when Britain lost. So don't you dare claim the British were racist against blacks at the time or anything like that. You can't lump an entire nation into one category like that and not expect opposition.
George Bailey Well I mean its an American movie so its going to be very biased towards Americans. Americans are the main audience for this movie so obviously its going to make us feel good.
I know its probably honorable and expected at the time but being a flag bearer must have sucked lol "Got to make sure I hold the flag, hopefully I don't get shot at because I can't do much to fight back"
One can do great pain with a heavy pole like that. Also, they carried a sword to aid in hand-to-hand. It's probably one of the most prestigious roles too, You're the one carrying the country so to say. If you manage to stay alive you can use the flag to encourage the men, symbols work, altough I very much doubt it's efficiency.
That's why they were formed sepparated and with more space at the flanks of the formations. Weapons those times had a really inaccurate aim so shooting the thicker and closer lines of infantry were a lot better than aiming for the flagmens.
As a child I drew a lot of pictures during class. When I was 7 I drew one of the War of 1812, but on the picture you could see one of our guys getting their head blown off from a British Cannon. You could tell that this part of the movie was my inspiration
I hate that this movie perpetuates the myth that line infantry tactics were "madness". The Americans could only win the war because they imported french and German experts to drill American soldiers in line infantry tactics.
He's not saying that line tactics are madness, he's saying fighting the British army using those tactics was madness because the British were just so much better at it due to training and experience.
1:06 is it just me or are the clouds shaped a lot like Britain?? Was this deliberate???? If so such a cool shot with the soldiers then walking into frame!
+Ebor York If you google "grenadiers march", the absolute only thing that comes up is the british grenadiers march so I figured that was enough to help people find the song.
George Patton You are right, in that it is the only thing that comes up. If you google Grenadiers SLOW march, then you can find the peice I am talking about. I once had a version played on the fife and drum but cannot find another version like it.
It must have been nerve-wracking for sure and it could be brutal at times, but I definitely would rather fight as a soldier in the revolution than any other major American war if I was forced to choose because it was actually a lot less dangerous or barbaric than later wars. Battlefield casualties were FAR lower than the Civil War or the World Wars just because the weaponry was inefficient and the battlefield tactics generally made for limited engagement. It was more like a human chess match than a life-or-death struggle, and one side would usually abandon the battlefield after a few exchanges of volleys once it was clear the other side had the upper hand. I'd take my chances with a few musket and cannon volleys for 15 minutes over sitting in a trench in Fredricksburg or France for weeks on end waiting to die.
They had the lowest casualty rates they may of been lined up but the muskets they were using were inaccurate especially after 50 yards. That's why Pennsylvania long rifles were prized among the Colonial Militia and Army you could take targets out from a distance.
@Bob Snow I wouldn't, I own a Brown Bess and the damage a .69 caliber musket ball can do to a wooden target is palpable. I certainly wouldn't want to get hit with one.
The alternative during this time would have been much worse, just spread out, totally alone at the complete mercy of a massive horse running you down with a sword.
2:54 just so you know how scary and likely this was. During the Battle of Waterloo a 16-year-old British officer witnessed a cannon ball hitting a fellow soldier: “… a round shot took off his head and spattered the whole battalion with his brain, the colours and the ensigns in charge of them coming in for an extra share. … A second shot carried off six of the men’s bayonets, a third broke the breastbone of a Lance-Sergeant.”
Brilliant screenplay. The continentals get their volley off... then Gibson's small speech along with the music cutting ominously forebodes the rest of the battle.
The Greek said "Phobos rules the battlefield". In modern warfare, death comes like a lightning strike. Up until like 1870, you marched towards death. All it took was one man to lose his courage and run, and it would spread like a contagion, and the whole army would run. It's why modern militaries still practice drill when it serves no purpose. Moving as a unit towards the enemy, knowing death is a coin toss, is the foundation of discipline.
Soldiers still march towards the death, literally. They dismount form vehicle and storm the house, block, trench, foxhole etc. One smock with lucky grenade toss can wipe-out half of the squad.
Fun Fact. Battle of Camden actually wasn't fought in an open field it was in the woods. British still won cause they had bayonets and could flight close quarters much better than continental troops could.
I mean it was a much more important role than we remember. It was basically the equivalent of boss music in video games today. You know how boss music gets you pumped to fight and determined to win? Same principle
The French quivered by the thought of meeting the British in the field and the French were no small beer in those days. So what the hell were those inept rustics thinking ?
In fairness [and not belittling the revolution in anyway] the British army of the revolution was almost two thirds American colonials themselves so, to use a British Soccer analogy. The Brits kind of treated this war like the FA cup and stuck the stiffs out while using most of the star players to win their Premier League, which at the time was gaining control of India.
The problem is, war can never be stopped because it is part of every single species nature. Only limited as much as possible. And yet, even today, look at Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc etc etc. War is part of every species nature and so we must try to limit it, but we have a duty to fight tyrants like when Hitler was in power.
it was Anglo Saxon fighting Anglo Saxon... the best warriors this world has ever seen. in the end the British squared it up in 1812. then little brother [united states] helps in wwI and wwII so there. whats the points so far?
@@brianhurd8691 That would be the Irish and Scots my man (for AT LEAST half of both armies were either from Ireland and Scotland or of Irish and Scottish descent). And for the record, in terms of their racial lineage and their biological DNA, the English lean more Celtic/Stone Age than Anglo-Saxon. So that whole Anglo-Saxon myth is just that, this myth. Also, in the words of General Wellington himself, ""It is to Irish Roman Catholics that we (The British Empire) owe our preeminence in the military sphere."" And at that time, during the late 1770's, the 42nd Black Watch, comprised of rough and rugged Scottish Highlanders, was the MOST HIGHLY DECORATED, FEARED AND FORMIDABLE UNIT in the whole British Army, winning, as it did, more battle honors than any other unit in that exemplary and ultra professional Army's history, at least till that point!
Those grenadiers went home to poverty, neglect & irrelevancy. No after-service assistance of any kind. No ongoing treatment of wounds, no rehab. They suffered PTSD too and were called cowards for it. A lot became drunks and impoverished drunks at that. No pension paid. They died in a resentful relative's backroom or a tick and rat infested boarding house, screaming at the leaking ceiling that once they'd been a hero. Once.
There's no one alive from this battle and war has gotten much worse. Ironic that we went from fighting the British alone to fighting along side them in the same slaughtering
Having a degree in history myself, specifically European military history, i am all too aware that this movie had loads of inaccuracies in it, but it gets shit on WAAAAAAAAAAY more than it deserves for them. When you watch films and review them you have to do it in context, in other words - how does this film stack up to other ones set during this time period. When you do that, this movie isn't really more inaccurate than others - plus the story and acting is superb throughout. This got the same sort of treatment Braveheart did, which was even more inaccurate, both films in spite of their many historical flaws are phenomenal. Historical accuracy is definitely something id prefer, but far too often people focus on that shit rather than just appreciate the films for what they are. Especially seeing as how they aren't that much more inaccurate than damned near every other film ever made set in the relevant time periods. That's just my opinion though
@@georgeprchal3924 True, but does that detract from the overall film's quality in any meaningful way? It's called historical fiction for a reason, it wasn't nor did it ever portray itself as some sort of historical docudrama or somethin. People act like these inaccuracies ruined the film even though it was/is loaded with inaccuracies, it was/is far from being an anomaly by any stretch of the imagination. Most, i mean damned near every historical war flick out there has a shit ton of historical inaccuracies, and it was far more common back then than it is now. I get annoyed with inconsistent application of this sort of criticism, some films get a complete pass while others garner hate band-wagons. I mean "Gladiator" came out round the same time and has a bunch of inaccuracies in that as well, (granted there are far fewer historical recordings of what happened back then than we do for the American Revolutionary War), and yet that film has never received the amount of criticism "The Patriot" did.
I don't care how woefully inaccurate this movie is, it's damn entertaining and that's the most threatening rendition of British Grenadiers I've ever heard.
The British Army was always small. In numbers it simply could not match other military’s at the time. So it made up for that by being a highly trained disciplined volunteer force that utilised its tactics.
please god tell me they didn't play this movie in history class to teach you anything about history, otherwise you need to get a refund on your education and change school if your still there and fast.
Historic Camden is about 20 mins from where I live currently, and honestly it's still very much interesting to go peruse the old battle grounds and the Cornwallis House.
@@PikkabuuThis movie isn’t whitewashed. In fact, it misrepresents the conditions of people of color in such an offensive light. It basically denies that the average southerner in the 1700s ever treated their black counterparts as inferior. Only one character actually displays this character but he is regarded as someone who is an exception.
the description is insane. Camden wasn't "one of the most important and influential battles of the Revolutionary War"; the war was over almost a year later exactly. The French had not only already pledged support but a French fleet was already in the Americas. American victory was very visible as Henry Clinton not only received nearly no reinforcements from Britain after taking command but also was ordered to detach 5000 troops and send them to the Caribbean. Morale also didn't "plummet to its lowest point of the war" after Camden. Washington still had his entire army in the north and they had already been reformed at Valley Forge along Baron Von Steuben's Prussian doctrine. The lowest point for morale in the war was in 1776, immediately after Washington's army had been expelled from New York by William Howe with enlistments coming to an end. Had Washington not won victories in New Jersey his army would have dissolved overnight. The loss at Camden ultimately proved to not be a major setback for the Americans as two months later in October a victory was won at King's Mountain, NC, and in January of 1781 the battle of Cowpens was fought - the battle at the climax of the film. The major events of the film would only take place from August 1780 to January 1781. The war was over when Cornwallis surrendered in October 1781.
Colonial American accents were probably similar to a mix of Southern and English Received Pronunciation (British). But obviously we don't know, there could even have been a slight German twang as German was quite widely spoken in the colonies as well.
So yes, you could be right, you could be wrong. My money's on you being right, but I think for ease of access they just opted for American accents in this film.
Well... line formations weren't madness. It was how you got things done before industrial warfare. If they dug fox holes and fired at each other from cover with muskets nobody would hit anything and it would be an endless stalemate. At Camden Cornwallis lined his most experienced troops across from Gates' least experienced troops (militia). The militia broke ranks and the British pushed through and flanked around the more experienced American troops. They had to withdraw, being chased by British cavalry. We won several times using the same tactics: Saratoga, Cowpens, Princeton, etc...
Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules, Of Hector and Lysander, and some of Meltiades. But of all the world's brave heroes, there's none that can compare With a tow row row row row To the British grenadiers Now none of these ancient heroes ever saw a cannon ball Or knew the force of powder to slay their foes withal, But our brave boys do now them and banish all their fears With a tow row row row row To the British grenadiers
Cannon explosions are flashy in movies. Reality was they were generally solid iron balls that skipped along the ground into ranks of soldiers. They’d take off limbs and heads and blow men in half on their way through. Shows it briefly but there generally wouldn’t be a lot of explosions. I don’t know about the Revolution but during Napoleonic fighting and the American civil war cannon crews were often engaging each other from a mile out before infantry met. The goal would have been to defeat the enemy’s artillery before risking them cutting your infantry to pieces. Now that my naysaying is done, the filmography of this is some of my favorite. I love the slow zoom out of the window overlooking the field. It’s a very well done scene.
