The Patriot: Battle of Camden- This is Why You Don't Go Head to Head with the British Army!

[@moor.j2948]

Flute players nailing all the dynamics under heavy gunfire is impressive

[@hansofaxalia]

The lack of combat musicians within modern armies is truly the greatest tragedy of our time

[@bostontowny4life744]

How would that even work? Battles aren't fought in these types of linear formations anymore. As they'd be fucking slaughtering grounds with modern weaponry. You can't have some musician playing electric guitar while you're in a stealth op lmao

[@GarrusVA]

Yeah but today playing Lady Gaga while applying a bandage under machine gun fire wont be special quite the opposite

[@THHatch]

I mean I could use some Mad Max music on the march.

[@Otter-Destruction]

@@bostontowny4life744 Outfit some Ospreys and Blackhawks or Hueys with speakers, a la Apocalypse Now, and have the cabin setup with a DJ booth or *musician of your choice (maybe Disturbed)*, then just before an assault start playing music. Can you imagine the shock and awe of the "a wa ah ah ah" from Down with the Sickness? bam Surprise achieved. Ez pz.

[@Chevalier_knight]

We do both the us ad uk have divisions who use sound as warfare in Vietnam they played music on speakers and choppers to stop the enmey sleeping and moral we used it in Afghanistan too

[@4plus20isHappy]

RIP General Cornwallis (Tom Wilkinson).

[@CrazySC833]

Oh shit, Tom is dead? RIP to a tremendous man.

[@dv2045]

3:30 one of the best Memes: laughs in British

[@Swatmat]

down with the colonials!

[@RicWalker]

The battle of camden was not an open field battle on a sunny day what looks like around noon. both sides of the "field" were swamps, it was early morning. The militia stood on the americans left (from the movies perspective that would be the farthest away from the house) and the Virginian part of them never seen battle before. they faced the most experienced troops of Cornwallis and those redrock madlads executed a by the book fireing advance into a bayonet charge. The Virgins (pun intended) broke ranks in panic, causing most of the North carolina militia to mass panic as well. Gates' right flank were some experienced Continentals that actually managed to push the Brits back and to the brink of fleeing forcing Cornwallis to ride over and rally them into holding their ground. Meanwhile the british right flank that put the militia into panic did the smart thing and not chase them but attacking the Continentals and the few militias that held their ground in the side. Cornwallis ordered the cavalery to use the opened right flank to ride behind the continentals and charge them from behind. At that point, attacked and threatened from three sides and a swamp to the last side, the continentals finaly broke. But i think the movie just wanted to depict how a open field battle in europe was fought at that time so that people were not too out of their depth on the final battle. OFBs were rare in the american theatre, especially in the southern half of the colonies.

[@orions221]

Mel Gibson clearly doesn’t give a shit about historical accuracy

[@SuperODST1]

It's hilarious that they couldn't get ANYTHING right, other than who was fighting. Like the sky isn't even right they're so inaccurate.

[@romangeneral23]

Who cares... Murica!!!!!!

[@CMDRFandragon]

Obviously the Battle of Camden was a Napoleon Total War game, where each side waited until precisely the moment both sides were 100% ready to start shooting.

[@Gunther-mt2bk]

….uhhhh. What you typed is very well described in the movie. None of the “differences” or “distinctions” you mentioned borough any enlightenment to what was conveyed in this clip of the movie. It’s a movie. They have 90 minutes maybe 120 minutes. It would be both a drawn out bore and a waste to show the army facing the left or going into the fact that it was early morning (especially since time of day was neither implied or stated) or that the rebels were made up of armies from two different colonies or the rest of what you said. They did an excellent job of getting across the points the characters were making and the historical accuracies of what the rebelling colonies were facing on the field.

[@Mr._Martinez]

Those darn flute melodies have stayed in my head for years. So catchy.

[@isaiahjones2089]

Same here

[@jamesrideout123]

@@isaiahjones2089 same here

[@Bayan1905]

Horatio Gates was beyond arrogant. He had the opportunity to make use of Francis Marion, the man who Mel Gibson's character was based on. Marion was known as the Swamp Fox and was an expert in guerilla warfare. Gates despised the militia and especially anyone who wasn't regular army. Gates hated Ethan Allen and thought that Marion was going to be just like Allen, so he told Marion that he had no use for him. Gates not only lost but retreated faster and farther than the army he was supposedly leading. Nathanial Green relieved Gates of command and brought him up to a board of inquiry. Gates was very fond of using the board of inquiry on others but objected to being brought up himself on one.

[@davecrupel2817]

I frankly think he "defected" on purpose. To sabotage our efforts against the British. Inept coward.

[@Surprise_Inspection]

The revolutionary army was as filled with fools as it was with heroes. Daniel Morgan, who this movie is based on, was placed under the command of none other than Benedict Arnold. Daniel Morgan, first sniper in history.

[@johnharris6655]

Marion was played by a very young Leslie Nielsen when he was a serious actor in a Disney Mini series in the 50's called "The Swap Fox." I wish Disneyplus would but this stuff back on.

[@phuckerpower]

Martin was actually an amalgamation of a few men.

[@mat7083]

@@johnharris6655I wish they but it on too

[@Rockhound6165]

One thing I never noticed in this scene is the demeanor of each side. The Americans wore fear on their faces and really showed fear after the first volley as they took off. The British on the other hand were stern and determined and even in the face of fire while soldiers were falling never flinched.

[@tgriffin3059]

The British were a well-disciplined force. They had men who patrolled behind the lines and were ordered to shoot those who ran. This gave the men incentive to keep moving forward and do their job. If they went forward, they had a chance. If they tried to run, the odds were they'd be killed. An approach like that cannot fail but to instill order.

[@seanpeterson4834]

Imagine if Robin Williams showed up with a squad of Dodge Chargers…now that would have been a battle!!!!

[@roger5555ful]

One of the best commercials of all time

[@seanp9277]

I like how he has to go into the house before he hears the cannons. Nice touch!

[@MadFox-jr6by]

I mean the artillery don't generally open up until the enemy is on the field, so...

[@seanp9277]

@@MadFox-jr6by And the enemy waits until he enters the house.

[@MadFox-jr6by]

coincidence? Also it's just a movie. @@seanp9277

[@ODSTdelta]

3:22 one of the best disses ever

[@Makeitso2023]

You just knew something was gonna happen to that American soilder when they kept showing him,didn’t expect a cannon ball to the face though 😮

[@RicWalker]

No, the "kid" was alive in the final battle. And i have to say it caught me offguard. the cannon ball to the face is cut out of the dvd version i have. i was so surprised, that i just checked 5 minutes before writing this. makes me wonder what else was cut for the german market...

[@django8451]

@@RicWalker I believe almost everything is cut in germany. It must be a pain in the ass to live in Germany and always get "family friendly" version of products.

[@RicWalker]

@@django8451 its not that bad anymore. but yeah, prety much anything before 2005 has its title renamed into something german, and anything was cut to its intended FSK age rating. Now its the other way arround. we get the movies uncut and they rate it as it is. and only if the product would end up restricted, they make a censored version.

[@Rockhound6165]

@@RicWalker you should have experienced that scene on the big screen.

[@dane0phelps]

When training my soldiers I would use the example of these soldiers to describe courageous restraint when teaching about rules of engagement on our modern battlefields. The courage these men displayed is remarkable.

[@simonphoenix3789]

they're standing at less than fifty yards from each other. At that distance a single volley would probably drop more than half the other side. muskets might be inaccurate at a distance, but it would be suicidal to get that close.

[@marcjones4351]

You can't bring facts into a Mel Gibson / Hollywood movie! Heaven forbid!

[@1337penguinman]

That's how battles were fought back then. Because of how inaccurate the smoothbore muskets were tactics relied on volume of fire and speed of reload rather than accuracy or range.

[@jjproductions7299]

@@1337penguinman true but what Gibson is portraying here is still a very extreme example! You would not have to be THAT close to reliably hit the enemy. Muskets weren’t as inaccurate as many people think. Brandon F has an excellent video in the subject

[@SamFisher007]

@@marcjones4351 Such a dumb ass comment to make. That's literally how most of that war was fought lol. Mel Gibson didn't invent it, dingus.

[@davidneal6920]

The guys with the flutes were doing quite well. But its always the dudes on the horses who have to steal the limelight

[@dvrn86]

Such a shame for both sides. Brother vs distant brother

[@jB-uw8fi]

NO MORE BROTHER WARS

[@MadFox-jr6by]

really more of a shame for the British soldiers. Most of them didn't really understand why they had to be shipped across the Atlantic to fight the colonies. While the Americans where literally fighting for their own homeland, in their own backyards!!

[@anneominous7172]

@@MadFox-jr6by Their own homeland which was ultimately given away to the same family (the Rothschilds) who control Britain. We should have been fighting together against the real enemy.

[@jessiemeisenheimer8675]

​@@MadFox-jr6byOnly a third of the colonists wanted independence lol. Thousands of colonials joined loyalist regiments or fled to Canade. The remainder didn't really care who won so long as they could get on with their lives. The idea of an entire American nation up in arms fighting for independence is a propaganda myth.

[@jfontanez1838]

Distant brother lmao brother too brother was the Civil war not those dam Brit’s

[@johnharris6655]

A British General, after the war said that England greatly under estimated how good the Americans were with the musket and other fire arms. He said they could load faster, aim better and did not panic under fire. America was still a frontier nation and most men, and some women, learned how to handle weapons and shoot at an early age. England by that time was an industrial nation and some men in the British Army never held a real musket until they joined the army. Most men in the British Army hunted for sport, most of the Men in American Army had to hunt for survival.

[@Mk1Male]

What a load of BS. Learn some real history. You're a clown.

[@mrfroghello]

And now americans cant choose what gender they are lol

[@jessiemeisenheimer8675]

That's interesting the British army was considered to be one of best in the world at this time, second only to the French. Your comment is interesting considering the British were winning the majority of the battles before they had to fend off the Dutch, Spanish and French. Your comment is interesting considering George Washington hated using the militia. Famous quotes include "are these the men with which I am to defend America?" and "To rely upon militia is to lean upon a broken staff (walking stick). Yeah, I call bull on your statement.

[@nickandres7829]

Tell that to George Washington when he got his butt kicked up and down New York

[@sksaddrakk5183]

Yes most British regulars did not know how to shoot a musket BEFORE they were enlisted. However, the drill sargeants made sure that at the end of boot camp they could do it blindfolded. The British were the only ones practicing the loading and firing of a musket with live ammunition. They were considered the finest line infantry in the world at the time. However, the colonists often used their hunting pieces in battle as they were familiar with them. Those often happened to be rifled guns with a better accuracy and hence they probably had an advantage in that respect. Having said that, frontloading rifles are a bastard to load as you need to force the bullet down the groves. So in a battle like the one depicted here, the colonists' higher accuracy and their knowledge of the terrain did them no good, as the battles were fought on short distances, which negated their advantages and tilted the tide of battle to the British's side. Only when the colonists started using ambush tactics (or as we call it today 'asymmetrical warfare') they gained the upper hand.

[@aaronleverton4221]

"Thomas Lobster had a lot of vices, disciplined courage was one of his virtues" or similar - Richard Holmes. There was a reason Britain built the biggest empire ever and it wasn't only Jared Diamond's rather well-put three-word slogan.

[@Atrox151]

3:29 Those poor rustics.

[@MIchael-li7mq]

Seeing that cannonball after being fired and hitting the ground decapitating that Soldier was a pretty gruesome way to go out especially if he didn't see it coming from how far away the cannonball was

[@Taospark]

That's silly, even in the Southern theater before Washington came to Yorktown. Daniel Morgan not only beat the British head to head at Cowpens but he was one of the few modern generals to ever pull off Hannibal's double envelopment doing it AND lured the hated Tarleton into a trap mauling his cavalry and wounding his ass.

[@tommyl3207]

I first read about Morgan and that Battle while I was laid up and in severe pain from my back which I read Morgan also suffered from. He could not ride and had to be pulled in a wagon.

[@ninojoselopez]

One redcoat says" these bumpkins fought like real englishmen". His officer replied "of course, they are englishmen"...

[@Geojr815]

So strange a whole battle just going down in someone’s backyard

[@Rockhound6165]

This is precisely what Benjamin was talking about at the town meeting that everyone was going to experience this war, even children.

[@JarrodFrates]

It wasn't uncommon. People would even watch battles from nearby hills, a practice that continued into the Civil War, partially for entertainment but also to know when they could loot the bodies after the battle. However, as Civil War battles grew more deadly, they stopped being seen as entertaining and fewer spectators showed up. Weapon ranges were also growing, and some spectators ended up wounded or killed by errant shots.

[@geoffreyturksmoney]

Even 90 years later, during the Civil War, combat was exactly the same. Warfare didn't change until automatic weapons were invented in the late 18th century.

[@esbam2002]

WWI as well

[@0ThrowawayAccount0]

Uh... Warfare absolute changed in the American Civil War. Ever heard of a "rifle bore" or perhaps a Minié ball??? The sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg literally had trench warfare.

[@esbam2002]

@@0ThrowawayAccount0Weapons changed. The tactics stayed the same.

[@0ThrowawayAccount0]

@@esbam2002 Did you even read my comment, you dunce?

[@DieFlabbergast]

* In the late 19th century (1800-1899). The 18th century was the period of Bach and Mozart, the American War of Independence, and the French Revolution.

[@renevalice3056]

isn't that young continental also at the end of the movie as well? I think he wasn't killed off, but rather symbolized America as it was- a young, fledgling but fighting-spirited nation and people.

[@Lancelot0311]

Which one ? I’ll watch it again and let you know. Give me a time stamp please

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

What's funny is that Camden was a loss because most of Gates' men were militia. Continental regulars were more than capable of standing up and holding their own against British regulars, as shown by the Battle of Monmouth. Even militia, when properly utilized in coordination with regulars, could be of use in a set piece battle, as shown later during the Battle of Cowpens.

[@bostontowny4life744]

These pre-industrial wars, with their linear formations, fought line by line in a battle field. These are 100 times more terrifying than wars nowadays. Not trying to minimize war nowadays, but I'd rather be on some raid, or some stealth mission in modern combat, than be in these linear formations, just basically marching to my death.

[@Delogros]

"These are 100 times more terrifying than wars nowadays" only fro man American perspective or maybe a western one, if you're a Taliban fighter fighting against Apache's and A10's with just your AK47 i think you'll find that's way more terrifying. You understand that line batles produced incredibly small amounts of casaulties right? the bloodiest day i nthe Napolionic wars was the battle of Borodino where you had a 6% chance of dying and a 73% chance of comming out entirely unscathed.

[@timothyjachim2474]

​@@DelogrosI have to imagine disease and infection were a far bigger cause of death?

[@jessiemeisenheimer8675]

​@@timothyjachim2474World War 2 is the first major war in history where more soldiers will die from combat rather than disease.

[@Delogros]

@@timothyjachim2474 You imagine very much correctly :) from memory it's 80-90% of the deaths in fact.

[@MikeCGannon]

Depends on what you mean by modern, industrial warfare. Pre-industrial warfare could get pretty bloody. The Battle of Borodino in 1812, between the Grand Armee of Napoleon and the Imperial Russian Army, was fought by a total of 250,000 men at a cost of 68,000 killed and wounded on all sides. That's horrific for a single day of combat by any measure, especially compared to a battle like Austerlitz, in which the French suffered less than 9,000 casualties of all sorts. Even Gettysburg, fifty years later and well into the industrial era, only clocks in around 43,000 casualties on all sides over three days. But by contrast, the Battle of the Somme had over a million casualties on all sides, with over 140,000 killed or missing on just the Allied side alone. Granted, you have to adjust for scale, and even accounting for that, a battle like Borodino is still a charnel house. But modern warfare, as seen in Ukraine, still has a major component of trench fighting, artillery duels, and assaulting fortified positions. It's not all SEAL Team 6.

[@HMSindistinguishable]

'Laughs in British' meme right there.

[@bobpage6597]

2:34.....I've always found it interesting when the British officer says 'FIRE' - the soldiers don't all seem to fire quite at once.......it looks like a part of the line starts, and then the fire seems to 'run down' the rest of the line. I wonder if that was a mistake? I do recall reading somewhere about a possible line tactic in how infantry fired, but it escapes my mind at present aha!!

[@jessiemeisenheimer8675]

It's more realistic. You can actually see other British officers repeating the order down the line. Soldiers further away will hear the order later and so will fire later.

[@bobpage6597]

@@jessiemeisenheimer8675 Yeah I found out what it was called now - 'Platoon Fire' was the method. And the explanation of it makes sense aha - thusly: 'Nearly all line infantry of the period carried smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets. These take considerable time to reload after firing: anything up to a minute for poorly trained or nervous troops. During that time, the enemy can close or return fire unmolested. In the time it takes to reload, a unit can be cut down, its half-loaded weapons useless in the face of an aggressive foe. It is sensible to make sure that not everyone in an infantry unit is reloading at the same moment; this, in turn, means that not everyone should be firing at the same time. Platoon fire was a way of dividing a unit into smaller groups that each fire, reload and fire again in turn. The result is a "rippling fire" down a line formation and, as the last platoon fires its muskets, the first is ready to fire again. In this way, a unit can always give some fire to the enemy at all times, even if this is less than a complete volley. When more than one unit was involved all the troops in every first platoon fired, followed by all the second platoons, and so on, creating several rippling barrages down the battle line.'

[@jessiemeisenheimer8675]

​@@bobpage6597Huh. Guess Empire Total War is actually somewhat accurate in its depiction of such tactics.

[@Foebane72]

2:50 I saw this in the cinema, and I remember blinking away when the cannonball bounced towards the camera, and I swear, I never saw the cannonball take the colonial's head off like that!

[@robertwaid3579]

Seried Ranks of Soldiers Shoulder to Shoulder, using Volley Fire too Keep the lead flying. This was before Military Firearm's we're all made with Rifling groove's in the Barrels, to improve and apply Accuracy too Thier Weapon's. Once those Theories were used & applied. The mere Distance's of the Rifle's then Doubled &Tripled immensely thus causing much Greater Casualties as Well. Too Stand in a Line Such as they Did?? IT took BALLS of Steel, plus Nerves of Iron. TKS.

[@ClergetMusic]

Not to mention that a musket ball could be upwards of .72 caliber, sometimes larger. The Americans using the Charleville from France would be shooting .69 caliber balls while I think, if memory serves, the British Brown Bess was a .72 caliber weapon.

[@jessiemeisenheimer8675]

European armies already had troops that used rifles, the skirmishers. They spread out, used cover and specifically targeted officers. Rifles were indeed more accurate and have greater range than smoothbore muskets but they were also more expensive to manufacture and maintain. It's once the European powers become more industrialized and wealthy from their colonies and global trade that their armies start to get issued rifles en masse.

[@robertwaid3579]

@@jessiemeisenheimer8675 Thank You for those enlightening Fact's and Thier application too the Topics. I'll admit that at the Time of writing My Comments. I had a Bad Case of CRS as they Say. May God Bless You 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏.

[@nickandres7829]

1:41 NGL those dead stares while people all around them are dying would be just as unnerving as the cannonfire.

[@SaidtheSerpent]

Person can only say things about people in relation to themselves or about things in relation to other things and can never not do this.

[@Elthenar]

To think, we went from struggling to win a single battle against the British to the point where our Navy alone has three times the men of all of the UK's fighting forces combined.

[@TheSerpent21]

I like the comparison they make in this scene between colonials and the British army. How different their facial expressions are. Ya see absolute fear on the colonials but then shows the British marching and not an ounce of fear on them or hesitation in their movements and even when men around them are gunnee down they continue their march. Training and years experience there just shows how much out of their depth the colonials were compared to the British who had years experience in wars.

[@techwatch1228]

And the Colonials still won. Sometimes you need something to fight for.

[@thes.a.s.s.1361]

1:50 Is that Giovanni Ribisi?

[@romangeneral23]

No

[@Agesilaus.88]

To think this whole Empire was about money and the Bank of England. They had no idea.

[@melvinlee9263]

I look at Heath Ledger and see nothing but Joker (his greatest role).

[@MikMoen]

Marching orderly straight into artillery and volleys of fire was the utmost stupidest Era in Warfare in Human history.

[@jessiemeisenheimer8675]

Tell me you know nothing of the time period without telling me you know nothing of the time period.

[@johnharris6655]

Some of the best Generals England had wore American uniforms.

[@DieFlabbergast]

The Americans at the start of their War of Independence WERE Englishmen. Changing that was what the war was about.

[@hyper-lethal-sigma3]

America unfortunately has forgotten its roots our noble heritage and those reasons are why we have lost as Americans our truly free nation to corruption and legislative oppression...history is who we are and who are any of us that do not know our own history

[@simonrooney2272]

I feel like the Patriot isn't the best movie to learn about American history from

[@jfontanez1838]

The American army back then were so not ready lol the British at one time was like the Roman Empire

[@mcnubbets]

*laughs in British *

[@alessiodecarolis]

Naturally it depends from the weapons employed, I strongly doubt that the redcoats would've been so disciplined against, f.e, some greek fire bombs!

[@stevensharp5135]

Suicide plays a major role in warfare of the time. Amazing how swathes of soldiers gave up their lives in the manner of a pawn in a chess game.

[@0ThrowawayAccount0]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6G4lWd9ep18nbcsi=NUWVY6_5lUins7Bm educate yourself, you dolt

[@spicey1266]

not sure that id call it amazing more like tragic and terrifying

[@matthewcaughey8898]

And so in america we invented gurella tactics and fighting dirty because in a war only victory matters

[@DieFlabbergast]

Guerrilla warfare was invented thousands of years ago. The Picts, Jews, and Germans used it against the Roman Empire, and there are hundreds of other examples. If the enemy has the advantage in numbers and weaponry, you use what you can, which includes greater knowledge of the terrain (your home ground).

[@k0sm0krat0re]

I distinctly remember this scene having a man lose hisnleg at the knee from the bouncing cannonball, not a headshot. Was that some sort of tv censorship attempt?

[@Rockhound6165]

Different battle. The battle where the men lose their legs is the final battle not this one. And why would they show a guy getting his head blown off but not show a few legs taken off?

[@johnwade1095]

Is it true this movie ran as "The Traitor" in the UK?

[@breadders86]

No. I've only ever seen it as The Patriot

[@johnwade1095]

@@breadders86 thought I was being fed a line.

[@neuseieiahn5164]

Me in total war empire messin the Brits up with my American hillbillies

[@Mk1Male]

Mel Gibson, the most Anglophobic person to ever exist. Just look at his movie history.

[@Rockhound6165]

He did play Fletcher Christian in The Bounty.

[@DieFlabbergast]

Also a rabid anti-Semite. Never saw a historical event he couldn't lie about.

[@APZachariah]

Which is a silly thing to think. The Americans got crushed in nearly every engagement until Baron von Steuben taught them how to fight properly, and the militias were never trusted or liked by Washington. It was the Continental Army using traditional European tactics that won the land war, after the French pinned the Royal Navy.

[@chrishernandez4266]

Isn't it ironic that eighty some years later, the North & South would still be fighting each other using Napoleonic tactics?

[@DieFlabbergast]

@@chrishernandez4266 They worked. You have a better idea?

[@chrishernandez4266]

@@DieFlabbergast part of why the militias were so effective was bc they weren't so much "going muzzle to muzzle" with the opposite side. They were a little more stealthy about how they went about fighting, using rocks & trees, etc., for cover & guerilla tactics. At least that is my opinion. I wasn't physically present during those periods of history so I can only base my opinion off things I have read or heard.

[@thelastjohnwayne]

NOTE This is the Dumbest way to fight ever.

[@0ThrowawayAccount0]

Anyone who has literally a modicum of knowledge about "Line Infantry" tactics and strategy rolls their eyes when they see comments like yours. The good news is you are on KZbin. You have internet access. Instead of posting a mindless comment, why not go to Wikipedia and look up Line Infantry tactics, strategy, or better yet... find a KZbin video that goes into great detail why this style of fighting existed. SPOILER: It was the best for land warfare in Europe given the terrain and the weaponry at the time. Black gunpowder and smooth-bored guns are HUGE factors in why they fight like this. The bright colors of the uniforms (instead of camouflage) was because the black gunpowder burns horribly and creates huge clouds of smoke, obscuring friend from foe; having bright colored uniforms help distinguish everyone so commanders could lead and direct troops. Now, you may have noticed the lack of radios and other communications tech out there. That's because there are not any. Not for a couple hundred years to portable enough at least. The reason drums and bugles and flags are present on the battlefield (along with actual GENERALS) is because communicating to people was limited to shouting but remember that dirty burning black gunpowder?? That is also fucking loud. No one can hear Generals who are perched up on some hill using a fucking telescope to command his troops.. So, soldiers were trained to respond to commands given by drums, bugles, or signals given by flags. Ah, but you are probably calling the Soldiers "dumb" for standing in a line just waiting to be shot. Well, you have a tiny point. This was the last relic of "chivalry" present in most battlefields. A lot of honor was left over from the days of old when officers were likely aristocrats. But the Soldiers themselves were likely low-born peasants or merchant-class. The biggest reason they fought in a "line" and "took turns shooting" is that other thing I mentioned, ... smooth bore guns. Smooth bore guns are fucking inaccurate as all get out. Also, those things have to be reloaded FROM THE MUZZLE. A well-trained Soldier was considered great if he could fire *3 rounds per minute* . Imagine that. A gun that fires 3 rounds a fucking minute and even if the dude is great with it, he likely would miss because the gun is smooth bored. And do not get me started on the delay from trigger pull to the actual gunpowder hopefully igniting and sending your round off. So, what does a glacier-slow reload on an inaccurate weapon have to do with standing in a fucking line? Well, the best way to hit your target was turning all your musket fire into basically a "shotgun" blast with volley fire. One dude may miss but if I have 50 dudes lined up and shooting in the same direction, SOME of the musket fire is gonna hit the enemy. You also may be asking, "Why not shoot and then like, lay down or something?" Great question; the point of a battle is to kill the other dude but also take control of advantageous terrain. I already said the guns have to be reloaded from the muzzle. You cannot take territory while laying down and trying to reload a musket (also, muskets are bitches and do not do well when you put dirt or gunk in the muzzle. It jams them with the ramrod and makes the musket inoperable... which is not good when the other dude is trying to kill you). So, they "took turns shooting while walking at each other" to account for the muskets inaccuracy and reload speed whilst trying to take advantageous terrain. There are loads and loads of more considerations with line infantry warfare. Even the fucking weather can dictate battles. I mentioned the black gunpowder right? that pan is not going to ignite in the rain. Hell, even if the humidity is too great the powder can be unreliable. That's why all the battles you see in this era tend to take place on bright, sunny days (at least in the European theatre). There is a big shift with how the 7 Years War (French and Indian War for the US peeps) was fought in the Americas by the Native Americans but that is a topic all on its own. I guess what I am trying to say is, "Fuck you. You are dumb. Stop acting like you are smarter than literally military generals who devoted their entire lives to killing people with the technology and weaponry that was available during their time. Your retarded self probably struggles to microwave food while you admire your Funko Pop collection."

[@kriddius]

The meat grinder of "civilized" warfare was absolute madness. The French were still doing this at the onset of world war 1 and marched into machine gun fire. The bloody stupidity of this era was outmatched only by the sheer courage it must have taken to walk willingly into that nonsense EDIT: I see people saying how effective standing in neat lines and taking turns shooting at each other was. It only worked because everyone else did it too. You know that right? If one army showed up to an agreed upon field, lined up neatly and started walking slowly forwards... but the other guy decided to, I dunno, not do that? War is deception. The only reason people used to fight like this was some absurd notion of gentlemanly conduct. One of the main points of this movie was to show exactly what happens if someone with any shred of sense and care for the lives of his men goes up against someone stuck in this traditionalist style. If you're fighting for your lives throw honor out the window. To hell with your rules. History is written by the victor any way and you can spin it however you please

[@Delogros]

The Americans where still doing it in 1917 despite French advice. As a side not these tactics aren't stupid and make perfect sense for muskets, there is a pretty decent reason these tactics help build 3 of the 6 largest Empires in history and had some of the lowest battle casaulties of any form of warfare in anytime after Greek hoplite battles.

[@LucianDevine]

@@Delogros They are stupid for the Americans, given that they are doing it against superior numbers. Only the larger force wants to trade volleys, and the smaller force doing it just guarantees defeat.

[@nicktaco117]

By 1914, yes these tactics were dumb, but they weren't really used by 1914 anymore anyway. During the 18th-19th century, these tactics were very effective and used by some of the greatest generals of all time.

[@captainnutsack8151]

Tell that to Napoleon who conquered all of Europe with these tactics

[@ClergetMusic]

Regarding the French during WWI. Yes, they were still of the “cult of the attack” at the START of the war. They quickly changed their tactics when they found out it wasn’t working. Nobody is so bloody stupid to be dogmatic in the face of losing a war.

[@tonyhewlett4527]

They should have taken a lesson from the vikings.

[@jeffjr84]

Pretty sure we won that war..

[@0ThrowawayAccount0]

*"We"?* Dude. How fucking old are you? Unless I am wrong, you were not present during any battle in the Revolutionary War and statistically are not even in the Armed Forces nor a veteran. And even if you *were* in the military, you are not a Revolutionary War veteran. So shut up with this "we" bullshit and only be proud of your own personal accomplishments.

[@0ThrowawayAccount0]

@@billyparker1803 The Americans used guerilla tactics in only a few parts of the war, mostly in the southern colonies. The reason they "won" was because of the French support and literally the UK seeing the Revolutionary War as a small engagement; this is why REAL independence was solidified in the War of 1812. But hey, keep believing the myths if it makes you feel better.

[@rvanleersum]

Horrible movie... 18th century infantry didn't close distance this close before firing volleys. The muskets were relative dog shit for accuracy, but not that bad.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

I'm surprised on how long that type of idiotic "war strategy" survived. You'd figure after a few thousand "rows" of soldiers get mowed down, someone would have thought, "Maybe there's a better way to do this?"_

[@HamburgerMan-ch1od]

There were many advantages of using line formations during this era. Guns did not fire fast. It would take long periods of time between shots to shoot. People fought with guns scattered across a battlefield when they were first introduced, but it didn’t take long for people to realize that forming a big line of gun wielded soldiers would be more effective. Also, keeping soldiers together increases cohesion, maintains order (because there are no radios), and maximizes firepower. Keep in mind, you got the best military leaders that invented these tactics. If there was “a better way” they would have found one. Just as line battle tactics really need between 1880, and 1914.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@HamburgerMan-ch1od *"There were many advantages of using line formations during this era."* ... No modern-day military commander that could travel back in time would ever employ this type of inept battle strategy nor for ANY of the reasons you've mentioned. War was considered "gentlemanly' back then and was based on honor, dignity, and prestige. THAT'S why they fought this way! A modern-day commander would have all of Gates' men camouflaged like bushes and trees instead of wearing brightly covered "costumes" with bright white cross belts that served as "heart targets" for the enemy. There wouldn't be any drums, trumpets or bagpipes serenading the troops before the first shots were fired, either. In this scene, the British would have suffered heavy casualties before they even realized they were under attack. They would have lost another wave while they were trying to find out who was shooting at them ... _and from where._ *"but it didn’t take long for people to realize that forming a big line of gun wielded soldiers would be more effective"* ... That's simply not true! Line formations did not "evolve" out of scattered positions because it was considered a better strategy. It was based on *intimidation:* a "show of force" to frighten the enemy. None of which is applicable to an enemy that you cannot see or one that doesn't care. "Standing in a line" is a battle strategy based solely on attrition. It was a "last man standing" mindset established by narcissistic generals that is absolutely NOT conducive to victory. All of the commanders were trained in same stupid strategy, so that's why they all went along with it. Same goes for the Civil War. Generals from both the Noth and South were all trained at West Point, so they were using the same stupid battle strategies against each other. You'll just have to accept the fact that "War" cannot be orchestrated in a gentlemanly-like fashion. Trying to mount a defense for this type of inept warfare is about as nonsensical as employing the strategy, itself. BTW: America got its comeuppance on outdated "battle strategies" during the Vietnam war, and there is much more left for us to learn. War doesn't care about your honor, your show or force, or your bright, pretty uniforms. Humanity is still struggling to learn that war also doesn't care about your Mosques, Synagogues, or other "politically incorrect" targets.

[@cassandrak5749]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCMost of the strategies at this time were still premised on matchlocks and smooth bores. Slow to fire, very poor aim. To make the matchlock musket effective, you had to pack in shoulder to shoulder and basically make a giant shotgun of a formation. And when majority of those tactics first created, they still had alot of pike formations and such. Look up landsknecht for great examples. Fact that British didn't innovate as rifle and flintlock got better/cheaper is on them. But you can bang out around 10 smoothbores to 1 rifle as well, sooooo yeah. It's not just about savagery and fucking up the enemy. Don't need rifles for that any ways, look at varian disaster. Or what sharp shooters did to British columns during Rev war. But unless enemy is stupid, you can't kick a large army out like that. Not with their tech at time at least. Primer caps, magazines, mines, and drones are great force multipliers.

[@SpursTraveler]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCthat’s a lot of words to say that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about 😂

[@summonerekup]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Camo... Yes we should use camo when our muskets blow smoke everytime we fire. But fking hell they won't see us because we're camouflaged. Dums Trumpets or Bagpipes are not for serenading it's for giving our orders. Because in an actual battlefield not movie battlefield the noise these cannons and muskets make drowns shouts of orders. The British would have suffered heavy casualties before they even realized they were under attack. FROM WHAT MAN? The Inaccurate and Shortranged Muskets that takes half a minute to full minute to reload? There's a reason line infantry marches forward even when the enemy is firing their volleys. It's because the muskets are so fking inaccurate that at long range a volley fire would just be ineffective. The Usage of Riflemen, Jaegers, Skirmishers shows that yes it would be more effective for future armies to not bunch up as accuracy and rate of fire improves technologically. And that goes to the main point here. We can think like modern-day military commanders because our technology allows us to. Remember these muskets are smoothbored not rifled so accuracy is plain shit. It's not about gentlemanly or Last Man Standing mindset. It was effective because of lethality and the only factual thing that you've said. Intimidation, a bunch of untrained undisciplined men would buckle in the pressure of a disciplined juggernaut. Hell, using your logic about modern-day vs colonial-imperial era warfare, future Armchair Generals can also say that the way we're using human armies when we could use drones and droids.

[@spienaar66]

Most stupid way of war ever...

[@londonrhodes2429]

They werent stupid people. There are reasons for everything.

[@user-do8sd3jg8g]

No stupid, very logical. The weapons in this century are not so accurate. You must have many rifles to shoot the enemys. In europe fight all armys on this way and won wars. But the british soldiers are professional. The american soldiers, amateurs.

[@charliep5139]

All war is stupid

[@ray.shoesmith]

idk, lining up man abreast in 4 ranks and marching at a steady walk directly towards Maxim machinegun nests 30 yards apart and riflemen packed in between was the best the British could come up with for 3 years until they gave Monash a divisiion

[@jesswebb5261]

This all ended with the advent of automatic weapons. Can you imagine fighting like this m16s.

[@woodwyrm]

more like this is why you don't make up stories about the revolutionary war FFS

[@aaronleverton4221]

Camden was a major loss for the colonists. Nothing made up about that. What comes after? Sure, total bulldust.

[@thedukeofswellington1827]

Such an awful movie, historically, creatively...just everyway

[@darekbaird]

okay britbong.

[@ryanbrooke9270]

Such a stupid way to fight a war just stand there n get shot lmfao? What sense does that make?