I never get tired of listen to Dan Snow, he knows how to talk about history, I am a big fan of all the timeline of History, since earth formed until now, I love all the periods of the history of our planet!!!
you know what's a very underused era of warfare for film, games, etc, that period of the 1500s-1600s when it was pike and shot and some people were still technically dressing like knights and firearms were those massive matchlock smoothbore hand cannons
Just saying, there's the DLC for Mount&Blade, With Fire and Sword, and the Cossacks game series, which covers this period, if you guys enjoy this period :)
Many military historians now think, based on records from field hospitals, that “hand-to-hand” fighting was the exception, rather than the rule. The bayonet itself was more a defensive weapon against cavalry charges, a logical evolution from the “pike and shot” era of the 1500-1600’s. A bayonet charge was almost like a game of chicken, one side or the other would break from the field and run before actual melee engagement.
I like how in Glory, the death of Shaw simplely enraged the regiment rather then disheartening them. In a lot of modern games and movies depicting combat of that era, the death of a Commander is shown to break morale.
I'm from Massachusetts and there is a pretty cool monument to the 54th near the State House. The Confederates tried to dishonor Shaw by burying him in a mass grave with black troops. The Union offered to dig him up and give him a 'proper officer's burial' but Shaw's father said that the Colonel would be proud to be buried alongside his men.
Depends on the commander - if he dies, you are allowed to retreat and save your life. Historically there are a lot of depictions though where for example Roman Legionnaires sacrificed themselves to save their Generals, like Caesar. Or the Guard of Napoleon - during Waterloo they sacrificed a huge amount of men to save Napoleon which isn't really human nature. It's not human nature to deem someone else more important than your own life.
I'm guessing you guys keep coming back to these movie-based videos mostly because they get lots of clicks, but I want you to know that I really do love them. They're incredibly engaging as well as they are informative
I like how non biased Dan is in these reviews. He doesn't get too nitpicky with historical inaccuracies and instead focuses more broadly on how each movie portrays the historical events.
Even after seeing it dozens of times, I still get goosebumps when I see the assault in Glory, accompanied by that amazing score. Thank you for this review!
The music is just flawless at that moment. I have never known a scene that gives me goosebumps so consistently as the Fort Wagner charge over the parapet in Glory.
Dan has been the one who started my 2 years long interest in the videos showing an expert discuss movie scenes, and after those 2 years and dozens of videos watched I must say - Dan does it the best and I even watched some of his content more than once because it's just so nice to listen to
Glory is one of the greatest civil war movies ever made. I watched it in history class back in high-school and i remember crying at the scene where Mathew Broderick dies and Denzel is killed yet he stands strong flag in hand. I felt an overwhelming sense of patriotism and respect. I couldn't imagine the bravery it must of took to fight under those conditions and for a truly just cause they all believed in. It all just hit me so hard.
Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece. I was fortunate to be able to see this in a big cinema. The cinematography is stunning. No comparison to a screen at home. I have to brush up on the other two movies. I'm getting into older war movies at the moment. I just watched Kubrik's Paths to Glory from 1957. What a great movie.
I don't know if I'm weird..but watching this brought me to tears. "There is no greater love than this-that a man should lay down his life for his friends."
You make an excellent point in your discussion of 'The Patriot'. America has forgotten its lesson from its southern fighting during the Revolution, which is that winning the ground is one thing. Holding that ground is another. Winning the 'peace' is far more difficult than winning the battle. 'Glory' is an amazing film, and rightfully covered the role Black soldiers played during our Civil War, and your description of Ft. Wagner was very helpful in visualizing the scene. 'Lawrence of Arabia' is a classic and its battle scenes are incredible, even if 'made up', as much of what was said or written about TE Lawrence. Thanks, as always, for great reactions/reviews of historic battles and warfare.
Much may have been filmed in the Middle East but one part was filmed on the sand dunes of Merthyr Mawr on the south Wales coast. It is where Peter O’Toole, as Laurence, first dons Arab clothing and walks down the dune towards Omar Sharif and the Arab troops. Another excellent film about the desert warfare in WWI is The Light Horsemen. It is about the Australian unit - the Light Horsemen - and how they took an essential Turkish radio and water outpost at the Battle of Beersheeba. It was a frontal attack that succeeded in the main because 1) the Turks expected the Australians to ride up so far then dismount and fire their guns. 2) when this did not happen, and the Australians continued their charge, the Turks could not depress their machine guns far enough. Therefore the bullets flew over the riders heads. There is a brilliant film about this charge, made in the 1980s
At 18:21, when the 54th stop running before the cannon blast, the image looks like something from a painting. And with the epic music....my goodness, what a work of art!
I didn’t know the real Lawrence was Calvary. I know very little of old battles, most of that is the greater political aspects. Thank you Dan, it was a treat to have you doing the rundown.
True. The Australian Light Horse brigades began the war as a light mounted rifle infantry unit, but through the use of adapted tactics like at Beersheba and later engagements, some regiments of the LH brigades were issued sabres in 1918 and employed as full-fledged cavalry instead.
My great-great-great grandpa was a Union Soldier in the 4th KY Mounted Infantry. He fought and was wounded at the Battle of Chickamauga, spent some time at Andersonville POW camp. He did get out of there alive. I wish they would make a movie on that battle and the POW camp he was in. I feel so bad for Lawrence when he was held prisoner by the Turks.
Mr. Snow. For many years I enjoyed the RUclipss that you did with your Father. I loved his "mapcase" which would come to life with great CGI graphics. I you well and wondeer about him. What a neat Dad --- and he passes on his intellect and great history accumen to you...Thanks much -- HD, Houston, Tx USA
There are few moments in film as powerful as Denzel rushing to grab the flag and screaming for his brothers to follow him into hell. Absolutely gripping.
My great grandfather fought at Antietam, saved Lee’s Army and was captured- later paroled. Went back into the fight. Lost his leg, just before his unit was blown up at the crater in Petersburg.
I’m not sure people really understand what the Federals faced at Antietam and the tenacity and courage required of the men who advanced on an entrenched enemy; especially those that saw their friends and colleagues dead or dying as they ran toward the wall of muskets and rifles
I am very pleased that you mention Sergeant William Harvey Carney. He was awarded the Congressional Meal of Honor. He was not the first African American recipient but his action at Battery Wagner was the earliest act for which a MOH was awarded to an African Soldier. James Horner's score for Glory is one of my favorites. Lawrence of Arabia is definitely a great war film. This film and The Lion in Winter are my favorite movies starring Peter O'Toole. The Patriot is a good movie but was somewhat a remake of Braveheart but set in the American Rebellion Against the Crown of King George and the Benevolent People of Great Britain. Sorry for that one. But we made up for it by invading Great Britain in 1943 to set up for D-Day.
2:54 they must have had bigger balls than me. To just stand there trading volleys, knowing that every round could be your last, and seeing what treatment the wounded received, it must have been terrifying. The army taught me to duck, weave, crawl and hide. We spent most of the battle on our guts trying not to be seen.
I do wonder why they didn't use any form of metal as protection for their belly - standing in line with a little bit a uniform that offers zero protection is suicide.
In my opinion, most battles of the 18th century are poorly portrayed in film and "The Patriot" is no exception. I'm actually surprised Dan wasn't at all critical of the scene. Many battles were won (or lost) simply out of fear and not due to casualty counts. In reality in most cases they didn't just stand there and trade volleys. If the enemy looked bigger, stronger and more disciplined than your own forces, commanders would disengage and leave the field without even firing a shot. Or, if the men were commanded to stand their ground and the men were too scared, they would break ranks and run. The men back then were brave, yes, but not totally stupid. Intimidation and out-maneuvering your opponent was the way battles were won. Another detail that I've never seen on screen is that tactics of the day specifically called for each smaller unit or company to stagger their fire. The entire force firing at the same time never happened. Individual companies would take turns firing so as to keep a constant barrage of fire and keep your enemy suppressed and unable to react. Additionally, Dan isn't totally correct in saying that the weaponry of the era could reach out to 300 yards. There are documented battles where units would stop and fire volleys at 200 yards and not inflict a single casualty on their enemy. My point in all this is that you had to get within 100 yards of your enemy before firing to be effective, and those who dared get that close usually ended up winning the fight. There's other innacuracies also, for example, you don't fire cannon at the enemy when your troops are only 100 yards or so away from them. There's no way you could "bounce" a cannon ball across the ground like that with both sides that close together.
I *do* notice inaccuracies with the late 18th century warfare, but I'm happy that linear formations aren't just pronounced "stupid", although I do wish they combatted this myth itself. Linear warfare was vital for commanding in large-scale battles, and in most cases wars could not simply be won by skirmishing and hitting enemy supply lines alone. TL;DR below to this comment. This was due to the efficacy of the bayonet and cavalry tactics in situations with large numbers of men. Muskets and rifles both couldn't provide enough fire to suppress a melee charge, because of the slow reloading time, and since the smoke that blackpowder weapons would create piled up over time and with a lot of guys, making precise aim useless over time. Having a bunch of guys in a tighter formation helps improve morale, as everyone's protected by each other, is easier for a commander to lead, and in the case of melee combat, allows a unit to take on it's enemies "one by one" if they're not in a tight formation of their own. A *often* made mistake is to say that generals *never* used cover or terrain during 18th century battles. They used terrain and cover a LOT. From Wellington hiding his men behind a reverse slope to stop the French artillery from destroying them, to field defences being set up by Villars during the Battle of Denain. However, the issue with static fortifications was that the enemy could outmaneuver you into a bad position if the terrain could permit it. It really came down to the terrain and field conditions, which all generals would consider, and the best generals would utilize to their advantage (look at Leuthen for a perfect example, where Frederick the Great essentially used the terrain to *hide his entire army* before attacking, or Rossbach, where Frederick the Great's lieutenants essentially won the battle before he arrived by grinding down the French and Austrian forces to ruin before an assault happened). Cavalry would charge not just *through* a formation, bumping men across and making a mess of it, but would come behind and charge them in the *rear.* This meant that multiple ranks of men, and lines of reserves, were the best idea, as they could grind down cavalry by stopping them from using their mobility to ride linear formations to ruin, using superior numbers to stop a blitzkrieg-style breakthrough in a specific point of the line that cavalry *loved* to create. Oh, also red coats (and other bright uniforms) were used because in the smoke of battle they could be told by friendly units. There's examples of friendly fire at Lundy's Lane and Wagram when uniforms that were the same as the enemy's or blended into the terrain ended up leading to friendly fire incidents, so whilst skirmishers and other units *would* use these guerilla-style uniforms, it wasn't all too common in other cases. *TL;DR* If anything, 18th century battles were a game of chess- trying to outmaneuver your enemy into a impossible strategic situation. Cavalry and melee charges could destroy skirmisher formations easily. Since all weapons had to use blackpowder, smoke clogged the field of battle, making accurate fire useless over time. So tighter formations were used, which could maximize fire whilst also protecting themselves if the situation got bad with melee superiority. Feel free to ask questions/request for sources in the comments. I got stuff to do rn so cutting this off here.
Growing up in Savannah Georgia we had fort Jackson and then fort Pulaski on the Savannah River. Fort Pulaski who was the first fort attacked by rifled cannons. To the south of Savannah in Richmond Hill ,Ga there is Fort McAllister along the Ogeechee River. It was an earthen for weather underground bunkers. They would use a heavy chain to block the River. They were bombarded many times by war ships. But they rode it out in there bunkers. It was taken by the land side of the fort by General Sherman on his march to the sea. He used sharp shooters to take out the artillery crews!
The Patriot is a movie I would have loved if I never saw Glory, Rob Roy or Last of the Mohicans. I thought Glory did the friendships among soldiers better. Rob Roy did a much better job at showing a British officer nemesis character and Last of the Mohicans had much better guerilla warfare scenes.
@@flintandball6093 All historic epics have inaccuracies but at least Scott's movies are enjoyable. The Patriot is just another typical, bloated Roland Emmerich movie. He's like a German Michael Bay. The Patriot is as painful to watch as Bay's Pearl Harbor.
What was considered by many war historians as the 1st "modern war" was the Boër war or "south african war" from 1899-1903 in South Africa. Much off what was seen in WW1 as tactics was pioneered in that war by the british and Boërs.
"Much off what was seen in WW1 as tactics was pioneered in that war by the british and Boërs." That is nonsense. The Britsh tactics in WW1 were clearly inferior (see Mons and Le Cateau), and the Boers had often no regular military training at the company level.
@@olafkunert3714 trench warfare became a thing because of the Boër war. What was WW1 known for? Trench warfare. See firearm technology was far superior at that time compared to all the major wars before that that where still dominantly fought with Muskets and other black powder rifle. The Boër war was the 1st war where carteidge rifles was the main weapon used by all. Greatly increasing rate off fire and distance of fire. It's the 1st war that used the 303. Round which was the dominant round during WW1 and much off WW2. This development in weaponry demanded changes in tactics which gave birth to trench warfare. Gone where the days off straight lines marching right up to eachother. The British tried that one's at the battle of magersfontein and got absolutely massacred. After that they adapted and changed those old ways for good
Maybe Dan could cast his eye over the battle of Long Island (August 27th 1776) - an engagement that should have ended Washington's campaign there and then. Howe had Washington's army pinned at the river with the Royal Navy at their back. Unfortunately, Howe waited 2 days before moving on Washington's army and finishing them off. By that time a storm had arisen, forcing the British fleet down stream. Washington saw an opportunity and escaped across the river with his men ...... and the rest they say could have been a very different history.
Hey Dan, would you ever consider doing a review of the 1981 Australian war film Gallipoli with Mel Gibson? I'm sure you would have lots of fun picking apart all the things it got right, almost right and wrong.
If Dan were to do Australian movies/ mini-series, there's Gallipoli (both the film, & the more recent mini-series), ANZAC's, The Lighthorsemen, & ANZAC Girls
@OcarinaSapphr- true, but this was of Mel Gibson's first movies when he wasn't quite as famous as he today, or rather, infamous, depending on how you feel about him.
@@lorenfranz3173 No, I know- but the films aren't really being judged on the film makers, but how they show the evolution of warfare- so I think ANZAC'S or The Lighthorsemen would show that just as well- if not better.
@OcarinaSapphr- fair enough, and I think Dan makes a very good cause for each film he reviewed, though I didn't watch the part about Lawrence of Arabia, which is a good movie, btw. I was merely offering a suggestion on how the movie Gallipoli tells the story about that campaign from the Australian perspective, how thousands of Australian soldiers lost their lives due to the incompetence of their British commanders, and contrast that with the reality behind the scenes, how commanders were constantly trying to develop new tactics for breaking the stalemate that resulted from trench warfare, which itself was an attempt to save lives that would've resulted had both sides continued to send their men into open battlefields against artillery and machine guns.
@@lorenfranz3173 That's fair enough- I'd like one of my favourite channels HistoryBuffs to do something similar- comparing & contrasting the film with the history- they did spectacular videos for Zulu, Waterloo, Master & Commander, & Gettysburg, for instance. Nick's videos aren't dropped frequently, but they're well-researched & truly interesting to watch. The mini-series ANZAC'S showed a fair number of tactics, techniques, & training- things like an invention of the warfront- a kind of periscope-type viewer, made from shaving mirrors & tin boxes- as well as how they created the simple delayed timers on their rifles (how they were able to evacuate so successfully; the common saying was that the evacuation was the most successful part of the Gallipoli campaign- 2 injuries, no deaths) - they also showed the pros & cons of certain tech, like the early tanks (The Lighthorsemen shows how early planes were used)- as well as the home front & politics, & I daresay there was more bias there. I guess this is my long-winded way of saying I'd like Dan to do additional parts for the topic, or to specifically review Australian-made WWI movies...
I don't know, our man seems to know a little about many times of war but Tarleton had the Butcher as his nickname but he wasn't remotely like how he's portrayed in the abysmal portrayal of the British and it's loyalists in the Patriot. And clearly Isaac's character is based on Tarleton and not an amalgam like Gibson's character. I felt that a historian should have mentioned that. I think Dan knows some eras very well but some he only knows surface level. There's so many issues with the Patriot when it comes to it's portrayal of the British, it acts like they were the 3rd Reich and treats every American as loyal to America and treats Cornwallis as a total buffoon. The film does do a lot of the linear warfare scenes well but it also has so many issues. Glory is far more accurate in it's depiction of the Civil War and doesn't treat the Union soldiers as the great, honorable men but shows how racist most of them were too. Shows an awful CO who lets his men loot and burn down a town. The Patriot sucks is what I'm saying and besides it's battle scenes, it should just be denounced. It's literally American propaganda trash and I say that as an American.
Yeah…I think he was just trying to be positive and highlight some of the very few things done right which is okay since every other historian shits on it (for good reasons, it’s historical accuracy is one of the worst in a big budget movie). Also tareltons nickname was Bloody Ban for his ruthless behavior to prisoners and civilians. Not butcher (which usually implies one doesn’t care about how many of his men die)
@@benlincoln7358 Thanks, I appreciate that I now know even more about Tarleton. I just for sure knew he wasn't shooting kids in the back or burning down churches full of civilians. And I agree with the idea of appreciating what the Patriot does get right but Tarleton also, for how bad as he was, is portrayed as a comedically over the top villain and I think that just needs to be said when you mention how he was the inspiration for Isaac's character. And in the film they have ZERO qualms about blowing the brains out of surrendering British men and hacking them to pieces yet act like Tavington is some monster. It's just one of those things that irks the shit out of me. Rules the thee and not for me, as they say.
Yes, 'The Patriot' is a rubbish film in so many ways and shouldn't be included in any list of the best. Gibson is just a propagandist. There are plenty of other films that depict warfare in this era far more accurately.
Glory is a devastating film - one of the best war films made. I had a number of ancestors who fought in the Civil War - all for the Union. You commented on the machine gun the Turks were swinging into action but that was a US M1919 .30 machine gun - Browning's design that was too late for WW1 - I guess they couldn't find a Maxim for the Turks?
I can better that. I watched a drama documentary on the treatment of the wounded and dead in the american civil war and it featured many re-enactment battle scenes. As the camera panned over the smokey battlefield at the end of the day you could clearly see among the dead bodies a Lee Enfield SMLE! How the hell did the club let that one through?
That particular scene in "Glory" was probably not earlier in the battle when the Cornfield fight took place. The terrain and gently rolling "apparently flat" areas more closely resembles the middle part of the battle when the Confederates held a sunken road what came to be known as "Bloody Lane." Initially the Confederates enjoyed great success in that part of the field but a small anomoly in the terrain, a relatively slight declivity quite close to the Confederate lines dropped the front ranks of the Federals out of direct view of the Confederates. The Federals were for a period of time not openly visible. When the declivity rose again, the Union lines were very close to the Confederates and slightly higher. Most of the Confederates had been firing at longer range and their rifled muskets were somewhat fouled while the Union troops had fresh muskets. The initial volley swept through the Confederates with horrible results. Some Union troops were able to partially flank the long sunken road and the rebels lines were decimated. Confederate General John B. Gordon was wounded five times, twice in the same leg, in his left arm and again in the shoulder and finally in the face. He fell forward with his face in his cap which was filling with blood. He always believed he might have drowned but another Union bullet passed through his cap, allowing the blood to flow out. (On April 12, 1865 General Gordon, who had survived multiple wounds during the war, officially led the Confederate troops at the surrender at Appomattox Court where the surrender was accepted by Major General Joshua Chamberlain who had led the 20th Maine Regiment on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg.)
That may be true. There is an excellent account of the Antietam battle and Lee's Maryland Campaign "The Gleam of Bayonets" by James V. Murfin which delves deep into that battle. It has maps showing the three basic attacks, listing the units at the important parts of the fight. The 2nd Massachusetts was involved in the early fight in the Cornfield and the East and West Wood. Shaw's unit was definitely in that fight. I was speaking more to the visuals in the film and in my opinion the terrain as shown in the movie appears much more open than the rather restricted area where Hooker attacked. The Cornfield was essentially flanked on both sides by the East and West Woods and most of the fight was quite confused. Both the Confederate and the Federal units were hit almost by surprise...there was a lot of cover initially. In the film the Confederates are shown as much more exposed and at a greater range than the initial attack. The Union attack depicted was not as stacked up as it was in the area where Hooker and Meade's forces attacked. Later attacks coming down east of the Hagerstown Pike toward the sunken lane were over much more open terrain which the film seemed to infer. @Carlton-B
I would really like a historian to rate the Spanish Tercio battle scene in the movie “Alatriste”. I personally found it a well-done scene of a period often overlooked and unrepresented in movies.
It is a fantastic piece of military choreography, on a small scale representing the complexities and brutality of pike and shot warfare. But there's no 'creative license' an American won't take if it makes them look better than they were.
You know if you are a Reenactor, you know, or should know, the regulations of the period you reenact. And this is where you go deeper to the details and can point things out very specifically.
10 месяцев назад+2
If you looked at the "best war movies" Why is the Patriot first ? :)
The Opening of the Free State of Jones has a great representation of the Late American Civil War with both sides using the trench works that would become so familiar with in WWI
I will confess to have a tremendous sentimental preference for _Glory_ even if it the accuracy doesn't always track. I feel like it was one of the movies at the beginning of a serious-er attempt to get historical movies right, and I like that Shaw was portrayed as rather naive and out of his depth rather than instant leader and hero. We saw it over and over in the theater--this was when my brother and I were young teenagers and just getting into the Civil War and reenacting--and I think I cried every time.
Question for you guys, Why does it seem like the Weapon Technology of the Smooth Bore Musket lasted so long and Innovation seemed to have Stopped until after the civil war time where repeating firearms seemed to replace slowly Muskets.
Strange comment. Hint: The Dreyse rifle had been built since 1840, the Prussian army used it since 1849 and adapted its tactics. The oulier was the USA, the ACW was fought on bothsides with a large number of untrained soldiers.
Actually in the movie Patriot, a black soldier in British uniform was depicted at the start of Camden Battle, if you look carefully, but certainly not as prominently as the one on the American side.
I'm actually not surprised why the Ottomans built their defensive positions towards the sea rather than towards the desert. Apparently they didn't expect to be stabbed in the back by the Arabs. The Hashemite family, the leaders of the Arab rebels, received their bone by their British masters in the form of the kingdom of Jordan. But at the expense of Palestine and hundreds of thousands of lives... Also if we take into account the fact that one-third of the Ottoman army, including the officers, consisted of Arabs, we understand that Lawrence's village massacre was a complete nonsense. Just like his rape tale. Especially the soldiers of the Ottoman Empire in these Arab regions consisted mostly of Arabs. Leader of Palestinians during WW2 Haj Amin al Husseini was a loyal Ottoman officer. Izzeddin al Qassam also a loyal Ottoman soldier. Presidents of Syria Husni al Zaim, Ahmad Nami were Ottoman officers. Also Nuri al Said and Jafar al Askeri, prime ministers of Iraq were Ottoman officers too. Almost all bureacratic cadets of Syria and Iraq were Ottoman officials.
I know we skipped Napoleonic Wars in favor of getting to the American Civil War, but what films/shows would you recommend for accurate depictions of warfare from the time? Maritime battles too!
Waterloo 100%. Arguably, one of the most authentic recreations of a battle unfolding. Also, by the same director, the russian version of war and peace is extraordinary.
Similarly to the US Civil War, the Paraguay War (1870´s) between Paraguay and an alliance of Argentina, Uruguay and Brasil (Triple Alianza) was a big preview of what would happen in WW1. Massive battles and casualties and an evolution of warfare and military technology.
I think that's the Battle of Cowpens, not Camden portrayed in the last major battle of the movie, "The Patriot."....could be wrong, but I've heard it's based on Cowpens.
the game Civilization does great at bringing all of these tactics and models, for everyone, at the same time. one time I found myself having to rush update my defenses from archers and crossbowmen to missile troops, while my offensive wing had been upgraded long before, to marines and tanks. having to rewire my tactics from "cluster up inside a fortification" to "spread out and take position" was a workout lol.
May I suggest you look at The Lighthorsemen (1987), an Australian film about that includes the horse charge of German-supported Turkish lines by 800 men and horses of the Australian Light Horse during the Battle of Beersheba on 31 October 1917? I love that film and have heard it to be accurate but I'd love your take on it, Dan!
I saw that as a child and it stsyed with me for decades. The scene was filmed in Victoria though so it looked a bit odd but change from a gallop into a full speed charge has always given me goosebumps
Funny movie mistake: The Patriot @7:51 the left British solider goes down and the colonial stabs him a couple times. But in the VHS large screen format you can see well below the wide screen line and he actually spanks the guy with his knife 2 times
Not sure about '250 years' of warfare developement 100 yrs perhaps, from Smooth bore Brown Bess to rifled Minnie Bullet, which by the did not get a proper mention. The depiction of fortifications was good and showed how WW1 trench warfare came about, although some form of trench warfare was used during the Crusades.
The battle scene from The Patriot I'm pretty sure is supposed to be an amalgamation of Camden and Cowpens, especially with that rear line of Continental Regulars.
There's a scene in Lawrence of Arabia where camels are seen jumping over a low stone wall. Camels can't actually jump, so they had to build a ramp up to the top of the wall and get them to go up it and then step off.
Would be great if you could do a series sort of like what Norm Christie did many years ago, following the stories of specific Canadian soldiers and their heroics.
LOVE The PATRIOT! Even with it's inaccuracies and unapologetic flag waving. No better movie on Independence Day! Never gets old! (not a Trump supporter)
People love to criticize the use of linear warfare, especially in the American Civil War because of the introduction of rifles. However, the reality is that little overall had changed; linear warfare was not yet obsolete. 1. Most soldiers were volunteers and had gone through minimal training - certainly nothing remotely comparable to 20th century basic training. Thus they lacked the discipline and training (and firearms) to effectively operate in squads or skirmish formation while still having the firepower and mass to make effective attacks and withstand attacks by their massed counterparts. Mass and psychology were still paramount. (Sharpshooters and skirmishers were used, but those were the exceptions often involving elite troops.) 2. Battlefield visibility was still low because of the large amount of smoke; smokeless powder wasn't introduced yet. No radios either. Thus battlefield communication and leadership was very short in its range. 3. Although rifles and rifled artillery provided greater range and accuracy than their smoothbore predecessors, they were still muzzleloading weapons. Breechloading artillery and practical machine guns weren't introduced until after the war, and breechloading rifles were only slowly coming into use in limited numbers in the latter half of the war. Looking at Petersburg in late 1864 and the Western Front in late 1914 and saying "well, they both had trenches, so they're basically the same" is not accurate. 4. Field entrenchments only became the normal after three years of fighting. Even then, none of the armies had standard issue shovels or entrenching tools like 20th century soldiers.
"Thus they lacked the discipline and training (and firearms) to effectively operate in squads or skirmish formation while still having the firepower and mass to make effective attacks and withstand attacks by their massed counterparts. " They lacked training, that is true. However, European armies used often quite different tactics which were much better, e.g. combination of skirmishers and columns. Linear warfare was obsolete around 1860. But they had of course often well trained soldeirs.
When I got out of the Army, I tried to study every action where “Color Troops” were involved in the American Civil War. …and I had plan to visit the site of Ft. Wagner- long before the movie was conceived.
Part Two is arriving Friday 17th 6PM GMT! Please leave a like and subscribe if you love historical movies!
Love it!
@@yago8672 I can't wait for it!!!
I never get tired of listen to Dan Snow, he knows how to talk about history, I am a big fan of all the timeline of History, since earth formed until now, I love all the periods of the history of our planet!!!
you know what's a very underused era of warfare for film, games, etc, that period of the 1500s-1600s when it was pike and shot and some people were still technically dressing like knights and firearms were those massive matchlock smoothbore hand cannons
If you like this period, the Polish movie "Deluge" ("Potop") is a must watch.
The movie 'Alatriste' has a great depiction of a pike-and-shot era battle
@@MichalKaczorowskiand "with fire and sword"
Just saying, there's the DLC for Mount&Blade, With Fire and Sword, and the Cossacks game series, which covers this period, if you guys enjoy this period :)
Many military historians now think, based on records from field hospitals, that “hand-to-hand” fighting was the exception, rather than the rule. The bayonet itself was more a defensive weapon against cavalry charges, a logical evolution from the “pike and shot” era of the 1500-1600’s.
A bayonet charge was almost like a game of chicken, one side or the other would break from the field and run before actual melee engagement.
I like how in Glory, the death of Shaw simplely enraged the regiment rather then disheartening them. In a lot of modern games and movies depicting combat of that era, the death of a Commander is shown to break morale.
If the soldiers loved and respected their commander, killing the commander would just drive them to such rage, that they usually end the battle.
I'm from Massachusetts and there is a pretty cool monument to the 54th near the State House. The Confederates tried to dishonor Shaw by burying him in a mass grave with black troops. The Union offered to dig him up and give him a 'proper officer's burial' but Shaw's father said that the Colonel would be proud to be buried alongside his men.
Similar to the Visigoths rallying to the death of their king against the Romans (if memory does not fail me)
Depends on the commander - if he dies, you are allowed to retreat and save your life. Historically there are a lot of depictions though where for example Roman Legionnaires sacrificed themselves to save their Generals, like Caesar. Or the Guard of Napoleon - during Waterloo they sacrificed a huge amount of men to save Napoleon which isn't really human nature. It's not human nature to deem someone else more important than your own life.
a good example of a commander dying giving his army the victory is Gustavus Adolphus, i forget the name of the battle but it's pretty insane.
I'm guessing you guys keep coming back to these movie-based videos mostly because they get lots of clicks, but I want you to know that I really do love them. They're incredibly engaging as well as they are informative
Really appreciate the feedback. It's a format we will be continuing into the new year!
here here
Genuinely the best History content I’ve seen in a while, just soooo addictive.
True that!!
I like how non biased Dan is in these reviews. He doesn't get too nitpicky with historical inaccuracies and instead focuses more broadly on how each movie portrays the historical events.
Even after seeing it dozens of times, I still get goosebumps when I see the assault in Glory, accompanied by that amazing score. Thank you for this review!
man i get goosebumps in all these films. Shame we will never see these again. Maybe Ridley Scott's Napoleon will be good, who knows?
The music is just flawless at that moment. I have never known a scene that gives me goosebumps so consistently as the Fort Wagner charge over the parapet in Glory.
What a film. And you are most welcome.
Dan has been the one who started my 2 years long interest in the videos showing an expert discuss movie scenes, and after those 2 years and dozens of videos watched I must say - Dan does it the best and I even watched some of his content more than once because it's just so nice to listen to
Glory is one of the greatest civil war movies ever made. I watched it in history class back in high-school and i remember crying at the scene where Mathew Broderick dies and Denzel is killed yet he stands strong flag in hand. I felt an overwhelming sense of patriotism and respect. I couldn't imagine the bravery it must of took to fight under those conditions and for a truly just cause they all believed in. It all just hit me so hard.
As someone who loves movies and history this was great. Looking forward to part 2 and hopefully part 3, 4,5...
Thanks so much! Part 2 out next week
I love how Dan Snow explains things, it's not dull and drawn out it was matter of fact in informational.
That battle sequence in glory looks absolutely incredible, I've never seen anything like it
Yep, glory and ghettysburg are my two favourite wartime movies of all time
I love Dan doing all these movie breakdowns, reviews, and interviews with war movie directors. Excellent series.
He's simply brilliant. Proud that he's a Brit.
Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece. I was fortunate to be able to see this in a big cinema. The cinematography is stunning. No comparison to a screen at home. I have to brush up on the other two movies. I'm getting into older war movies at the moment. I just watched Kubrik's Paths to Glory from 1957. What a great movie.
I don't know if I'm weird..but watching this brought me to tears. "There is no greater love than this-that a man should lay down his life for his friends."
You make an excellent point in your discussion of 'The Patriot'. America has forgotten its lesson from its southern fighting during the Revolution, which is that winning the ground is one thing. Holding that ground is another. Winning the 'peace' is far more difficult than winning the battle. 'Glory' is an amazing film, and rightfully covered the role Black soldiers played during our Civil War, and your description of Ft. Wagner was very helpful in visualizing the scene. 'Lawrence of Arabia' is a classic and its battle scenes are incredible, even if 'made up', as much of what was said or written about TE Lawrence. Thanks, as always, for great reactions/reviews of historic battles and warfare.
Yeah, the whole time he was speaking about holding ground vs winning battles I was thinking how similar the situation was to America’s in Vietnam
Dan Snow has a Midas touch, turning even abject drivel like The Patriot into an interesting lecture!
😂
Much may have been filmed in the Middle East but one part was filmed on the sand dunes of Merthyr Mawr on the south Wales coast. It is where Peter O’Toole, as Laurence, first dons Arab clothing and walks down the dune towards Omar Sharif and the Arab troops.
Another excellent film about the desert warfare in WWI is The Light Horsemen. It is about the Australian unit - the Light Horsemen - and how they took an essential Turkish radio and water outpost at the Battle of Beersheeba. It was a frontal attack that succeeded in the main because 1) the Turks expected the Australians to ride up so far then dismount and fire their guns. 2) when this did not happen, and the Australians continued their charge, the Turks could not depress their machine guns far enough. Therefore the bullets flew over the riders heads. There is a brilliant film about this charge, made in the 1980s
i love you dan snow, you were my childhood, you and your father
I had forgotten how awesome the Glory film soundtrack is. Good on ya, James Horner.
At 18:21, when the 54th stop running before the cannon blast, the image looks like something from a painting. And with the epic music....my goodness, what a work of art!
Dan Snow killin it again, my favourite historian!
I didn’t know the real Lawrence was Calvary. I know very little of old battles, most of that is the greater political aspects. Thank you Dan, it was a treat to have you doing the rundown.
The mounted horse attack on Beersheba was a great movie portrayal, not to mention a historic attack with long standing consequences.
True. The Australian Light Horse brigades began the war as a light mounted rifle infantry unit, but through the use of adapted tactics like at Beersheba and later engagements, some regiments of the LH brigades were issued sabres in 1918 and employed as full-fledged cavalry instead.
Man I love Dan snow so much he is just such a vibe 💯
Very accurate and non biased description of how the revolution was fought in South Carolina. Glad to see videos like this on RUclips.
Seen Glory more than one time at the theatre the cinematography to this day is unmatched
I think the cinematographer won an Oscar for Glory. I think.
I freaking love Dan Snow.
It's not only great information but he's so passionate about it
I thought this was an Insider video at first, good job HIstory Hit with the quality content!
More to come!
I love it when Dan is sat down in front of movies to review.
We do too!
Great stuff HH. Thank you Dan . You always keep me entertained.
Thanks 👍
Quality of this channel is great
Glad you think so!
My great-great-great grandpa was a Union Soldier in the 4th KY Mounted Infantry. He fought and was wounded at the Battle of Chickamauga, spent some time at Andersonville POW camp. He did get out of there alive. I wish they would make a movie on that battle and the POW camp he was in. I feel so bad for Lawrence when he was held prisoner by the Turks.
Just to mention it, no CGI, but great amazing movies 😊
Mr. Snow. For many years I enjoyed the RUclipss that you did with your Father. I loved his "mapcase" which would come to life with great CGI graphics. I you well and wondeer about him. What a neat Dad --- and he passes on his intellect and great history accumen to you...Thanks much -- HD, Houston, Tx USA
Honestly, that was really good and interesting! I'm really looking forward to Part Two this weekend! Thanks for posting!
In Lawrence of Arabia that machine gun at 21:41 is actually a Browning M1919 which would have not existed at the time.
A former movie magazine called Premier called Peter O’Toole’s performance “the greatest ever!” My favorite film too 🎉
There are few moments in film as powerful as Denzel rushing to grab the flag and screaming for his brothers to follow him into hell. Absolutely gripping.
I like Dan so much, he explains everthing so clear
Thank you so much Dan for this fascinating insight into the tactics of war👍👍👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hope Part Two will include 1964 film Zulu, and the 1979 film Zulu Dawn.
My great grandfather fought at Antietam, saved Lee’s Army and was captured- later paroled.
Went back into the fight.
Lost his leg, just before his unit was blown up at the crater in Petersburg.
I’m not sure people really understand what the Federals faced at Antietam and the tenacity and courage required of the men who advanced on an entrenched enemy; especially those that saw their friends and colleagues dead or dying as they ran toward the wall of muskets and rifles
I am very pleased that you mention Sergeant William Harvey Carney. He was awarded the Congressional Meal of Honor. He was not the first African American recipient but his action at Battery Wagner was the earliest act for which a MOH was awarded to an African Soldier. James Horner's score for Glory is one of my favorites.
Lawrence of Arabia is definitely a great war film. This film and The Lion in Winter are my favorite movies starring Peter O'Toole.
The Patriot is a good movie but was somewhat a remake of Braveheart but set in the American Rebellion Against the Crown of King George and the Benevolent People of Great Britain. Sorry for that one. But we made up for it by invading Great Britain in 1943 to set up for D-Day.
2:54 they must have had bigger balls than me. To just stand there trading volleys, knowing that every round could be your last, and seeing what treatment the wounded received, it must have been terrifying.
The army taught me to duck, weave, crawl and hide. We spent most of the battle on our guts trying not to be seen.
Muskets weren’t very lethal, if you look into the casualty rates a battle of 1000 men could result in a dozen dead
I do wonder why they didn't use any form of metal as protection for their belly - standing in line with a little bit a uniform that offers zero protection is suicide.
In my opinion, most battles of the 18th century are poorly portrayed in film and "The Patriot" is no exception. I'm actually surprised Dan wasn't at all critical of the scene. Many battles were won (or lost) simply out of fear and not due to casualty counts. In reality in most cases they didn't just stand there and trade volleys. If the enemy looked bigger, stronger and more disciplined than your own forces, commanders would disengage and leave the field without even firing a shot. Or, if the men were commanded to stand their ground and the men were too scared, they would break ranks and run. The men back then were brave, yes, but not totally stupid. Intimidation and out-maneuvering your opponent was the way battles were won. Another detail that I've never seen on screen is that tactics of the day specifically called for each smaller unit or company to stagger their fire. The entire force firing at the same time never happened. Individual companies would take turns firing so as to keep a constant barrage of fire and keep your enemy suppressed and unable to react. Additionally, Dan isn't totally correct in saying that the weaponry of the era could reach out to 300 yards. There are documented battles where units would stop and fire volleys at 200 yards and not inflict a single casualty on their enemy. My point in all this is that you had to get within 100 yards of your enemy before firing to be effective, and those who dared get that close usually ended up winning the fight. There's other innacuracies also, for example, you don't fire cannon at the enemy when your troops are only 100 yards or so away from them. There's no way you could "bounce" a cannon ball across the ground like that with both sides that close together.
I *do* notice inaccuracies with the late 18th century warfare, but I'm happy that linear formations aren't just pronounced "stupid", although I do wish they combatted this myth itself. Linear warfare was vital for commanding in large-scale battles, and in most cases wars could not simply be won by skirmishing and hitting enemy supply lines alone. TL;DR below to this comment.
This was due to the efficacy of the bayonet and cavalry tactics in situations with large numbers of men. Muskets and rifles both couldn't provide enough fire to suppress a melee charge, because of the slow reloading time, and since the smoke that blackpowder weapons would create piled up over time and with a lot of guys, making precise aim useless over time. Having a bunch of guys in a tighter formation helps improve morale, as everyone's protected by each other, is easier for a commander to lead, and in the case of melee combat, allows a unit to take on it's enemies "one by one" if they're not in a tight formation of their own.
A *often* made mistake is to say that generals *never* used cover or terrain during 18th century battles. They used terrain and cover a LOT. From Wellington hiding his men behind a reverse slope to stop the French artillery from destroying them, to field defences being set up by Villars during the Battle of Denain. However, the issue with static fortifications was that the enemy could outmaneuver you into a bad position if the terrain could permit it. It really came down to the terrain and field conditions, which all generals would consider, and the best generals would utilize to their advantage (look at Leuthen for a perfect example, where Frederick the Great essentially used the terrain to *hide his entire army* before attacking, or Rossbach, where Frederick the Great's lieutenants essentially won the battle before he arrived by grinding down the French and Austrian forces to ruin before an assault happened).
Cavalry would charge not just *through* a formation, bumping men across and making a mess of it, but would come behind and charge them in the *rear.* This meant that multiple ranks of men, and lines of reserves, were the best idea, as they could grind down cavalry by stopping them from using their mobility to ride linear formations to ruin, using superior numbers to stop a blitzkrieg-style breakthrough in a specific point of the line that cavalry *loved* to create.
Oh, also red coats (and other bright uniforms) were used because in the smoke of battle they could be told by friendly units. There's examples of friendly fire at Lundy's Lane and Wagram when uniforms that were the same as the enemy's or blended into the terrain ended up leading to friendly fire incidents, so whilst skirmishers and other units *would* use these guerilla-style uniforms, it wasn't all too common in other cases.
*TL;DR*
If anything, 18th century battles were a game of chess- trying to outmaneuver your enemy into a impossible strategic situation. Cavalry and melee charges could destroy skirmisher formations easily. Since all weapons had to use blackpowder, smoke clogged the field of battle, making accurate fire useless over time. So tighter formations were used, which could maximize fire whilst also protecting themselves if the situation got bad with melee superiority.
Feel free to ask questions/request for sources in the comments. I got stuff to do rn so cutting this off here.
Dan Snow carries this channel.
Growing up in Savannah Georgia we had fort Jackson and then fort Pulaski on the Savannah River. Fort Pulaski who was the first fort attacked by rifled cannons. To the south of Savannah in Richmond Hill ,Ga there is Fort McAllister along the Ogeechee River. It was an earthen for weather underground bunkers. They would use a heavy chain to block the River. They were bombarded many times by war ships. But they rode it out in there bunkers. It was taken by the land side of the fort by General Sherman on his march to the sea. He used sharp shooters to take out the artillery crews!
Yes. Yes to all this amazing content. Well done History Hit.
"Then give em a volley right in the teeth"
My boy Dan obviusly choose violence this morning. ^^
"Best war movies ever" "The Patriot" I'm gonna need you to pick one.
Glory was a great movie. The Patriot movie was entertaining but had too many historical inaccuracies.
The Patriot is a movie I would have loved if I never saw Glory, Rob Roy or Last of the Mohicans. I thought Glory did the friendships among soldiers better. Rob Roy did a much better job at showing a British officer nemesis character and Last of the Mohicans had much better guerilla warfare scenes.
If you think Patriot is bad, wait until Napoleon comes out!
@@flintandball6093 All historic epics have inaccuracies but at least Scott's movies are enjoyable. The Patriot is just another typical, bloated Roland Emmerich movie. He's like a German Michael Bay. The Patriot is as painful to watch as Bay's Pearl Harbor.
I wish there could be more movies on the early days of colonization and spanish colonies independence battles. Great video!
What was considered by many war historians as the 1st "modern war" was the Boër war or "south african war" from 1899-1903 in South Africa. Much off what was seen in WW1 as tactics was pioneered in that war by the british and Boërs.
"Much off what was seen in WW1 as tactics was pioneered in that war by the british and Boërs."
That is nonsense. The Britsh tactics in WW1 were clearly inferior (see Mons and Le Cateau), and the Boers had often no regular military training at the company level.
@@olafkunert3714 trench warfare became a thing because of the Boër war. What was WW1 known for? Trench warfare. See firearm technology was far superior at that time compared to all the major wars before that that where still dominantly fought with Muskets and other black powder rifle. The Boër war was the 1st war where carteidge rifles was the main weapon used by all. Greatly increasing rate off fire and distance of fire. It's the 1st war that used the 303. Round which was the dominant round during WW1 and much off WW2. This development in weaponry demanded changes in tactics which gave birth to trench warfare. Gone where the days off straight lines marching right up to eachother. The British tried that one's at the battle of magersfontein and got absolutely massacred. After that they adapted and changed those old ways for good
Dan Snow is awesome
Maybe Dan could cast his eye over the battle of Long Island (August 27th 1776) - an engagement that should have ended Washington's campaign there and then.
Howe had Washington's army pinned at the river with the Royal Navy at their back. Unfortunately, Howe waited 2 days before moving on Washington's army and finishing them off. By that time a storm had arisen, forcing the British fleet down stream. Washington saw an opportunity and escaped across the river with his men ...... and the rest they say could have been a very different history.
Hey Dan, would you ever consider doing a review of the 1981 Australian war film Gallipoli with Mel Gibson? I'm sure you would have lots of fun picking apart all the things it got right, almost right and wrong.
If Dan were to do Australian movies/ mini-series, there's Gallipoli (both the film, & the more recent mini-series), ANZAC's, The Lighthorsemen, & ANZAC Girls
@OcarinaSapphr- true, but this was of Mel Gibson's first movies when he wasn't quite as famous as he today, or rather, infamous, depending on how you feel about him.
@@lorenfranz3173
No, I know- but the films aren't really being judged on the film makers, but how they show the evolution of warfare- so I think ANZAC'S or The Lighthorsemen would show that just as well- if not better.
@OcarinaSapphr- fair enough, and I think Dan makes a very good cause for each film he reviewed, though I didn't watch the part about Lawrence of Arabia, which is a good movie, btw. I was merely offering a suggestion on how the movie Gallipoli tells the story about that campaign from the Australian perspective, how thousands of Australian soldiers lost their lives due to the incompetence of their British commanders, and contrast that with the reality behind the scenes, how commanders were constantly trying to develop new tactics for breaking the stalemate that resulted from trench warfare, which itself was an attempt to save lives that would've resulted had both sides continued to send their men into open battlefields against artillery and machine guns.
@@lorenfranz3173
That's fair enough- I'd like one of my favourite channels HistoryBuffs to do something similar- comparing & contrasting the film with the history- they did spectacular videos for Zulu, Waterloo, Master & Commander, & Gettysburg, for instance. Nick's videos aren't dropped frequently, but they're well-researched & truly interesting to watch.
The mini-series ANZAC'S showed a fair number of tactics, techniques, & training- things like an invention of the warfront- a kind of periscope-type viewer, made from shaving mirrors & tin boxes- as well as how they created the simple delayed timers on their rifles (how they were able to evacuate so successfully; the common saying was that the evacuation was the most successful part of the Gallipoli campaign- 2 injuries, no deaths) - they also showed the pros & cons of certain tech, like the early tanks (The Lighthorsemen shows how early planes were used)- as well as the home front & politics, & I daresay there was more bias there.
I guess this is my long-winded way of saying I'd like Dan to do additional parts for the topic, or to specifically review Australian-made WWI movies...
I don't know, our man seems to know a little about many times of war but Tarleton had the Butcher as his nickname but he wasn't remotely like how he's portrayed in the abysmal portrayal of the British and it's loyalists in the Patriot. And clearly Isaac's character is based on Tarleton and not an amalgam like Gibson's character. I felt that a historian should have mentioned that. I think Dan knows some eras very well but some he only knows surface level. There's so many issues with the Patriot when it comes to it's portrayal of the British, it acts like they were the 3rd Reich and treats every American as loyal to America and treats Cornwallis as a total buffoon. The film does do a lot of the linear warfare scenes well but it also has so many issues. Glory is far more accurate in it's depiction of the Civil War and doesn't treat the Union soldiers as the great, honorable men but shows how racist most of them were too. Shows an awful CO who lets his men loot and burn down a town. The Patriot sucks is what I'm saying and besides it's battle scenes, it should just be denounced. It's literally American propaganda trash and I say that as an American.
Yeah…I think he was just trying to be positive and highlight some of the very few things done right which is okay since every other historian shits on it (for good reasons, it’s historical accuracy is one of the worst in a big budget movie). Also tareltons nickname was Bloody Ban for his ruthless behavior to prisoners and civilians. Not butcher (which usually implies one doesn’t care about how many of his men die)
@@benlincoln7358 Thanks, I appreciate that I now know even more about Tarleton. I just for sure knew he wasn't shooting kids in the back or burning down churches full of civilians. And I agree with the idea of appreciating what the Patriot does get right but Tarleton also, for how bad as he was, is portrayed as a comedically over the top villain and I think that just needs to be said when you mention how he was the inspiration for Isaac's character.
And in the film they have ZERO qualms about blowing the brains out of surrendering British men and hacking them to pieces yet act like Tavington is some monster. It's just one of those things that irks the shit out of me. Rules the thee and not for me, as they say.
Yes, 'The Patriot' is a rubbish film in so many ways and shouldn't be included in any list of the best. Gibson is just a propagandist. There are plenty of other films that depict warfare in this era far more accurately.
Glory is a devastating film - one of the best war films made. I had a number of ancestors who fought in the Civil War - all for the Union.
You commented on the machine gun the Turks were swinging into action but that was a US M1919 .30 machine gun - Browning's design that was too late for WW1 - I guess they couldn't find a Maxim for the Turks?
I can better that. I watched a drama documentary on the treatment of the wounded and dead in the american civil war and it featured many re-enactment battle scenes. As the camera panned over the smokey battlefield at the end of the day you could clearly see among the dead bodies a Lee Enfield SMLE! How the hell did the club let that one through?
Would Last of the Mohicans not be on this list 🤔? A few of those battles seemed pretty legit.
He analysed that on a previous video.
Cowpens/the Patriot is so great, I centered my senior thesis on it
"The bullet is a mad thing; only the bayonet knows what it is about." Alexander Suvorov 1796
That particular scene in "Glory" was probably not earlier in the battle when the Cornfield fight took place. The terrain and gently rolling "apparently flat" areas more closely resembles the middle part of the battle when the Confederates held a sunken road what came to be known as "Bloody Lane." Initially the Confederates enjoyed great success in that part of the field but a small anomoly in the terrain, a relatively slight declivity quite close to the Confederate lines dropped the front ranks of the Federals out of direct view of the Confederates. The Federals were for a period of time not openly visible. When the declivity rose again, the Union lines were very close to the Confederates and slightly higher. Most of the Confederates had been firing at longer range and their rifled muskets were somewhat fouled while the Union troops had fresh muskets. The initial volley swept through the Confederates with horrible results. Some Union troops were able to partially flank the long sunken road and the rebels lines were decimated. Confederate General John B. Gordon was wounded five times, twice in the same leg, in his left arm and again in the shoulder and finally in the face. He fell forward with his face in his cap which was filling with blood. He always believed he might have drowned but another Union bullet passed through his cap, allowing the blood to flow out. (On April 12, 1865 General Gordon, who had survived multiple wounds during the war, officially led the Confederate troops at the surrender at Appomattox Court where the surrender was accepted by Major General Joshua Chamberlain who had led the 20th Maine Regiment on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg.)
Thanks for the awesome bit of insight.
That may be true. There is an excellent account of the Antietam battle and Lee's Maryland Campaign "The Gleam of Bayonets" by James V. Murfin which delves deep into that battle. It has maps showing the three basic attacks, listing the units at the important parts of the fight. The 2nd Massachusetts was involved in the early fight in the Cornfield and the East and West Wood. Shaw's unit was definitely in that fight. I was speaking more to the visuals in the film and in my opinion the terrain as shown in the movie appears much more open than the rather restricted area where Hooker attacked. The Cornfield was essentially flanked on both sides by the East and West Woods and most of the fight was quite confused. Both the Confederate and the Federal units were hit almost by surprise...there was a lot of cover initially. In the film the Confederates are shown as much more exposed and at a greater range than the initial attack. The Union attack depicted was not as stacked up as it was in the area where Hooker and Meade's forces attacked. Later attacks coming down east of the Hagerstown Pike toward the sunken lane were over much more open terrain which the film seemed to infer. @Carlton-B
I would really like a historian to rate the Spanish Tercio battle scene in the movie “Alatriste”. I personally found it a well-done scene of a period often overlooked and unrepresented in movies.
It is a fantastic piece of military choreography, on a small scale representing the complexities and brutality of pike and shot warfare. But there's no 'creative license' an American won't take if it makes them look better than they were.
You know if you are a Reenactor, you know, or should know, the regulations of the period you reenact. And this is where you go deeper to the details and can point things out very specifically.
If you looked at the "best war movies" Why is the Patriot first ? :)
Shouldn't be
The Opening of the Free State of Jones has a great representation of the Late American Civil War with both sides using the trench works that would become so familiar with in WWI
I'm pretty sure that machine gun he mentions in the Lawrence of Arabia section was invented 2 years after the movie is set
Yes it's a browning m1919, the main US ww2 machine gun
I will confess to have a tremendous sentimental preference for _Glory_ even if it the accuracy doesn't always track. I feel like it was one of the movies at the beginning of a serious-er attempt to get historical movies right, and I like that Shaw was portrayed as rather naive and out of his depth rather than instant leader and hero. We saw it over and over in the theater--this was when my brother and I were young teenagers and just getting into the Civil War and reenacting--and I think I cried every time.
Lawrence of Arabia is such a great film even if it isn't the most accurate. That and Bridge on the River Kwai are two of my favorites.
Dan Snow is brilliant.
"The man who loses the King's Colours... loses the King's friendship"....
Love this
Question for you guys, Why does it seem like the Weapon Technology of the Smooth Bore Musket lasted so long and Innovation seemed to have Stopped until after the civil war time where repeating firearms seemed to replace slowly Muskets.
Strange comment.
Hint: The Dreyse rifle had been built since 1840, the Prussian army used it since 1849 and adapted its tactics. The oulier was the USA, the ACW was fought on bothsides with a large number of untrained soldiers.
Actually in the movie Patriot, a black soldier in British uniform was depicted at the start of Camden Battle, if you look carefully, but certainly not as prominently as the one on the American side.
I'm actually not surprised why the Ottomans built their defensive positions towards the sea rather than towards the desert. Apparently they didn't expect to be stabbed in the back by the Arabs. The Hashemite family, the leaders of the Arab rebels, received their bone by their British masters in the form of the kingdom of Jordan. But at the expense of Palestine and hundreds of thousands of lives... Also if we take into account the fact that one-third of the Ottoman army, including the officers, consisted of Arabs, we understand that Lawrence's village massacre was a complete nonsense. Just like his rape tale. Especially the soldiers of the Ottoman Empire in these Arab regions consisted mostly of Arabs. Leader of Palestinians during WW2 Haj Amin al Husseini was a loyal Ottoman officer. Izzeddin al Qassam also a loyal Ottoman soldier. Presidents of Syria Husni al Zaim, Ahmad Nami were Ottoman officers. Also Nuri al Said and Jafar al Askeri, prime ministers of Iraq were Ottoman officers too. Almost all bureacratic cadets of Syria and Iraq were Ottoman officials.
I know we skipped Napoleonic Wars in favor of getting to the American Civil War, but what films/shows would you recommend for accurate depictions of warfare from the time? Maritime battles too!
Waterloo for land....Master and Commander for sea...and of course Sharp
Well, for maritime i would certainly start with Master and Commander!
Waterloo 100%. Arguably, one of the most authentic recreations of a battle unfolding. Also, by the same director, the russian version of war and peace is extraordinary.
@@Kubyashimaster and commander is probably one of the most accurate depictions of naval warfare at the time.
The German-Danish War compared to the ACW would have been interesting too.
Similarly to the US Civil War, the Paraguay War (1870´s) between Paraguay and an alliance of Argentina, Uruguay and Brasil (Triple Alianza) was a big preview of what would happen in WW1. Massive battles and casualties and an evolution of warfare and military technology.
Look forward to part 2 :)
Next Friday!
I think that's the Battle of Cowpens, not Camden portrayed in the last major battle of the movie, "The Patriot."....could be wrong, but I've heard it's based on Cowpens.
the game Civilization does great at bringing all of these tactics and models, for everyone, at the same time.
one time I found myself having to rush update my defenses from archers and crossbowmen to missile troops, while my offensive wing had been upgraded long before, to marines and tanks.
having to rewire my tactics from "cluster up inside a fortification" to "spread out and take position" was a workout lol.
I always thought they wore red because of their flag not cause it was cheap, great video
Close quarters, taking turns with the muskets would have been absolutely insane!
The Brits should have gone back to the long bows lol 😂
May I suggest you look at The Lighthorsemen (1987), an Australian film about that includes the horse charge of German-supported Turkish lines by 800 men and horses of the Australian Light Horse during the Battle of Beersheba on 31 October 1917?
I love that film and have heard it to be accurate but I'd love your take on it, Dan!
I saw that as a child and it stsyed with me for decades. The scene was filmed in Victoria though so it looked a bit odd but change from a gallop into a full speed charge has always given me goosebumps
Absolutely! I just bought it on BluRay and watched it again. It never gets old!
@@AvoidTheCadaver
Wonderful as usual!
I respectfully request to know why Steyr, Austria was not completely destroyed during WWII? Thank you!
“Give ‘em hell, 54th!”
Watching those men just stand there and wait to get shot is horrifying
Funny movie mistake: The Patriot @7:51 the left British solider goes down and the colonial stabs him a couple times. But in the VHS large screen format you can see well below the wide screen line and he actually spanks the guy with his knife 2 times
Lawrence shooting his own camel by accident would actually have worked thematically for the film.
Not sure about '250 years' of warfare developement 100 yrs perhaps, from Smooth bore Brown Bess to rifled Minnie Bullet, which by the did not get a proper mention. The depiction of fortifications was good and showed how WW1 trench warfare came about, although some form of trench warfare was used during the Crusades.
The battle scene from The Patriot I'm pretty sure is supposed to be an amalgamation of Camden and Cowpens, especially with that rear line of Continental Regulars.
There's a scene in Lawrence of Arabia where camels are seen jumping over a low stone wall. Camels can't actually jump, so they had to build a ramp up to the top of the wall and get them to go up it and then step off.
Would be great if you could do a series sort of like what Norm Christie did many years ago, following the stories of specific Canadian soldiers and their heroics.
LOVE The PATRIOT! Even with it's inaccuracies and unapologetic flag waving. No better movie on Independence Day! Never gets old! (not a Trump supporter)
Hey HH. Love your work 👍
Hey, thanks!
People love to criticize the use of linear warfare, especially in the American Civil War because of the introduction of rifles.
However, the reality is that little overall had changed; linear warfare was not yet obsolete.
1. Most soldiers were volunteers and had gone through minimal training - certainly nothing remotely comparable to 20th century basic training. Thus they lacked the discipline and training (and firearms) to effectively operate in squads or skirmish formation while still having the firepower and mass to make effective attacks and withstand attacks by their massed counterparts. Mass and psychology were still paramount. (Sharpshooters and skirmishers were used, but those were the exceptions often involving elite troops.)
2. Battlefield visibility was still low because of the large amount of smoke; smokeless powder wasn't introduced yet. No radios either. Thus battlefield communication and leadership was very short in its range.
3. Although rifles and rifled artillery provided greater range and accuracy than their smoothbore predecessors, they were still muzzleloading weapons. Breechloading artillery and practical machine guns weren't introduced until after the war, and breechloading rifles were only slowly coming into use in limited numbers in the latter half of the war.
Looking at Petersburg in late 1864 and the Western Front in late 1914 and saying "well, they both had trenches, so they're basically the same" is not accurate.
4. Field entrenchments only became the normal after three years of fighting. Even then, none of the armies had standard issue shovels or entrenching tools like 20th century soldiers.
"Thus they lacked the discipline and training (and firearms) to effectively operate in squads or skirmish formation while still having the firepower and mass to make effective attacks and withstand attacks by their massed counterparts. "
They lacked training, that is true. However, European armies used often quite different tactics which were much better, e.g. combination of skirmishers and columns. Linear warfare was obsolete around 1860. But they had of course often well trained soldeirs.
@@olafkunert3714 Europeans had professional armies. Union and Confederate armies were nearly all volunteers. Makes a big difference.
With the history of weapon technology proceeding slightly ahead of battlefield tactics, I wonder if our country is ready for the next conflict
When I got out of the Army, I tried to study every action where “Color Troops” were involved in the American Civil War.
…and I had plan to visit the site of Ft. Wagner- long before the movie was conceived.
Seinfeld and Kramer was playing that boardgame wirh Newman when he was getting his car towed so he ran down to the road holding it.