Even though the tight formations were good against cavalry, they were highly exposed to artillery. They also take a long to reload due to it being muzzle loaded
Hand to hand combat where you had two lines charging like berserkers and throwing people over rarely happened. Part of the lines (likely grenadiers) would charge and melee, before one side would give ground and withdraw. More often what would happen is that lines would close, a short but bitter firefight would occur and one side's morale would break before the other.
this isn't the seven years war. this is the battle of poltava from the great northern war (8 July 1709 between Sweden Charles XII & Russia Peter the Great. The seven years war wasn't until 1756
@@siazonmarcusr.9434 They could, and they would. What Barry Lyndon did there was potentially a court martial offence. Unless ordered to pick up a wounded NCO, one is not supposed to leave one's position without orders. A junior naval officer on the USS Chesapeake was court-martialed for the very same thing in the early 19th century, and his family struggled to get his named cleared even over 100 years later. Imagine what would happen if everyone decided to break formation to pick up wounded comrades? That's part of the reason why the inane argument that it is better to wound enemy combatants than kill them outright is a myth. No trained or disciplined soldier would break off the fight without orders to tend to the wounded until the threat is resolved. Every military force in this world trains its soldiers to neutralise the threat _then_ aid the wounded. Wounding one man just takes him out of the fight, but depending on how badly you wound him. Killing him guarantees he won't trouble you again until Judgement Day.
The "Sweden vs. Russia" scene is actually from a movie about the Great Northern war. It portrays the battle of Poltava, which was not fought in a Seven Years' war
7yr war was Austria France Sweden and Russia going against the prussians and losing and russia withdrew I count that as a prussian victory even though the new tsar was just biased to prussia and Britain just for the most part threw Colony fights with the French and Indians and I guess that one country in the hre forgot the name but Britain barely did anything in Europe even stopped financially helping prussia even though its 1 v 4 in Europe
@@FieldMarshalYT Wasn't Sweden pretty much played out by the Seven Years War? I thought they were effectively impotent about the same time as the death of Charles XII
Imagine training like 10 men for like a whole three month, feeding them, giving them a place to sleep, just so you can have all of them get rekt by a canon ball before they could even fire a volley
And imagine being one of those "10 men" . Time for me to run towards the opposite direction .. as far from that shiite as possible . Catch me if you can Napoleon 😆
Let's not forget that these are films, and as such they are meant to be entertaining. For the most part muskets were levelled, not aimed, with no allowance for range. This, combined with the fog of gunsmoke and other factors such as misfires, resulted in an actual hit rate under battle conditions of around 2% or less. This is how you got veterans of several campaigns and old soldiers in general. Most battles were decided by moral, not casualties.
It’s nice to see a reply about this era that doesn’t consist of “god, look at how stupid this is, there all just standing there!?” Like people 170 years from now won’t say the exact same thing about us.
The british actually did the science to determine how many steps a soldier could take while the enemy was reloading. Everyone firing at once can be devastating but there is a lag while reloading which allows the enemy to close. Most effective would be to fire by ranks as portrayed in the film Zulu. That way you keep the enemy under constant fire.
Fire by rank was rarely done during this era. With breach loaders Like in "Zulu" it was very effective. But Not in the 18th century. And If you want to keep the enemy under Constant fire "fire by platoon " was More effective.
Not really. That is a popular misconeption. Most armies at the time tried to minimize the exchange of fire. The Caroleans for example had a very strong focus of hand to hand combat. The entire swedish warmachine were built for that purpose. The same with the redcoats, they were very fast and agile on the battlefield. At the time, only about 2% of the shots fired hit their targets so a lengthy exchange of shots on open grounds would in addition to the casualites and disorder it bring also mean shortage in powder and shot. And artillery for that matter. And lack of powder could mean the end of a campaign.
@@Kramplarv I've read that the Brits fought according to the Dutch-Swedish school (how Gustavus Adolphus armies fought in the 17th century) in the 18th century; meaning they prioritized firefights over melee. The French school, however, was more focused on the melee and columns etc.
@Mooseheads True, if your willing to forget that they modeled their republic after the Dutch, and they suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus at the drop of a hat. Not to mention they occasionally choose to install dictators to lead them.
For those who asks why they waited to be fired and some other questions. It was considered that firing a volley the second has some tactic advantages: instead of reloading you can send men in charge right after they shot, and the enemy line would not be ready by the time they meet. Moreover seeing your mates being killed makes you more angry so you charge with more ferocity. Why would they stay in lines? Three main reasons: low accuracy, managing troops and morale. People standing shoulder to shoulder tend to feel more... comfortable.
firing in lines also defended against cavalry and because of the low accuracy of muskets firing in volleys helped ensure a hit and was much more intimidating than individual fire
It's how humans fought for thousands of years, pretty much up until WWI. You can't really tell what's happening when you're in a large battle with thousands of people on both sides. There's too much dust, smoke, shouting, banging, etc. This means you're wide open to get body slammed by a 900 pound animal, ridden by a guy who wants you dead, who then tramples you to death, all out of fucking nowhere. For most of human history, battles were basically giant games of "Chicken," where the side who lost their nerve first was ran down by cavalry. To get around this problem of communication and defending yourself from mounted enemies, you need close-knit formations. By standing close together, you can hear the instruments and songs of your unit that give audio cues of what you're supposed to be doing. Your unit's standard (or flag) is used to communicate with leaders who can see what's happening from afar above all the dust and smoke. It also turns out horses really don't like running into walls of sharp metal, and their riders really don't like getting flung from their mounts. Bayonets, pikes, and spears serve this function and it only works if you have groups of troops standing together. If one guy with a spear tries to stop a horse, the horse isn't going to give a shit and you'll likely get killed by the rider anyway. If ten guys with spears try to stop a single horse, that horse isn't going anywhere near them. This all changes with the invention of barbed wire, chemical weapons, machine guns, aircraft, radio/telegraph, and artillery that can hit targets 45 miles away. With WWI, battles no longer became questions of morale and cavalry maneuvers, but the question of how many troops your side actually killed and not just captured or routed.
@@nekrataali Yes and no. You've LITERALLY just said warfare was the same for THOUSANDS of years and magically changed in WW1. You honestly think the Seven Years' War was fought the same as a war 150 years earlier, like the Thirty Years' War, or Agincourt in 1415, or Salamis in 480 BC? Really ignorant comment.
@@nekrataali If you think "just about" every war "until" ww1 was fought with cavalry, destroying infantry then you've skipped just about all of history. We still use bayonets because horse cavalry is a massive threat, right? You know little.
Gotta say, linear warfare gotta be the most unique and cinematic type of battle to watch and the most horrifying to participate. The way each faction are colored and the way each platoon are set up in perfect rectangular shaped form just looks unique. It also must be extremely horrifying and stress. You're literally slowly walking up in a field just to get shot by a musket or a canon ball.
It's fascinating because for the most part how these battles worked was not who was the most advanced in tech (there wherent many huge improvements in these wars anyway) but rather just a _contest of wills_. Who broke first died, because cavalry could obliterate any routing force
Sweden Vs Russia Just...WHAT Alright I Have To Clairify Sweden Was Not In The Seven Years War What So Ever this is is wrong but they did not fight Russia in it The Evidence That I Got Is That That Is In The Great Northern War And The Battle You Played Was Poltava....
@@annaphilip2188 yes i know. What i'm trying to say is that in the seven years war, sweden DID fight, but against prussia, not russia. So i'm trying to be ironic against the creator here.
knight keeper no don t worry I got my ways to get my daily endorphins dose. Yt or fb likes aren t among them. Apparently it works for you .. I find it sad but hey whatever makes you happy!
@@washizukanoricoto be honest I was drunk when I watch this video, and wrote this comments. I didn't think that I'll get that much likes. I guess everyone appreciate my geniusness if that make sense. English is not my first languages just so you know.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
@@normalnoodles9383 And these films don't show the bloody business of war being shot at doesn't seem that bad when a few men fall down instead of blood flying everywhere and the screams of the wounded & dying are absent this I feel like doesn't show the bravery of the soldiers of the time
@@sauerkrautjrare you that stupid that you think 18th century Era Combat can not be displayed and recreated in film? That this is all just inaccurate and never once could be like this
For the video of the battle of Poltava, that is not how it went down. The Swedish army at that time had a tactic called 'Go Po' essentially to win by charging before the enemy had a chance to fire twice - once at the maximum range where it had the worst hit rate, and before a second or third shot closer up. The idea was to get into melee where the mixed rifle, bayonet and pike combo of the Swedish army would win the day, like it did many times. With Poltava the Russians had built several armored squares (as we see on the initial part of the battle) and by the time they fought beyond those, the Swedish army was so mauled that it couldn't win a charge. They were basically slaughtered trying. What we see is wrong. They didn't stop within 25 feet of the other army, fired and waited for them to fire their volley. That might be true of some other nations battles - but not Sweden and not during that time period. anyways, just a small correction. Russia found a great way to defeat the Go Po tactic and after that Swedens small empire crumbled and I believe that type of tactic was abandoned.
Russia didn't "find a great tactic," they did what Russia does and sent 80,000 (with an extreme terrain advantage and multiple forts) against 20,000 starved and undersupplied soldiers. I agree with you on everything else, but I think that saying the Russians did something right is a massive overestimation of their abilities at the time.
@@Hello-eq4db 1 to 4 is not something the swedes couldn´t handle. Besides it were 30.000 vs 75.000 We are still talking about Peter the Great here. The forts were the base line of the strategy. It was the charge of the Swedes that was devastating. Force them into a longer engagement and they lose. They relied on breaking the enemy moral to win. By spreading out his forces and preparing his positions Peter made it basically impossible for them to win.
@@therac197No the swedes lost 50% of their army (from 40k to 20k) after having to chase the scared russians through one of the greatest winters in europes history, typical russian tactics, Charles XII was always better than Peter he kept one of the greatest armys in europes history and fought with them to the end. Peter just through more soldiers at the problem untill he won, that’s not a king with glory.
Sorry what tactic did the Russian use to defend agenst Gå på? Beside be 3 time more and be in a fortified position, and have Charls XII shot repeatedly so he lost consciousness, and no orders was given.
There is actually a really good reason why these Swedish soldiers just wait patiently before the charge: Once the enemy has fired, they cannot do so again before the charge hits, so they cannot fire into the charge at point-blank range.
As Keith wortelhock said, there was only a 2% chance of you hitting someone, it was on the late 1700s and early to mid 1800s where you started seeing muskets actually hit heir target, since then they started shoving musket balls the size of the barrel down then barrel, before musket balls would rattle down the barrel. Remember. 1860s is where you started seeing armies use rifling and bullets, the American civil war was deadly because they were still using linear warfare with very accurate weapons.
Bullshit. If you aim, even with an undersized ball in an old smoothbore musket (remember that 'undersize' is very rapidly going to close up to just be 'size', if you've ever shot black powder guns) you can hit a mansized target at 50 yards reliably and 100 yards with good chance. Multiply that by a formation. The real issue is the chaos and smoke. You volley all at once otherwise you can't see shit, and even then you may not be able to see shit. The improvement wasn't the rifle but expanding bullets that could be loaded with loose tolerances (necessary for black powder, see above) but then still have a tight fit on the rifling grooves once fired. Then you'd be right that everything got proportionately that much deadlier. Muskets get a bad rap, there's a reason they were so prized by everyone who first got access to them
@stephenheath8465 yes though I would add that the prussians adapted their tactics by the mid 19th century with looser line formations and more use of cover. Part of what made the civil war partocularly deadly was they used essentially napoleonic formation density and general tactics
One of the things you really miss in these reproduction videos is just how bad visibility was on these battlefields. Modern firearms fire smokeless powder, but these powders were not widely available until almost 20 years after the American Civil War. In reality, after a few volleys the entire battle would basically be taking place inside of a rolling fog bank. Smoothbore muskets have atrocious accuracy under the best of circumstances, and when visibility is
@@whiterosecicero4802 the war the second video is about is the great northern war (1700-1721). Yes, the first clip is in the 7 years war. But i was talking about the second clip, Battle of Poltava.
This Is gentleman's warfare. Everyone is formally dressed People are so polite they will let you reload if not dead And they play some music to lift the moods of the battles
I don’t know why movies like to do that, the combat was nothing like that, a lot of times they would be fighting in trenches and using forests and buildings to there advantage
Amazing to see all these battle tacticians in the comments who seem to know nothing of Napoleonic warfare and reasons behind the formations and methods, especially when there are plenty of other videos explaining exactly why battles were carried out in that manner.
The Seven Years' War was a century earlier! This war has nothing to do with the era of the Napoleonic Wars! Because the Seven Years' War is the beginning of the 18th century! The Napoleonic Wars are the beginning of the 19th century
@@rodjarrow6575 umm... no not really, the 7 years war was 1756-1763 while the Napoleonic wars where 1803-1815 so even taking the longest time period possible it was 59 years which is quite a long way off a century, similarly 1756 isn't "The beginning of the 18th century" it's literally nearer the end then the start...
@@temujin5743 Bayonet charges were the reason why Europeans were able to take so much ground in such a short amount of time, and have such a low casualties in battles, because the bayonet charge is scary and will decide the battle right then and there, and it almost always went to the attacker, go look at the Crimean war, The British bayonet charged the Russians completely out numbered and pushed back that unit
call what you guys want but these kind of engagement required huge courage and guts. walking straight into enemy sight of fire with zero cover is what i called a well earned respect.
@@philpants44do not disrespect your ancestors like this. Without them, you would have nothing. These tactics were the most advanced strategies for the geometric war of the time.
I look forward to when sensor tech reaches such a point that visual camouflage is obsolete. Then we can go back to looking FABULOUS on the battlefield.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
Kinda where the term originated. I'm sure it goes back to ancient times. Idea is to put your weaker troops in front to absorb most of the damage and then use your best troops to do the real attack
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
@@teviottilehurst Like British Empire wasn't an empire of poor peasantries as Russian. British Empire had also many poor people, which began to conquer Indian lands in the North-East coast of North America and not only in North America. British literally have the most blood on their hands because the British conquered literally the most of the world. British were really cruel comparing to French to Indians.
@@musicilya6674 out of the British Empire came wealthy city states like Hong Kong and Singapore. Stable democracies were formed in what is now Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The British Empire speeded up/gave rise to the Industrial Revolution, an epoch making event that changed how we live our lives. Name a comparable empire? Certainly not the French or Russian. I acknowledge that evil was done by the Brit Empire . It's the nature of empire that others are oppressed. All empires are evil in that respect.
@@teviottilehurst You're right about the fact that all Empires are evil, but the British Empire was the evilest with the most huge amount of the blood on its hands. I meant that I love French Empire more than British because French wasn't as cruel as British regards to Indians in North America.
@@musicilya6674 most native American Indians sided with the British in the 7 years' war against France because of the level handed approach of the Brits. If you want an example of an evil empire, read up little Belgium's empire in the Congo.
@@Kramplarv Then there's me who made a bootleg one for about 250 by buying a bunch of stuff off of amazon. But I know I'd get laughed off any battlefield if I showed up wearing that.
A cool fact that the Russian v Sweden part gets somewhat incorrect: it’s become a more popular idea that line infantry rarely charged each other head on with bayonets as no one is wearing armor except maybe cavalry, so everyone would just be slaughtered. Yes charges occurred, but they were more likely to result in one side running away before people actually started bayoneting each other. Again, not to say it never happened, but that it doesn’t appear to be the goal to get into extended melee with the other side, but instead to take the ground
Iv'e also have heard that bayonet charges were seldom used because they were very unpopular with soldiers. However, there is a huge and consistent catalogue of primary source material produced by the army provosts apposing Sweden during the reign of Charles XII. They all report that Swedish forces habitually advanced quickly with bayonets at the ready to within 50 meters without firing.. Each rank would fire a single volley followed by a full charge without reloading, This was so well documented because conventional military practitioners were attempting to develop adequate countermeasures to defend against Sweden. The assaults were usually executed so quickly that mass artillery had no time to deployed. These tactics seldom resulted in huge bayonet related casualties because frankly, the defenders were often compelled to bolt. At Poltava, they used bayonets extensively but they were responsible for very few battle deaths. Casualty reports at the time would only include a primary cause of death, Non mortal battle casualties gave no specific information except name and date of wound or date of capture.
@@gorangustavsson4608 Yes, the principle of Ga Pa, firing close range volleys then charging while the opponent reloads, am I right? I'm never sure how it's pronounced though as I've never learnt to speak Swedish.
@@michaelrobinson2687 you are correct. Thats how the Charles the XII trained his smaller army to train and how his son used it in battle against a larger army. Violent action prevails against larger armies with low morale.
Again a stereotype. Russia is not China. Our population has always been less than in Europe. We have always fought not by numbers, but by skill. And what the litigators say about us is only their miserable excuses.
Well they didn't really had the choice, if they spread up, one cavalry charge and they are fucked. This why during this time, all the formation were tight, because cavalry charge destroyed any spread formation. It ended when rifle were introduced, so the infantryman could shoot the cavalry before it get to too close.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
Typically Battles were much more chaotic. Many Officers wrote about battles they had and they said sometimes it was hard to tell which side you were on.
Dont understand warfare of this era, why must they stand still at point blank n let the enemy fire first before they bayonet charge, and nobody seems to believe in taking cover, too brave to throw their life away, i would prolly like ask them to lie a few second before a mass volley n stand n continue figthing
Black powder warfare did kind of suck for the soldiers. It was due to technology limitations. Musket had an effective range of 50 yards with only 3 rounds a minute. Mass volleys increased the chance of hitting something. Standing up was the easiest way to load the musket as powder and shit had to be poured down the barrel. The hope in the charge is the rush the enemy before he can reload. But you are right about letting the soldiers lay down (even if only on the defensive) like at the battle of Waterloo the British laid down as there was no cover. Sorry for the long essay but as a history student and 18th century re-enactor this is my sh*t. And I love it.
It's because muskets are smooth bore weapon and are extremely inaccurate. They have to line up and fire mass volleys of fire to actually hit anything. Now you know.
Many tried to fight predominately with skirmishers. They found that they couldn't contest ground against mass volleys as the more accuract snd long range rifles could fire 1 bullet/minute whereas muskets could volley 3/minute. This meant in large battles skirmishers could not hold ground causing them to become seperated and then eliminated in detail
Skirmishers were still very important in establishing position/scouting/harassing and could win battles with their actions alone almost but they could never stand face to face against line infantry. Remember they had no radios if you became seperated from your regiment you were on your own
The charge witnessed in Barry Lyndon was a common tactic used to simply overrun the enemy with the mass of your troops. The slow speed of reloading and inaccuracy of muskets made it worthy of use in some occasions. Like any tactics, the correct use of it is determined by timing.
its crazy how bad battles are protrayed in movies. Just google the battles and you'll see that the numbers of fallen soldiers are often quite low. Also the accuracy of muskets is not soo good that half of the enemies row will fall
In 18 century Russia was developed by Petro I, and it became one of the mightiest countries in the world! So if you want, you can visit my channel on youtube, but there are only some videos without speaking( so I want to make new on English)
It's bullshit with these films because there would be dozens of men screaming their lungs out in pain and fear after being shot. Musket ball shatter your insides. They wouldnt have just collapsed so calmly lol.
The Napoleonic war DLC for warband is more accurate to real life than 90% of movies about that era, yeah they fought in lines, but loose formation was very common along with trenches and earthworks
That must be the most gutwrenching thing, just standing there seeing all your comrades falling dead just feet away from you and staring your fate down the barrel just hoping a stray bullet from a volley doesn't find you.
Вам не видать таких сражений!.. Носились знамена, как тени, В дыму огонь блестел, Звучал булат, картечь визжала, Рука бойцов колоть устала, И ядрам пролетать мешала Гора кровавых тел. Изведал враг в тот день немало, Что значит русский бой удалый, Наш рукопашный бой!.. Земля тряслась - как наши груди, Смешались в кучу кони, люди, И залпы тысячи орудий Слились в протяжный вой…
![Top 10 [EPIC] Civil war and Napoleonic era (1700-1899) massive land battles movie scenes](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RONtor_Jhzg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Top 10 [EPIC] Civil war and Napoleonic era (1700-1899) massive land battles movie scenes](/img/tr.png)
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
Army budget: 90% uniforms 10% weapons
I'd say 80% artillery 20% anything else.
guess what they didnt have the M4A1 back then.
You do realize that back then those muskets were cutting edge technology right?
Total budget source: %10 Main country %90 Colonies
they need pride
I just like how either French or Britain is just marching and get hit by cannon balls like bowling pins lol
Even though the tight formations were good against cavalry, they were highly exposed to artillery. They also take a long to reload due to it being muzzle loaded
bunch of legendary men. respect
This is how wars should be fought still. 👍
Why? Our guns are way too accurate for linear warfare.
@@Pikkabuu i think he’s referencing how we should be more civilized lol.
@@konnichiwagerms4071War is a result of our failure to be civil.
Hand to hand combat where you had two lines charging like berserkers and throwing people over rarely happened. Part of the lines (likely grenadiers) would charge and melee, before one side would give ground and withdraw. More often what would happen is that lines would close, a short but bitter firefight would occur and one side's morale would break before the other.
4:41 Bro was shot in hat and dies
*0:30** MESQUITA MASSACRE MUSIC 2019*
Grenadier march.
Barry Lyndon movie.
Marcha dos granadeiros britânicos.
this isn't the seven years war. this is the battle of poltava from the great northern war (8 July 1709 between Sweden Charles XII & Russia Peter the Great. The seven years war wasn't until 1756
All movie title that you mentioned please!!.???
1:21 that guy had a good excuse to stay back line lol “yo keep walking. I gotta take care of him. Will catch u up later”
That Barry Lyndon
that was an officer who was shot, they cant leave him out there.
I was thinking the same thing lol.
@@siazonmarcusr.9434 They could, and they would. What Barry Lyndon did there was potentially a court martial offence. Unless ordered to pick up a wounded NCO, one is not supposed to leave one's position without orders. A junior naval officer on the USS Chesapeake was court-martialed for the very same thing in the early 19th century, and his family struggled to get his named cleared even over 100 years later.
Imagine what would happen if everyone decided to break formation to pick up wounded comrades? That's part of the reason why the inane argument that it is better to wound enemy combatants than kill them outright is a myth. No trained or disciplined soldier would break off the fight without orders to tend to the wounded until the threat is resolved. Every military force in this world trains its soldiers to neutralise the threat _then_ aid the wounded. Wounding one man just takes him out of the fight, but depending on how badly you wound him. Killing him guarantees he won't trouble you again until Judgement Day.
@@Schwarzvogel1 Barry was a not a man very keen to follow the law :)
The movie is a masterpiece.
The "Sweden vs. Russia" scene is actually from a movie about the Great Northern war. It portrays the battle of Poltava, which was not fought in a Seven Years' war
Indeed
Well, it's not really about the Great Northern War. It's about 2 French men sent to spy on the Swedes and Russians DURING the Great Northern War
@@failmarine2.0 well, it doesn't really contradict what I wanted to say. The movie is set during the Great Northern war, anyway
7yr war was Austria France Sweden and Russia going against the prussians and losing and russia withdrew I count that as a prussian victory even though the new tsar was just biased to prussia and Britain just for the most part threw Colony fights with the French and Indians and I guess that one country in the hre forgot the name but Britain barely did anything in Europe even stopped financially helping prussia even though its 1 v 4 in Europe
@@newstages95ay87 Hanover
"My lord, my lord! Your men are running from the battlefield! A shameful display!"
Damn total war narrator
No! They will dismorale other units!
LMFAO
“Our men are running, sir!”
"A shameful display" i hear HIS voice
Battle of poltava (swedish vs Russian) wasn't part of seven years war. But great northern war
Sweden did however, participate in campaigns in Pomerania against Prussia.
@@FieldMarshalYT but sweden vs russia is incorrect though
@@Kriegter That's why I said "Against Prussia"
@@FieldMarshalYT you also had to explain that
@@FieldMarshalYT Wasn't Sweden pretty much played out by the Seven Years War? I thought they were effectively impotent about the same time as the death of Charles XII
Imagine training like 10 men for like a whole three month, feeding them, giving them a place to sleep, just so you can have all of them get rekt by a canon ball before they could even fire a volley
Fuckin' Mount and Blade
after all, training for a musket only need few days meanwhile training for long bow required many and many years, basically since you are a child
it's quite cheap when compared to other soldiers
Archers need years of training
Spearmen need months
Musketeers need weeks
same today lol
Imagine a Navy Seal getting trained through those horrors and a farmer takes you down lol
And imagine being one of those "10 men" .
Time for me to run towards the opposite direction .. as far from that shiite as possible .
Catch me if you can Napoleon 😆
War is Hell....But dam you look good in uniform
Ya should see the girls in uniform or more preferably half in uniform.
Girls love men in uniforms
gay
German ww2 uniforms were better
@@upstreamtoast3512 you're 3 centuries early bro
Let's not forget that these are films, and as such they are meant to be entertaining. For the most part muskets were levelled, not aimed, with no allowance for range. This, combined with the fog of gunsmoke and other factors such as misfires, resulted in an actual hit rate under battle conditions of around 2% or less. This is how you got veterans of several campaigns and old soldiers in general. Most battles were decided by moral, not casualties.
It’s nice to see a reply about this era that doesn’t consist of “god, look at how stupid this is, there all just standing there!?” Like people 170 years from now won’t say the exact same thing about us.
Commanders as distinct as Suzurov and Jackson both felt the bayonet was the superior weapon to the bullet
it depended of the army politics and the circumstances i guess. No need to be so negative
Agreed explains why most of the battles fought during those times had so little casualties
I read before that soldiers would aim their muskets slightly above their enemies head as to not try and kill anyone. How true is this
The british actually did the science to determine how many steps a soldier could take while the enemy was reloading. Everyone firing at once can be devastating but there is a lag while reloading which allows the enemy to close. Most effective would be to fire by ranks as portrayed in the film Zulu. That way you keep the enemy under constant fire.
Yes but its not the british fighting
it doesn't really matter - it's the same number of musketballs per minute... fire by rank is useful to stop melee charges that's all.
Fire by rank was rarely done during this era. With breach loaders Like in "Zulu" it was very effective. But Not in the 18th century. And If you want to keep the enemy under Constant fire "fire by platoon " was More effective.
@@SwedishSocialist1546 uh, it is.
@@vinz4066 Very correct. In the mid 19th century breech-loader wielding soldiers could utilize the firing by rank much better.
When the rules of war were literally patiently wait your turn
Who would imagine they already played turn based games back then.
Not really. That is a popular misconeption. Most armies at the time tried to minimize the exchange of fire. The Caroleans for example had a very strong focus of hand to hand combat. The entire swedish warmachine were built for that purpose. The same with the redcoats, they were very fast and agile on the battlefield.
At the time, only about 2% of the shots fired hit their targets so a lengthy exchange of shots on open grounds would in addition to the casualites and disorder it bring also mean shortage in powder and shot. And artillery for that matter. And lack of powder could mean the end of a campaign.
When people get their "knowledge" from clips on RUclips.
The main point of these tactics was to rather to scare the enemy off by showing your immunity, rather than actually attacking him.
@@Kramplarv I've read that the Brits fought according to the Dutch-Swedish school (how Gustavus Adolphus armies fought in the 17th century) in the 18th century; meaning they prioritized firefights over melee. The French school, however, was more focused on the melee and columns etc.
And there's George Washington with his Dodge Challenger.
I see what you did there. Well done.
@Mooseheads True, if your willing to forget that they modeled their republic after the Dutch, and they suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus at the drop of a hat. Not to mention they occasionally choose to install dictators to lead them.
I don't get the reference pls explain?
*performs drive by with muskets*
@@hansgruber788 " Murica! Fuck yeah!"
For those who asks why they waited to be fired and some other questions.
It was considered that firing a volley the second has some tactic advantages: instead of reloading you can send men in charge right after they shot, and the enemy line would not be ready by the time they meet. Moreover seeing your mates being killed makes you more angry so you charge with more ferocity.
Why would they stay in lines? Three main reasons: low accuracy, managing troops and morale. People standing shoulder to shoulder tend to feel more... comfortable.
firing in lines also defended against cavalry
and because of the low accuracy of muskets firing in volleys helped ensure a hit and was much more intimidating than individual fire
It's how humans fought for thousands of years, pretty much up until WWI. You can't really tell what's happening when you're in a large battle with thousands of people on both sides. There's too much dust, smoke, shouting, banging, etc. This means you're wide open to get body slammed by a 900 pound animal, ridden by a guy who wants you dead, who then tramples you to death, all out of fucking nowhere. For most of human history, battles were basically giant games of "Chicken," where the side who lost their nerve first was ran down by cavalry.
To get around this problem of communication and defending yourself from mounted enemies, you need close-knit formations. By standing close together, you can hear the instruments and songs of your unit that give audio cues of what you're supposed to be doing. Your unit's standard (or flag) is used to communicate with leaders who can see what's happening from afar above all the dust and smoke.
It also turns out horses really don't like running into walls of sharp metal, and their riders really don't like getting flung from their mounts. Bayonets, pikes, and spears serve this function and it only works if you have groups of troops standing together. If one guy with a spear tries to stop a horse, the horse isn't going to give a shit and you'll likely get killed by the rider anyway. If ten guys with spears try to stop a single horse, that horse isn't going anywhere near them.
This all changes with the invention of barbed wire, chemical weapons, machine guns, aircraft, radio/telegraph, and artillery that can hit targets 45 miles away. With WWI, battles no longer became questions of morale and cavalry maneuvers, but the question of how many troops your side actually killed and not just captured or routed.
@Cameron Pangborn They aren't rifles mate. Do you even know what you're talking about, calling 1760s muskets "rifles"?
@@nekrataali Yes and no. You've LITERALLY just said warfare was the same for THOUSANDS of years and magically changed in WW1. You honestly think the Seven Years' War was fought the same as a war 150 years earlier, like the Thirty Years' War, or Agincourt in 1415, or Salamis in 480 BC? Really ignorant comment.
@@nekrataali If you think "just about" every war "until" ww1 was fought with cavalry, destroying infantry then you've skipped just about all of history. We still use bayonets because horse cavalry is a massive threat, right? You know little.
Gotta say, linear warfare gotta be the most unique and cinematic type of battle to watch and the most horrifying to participate. The way each faction are colored and the way each platoon are set up in perfect rectangular shaped form just looks unique. It also must be extremely horrifying and stress. You're literally slowly walking up in a field just to get shot by a musket or a canon ball.
Canon Balls*
This shot is made by Cannister gang
Then imagine it irl with Long barrel and stock muzzle loading high power jolts and nerf cannons
It's fascinating because for the most part how these battles worked was not who was the most advanced in tech (there wherent many huge improvements in these wars anyway) but rather just a _contest of wills_. Who broke first died, because cavalry could obliterate any routing force
@@hannibalburgers477 It's cannonballs.
6:38 first time I've finally seen 1700s grenade launchers depicted!! (They were called 'Grenadiers' for a reason)
5:15-5:25 is some of the most unbiased hand to hand fighting I've seen in film in a while. Very realistic.
Hand to hand is unarmed bro 😂😂
@@ReckerFidelWOLF Good point, I guess close quarter combat would've been a better term.
@@Emoryyy123 I still got what your saying I just like being a smart ass since nobody else was 👀
@@ReckerFidelWOLF that's what the internet is for lmao
@@Emoryyy123 😂👏🤝✌💯
"Sir, we have fired a volley, should we now bayonet charge directly?"
"No you fool, its not our turn, wait for them to return fire first!"
Actually, that's a myth, they didnt wait for each other to fire, the truth is that whoever reloads the fastest wins.
@@siazonmarcusr.9434 I think it's just a commentary on the volleys during the Poltava bit
They do it for the movie sakes...
running into melee destroyed your formation and left you as easy picking for enemy cavalry
In any case, it is to avoid being fired at point-blank range while charging at them.
"We approach you with open arms of peace. Please do not fire on us- "
"FIRE!"
when is this
@@matteow101 Whenever they march towards the firing enemy lines
what is the name of this movie ?
How to survive.
1. be the cameraman
Edit: tHanks For tHe likes
Nice pun
B L U E B E A R, Do u know the name of the movie?
@@jordanmcintosh1516 barry lyndon
Nice one
2. Become medical personnel
Marching Band at school
Girls: Smiling and dancing
Boys:
"Sweden vs Russia"
Just... Whatever...
SHOWING NO FEAR THEIR JUDGEMENT IS NEAR
MAKING THEIR SACRIFICE
Ywqh but thing is it's not part of seven years war guys
Sweden Vs Russia
Just...WHAT
Alright I Have To Clairify Sweden Was Not In The Seven Years War What So Ever this is is wrong but they did not fight Russia in it
The Evidence That I Got Is That That Is In The Great Northern War And The Battle You Played Was Poltava....
@@annaphilip2188 yes i know. What i'm trying to say is that in the seven years war, sweden DID fight, but against prussia, not russia. So i'm trying to be ironic against the creator here.
@@annaphilip2188 yea battle of Poltava search it and the scene will appear
Girls locker room: It boring I want to go home
Boys:
Edits:300 wow I never got so many likes before..Thanks guys
AIII BOIII!
Where is the battle?!
Chaaaarge!
*jumps up and runs screaming in the Neighbourclass*
Happy to get likes on yt over a nonsensical comment?
Get a life
@@washizukanorico jealous bitch cause you won't come up with comment like this. Get a life and make your own creative comments like mine.
knight keeper no don t worry I got my ways to get my daily endorphins dose. Yt or fb likes aren t among them. Apparently it works for you .. I find it sad but hey whatever makes you happy!
@@washizukanoricoto be honest I was drunk when I watch this video, and wrote this comments. I didn't think that I'll get that much likes. I guess everyone appreciate my geniusness if that make sense. English is not my first languages just so you know.
The fist minute and a half is England vs France then the scene after that is prussian vs France then the swedes vs russian
H.Dilk-Rivers Yeah only apart of the video is about France big country vs Britain
Yes I imagined it was either the Prussians or the Americans thank you.
JonatasMonte why would Americans be fighting France?
Actually it was Prussians vs Austrians, it’s an easy mix up thoe as Austria and France did have very similar uniforms back then
@@innuendoike1004 Yes but they didn't have similar flags, and the flag which can be seen in the Background is a French Royal Warflag.
Back when your battle uniform could double as your funeral one.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
@@normalnoodles9383 And these films don't show the bloody business of war
being shot at doesn't seem that bad when a few men fall down instead of blood flying everywhere and the screams of the wounded & dying are absent
this I feel like doesn't show the bravery of the soldiers of the time
The bravery and discipline of these men is astounding
Pretty easy since these guys know they're gonna be fine
@@sauerkrautjr he did not mean the film actors Sauerkraut Dödel
@@Gog.Magog. oh, they got real footage of an 18th century battle? Incredible. Truly astounding.
Yes acting is tough
@@sauerkrautjrare you that stupid that you think 18th century Era Combat can not be displayed and recreated in film? That this is all just inaccurate and never once could be like this
Girlfriend: He's probably cheating on me right now
*Me and the boys* :
1st Lt. Rob Atkinson walking straight into bullets and then standing when your getting shot at not even crawling
For the video of the battle of Poltava, that is not how it went down. The Swedish army at that time had a tactic called 'Go Po' essentially to win by charging before the enemy had a chance to fire twice - once at the maximum range where it had the worst hit rate, and before a second or third shot closer up. The idea was to get into melee where the mixed rifle, bayonet and pike combo of the Swedish army would win the day, like it did many times. With Poltava the Russians had built several armored squares (as we see on the initial part of the battle) and by the time they fought beyond those, the Swedish army was so mauled that it couldn't win a charge. They were basically slaughtered trying. What we see is wrong. They didn't stop within 25 feet of the other army, fired and waited for them to fire their volley. That might be true of some other nations battles - but not Sweden and not during that time period. anyways, just a small correction. Russia found a great way to defeat the Go Po tactic and after that Swedens small empire crumbled and I believe that type of tactic was abandoned.
Russia didn't "find a great tactic," they did what Russia does and sent 80,000 (with an extreme terrain advantage and multiple forts) against 20,000 starved and undersupplied soldiers. I agree with you on everything else, but I think that saying the Russians did something right is a massive overestimation of their abilities at the time.
@@Hello-eq4db 1 to 4 is not something the swedes couldn´t handle. Besides it were 30.000 vs 75.000
We are still talking about Peter the Great here. The forts were the base line of the strategy. It was the charge of the Swedes that was devastating. Force them into a longer engagement and they lose. They relied on breaking the enemy moral to win. By spreading out his forces and preparing his positions Peter made it basically impossible for them to win.
@@therac197No the swedes lost 50% of their army (from 40k to 20k) after having to chase the scared russians through one of the greatest winters in europes history, typical russian tactics, Charles XII was always better than Peter he kept one of the greatest armys in europes history and fought with them to the end. Peter just through more soldiers at the problem untill he won, that’s not a king with glory.
Sorry what tactic did the Russian use to defend agenst Gå på? Beside be 3 time more and be in a fortified position, and have Charls XII shot repeatedly
so he lost consciousness, and no orders was given.
Зачем "маленькая" шведская армия зашла в глубь России против большой русской армии? Почему шведы не включили в состав своей армии украинцев?
There is actually a really good reason why these Swedish soldiers just wait patiently before the charge: Once the enemy has fired, they cannot do so again before the charge hits, so they cannot fire into the charge at point-blank range.
As Keith wortelhock said, there was only a 2% chance of you hitting someone, it was on the late 1700s and early to mid 1800s where you started seeing muskets actually hit heir target, since then they started shoving musket balls the size of the barrel down then barrel, before musket balls would rattle down the barrel. Remember. 1860s is where you started seeing armies use rifling and bullets, the American civil war was deadly because they were still using linear warfare with very accurate weapons.
Same with the German Unification Wars around the same time
Bullshit. If you aim, even with an undersized ball in an old smoothbore musket (remember that 'undersize' is very rapidly going to close up to just be 'size', if you've ever shot black powder guns) you can hit a mansized target at 50 yards reliably and 100 yards with good chance. Multiply that by a formation.
The real issue is the chaos and smoke. You volley all at once otherwise you can't see shit, and even then you may not be able to see shit.
The improvement wasn't the rifle but expanding bullets that could be loaded with loose tolerances (necessary for black powder, see above) but then still have a tight fit on the rifling grooves once fired. Then you'd be right that everything got proportionately that much deadlier.
Muskets get a bad rap, there's a reason they were so prized by everyone who first got access to them
@stephenheath8465 yes though I would add that the prussians adapted their tactics by the mid 19th century with looser line formations and more use of cover. Part of what made the civil war partocularly deadly was they used essentially napoleonic formation density and general tactics
Would hate to be the soldiers at the front, get shut first! !!!
It's not safe really anywere when you're being shelled in such tight formations lol
@@lkvideos7181 Even then, your chances of getting hit in the 18 century are still pretty slim.
@@lkvideos7181 True, true.
@@akedus44 *doubt*
@@lkvideos7181 If your chances of getting shot was that high, then why was it done in the first place?
Answer, because it wasn't.
One of the things you really miss in these reproduction videos is just how bad visibility was on these battlefields. Modern firearms fire smokeless powder, but these powders were not widely available until almost 20 years after the American Civil War. In reality, after a few volleys the entire battle would basically be taking place inside of a rolling fog bank. Smoothbore muskets have atrocious accuracy under the best of circumstances, and when visibility is
Swedish-Russian war. Not 7 years war. ;)
God of Empire it is funny as for part of the 7 years war they were on the same side
@@whiterosecicero4802 the war the second video is about is the great northern war (1700-1721). Yes, the first clip is in the 7 years war. But i was talking about the second clip, Battle of Poltava.
@@JB17521or where is poltava
@@petar6295 In the east of the Ukrain.
Not a Swedish-Russian war,but the Great Northern War with Denmark,Saxony and Rzech Pospolita on the first hand and Sweden on the other)
This Is gentleman's warfare. Everyone is formally dressed
People are so polite they will let you reload if not dead
And they play some music to lift the moods of the battles
Girls Wearing the Same Costume: Ew why you Copy Mine!
Boys Wearing the Same Costume: *0:01**-**8:34*
Soldier: Can we fire sir?
Sergeant: No its not our turn.
lol
I don’t know why movies like to do that, the combat was nothing like that, a lot of times they would be fighting in trenches and using forests and buildings to there advantage
@@communism_is_wrong7167Trench warfare didn't happen in that time.
@@ElizabetFlores-qg4kk yes they did. They haved sandbags fortification and little deep trenches or wooden and sandbags walls
Amazing to see all these battle tacticians in the comments who seem to know nothing of Napoleonic warfare and reasons behind the formations and methods, especially when there are plenty of other videos explaining exactly why battles were carried out in that manner.
The Seven Years' War was a century earlier! This war has nothing to do with the era of the Napoleonic Wars! Because the Seven Years' War is the beginning of the 18th century! The Napoleonic Wars are the beginning of the 19th century
@@rodjarrow6575 umm... no not really, the 7 years war was 1756-1763 while the Napoleonic wars where 1803-1815 so even taking the longest time period possible it was 59 years which is quite a long way off a century, similarly 1756 isn't "The beginning of the 18th century" it's literally nearer the end then the start...
The true terror weapon of this age was the bayonets. One thousand of those charging would cause almost anyone to $hit themselves.
Bayonets at this time where not very efectime, and in real life, nobady runs in the other bayonet, there will be Gap bettween the people.
it was more psycolological but according to the memories of the soldiers it was more cannonball they fearded the most you could imagine why !
@@temujin5743 Bayonet charges were the reason why Europeans were able to take so much ground in such a short amount of time, and have such a low casualties in battles, because the bayonet charge is scary and will decide the battle right then and there, and it almost always went to the attacker, go look at the Crimean war, The British bayonet charged the Russians completely out numbered and pushed back that unit
@Cameron Pangborn The Brits weren't considered especially dangerous. At sea, perhaps....
That damned tune being played on the fife......have had that stuck in my head for about a year.
Nameless Entity haha same.
If i'm going to march into a wall of lead i better have someone jamming out a banger behind me
It's "The British Grenadiers."
Doo doo doo doo doo doo dooooo doo do do do doo do do do do dooooo
@@amirbrody You have got too many notes
When you feel like millitary expert because you played thousand hours in Empire: Total War.
Yh but you know bro Empire did a good job and they did try to show what 18th century war was like
Sweden fought together with Russia against Prussia in the Seven Years War. Just saying.
Ow, I thought that it was Prussia in the video, but I already found the uniforms a bit strange
Sweden vs Russia depicted is the great northern war
Why so many countries hate Prussia?
@@lobakputih202 It's not that everyone hated Prussia but there were other reasons.
@@lobakputih202 because Prussian are noob and sucks
call what you guys want but these kind of engagement required huge courage and guts. walking straight into enemy sight of fire with zero cover is what i called a well earned respect.
some would call it stupidity
@@philpants44do not disrespect your ancestors like this.
Without them, you would have nothing. These tactics were the most advanced strategies for the geometric war of the time.
@@philpants44
If it was stupid people would have Not done it for over 100 years
I look forward to when sensor tech reaches such a point that visual camouflage is obsolete. Then we can go back to looking FABULOUS on the battlefield.
I feel like a Total War mad house right now.
Knights Templar
Lol
were you the one playing the Gauls in a barbarian city siege?
@@armaholic5949 Which game are you talking about lol? ROME II....?
@@knightstemplar4274 yes
@@armaholic5949 I don't think so. I don't play pvp but I do play the pvp or coop campaign.
The words "Cannon fodder" take on a new meaning when watching this march to the death.
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
In other words, don’t get your historical depictions from movies
Kinda where the term originated. I'm sure it goes back to ancient times. Idea is to put your weaker troops in front to absorb most of the damage and then use your best troops to do the real attack
It’s hard to imagine that this was only 120 years before ww1 (or there abouts)
So anyway, each about 120 years ,it should happen a war it is?
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
@@normalnoodles9383 yeh i know I play quite a lot of napoleon total war haha.
4:24 there's always that couple of guys who laughs in the film, like the one in dunkirk hahaha.
Hahaha
As a Russian person, I always loved and love French Empire more than the British. Greetings from Russia)!
As a British person, I have always loved the French empire over the backward, peasantry empire that was Russia's. Greeting from Britain 🇬🇧
@@teviottilehurst Like British Empire wasn't an empire of poor peasantries as Russian. British Empire had also many poor people, which began to conquer Indian lands in the North-East coast of North America and not only in North America. British literally have the most blood on their hands because the British conquered literally the most of the world. British were really cruel comparing to French to Indians.
@@musicilya6674 out of the British Empire came wealthy city states like Hong Kong and Singapore. Stable democracies were formed in what is now Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The British Empire speeded up/gave rise to the Industrial Revolution, an epoch making event that changed how we live our lives. Name a comparable empire? Certainly not the French or Russian. I acknowledge that evil was done by the Brit Empire . It's the nature of empire that others are oppressed. All empires are evil in that respect.
@@teviottilehurst You're right about the fact that all Empires are evil, but the British Empire was the evilest with the most huge amount of the blood on its hands. I meant that I love French Empire more than British because French wasn't as cruel as British regards to Indians in North America.
@@musicilya6674 most native American Indians sided with the British in the 7 years' war against France because of the level handed approach of the Brits. If you want an example of an evil empire, read up little Belgium's empire in the Congo.
Thời này vui dễ sợ.quân mình đứng dàn hàng cho quân nó bắn.méo núp gì hết🤣🤣
how did they march without being hindered by their massive balls?
reinforced pants
@@shealton_3919 Breaches you mean?
If you are curious where this is from(at least the first two scenes) it’s from Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, which is a masterpiece of a movie.
when the swedes charge, I can hear Pewdiepie in my head screaming "for Sweden!!!!" as he takes on an illager raid
I like to wear their uniform.
Kenny Chung but which colour is your favourite. I do like all of them but if forced it would be the Swedish blue and yellow.
@@whiterosecicero4802 you can get an entire carolean uniform at www.tailorandarms.com/ it only cost around 2000-4000 dollars.
@@Kramplarv Then there's me who made a bootleg one for about 250 by buying a bunch of stuff off of amazon. But I know I'd get laughed off any battlefield if I showed up wearing that.
I miss those days
You miss Battle of Trafalgar?
When you're standing in a line, getting shot and can't move a single muscle, but you look fresh af
A cool fact that the Russian v Sweden part gets somewhat incorrect: it’s become a more popular idea that line infantry rarely charged each other head on with bayonets as no one is wearing armor except maybe cavalry, so everyone would just be slaughtered. Yes charges occurred, but they were more likely to result in one side running away before people actually started bayoneting each other. Again, not to say it never happened, but that it doesn’t appear to be the goal to get into extended melee with the other side, but instead to take the ground
Iv'e also have heard that bayonet charges were seldom used because they were very unpopular with soldiers. However, there is a huge and consistent catalogue of primary source material produced by the army provosts apposing Sweden during the reign of Charles XII. They all report that Swedish forces habitually advanced quickly with bayonets at the ready to within 50 meters without firing.. Each rank would fire a single volley followed by a full charge without reloading, This was so well documented because conventional military practitioners were attempting to develop adequate countermeasures to defend against Sweden. The assaults were usually executed so quickly that mass artillery had no time to deployed. These tactics seldom resulted in huge bayonet related casualties because frankly, the defenders were often compelled to bolt. At Poltava, they used bayonets extensively but they were responsible for very few battle deaths. Casualty reports at the time would only include a primary cause of death, Non mortal battle casualties gave no specific information except name and date of wound or date of capture.
Sweden charged almost always.
@@gorangustavsson4608 Yes, the principle of Ga Pa, firing close range volleys then charging while the opponent reloads, am I right? I'm never sure how it's pronounced though as I've never learnt to speak Swedish.
@@michaelrobinson2687 you are correct. Thats how the Charles the XII trained his smaller army to train and how his son used it in battle against a larger army. Violent action prevails against larger armies with low morale.
@@michaelrobinson2687 It called Gå På. Its can mean different things. Like "Carry on" but also "walk that result in a impact"
Да уж суровые были времена для линейной пехоты...
Russia: "we have more men than they have bullets"
Sweden: ....
The Battle of Poltava is from the Great Northern War not Seven Years War.
@@zaffronthebountyhunter4196 Yes you're right.
This is 17th century not 18th everyone always mistakes there years
Again a stereotype. Russia is not China. Our population has always been less than in Europe. We have always fought not by numbers, but by skill. And what the litigators say about us is only their miserable excuses.
Евгений Петров no it is in numbers
I know a lot of women are watching this and saying ...what a waste
These brave men died for their prides, their nations, their monarchs and their God! God bless them!
Long live King!
Long live Emperor!
Watching this makes me wanna get into Empire and Napoleon Total War again...
Sweden fought Russia around 40 years before the Seven Years War. It was at the time of the war of the Spanish Succession
Or as its more commenly know in the north the great northen war
Then: Russian Empire vs. Sweden
Now: Sweden and Nato vs. Russia
Large cannons/motars infront of swedish infantry.
Swedish Infantry: *Let's March in big tight line.*
Well they didn't really had the choice, if they spread up, one cavalry charge and they are fucked.
This why during this time, all the formation were tight, because cavalry charge destroyed any spread formation.
It ended when rifle were introduced, so the infantryman could shoot the cavalry before it get to too close.
Back in the day when Sweden actually had some balls :)
They still have meatballs...
@@connythereal5234 only in ikea though
The movies are bad depictions of line battles, and for one, there was no “wait your turn”. They fired in volleys to hit things past 100 yards, since muskets weren’t accurate. They stood in lines so everyone could shoot at once by being able to see. They stood close together to protect against cavalry. And they used music to issue commands among the large lines.
Typically Battles were much more chaotic. Many Officers wrote about battles they had and they said sometimes it was hard to tell which side you were on.
Back when even the wars were "civilized"
They fought in lines for a reason, not cause they were "civilized"
They weren’t civilized because they fought in lines. They were civilized for other reasons.
2:33
not seven year's war. it's actually the great northern war. extra credits did an awesome series on it if you wanna know more.
Napoleon Total War & Empire should use clips' musket sound effects.
Mate. Most of the major mods actualy use movie sound effects since like idk ages lol
@@lkvideos7181 Nap TW LME 4 mod is my favorite
What was the film , like I remember it
been playing lme from the first released great mod.
@@ShotgunBomBom what is the music in the first clip, mate?
4:24 guy on the left has been waiting his whole life for this
He‘s the guy she tells you not to worry about
Dont understand warfare of this era, why must they stand still at point blank n let the enemy fire first before they bayonet charge, and nobody seems to believe in taking cover, too brave to throw their life away, i would prolly like ask them to lie a few second before a mass volley n stand n continue figthing
Same
Black powder warfare did kind of suck for the soldiers. It was due to technology limitations. Musket had an effective range of 50 yards with only 3 rounds a minute. Mass volleys increased the chance of hitting something. Standing up was the easiest way to load the musket as powder and shit had to be poured down the barrel. The hope in the charge is the rush the enemy before he can reload.
But you are right about letting the soldiers lay down (even if only on the defensive) like at the battle of Waterloo the British laid down as there was no cover.
Sorry for the long essay but as a history student and 18th century re-enactor this is my sh*t. And I love it.
It's because muskets are smooth bore weapon and are extremely inaccurate. They have to line up and fire mass volleys of fire to actually hit anything. Now you know.
Many tried to fight predominately with skirmishers. They found that they couldn't contest ground against mass volleys as the more accuract snd long range rifles could fire 1 bullet/minute whereas muskets could volley 3/minute. This meant in large battles skirmishers could not hold ground causing them to become seperated and then eliminated in detail
Skirmishers were still very important in establishing position/scouting/harassing and could win battles with their actions alone almost but they could never stand face to face against line infantry. Remember they had no radios if you became seperated from your regiment you were on your own
There is no way I would stand and wait to get shot.
That's because you are no Gentlemen and have no honor.
i dont believe they fought like that
Peter Des it’s actually fairly accurate in that regard. Lining up in rows was only way you would ever hit a damned thing with a musket.
@@peterdes6792 Idiot, they did. Read a damn book.
John not knowing something doesnt make me an idiot. idiot.
The charge witnessed in Barry Lyndon was a common tactic used to simply overrun the enemy with the mass of your troops. The slow speed of reloading and inaccuracy of muskets made it worthy of use in some occasions. Like any tactics, the correct use of it is determined by timing.
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Austrian Empire
D4DJ Groovy Mix - France
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Great Britain
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Netherlands
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Portugal
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Prussia
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Russia
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Spain
D4DJ Groovy Mix - Sweden
its crazy how bad battles are protrayed in movies. Just google the battles and you'll see that the numbers of fallen soldiers are often quite low. Also the accuracy of muskets is not soo good that half of the enemies row will fall
Ever head of dramatic effect
3:32 Gordon Ramsey WTFFFF!!!!
Oo nga no si Gordon ramsey
@@ianpiodos6659 haha kamukang kamuka
The war depicted is not a part of the any seven years war. It was part of the great northen war. Sweden vs Russia, Poland, Denmark
Imagine being one of the soldiers....
Reloading your musket while the enemy has a clear view of you and can shoot you...
But then you remember how inaccurate guns are and that the officer next to you is a seasoned veteran and you stick to your position.
If you think that Russia is great country, please, mark this comment👏
In 18 century Russia was developed by Petro I, and it became one of the mightiest countries in the world! So if you want, you can visit my channel on youtube, but there are only some videos without speaking( so I want to make new on English)
War:the golden time for psychopaths
I want to know what movie is this.
The first one is Barry Lyndon
It's bullshit with these films because there would be dozens of men screaming their lungs out in pain and fear after being shot. Musket ball shatter your insides. They wouldnt have just collapsed so calmly lol.
2:07 playing Napoleonic Wars in Warband and you don't have a line battalion.
Hahaha. Nice. Very accurate.
The Napoleonic war DLC for warband is more accurate to real life than 90% of movies about that era, yeah they fought in lines, but loose formation was very common along with trenches and earthworks
Straight slay for FooF and RooF and surely some FiC somewhere
勇敢ではあるがこんな戦い方をしていたのでは兵力が命が幾ら在っても足りないであろう。大東亜戦争で万歳突撃を敷いて兵士たちを無駄死にさせた将軍・大本営参謀たちの子孫に1千時間の鑑賞を義務付けたい。
No matter what you do the British will keep going until their all dead or on the ground
That must be the most gutwrenching thing, just standing there seeing all your comrades falling dead just feet away from you and staring your fate down the barrel just hoping a stray bullet from a volley doesn't find you.
Truly gut wrenching.
Вижу стойкость в рядах, трусости нет что могут умереть. как на дуэле
1:18 *heroic death*
I can't get the British granadier song out of my head
BomBom's true goal becomes apparent: He wants to be MTV.
Вам не видать таких сражений!..
Носились знамена, как тени,
В дыму огонь блестел,
Звучал булат, картечь визжала,
Рука бойцов колоть устала,
И ядрам пролетать мешала
Гора кровавых тел.
Изведал враг в тот день немало,
Что значит русский бой удалый,
Наш рукопашный бой!..
Земля тряслась - как наши груди,
Смешались в кучу кони, люди,
И залпы тысячи орудий
Слились в протяжный вой…
Ни слова о дыме.
Недавно фильм видел Три икса там тоже смешались в кучу кони люди...
@@jakubb.9945 it's from a great russian poet, Lermontov
Interviews an 18th century British soldier.
Me: "so how was combat like?"
Soldier: "Like an RPG mobile game"
their uniform is probably way more expensive than their guns
Do modo que eles guerreavam nos séculos 18 e 19,é surpreendente que a raça humana tenha chegado ao século 21.
Это только в 17 и 18 веке в 19 уже была не линельная тактика.