I laughed out loud as he was loading with an imaginary cartridge, he still "spit out" the tail of the cartridge. I did American Civil War living history, and that was a universal maneuver. When actually loading, you often got a dose of powder in you mouth with the tail of the paper cartridge. Black powder is delicious, NOT! For some who watch this, but are not familiar with the 18th & 19th C. manuals of arms, each step was done by counts, or "times". The recruit would be drilled one count at a time, until he was precise in every step. Eventually, the simple order of "load" would be given, and the soldier would follow the steps ingrained into muscle memory. If I could take a good group of reenactors, and drill them for hours every day the way they did back then, you would see some damn sharp drill. :)
This video was primarily posted as a teaching video for re-enactors, and has somehow become a harbour for Anglo-Phobic Americans who read some wiki articles and think they know the Drill. Just to be 100% clear, the British Empire at 1764, used an army, based on the template provided by the Hannovarian rule, which was to force uniformity. It's very likely that there may indeed be moves used that the Prussians also used, but hey if it ain't broke don't fix it? Use what works. I personally think the fix boyents looks awful, on account of having to suspend the firelock and not rest it in the Napoleonic fashion. Credit to Corporal Cook, nice performance, some fumbling and such, but he's a re-enactor and not an actual soldier! Nice to see some Americans proud to fight In British Loyalist, the only good american is a loyalist after all! :P (Relax, that's a joke)
Thansk for the kind words... This was made at the beginning of our journey! There are mistakes and the uniform was not yet complete. We've made huge progress since then with uniforms, improved drill and our numbers have swelled to over 60! We've taken part in some amazing events and have many more booked! We are learning and improving all the time! It's fun and a great way to honour those who adorned this uniform so many years ago!
+kevinofishero Makes me proud to see someone doing it! I'm just getting into the 1700s, Thinking of doing less of my Napoleonics so your videos will come in handy for learning the drill!
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the commands "shoulder "X"" etc., were given as "shoulder arms" when the bayonet was fixed, and "shoulder firelocks" was for the musket without the bayonet?
Not in that particular manual in Section I, the Manual Exercise. The only time " arm " was used was after the bayonet was fixed, the soldier is instructed to Present Arms! (indicating a complete weapons system of plural parts), then the manual resumes with Shoulder your FireLock! etc... Without the bayonet the present arms becomes Rest your Firelock! Section II uses "ease arms" (which is a parade rest today) It is what it is.
To make a correct statement, I've read the accurate manual of arms book for both the British, French and Prussian armies prior to the Seven Years' War, and they all indicate that the firearm becomes an 'Arm' with Bayonets fixed, and is noted as 'Firelock' when Bayonets are unfixed. However, this can vary per the timeline, or if the commander is in too much of a tense situation in actual combat.
Daniel Barham That would be the Prussians. Unless of course the British were able to beat two armies on one field by themselves that I dont know about. The British could never match the Prussian performance at Rossbach and Leuthen.
USMarineRifleman0311 In the Napoleonic Wars the British Army was the only professional, disciplined and effective field army in Europe and the best soldiers the Coalition Forces had. Even Napoleons Armies were mainly conscript soldiers or untrained Infantry soldiers who were led in columns of death using pure shock tactics which the British didn't buy. The British were the only Napoleonic Army that trained with live ammunition thus giving them an edge over their enemies because they had the general knowledge of 'aiming'.
1812AndMore Wow I'm impressed, how many marshals did the British defeat? Queetz - Russians defeated French (under Marshal Ney) Sacile - Austrians defeated French (under Eugene) Aspern-Essling - Austrians defeated French Kliastitzy - Russians defeated French (Oudinot) Svolna - Russians defeated French (Oudinot) Vinkovo - Russians defeated French (Murat) 2nd Polotzk - Russians defeated French (Oudinot, Victor) Viasma - Russians defeated French 2nd Krasnoi - Russians defeated French (Roguet and NAPOLEON) Plechenitzi - Russians defeated French (Oudinot) Möckern - Russians and Prussians defeated the French (Eugène) Luckau - Russians and Prussians defeated French (Oudinot) Gross-Beeren - Russians and Prussians defeated French (Oudinot) First Pirna - Russians defeated French (St. Cyr) Second Katzbach - Prussians defeated French (Macdonald) Second Pirna - Russians defeated French (Vandamme) Kulm - Russians, Prussians, Austrians defeated French (Vandamme) Dennewitz - Prussians defeated French and allies (Ney) Wartenberg - Prussians defeated French and allies (Bertrand) Möckern - Allies defeated French (Marmont) Leipzig - Russians, Prussians, Austrians defeated French (NAPOLEON) La Rothière - Russians, Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians defeated French (NAPOLEON) Bar-sur-Aube - Austrians, Russians, Bavarians defeated French (Oudinot) Lâon - Prussians, Russians defeated French (NAPOLEON) Fismes - Prussians defeated French (Marmont) Arcis-Sur-Aube - Allies defeated French (NAPOLEON) La Fère Champenoise - Russians defeated French (Marmont and Mortier) Paris - Allies defeated French ( Marmont and Mortier)
Rastingo Kime Nothing about 1600-1800 Brits was impressive, let alone original. Everything they learned about war, discipline and military bearing they took from the Continental powers. "For the most of the period covered in our book, the English military theory was a copy of European practice. " - English historian Keith Roberts "English soldiers came across the musket when fighting against the Spanish Army as allies or mercenaries of the Dutch." English historian Stephen Walsh "In 1588, leading English officers copied the Spanish military style and Spanish firing systems, although there was some confusion amongst militia officers who only partially understood it. By the beginning of the 17th century English officers and the military theory followed in England, copied the Dutch model introduced by Prince Maurice of Nassau." "by the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642 English officers still trained their men according to the Dutch model, although more widely experienced officers, or those who studied their military styles, were practicing the Swedish Salvee. - English historian Keith Roberts "The professional English Army that evolved during the campaigns of the English Civil War used both the Dutch and Swedish firing systems and those that succeeded it after the Restoration continued to use the same mixture." - English historian Stephen Walsh "At that time Prussia was looked on as a great school master in the martial arts, as France was later, and as Germany is now. The English army has been mainly a copyist of other people's methods since the century began. If, after Crimea or the Italian campaign of 1859, we adopted kepi shaped hates, baggy "pegtop" trousers and "booted overalls" for riding, so, when Germany became successful we copied her "Blucher boots", flat topped forage caps, infantry helmet, and rank distinctions!" "In this case too, the Prussian system was the basis of our drill instruction, and, with but slight modifications, so remained until 1870, when linear formations gave place to extended order." Page 157 "The Story of the British Army" by C.C. King. "Following Frederick's striking victories in the Silesian Wars, most armies including Britain, quickly clamored to copy the Prussian way of war, and a quarter century later this process of adopting Prussian techniques continued under the Germanophilic sons of George III. This created an era, beginning at the middle of the century and extending to its last decade, when the British army (like others) shared much with this German model, further creating similarity and commonalities between various armies, just as the French innovations had impacted Western Europe a century before." Page 38 German Forces and the British Army: Interactions and Perceptions, 1742-1815 By Mark Wishon
+USMarineRifleman0311 Nice wiki list there, firstly I'm going to ignore that, because I have better things to do in my day to pinpoint every single fact to you when you seem more intent on hating the British. Secondly, The British learnt the continental way of war from it's wars on the continent, funny thing about humans is they have this little thing called learning, so while it may not be original what they did, it was successful, to the extent where they achieved the most powerful military the world had seen, through vigorous training almost edging on brainwashing. Now you may very well pick some nice quotes from books Written by people who hate the english, but I could just as easily go and find some books written by people who hate the Prussians. I think a key point your missing is Prussia also begged for Britain help in the 7 years wars, fearing the might of Russia, and Britain recognizing the weakness of it's former Ally Austria, agreed, and actually funded the Prussians throughout the war. But hey it's just like america, where absolutely nothing is original and everything is stolen from everyone else. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think you seem to want to live in a world where everyone is a hipster. You don't strike me a being particularly intelligent, ripping quotes from other people, as if your somehow incapable of arguing or debating a point, but I get the horrible feeling you feel the facts on these lists are right and not somehow bias? Also, the very interesting thing about the majority of names of those on the list are actually listing the people who had to help the prussians in order to win their victories, you'll also notice the "side-swapping the prussians did". The Prussian military is not, and has never been a crack millitary system, they have always relied upon "Landwehr" which means militia, which should explain itself, large amounts of Millitia, and smaller amounts of highly trained units to be dispersed among them and provide a way of sharing experience. The British System worked two fold- Large numbers of heavily drilled units formed a core, veteran elite would be sent home to train newer units, and all of this would be backed with whatever local militia could be added , eg. Indians, Colonial Millitia, etc etc. The Prussians, actually lost the Napoleonic European War, so all the list of the defeated marshals, seems a little for nothing there at the bottom, the 7 Years war victories were all funded by the British, And every name on the list require at least 1 or another allied country Present to have had any success. Speaks volumes. Now I could post a counter "list" which you will in turn either attempt to deny, ignore, or reason with yourself in some way isn't true, your view is evidently polar opposite to mine (And pretty much most historians). I won't deny, the Prussian were a war like people, they had no other choice, but it predominantly through diplomacy, allies, and foreign funding and support it was able to achieve such goals, that and of course Alter-Fritz's brilliance. But trying to compare the Kingdom of Prussia, and the EMPIRE of Britain is pointless because you're trying to compare one culture to many. America and the Colonies were a hard fought sturggle for the British, and they lost it to arrogance in the end and the inability to comprehend the American ideal, and therefore could not defuse it. India, was a total success, the war on the continent eventually brought little to all sides, but it dide serve to boost the economy, and prove Britains Superiority at sea. But hey. Just some facts pulled from umpteen books (Osprey are pretty good fyi) documentaries and so forth.
Rory Butcher: Traditions place its origin in a pre-Revolutionary War song originally sung by British military officers to mock the disheveled, disorganized colonial "Yankees" with whom they served in the French and Indian War. It is believed that the tune comes from the nursery rhyme Lucy Locket. One version of the Yankee Doodle lyrics is "generally attributed" to Doctor Richard Shuckburgh, a British Army surgeon.
+kevinofishero Another example of how British attempts at slighting the Americans come around to bite them in the ass. Same thing with the fox hunting call that inspired the outnumbered Americans to resist at Harlem Heights. 1,800 Americans beat back 5,000 redcoats.
I took part in a Civil War battle reenactment outside New Orleans while I was in Grad School, some years ago. Only about a third of the guys had rifles that fired blank charges, the rest were just props. Still, the smoke was thick and everywhere. I was a Confederate lieutenant. Basically, before the battle, you were told, as you advanced, what volley would "fell" you. I got to learn the ways to hold my cavalry sabre (I was, alas, on foot) that told the men of my company how fast to march; advance, forward at the Quick Step, CHARGE - ere a Yankee ball felled me, and dispersed my company in disarray. It was great fun, and gave me a tremendous respect for just what a battle on that scale, in those days, must have been like. I had two ancestors present at numerous famous CW battles.
wow you pushed the gunpowder down with the beyonett attack=hed, is that a good idea ? i imagine there would be a lot of cut hands in the confusion and panic of battle
mcpartridgeboy. If still interested. The sides of that type bayonet from 1780 are not sharp, only the point. Notice his hand does not return the rammer smartly until it is below the point. Firelocks were loaded and fired with the bayonets fixed, by design.
I believe in the 1764 Manual, the only commands to use "arms" were "Present Arms" and "Advance Arms". For other commands it was "firelock". Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm no expert on drill of the 1760s.
Excellent demonstration of period drill. All that’s missing is the sharpness in his drill, that was instilled by an angry NCO screaming “FILTH” whilst hitting hitting him.
@kevinofishero whats the name of the company that made yours im lookin for just a basic regimental coat like the one in the video that i can mod for F.A.I war
well thats great! if you ever have any questions on the 8th i do a 8th impression and i know friends with higher knowledge then i do so ill have much research that could help you. Cheers and keep up the nice work with your 8th Impression
Did it wrong before you fixed your bayonet you said shoulder arms without bayonets they are firelocks but when you fixed bayonets you called them firelocks when bayonets are fixed they are called arms
You do know that the tune at the end is Yankee Doodle....an American tune? :P If you're gonna play music repetitively get it right for the nationality?
@@STho205 I've not went over the 1764 Manual, but I've heard that the only commands to use "arms" were "Present Arms" and "Advance Arms", then the others used "firelock" Is this true?
Everything is Firelock (with or without bayonet) except these in order (relying on my feeble memory) Present Your Arms Advance Your Arms Ease Arms Inspection of Arms Port Arms Oh course fix, charge, and unfix bayonet. The OP was probably thinking of manual exercises during the 7 Years War as the weapon was Firelock or Arms depending upon the spike. Eventually by the 19th century arms took on all commands. It was fresh to mind as I was instructing a US Light Company at Mount Vernon earlier this month, and was using elements of the 1764 manual since it has light tactics and evolutions in it....and my company did not speak French (but I was tempted to use the Ecole that Lafayette likely used)
@@STho205 I realize I am just a TAD late to reading this comment (your other comment notified and subsequently reminded me), but yes you are absolutely right. Thank you for the correction.
@@graham2014 no problem...I was replying tonight to another question of a fellow man of interest. It did change over time and was quite arbitrary during the era after the 7YWar.
Basically the simplified Preussisches Infanterie Reglement of 1750 with the addition of some lazy motions like trail and support arms. Were the British original in anything during this time period?
Let me see....4 centuries of riding roughshod over the rights of other Europeans and fucking up the world we know today through diplomacy in the days after WW1. Or did you think the troubles in the middle east are simply a random occurrence free of European per-determination? Empires die, their legacies live on. The US has been left to unfuck the mess that Britain and France left behind all over Africa and Asia.
USMarineRifleman0311 The rights of other Europeans? You're thinking of...wait....nobody. Britain never really conquered Europe, and Napoleon was actually a decent leader - he's the reason the French have a fair justice and land system. Also, you know the the US was just as involved in European affairs after WW1, at least until the breakup of the League of Nations. Yes, a mess has been left - but the US hasn't been left to fix it. That's what we have the UN for - co-operation. And like the US has done a good job in Asia(!)
Rory Butcher Half of the border disputes today are a result of the breakup of the British empire and the arbitrary nature by which the borders were drawn up with no regard paid to tribal integrity. But hey its easier to blame the good old USA for ISIS and forget that todays events have roots in Sykes Picot.
USMarineRifleman0311, you're absolutely right. If the British Empire had not broken up between 1776 and 1783, the world might not be facing many of the problems it faces today. Certainly, many tribes would have been able to preserve their integrity, had the Empire not broken up at that point..
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
I laughed out loud as he was loading with an imaginary cartridge, he still "spit out" the tail of the cartridge. I did American Civil War living history, and that was a universal maneuver. When actually loading, you often got a dose of powder in you mouth with the tail of the paper cartridge. Black powder is delicious, NOT!
For some who watch this, but are not familiar with the 18th & 19th C. manuals of arms, each step was done by counts, or "times". The recruit would be drilled one count at a time, until he was precise in every step. Eventually, the simple order of "load" would be given, and the soldier would follow the steps ingrained into muscle memory.
If I could take a good group of reenactors, and drill them for hours every day the way they did back then, you would see some damn sharp drill. :)
This video was primarily posted as a teaching video for re-enactors, and has somehow become a harbour for Anglo-Phobic Americans who read some wiki articles and think they know the Drill. Just to be 100% clear, the British Empire at 1764, used an army, based on the template provided by the Hannovarian rule, which was to force uniformity. It's very likely that there may indeed be moves used that the Prussians also used, but hey if it ain't broke don't fix it? Use what works. I personally think the fix boyents looks awful, on account of having to suspend the firelock and not rest it in the Napoleonic fashion.
Credit to Corporal Cook, nice performance, some fumbling and such, but he's a re-enactor and not an actual soldier! Nice to see some Americans proud to fight In British Loyalist, the only good american is a loyalist after all! :P (Relax, that's a joke)
Thansk for the kind words... This was made at the beginning of our journey! There are mistakes and the uniform was not yet complete. We've made huge progress since then with uniforms, improved drill and our numbers have swelled to over 60! We've taken part in some amazing events and have many more booked! We are learning and improving all the time! It's fun and a great way to honour those who adorned this uniform so many years ago!
+kevinofishero Makes me proud to see someone doing it! I'm just getting into the 1700s, Thinking of doing less of my Napoleonics so your videos will come in handy for learning the drill!
Austen Kime God Save King George.... from Canada
It is not rested on the floor so that when advancing to the enemy, they may fix bayonets without stopping. THEY DON’T LIKE IT UP E’M
@@1982kinger Thanks!
very good - greetings from germany :)
you're right...this was at the beggining when we had just formed the group! The only thing that was corrrect was the jacket :-)
Coat*
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I was under the impression that the commands "shoulder "X"" etc., were given as "shoulder arms" when the bayonet was fixed, and "shoulder firelocks" was for the musket without the bayonet?
+TheScottishChe1919 Same thoughts here, it's only in the Napoleonic period that changed to shoulder Arms all the time.
Not in that particular manual in Section I, the Manual Exercise. The only time " arm " was used was after the bayonet was fixed, the soldier is instructed to Present Arms! (indicating a complete weapons system of plural parts), then the manual resumes with Shoulder your FireLock! etc... Without the bayonet the present arms becomes Rest your Firelock!
Section II uses "ease arms" (which is a parade rest today)
It is what it is.
To make a correct statement, I've read the accurate manual of arms book for both the British, French and Prussian armies prior to the Seven Years' War, and they all indicate that the firearm becomes an 'Arm' with Bayonets fixed, and is noted as 'Firelock' when Bayonets are unfixed. However, this can vary per the timeline, or if the commander is in too much of a tense situation in actual combat.
Finest soldiers the world has ever known
Daniel Barham That would be the Prussians. Unless of course the British were able to beat two armies on one field by themselves that I dont know about. The British could never match the Prussian performance at Rossbach and Leuthen.
USMarineRifleman0311 In the Napoleonic Wars the British Army was the only professional, disciplined and effective field army in Europe and the best soldiers the Coalition Forces had. Even Napoleons Armies were mainly conscript soldiers or untrained Infantry soldiers who were led in columns of death using pure shock tactics which the British didn't buy. The British were the only Napoleonic Army that trained with live ammunition thus giving them an edge over their enemies because they had the general knowledge of 'aiming'.
1812AndMore Wow I'm impressed, how many marshals did the British defeat?
Queetz - Russians defeated French (under Marshal Ney)
Sacile - Austrians defeated French (under Eugene)
Aspern-Essling - Austrians defeated French
Kliastitzy - Russians defeated French (Oudinot)
Svolna - Russians defeated French (Oudinot)
Vinkovo - Russians defeated French (Murat)
2nd Polotzk - Russians defeated French (Oudinot, Victor)
Viasma - Russians defeated French
2nd Krasnoi - Russians defeated French (Roguet and NAPOLEON)
Plechenitzi - Russians defeated French (Oudinot)
Möckern - Russians and Prussians defeated the French (Eugène)
Luckau - Russians and Prussians defeated French (Oudinot)
Gross-Beeren - Russians and Prussians defeated French (Oudinot)
First Pirna - Russians defeated French (St. Cyr)
Second Katzbach - Prussians defeated French (Macdonald)
Second Pirna - Russians defeated French (Vandamme)
Kulm - Russians, Prussians, Austrians defeated French (Vandamme)
Dennewitz - Prussians defeated French and allies (Ney)
Wartenberg - Prussians defeated French and allies (Bertrand)
Möckern - Allies defeated French (Marmont)
Leipzig - Russians, Prussians, Austrians defeated French (NAPOLEON)
La Rothière - Russians, Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians defeated French (NAPOLEON)
Bar-sur-Aube - Austrians, Russians, Bavarians defeated French (Oudinot)
Lâon - Prussians, Russians defeated French (NAPOLEON)
Fismes - Prussians defeated French (Marmont)
Arcis-Sur-Aube - Allies defeated French (NAPOLEON)
La Fère Champenoise - Russians defeated French (Marmont and Mortier)
Paris - Allies defeated French ( Marmont and Mortier)
Rastingo Kime Nothing about 1600-1800 Brits was impressive, let alone original. Everything they learned about war, discipline and military bearing they took from the Continental powers.
"For the most of the period covered in our book, the English military theory was a copy of European practice. " - English historian Keith Roberts
"English soldiers came across the musket when fighting against the Spanish Army as allies or mercenaries of the Dutch." English historian Stephen Walsh
"In 1588, leading English officers copied the Spanish military style and Spanish firing systems, although there was some confusion amongst militia officers who only partially understood it. By the beginning of the 17th century English officers and the military theory followed in England, copied the Dutch model introduced by Prince Maurice of Nassau."
"by the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642 English officers still trained their men according to the Dutch model, although more widely experienced officers, or those who studied their military styles, were practicing the Swedish Salvee. - English historian Keith Roberts
"The professional English Army that evolved during the campaigns of the English Civil War used both the Dutch and Swedish firing systems and those that succeeded it after the Restoration continued to use the same mixture." - English historian Stephen Walsh
"At that time Prussia was looked on as a great school master in the martial arts, as France was later, and as Germany is now. The English army has been mainly a copyist of other people's methods since the century began. If, after Crimea or the Italian campaign of 1859, we adopted kepi shaped hates, baggy "pegtop" trousers and "booted overalls" for riding, so, when Germany became successful we copied her "Blucher boots", flat topped forage caps, infantry helmet, and rank distinctions!"
"In this case too, the Prussian system was the basis of our drill instruction, and, with but slight modifications, so remained until 1870, when linear formations gave place to extended order."
Page 157 "The Story of the British Army" by C.C. King.
"Following Frederick's striking victories in the Silesian Wars, most armies including Britain, quickly clamored to copy the Prussian way of war, and a quarter century later this process of adopting Prussian techniques continued under the Germanophilic sons of George III. This created an era, beginning at the middle of the century and extending to its last decade, when the British army (like others) shared much with this German model, further creating similarity and commonalities between various armies, just as the French innovations had impacted Western Europe a century before."
Page 38
German Forces and the British Army: Interactions and Perceptions, 1742-1815
By Mark Wishon
+USMarineRifleman0311 Nice wiki list there, firstly I'm going to ignore that, because I have better things to do in my day to pinpoint every single fact to you when you seem more intent on hating the British. Secondly, The British learnt the continental way of war from it's wars on the continent, funny thing about humans is they have this little thing called learning, so while it may not be original what they did, it was successful, to the extent where they achieved the most powerful military the world had seen, through vigorous training almost edging on brainwashing. Now you may very well pick some nice quotes from books Written by people who hate the english, but I could just as easily go and find some books written by people who hate the Prussians.
I think a key point your missing is Prussia also begged for Britain help in the 7 years wars, fearing the might of Russia, and Britain recognizing the weakness of it's former Ally Austria, agreed, and actually funded the Prussians throughout the war. But hey it's just like america, where absolutely nothing is original and everything is stolen from everyone else. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think you seem to want to live in a world where everyone is a hipster.
You don't strike me a being particularly intelligent, ripping quotes from other people, as if your somehow incapable of arguing or debating a point, but I get the horrible feeling you feel the facts on these lists are right and not somehow bias?
Also, the very interesting thing about the majority of names of those on the list are actually listing the people who had to help the prussians in order to win their victories, you'll also notice the "side-swapping the prussians did". The Prussian military is not, and has never been a crack millitary system, they have always relied upon "Landwehr" which means militia, which should explain itself, large amounts of Millitia, and smaller amounts of highly trained units to be dispersed among them and provide a way of sharing experience. The British System worked two fold- Large numbers of heavily drilled units formed a core, veteran elite would be sent home to train newer units, and all of this would be backed with whatever local militia could be added , eg. Indians, Colonial Millitia, etc etc.
The Prussians, actually lost the Napoleonic European War, so all the list of the defeated marshals, seems a little for nothing there at the bottom, the 7 Years war victories were all funded by the British, And every name on the list require at least 1 or another allied country Present to have had any success. Speaks volumes.
Now I could post a counter "list" which you will in turn either attempt to deny, ignore, or reason with yourself in some way isn't true, your view is evidently polar opposite to mine (And pretty much most historians). I won't deny, the Prussian were a war like people, they had no other choice, but it predominantly through diplomacy, allies, and foreign funding and support it was able to achieve such goals, that and of course Alter-Fritz's brilliance. But trying to compare the Kingdom of Prussia, and the EMPIRE of Britain is pointless because you're trying to compare one culture to many. America and the Colonies were a hard fought sturggle for the British, and they lost it to arrogance in the end and the inability to comprehend the American ideal, and therefore could not defuse it. India, was a total success, the war on the continent eventually brought little to all sides, but it dide serve to boost the economy, and prove Britains Superiority at sea. But hey.
Just some facts pulled from umpteen books (Osprey are pretty good fyi) documentaries and so forth.
I'm so Proud to belong this group. Great performance, private Cook! See you in the next events 😉
Rory Butcher: Traditions place its origin in a pre-Revolutionary War song originally sung by British military officers to mock the disheveled, disorganized colonial "Yankees" with whom they served in the French and Indian War. It is believed that the tune comes from the nursery rhyme Lucy Locket. One version of the Yankee Doodle lyrics is "generally attributed" to Doctor Richard Shuckburgh, a British Army surgeon.
+kevinofishero
Another example of how British attempts at slighting the Americans come around to bite them in the ass. Same thing with the fox hunting call that inspired the outnumbered Americans to resist at Harlem Heights. 1,800 Americans beat back 5,000 redcoats.
I'll raise you Battle of Camden sir
Philip Williams and Brandywine! we loyalist tories kicked ass
I took part in a Civil War battle reenactment outside New Orleans while I was in Grad School, some years ago. Only about a third of the guys had rifles that fired blank charges, the rest were just props. Still, the smoke was thick and everywhere. I was a Confederate lieutenant. Basically, before the battle, you were told, as you advanced, what volley would "fell" you. I got to learn the ways to hold my cavalry sabre (I was, alas, on foot) that told the men of my company how fast to march; advance, forward at the Quick Step, CHARGE - ere a Yankee ball felled me, and dispersed my company in disarray. It was great fun, and gave me a tremendous respect for just what a battle on that scale, in those days, must have been like. I had two ancestors present at numerous famous CW battles.
Absolutely brilliant! God save king George!
laughs in tea party
Thanks!
Only God Is King
wow you pushed the gunpowder down with the beyonett attack=hed, is that a good idea ? i imagine there would be a lot of cut hands in the confusion and panic of battle
mcpartridgeboy. If still interested. The sides of that type bayonet from 1780 are not sharp, only the point. Notice his hand does not return the rammer smartly until it is below the point. Firelocks were loaded and fired with the bayonets fixed, by design.
Shoulder your firelocks is without bayonet. Shoulder your arms is with bayonet.
Good job!
@airborneaviatorf16 No idea sorry...our uniforms were made by an Italian company
Damn redcoats!
*****
Damn..Uhm...
Crap!
Not sure why Yankee Doodle is playing lol
It's a British tune written in 1755 during the French-Indian War that was used to mock Americans.
btw a musket is considered a arm not a firelock as soon as the bayonet is fixed
Not in this manual shown. He appears to be following Section One verbatim.
I believe in the 1764 Manual, the only commands to use "arms" were "Present Arms" and "Advance Arms". For other commands it was "firelock". Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm no expert on drill of the 1760s.
Excellent demonstration of period drill. All that’s missing is the sharpness in his drill, that was instilled by an angry NCO screaming “FILTH” whilst hitting hitting him.
A Lodrino lo faro una :-D
@kevinofishero whats the name of the company that made yours im lookin for just a basic regimental coat like the one in the video that i can mod for F.A.I war
if bayonet is fixed is a shoulder your arms ???
well thats great! if you ever have any questions on the 8th i do a 8th impression and i know friends with higher knowledge then i do so ill have much research that could help you. Cheers and keep up the nice work with your 8th Impression
They were making robots of us even back then.
do you know were to get a decent french and indian war uniform
Did it wrong before you fixed your bayonet you said shoulder arms without bayonets they are firelocks but when you fixed bayonets you called them firelocks when bayonets are fixed they are called arms
I believe in the 1764 Manual, the only commands to use "arms" were "Present Arms" and "Advance Arms". For other commands it was "firelock".
Very well done. Lovely uniform too
Yankees still crying over reenactors and after so many years? LOL!
A quando il video manuale sull'utilizzo del N°I MK III ?
You do know that the tune at the end is Yankee Doodle....an American tune? :P If you're gonna play music repetitively get it right for the nationality?
Well before the revolution it was a British song referring to the American colonists
lose the gloves and white wig or get a brown one plus the regular soldier didnt have curls that was only the officers
If I remember correctly the regulation haircut was a clubbed ponytail
I think it's flintlock
Increíble!
bruh
Why is this enlisted man wearing a fancy wig and white gloves?
ironmatic 1 was the beginning of the group... lessons learned since then!!!
Nice impression
2:18 what music name
Harry JCY: The tune is "Yankee Doodle".
Now I know but Thank you
Just saying when bayonet is fixed it's called Arms, when not it's called a Firelock.
Graham Coughlan. Again, not in this manual. Read section one, the manual exercise, which they are performing.
@@STho205 I've not went over the 1764 Manual, but I've heard that the only commands to use "arms" were "Present Arms" and "Advance Arms", then the others used "firelock" Is this true?
Everything is Firelock (with or without bayonet) except these in order (relying on my feeble memory)
Present Your Arms
Advance Your Arms
Ease Arms
Inspection of Arms
Port Arms
Oh course fix, charge, and unfix bayonet.
The OP was probably thinking of manual exercises during the 7 Years War as the weapon was Firelock or Arms depending upon the spike. Eventually by the 19th century arms took on all commands.
It was fresh to mind as I was instructing a US Light Company at Mount Vernon earlier this month, and was using elements of the 1764 manual since it has light tactics and evolutions in it....and my company did not speak French (but I was tempted to use the Ecole that Lafayette likely used)
@@STho205 I realize I am just a TAD late to reading this comment (your other comment notified and subsequently reminded me), but yes you are absolutely right. Thank you for the correction.
@@graham2014 no problem...I was replying tonight to another question of a fellow man of interest.
It did change over time and was quite arbitrary during the era after the 7YWar.
"YOU AKE US ALL PRUD TO BE AMERICANS, IN KEEPING HISTOTORY ALIVE ALIVE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO STUDY & LEARN FROM!"
Basically the simplified Preussisches Infanterie Reglement of 1750 with the addition of some lazy motions like trail and support arms. Were the British original in anything during this time period?
Why do you hate the british so much? We're on the same side now man
Let me see....4 centuries of riding roughshod over the rights of other Europeans and fucking up the world we know today through diplomacy in the days after WW1. Or did you think the troubles in the middle east are simply a random occurrence free of European per-determination? Empires die, their legacies live on. The US has been left to unfuck the mess that Britain and France left behind all over Africa and Asia.
USMarineRifleman0311 The rights of other Europeans? You're thinking of...wait....nobody. Britain never really conquered Europe, and Napoleon was actually a decent leader - he's the reason the French have a fair justice and land system.
Also, you know the the US was just as involved in European affairs after WW1, at least until the breakup of the League of Nations.
Yes, a mess has been left - but the US hasn't been left to fix it. That's what we have the UN for - co-operation.
And like the US has done a good job in Asia(!)
Rory Butcher Half of the border disputes today are a result of the breakup of the British empire and the arbitrary nature by which the borders were drawn up with no regard paid to tribal integrity. But hey its easier to blame the good old USA for ISIS and forget that todays events have roots in Sykes Picot.
USMarineRifleman0311, you're absolutely right. If the British Empire had not broken up between 1776 and 1783, the world might not be facing many of the problems it faces today. Certainly, many tribes would have been able to preserve their integrity, had the Empire not broken up at that point..
I should be studying right now