I wouldn't say that platoon fire didn't held up in other fronts than Flanders. Failures in Spain can't be called the fault of the infantry. Otherwise a clear explanation. Well done. Another thing I want to mention is that it is weird that historians call platoon fire the Anglo-Dutch method. This is only because of Anglo-centrism, because it clearly origintated in the Dutch Republic and was only implemented in Britain after William of Orange reformed their army in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. There were numerous other armies who went on to use it, like the Danes and Prussians I believe, but we don't call it the Anglo-Dano-Dutch-Prussian method.
You’re actually right. In all the battles in Iberia the allied infantry put up a great fight (bar the Portuguese at Almansa). Even in their defeats, they still put on a show.
I love how many of these tactics and concepts are rudimentary versions of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars' tactics, you can cleary see their faults and how they evolved into the warfare of Napoleon and the Victorian era. The french 5 ranks deep line in special sounds almost alien when compared to the more conservative 2-3 of the early 19th century
I’m a Napoleonic era guy but I’ve been watching your Spanish succession series and other early 18th century videos and I find it really interesting how the warfare changed across this century
What were the reasons for the British army fighting in two ranks instead of three towards the end of the 18th century, if all three ranks could fire? Awesome video!
The French realized through experiments that the third ranks fire was often ineffective, so the third rank (in theory, not always in practice) would take the muskets from the front two ranks and reload them. The british just decided to skip the third altogether, it increases frontage without increasing overall numbers, useful when uou have a relatively small army like britain@Leaffordes
You’re right. I didn’t want the section to on too long, so I didn’t include it. Most men would have been armed with socket bayonets by the mid-WSS anyways.
Hi bro! I really like your videos. In which app can you (History Marche as well) make theese battle maps, units moving, political maps and so on. Please answer me. Or how can you make theese videoes?
An what of the orders de mix infantry formation used by the French? Had that formation been used by Friant's Middle Guard attack at Waterloo Bonaparte might have carried the day.
@@FieldMarshalYT Ah. But technically wasn't it used by the French in the early battles of their revolutionary wars against the 1st Coalition like Valmy? I read somewhere that they used a regular/Royal infantry in line flanked by columns of revolutionary conscripts.
Again this myth about inaccurate muskets... In reality, the muskets were quite accurate. For example, during the Franco-Prussian War, one Prussian corps fired more than 720,000 rounds of ammunition, the French losses amounted to 15,000 people (about 1% of hits). For comparison, in the battle of Borodino, both sides of the conflict fired more than 3,200,000 rounds of ammunition (2-3% hits on target). In the 20th century, ammunition costs increased to 50,000 rounds per target hit. In the 18th century, they fought not only in linear battalions, but in loose formation. Light Infantry, Irregulars, Rangers, Pandours, Voltigeurs, Chasseurs and others
There is another factor to consider, soldiers are always almost exhausted and may not be firing with all the energy and precision you would have on the range. It actually a forgotten factor that contributes to that myth. Secondly, you are mentioning the Franco-Prussian war when this is about linear warfare in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
@@FieldMarshalYT I made fire accuracy comparisons. During the Franco-Prussian War, soldiers also used linear formations. Throughout the war, the Prussian army spent more than 30 million rounds of ammunition
I do have to wonder where the notion that flintlocks are in any way shape or form faster than matchlocks, in terms of reloading. You perform almost the same number of actions, both can be loaded in ~20 seconds for a decently drilled musketeer. (I do speak from experience with both, here) I'll grant, the matchlock has a few more actions, but those are merely blowing on the matchcord before placing it into the serpentine, checking it'll touch the pan right, blowing it again before taking aim, and opening the pan. But of done right, it really will not make a difference. On top of which, the methods used in the period where the matchlock was the norm, negated the drawbacks of the reloading time. A wrll drilled battalion of musketeers performing a countermarch sends just as many balls down range in a minute, as a similar sized battalion firing in platoon fire, if not more. The major drawback of the countermarch is that you have a narrower unit frontage, since you increase the depth of a unit (often around 8 men deep). The main reason it fell out of favour was due to armies seeking a wider frontage with the same number of musketeers.
A lot is often made of the line/column variance. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding there. When marching a battalion would indeed march in column. An "Attacking Column of Divisions" (very different) usually meant a concentration of several battalions in one big formation. One line after the other in depth. Don't think battallion commanders said "Let's do this boxy!" It's esentially Clausewitz's Schwerpunkt. The idea is to pin elements of the enemy army in place while a substantial fraction of your forces attemp to puncture and achieve breakthrough at a specific point. Military science and basic maths would make this obvious to an attacker. 1 battalion in "column" approaching an all guns blazing 1 battalion firing line would be a little suicidal. Napoleon TW players always irritate me when they think a wee gang of 100 men in a box is a Napoleonic Column. Obviously Mr. Bonaparte pushed the concept to the max.
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qR0sODDUT8U/mqdefault.jpg)
I wouldn't say that platoon fire didn't held up in other fronts than Flanders. Failures in Spain can't be called the fault of the infantry. Otherwise a clear explanation. Well done.
Another thing I want to mention is that it is weird that historians call platoon fire the Anglo-Dutch method. This is only because of Anglo-centrism, because it clearly origintated in the Dutch Republic and was only implemented in Britain after William of Orange reformed their army in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. There were numerous other armies who went on to use it, like the Danes and Prussians I believe, but we don't call it the Anglo-Dano-Dutch-Prussian method.
You’re actually right. In all the battles in Iberia the allied infantry put up a great fight (bar the Portuguese at Almansa). Even in their defeats, they still put on a show.
I love how many of these tactics and concepts are rudimentary versions of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars' tactics, you can cleary see their faults and how they evolved into the warfare of Napoleon and the Victorian era. The french 5 ranks deep line in special sounds almost alien when compared to the more conservative 2-3 of the early 19th century
I’m a Napoleonic era guy but I’ve been watching your Spanish succession series and other early 18th century videos and I find it really interesting how the warfare changed across this century
Definetily using this video as a guidebook to a battle in Empire total war
When I was in that game I would try to emulate some things. Sometimes it turned out well, other times it made things a little more challenging.
You deserve more subscribers and views and likes come on everyone let's help this channel
Great video friend
Nice to see it visibly acted out
Thanks for making history so accessible. An excellent combination of concise material with fantastic illustration.
Very nice 👍🏼 I always love formation videos about 17th-19th century armies
Me too!
i love lines on map, thank you for the clear explanation of more lines on a map!
no problem sir
What were the reasons for the British army fighting in two ranks instead of three towards the end of the 18th century, if all three ranks could fire? Awesome video!
I think in 3 ranks, the first rank had to kneel, while in two ranks, the second ranks could just fire over the first ranks shoulder.
@@shorewall Yeah, that makes sense. Were there any more reasons you're aware of?
The French realized through experiments that the third ranks fire was often ineffective, so the third rank (in theory, not always in practice) would take the muskets from the front two ranks and reload them. The british just decided to skip the third altogether, it increases frontage without increasing overall numbers, useful when uou have a relatively small army like britain@Leaffordes
Thank you so much!!!!
A clear explanation
Great video! Thank you! :)
You forget the ring bayonet which preceded the socket bayonet.
You’re right. I didn’t want the section to on too long, so I didn’t include it. Most men would have been armed with socket bayonets by the mid-WSS anyways.
Great content as always.
Hi bro! I really like your videos. In which app can you (History Marche as well) make theese battle maps, units moving, political maps and so on. Please answer me. Or how can you make theese videoes?
I use After Effects to animate and Photoshop to make the assets. There's tons of After Effects tutorials online I used that can help.
@@FieldMarshalYT what abaout HistoryMarche what he do with those videoes that he makes? How does he do? Wich apps.. And so on? Pls Help.
He uses the same ones I do. @@johnpauljones4190
epic
This comment is a sacrifice to the Algorithm. Cheers from Tennessee
another pog has poggered
Indeed
Good stuff
An what of the orders de mix infantry formation used by the French? Had that formation been used by Friant's Middle Guard attack at Waterloo Bonaparte might have carried the day.
This is early 18th century, not Napoleonic Wars.
@@FieldMarshalYT Ah. But technically wasn't it used by the French in the early battles of their revolutionary wars against the 1st Coalition like Valmy? I read somewhere that they used a regular/Royal infantry in line flanked by columns of revolutionary conscripts.
@@captainclone1367 yes, but that’s still a bit far ahead
Very interesting indeed. The Early 18th Century is so neglected in games and documentaries.
We only got empire total war, at least theres the mods because the vanilla version is the greatest ca missed opportunity
Again this myth about inaccurate muskets... In reality, the muskets were quite accurate. For example, during the Franco-Prussian War, one Prussian corps fired more than 720,000 rounds of ammunition, the French losses amounted to 15,000 people (about 1% of hits). For comparison, in the battle of Borodino, both sides of the conflict fired more than 3,200,000 rounds of ammunition (2-3% hits on target). In the 20th century, ammunition costs increased to 50,000 rounds per target hit.
In the 18th century, they fought not only in linear battalions, but in loose formation. Light Infantry, Irregulars, Rangers, Pandours, Voltigeurs, Chasseurs and others
There is another factor to consider, soldiers are always almost exhausted and may not be firing with all the energy and precision you would have on the range. It actually a forgotten factor that contributes to that myth.
Secondly, you are mentioning the Franco-Prussian war when this is about linear warfare in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
@@FieldMarshalYT I made fire accuracy comparisons. During the Franco-Prussian War, soldiers also used linear formations. Throughout the war, the Prussian army spent more than 30 million rounds of ammunition
But Borodino and the Franco-Prussian War are both in the 19th century.
@@KaiHung-wv3ul So what?
@@KaL_69_ He's speaking of the early 18th century.
I do have to wonder where the notion that flintlocks are in any way shape or form faster than matchlocks, in terms of reloading.
You perform almost the same number of actions, both can be loaded in ~20 seconds for a decently drilled musketeer. (I do speak from experience with both, here)
I'll grant, the matchlock has a few more actions, but those are merely blowing on the matchcord before placing it into the serpentine, checking it'll touch the pan right, blowing it again before taking aim, and opening the pan. But of done right, it really will not make a difference. On top of which, the methods used in the period where the matchlock was the norm, negated the drawbacks of the reloading time. A wrll drilled battalion of musketeers performing a countermarch sends just as many balls down range in a minute, as a similar sized battalion firing in platoon fire, if not more. The major drawback of the countermarch is that you have a narrower unit frontage, since you increase the depth of a unit (often around 8 men deep).
The main reason it fell out of favour was due to armies seeking a wider frontage with the same number of musketeers.
Reliability is the deciding factor. That's why the flintlock was replaced by the priming cap and why that, in turn was replaced by primers.
A lot is often made of the line/column variance.
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding there.
When marching a battalion would indeed march in column.
An "Attacking Column of Divisions" (very different) usually meant a concentration of several battalions in one big formation. One line after the other in depth. Don't think battallion commanders said "Let's do this boxy!"
It's esentially Clausewitz's Schwerpunkt. The idea is to pin elements of the enemy army in place while a substantial fraction of your forces attemp to puncture and achieve breakthrough at a specific point.
Military science and basic maths would make this obvious to an attacker. 1 battalion in "column" approaching an all guns blazing 1 battalion firing line would be a little suicidal.
Napoleon TW players always irritate me when they think a wee gang of 100 men in a box is a Napoleonic Column.
Obviously Mr. Bonaparte pushed the concept to the max.
This came in with perfect timing, right as I finished a history book on Gustavus Adolphus and the rise and fall of Sweden 👏 well done!!
what's the name of the book?
@@theyellowjesters A Warrior Dynasty by Henrik O. Lunde
Nice to see the channel is still alive. Very interesting and easy to understand explenation. Thank you.
Lets go. A new banger Just dropped
thx
Bravo, sir.
Your channel complements those of other RUclips historians wonderfully.
Can we make a collaboration
Sorry, I don't have any plans to do more collabs for now. I worked on three last year.
@@FieldMarshalYT NO problem and whenever you want to collab please tell me