It's also worth mentioning that the issue of geography is not just about the physical length of the front, but also about the degree of development. The area where the Western front was drawn was highly developed, with dense railway and road networks that made it possible not just to supply that many men at the front, but also to redeploy them in case of a local breakthrough, allowing the defender to re-stabilize the front. By WW2 technology had advanced enough that armoured breakthroughs could reliably outpace enemy redeployments, so this was much, much less of a factor
To add to this comment: To a large degree the rail systems of both France and Germany were designed in large part literally with a war against the other in mind. There were a lot of lateral connections running parallel to the borders for example to allow for faster troop and supply movement. So not only was the rail infrastructure extremely highly developed, but it was specifically developed with the movement and supply of huge numbers of troops in mind. In part it was that which caused so many offensives to fail, even ones that were initially successful. Due to communications limitations on the offensive (no radios for attacking troops in WWI, would not be till the 30's that man portable radios were developed) it often took hours for accurate news of the situation to reach the Commanders. The defenders able to rely on deeply dug in telephone wires were generally able to coordinate a response much, much faster. It was those lateral rail links that enabled rapid movement of men and equipment to a hole, and then to block it. Its why Ludendorff's failure to take Amiens during the Spring Offensive is so critical, and reveals he was really not thinking strategically at that point. The city was wide open, but by the time he made up his mind to try take it the British and French had managed to reinforce the defences around the city and stopped the attacks cold. In many ways the railways made the Western Front possible. In fact I would go so far as to say that without the railways the Western Front could not have sustained the sheer density of troops and equipment it did. I have a copy of a Trench Map showing German positions on the Somme in late 1916. It covers three miles of line, and there are three German DIVISIONS defending that 3 miles....
I would point to the Russo-Japanese War as another primary example of a trench war, but one that went very very differently in that it didn't bog down in one spot for years on end. The Japanese threw everything they had into every battle they fought, quite literally, they left no men in reserve in any major engagement. This all culminated in the two week battle of Mukden, which was the largest battle in human history up to that point, with over 600,000 combatants and 180,000 casualties. At that point the reason things were so one sided was down to serious domestic issues the Russians were facing that forced them to fight with only a minority of their forces, and despite fighting solely in the most defensible spots they could find, it was never enough, and the relentless wave of the Japanese advance could not be halted. I think, though, had the rebellion of 1905 not happened and the army had been able to marshal its full manpower and materiel to the front lines, you'd likely have seen just such a bogging down. So really I think the comparisons that describe it as a trial run or a transitional stage into the type of warfare seen in the Western Front are actually very apt, it's just that the political will and the strategic nature of the Japanese offensives was mismatched against the Russians in a way that led them to be utterly dominant in a way that none of the European powers would achieve a decade later
@Chard askie It was in almost all ways identical to how we look at early World War I. Trenches, barbed wire, machine guns, bolt action rifles, breech losing artillery, etc. Hill 203 is probably the most instructive in that regard. The Russians had 7000 men to defend the hill, never with more than 1500 in their fortifications at any given time. Six times the Japanese advanced up the hill, five times they were repelled, suffering 8000 casualties in the final attack alone. We don't really have conclusive figures on the casualties of that entire battle, only source I could find from the time estimated 10,000, but really it has to be closer to 20,000 at the very least. It's not like the Russians had a great plan at it either, they had pretty scarce supplies, lacked artillery support, and had an overwhelming dearth in manpower and weapons. They just had a good position where they entrenched with concrete fortifications, maxim guns, and simple hand grenades. With that, they were able to hold out for three straight months.
Another is Early Modern Warfare, Siege warfare became more common, Sieges lasted Years at Worst Decades, it wasn't as extreme as WW1in size but its close, also the Seiges sometimes happened for 20 Years, the Body count was also Higher than Centuries before
Only 600.000 combatants and 180.000 casualties? Largest in history? Battle of changping in 262bc warring states china had 700.000 casaulties alone lol, 1 million combatants.. Battle of julu 207bc, 400.000 casaulties. When sui dynasty invaded goguryeo they had 1.2 million soldiers, over 300.000 died. It was the largest MODERN battle, not the largest in history.
I've seen people and articles say that the Japanese army used geishas and other such relief in China during the Russo-Japanese War, but every cited source I've read talks about the 2nd Sino-Japanese war and WW2, not the turn of the century. Heck, one somehow managed to throw a certain Unit into the mix. Am I just missing something here or are people really that thick that they think Russo-Japanese = Sino-Japanese? Russia, on the other hand, definitely had their own relief (but more forced) in China during that war.
The "narrowness" of the theaters played a large role, the Dardanelles were bottle necks from the get go, so was the southern front between Italy and Austria-Hungary and even the Western front, despite the 765 km from the Swiss border to the Channel, is small in comparison with the vast open terrain of the eastern theater where we see very limited trench warfare.
I have done so much research on war history. WW1 though is by far the worst hell hole I have ever seen. Respect sir. You are a true historian. Which is so rare these days.
All of the warring powers kept the colourful uniforms, they just didn't use them in the field. The British kept the scarlet, blue and rifle-green uniforms used before the Boer war in the field as full dress uniforms, being used for ceremonial occasions between 1902 and 1914, being put back into stores in the latter year-but they were *not* abolished, and indeed featured in the 1937 dress regulations after the war. And post-war, they kept them for officers attending levees (formal presentations to the monarch), for regimental bands, line markers and mascot handlers. Except for the first, they are still kept for that reason to the present day. In Germany, the dark blue ('dunkelblau') uniforms, which had been replaced by the grey 'feldgrau' uniforms from 1910 onwards, were still kept after 1910, for similar reasons as the British, and indeed the initial forms of the feldgrau uniforms used in WW1 were basically the same in cut as the dunkelblau full dress uniforms-they were just in field grey. They were, however, formally abolished in 1918.
Lest we forget. I remember studying the war during it's centennial commemoration (2014-2018) and how terrible it was. Puerto Ricans don't study the war as the impact here was limited. Yet, I found it very important. When the 100 year of the armistice was commemorated I screamed from the top of my lungs at 6:00 a.m.(Puerto Rico time), THE WAR IS OVER! I later found myself crying for the past. Yet, there is more to this war and its everlasting impact. Lest we forget.
I get limited impacted being so far from the fighting but didn't Puerto Ricans gained US citizenship in 1917 in part to expand the recruitment pool after the US entered the war?
@@SEAZNDragon Yes, OP forgot to mention that disgruntled WW1 vets like Pedro Albizu Campos would later become radicalized into nationalists or communists. Mainly due to the same reasons many Indians and Irish became radicalized any time that they were drawn to fight in war for an empire that didn't allow them participation in government
If any of you ever visit Paris, visit Les Invalides. They have a section dedicated to WW1. There are all kinds of weapons, destroyed items such as weapons and helmets, uniforms and even a Peugot Tank.
@@spaman7716 yup, they started at 2014 and ended in 2018. The channel was them turned over to Jesse Alexander while Indy hosted the still on-going WW2 in real time.
Far less brutal then some of napoleons campaigns I’d rather have a the casualties rates of the Great War and it’s horrors then the majority of my chances of dying being by disease and starvation before I even got ripped apart by grapeshot
@@edjohnson8017 you still would be mostly dying of disease, it's not like the Spanish flu or typhoid fever didn't happen. Also, how awesome, trading mitraille shot for mustard Gas.
@@riograndedosulball248 WWI was the first war in British history where combat casualties outnumbered disease casualties, and by a fair old margin. I am pretty certain it was the same for the French. Both had learned a lot from the Colonial wars they had fought, and even prior to WWI the British Army was anally retentive when it came to hygiene and the supply of clean water to its troops. So even without antibiotics, disease casualties were considerably lower than combat casualties. Just so you are aware I am NOT including wound infections as disease casualties, but as combat casualties, as without the wounds those infections would not have occurred. If you count infections then disease casualties may well overtake combat casualties, but I refer you to my point that without the wound, the infection would not have occurred. Note, I also apply the same metric to infection casualties PRIOR to WWI, so soldiers who die of infections from wounds gained in combat in say the Napoleonic Wars I consider combat casualties not disease casualties.
@@riograndedosulball248 There was also plenty of starvation to go around. Ex. the disastrous British-Indian defense of Kut, and the French defense of Vaux in Verdun. Don't forget dysentery, typhus, malaria if you were in the Mesopotamian or African fronts... Even the diseases you wouldn't die from were miserable, like trench foot, or trench fever. Add in the rats and the lice... would almost make you wish for phosgene.
Great video Brandon! WW1's interested me for years, ever since the 50th Anniversary years of 1964-1968. (Yeah, I'm a geezer!) Anyway, I rmember reading a pretty good comparison of tactics between the American Civil War and the Western Front of WW1: "In the Civil War they made frontal assaults because they didn't know what else to do. In WW1 they made frontal assaults because there was nothing else TO do!" Add to that the fact that none of the senior commanders on either side had seen battle on that scale before plus the technological changes and it was a perfect recipe for carnage. We can also see why the German Army developed the "schnellkrieg" or what we call today "blitzkrieg" doctrine prior to WW2. "Get the enemy on the run! Keep them on the run! Don't give them a chance to dig in! Bypass the strong points quickly and keep moving!" The Germans (who hated the Western Front stalemate as much as anyone!) weren't going to let it happen again. Always good watching you! Thanks!
Hello Brandon. Someone else already made the point I had in mind, that the Russo Japanese War did not turn out the same way because the Russians accepted defeat, rather than push on with something that might cause even more civil unrest, like later happened in 1917. Reading headlines recently, I can only say "plus ca change" in that language not to be mentioned on this channel. On the point of horses, AJP Taylor said the Russian army lost because it did not have mechanisation and ran out of horse fodder. This is also reminiscent of sieges. The Eastern front in WW2 had huge numbers of horses. I was told my uncle got out of a POW coal mine in Silesia and got to a Turkish ship in Odessa, through the lines, living off dead animals. Could this also be considered a siege, looking at Leningrad as the extreme example? Like other comments I had family on the Western front in WW1. I enjoy comparing videos from US WW1 Museum in Kansas to IWM videos. US historians say the Dough Boys broke this siege by their numbers, supporting one of the Entente, which again I have not named. Commonwealth opinion points to Canadian and ANZAC generals development, with UK, of all arms warfare, as they would not just send men to a "meatgrinder". This is claimed as the vital factor in the last 100 days.
It wasn't so much the Doughboys "broke the siege by their numbers" as much as it was after the Germans cracked the Western Front in 1918 the Entente Powers (US included) didn't let the front get static again, the one-million plus Doughboys certainly were a major factor in that and so was tactical savvy the top commanders had gained over the years plus the technological advances such as tanks and aircraft. Mind you, no-one on the Entente side had any idea the Germans would ask for an armistice in November of 1918, staffs of the various armies were working on "Plan 1919," a major offensive planned for the next year to finish off the German Army for good.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 If you watch some US videos, you would imagine it was the Dough Boys that made the change. The point was that this ignores the hundred days when Commonwealth forces did crack the German defences, like the Germans cracked the western allies by similar means early in WW2. The German defences had not suddenly fallen down, to stop the war being static. I will admit that using the best soldiers in elite stormtrooper attacks depleted the remaining German units prior to this, but the Germans had won in the Eastern front and had reinforcements and supplies, together with all those trains to get them where needed.
@@alansmithee8831 On the "US videos" thing that doesn't surprise me and honestly it's understandable. Any country that does history videos is going to favor their own involvement and point of view. It's only natural and not worth getting worked up over. However, there's some truth in the supposition that without US involvement in WW1 the war might have ended with if not a complete victory, possibly a partial German victory.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 I cannot help but remember some Australian replies to a similar comment. They and the other Commonwealth countries played a huge part in the victory. Even without US troops, it was US finance and industry, that the UK had drawn into supporting their war effort, that would have overwhelmed the Germans eventually. "Follow the money" is usually good advice. The post war period could be seen similarly as "who defaulted on who?"
To me, the "modern technology" aspect is much more overplayed that it should be, because even with the technology advances of the Second World War and the Cold War, trench warfare still pops up, including examples like the Iran-Iraq War, where they had for all intent and purpose "modern" weapons including individual automatic weapons, night optics and jet aircraft, and yet they were still massed infantry and gas attacking each other in a manner any Flanders vet would've been intimately familiar with
Something else you touched on, but I think bears mentioning, is the idea that you can only add more forces to a front to a point, where after adding more to it it starts to actually make things worse for your side. Too many soldiers in too small an area simply get in each others way and decrease combat effectiveness. A lot of research was done into that idea during the Cold War, for obvious reasons. Likely, I expect that at least part of WWI Western Front's Clusterfuckness was because, frankly, they were too many men at the front.
Not really. You have to understand the 'front' of the Western Front. It was essentially 3 - 4 lines, but each line was composed of different parts. First you had the front line itself, mid to late war this was actually sparsely manned, it was not a defensive line but a tripwire. Then you had the second line which was the main defensive line, then a support line, and often a fourth line behind that, all interlinked via communications trenches. Then you had three or four of these line systems one after the other. One thing many people do not really get about the Western Front is it was not only defence in length, it was also defence in DEPTH. Ideally the distance between the first frontline and the rear most support line was at LEAST 25 miles. I have a copy of a late 1916 Trench Map detailing the German and British positions on three miles of line, there are units from 3 different German, and three British Divisions in the lines depicted. That means the rest of the three divisions on each side was deployed in depth behind the actual Front trench system. The scale of those Trench systems is not really appreciated by many people these days. Yes most people appreciate their length, but a surprising number are not aware of their depth. EDIT: Admittedly the Somme example is a bit of an extreme one, the map was dated October 1916 and detailed one of the most bitterly fought over sections of the Somme Battlefield, which goes at least partway to explaining the manpower deployed there. However it does illustrate the point even if most parts of the Western Front were not quite so heavily defended.
A hell of a fine rifle anyway you look at it. The Brits used it in one form or another from the 1890's right up through the Korean War. The SMLE, the 1903 Springfield, and the 1898 Mauser are the finest military bolt actions ever built. I'd feel confident going into battle with any of them.
I have never been an enthusiast of war history, but your videos rope me in simply because of your passion and intelligence. You're doing a great job teaching people that may have thought they never cared. Keep up the good work, kid.
_"If the views set out by me in the preceding paragraphs are accepted, it will be recognised that the war did not follow any unprecedented course, and that its end was neither sudden nor should it have been expected. The rapid collapse of Germany’s military powers in the latter half of 1918 was the logical outcome of the fighting of the previous two years_ _It would not have taken place but for the period of ceaseless attrition which used up the reserves of the German Armies, while the constant and growing pressure of the blockade sapped with more deadly insistence from year to year at the strength and resolution of the German people. It is in the great battles of 1916 and 1917 that we have to seek for the secret of our victory in 1918"_ -Haig, 1919.
insightful analysis, Brandon! Worth noting the eventual victors in WW1 (were there winners in WW1?) had access to large overseas empires and did not have to worry about keeping potential soldiers engaged in food production bc they imported that from their colonies who they did not want to be militarized.
Thank you very much! The 'super thanks' is much appreciated. And yeah, in a war of attrition the Germans were basically destined to failure unless they could break out of their blockade and defeat the Royal Navy in a traditional battle (or many!) and that never happened. You can definitely see that understanding in a lot of their bigger movements towards the end of the war, trying to force a conclusion.
My Great Grandfather was in the 1st Battalion Connaught Rangers and was attached to the Indian Army Corps on the western front for the first year of the war and then went on to Mesopotamia and Palestine. He had shrapnel in his leg and a bayonet wound across his hand. Very proud of him and all other Irishmen that served in that brutal war
I would often "play" WW1 in my backyard when I was a kid. I had trenches, a dugout (clubhouse) some old, various military gear (not WW1 dated, except for my canteen) and a Mosin Nagant stock that my stepdad switched out for a synthetic. I'd go out, and basically stay out there, with any free time that I had. I always felt like I belonged in that environment, even when it got nasty with the weather and whatnot.
“The western front was 440 miles” Assuming the average shoulder width of 16inches, you could line up men, shoulder to shoulder, and cover the whole front line with less than 2 million men.
I should say Hadrian's Wall is very different from the Western Front. The wall was primarily to focus caravans (mostly trade) through certain forts where tolls could be collected. It certainly disrupted large armies from invading from Caledonia (now Scotland) but wouldn't actually stop them. Most of the "wall" wasn't a massive fortification, like you'd see around a major city, but really just a mound with stakes or maybe a palisade on it and occasional forts (which would have been more built up). Supply wagons would be a bitch to move over so when a raiding army did cross it a Roman patrol was likely to see either it or evidence and messages could then be sent out. But again it was more about delaying enemy armies or collecting taxes off of travelling merchants but making it difficult to move supplies except through specific areas Mean while the trenches on the Western Front were a near constant line of fortifications manned at all times to prevent literally anyone from passing through.
I would say the strategic logistics was better then ever in history. the tactical movement. the same as it has allways been. so what ever one side could do. the other side could counter.
Both sides rail systems were literally designed with a war against each other in mind. The German and French border regions were the most rail intensive regions on Earth in 1914. So yeah, I would have to agree with you, both the French and German rail networks of the period were superb, arguably the best rail networks in the world at that time.
Various British military tunes and regimental marches. Heart of Oak for the Royal Navy and A Life on the Ocean Wave for the Royal Marines, amongst many others.
Could you please make a video about the Honourable East India Company and her policies in the territories she conquered, along with the social reforms which took place, which still take an effect till this day
basically the western front was the only time in history where a front 'line' wasnt a vague guess on the average location of troops, but an actual continuous line
My great great uncle fought and died in WW1 during the Battle of Passchendaele, 1917. He served in the British army and fought in Flanders, Belgium. He fell to sniper fire and sank into the thick mud, never to be found again. Lest we forget
I was just thinking, you mentioned 1.5 billion shells. That’s very nearly one shell for every human being on the planet at the time. You also mentioned 7 million people fighting along a 400 mile border, that’s only two million feet. Looking at a linear population density along that border it’s somewhere in the ballpark of three people per foot! The crowding and the noise must have been incredible.
Very informative and great video, WW1 is one of my favorite history subjects. It really shows how warfare changed. My great great grandfather joined the U.S. army and fought in ww1
I loved the video and it was a really interesting take on the Great War that I had never heard articulated so well. There are two things that I am suppressed you didn't touch on and would love to hear your opinion on. Firstly is The Battle of Gallipoli, which faced similar siege-like conditions to the Western Front despite (ironically) being planned as a more mobile campaign initially. Secondly would be the Naval blockade of both Britain and Germany, which contributed to the siege-like conditions. I believe that in the case of Gallipoli, the Ottoman supply lines being so close while Entente supplies had to be ferried in from Egypt helped to create the trench stalemate. Meanwhile the case of the blockades of Britain and Germany led to a more "total" siege of the front. I don't know how both of these campaigns play into your thesis, but I thought it was worth noting.
I don't think it's easy to forget what it's like, if you've been told that the soldier's life is hard, and you've seen a film like All Quiet on the Western Front, and you've also worked in outdoor conditions where there's a risk of physical injury and then imagine "this was what soldiers went through if it was 10 times harder and you didn't know if you'd ever go home, and the power tools are also 10 times louder, and some of your co-workers want to kill you with said power tools, and the lunch break room is infested with rats, and you've gotta sleep here, and... there's no break". However, it's EASY to forget to teach those who are ignorant to such things.
I sympathize with the glasses problem. I slide by with 19th century frames for everything, and when I forget to pack them, I squint figuring that's accurate to most periods. But if I had to read something, that would really suck.
I'll add that for reenactors, the hardest things to get are consistently footwear and glasses, and for people new at it, the hardest things to give up are modern glasses and modern footwear.
The Iran Iraq war was a recent war that had battles that devolved from battles with combined arms in movement into long casualty rich trench warfare and sieges full of static artillery barrages
Just one of those things: the East India Company, some of the Livery Companies of London (that of the Master Mariners and that of the Air Pilots), as well as the Four Inns of Court (the four societies to which all UK barristers belong to) are, or were, also all 'The Honourable'. Which puts them on a par with members of the House of Commons, High Court Judges, and the younger children of Peers (noblemen), who are all 'The Honourable', too.
@@The_Honourable_Company not... exactly. In the UK, as regards forms of address, it goes (from the King down), Your Majesty-Your Royal Highness (Princes and Princesses)-Your Grace (Dukes and Archbishops)-Your Lordship (other nobility and higher judges)-Sir (Baronets and Knights)-Your Excellency (Governors, ambassadors, and foreign Presidents of republics)-Right Honourable (members of the Privy Council)-Honourable/Your Honour(members of the House of Commons and junior judges)-Esquires/Gentlemen(nowadays, everybody else). Basically, it was just a way to give the regiment an exalted title on account of it being the oldest regiment, and that's done by Letters Patent (a formal letter rubber-stamped by the monarch).
@@jonathanwebster7091 Oh thanks for that information Now where did the ''British East India Company" term come from, because it doesn't feel correct for some reason
@@The_Honourable_Company that's because it was actually the 'Honourable East India Company' (HEIC for short) It wasn't the only one, either; Denmark, France, the Netherlands and some others also had East India Companies as well, basically for trading in Asia, ie 'the East'.
People often underestimate the amount of tactical development in the first world war. The idea that they just threw men at the enemy is very wrong. The armys of 1918 were highly modern with more advanced tactics, modern infantry Equipment, tanks, CAS and a whole lot more.
OH MIGHTY ALGORITHM, MAY YOUR DIGITAL EYE FALL ON THIS MAGNIFICENT PIECE OF RU-vid CONTENT! SHOW IT TO ALL...SHOW IT TO ALL...SHOW IT TO ALL!!! HAIL, MIGHTY ALGORITHM, HAIL. Hi Brandon, leaving just a comment for the Algorithm. Thanks.
I had pretty much the exact same thesis argument I had to a high school teacher I had. Taught him quite a lot. I will add that few people know much about how they ultimately broke this stalemate. They created a broader battlefield in August 1918, where the Entente had men advancing as much as their troops could, but establishing themselves there, with the next section down the line or somewhere else in general advancing in the like manner, down and down the front, until the original section was able to advance having built railways, telegraphs, roads, refurbished tanks, resupplied, stocked up with more weapons, wounded men healed or were replaced, troops rested, repeat on loop for three months. Much like certain kinds of volley fire with muskets as Brandon actually talked about before. They also got tanks. Not a few tanks, the French had built nearly 4000 tanks by November 1918, the British about 2000, and they were planning on building over ten thousand for an invasion of Germany in 1919. They had developed combined arms tactics effectively, along with artillery countermeasures, with hurricane barrages of artillery, a few hours long and much more shocking than a weeks long bombardment and kept enemy troops away from the parapet and away from machine gun nests and the Central Powers artillery unable to advance, especially given that these bombardments incorporated poison gas shells too, much more effective than drum barrel released gas. They even build a tank that could go over 30 km/h for use in Plan 1919. That is just about the speeds WW2 tanks might often have, or slightly less. They had built tens of thousands of planes by 1918 as well, to give you a sense of just how much stuff they had. They could effectively give ordinary soldiers autonomy to exploit opportunities as they arose through well trained NCOs who had equipment for communication better than they had before, who had flamethrowers, portable 60 and 81 mm mortars, submachine guns, hand grenades, trench knives and trench clubs, and so on which kept them light and mobile, the Germans in particular used this well but the Entente did as well. Combined with everything they had learned, and the German losses inflicted already which had forced them back to the Hindenburg Line as they could not take another Somme like battle and had too many losses from Verdun, they were able to make their breakthroughs in 1918. All this worked to break it at the front line, and in combination with the breakthroughs on other fronts like in Palestine, Mesopotamia, the Isonzo Front (finally), the Salonika Front, and so on, they were able to defeat the Central Powers decisively. Remembering why this happened and how the Central Powers lost is a huge part of helping to be able to reject the Stab in the Back Myth. Without this context, it looks like the Stab in the Back myth has merit and that the old Kaiser´s bureaucracy had betrayed Germany and any minority associated with them like the Jews were guilty. Countering this point is a critical part of how the Entente could reshape the world in their image.
This makes me wonder about the taiping rebellion in China. Which according to some statistics had more casualties than ww1, and is the bloodiest civil war in history. How did a preindustrial society managed to keep such a war going?
Such a mega trench system would seem impossible or ineffective with current technology. Just a modern air force would make a giant trench just a minor hangup in the offensive forces push, a speedbump to roll over.
Ironically I think it was the lack of technology which lead to the stalemate. Without modern air support and modern vehicles these lines could be maintained.
So going off what you said about the radical differences in the political, cultural, and economic institutions and how that affected not only mobilization but logistics and the ability to effective field not just hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but millions. I got to wonder, how did pre-WW1 European powers consider "what is a defeat?". Both as a decisive outcome of a battle but also view the defeat of a war? What did they view as the conditions? Because I think comparing pre-WW1 wars to post-WW2 the idea of defeat was the nation's ability to fight. Yet maybe thats why the WW1 turned into an attritional war on the Western front because the viewed in a classical sense, the nation's inability to provide an armed defense. Yet, if you have massive amounts of industry, the entirety of the Nation's male population ready to mobilized, and the logistics to not only arm and equip that population but increase the capacity of the military and even more reequip the military to compensate for lost military personal and material. Then the victory condition is to basically destroy or exhaust a nation. It makes me think how do we view defeat of war in a post-WW1 world? As well as makes me question what tactics did the Great Powers militaries use during WW1? What the last war that was fought by all European powers was the Crimean war? Even then that wasn't a Great Powers' War and looking back I think the Europeon Nations that fought probably thought the wars they fought such as the Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War were like the US's Iraq and Afghanistan Wars where it a totally different war due to fighting developing nation and like the Ukranian War. Wars that were different from Great Power wars and thus needed a totally different set of military doctrine to fight leaving the last Great Power War tactics to be used coming from the Napoleonic Wars? But who knows.
After watching this, I feel like you've been lurking on my stream Brandon. I constantly have people saying Ukraine is like WW1 because they are using trenches. This being the only similarity and nothing like the horrific nature of the great war. Getting fed up of explaining the difference. Another great video mate.
@@BrandonF I hate that one, the Germans never even used the term. The direct root of the Bewegungskrieg lay in the Stosstruppen Divisions tactics of 1918. Arguably the entire Bewegungskrieg was little more than a modernisation of the fast moving mobile warfare preferred by the Prussian's prior to the unification of Germany. So it was not even new, just a modern twist on an older form of warfare.
13:55 Just a little question not big ww1 historian but a history buff and question why antant didn't try to go around the germans by sea since royal navy dominated the SEAS so why this is left out of the option?
Several reasons. Reason 1: Very little in the way of dedicated maritime assault assets. No landing craft, no specialist LSI's, nothing that would have allowed the British to put enough troops on shore quickly enough and then keep them supplied long enough for them to actually make a difference. Reason 2: Lack of Sea Room. Why is this important? Well the German High Seas Fleet was still very much a thing. It would require the Grand Fleet to cover the invasion forces, and the waters they would be operating in would be relatively narrow, heavily mined, and completely favouring the High Seas Fleet. Reason 3: The entrance to the Baltic, look at the routes into the Baltic from the North Sea, then refer to issue two but multiply it by ten. In short that type of operation was literally one of the few things the German High Seas was HOPING for, because it was one of the few operational environments in which they could feasibly take on the Grand Fleet and win, or at least savage them badly. Churchill did in fact suggest Baltic operations including landings, but was pretty much shot down by the Admirals who essentially all said NOPE. The Royal Navy did not attempt to operate in the Baltic in WWII either for the same reasons.....
Thinking about it one thing that could very easily have made it to where the stalemate lasts longer is relative distance of supply lines for all the combatants on the western front . Almost all the participants we're very close to the front line and in comparison to things such as the Eastern front it was relatively small
Another thing about the Eastern front is that it was in areas occupied by the Russian Empire while the Western front was in core French areas, as well as France being a Democracy while Russia was autocratic. If the Germans get too fortified in the East the Russians can just abandon an area, cause the Germans to advance, and then use their exposed position to make the war more fluid. However, if the French retreated they would be abandoning voters and it would look worse. If a foreign power invaded the US we would probably be fine with abandoning a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam if we intended to take it back later but if they invaded the continental US it would be a lot harder for the population to accept that somewhere like Maine or Oregon is now completely occupied by enemy forces.
It makes sense that the defending force would entrench along their border and build fortifications, since their goal isn't advancement, then the advancing force is forced to do the same or else theyd just be sending waves into death (They did that anyway but hopefully you get my point)
It amazes me to no end that these soldier's would just keep going into these battles and accept the orders given to them however suicidal. Sure there were pockets of defiance but they were an incredibly small minority. If any modern generation were told to endure these conditions most i feel would refuse and if pushed i feel like they would shoot their officer and hell who could blame them...
Good lord I just got a simply piano add that used the British grenadiers as a way to get people to buy the app. Brandon you gotta help me. My brain is going to explode from the farbery.
Perhaps one good way to understand the situation on the Western Front is to consider that the major powers in that theater, Britain, France, and Germany, were functionally the headquarters of massive rival global empires. All that is to say that the wealth, manpower, and equipment of entire global colonial network were being funneled into a single less than five hundred mile long battle line.
You state: “If you cannot out flank them [then] dig in”. This is an inversion of reality. As frontal assaults become costly, by the same coin by defense easily. Therefor to dig in was done to free up troops that can be put to a flank assault. This is why there was a ‘race to the sea’.
There was only 12 battles of the Isonzo? I seem to remember it being something like 325 or so! 🤣🤣🤣 Oh Luigi you silly fellow. Having watched the Great War and knowing the size of various European countries, it's still incredibly unbelievable thinking of the millions of solders fighting in such a small area. 475 mile long Western Front. It's 375 miles from Chicago to Cairo, Illinois (and that's just one state). I cannot imagine millions of solders facing each other on opposite sides of Interstate 57 from north to south.
We did very much have a preview of what WW1 would eventually bog down into. The American Civil War saw trench warfare on a massive scale, with many dead and wounded being credited to advancements in weapons tech like Gatling and chain guns, revolvers, lever action rifles, rifles with powered optics, you name it.
Sorry, but no. Let me explain. The typical explanation of a Western Front Trench Line is three lines. Frontline, and two supports, all linked by communications. By 1917ish this had changed slightly. The Frontline was not a main defence line, it was a tripwire designed simply to slow and breakup attacks long enough for artillery to attrite the enemy in No Mans Land. The main defence line was the second line, then behind that were two support lines. Problem is, in most places there were two to four of these trench systems, one after the other. You almost NEVER saw a single layer of trench systems. The Western Front was not just a trench line in length, but in depth. Ideally the defensive system was AT LEAST 25 miles deep. At. Least. So in 1917 you were not trying to break through four trench lines, you were at best having to break through 8, at worst through 16, all with areas of dead ground in front of them literally designed to attrite an attacking force through artillery fire. Secondly, as Brandon noted, the Civil War though it did see some trench warfare was predominantly a mobile war. Most of the warfare was mobile, positional engagements or battles. The Western Front was a three and a half year long trench war ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONT. The only time there was mobile warfare on the Western Front was in the first 5 months, and in the last 5 months. That was it, less than a year of mobile warfare in a 4 and a half year war. So sorry, no, while the US Civil War did have trench Warfare, so did the Punic Wars almost two thousand years prior. The Trench Warfare of the US Civil War was in now way a preview of the trench warfare of the Western Front. Not even close.
The horrors World War Ones western front are greatly exaggerated. If you where a British serviceman you had a 86% chance of retuning alive and without serious long term injury, plus you also only really spent 48 hours in the trenches closest to the enemy, other times you got cycled from rear trenches or digging things out for logistics or in billets playing cricket. Yes the actual warfare was horrific but most soldiers returned unharmed and with only a minority of their service in genuine danger from enemy fire.
Source ? Does that statistic accounts for servicemen in the empire all around the world, some at very little risk, or those on the western front ? Does it include enlisted men, or the original professionnals ? Does it averages the entire war, or if one enters the war from the start ? Because if my memory is quite fuzzy on the topic, i doubt 86% of the 1914 western front british soldiers made it to the end of the war. I could be wrong, but i think there's a lot of missing details, and possibly factors here.
@@edjohnson8017 I would be interested to know if that 86% includes support troops- I have been unable to find an accurate tooth to tail ratio in an admittedly casual internet search. In addition, Charles Carrington, in the IWM series of Great Wat Survivors' memoirs on the BBC iPlayer, had a detailed account of how restful a week out of the line could be.
@@jimjolly4560 for some reason my response and sources keep being hidden. Essentially between 3 and 4 million men from mainland Britain served in the army had front line combat positions Out of 6 million serving from mainland Britain And 640k dead or missing I’m sorry for being lazy but I don’t think RU-vid likes links so feel free to fact check me.
I also think its wroth noting that on top of that the vast majority of men who served were proud to have done so, there was some who were not of course but the whole "the war was pointless" came much much later.
Most popular opinion probably is that Tactics didn't improve alongside technology. The1900s tech leap was really world changing that it even changed our perception of time. Example is WW2 and the cold war. We think it's a conflict made long ago by our grandparents but it hasn't even been 100 years ago.
Most of the stuff came from "Soldier of Fortune" except for my puttees, which I got from another reenactor and were hand made. "What Price Glory" is another popular vendor.
i think you underestimate how much the russians and austro hungarian empires threw large number soiders into massive battles, just look at the caparthian front in 1915 the austrians threw massives numbers of soldiers into action against the russians in the middle of winter. in some of the most brutal fighting on any front at any point in the first world war.
There is one theatre that was far, far worse than the Western Front: the Italian Front. Take a battlefield like the Somme, and then tilt it to, on average, 70 degrees, and cover it in ice, snow and bare rock. Run it along the entire front. Then add another like it behind it, and then another behind that, and yet another behind that. Oh, and as a general rule, the Austro-Hungarians,were at the top of the mountains, and the Italians were at the bottom, fighting from one line of alpine heights to the next line. That's the Italian Front.
You know the Western Front had multiple line systems right? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the Italian Front had miseries unique to it, especially for the Italians. However that being said on average the defensive trench lines on the Western Front were 25 miles deep. 25miles. I have a copy of an October 1916 Trench map of a 3 mile stretch of the Somme battlefield, and it was marked with units from three German, and three British DIVISIONS, not regiments, Divisions. Which means the rest of the Divisions are deployed BEHIND those marked on the front line map, some in other trench systems, with some in R and R or reserve. 3 Miles, 3 divisions. Now I know that is extreme, even for the Western Front, but while the Italian Front was bad, most of it did not have the sheer scale of manpower defending it as the Western Front did. Besides, I am willing to bet that any British Soldier who fought in Passchendaele would have done almost anything to get out of the mud. I am fortunately old enough to have been able to go to my local while many of the WWI veterans were still alive, and the guys who fought in Passchendaele were a clique all of their own among WWI veterans. My Great Grandfather was one of them.
Yeah digging huge ass trench networks was bread and better of star-fort sieges. During medieval sieges tunneling was used, and I'm sure trenches were too. So seeing the entire front as a massive 2-sided siege makes it all male sense.
I don't think the way you used music was particularly effective in this video. It was very low in the mix, and when that happens, music turns into a slightly off-putting fuzzy noise. I get that you probably didn't want it too loud - for obvious reasons - but I think dropping it so low was counterproductive. I suggest you use sound effects while you talk - distant gunfire would add tension, and because it's supposed to be distant, the low sound level wouldn't be a 'sensual contradiction', and so not a distraction. You could maybe raise the sound level from time to time as a crescendo of emphasis. If you use music, maybe save it for brief montages of images about the subject you're discussing at the end or beginning, of a few minutes' discussion about a point. I realise though, that's a massive ball ache and god knows how much time spent editing.
