What Made the Western Front so Different?

Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/brandonf
Start your free trial TODAY so you can watch "The Last Voices of WW1" about interviews with actual veterans of the war: www.magellantv.com/series/the...
~~Video Description~~
The Western Front is notorious for its terrible conditions, even more so than other aspects of an already horrendous conflict. Conversations around the bloody stalemate often revolve around new technologies and the difficulties which militaries had in adapting to their battlefield applications. But while technology certainly played a role in the terror of the Western Front, it alone is insufficient to explain just what made that part of the First World War so unique. After all, everywhere from the Pacific regions to the Eastern Front had access to much of that same technology, and yet did not feature anything close to the same level of trench warfare. Why is that?
~~Sources & Further Reading On This Topic~~
Keegan's book, where you can read about the mobilization on pg. 73:
` archive.org/details/firstworl...
The National Army Museum has a great selection of articles on the First World War:
` www.nam.ac.uk/explore/battle-....
As does Encyclopedia Britannica, if you'd like a brief overview of the conflict:
` www.britannica.com/event/West...
~~Other Links & Contact Info~~
You can directly support my work by becoming a Patron & Officer of this channel:
` / brandonf
If you'd like to support this channel without spending any money, you can watch my content early and get access to exclusive content at Recast.tv!
` the.recast.app/user/5mN4d
Find a free digital library, shop for merchandise, and learn more about this channel's charity work at: ` www.nativeoak.org/
Or, another great way to support my work is by booking me on Cameo! 50% of all these proceeds also go to charity:
` www.cameo.com/brandonfisichel...
And of course you can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
` / thenativeoak
` / brandonfisichella
~~Timestamps~~
Intro 00:00
Documentary Recommendation & Sponsored Section 01:26
Military Technology 03:30
The First "Trench War"? 06:53
Logistics 08:43
The Beginning of Trench Warfare 12:36
Geography & Space 14:26
The Western Front was a Siege 19:20
End Credits 22:57

[@patriotleprecon4857]

World War One could've been solved if everyone just kept the colourful uniforms and fancy hats, prove me wrong.

[@shaider1982]

If a certain group of cousins were more concerned with grand parties instead of starting wars, perhaps it would not have started in the first place.

[@justdags6611]

The French still had colorful uniforms

[@theforcedmeme]

Both world wars are evidence that the German peoples ought not to have a nation state

[@jonathanwebster7091]

All of the warring powers kept the colourful uniforms, they just didn't use them in the field. The British kept the scarlet, blue and rifle-green uniforms used before the Boer war in the field as full dress uniforms, being used for ceremonial occasions between 1902 and 1914, being put back into stores in the latter year-but they were *not* abolished, and indeed featured in the 1937 dress regulations after the war. And post-war, they kept them for officers attending levees (formal presentations to the monarch), for regimental bands, line markers and mascot handlers. Except for the first, they are still kept for that reason to the present day. In Germany, the dark blue ('dunkelblau') uniforms, which had been replaced by the grey 'feldgrau' uniforms from 1910 onwards, were still kept after 1910, for similar reasons as the British, and indeed the initial forms of the feldgrau uniforms used in WW1 were basically the same in cut as the dunkelblau full dress uniforms-they were just in field grey. They were, however, formally abolished in 1918.

[@PCDelorian]

@@shaider1982 To be fair, they did, it was their governments rather than the monarchies themselves.

[@hrotha]

It's also worth mentioning that the issue of geography is not just about the physical length of the front, but also about the degree of development. The area where the Western front was drawn was highly developed, with dense railway and road networks that made it possible not just to supply that many men at the front, but also to redeploy them in case of a local breakthrough, allowing the defender to re-stabilize the front. By WW2 technology had advanced enough that armoured breakthroughs could reliably outpace enemy redeployments, so this was much, much less of a factor

[@alganhar1]

To add to this comment: To a large degree the rail systems of both France and Germany were designed in large part literally with a war against the other in mind. There were a lot of lateral connections running parallel to the borders for example to allow for faster troop and supply movement. So not only was the rail infrastructure extremely highly developed, but it was specifically developed with the movement and supply of huge numbers of troops in mind. In part it was that which caused so many offensives to fail, even ones that were initially successful. Due to communications limitations on the offensive (no radios for attacking troops in WWI, would not be till the 30's that man portable radios were developed) it often took hours for accurate news of the situation to reach the Commanders. The defenders able to rely on deeply dug in telephone wires were generally able to coordinate a response much, much faster. It was those lateral rail links that enabled rapid movement of men and equipment to a hole, and then to block it. Its why Ludendorff's failure to take Amiens during the Spring Offensive is so critical, and reveals he was really not thinking strategically at that point. The city was wide open, but by the time he made up his mind to try take it the British and French had managed to reinforce the defences around the city and stopped the attacks cold. In many ways the railways made the Western Front possible. In fact I would go so far as to say that without the railways the Western Front could not have sustained the sheer density of troops and equipment it did. I have a copy of a Trench Map showing German positions on the Somme in late 1916. It covers three miles of line, and there are three German DIVISIONS defending that 3 miles....

[@Alex-cw3rz]

My Great Grandfather was a British soldier in World War 1, he was a professional soldier before the war and was in the original expeditionary force in 1914, he fought on the western front before he went on to fight at Gallipoli and was wounded four seperate times, including losing a finger. After that he went back to the western front and fought at the Somme at some point he was wounded again and discharged from his Regiment. I'm not sure what was going on in his mind as he went and joined another Regiment and his first action in this new Regiment was at Passchendale, the preliminary bombardment for that went on for 2 weeks involving 4.5 million shells, or in another way 4 shells a second, every second for 2 weeks. After the bombardment and they had gone over the top his Regiment was being held up by a machine gun nest, he was tasked with leading a small group of 4 soldiers in a raid that was able to successfully capture the Machine gun nest, and he was awarded the Military Medal for taking out the German machine gun nest. He survived the rest of the war, but he was definitely emotionally scarred. He would drink heavily and after the war he broke his Military Medal in two and chucked it in the bin. Luckily his wife was able to take it out later on and save it, so we still have it today.

[@damascus21]

I respect your reverence of your great grandfather's actions during the war, but I've always been of the opinion that if a soldier throws away their medals, that decision should be respected above all else. It was they who fought and they who were traumatized and they who lost friends to the meatgrinder of the battlefield. If they need to get rid of that medal to heal, let them

[@steventhompson399]

Wow that's amazing, I can't imagine being a soldier in the original 1914 BEF and going on through the whole war surviving like that

[@Tearsofsoil]

I think you have written a good story. 👍🏼

[@dakotadurham4788]

I can’t blame him, that many terrible campaigns under one belt.

[@Nerobyrne]

it's always wild to me to remember that Tolkien and Hitler both fought in the Somme battle. Really puts history in perspective.

[@mnk9073]

The "narrowness" of the theaters played a large role, the Dardanelles were bottle necks from the get go, so was the southern front between Italy and Austria-Hungary and even the Western front, despite the 765 km from the Swiss border to the Channel, is small in comparison with the vast open terrain of the eastern theater where we see very limited trench warfare.

[@whensomethingcriesagain]

I would point to the Russo-Japanese War as another primary example of a trench war, but one that went very very differently in that it didn't bog down in one spot for years on end. The Japanese threw everything they had into every battle they fought, quite literally, they left no men in reserve in any major engagement. This all culminated in the two week battle of Mukden, which was the largest battle in human history up to that point, with over 600,000 combatants and 180,000 casualties. At that point the reason things were so one sided was down to serious domestic issues the Russians were facing that forced them to fight with only a minority of their forces, and despite fighting solely in the most defensible spots they could find, it was never enough, and the relentless wave of the Japanese advance could not be halted. I think, though, had the rebellion of 1905 not happened and the army had been able to marshal its full manpower and materiel to the front lines, you'd likely have seen just such a bogging down. So really I think the comparisons that describe it as a trial run or a transitional stage into the type of warfare seen in the Western Front are actually very apt, it's just that the political will and the strategic nature of the Japanese offensives was mismatched against the Russians in a way that led them to be utterly dominant in a way that none of the European powers would achieve a decade later

[@chardaskie]

Never knew Russo-Japanese war was a Trench war. Thank you for sharing

[@whensomethingcriesagain]

@Chard askie It was in almost all ways identical to how we look at early World War I. Trenches, barbed wire, machine guns, bolt action rifles, breech losing artillery, etc. Hill 203 is probably the most instructive in that regard. The Russians had 7000 men to defend the hill, never with more than 1500 in their fortifications at any given time. Six times the Japanese advanced up the hill, five times they were repelled, suffering 8000 casualties in the final attack alone. We don't really have conclusive figures on the casualties of that entire battle, only source I could find from the time estimated 10,000, but really it has to be closer to 20,000 at the very least. It's not like the Russians had a great plan at it either, they had pretty scarce supplies, lacked artillery support, and had an overwhelming dearth in manpower and weapons. They just had a good position where they entrenched with concrete fortifications, maxim guns, and simple hand grenades. With that, they were able to hold out for three straight months.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

Another is Early Modern Warfare, Siege warfare became more common, Sieges lasted Years at Worst Decades, it wasn't as extreme as WW1in size but its close, also the Seiges sometimes happened for 20 Years, the Body count was also Higher than Centuries before

[@666Kaca]

Only 600.000 combatants and 180.000 casualties? Largest in history? Battle of changping in 262bc warring states china had 700.000 casaulties alone lol, 1 million combatants.. Battle of julu 207bc, 400.000 casaulties. When sui dynasty invaded goguryeo they had 1.2 million soldiers, over 300.000 died. It was the largest MODERN battle, not the largest in history.

[@imperatoriacustodum4667]

I've seen people and articles say that the Japanese army used geishas and other such relief in China during the Russo-Japanese War, but every cited source I've read talks about the 2nd Sino-Japanese war and WW2, not the turn of the century. Heck, one somehow managed to throw a certain Unit into the mix. Am I just missing something here or are people really that thick that they think Russo-Japanese = Sino-Japanese? Russia, on the other hand, definitely had their own relief (but more forced) in China during that war.

[@CaptainChip501]

I have done so much research on war history. WW1 though is by far the worst hell hole I have ever seen. Respect sir. You are a true historian. Which is so rare these days.

[@andythem320guy9]

Lest we forget. I remember studying the war during it's centennial commemoration (2014-2018) and how terrible it was. Puerto Ricans don't study the war as the impact here was limited. Yet, I found it very important. When the 100 year of the armistice was commemorated I screamed from the top of my lungs at 6:00 a.m.(Puerto Rico time), THE WAR IS OVER! I later found myself crying for the past. Yet, there is more to this war and its everlasting impact. Lest we forget.

[@SEAZNDragon]

I get limited impacted being so far from the fighting but didn't Puerto Ricans gained US citizenship in 1917 in part to expand the recruitment pool after the US entered the war?

[@Morgan_of_the_Maxilla]

@@SEAZNDragon Yes, OP forgot to mention that disgruntled WW1 vets like Pedro Albizu Campos would later become radicalized into nationalists or communists. Mainly due to the same reasons many Indians and Irish became radicalized any time that they were drawn to fight in war for an empire that didn't allow them participation in government

[@aspen1606]

There were some Puerto Ricans that joined the AEF

[@turnupthesun81]

If any of you ever visit Paris, visit Les Invalides. They have a section dedicated to WW1. There are all kinds of weapons, destroyed items such as weapons and helmets, uniforms and even a Peugot Tank.

[@shaider1982]

As Indy Neidell mentioned almost a decade ago in the old The Great War series: “This is modern war”.

[@spaman7716]

I can't believe that began almost 10 years ago already, I was in High School when the first episodes started releasing, now I feel old 😂

[@shaider1982]

​@@spaman7716 yup, they started at 2014 and ended in 2018. The channel was them turned over to Jesse Alexander while Indy hosted the still on-going WW2 in real time.

[@riograndedosulball248]

It's been a long long way boys...

[@juliancalero8012]

WW1, where the old meets new in the worst and most brutal way possible

[@edjohnson8017]

Far less brutal then some of napoleons campaigns I’d rather have a the casualties rates of the Great War and it’s horrors then the majority of my chances of dying being by disease and starvation before I even got ripped apart by grapeshot

[@riograndedosulball248]

​@@edjohnson8017 you still would be mostly dying of disease, it's not like the Spanish flu or typhoid fever didn't happen. Also, how awesome, trading mitraille shot for mustard Gas.

[@edjohnson8017]

@@riograndedosulball248 0.5 percent of casualties where a Teri led to gas. Not much of a risk

[@alganhar1]

@@riograndedosulball248 WWI was the first war in British history where combat casualties outnumbered disease casualties, and by a fair old margin. I am pretty certain it was the same for the French. Both had learned a lot from the Colonial wars they had fought, and even prior to WWI the British Army was anally retentive when it came to hygiene and the supply of clean water to its troops. So even without antibiotics, disease casualties were considerably lower than combat casualties. Just so you are aware I am NOT including wound infections as disease casualties, but as combat casualties, as without the wounds those infections would not have occurred. If you count infections then disease casualties may well overtake combat casualties, but I refer you to my point that without the wound, the infection would not have occurred. Note, I also apply the same metric to infection casualties PRIOR to WWI, so soldiers who die of infections from wounds gained in combat in say the Napoleonic Wars I consider combat casualties not disease casualties.

[@demomanchaos]

Even in modern times such vast battles can occur over rather small areas. The very recent Battle of Bakhmut was barely a week away from overtaking Verdun as the longest single battle in human history, and it was over a town barely 20 square km in size with in the ballpark of 100,000-150,000 military casualties for a town with a pre-war population of 70,000. Following that battle as it happened was bizarre, and seeing as the entire war has basically devolved into a series of trench fights and artillery duels the string of Great War related videos I've seen popping up more and more is rather fitting. While many foreign wars are left out of each country's history books, I wonder if and how future Americans in 30 years will be taught about the current war in Ukraine. Will it be mentioned alongside the string of other noteworthy incidents this decade, or will it be left for those peeking through obscure bits of military history like the Iran-Iraq War has been relegated to? Only time will tell.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

Wrong. The battle didn't end when the last house fell, fighting on the outskirts is still ongoing. Bakhmut HAS outpaced Verdun. With the exception of sieges, it's the longest single battle in history.

[@demomanchaos]

@@moritamikamikara3879 Didn't Ukraine actually reclaim part of the city recently?

[@ahennessy7998]

@@demomanchaos they've been attacking the flanks as of late

[@Karton142]

There's a Battle of Avdiivka that is still going on from 24th of February 2022 to this day...

[@WhiteSuperMemeist]

When I was in Crimea. I saw the panorama of the crimean war. It had the trenches set up with the painting in the background. So cool.

[@TheAnon03]

There's also the other factor of geography, that the western front was fought in a place and to a wider strategy where both sides refused to give up ground. For the French, they were fighting in France every meter lost was a meter of French ground lost and the front-line was already too close to the Paris is it was. For the Germans their strategy, after a quick victory over France was clearly not going to happen, was to hold at the western front until they could defeat Russia and then divert their full strength westward. Britain was there to help support and bolster France and as far as I know did most of the attempts to flank and fight on other fronts to try and break the stalemate.

[@smal750]

80% of the war effort was by the french who had 4 times more casualties than the british who had a 5 million bigger population

[@greenmountainhistory7335]

16:13 Gotta love that dunk on Slough, it truly is the New Jersey of England

[@blackoutlol2857]

I’ve always found ww1 to be such an interesting topic ever since I found out about it everything from the somewhat unorthodox weapons to the massive scale of even “small” battles nice to see someone talk about it 👍

[@garyobrian3597]

I like the way brandon does a theme like different military timelines and does the video in said costume and weapons of the time now that's a historian

[@Tarvanis]

16:00 "That's the distance from central London to Slough, and somehow it's even more miserable than that." 🤣

[@user-lk7dw7ex2n]

Brandon : puts on a preview words about endless siege Me: Oh , maybe it is first Wh40k video?!

[@charlie17306]

my great great grandad on my fathers side fought as a cavalry soldier in ww1 in the british army, he was at gallipoli where he contracted a tropical disease and became very ill but survived, was offered a promotion to cavalry officer to which he cleverly refused (as not to be first to die in a charge i imagine), he was then SENT TO THE SOMME after recovering from his illness and from the little that my nanna told me he was never the same and suffered from shell shock for the rest of his life, apparently it made him quite violent as well. my nan told me that as a child she would be sitting playing and he would be on the sofa reading the newspaper and she'd look over again and he'd be "hiding from artillery" behind the couch. he brought back a large paper scroll from gallipoli, its a landscape view of the place, its been lent out to the local museum for ww1 displays in the past as its still in decent condition, a sort of heirloom i suppose.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Great video Brandon! WW1's interested me for years, ever since the 50th Anniversary years of 1964-1968. (Yeah, I'm a geezer!) Anyway, I rmember reading a pretty good comparison of tactics between the American Civil War and the Western Front of WW1: "In the Civil War they made frontal assaults because they didn't know what else to do. In WW1 they made frontal assaults because there was nothing else TO do!" Add to that the fact that none of the senior commanders on either side had seen battle on that scale before plus the technological changes and it was a perfect recipe for carnage. We can also see why the German Army developed the "schnellkrieg" or what we call today "blitzkrieg" doctrine prior to WW2. "Get the enemy on the run! Keep them on the run! Don't give them a chance to dig in! Bypass the strong points quickly and keep moving!" The Germans (who hated the Western Front stalemate as much as anyone!) weren't going to let it happen again. Always good watching you! Thanks!

[@justdags6611]

A Huzzah for the venerable SMLE

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

A hell of a fine rifle anyway you look at it. The Brits used it in one form or another from the 1890's right up through the Korean War. The SMLE, the 1903 Springfield, and the 1898 Mauser are the finest military bolt actions ever built. I'd feel confident going into battle with any of them.

[@FlameQwert]

genuinely been considering this question for years and never found a complete answer until someone (I think it was a historian?) mentioned it had to be a very, very specific window of history wherein this type of war even could exist. Definitely state and mobilisation procedures and structures had to be of a level to mobilise millions (hence the concentration aspect you mentioned) and keep them fighting (the social and cultural and political aspects you mention that made a state so capable to make mass murder on a new scale.) But also, I think the tech angle is pretty importnt. the firepower tech had to be above a certain level(forcing entrenchments and cover instead of column marching or close order) but below a certain level (wherein a flank or good position would totally obliterate the enemy), at a point where high concentrations would repel attacks of larger numbers, but not high enough where the attacker could use that firepower totally suppress defenders. Yet mobility tech had to be below a certain level and widespread-ness (you can move large numbers but can't move them fast enough and large enough) yet high enough to plug gaps quickly. Communications tech also had to be above a certain level (able to survey enemy trenches and plot the firing solution) but below a certain level(no mass produced wireless radios). I suspect these conditions mean that ww1 could not happen the way it did pre... 1900? And post... 1920. Assuming no war.

[@alex_zetsu]

Trench warfare happened a bit at Dien Bien Phu when the Vietnamese tried to go for a quick victory on the trapped French before they went back to the "bombard them from the high ground and wait until they run out of food and ammo" idea. In general, trench warfare creeps back into modern times when neither side has air superiority (note in this case the French picked a location where air support could barely even supply the troops before the monsoon season, much less provide CAS) and the armies are so big they don't "fit" on the battlefield. You can't outflank the other guy if he spans the entire battlefield. And if he spans the entire frontline... there is no room to flank.

[@alganhar1]

Another technological aspect is also often overlooked, but critically important. Communication. In 1918 a radio weighed several thousand pounds and required multiple trucks to carry it and its antenna. This meant there was a communications gap on the attack as I do not care what anyone says, you are not lugging several thousand pounds of radio equipment across No Mans Land. Defensively it was not so much an issue as you could use telephone lines dug 6 - 12 feet deep to protect them (as much as possible) from being cut by shelling. On the offensive however this was not possible, telephone line was tried, men carried spools of telephone line that they laid out over No Mans Land, but this was pretty much always instantly cut by the defensive barrages the enemy put up. That means the attacking troops only really had two methods of communication. First send an animal back with a message. Usually Carrier Pigeons but sometimes dogs, especially small, quick breeds. The second of course was to send a runner back. Needless to say casualties amongst both animals and runners were high, and both took time. This time lag was often in the realm of hours, not minutes, hours. So not only did it mean it took more time to get reinforcements or resupply up to the attacking troops, it also meant the Commanders were working in a knowledge environment with a two or three hour time delay. Two or three hours on a battlefield where the enemy can laterally move troops in to position, and then launch a counterattack within an hour or so was an eternity, and all too many initially successful penetrations of the line were lost because of the communications lag causing a several hour delay in moving required reinforcements or ammunition to the attacking troops. After all, its really actually quite difficult for a General to make a decision in a timely fashion when he is not receiving the information about the situation on the front until 2 - 3 hours AFTER those events had transpired..... Something all too many people these days fail to appreciate.....

[@FlameQwert]

@@alganhar1 yeah, communication is one aspect i mentioned but didnt dwell on, but it's very important in how offensives can even be planned and controlled as you mention

[@NickRatnieks]

That photo you showed at the very start- of the Royal Irish Rifles at the Somme shows the soldier sitting down and looking at the camera with a recriminatory stare. I first saw him in the ground breaking BBC Great War series broadcast in 1964 as a kid-and he was incorporated into the opening credit which was pretty harrowing back then and still has great impact nearly 60 years on. I wonder if he survived and saw himself depicted in this epic documentary or was he like so many, thrown into the meat grinder and perished? I hope he survived but you can see that he and his comrades have endured a hellish experience which can be read about- the first day of the Somme offensive, in the amazing book Covenant With Death by John Harris- one of the greatest novels about war ever written: "Two years in the making. Ten minutes in the destroying. That was our history." For those who want to see the opening credits- which are not on many of the uploads, try searching for this: 01 On The Idle Hill Of Summer Docufans2

[@alansmithee8831]

Hello Brandon. Someone else already made the point I had in mind, that the Russo Japanese War did not turn out the same way because the Russians accepted defeat, rather than push on with something that might cause even more civil unrest, like later happened in 1917. Reading headlines recently, I can only say "plus ca change" in that language not to be mentioned on this channel. On the point of horses, AJP Taylor said the Russian army lost because it did not have mechanisation and ran out of horse fodder. This is also reminiscent of sieges. The Eastern front in WW2 had huge numbers of horses. I was told my uncle got out of a POW coal mine in Silesia and got to a Turkish ship in Odessa, through the lines, living off dead animals. Could this also be considered a siege, looking at Leningrad as the extreme example? Like other comments I had family on the Western front in WW1. I enjoy comparing videos from US WW1 Museum in Kansas to IWM videos. US historians say the Dough Boys broke this siege by their numbers, supporting one of the Entente, which again I have not named. Commonwealth opinion points to Canadian and ANZAC generals development, with UK, of all arms warfare, as they would not just send men to a "meatgrinder". This is claimed as the vital factor in the last 100 days.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

It wasn't so much the Doughboys "broke the siege by their numbers" as much as it was after the Germans cracked the Western Front in 1918 the Entente Powers (US included) didn't let the front get static again, the one-million plus Doughboys certainly were a major factor in that and so was tactical savvy the top commanders had gained over the years plus the technological advances such as tanks and aircraft. Mind you, no-one on the Entente side had any idea the Germans would ask for an armistice in November of 1918, staffs of the various armies were working on "Plan 1919," a major offensive planned for the next year to finish off the German Army for good.

[@alansmithee8831]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 If you watch some US videos, you would imagine it was the Dough Boys that made the change. The point was that this ignores the hundred days when Commonwealth forces did crack the German defences, like the Germans cracked the western allies by similar means early in WW2. The German defences had not suddenly fallen down, to stop the war being static. I will admit that using the best soldiers in elite stormtrooper attacks depleted the remaining German units prior to this, but the Germans had won in the Eastern front and had reinforcements and supplies, together with all those trains to get them where needed.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@alansmithee8831 On the "US videos" thing that doesn't surprise me and honestly it's understandable. Any country that does history videos is going to favor their own involvement and point of view. It's only natural and not worth getting worked up over. However, there's some truth in the supposition that without US involvement in WW1 the war might have ended with if not a complete victory, possibly a partial German victory.

[@alansmithee8831]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 I cannot help but remember some Australian replies to a similar comment. They and the other Commonwealth countries played a huge part in the victory. Even without US troops, it was US finance and industry, that the UK had drawn into supporting their war effort, that would have overwhelmed the Germans eventually. "Follow the money" is usually good advice. The post war period could be seen similarly as "who defaulted on who?"

[@bcluett1697]

I'm glad you are still enthusiastic on these subjects and making videos. Thanks Brandon F.

[@GermanConquistador08]

A fantastic video! To think of it as a Siege really does make it clear, both it's tactics and it's horror.

[@jfarrar19]

Something else you touched on, but I think bears mentioning, is the idea that you can only add more forces to a front to a point, where after adding more to it it starts to actually make things worse for your side. Too many soldiers in too small an area simply get in each others way and decrease combat effectiveness. A lot of research was done into that idea during the Cold War, for obvious reasons. Likely, I expect that at least part of WWI Western Front's Clusterfuckness was because, frankly, they were too many men at the front.

[@alganhar1]

Not really. You have to understand the 'front' of the Western Front. It was essentially 3 - 4 lines, but each line was composed of different parts. First you had the front line itself, mid to late war this was actually sparsely manned, it was not a defensive line but a tripwire. Then you had the second line which was the main defensive line, then a support line, and often a fourth line behind that, all interlinked via communications trenches. Then you had three or four of these line systems one after the other. One thing many people do not really get about the Western Front is it was not only defence in length, it was also defence in DEPTH. Ideally the distance between the first frontline and the rear most support line was at LEAST 25 miles. I have a copy of a late 1916 Trench Map detailing the German and British positions on three miles of line, there are units from 3 different German, and three British Divisions in the lines depicted. That means the rest of the three divisions on each side was deployed in depth behind the actual Front trench system. The scale of those Trench systems is not really appreciated by many people these days. Yes most people appreciate their length, but a surprising number are not aware of their depth. EDIT: Admittedly the Somme example is a bit of an extreme one, the map was dated October 1916 and detailed one of the most bitterly fought over sections of the Somme Battlefield, which goes at least partway to explaining the manpower deployed there. However it does illustrate the point even if most parts of the Western Front were not quite so heavily defended.

[@magellantv]

Such an incredible video - we learned so much! Thank you for this!

[@banditdelta7172]

This video was probably the best I've seen from you, fantastic from top to bottom

[@monticore1626]

3:56 galipoli in turkey was very static like the western front

[@pathfinderfergusfilms6630]

Nice one Brandon. Keep em coming.

[@tjtch2178]

I really appreciate your dedication to these videos, from the research to the uniform everytime. What a guy!

[@tutur1349]

Good video ! I would LOVE to see more videos about WWI on your channel !

[@brian8152]

I love your videos! You're the best, Brandon!

[@russellchristopherrobin3210]

Really enjoying the passion and research you bring to the subject.

[@AdaptiveApeHybrid]

So glad I found this channel. I love your work man. Thank you.

[@BrandonF]

Thank you! I'm glad you have, as well!

[@ej191]

Amazing Video as always

[@stamfordly6463]

Further to your initial points I think it's a common error to think that neither side considered the possibility of that sort of stagnant conflict and that they didn't understand that technology had changed. On the contrary I would say that they had both come up with strategies to avoid stalemate. The Schliefen Plan intended to deliver overwhelming force against the Entente before the latter could mobilise while the British Army's doctrine and training (lacking conscript army numbers) focussed on individual troop quality and manoeuvre so as to gain local superiority and not be forced to dig in. I think that the two strategies cancelled each other out - the British volume of accurate fire stymied the German advances such that the French had time to organise but the sheer numbers of Germans deployed rapidly still forced the Franco-British armies back towards the Marne.. Some things, eg the apparent British rejection of machine guns, were not necessarily short-sightedness but a choice based on a concept of operations - So while Vickers guns are good they are heavy and the British wanted their infantry to be mobile .

[@eyeli160]

The British did not reject the machine gun. Their cavalry even had the highest concentration of machine gun per soldier than any other unit in any other army, cavalry or infantry.

[@stamfordly6463]

@@eyeli160 I know they didn't reject the MG but it is an oft repeated trope that infantry btns only having a few in 1914 is evidence that the "donkeys"were backwards luddites. As you point out the cavalry divisions had quite a high concentration of MGs (the Hotchkiss portative IIRC) but then it's easier to carry an MG when you have pack horses...

[@alganhar1]

@@stamfordly6463 Problem with those arguments though is that a British Infantry btn had the same number of guns as a German Infantry btn. While its true that the Germans put more emphasis on the training of their MG troops before the war, they still had the same number of guns. Another oft used figure to show the British 'donkeys' were all luddites is those who quote the number of MG's the British Army had compared to the German Army. Problem is they are either forgetting or ignoring the fact that comparing those two armies was like comparing chalk and cheese. As you pointed out the British Army was a small professional force, it was tiny. Before the war the British Regular Army was at around 300,000 strong. So it had the machineguns to arm the cavalry and infantry btn's of an army that size. The German army however was a Continental Conscript Army, which while small in peacetime was designed to rapidly expand into a force of around three and a half million. So the fact that the Germans had ordered more than ten time the number of MG's than the British suddenly becomes less a factor of the British being ignorant luddites, and more about the fact that the projected size of the German Army on mobilisation was more than ten times larger than the British Army!!!! And unlike the French Army, German Reserve Divisions were considered perfectly capable combat troops, and were armed as such....

[@smal750]

there was no british soldiers at the marne

[@micahistory]

good video, I had always wondered about why this war was so different but the technology argument seemed inadequate

[@futurevegan8617]

I just wanted to say that there’s not enough WWI material on KZbin! Thank you for making this video, I love all of your stuff.

[@urgadurga]

I have to say, not only are Brandon's videos fascinating and very informative, but he really is a good host. The way he speaks to the camera feels so natural and really keeps the whole thing engaging. It's one of those skills that doesn't get appreciated much when it's done well, but is very noticeable when it's not.

[@lizmileski6474]

I have never been an enthusiast of war history, but your videos rope me in simply because of your passion and intelligence. You're doing a great job teaching people that may have thought they never cared. Keep up the good work, kid.

[@ThommyofThenn]

First time watching anything from this channel. I have to say, the uniform made a good impression. Thats just so cool! It shows dedication

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

_"If the views set out by me in the preceding paragraphs are accepted, it will be recognised that the war did not follow any unprecedented course, and that its end was neither sudden nor should it have been expected. The rapid collapse of Germany’s military powers in the latter half of 1918 was the logical outcome of the fighting of the previous two years_ _It would not have taken place but for the period of ceaseless attrition which used up the reserves of the German Armies, while the constant and growing pressure of the blockade sapped with more deadly insistence from year to year at the strength and resolution of the German people. It is in the great battles of 1916 and 1917 that we have to seek for the secret of our victory in 1918"_ -Haig, 1919.

[@Pooknottin]

Especially well articulated Brandon. Very well done sir!

[@pietersleijpen3662]

Brandon F. answering very interesting questions about which I never really thought until he asked them. Thanks for the great videos.

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@54000biker]

I've always been fascinated by WW1, I've read many books on the subject trying to understand what caused the stalemate, and what finally broke it. The UK used tanks. Germany used shock troops. France used heavy artillery. Having run out of flanks to turn the armies had to find a way to push through the enemy's defensive crust to create a breakout. This did actually happen on a few occasions but the attackers always ran out of steam and the defenders were able to fall back on their internal supply lines. In the end attrition wore down the German army just a bit faster than the allies.

[@vinz4066]

France used Tanks too. The Renault FT is the best Tank of the war in my opinion

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

The over one million German troops transferred from Russia after the Bolsheviks made peace with Germany were also a major factor in the Germans cracking the front in 1918.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@vinz4066 It certainly was in George Patton's opinion. When forming the first US Army tank unit he looked at the British and French tanks and considered the Renault FT-17 a lot more versatile than the British MK- IV's and V's. He was right. The US Army operated Renaults up through the 1930's although budget constraints had a lot to do with that. Anyway, the US Army MORE than got their money's worth out of those Renaults!

[@rileyernst9086]

There was the massive deployment of Colonial troops in Europe. Without her colonies France was outnumbered quite drastically by the Germans,(because in the decades leading up to the war the French had discovered and widely adopted contraceptives. The Germans were comparatively quite conservative and were less fans of having fun and more fans of having big families.) Tens of thousands of men from Africa and South East Asia served in the trenches alongside their French counterparts and were in general very well regarded by those who commanded them. It was something the Germans never forgave, and in 1940 the only WW1 statue the Germans destroyed was that of the French general who advocated bringing in colonial troops into the European theatre. China sent tens of thousands of indentured labourers to aid the Allies, to allow the allies to shore up troops from second line duties, for example nearly the entire corp that worked upon and maintained the British tank corp(it had a mobile depot) were indentured Chinese labourers. The US joined the war bringing a fresh source of manpower. Although they did not want to listen to anyone's hard won lessons. Something they're apparently proud of to this day. Employing the assistance of some allied manpower(mainly US but I think the Kiwis were there too, and British tanks) Australia planned and commenced the first modern combined arms operation involving close coordination of air reconnaissance and spotting, artillery, tanks and infantry and extensive use of field telephones between these arms with great success.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@rileyernst9086 I'm not surprised the Germans demolished the statue of the French general who advocated bringing in colonial troops. German soldiers were terrified of the Africans serving in the French Army. Obviously the German higher-ups who'd fought as junior officers in WW1 hadn't forgotten! On the other hand US Marines who fought alongside those African troops had a LOT of admiration for them according to John Thomason in his book "Fix Bayonets!"

[@mbsyggd]

I like the soft, thematic music in the background

[@angelosusa4258]

Very informative and great video, WW1 is one of my favorite history subjects. It really shows how warfare changed. My great great grandfather joined the U.S. army and fought in ww1

[@BiggestCorvid]

So excited for this history content. Life changing

[@melissamybubbles6139]

I haven't studied WW1. Thank you for introducing me to it.

[@ChristheRedcoat]

But why didn’t they just use machine gu- oh, wait…

[@nowthenzen]

insightful analysis, Brandon! Worth noting the eventual victors in WW1 (were there winners in WW1?) had access to large overseas empires and did not have to worry about keeping potential soldiers engaged in food production bc they imported that from their colonies who they did not want to be militarized.

[@BrandonF]

Thank you very much! The 'super thanks' is much appreciated. And yeah, in a war of attrition the Germans were basically destined to failure unless they could break out of their blockade and defeat the Royal Navy in a traditional battle (or many!) and that never happened. You can definitely see that understanding in a lot of their bigger movements towards the end of the war, trying to force a conclusion.

[@christianvincentcostanilla8428]

Make a video : What made world war 2 Eastern front so different

[@nowthenzen]

different than what?@@christianvincentcostanilla8428

[@might.88.mp39]

6:10 should mention Maori in the nz wars for a v early example. (im begging you to look at nz)

[@averagebritishrailwaysappr5424]

I loved the video and it was a really interesting take on the Great War that I had never heard articulated so well. There are two things that I am suppressed you didn't touch on and would love to hear your opinion on. Firstly is The Battle of Gallipoli, which faced similar siege-like conditions to the Western Front despite (ironically) being planned as a more mobile campaign initially. Secondly would be the Naval blockade of both Britain and Germany, which contributed to the siege-like conditions. I believe that in the case of Gallipoli, the Ottoman supply lines being so close while Entente supplies had to be ferried in from Egypt helped to create the trench stalemate. Meanwhile the case of the blockades of Britain and Germany led to a more "total" siege of the front. I don't know how both of these campaigns play into your thesis, but I thought it was worth noting.

[@otisvincent9903]

IN THE FIRST FIVE also love your vids brandon

[@50043211]

For some weird reason I now wish that Brandon gets a French period uniform for every British one he has. 🤔

[@MatthewChenault]

12:54 A similar thing took place during the Overland Campaign and the Siege of Petersburg during the American Civil War. Grant’s armies (Army of the Potomac and Army of the James) eventually engaged in an early form of trench warfare across a front that was well over 40 miles long. The main reason why it did not end in an outright stalemate was due to Lee’s Army simply not being large enough to extend their frontline anymore (being outnumbered 2-to-1 by Grant). This is a part of the reason why the American Civil War is often referenced as an early form of Trench Warfare because there was a front narrow enough and with enough men engaged on both sides (over 200,000 men total) to make such a stalemate possible. This entire form of trench warfare starts in May, 1864 and doesn’t end until April, 1865, over _eleven months_ of various forms of trench warfare.

[@alganhar1]

Not really. You see they were a different style of trench to WWI trenches, and that boils down to changes in artillery. Not only was artillery of WWI faster firing than that of the American Civil War, it was also vastly more destructive. As for early form of trench warfare, sorry but no, trench warfare is almost as old as siege warfare. There are illustrations of trench warfare from mid medieval period, and mentions of trench warfare being used in sieges as far back as the early Roman period. The trenches of the American Civil War were actually mostly above ground, the walls were largely constructed of revetments of wood or wicker filled with earth and stone. Such trenches were fine against cannon of the Civil War era but were utterly useless against the more deadly guns of 1914 - 1918. Claiming that the Civil War trench systems were in any way similar to the trench systems of WWI is betraying an underlying lack of knowledge of how the two types of systems were constructed. The guns of WWI would have smashed the Civil War Trenches into so many piles of flinders and loose soil. The very reason the troops of 1914 - 1918 dug so deep is because it was quite literally the safest place for them on the battlefield. Many people do not realise this, but the two periods where the fighting nations suffered the highest casualties were the immediate start of the war, and in the last few months, both of which were periods of mobile war, not Trench warfare. Indeed, in the first six months of WWI both France and Germany suffered one third of their total casualties for the entire war. Think about that, one third of their entire wartime casualties, in a war that lasted four and a half years, were sustained in the first six months. in the period before trenches started to be dug. Similarly the highest casualty rate in the British Army in WWI was not 1916, or 1917 with the Somme and Passchendaele, but in the last 100 days of the war during what British Historians often call the One Hundred Days Offensive, much of which was mobile warfare. This was also when you started seeing the first truly modern Combined Arms warfare, with the British and French using Infantry, Artillery, Armour and Air Power in combination. Many people talk about the German Stormtrooper Divisions, but fail to appreciate that the British and French had also learned their own lessons, and in the last 6 months of the war applied them with a ruthless efficiency that utterly smashed the German Army in the field. And yes, it WAS smashed, no matter what many claim. By November 11th 1918 the German Army had been comprehensively crushed.

[@MatthewChenault]

@@alganhar1, have you actually seen any trenches from the American Civil War?

[@exploatores]

I would say the strategic logistics was better then ever in history. the tactical movement. the same as it has allways been. so what ever one side could do. the other side could counter.

[@alganhar1]

Both sides rail systems were literally designed with a war against each other in mind. The German and French border regions were the most rail intensive regions on Earth in 1914. So yeah, I would have to agree with you, both the French and German rail networks of the period were superb, arguably the best rail networks in the world at that time.

[@cageybee7221]

Damn ChrisRayGun really changed since he got mobilized

[@bakerboy8910]

I would often "play" WW1 in my backyard when I was a kid. I had trenches, a dugout (clubhouse) some old, various military gear (not WW1 dated, except for my canteen) and a Mosin Nagant stock that my stepdad switched out for a synthetic. I'd go out, and basically stay out there, with any free time that I had. I always felt like I belonged in that environment, even when it got nasty with the weather and whatnot.

[@heliosdelsol]

Please do more WW1 videos!

[@CrayonosaurusRex]

To me, the "modern technology" aspect is much more overplayed that it should be, because even with the technology advances of the Second World War and the Cold War, trench warfare still pops up, including examples like the Iran-Iraq War, where they had for all intent and purpose "modern" weapons including individual automatic weapons, night optics and jet aircraft, and yet they were still massed infantry and gas attacking each other in a manner any Flanders vet would've been intimately familiar with

[@maryannedouglas]

Have to say Brandon that I applaud you having the Union Flag the right way up

[@hatii3141]

I'm still kinda sad that Eastern Front doesn't nearly get as much love and attention as the Western even tho it was much more dynamic then the Western counterpart.

[@klusey5244]

Men of Harlech in the background is mint 👌 6:15

[@felixtheswiss]

Switzerland had two trench wars on both sides as the Italian front ended there at the eastern border too. Btw at the South end of the trench the swiss had theyr own trenches as part of a wedge between the french and germans. Porrentruy is north of the mountains in the flater lands.

[@riograndedosulball248]

Austrians and Italians also did fight inside Swiss borders at times, so those Swiss defensive lines were absolutely necessary. I'm of the opinion that the alpine war was the most horrifying theater

[@aerominty12]

My Great Grandfather was in the 1st Battalion Connaught Rangers and was attached to the Indian Army Corps on the western front for the first year of the war and then went on to Mesopotamia and Palestine. He had shrapnel in his leg and a bayonet wound across his hand. Very proud of him and all other Irishmen that served in that brutal war

[@Daniel-yc5mb]

Everything was perfect down to the last minute details ~ the generals

[@spartandud3]

I should say Hadrian's Wall is very different from the Western Front. The wall was primarily to focus caravans (mostly trade) through certain forts where tolls could be collected. It certainly disrupted large armies from invading from Caledonia (now Scotland) but wouldn't actually stop them. Most of the "wall" wasn't a massive fortification, like you'd see around a major city, but really just a mound with stakes or maybe a palisade on it and occasional forts (which would have been more built up). Supply wagons would be a bitch to move over so when a raiding army did cross it a Roman patrol was likely to see either it or evidence and messages could then be sent out. But again it was more about delaying enemy armies or collecting taxes off of travelling merchants but making it difficult to move supplies except through specific areas Mean while the trenches on the Western Front were a near constant line of fortifications manned at all times to prevent literally anyone from passing through.

[@sirfox950]

What music did you use for the background? Also where Spanish provincial units?

[@garylancaster8612]

Various British military tunes and regimental marches. Heart of Oak for the Royal Navy and A Life on the Ocean Wave for the Royal Marines, amongst many others.

[@sirfox950]

@@garylancaster8612 yeah, but I meant the artist and recordings of those specific old versions

[@usernotfound-jw7xs]

basically the western front was the only time in history where a front 'line' wasnt a vague guess on the average location of troops, but an actual continuous line

[@sevensohigh2083]

Very appreciated good sir!! Thank you kindly!!

[@dalegribble7939]

Thinking about it one thing that could very easily have made it to where the stalemate lasts longer is relative distance of supply lines for all the combatants on the western front . Almost all the participants we're very close to the front line and in comparison to things such as the Eastern front it was relatively small

[@criticalfail8005]

Stone trying to make that empty net goal three times though…

[@webcelt]

I sympathize with the glasses problem. I slide by with 19th century frames for everything, and when I forget to pack them, I squint figuring that's accurate to most periods. But if I had to read something, that would really suck.

[@webcelt]

I'll add that for reenactors, the hardest things to get are consistently footwear and glasses, and for people new at it, the hardest things to give up are modern glasses and modern footwear.

[@robertjarman3703]

I had pretty much the exact same thesis argument I had to a high school teacher I had. Taught him quite a lot. I will add that few people know much about how they ultimately broke this stalemate. They created a broader battlefield in August 1918, where the Entente had men advancing as much as their troops could, but establishing themselves there, with the next section down the line or somewhere else in general advancing in the like manner, down and down the front, until the original section was able to advance having built railways, telegraphs, roads, refurbished tanks, resupplied, stocked up with more weapons, wounded men healed or were replaced, troops rested, repeat on loop for three months. Much like certain kinds of volley fire with muskets as Brandon actually talked about before. They also got tanks. Not a few tanks, the French had built nearly 4000 tanks by November 1918, the British about 2000, and they were planning on building over ten thousand for an invasion of Germany in 1919. They had developed combined arms tactics effectively, along with artillery countermeasures, with hurricane barrages of artillery, a few hours long and much more shocking than a weeks long bombardment and kept enemy troops away from the parapet and away from machine gun nests and the Central Powers artillery unable to advance, especially given that these bombardments incorporated poison gas shells too, much more effective than drum barrel released gas. They even build a tank that could go over 30 km/h for use in Plan 1919. That is just about the speeds WW2 tanks might often have, or slightly less. They had built tens of thousands of planes by 1918 as well, to give you a sense of just how much stuff they had. They could effectively give ordinary soldiers autonomy to exploit opportunities as they arose through well trained NCOs who had equipment for communication better than they had before, who had flamethrowers, portable 60 and 81 mm mortars, submachine guns, hand grenades, trench knives and trench clubs, and so on which kept them light and mobile, the Germans in particular used this well but the Entente did as well. Combined with everything they had learned, and the German losses inflicted already which had forced them back to the Hindenburg Line as they could not take another Somme like battle and had too many losses from Verdun, they were able to make their breakthroughs in 1918. All this worked to break it at the front line, and in combination with the breakthroughs on other fronts like in Palestine, Mesopotamia, the Isonzo Front (finally), the Salonika Front, and so on, they were able to defeat the Central Powers decisively. Remembering why this happened and how the Central Powers lost is a huge part of helping to be able to reject the Stab in the Back Myth. Without this context, it looks like the Stab in the Back myth has merit and that the old Kaiser´s bureaucracy had betrayed Germany and any minority associated with them like the Jews were guilty. Countering this point is a critical part of how the Entente could reshape the world in their image.

[@PauloftherdMichiganinfantry]

I like the music ambience

[@silentobserver215]

“it was big, it was massive even at the start[…]and it would get even bigger over time.”

[@wtfboompirotecnia]

Could someone please tell me the song playing at 6:22. Thank you in advance.

[@capnstewy55]

True fact. When helmets were introduced head wounds went way up...because they weren't dead.

[@alganhar1]

True, but better a wounded soldier who you can potentially return to combat after time, than a dead soldier who you cannot.....

[@nepoleon92]

I wonder how pre extensive record keeping peoples felt about war. Like id love to see writings of Roman soldiers talking about the stress of war and maybe the fear they felt seeing war elephants or artillery and slingers. Or a medieval peasant at arms dealing with incoming archer and trebuchet fire. That must have been terrifying still as machine guns and artillery.

[@MachineMan-mj4gj]

I'm outflanking you! Well I'm outflanking your outflanking! Well I'm outflanking the outflanking of your first outflanking! Repeat.

[@whitneya272]

Nice video. Could the British naval blockade be thought of as an encirclement?

[@tdogg2285]

Ah yes the good captain has uploaded very exciting

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

OH MIGHTY ALGORITHM, MAY YOUR DIGITAL EYE FALL ON THIS MAGNIFICENT PIECE OF KZbin CONTENT! SHOW IT TO ALL...SHOW IT TO ALL...SHOW IT TO ALL!!! HAIL, MIGHTY ALGORITHM, HAIL. Hi Brandon, leaving just a comment for the Algorithm. Thanks.

[@justsomedude5727]

It makes sense that the defending force would entrench along their border and build fortifications, since their goal isn't advancement, then the advancing force is forced to do the same or else theyd just be sending waves into death (They did that anyway but hopefully you get my point)

[@hugosophy]

The Iran Iraq war was a recent war that had battles that devolved from battles with combined arms in movement into long casualty rich trench warfare and sieges full of static artillery barrages

[@gamingledgens2112]

Just calculated that 3.5 million soldiers over 25 miles means 63 soldiers per square meter.

[@taurektaurek6213]

There were trenches and sieges before..even in ancient times, but WWI was one of the first regarding a symmetrical entrenchment and siege.

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

I don't think it's easy to forget what it's like, if you've been told that the soldier's life is hard, and you've seen a film like All Quiet on the Western Front, and you've also worked in outdoor conditions where there's a risk of physical injury and then imagine "this was what soldiers went through if it was 10 times harder and you didn't know if you'd ever go home, and the power tools are also 10 times louder, and some of your co-workers want to kill you with said power tools, and the lunch break room is infested with rats, and you've gotta sleep here, and... there's no break". However, it's EASY to forget to teach those who are ignorant to such things.

[@puffdaddy608]

am I the only one who is annoyed that he put his gun down barrel first in the background? great video!

[@morganfreeaimthebountyhunt7682]

Shoutout to John Keegan at 9:40 Go read his stuff he has some interesting thoughts on Carl von Clauswitz

[@Xenophaige_reads]

Loved the comment about central London to Slough, it is a truly miserable place, especially if you don't like planes.

[@wackyvorlon]

I was just thinking, you mentioned 1.5 billion shells. That’s very nearly one shell for every human being on the planet at the time. You also mentioned 7 million people fighting along a 400 mile border, that’s only two million feet. Looking at a linear population density along that border it’s somewhere in the ballpark of three people per foot! The crowding and the noise must have been incredible.

[@Tareltonlives]

I think the greater ability for larger areas to be fortified changed a lot- the ability to raise, organize and put to work entire nations. Petersburg, Puebla, Sevastopol, Port Arthur, the Maori Pas, the Boer and Swazi strongholds were a taste, but they were never THIS big. This was national resources being used for fortifications, and it was the result of a century of increasing resources into defensive positions. You can see an escalation of Badajoz, Torres Vedras, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc to something on a national scale. National efforts in warfare made such massive fortification possible. The siege, like the battle, became national. Sure there's a lot of large scale fortifications since then- Maginot, Siegfried, Metaxas, Kyiv, Pusan, etc. but for the most part sieges have returned to be urban areas- Stalingrad has been the blueprint for battles like Damascus, Baghdad and Bakhmut, not any grand front lines. I think this could only happen with the development of artillery and machine guns before air power, and the ability to raise that many people and organize them to make this kind of national defense.

[@tootsie_]

I heard it was pretty quiet out there

[@orange8420]

13:55 Just a little question not big ww1 historian but a history buff and question why antant didn't try to go around the germans by sea since royal navy dominated the SEAS so why this is left out of the option?

[@alganhar1]

Several reasons. Reason 1: Very little in the way of dedicated maritime assault assets. No landing craft, no specialist LSI's, nothing that would have allowed the British to put enough troops on shore quickly enough and then keep them supplied long enough for them to actually make a difference. Reason 2: Lack of Sea Room. Why is this important? Well the German High Seas Fleet was still very much a thing. It would require the Grand Fleet to cover the invasion forces, and the waters they would be operating in would be relatively narrow, heavily mined, and completely favouring the High Seas Fleet. Reason 3: The entrance to the Baltic, look at the routes into the Baltic from the North Sea, then refer to issue two but multiply it by ten. In short that type of operation was literally one of the few things the German High Seas was HOPING for, because it was one of the few operational environments in which they could feasibly take on the Grand Fleet and win, or at least savage them badly. Churchill did in fact suggest Baltic operations including landings, but was pretty much shot down by the Admirals who essentially all said NOPE. The Royal Navy did not attempt to operate in the Baltic in WWII either for the same reasons.....

[@lonerangerv1224]

The whole is force to space ratio. In the Western Front there is so much force in so little space there is literally no space for subtilty.