What is a Regiment? | British Infantry Organisation in the Revolutionary War

[@theministryforhistory]

Now usually it would be a stupid question at an event - but this episode does indeed beg the question… is that fire real? 😂

[@BrandonF]

Oh boo, boo this man!

[@kinggeorgeiii7515]

Shame on you for asking such a question. Though, I do believe those reenactors are Confederates...

[@thedamnyankee1]

No, the REAL question is "Where did you get that fire?"

[@thefakeatun-sheifilms6184]

@@BrandonF I don't know, one thing I've always wondered about regiments is if they're hot in that?

[@olafsson6431]

Forget the fire... how about the baby?!!!

[@saadkhan1128]

"For an outsider the british army is a single fighting force but in reality is a confaderation of many regiments" The opening of an olde documentary series in the highest traditions

[@thetimeywimeycornerofhisto4954]

Videos lately: "firing drill" "organization" "Light infantry use" Yeah, Brandon is definitely not training up a personal army.

[@BrandonF]

Of course not, definitely not, I'd never dream of such a thing...

[@nottherealpaulsmith]

He's going to restore the colonies!

[@vinz4066]

Hes Planing to overthrow Putin in the Most fancy way posible.

[@laserprop]

I always thought he was giving off funny vibes. Something about him screams "Militia Movement." And if you look VERY closely at the video, just off to the right is a Timothy McVeigh poster.

[@stevengoodloe3893]

It is so eerie how similar their structure was to today's infantry units. A British private of the time would recognize the structure of the modern infantry squad. Separated by over 250 years and the roles of sergeants and corporals haven't changed a bit. The ratio of "good" soldiers to "bad" is measured the same. It's so strange.

[@thealmightygonk2644]

You should look at the Roman organizational system, this goes all the way back.

[@stevengoodloe3893]

@@thealmightygonk2644 You're absolutely right! The Romans even had battlefield medicine that would be familiar today. I forgot about the Romans. Thank you, Almighty Gonk. I suppose the video is more "relatable". Considering English language and whatnot.

[@podemosurss8316]

Wait until you find out that the Spanish Army keeps units that were established in the XVI century.

[@stevengoodloe3893]

@@podemosurss8316 Yes! The old Tercios!

[@kevinlove4356]

It is not strange at all. It is a matter of human evolutionary psychology. The human brain evolved to deal with certain group sizes. Those group sizes are reflected in the size of military units. Because military effectiveness is not about technology but about how effectively human beings can work together as a team.

[@marxbruder]

"basics of what the uniform looks like...will be centrally organized by the military..." *laughs/cries in Foppish Fourth's non-standard LI helmets, LI belting color, LI feathers, regimental bayonet carriage pattern, unlaced officers' uniforms, and battalion troops in scallop laced cocked hats*

[@josephwalukonis9934]

Yes, these things did happen. Also, regiments were inspected by the Army and deviations from regulations were noted - typically, "hats too small," "coats too short," types of things. They also commented on the condition of the arms, accoutrements, drill and general impression of the soldiers - age, stature. The equipping was done at Regimental level so the Army would not step in and make corrections. The Colonel or other regimental staff would have to do this.

[@West_Coast_Mainline]

What da fourth doing

[@marxbruder]

@Gallant_Great_Western I didn't even include the leather breeches for all ranks in the 1760's and the artillery company the regiment maintained in the early 1770's. Colonel Hodgson was incredibly extra.

[@coltonfalletti6360]

One small caveat, if I may. In May of 1772 the rank of Captain-Lieutenant was changed from being the senior Lieutenant to being equal in pay and seniority to a Captain. They kept the cool name, but now were actually treated as Captains. A Captain-Lieutenant's commission now had its own price too, more expensive than a Lieutenancy but a few pounds cheaper than a "full" Captaincy. When seniority was concerned, the date of a Captain's commission now began when they became Captain-Lieutenant. Ex. William Gore became Captain-Lieutenant of the 33rd on 6 January 1776, and became a "full" Captain on 17 August 1780. His seniority as a Captain, however, dates back to 6 Jan 1776.

[@dernwine]

One way to see the effect of the Regimental System on the modern day British Army is to look at the lowest few ranks in the army: After passing out of training, one assumes the lowest rank in the army. That of Private. Unless you're in the following Regiments: The Royal Armoured Corps (Trooper) The Army Air Corps (Airtrooper) The Duke of Lancashire Regiment (Kingsman) The Special Air Service (Trooper) The Household Cavalry (Trooper) The Coldstream Guards (Guardsman) The Grenadier Guards (Guardsman) The Welsh Guards (Guardsman) The Irish Guards (Guardsman) The Scots Guards (Guardsman) The Royal Irish Regiment (Ranger) The Ranger Regiment (Ranger) The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (Craftsman) The Royal Artillery Regiment (Gunner) The Royal Horse Artillery (Gunner) The Royal Engineers (Sapper) The Rifles (Rifleman) The Royal Gurkha Rifles (Rifleman) 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (Highlander) 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (Fusilier) The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (Fusilier) The Royal Welsh Regiment (Fusilier) and The Royal Corps of Signals (Signaler)

[@thekinginyellowmessiahofha6308]

This video was a godsend. I’m trying to figure out the logistics of a miniature war gaming army. I’m thinking of painting them as the 33rd.

[@BrandonF]

33rd is an excellent choice of regiment!

[@ronhall9394]

@@BrandonF 5th is better....

[@Zajuts149]

Until 1751, regiments were referred to by they name of their colonel's name, and it was only then they got assigned a number. Many nation's had the same practice, and many nations only started using numbers to identify their regiments around the Napoleonic wars.

[@steamengineshooray]

6:45 Jonathan's acquired all the Regimental Drip.

[@MrAwsomenoob]

An important but unrecorded role was that of "regimental drip bearer" who's regalia was oft paraded at the head of the regiment to flex the regiments prestige over other formations of the army.

[@darthcalanil5333]

British Regimental and Brigade system is the reason for half of my headache when trying to follow WW2 British units especially in comparison to all other armies

[@zach7193]

I find the organization and forming of units for the British army in the War of Independence as interesting.

[@BrandonF]

You've found the perfect video, then!

[@jarongreen5480]

Oh man! He's gone from a swagger cane to an intellectual chair and fire place! Stuff's getting real!

[@podemosurss8316]

Very interesting! In Spain we had a system more similar to the French, with an infantry regiment formed by a grenadier company plus two battalions (in some instances 3), with each battalion (1760) consisting on 1 grenadier company and 10 line infantry companies (natively called "riflemen companies"), with the grenadier companies consisting of 50 men, and the riflemen companies consisting on 40, for a total of 450 men per battalion and 1000 per regiment. Each company was subdivided in platoons of 10 soldiers and a sergeant, with each platoon consisting of 2 squads of 5 soldiers (one of which was a corporal). A cavalry regiment was formed out of 3 squadrons, each consisting of 4 companies of 32 men each (for a total of 384 per regiment). The artillery was organised on a regiment consisting of 3 battalions of 12 companies each: 3 artillery, 1 sappers and 8 riflemen companies, with each battalion acting as support for one of the three territorial armies: Aragón (eastern provinces), Extremadura (western provinces) and Andalucía (southern provinces). Instead of regimental colours, each battalion held three banners, standing for the country, regiment and battalion. Every infantry regiment had one surgeon assigned, with every squadron having one surgeon assigned for the cavalry.

[@polygonalfortress]

15:49 Brandon I'm not hearing the anthem of the froggies am I?

[@kinggeorgeiii7515]

Brandon, I get quite excited when I see an upload of yours. Very informative, and very nicely done overall. Keep up the great work! Also, I do really like the setting in which you’re presenting.

[@kinggeorgeiii7515]

What I’m getting at, is MORE FIREPLACE

[@BrandonF]

Yeah, this sort of style is something that I'd like to start doing more of! All of these sets are going to become more detailed in future as I furnish my new place, but I think having three different styles (in chair, in office, and voiceover) helps to improve my performance with less cuts and adds visual variety.

[@theenigmaticst7572]

@@BrandonF I believe Brandon also meant to add "Your Majesty" to that last comment, your majesty... :P

[@kinggeorgeiii7515]

@@theenigmaticst7572 I think he did. What execution method do you suggest?

[@samuelbousfield4342]

@@kinggeorgeiii7515 Drawn and quartered should do nicely your Majesty

[@Captain_Frank_Abagnale]

To give a little insight into the “Hessian” units, they were fairly similar in strength, at least the Hesse-Kassel units were because of the numbers they deployed to America. I’m unsure if the British did this or not but the Germans stripped the regiments of the grenadier companies and formed them into ad hoc shock battalions so generally the regiments were smaller in size if I remember right. They also followed Prussian combat doctrine. All of their units were also normally named after their commanders ie Regiment Von Bose, Von Knyphousen etc. they also had traditional unit numbers too ie Von Bose is Musketier-Regiment nr. 8 officially. And yes Regiments of Foot were Musketeer Regiments in almost all of Germany. They also had Fusilier Regiments. The difference is fusiliers were generally the short guys, they wore short mitre helmets to make them seem taller but they served the same function as the infantry. The regiments were very flamboyant/old fashioned for the time in terms of dress. Bright colors, ie the HK Leib-Regiment wore bright yellow under clothes with a Prussian blue coat and very fancy tassels on the turn backs etc. There was one Fusilier Regiment which name escapes me that wore pink lol. However the units were very sharply dressed. Jägers wore green and red and used actual rifles. The later 18th century British Baker Rifle used by the green jackets is more or less a lighter copy of the Jägergewehr. The Brits, particularly Lord Cornwallis loved the Jäger Companies that he worked with. According to Captain Johann Von Ewald(the 2. Jägerkompanie Commander) in his war diary he shared somewhat of a personal friendship with Lord Cornwallis. Ewald literally wrote the book on light infantry and partisan warfare at the time.

[@josephwalukonis9934]

Yes, the grenadier companies were formed into separate battalions. The British usually did the same with their grenadier and light infantry companies as well. The Hessians had a different number of companies per battalion - six rather than ten and down to five once the grenadiers were removed. Also, important to note that in battle the Hessian regiments operated in platoons and not companies. I believe each regiment was divided into 10 platoons.

[@jesseestrada8914]

I hope Brandon isn't offended but his commercial was the most entertaining part of the video

[@BrandonF]

To be fair, it's the only part where I tried to be funny, so it seems like it worked!

[@jesseestrada8914]

@@BrandonF point taken! it was a wonderful video, but I was openly loudly laughing at your commercial.

[@ChristheRedcoat]

A very comprehensive video! Hopefully this clears up a lot of confusion.

[@BrandonF]

The next one will be even more fun and confusing, with Sub and Grand Divisions!

[@spacetexan1667]

I never knew the drummers were under separate command! Very interesting 🤔 I really hope you do a follow up video on that!

[@benlewis4241]

One thing I think you miss out is that operational realities really mean that the number of men in a company could really vary. Shockingly at this point fatalities in shipping troops to the West Indies were higher than those registered on slave ships of the time, and sickness and death on the journey to North America was also hardly uncommon. So many regiments recruited when they actually arrived in America to make up the numbers. Worn out regiments which had a low number of effectives would be posted to garrison or the lines of communication, sometimes shorn of their flank companies.

[@voskee608]

hey! i want to compliment you on the editing of this video. A lot of care and work was put in to this, and it really made the viewing experience that much more enjoyable! And as always wonderful information

[@BrandonF]

I'll forward this along to my editor! It's a team effort with my videos now, where I provide instructions on what I want things to look like alongside images, and my editor (one of three of them!) will put everything together.

[@imbetterthanyou6927]

I actually sat through your ad. It was very compelling.

[@justdags6611]

Always a pleasure to see a new video from you. God Save The King. 🇬🇧

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

Very nice start to this series. Looking forward to the next ones.

[@Paul.M.]

Thank you! I have been waiting for such a video for some time now. Here's to part two and possibly more!

[@TheFarOffStation]

This is a great video, old boy! It really helps breakdown and explain British Army mumbo jumbo, which at first glance, can be quite confusing!

[@kinggeorgeiii7515]

It’s you! It’s the guy that made the only video about Canadian kit on KZbin!

[@TheFarOffStation]

@@kinggeorgeiii7515 I’m still a little bewildered by the fact there isn’t more on Canadian stuff out there; considering their large contributions to the world.

[@johnlogan697]

The SurfShark ad was my favourite part!

[@JayEmSea]

Wonderfully produced vid Brandon, very informative and interesting.

[@inspectorsupremoelecto9291]

The way you are explaining it with the fire and everything makes it even better.

[@charlesxii1228]

Love you brandon, make more vids

[@BrandonF]

I'll be trying to! April should be a very productive month!

[@essexexile]

Only half way but had to say I’m happy you pronounced Lieutenant as “Leftenant”.

[@rwbrown1904]

Great to see my old unit, the 10th. Thank you for another great video!

[@stevengoodloe3893]

This is terribly interesting. A British company of the time was the same size as a modern American infantry platoon. A regiment of the British Army of the time was small than a modern American infantry battalion. I'm sure the Contenintal Army and later US Army was similarly structured. I'd love to learn about the evolution leading up to the present day.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

I wouldn't assume it's the same now, but when I was in the Marines in the 1970's infantry was organized like so: A platoon= 40 men. Commanded by a second or first lieutenant. A company= 160 men. Commanded by a captain. A battalion= 480 to 500 men. Commanded by a lieutenant colonel. A regiment= 1500 men. Commanded by a colonel. Mind you, all of the above are a "more or less" situation but essentially correct.

[@stevengoodloe3893]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 DISCLAIMER: I'm aware that I come off as condescending in my comments. I've tried not to sound that way now. The following is meant as a clarification. I was speaking relative to the size of US Army Infantry echelons today. I spent 2003 to 2012 in the Regular Army and have been in the Guard every since. I did kinda jump the gun on the comment, though. I posted at about the mid-point of the video so I had to immediately eat crow. The unit strength you described are essentially the same for the Army today. The only difference is that we generally don't use regiments anymore as an administrative or tactical unit; there are at least four exceptions in the Regular Army. It's interesting the the Marines have a platoon "commander". In the Army we have platoon "leaders". The Army's rational being, since a PL does not have command authority, he cannot "command" a platoon.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@stevengoodloe3893 Don't worry brother, you didn't sound condescending to me at all! You were just making an observation. "Platoon commander" vs "Platoon leader?" Just semantics when you come down to it, both have the same jobs anyway. Both are a lot more dignified-sounding than "MFIC!" And back in my day a Marine regiment was definately an administrative and tactical unit, we also had deployable units called "RLT's" or "Regimental Landing Teams," also "Battalion Landing Teams." As I said I'm not sure what's used now. Probably not too much different, the Corps never changes! And thanks for your service and keeping the faith!

[@stevengoodloe3893]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Oh, good! I didn't want to start shit. But yeah, it's just semantics and terminology. Thanks for your service as well!

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@stevengoodloe3893 Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment!

[@alesd2120]

Off topic: You are probably the only channel where I don't skip the advertisements - always great fun!

[@bomba1905]

Finally, the organization video!

[@BrandonF]

Took a while, but the next in this series won't be far behind!

[@maniacalmax]

@@BrandonF Thanks for making a video on the British Army’s organization during the American War of Independence. This video will now help me complete some research I am doing for my** virtual historical army group.

[@micahistory]

Wow this really puts into perspective how much goes on behind the scenes in war

[@SultanOfAwesomeness]

Bravo; this is one of the much more comprehensive and easy to access breakdowns on such a subject; stuff like this has confused me for a long time. What I’m understanding is that British regiments of the time were a lot more independent and self-sufficient than I originally thought. Thanks so much for your hard work (and for always throwing your sources in the description)!

[@Riceball01]

You are correct that Briotish officers would be expected to buy their own swords.However, for what I' know, by at least the 1800s, the British military had established patterns of swords for all branches of the military. So, even though an officer had to buy their own sword, they couldn't just by any sword they wanted, it had to be the pattern (or model) authorized for their branch, or it at least had to look regulation when sheathed. But I can't say wether or not this was the case during the period you are talking about, all I know is that small swords seemed to be all the rage amonst infantry officers, but I don't know if a specific pattern for an infantry officer's small; sword existed or not. That's something you should consult and maybe do a claob with Matt Easton on.

[@chroma6947]

Regulation patterns started in 1780s most common swords used by infantry were hangers spadroons and in some cases smallswords. Then for cavalry basket hilts and sabers

[@Riceball01]

@@chroma6947 So after the period Brandon is covering then. Gotcha,. Good to know and thanks for the info. Also, thanks for the reminder about spadroons, I totally forgot about them, probably because I've known about smallswords for far longer than spadroons and I forget that they were used by the military more than the smallsword.

[@KasumiRINA]

I mean, even now it's kinda like that: you can buy your own 545 AK or 556 AR for war, paint it custom and put on crowdfunded optics, but don't expect your unit to keep supplying you with caseless ammo and spare mags for something more exotic (see recent viral trench video: yellow AK74 with holo sights still having a Soviet Bakelite mag), there are always SOME regulations... even back then in ancient times before drones, samurai owned (so bought or inherited) their swords (and women, daggers), yet they had standard measurements, styles, sizes and even sheath and sash regs. You won't see many British officers of men in tights period fielding a katana or machete anymore than you'd see a Sengoku samurai with a kilij or shamshir.

[@MyelinProductions]

Awesome. Thank you. Love the videos. Peace & Health

Nice Video. Right when you think this guy couldnt get any more British, he goes and gets a fireplace and some classical background music :) Well done Sir !

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The regiment and company were administrative units. For most regiments, there were ten companies, eight center (or hat) companies, one light company and one grenadier company. There were supposed to be two depot companies raised for the war, but most regiments never raised them. Some regiments raised more companies. The 71st (Fraser's Highlanders) raised twenty companies of 100 men each. Most line regiments were authorized increased strength for their companies, but most already deployed in America did not have the chance to recruit at home to bring them up to strength. When deployed to American, their flank companies were stripped away and the sixteen center companies organized as the 1st and 2d Battalion and colors issued. By the time the 1st Battalion was destroyed at Cowpens, the two battalions in aggregate minus their flank companies had less than 600 men. The 2d Battalion went into Guilford Courthouse with less than 300 rank and file. It then went on to be captured at Yorktown. It was rare for battalions of a regiment to serve together in the same brigade or even theater. This was the result of strategic and operational attrition. As strategic and operational wastage took its tole, at some time, the regiment would be withdrawn from operations and its still effective men drafted to other regiments and the cadre of officers and NCOs would be sent home to recruit. Sometimes a regiment which had been captured would have its officers and NCOs exchanged for Americans and then sent home to recruit the regiment back up to strength, as happened to the 7th Foot (Royal Fusiliers), captured along with their colors in Canada, recruited up to strength and then captured again with its colors and music at Cowpens. Men were sick and some died awaiting transport, then on the trip to America. Campaigning in the American South led to sickness, injuries, some detachments and desertions. During the American War, the grenadier and light companies were stripped away and converged into independent battalions, though the regiment was still responsible for maintaining the strength of their flank companies. The two flank companies had a higher priority for replacements than the center companies. These battalions usually had four light or four grenadier companies. None of the four companies of the light battalion destroyed at Cowpens under Tarleton were from battalions serving in Cornwallis' army. While the "converged" light companies rarely carried colors, the grenadier battalions often did so. While light infantry could skirmish or operate in "ordre disbande", light infantry was mostly used for raids and quick tactical ops, like Gray's surprise of Wayne's brigade. at Paoli, "la Guerriere petite" as the French called it. The Loyalist regiments mainly followed the British example. There were variations such as the British Legion and the Queen's Rangers (Butler's), which included light infantry, rifles, Highlanders and light dragoons. The tactical units under the 1764 regulations which were derived from an earlier version of Prussian drill were the battalion and the platoon. While there were ten companies in a regiment, there were eight maneuver and fire elements in a battalion. As it was, with the flank companies detached, the regiment made up a single battalions of eight fire and maneuver elements based on the eight center companies. One task of the regimental adjutant was to parade the regiment at the start of a campaign and whenever possible and cross-level manpower to try and equalize the strengths of the companies so that the fire and maneuver elements were approximately the same size to make executing drill such as column to line and back easier. And, of course, the methods of giving fire would include by platoon and element/company in succession from the flanks inward. As it was, it was found that battalions larger than 300 files in two ranks were difficult to manage on the battlefield when communications were limited to drum and voice. A veteran, trained regiment of 400 rank and file was far more combat effective to a newly arrived regiment with 700-1000 rank and file. Von Steuben's instructions was that a battalion should not exceed 180 files or form less than 90. Units too small were to be converged or used outside the line of battle. Battalions that exceeded 180 files were to be divided into two battalions with four companies and eight platoons.

[@hizurumegumi5727]

This has given me writing ideas for my world.

[@ktcd1172]

For someone whose branch of service tended to view the Army and Marines as "Strange Breeds of Cats" I am quite surprised that the number of unit members at the "Worker Bee" level was only about the size of what we normally view as the small unit level, the squadron. But then again, you did say that the Regiment was the Basic Administrative Unit of the British Army at that time. While we did have smaller detached units (Flights and Detachments) a squadron was around 500 - 600 personnel. I guess that I just never looked at the situation in that way before.

[@Darqshadow]

I must ask, what's your branch?

[@ktcd1172]

@@Darqshadow USAF 1972 - 1985

[@RobertGrif]

Thank you so much for making this video! I have always found British Army organization in this time period super-confusing, and this really clears a lot up!

[@stephenmcdonald7908]

It's not really an army but a collection of warring tribes who hopefully fight on the same side in times of war.

[@adrianburchell8075]

I am more knowledgable about Napoleonic British regiments and/or battalions, thanks to the Sharpe books by Bernard Cornwall and one point I would question is the regiment. In the Napoleonic wars, the Regiment was is as you described, but many regiments had 2 or more battalions and a few had only one battalion. The Regimental administrative centre and recruitment/training centres were in Britain, with the Battalion doing the admin thing you were describing, with usually one battalion at least abroad and depending on number of battalions in the regiment, you may have one battalion in Canada and another in India with a smaller battalion back home. A Napoleonic battalion was supposed to be 1000 men strong in 100 man companies, but with illness, combat and desertions, battalions were usually 600- 800 men strong at start of deployment, but rarely stay that way. I believe in World War One, the company was 150- to 200 men? Unsure about that. A modern battalion consist of 650 men, similar to Napoleonic times, but with fewer companies. 5?

[@terrybarrett2368]

You are correct, and it was the same during the period he is talking about

[@drmminc192]

Former 23rd grenadier here. I noticed in my own research that the flank coys took a beating at Lexington but made a repeat appearance at bunker hill months later. Loosing a lot of men in both action they had somehow fielded over 70 men in the following year in just the grenadiers! Considering the organization was only 50 in wartime and 36 in 1775 prior to the war I can’t help but wonder where they were getting these men and if they really existed??

[@Quincy_Morris]

There should be a strategy game where you manage a regiment or company and have to make all these hard choices of where to assign different soldiers based on their skills, experience, discipline and quirks.

[@user-rm9qs4hz1p]

A very good informative video, loved it. And very helpful. My main hobby is painting historic miniatures and I’m jumping into the AWI. Always love learning the details from videos like these. Thank you

[@BrandonF]

I'm glad it was helpful! Thanks for your kind comment.

[@secretagent86]

Very knowledgeable. Subscribed

[@jamesa.7604]

Thank you for this video. This was very entertaining and educational. Answered several questions I have had since grade school.

[@saltyscotsman8319]

Yes Brandon yes!

[@JJfromPhilly67]

Very interesting and very informative. Thank you so very much.

[@siamlawma]

in a British style regimental system, an infatry does not denote size(units and formations) period nor a regimental center HQ have the operational authority

[@rincewindtwoflower3989]

Really interesting video, looking forward to the upcoming videos

[@CivilWarWeekByWeek]

Org chart time!

[@BrandonF]

It's always the best time!

[@DaSaintDemon]

Now i want another video about drummers and fifers organization

[@oliversherman2414]

Very interesting video

[@Nikolapoleon]

I've been to reenactments. I know for a fact that a regiment in them days was like... fifteen guys.

[@brichalfant6127]

Please do elaborate on musician status within a regiment in future. And if you need someone outside the fife/drum spectrum, I'm the piper for my group and have some resources on bagpiping within the Scottish regiments and companies.

[@KasumiRINA]

I think nowadays soldiers use hardbass and some electronic remixes for their TikToks, I really don't suggest bringing a bagpipe into a trench smh... XD

[@generalaigullletes5830]

THANK YOU FOR THE LIBRARY AT "THE NATIVE OAK", BRANDON! :DD also happy late birthday my boy

[@BrandonF]

You're welcome and thank you! I am actually planning to revamp it over the next few days, to have a lot more documents and be better organized. I'll make a community post when it is done!

[@generalaigullletes5830]

@@BrandonF Nice!

[@mateuszwisniewska1848]

@@BrandonF Hell yes

[@billmiller4972]

I prefer the Roman way: Decurio: commanding ten men Centurio: commanding hundred men Millurio: commanding thousand men 😉

[@KasumiRINA]

That's the organization we had at Maidan in 2014. A Sotnik commanding 100s of people, and Tysiachnik a 1000, it worked really well for self-organized Revolution, but it won't help fighting the biggest country in the world, so we are back to ole batallion/regiment/company style organization. For the army. Was tons of volunteer bats back then, all reorganized under proper command now. Even that is split between army, police, border guards and territorial defense units. Some of those under different (internal affairs or defense) ministries too.

[@cadeowens8]

Best history teacher ever

[@michaelnewton5873]

The post revolutionary American Army didn't have a manuel until Hardee's tactics. Used by both armies in the Civil War.

[@TchaikovskyFDR]

The Continental Army used Pickering's "An Easy Plan of Discipline for a Militia" published 1775; which was an adaption from Townshend & Windham's "A Plan of Discipline for the Use of The Norfolk Militia" of 1759 and the 1764 "Manual Exercise, with Explanations, as Ordered by His Majesty" In 1779 the Continental Army adopted Von Steuben's "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States"

[@DelDel__]

I appreciate the video, only just started being interested in history again and whenever I read book about military history I realised that the author apparently expects you to know all of this already (and many more basics) and I never had a clear view on the structure. They might give you some basic terminology here and there, but the explanation wasn't too comprehensive either.

[@jeffreyrobinson3555]

Lordy that’s was as clear as mud Still informative

[@milkduds1001]

Honestly, even today (at least in the US Army), a lot of manuals are still just suggestions. We have two distinctions. Regulations and Doctrine. Regulations are things like how to properly wear the uniform (even that can vary, look up US Modern Cavalry, spurs and Stetsons are technically not allowed by regulation). Doctrine is how to fight and how to conduct operations. What’s the big difference? You can be legally punished under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to follow a regulation. You CAN NOT be legally punished for disobeying doctrine.

[@johntaylor7029]

Ok, when did you upgrade to doing videos next to a fire, in a chair like a gentleman of old? Amazing, love the channel.

[@brad4268ify]

In marching in column You would normally have the shortest men at the front to set the Pace and the taller men at the rear

[@OctaBech]

Yay, finally :D Been missing your ranting.

[@richrumble]

Another great video. Thank-you.

[@lukedelport8231]

Great video sir top class

[@Dreadnought586]

Another greatly interesting video

[@West_Coast_Mainline]

Do a video on drum and fife calls please Edit: I heard the anthem of the first French empire, Brandon why are you playing french piano songs

[@therainbowgulag.]

Another great video.

[@nathangreig5884]

I only served in cadets but our chaplain was the most incredible man, I feel the chaplain is one of the most important rolls In a regiment. I'm not a religious man but I still hope that the chaplain or some other pray for my soul

[@micahistory]

very informative, I never knew how the british army was organised

[@micahistory]

very interesting topic

[@gameram6382]

My batalion was about 900 to 1000 men. 29th 45th of foot.

[@itshunni8346]

What Brandon said: if one company was lacking strength What my brain said: if a round of canister turned the company into a platoon.

[@promiscuous5761]

Thank you.

[@SpikoniaMusic]

Is that the Chant Du Depart 18:47

[@user-gr4sq3lo6n]

The British Army has been described as "A loose alliance of independent tribes"

[@701duran]

Great video as always.... God save the king

[@jonathanpickles2946]

Some regiments, Guards I believe, still use the flank company designations instead of A B C etc. (or did 30 years ago I hazily remember). Colonels could be outside the regular military altogether not just in other roles. This is sort of continued with current Colonels In Chief like the Queen.

[@roberthudson1959]

The British Army wasn't the only one where colonels commanded and lieutenant colonels did the work. G. Armstrong Custer was only the executive officer of the 7th Cavalry. Colonel Samuel Sturgis commanded the regiment, but he wasn't in active command until after Little BigHorn.

[@podemosurss8316]

In Spain the same goes.

[@KasumiRINA]

Custer is the guy known for horrible pixel pron game from that weird console with one-button joystick my parents had?

[@huntclanhunt9697]

I'm curious as to how the American army was organized. I've found few good videos.

[@mateuszwisniewska1848]

Hey mate can ya make video about howitzers or about british colonization in africa or India or maybe samurai civil war

[@vinz4066]

Howitzers would be very interesting

[@PeterSt1954]

Thanks!

[@BrandonF]

And thank you! That is very generous!

[@jamesorth6460]

Watch out for those Johnnies behind the trees, sir

[@Glen_lastname]

12:19 "minimal"😂

[@thedamnyankee1]

The main difference is that the french companies (and thus regiments) where larger, and that the French didn't do that stupid "Colonel is a General" thing. The French Army had a strong professional general staff (who had their own uniform - blue).

[@BrandonF]

I see your point about how that kind of redundancy is stupid, and raise you a "but it's a cool aesthetic"

[@thedamnyankee1]

@@BrandonF But its not? "Sorry, your Unit CO is actually in another Castle" isn't aesthetic. And also, the French NEVER lose a battle of Aesthetics.

[@drahcir8402]

This has made some episodes of Sharp make much more sense.

[@sanjivjhangiani3243]

The writer William Cobbett tried to join the Royal Marines shortly before the American War, but somehow, by mistake or by trickery, he ended up in an Army regiment. Upon complaining, he was told that it was the finest regiment in the Royal Army, and he was lucky to join it!

[@Russia-bullies]

The ad was funny.

[@mhovar101]

Is there one of these for the continental forces

[@BrandonF]

Not as of right now at least, no.

[@mhovar101]

@@BrandonF thanks! Great video btw!

[@robnewman6101]

20th & 21st Centuries Medical Centres for the British Army.

[@austincottrell5122]

I see a mitre cap in that painting, with no context.

[@terrybarrett2368]

At the battle of Waterloo my ggggrandfather served in the 2nd Battalion 44th Regt of Foot

[@andezong9565]

22:55 Ah, good to know that even then PCIs were a thing