Morale in 18th C. Warfare- Why Did Soldiers Fight in Lines?

[@BrandonF]

If there's anything else you think I should discuss in this series, let me know! Right now this is the last topic on my list but I'd definitely be willing to make more videos on the subject. And if you haven't seen the other parts, go check them out! They're all short videos and they're all important to understanding the whole picture! You can find a playlist to the series here: kzbin.info/aero/PLbGwg11hQxtkmMCCWJ9Wd77YnOtl0BBkN

[@redberry33]

maybe unrelated, but I've always wondered the nitty-gritty of how communication was done on the battlefield! I keep hearing about horns, flags, written orders to officers and such, but how exactly did this information trickle down from high command all the way down to the line? anyway, thanks for all th work you do!

[@CDKohmy]

More on light infantry

[@zorkwhouse8125]

Excellent video as always sir. The irony - or at least one bit of it - is that *depending on the time period* you might actually be safer on your own than you would be in the battle line because the inaccuracy of the early firearms made it so much harder to hit a single isolated target. (obviously once we're talking rifles etc then this safety begins to evaporate rapidly) Regardless though, what you described about the morale effects of fighting in formation is a very important factor and was crucial to the combat effectiveness of armies of the period. (As I think you explain very well) Keep up the good work!

[@LeviTheNerd]

You should make a sharpshooter video

[@abrahamoyevaar2226]

A discussion on the growth in numbers and importance of light infantry from 1776- 1815, from an American, British and of course continental European perspective. Thank you so much Brandon for your thoroughly enjoyable and informative channel. Your mate in Adelaide, South Australia .

[@obi-wankenobi1233]

Don't be absurd, Brandon! When we humans are facing a danger we cannot directly fight, we logically decide to split up! At least, that's what every horror movie I've ever seen has taught me!

[@danilovega2029]

You forgot to mention the fact that we also can't see obvious hints of imminent danger. Assuming we are not actively ignoring them, of course.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Sure, but if you're in a horror movie there's two mistakes you'd better avoid: DON'T GO DOWN THE BASEMENT! DON'T GO UP IN THE ATTIC! Aside from that you're probably cool.

[@luodeligesi7238]

Best reason to bunch up - makes selecting big groups of soldiers easy in RTS games

[@SingularNinjular]

Good point. I'm very grateful the military theorists of the 18th century considered our plight when developing infantry tactics.

[@jjhh320]

"ALL UNITS!"

[@ajohnymous5699]

The fellows of the age before ours were such gents to consider us when getting shot at. They even gave us some bangers for soundtracks. GOOD FORM, GENTS!

[@95DarkFire]

I would like to point out, that staying in a group is still the preferable tactic when no firearms are used. For example, Police and protestors in street battles usually use such tactics. In that regard, modern warfare is the exception to the rule.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Quite true. Riot control training we got in the Marines was a throwback to the 18th Century but without the volley firing and bayonet charges. Too bad, it would have made it more fun!

[@redberry33]

iirc you can also see battle lines naturally forming in prison fights!

[@saudade7842]

I remember seeing one street battle where one side, with no real training, started naturally cycling their fighters from the front to the back periodically, just like the ancient Romans did to avoid exhaustion

[@visayanmissnanny2.076]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Just imagine, volley firing shotguns loaded with rubber bullets then falling back behind the shields. “Pike and Shot” turned to “Shield and Buck” lmao

[@tamlandipper29]

Great point.

[@redberry33]

I think Lindybeige briefly covered something similar! If I remember correctly, he said something to the tune of: as time goes on and soldiers start moving looser and looser formations, you can see the PTSD rates going up. This isn't a coincidence: soldiers were becoming tangibly more isolated in a hostile environment with their friends further and further away from them; putting them in a state of near-constant paranoia. Spend enough time being paranoid and aggressive, and, well, you bring that home with you.

[@vde1846]

The two thing also partly have the same cause: the ever more deadly and accurate weapons. The same sniper that would have a turkey shoot with a packed group of men or the shell that could wipe out an entire unit, can also kill utterly without warning. As long as you are by the front, or out of base in hostile territory, you can never truly relax.

[@SpruceReduce8854]

This reminds me of the scene in Band of Brothers where the Americans are getting shelled in Bastogne. Each of them had no idea what was happening outside their tiny foxhole

[@evanfreshman2450]

I suspect light infantry and cavalry would have been the ones to get the most PTSD in the past. They were the ones in the skirmish lines, piquet lines, and mounted videttes, which now has become the norm for all soldiers. They were the ones getting minimal sleep, running for extended periods of stress on coffee and tobacco, sleeping in small shifts, operating at the edges of the army, in unexpected contact with the enemy, etc. The main body had a schedule, marched during the day, took breaks for meals, slept in orderly camps, screened by the light troops. The armies might bump into each other but at a tactical level the main bodies weren't going to get surprised. That was the screening force's problem. In the big set piece battles, you'd usually have had a night's sleep, had breakfast, deployed into your place, with your unit, en masse, then waited for something to happen. A soldier might have a few hours of intense horror, but that might be it for the year, or the war. They could probably compartmentalize that and live a normal life after the war ends. The reconnaissance guys are on alert for months on end. That becomes their new normal. Explains why light units had a reputation for getting into trouble.

[@cajunguy6502]

Once I asked old drill instructor if he had any tips for obstacle courses. He said something along the lines of "team work, that's th purpose of boot camp!" You're trained to work together. You go into the field expecting to find yourself working together for your country. Then you find yourself alone under cover after a chaotic roadside attack in some sweltering desert on the other side of the planet. Yeah, I imagine the linear warfare was far easier to handle mentally.

[@benjaminparent4115]

That's interesting but it's quite literally possible that this is just the result of a reporting bias. As times went on we also developped a greater understanding of human psyche and PTSD, the term itself was only coined after the vietnam war, and it only became an official diagnosis in the US in 1980. Any calculated PTSD rate before that era might be widly innacurate. They are also other possible confusing factor, people started moving in looser formation because weapons became way dealier, maybe this more the result of the new weapon themselves rather than the tactic that we developped to deal with those weapons.

[@melissamybubbles6139]

I hadn't thought about herd mentality when it comes to the way soldiers were positioned, but it makes sense. Thank you Brandon.

[@podemosurss8316]

And not only they ran away, there was a loud voice yelling "Our men are running from the battlefield! A shameful display!"

[@digitaal_boog]

Crap, what’s this referencing?

[@Samichski]

@@digitaal_boog shogun tw. iirc

[@thurbine2411]

@@digitaal_boogtotal war games

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Another good one Brandon! Considering the morale factor I'll jump ahead to the American Civil War. The CW has often been described as "brother fighting brother" but in fact it was more like "brother fighting WITH brother," and not just that but cousins and boyhood friends. So, if you broke and ran EVERYONE back home would know about it, so you'd better stay put in that line or have your reputation ruined! "Death before dishonor" wasn't just an idle saying back then, it was real. It was however around 1864 that Union Army general Emory Upton figured out fighting in close ranks wasn't such a good idea anymore and began developing "open order" infantry tactics. It was about time. The downside was of course spreading everyone out made command and control harder and made it tough for the officers to keep track of what the individual soldiers were doing. It was a problem then and it's a problem now, although maybe not so much depending on the soldier's training. And in the end many infantry guys will tell you when it comes down to it they're not fighting for "Mom, Flag, and Apple Pie!," they're fighting for each other. But you're so right, the way they fought in the 18th Century made perfect sense at the time. The way we fight now makes perfect sense in our time. 200 years from now something else may make sense.

[@abrahamoyevaar2226]

Interesting. The Napoleonic, and French revolutionary wars,armies were so varied and the the timespan so long ( 1792-1815) that it is fascinating, and exhaustive , to fully compare with a degree of accuracy.A Russian Serf line infantryman, a French conscripted citizen soldier, or the British professional redcoat etc... even from the same year say 1808, would have such a divergence experience IMust admit as a miniature painter, the uniforms are magnificent.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@abrahamoyevaar2226 As I understand it it was the French Revolutionaries with their "levee' en masse" who began conscription as we know it today. If you're young, healthy, and fit mon ami you're going!

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@abrahamoyevaar2226 The uniforms were magnificent all right but I wouldn't have wanted to fight in them. Hey, myself and other Marines LOVED wearing our dress blues, one of the best looking uniforms out there, but we sure wouldn't have wanted to fight in them! Thank God someone thought up utilities! (Fatigues to the rest of you folks.)

[@bayosnirons2784]

I always like to say: If you don't have anything left to fight for, you fight for the man to your left and the man to your right.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Infantry guys will tell you, when you come right down to it you're fighting for your buddies, they're your whole world.

[@want2killu]

what if youre on the end of the line tho, you only got one bro

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@want2killu That's OK, there's another regiment of bros to your right or your left, depending.

[@thurbine2411]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706but the regiment were often a bit more spaced out than the soldiers in the line no?

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@thurbine2411 Sure, but still close enough to see their faces.

[@jesupcolt]

The psychology is a good point. If you look at modern soldiers who aren't trained or poorly trained, they have a tendency to bunch up when in combat. When under combat, you fall back onto your level of training. If you have little or no training, you're falling back on human instinct.

[@ChristheRedcoat]

Haven’t actually sat down to watch the full thing, but commenting anyway because the algorithm can suck it.

[@sirfox950]

Already watched it on recast, I'm here for the add

[@alansmithee8831]

Hello Brandon. Keeping your audience in line by putting it to them straight again. There was also the need to make it possible for future wargames figures to be based in multiples and for toy soldiers to be lined up by kids in generations to come. This was not something Old Britannia channel mentioned in their latest Napoleonic video today though, but I reckon it is well worth a watch.

[@mackenzieblair8135]

Linear tactics allowed for easier command and control of soldiers on hectic battlefields filled with smoke and noise. It’s why field music and flags were vital as visual and audio cues to the soldiers that could be detected over the din of battle. It was the role of the sergeants known as file closers to manage the men from the rear of the battle line and to discourage fleeing if the situation arose. Linear tactics were also needed for massing fire during eras where unreliable firearms were being used. If your army is using flintlocks with an effective range of 80 yards and a 25% misfire rate it’s best to point all your weapons at a singular target to increase the chances of hitting something. The best way to get the most muzzles pointed at said target was to put your men in a double line (triple if your French). Linear tactics were the most advanced infantry tactics of their time and were only surpassed once metallic cartridges and smokeless powders became standard. Small unit tactics were also developed and perfected by nation states like the Prussians.

[@Hell_O7]

Huh, never really thought about keeping excitement. That's interesting!

[@zach7193]

Well, this is something. Unit cohesion was like a brotherhood.

[@toothedacorn4724]

*Is* like brotherhood, I think people overstate how spread modern troops are. On the attack 2-3 man spacings is pretty normal

[@thurbine2411]

@@toothedacorn4724or no spacing if you are a machine gun team:)

[@Maverick966]

Yes I definitely feel safer in Holdfast game when we play in lines together than when I play alone

[@nicorozner7417]

Today in US history class we watched a fight scene from The Last of the Mohicans and part of the worksheet was about how linear warfare tactics are stupid and I had to stop myself from going on a huge rant to the teacher about how the British Army isn’t made entirely of idiots and their doctrine makes sense for the time.

[@trevdestroyer8209]

Plus If linear tactics were so bad then why did the American army keep using them until the invention of bolt action rifles

[@exploatores]

one thing we can´t forget. I might not hear the order. but I do as the other do and hope that they know what the order was. a second thing Is that a group of pepole can get a mind of it´s own. you don´t get that if your closest friend is 20 meters away.

[@brandonbaker7361]

I hope your sponsors appreciate the work you put into your ads. They may be campy as hell but at least you don't just stare at the camera reading off a script.

[@winstonslone2797]

His ads are the only ones I don't skip. He really puts effort into them and he's funny as hell. Good form Sir

[@alexmcd378]

The too high morale reminds me of one of the most annoying traits on barbarian faction units in total war. "Unit may charge without orders"

[@hugosophy]

There’s a painting I saw which depicted a moment in one of napoleon’s battles which shows Napoleon berating a soldier who was a little too overzealous. He was second rank in the Imperial Guard which would’ve been the young guard in the second rank. And a soldier as soon as Napoleon is finishing giving orders and a quick speech about the rare imperial guard advance and the young guard soldier yells “avant! Avant!” And sneezes past the first rank. And Napoleon gets pissed and tells him to calm down and to remain in formation because he hadn’t ordered an attack yet.

[@micahistory]

that is an interesting and reasonable explanation for this seemingly bizzare tactic

[@AS40143]

We also need a video about the real distances of fire. Many believe that soldiers fired at 30-50 yards but in reality, there were cases of firing from 400 yards

[@BrettBaker-uk4te]

80-90 yards was a fairly standard range of engagement.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@BrettBaker-uk4te True. The round ball fired from a smoothbore musket ballistically is very inefficient in that it doesn't retain it's velocity out to extreme ranges. It could be deadly at 100 yards, it could cause a dangerous wound at 200 if you were unlucky enough to be hit at that range. At 300 yards it would cause a slight wound, at 400 yards it may do no more than raise a nasty contusion. Napoleon was hit in the ankle in one of his battles by a wild shot at about 400 yards or so, it penetrated his boot and hurt like hell but didn't break the skin. He did have to limp around for a few days. A patched round ball from a rifle was a different matter. Spin-stabilized and with all of the force of the powder behind it before it left the muzzle it could be deadly out to 300 yards.

[@DomWeasel]

At four hundred yards, a full battalion volley of muskets would be unlikely to hit a single man. At Waterloo, the statistics of British ammunition expended versus French casualties show that barely 1 in a 1000 musketballs actually hit a Frenchman.

[@AS40143]

@@DomWeasel 1 of 1000 it's a great accuracy! During WWII it was 1 of 10000. According to Gogel"s table made after drill shots, there was 1 hit of 13 shots at shield imitating battalion. But it was a drill, not a battle. I also recommend the article "How Close Ranged were Mid-Eighteenth-Century Firefights?" by Alex Burns

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@DomWeasel Sounds like just about the same ratio they had in Vietnam, one 5.56mm M16 round in 1000 actually hit a VC or NVA soldier. More or less.

[@Tareltonlives]

Welcome Back Timmy, back in the army! I can't help but be reminded of an elite ancient formation- the 300 Thebans of the Sacred Band. 150 couples fighting side to side. Xenophon disdained them since he argued that the Spartans could have their boyfriends well out of sight in the phalanx and still fight just as well. The results spoke for themselves, however, with the Sacred Band destroying the Spartans in their battles. the smallest Roman unit was the contubernium of 8 men, the word contubernales meaning Tentmates. They literally slept together every night. That is going to make a unit that can fight side by side. Men together will stand together and rout together, chase together, charge together. At Chattanooga the battle was won when a single man in key parts of the front decided to charge, and when he went it caused a chain reaction where the men just surged ahead in defiance of orders, a sudden wave of people all joined together in a charge that overwhelmed the Confederate center and left.

[@TomFynn]

"tamp down that excitement". Or as Sir Colin Campbell, CO 93rd, put it: "93rd, damn you Highlanders for all that eagerness!"

[@robertjarman3703]

A few days ago, after an evening snack, I drove around the countryside outside my city. As much as people make fun of muskets for short range (notwithstanding that they had far longer ranges than the pikes and swords that came before and dozens of times more energy in joules than a longbow or crossbow and somewhat more range usually), it isn´t actually as easy as one might think to find a field where having the extra range that something like a springfield rifle would actually help you and also being a place where you can force your opponent to stand in a battlefield rather than going anywhere else or acting as guerillas, and also isn´t a place where you would have had the time to dig a trench or find similar cover and ergo actually have a standard pitched battle with lines like this (or even tercios). It would be even harder as a general who doesn´t know the land that much. Google Maps was not invented in 1731 afterall.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

True about a general being hampered by inadaquate or non-existant maps. Robert E. Lee during the Seven Days Campaign around Richmond was stymied by having no maps of the area at all and had to rely on local guides. McClellan's retreat down the Pennisula was aided by the maps his engineers had drawn on the way up.

[@katjamuller5503]

Basically, to sum it all up for those with a shorter attention span. Apes together, Strong.

[@thetimeywimeycornerofhisto4954]

All these soldiers be like: "Ayo that Cpl. Timmy is loaded! Maybe he'll buy the section a round of drinks! Let's respect him..."

[@mitchellline4242]

Dear Brandon could you do a video on militia officers during the seven years war and american revolution. I know they were virtually always considered outrank by full royal officers but there are many parts im curious about and can't find info for. 1. Were they paid and was it considered more an actual job unlike being an enlisted militia member? 2. Were they given any kind of special respect in civilian life? Or were they specifically disliked by average people? 3. How were they chosen? I've seen some sources say they were appointed by governors but others that they were elected? Was it a matter of the higher ranked officers being appointed?

[@anon_bast]

Thanks for once again a great video! Was desertion indeed such a massive problem in Napoleonic-era European armies? I'm not a big expert on this, but I remember reading citations from a German military manual of that time. There were detailed instructions on setting up your camp in a way to prevent the soldiers from running away at night.

[@abrahamoyevaar2226]

Depended on the army, and the year, (1792-1815) if you were with the French army in 1805 marching toward Ulm, not likely. If you were with the Prussian army after Jena or Auerstadt, 1806, very likely.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

There's a great story about a Prussian deserter brought before Frederick the Great himself, and it went like this: "Why did you leave me?" "Majesty, things went very badly for us today!" "So they did, and I need every man. So I'm sending you back to your regiment and if you do your duty like the others all will come right tomorrow and we'll speak no more of this." "But Majesty, what if things go badly again?" "Then come and find me and I'll desert with you!"

[@abrahamoyevaar2226]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 what a cool little story.

[@abrahamoyevaar2226]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 remember an anecdote from the American Civil war, of a General, not sure whom, asking a rapidly retreating soldier not to run, and asking him if he loved his country, to which he replied "by god yes, and I'm heading back to it as fast as I can"!

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@abrahamoyevaar2226 There's a great story about Stonewall Jackson and a deserter. Now ol' Stonewall was absolutely ruthless when it came to punishing desertion but there was one time when he broke his own rule. There were witnesses to this from Jackson's staff. It was at the Battle of Antietam, and Lee's army was hard pressed by McClellan's Army Of The Potomac. McClellan showed up where Lee didn't expect him and at twice Lee's strength and the Army Of Northern Virginia was in dire straights. Lee was on Jackson's part of the line when he saw one of Jackson's men break and run. Lee had some of his aides apprehend the man and then they brought him to Jackson with Lee's order to have the man shot for desertion. After Lee and his aides left Jackson took the man aside and said: "Look, we're in a very bad way and we need every man. I'm not going to shoot you, I'm going to give you your musket and put you back in the line. If you aquit yourself well nothing more will be said and we'll ignore this incident." "But sir, what about what General Lee said?" "General Lee is not himself today. When this is over he won't remember and I won't remind him." So it proved, and the man was never shot. In fact I believe he survived the war as well.

[@rhysnichols8608]

Being in close formations shoulder to shoulder has been the norm for warfare for all of human history until ww1. It was THE conventional wisdom, the tried and tested most effective way of fighting, from the phalanx, to the Roman legion, to medieval shield walls, to pike formations, to lines of muskets. Being loosely assembled and spread out was a recipe for disaster until the late 1800s, so you can see why it was so jarring in ww1 abandoning this most steadfast of fighting methods.

[@Noriegha67]

Bravo, if ads are needed make them original with voice over. Love it and keep it up! Great videos.

[@ProfessorDreamer]

Brandon F have you read The Last King Of America as it seems like your deep love for British history and knowledge ( real knowledge) comes from reading the book and being inspired by it to educate people on real British History?

[@BrandonF]

I have not, actually. Though I've had it recommended before!

[@ProfessorDreamer]

@@BrandonF BrandonF you should definitely read that book as it's a really great book and actually does an amazing job of clearing George III's name and restoring his legacy as well as showing true events that happened and that George II was a grand kind.

[@sempersuffragium9951]

I cannot believe it took me until watching this to get why the flanks were the places of honour...

[@GorillaWithACellphone]

Soldiers: Out of line Also Soldiers: Am too sad and unconfident to fight

[@ThommyofThenn]

I would have to be placed in the middle of the column

[@the_hope_of_balarat1109]

As someone who does medieval foam fighting (Belegarth and Amtgard), can confirm Brandon is absolutely on the money here, even when the stakes are the mild pain of getting clouted with a padded foam and fiberglass weapon. If you're in alone out there on the battlefield, you're absolutely dead. Archers will mulch you because you have no cover on your sides. Polearm fighters will pick you out for murder and turn you into a hole in your line, then break thru and rout your buddies. A more skilled fighter with weapons parity will come up and roflstomp you. And so you naturally clump up with your buddies, because it's survival for everyone. And yes, the commander behind the lines might just kill you themselves if you break, or even step backwards. I've been that unlucky bastard who gave ground against orders and died for it, and threatened the same myself.

[@The_Honourable_Company]

Yo, when is the vid on the review of the movie "Manikarnika" coming 👀

[@micahistory]

here for brandon's 5th video on why soldiers fought in lines

[@ducthman4737]

But the line formation was when possible always protected by the light companies who went in front attracting the fire of the enemies light troops. The light formation fought in open order using every protection the landscape could offer so exactly what we see these days and only at the last moment it would be the line companies going into action.

[@abrahamoyevaar2226]

True, the use of chasseurs, Jagers, riflemen, etc... In greater numbers is one of the tactical philosophies which becomes a cornerstone.

[@rinoz47]

Linear warfare, be there and be square.

[@De_Wit]

Damn, this is really interesting.

[@marknieuwstad2504]

With regard to herd-mentality, people tend to move towards other people instead of taking cover. Being around other people will give them comfort, even when they've become an easier target.

[@Tareltonlives]

And then there's just reinforcement by action; On the San Juan Heights, the Mauser-armed Spanish had the Americans pinned down, however, when the cavalry regulars, black troops, kept charging and taking ground, it shamed the rest of the men. These were veterans who basically put their lives on the line for meager pay in a society of discrimination but were still storming the Spanish positions at bayonet point. So when they made one more charge, the white units and Roosevelts Rough Riders (volunteers), felt humiliated. Roosevelt himself was incredibly embarrassed when the people he dismissed were outshining his own. So as the 10th cavalry and 24th and 25th infantry, all black troops, made one more rush under the cover of Gatling fire, Roosevelt couldn't take the humiliation any more and charged up Kettle Hill himself, in turn making a snowball of Americans fixing bayonets and braving the Mausers to take the hill, all following Sergeant George Berry's flag. The 10th, just flush with enthusiasm, charged again with Pershing in tow, and this time took the 3rd Infantry with them

[@imbored6440]

free engagement comment

[@tedarcher9120]

Rifles didn't fight in lines, and they didn't run away

[@BrandonF]

They did- it's just that their lines were far wider and more open. "Chain order" was one such formation.

[@tedarcher9120]

@@BrandonF well, chain is not a line, is it. Modern soldiers also fight in chain or wedge order, but it's a completely different tactical order.

[@BrandonF]

@@tedarcher9120 Oh, I see what you mean. This is something I covered in the previous parts of this series- when I say "lines" here I do not specifically refer to the line formation, rather I am talking about the broader scope of linear formations. Line, square, column, and all the rest. Basically, "why would soldiers fight in formations?"

[@ropeburnsrussell]

Im with you Timmy, ehats an app?

[@poil8351]

well bunching up in the 50s would have end up in a messy situation very quickly. and in the 21 century well a nice friendly drone would have a field day.

[@stevenkassulke9747]

why did soldiers fight in lines? ever heard of a shield wall? started long before a line of muskets

[@sergeantrose]

W videos

[@VexingWeeb]

wow, I thought all 3 of those videos were just reuploads or something and didn't watch them / assumed I forgot the name of the original and thought I had already seen those videos lol damn that's unfortunate

[@OneOneThree-wl7ml]

I'd be interested in hearing about "ramboing" in napoleon era. As in how individuals breaking from rank to charge the enemy head on were seen. This commonly happens in video game regiments.

[@shaider1982]

Hope you collabb with Armchair historian. He has a similar video on this.

Thank you for this video series.

[@billsnothere4499]

I hope your excited for the new napoleon movie coming out!

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

It LOOKS interesting, but then any trailer can make even the worst film look interesting and well-done. The wife and I went to see "The Favourite" when that came out, we expected one thing and got something completely different. "What the hell did we just watch?" A downright weird movie!

[@vikingsundlof9040]

Its shit

[@WhatIfBrigade]

Thick formations would be more vulnerable to cannon fire and canister shot, but cannons were rare and targeting massed conscripts would probably be one of the least important targets after enemy cannons, calvary and the professional light infantry. Still, it seems like enough of a threat where you'd want to drill your conscripts until they could fight in thinner lines if needed.

[@wh8787]

So, around what point did linear warfare end? I'd guess it was more of a gradual process then an abrupt end point but I'd be interested to know when it died out. I also guess changes in technology killed it, I can't imagine either common issue of rifles or machine guns allowed the use of linear formations, but was it already dying out before those points?

[@DomWeasel]

There's no distinct end date where it was decided. Fighting in tight formations died out in the mid-19th century with the American Civil War providing a cast-iron reason why fighting in line using rifles and rifled cannon was a bad idea. The European professional armies had been favouring open-order more and more during the various wars in Italy, Germany and then Crimea, with the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 being the first time there was no fighting in line; i.e. shoulder to shoulder as the two nations had the best trained and equipped soldiers in Europe. The real game-changer was the breechloading rifle. The Prussian Dreyse needle gun could fire five or six shots a minute and the shooter could remain lying down as he fired. Used during the Austro-Prussian War, Prussian troops could five or six shots lying down in the time it took an Austrian soldier to fire three from his muzzle-loader while standing. It didn't take a genius to realise that a soldier who could fire while lying prone was less likely to be hit than one who was standing. And in open order, even less likely to be hit. This was why in the US Civil War was such a bloodbath. You had men fighting with muzzle-loading rifles, marching shoulder to shoulder together to within 50 yards of each other where their rifles couldn't miss and exchanging fire until one side broke. Men would kneel as they loaded and the powder smoke would serve as some cover... But mostly they were completely exposed; especially an attacking force. Both sides quickly realised that siting their positions on the stone walls of fields or railway embankments would protect their troops while an attacker had to advance into the open with no cover at all.

[@wh8787]

@@DomWeasel thanks! That was very informative. I kind of assumed the American civil war was a turning point because of the use of closed order, rifled muskets, and horrific casualties.

[@The_Honourable_Company]

Guys, can you give me tips on how to dominate the world economy and stock market? (I'm currently RP-ing as the honourable east India company in an Alt history server, so need some help to troll the world economy XD)

[@BrandonF]

Everything on tulips- it's a sure thing.

[@dozenbuzzard2662]

opium

[@The_Honourable_Company]

@@BrandonF unfortunately, this Alt server is based in the 1950s, and it is currently 1959

[@The_Honourable_Company]

@@dozenbuzzard2662 👆

[@The_Honourable_Company]

Just to mention this, I currently have made an economic and industrial haven in the coastlines of what today would be called Dahab, and modern day Ras Laffan (I've discovered the natural gas and oil deposits there :) ) I also have control over almost 10 percent of India's stock market and economy, and is currently the 3rd richest company in history

[@WyomingTraveler]

Interesting video, but fighting some white individually did not have an adverse effect on the American army, Kings Mountain, or the initial phases of Cowpens.

[@markwalker4485]

You are young enough to join a Guard unit. Try joining Gov Gen Foot Guards. You will learn everything you need to know about being an old fashioned Guard. Including the fn bear hair in your eyes or a bee under the hair. And relax the GGFG is a reserve unit so just spend 6 months of your life.

[@BrandonF]

I may be the right age, but I’m not the right nationality!

[@markwalker4485]

All you need to be is born in the Commonwealth That’s it. Kinda cool isn’t it. As I said it will give you the understanding of what it was like to be a soldier way back then. Minus the black powder and such@@BrandonF

[@BrandonF]

I’m not from any Commonwealth country

[@lifeisgameplayit]

I have so much respect your approach full of dignity and inspiring , you make us all feel very much delighted . I thank you ; }

[@InsanityOverboard]

Tight ranks are still used in crowd control situations during riots and what not.

[@poil8351]

most rioters don't have heavy artillery or drones and can't get support from air strikes.

[@InsanityOverboard]

@@poil8351 which is the reason why governments tend to use tight ranks instead of artillery and air strikes against rioters 😀

[@poil8351]

@@InsanityOverboard well napoleon might have disagreed, afterall a bit of grapeshot is pretty good at crowd control. of course he could get away with it not so sure if you could today. might cause a bit of public relations disaster.

[@TeikonGom]

Those shoulders don't lie. You would definitely run away during a battle and I would gladly take the role of your commissar. You will die as a true red army soldier, comrade.