Marching in formation was an anti-cavalry tactic - flat line to mass forward fire, then form squares when charged by cavalry. The Germans, Brits and French were all superb at this and became the super powers of their day. The bright uniforms were so you could easily identify friend from foe once the battlefield was obscured by black powder smoke (ie after the first volley). The walking to advance was because once you are exhausted you can't reload.
correct, and it was also to make sure you could see deserters easily. Many in the army were made to serve, and routinely abandoned their post to take a run for it
Yeah, due to the era the tactics and outfits were appropriate. When you get to WW1 the French lagged behind and wore bright blue whilst everyone else had moved onto camouflaged. There their uniforms got a lot of them killed in the early years of ww1. But before the new guns of that era, brightly coloured was like a standard for every nation.
For anyone who's interested, to answer Joe's question the infantry squares of the 1700-1800s were roughly evolutions of pike and shot formations that became dominant in Europe during the 1500s as they were extremely effective against shock calvary.
also no radio communication, limited number of shots per minute, not accurate shot placement....basically your marching to take enough people, untill you can get close enough and fight hand to hand
History Marche and Kings and Generals are youtube channels that do a good job of explaining different styles of combat over the years. They have a great video on the Ottoman invasions of Habsburg Austria that is relevant to this video. Trench warfare existed LONG before the Civil War. Trench warfare in the 1500s sounds even worse. The Roman Civil War was largely trench warfare. I would say you could argue Romans created modern warfare.
Linear tactics were used primarily because of the inherent inaccuracy of the weapons back then. Smoothbore muskets are not at all a rifle. So by forming up and firing a concentrated volley of 100+ muskets at your enemy, this insured maximum effect on your opponents battle lines. Generally, those engagements took place at very close range…inside 100 yards…normally even inside of 50 yards. Casualties though were low because there is no way to affectively aim a musket. There are no sights on it. The nub near the muzzle is a bayonet lug and nothing more. It was all point shooting. Tactics are always outdated by technology though…fast forward and that’s why the casualties during the Civil War were so horrendous, because now you had troops with RIFLED muskets, which could be aimed, fighting each other the same way troops fought in the American Revolution. Entire brigades 1800 strong (or more) shattered in under 20min. Example reference: the assault on Marye’s Heights by the Union Army at Fredericksburg
@@natehiggers42069 Pretty bold accusation. Got any proof? That’s a ballsy thing to say without providing evidence. 100 bucks says you wouldn’t say that to his face.
The late historian, Shelby Foote said the reason that Civil War officers had their men line up shoulder to shoulder was to mass their fire, but that tactic was for smoothbore musket fire, which is wildly inaccurate after 50 yards. By 1860, many used rifled muskets with "Minie" balls which had very good accuracy to 300-400+ yards, so the results were horrific casualties for both sides, to not even mention deaths from disease and infection.
@@randomhiphop5055 it was more that the fire was wildly inaccurate as recently as the Mexican American war, which is where all the generals learned to fight. The problem is that if you have two groups of guys standing shoulder to shoulder and firing at each other, the larger group of guys is going to win almost every single time. So what Lee’s genius was in the early parts of the war, was gambling by splitting his smaller army so that part of it could re-emerge and concentrate its fire on a single part of the Union line. The danger is that if the Union leaders realize what is happening they can absolutely destroy your even smaller army, but Union commanders were pretty incompetent in the east until Grant came over, at which point Lee had already wrecked his army by gambling and losing with Pickett’s charge. Calvary also evolved during the war. It was great for scouting, but firing rifles that were often still smoothbore and wildly inaccurate and had to be reloaded anyway, really reduced their ability to make a difference on the battlefield. Now incompetence does in to okay here because commanders still ordered a lot of charges even though they were ineffective for the most part against civil war era fire power, and a horse can close a gap faster than men can, but they didn’t make that much of a difference, especially early on. As the war progressed a lot of Calvary’s stopped using swords and rifles and started using revolver’s because they could close the gap, get off multiple shots and get out of there quickly, but even this was most useful for murdering pickets and attacking supply lines, and not for charging armies of thousands of men firing in unison. There are some famously effective calvaries in the civil war, and a lot of great raids and scout movements, but as far as battlefield effectiveness, it was already too old fashioned to fight the new weapons, which is insane when you remember that 80 years later, Poland tried to use horseback Calvary against the Nazi war machine. Those poor brave bastards
I had a self historian, who is now a park tour guide at Gettysburg tell me they lined shoulder to shoulder to keep ranks, so men wouldn’t runoff being next to people they know they’re more likely to stay and fight
Big mixture of things. Legacy of hand to hand war, inaccuracy of muskets, and often soldiers not aiming to kill, danger of cavalry so tight infantry formations are defensive and inaccuracy of cannon/artillery. Rifles and better artilery ended the line warfare. Line war was still around in a form in WW1, because old generals stuck in the 19th century still thought there was honour in lines of infantry charging at each other.
my friend's dad was the extra in the patriot who got his leg blown off by the cannon... he actually was born without legs and worked for a prosthetics company...he's passed on now but lived an incredible life
I agree man even though he only attended for a month or so he was accepted into West Point. One of the toughest schools in the nation to get into. He's obviously very intelligent.
I think he was just joking like “how many times did they have to shoot it before they realized they could just bolt it to the floor” is probably what he meant 😂
@@NotAfraid280 They were on wheels though. The kickback brought the cannon out of it's gunport stopping it once the slack was taken up, so it could be reloaded quickly. Then it was pulled back into position for another shot. Rinse and repeat.
If you've ever been to the Alamo, you will see that one cannon killed most of the people that ran into one building of the Alamo. Not the mass of the Mexican Army, just a cannon
This dude is probably the funniest comedian out right now. Great that he actually talks about certain historical events/ themes. The presidents podcast with Louis CK is hilarious.
@@clos4474 Everyone’s jokes bombs at some point. At least he’s self aware enough to know when he bombs. While someone like Schultz will just laugh his way through his own shitty unfunny joke.
As a history buff I love how knowledgeable shane is with his military history. And yes his expertise seems to be within the sphere of militaristic facts
He shows a clip from Braveheart of the cannonball scene and Joe is like “ugh I can’t even watch that” 😂 same reaction as when Shane showed him the poop-eating woman
Apart from the reasons already stated in the comments why the infantry lines were useful, another reason was that the muskets only have one shot and then you have to reload them with gunpowder, having an infantry line marching behind another allowed you to keep shooting while the first line had already used his shot and was reloading. That along with cannons was practically unstoppable against any enemy without your technology or with few soldiers. And as for the uniforms, in a the open field battle what you wanted was to distinguish yourself from your enemies, to know who you should be shotting
Red dye was also the cheapest at the time those uniforms became standard sometime shortly after the English civil war…my memory is kinda hazy but I think that’s right.
@@JoeDirte157I think that’s correct because in the English civil war the parliament forces wore red and they won against the royalists so that probably contributed to the British use of red uniforms and maybe of the royalists one we’d be using yellow
Fun fact: those square formations were used for a very good reason due to them being an excellent counter to a cavalry charge. If faced with a cavalry charge, the entire square would be able to get off at least one shot and then arrange their bayonets into a pike formation. They didn't necessarily use this formation every time they fought, it was primarily used if cavalry was deemed to be a threat. There were plenty of gunfights where they would utilize more cover
I get so annoyed when people talk about that and say they're so stupid. Like do 2 minutes of research and you'd learn why they fought that way. But instead people prefer to sound like idiots while thinking they are smarter than people om the past.
@@Steve_H_131 The British were also known to train their men to never brake ranks even when their losing the fight. Last of the Mohicans is a good portrayal of this.
@@Steve_H_131 school also told us slavery was only done by HUWHITE RACISTS. Nevermind no COMMON MAN owned a slave, it was too expensive, and most people did not really care about having slaves. Also Joe and again thank the public school system “slaves was cheap! Noone wanted to pay!” No, slaves were fucking expensive, like, one of the most expensive things to buy at the time. As a matter of fact, slaves were more expensive than the land they worked on and were mostly tied to the land leases/sales. And a big reason alot of people did not get rid of slaves. Go ahead let the slave go, than the company holding your land lease/sale whoever you may payments to will come seize your land and have the slaves caught and brought back. Like all things in history, the elites/governments are the arbiters of all the bullshit.
Yep, it evolved from pikeman formations, then pike and shot (incorporating early gunpower), to then all gunpowder musket and rifles but with bayonets. It's funny that Joe mentions the mongols, because the mongol cavalry warfare tactics forced warfare to evolve into square marching formations. Loose groupings of men would get picked apart by cavalry charges and the tight formation buffered against morale shock from being charged (you got your bros bracing together close with you).
The idea behind the red uniforms was to help distinguish your allies on a smoky battlefield. It also concealed blood, which is demoralizing for the soldiers.
@@fran87blacon lol if that was the case they’d just use clothe colored clothes and skip uniforms altogether, not to mention skip out on the regalia and fanciful dress configurations. Sure it was a factor, they probably wouldn’t have used say, royal purple even with the same tactical theories applicable, but it’s one factor.
@@MackNcD depends on what hat we talking about and what era. Many regiments in the early days had the uniform bought and designed by the CO who was generally from the aristocracy and payed for it all even the wages to the troops. Or maybe you mean the bear skins? There from Waterloo taken from the French imperial guard
@@MackNcD lol nope it was the cheapest to make that was still a colour as having a flashy “beautiful” army was all part of the style and intimidation factor. What the hell would hiding the colour of blood do? Lol like really what is your reasoning the British used red to hide blood be? It’s a fact scarlet was used because it was the cheapest. Over time it was just adopted as permanent due to the renowned.
Love Shane man and his interest in history. The reason for linear warfare was to have long columns so cavalry wouldn’t outflank you. And also because muskets were inaccurate, that bunching up together and firing in mass columns, gave you a better chance of hitting the enemy.
@@sweeepzone5155 it was stupid. By the time of the civil war, guns were more accurate but they still had the same formations as the revolutionary war. Which is why way more people died in the civil war
Also don't forget that communications were shit. If 50,000 dudes decide to break up and do their own thing the other more coordinated army will crush them.
To answer Joe's question a good example of an evolution of infantry warfare in between swords and rifles were the Terceros of Spain. You had swordsman, pikeman and arquebusier work in a team where they would defend against infantry, long range and cavalry before better muskets, doctorine and the invention of the bayonet lug. Also the bright clothing was so you can see your own men in the smoke. Black powder was insanely smokey and there were occasions were full units were blasting at point blank. Brutal
Also, muskets were very, very inaccurate, which is why you see soldiers lining up and marching towards enemy fire. The most effective way to utilise muskets at the time was thru single file, column formations. Additionally, these soldiers were professional soldiers.
The strategies and tactics during the Napoleonic era and American war of independence were actually more in tune with the capabilities of the different units at that time and less brutal than would come later in the US civil war, the Franco Prussian war and ultimately WW1 where technological advancement would outpace strategic and tactical advancement by quite a bit.
The point of fighting in a line was mass fire. Muskets weren't very accurate before rifling as Shane mentioned, so the strategy was to just have as many muskets as possible for maximum effect. It's also a holdover of the the olden days when it was all pitched battles.
Line formations were the most effective tactic at the time. What is the other solution Joe would present? If you come up in small groups to a large formation they can scatter you with massive firepower from a line. Muskets were not that accurate, but when fired en masse, they could devastate armies in volleys. The key is to route the enemy by causing as many casualties as you can in a short period of time. These were battlefield tactics, large army vs large army. Guerrilla warfare and hit and run tactics work but your enemy can still walk right through you with a larger army and burn your towns and take all your shit if you can’t stand in front of them and stop them in a large pitched battle.
Good points. As others have offered below, it was also a great way to prevent being outflanked and run over by cavalry. The issue was that line fighting remained a battlefield tactic for too long, and should have been replaced once 19th century artillery was put in place at the battlefield.
Just finished “1776” by David McCullough, highly recommend. It’s a miracle we made it through that year without losing the war. Washington was one bad dude.
Just finished reading Rebels at Sea by Eric Dolin and was so fascinated by how much of an impact privateering had on the outcome. Also how brutal life at sea was during that time. Also learned so much about the different types and sizes of the cannons and the types of shot used. Excellent book!
I live near a cemetery where there is two brothers buried side by side. One of them was a confederate and the other in the union. They both fought at Shiloh in April (06 same day) ....one was killed and died on the field....the other was wounded and died 5 months later at his home. Same day....same battle.
He’s a history guy. They are talking history. Geopolitics are part of it, but they aren’t even speculating trying to fill in blanks, they are just discussing historical facts, which necessarily include some geopolitics.
The Napoleonic-Era (existed before Napoleon, but was perfected by him) formations were an innovation not dissimilar to the Phalanx. When you are fighting en masse, you need to be able to dislodge other masses of people from a position, and until technology made these formations too susceptible to mass casualties, it was the most effective way to fight a traditional engagement.
Plus it was just the commonly agreed up on rules, through-out every era of history, warfare has been dictated by certain rules known to all. in Ancient Greece it was the rule for Commanders to fight at the front, they'd never have a reserve and would pretty much just clash with the same formation. Phalanx in the centre, Cavalry on the wings, and Peltasts and skirmishers at the back, Alexander changed this with the 256 man Syntagma, and the Romans completely overhauled warfare with Camillus creating Maniple.
Nice to see people actually knowledgeable on history, logistics was almost more important than the actual fighting lol “kings and generals” is a great RUclips channel covering historical battles/militaries.
@@MasterIceyy absolutely, that’s why the mongols were unstoppable. They were able to consume dairy where the Chinese could not and they also ate the horses. Their Calvary was essentially their supply chain and they were devastating 😧
Imagine how crazy full out hand to hand combat with arrows flying everywhere, cavalry charges and sometimes elephants crushing everyone in its path was during ancient and medieval times. War is the most brutal experience you can get in this reality.
Yeah but in those days you had no choice but to get in close for combat. Once we had muskets tactics could have changed a lot, but they kept the idea of marching right towards each other in a open field.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 "you had no choice but to get in close for combat." i like coming to this realization that they HAD to fight like this given their weapons.. they weren't just stupid or anything.
They stood in lines because that was the most effective way of getting maximum fire power from MUSKETS. It took 30 seconds to a minute to reload depending how skilled the soldier was. So they'd form several lines. After the first line fired..The next line would advance for the next volley and so on while the soldiers were reloading. It's not like they had Hitlers buzzsaws in the 1700s lol
We also apparently don't even know the physics of ancient sword fighting battles. Like we actually don't know what it's like to have two groups of people collide into each other with swords
Here’s a fun fact about the manner of warfare typical of the 1700s discussed in the video: what brought it to its downfall is that the Austrians employed this style of fighting against Napoleon, a man who recognized its foolishness. Napoleon’s style of fighting was inspired when, as a young man, he saw a wolf pack encircle and take down a stag. He noticed that the stag was most vulnerable as it kept turning into place to protect its vulnerable rear always under attack by the wolf it wasn’t facing. And so, that is the manner he revolutionized warfare. Ten, or even fifteen smaller groups of men rather than one large concentrated battalion. Draw enemy forces to fire in one direction, then have the groups encircle the army and shoot it from all sides. Napoleon’s army was also infinitely faster than its counterparts as each soldier carried his own weapon and ammunitions rather than wait for wagons to bring everything as was the manner forces were mobilized from one area to another.
They fought that way because they had smooth bore muskets and it allowed them to mass fire. It protected them from cavalry but did make them susceptible to artillery and grape shot. It was also easier to direct these formations. Most career soldiers made it to retirement and the majority of guys killed on the battlefield then were through bayonets or artillery. The tactics were designed around the weapon.
When matchlocks were first introduced they fought in square formations and fought with pikes and matchlocks(ie the Spanish tercios), but in the 30 years war the swedes found out if they could spread the formation out and fired en masse it was a lot more likely to cause the enemy to route. The pikes in the formations were later replaced with bayonets.
Old military tactics in large part had to be dismantled as the world’s strongest militaries became more and more gunpowder based. Cannons alone made cavalry in open field much more dangerous and the castles/fortifications of the time effectively obsolete. The line formations came from the inaccuracy of the weapons and from the psychological factor of being fired upon by an overwhelming amount of bullets at one time being inflicted on the enemy, war ends when one side loses the will to continue the fight.
Gillis is a legend, my favourite comedian who’s come up recently and I’m British. Rogan is a buffoon at times, the walking side by side was the best way of winning in a battle involving muskets. You inflicting maximum damage on your enemy by firing side by side in volleys, damaged a far larger area by doing so.
Less effective against guerrilla warfare however. That far larger area of damage works best when the enemy is also walking side by side right in front of your muskets
@@Stacey_-bf2mb It was far more effective than Guerilla Warfare. The reason Britain lost the Revolutionary War was because of the terrain, the sheer vastness of Americans and the French being involved.
@@tomben6180 lol is that what they teach you in England? I was taught the war was won because England couldn’t economically sustain a war any longer after the French blockaded them and prevented them from supplying the main land. “Sheer vastness of Americans” sounds like pure poppycock. The redcoats had not only a much more organized and larger army on the continent, but they also had a Navy. The entire first half of the revolutionary war up until the crossing of the Saratoga was a resounding win for the Brits. Except for maybe Bunker Hill and a couple other select engagements. England lost the colonies for the same reason they lost all their other colonial possessions, pervious wars made them bankrupt and unable to adequately sustain a defense.
@Sean Markovich the UK didn't give a shit about the USA man. They had bigger, better, more lucrative colonies. India being their jewel. Remember USA only recently became a powerful nation. Wasn't much to fight for over there back then.
It's because muskets weren't accurate, so they weren't really effective except in volley form. That required massed lines. Formations like this also makes complex maneuvers more easily communicated to the common soldiery, and theoretically "holding" the line improved morale, if discipline held.
Plus so many things could go wrong with firing a musket, powder being slightly wet or not being wedged properly, or pan not sparking, it required a large amount of soldiers to be effective
The British Army's famous red uniforms were super useful actually. On a battlefield without wind, the heavy hanging smoke of musket and canon fire can sit there for a long time, and it amasses very quickly. Even during reenactment battles today with far less people than the historic battles, this proves true. The Battle of Lundy's Lane in July 1814, for example, was fought on a sunny summer day, but the smoke was so thick that some of the lines of soldiers from both sides were firing only metres away from each other. Skirmishers wearing green to help themselves blend in with the trees and bushes goes back to at least the 1750s though, from during the Seven Years War (French and Indian War in North America).
Yes, no one could see each other due to all the smoke. When they finally introduced smokeless powder in 1880, the red uniforms were replaced with khaki soon after. But it is a total myth that the bright red uniforms made them easy targets. Fire one musket and visibility is poor anyway.
musket volley combined with artillery was the most efficient form of combat given the technological, organizational, and logistics capabilities of the time
So happy to see Joe finally getting on the Gillis train after Legion of Skanks has been promoting him for the past 8 years. Stanhope told Joe to have on Gillis after the SNL debacle, and Joe waited 3 years after to finally get Shane on. Glad JRE fans are finally on board with the Young Bull
They did this way of warfare because it concentrated fire en masse towards the target... It was crazy but the rifles weren't accurate. There was also honor and the rifle barely replaced swords and spears... so it isn't that surprising. Its actually the most effective way. Imagine the dude who was in 10 or so battles without even a scratch. They existed.
@@geminierica4077 well it's still dangerous as hell and the rebels were not sophisticated or trained as extensively as the British. Still we won. Pretty amazing.
For a long time it was more important to clearly see your own troops on battlefield than to utilise camouflage. The British defeated a larger French army despite being conspicuous on the battlefield because of this. This changed when modern weapons were introduced.
The marches in those formations for a couple different reasons 1 communication between different combat groups 2 maximize a signal volley of fire 3 protection against CAVALRY The more men on the battlefield, the harder it is to command, so keeping in these formations alongside other more spread out formations resulted in a good compromise.
Poor shane probably wanted to correct all of joes stupid historical takes so bad but couldn't risk antagonizing him and losing the best career opportunity of his life
I’m sorry but Shane actually doesn’t know much about history because everything he says here are wrong. The civil war didn’t start because of slavery but it was the main justification, rallying point and motivation of the Union population. Trench warfare has been used at least since Roman times but artillery meant that open battles were made rare. The British wore red because of friendly fire, it was the cheapest dye and firearm are so inaccurate and unreliable that you were forced to use tanks to fire. Also the British were never beaten by the Prussian’s and beat the French in every single war since 1697 and that wasn’t even an English war it was a Dutch war.
History is an easy avenue to comedy for those talented enough. Eddie Izzard is another guy who I think did fantastic work in this space. I think audiences are more likely to get it now.
It baffles me how a man his age, who has spoken to so many people, is so ignorant on so many things. I want to like him, but he comes across like a moron sometimes
@@sweeepzone5155 it baffles you that someone does not know something about warfare in a specific point in history? You might just be easily baffled then silly
@@jthen8454 There's a difference between not understanding something and calling what you don't understand silly or that people in the past were dumb because they couldn't work it out
Fun Fact: Canons on boats were know as guns and had ropes with some slack tied on the knob at the end of the canon. When the canon fired, it would recoil and roll backwards. (they had wheels). The ropes tied at the knob end at the back of the canon would stop it from rolling too far back. The recoil was enough to push the canon far enough for it to be reloaded, to then be rolled forward off the side and shoot again. If they were bolted down to the deck, the recoil would destroy the wooden deck planks. :D
My great great grandfather fought for the Union and his older brother, my great great uncle, fought for the Confederacy in the American Civil War. It was a war that didn't just cut across state lines but family lines as well.
Civil war tactics mostly involved fighting outside towns rather than within them. Fighting in the neighboring areas was seen as a safe way to conduct war. Of course this war during a time when people would have picnics near battlefields
Wearing the red uniforms wasn't silly. It was actually really smart. Smoke all over the field you needed to see where your guys were. Command and control is very important.
FUN FACT: One British ship of the line wielded the equivalent firepower in every stroke as Wellinton did in his defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. We are talking about 160+ of these ships including Privateers. That is FUCKING INSANE.
The British had a thing caleed a square with all guns facing outwards and in all the history of wars with red coats the British squares were only broken 3 times I believe, which is crazy.
The thing is early guns werent very effective at range and the tactics were widely adopted from previous methods of fighting, namely melee in its different forms. You would just give guys muskets now instead of spears and after you either ran out of muskets to fire (rear lines reloading and oassing loaded guns up front or alternating shooters) or the enemy was too vlose a melee would then ensue once more. Bayonets and swords etc... since you had to fight to resolve a battle you might as well do it this way. If both sides just sit in bushes 1km apart the battle would never be resolved due to lack of reach. So basically to fight you had to get close so there was really no other great way of doing it.
Joe is really uneduated in musket warfare (which is fine, most people are lol), I think it would be great if he got a guest to talk about that stuff and the evolution of ancient warefare INTO the pike and shot age. It makes a lot more sense to fight in that fashion, a la The Patriot, when you take into account conscription, cavalry, artilery, morale, and taking objectives. And about Mongols, I'm uneducated in them, but I think their strategy worked because literally everyone in their society is a cavalryman. And then they also stopped fighting each other, united, into a giant mass cavalry army, so that really expedites your logistics for war. They were nomads and were used to moving around all the time, whereas the armies they faced were land armies - sedentary peoples who are more used to a farming society. Their food must be carried with them, they walk to the battle field.
The parents of a co-worker of mine were working on the Yucca Nuclear Waste project, and the question came up: what languages should we write the warning signs in? After all, they need to be understood thousands of years from now. The obvious answers were thrown out: English, Russian, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Arabic. When someone suggested Hebrew. "Hebrew?" came the reply. "Only a fraction of 1% of the world speaks Hebrew!" "Yes", the suggester answered, "but they've been speaking it for 6000 years." Hebrew was added to the suggestion list.
While I appreciate the humor and the thoughts, black powder firearms/cannons and the general accuracy of weapons back then was significantly different than modern standards. Marching in rank and file with firearms - until relatively accurate rifling came about - was simply an extension of spear/shield formations, just with a greater reach. The time it took to reload an individual black powder firearm meant that individual soldiers were almost not worth considering in a fight, but rather a volley of fire from the formations line-by-line was the thing to consider. If each soldier shot their inaccurate weapons out of sync with each other, then the overall effect is lessened. Also, when coordinating with a large group, synchronization tends to be necessary to keep the speed up to a certain pace. Of course, these antiquated strategies became downright harmful by the time that barrel rifling allowed an individual soldier to hit another individual soldier with some consistency, starting in the Civil War and especially becoming noticeable during the first world war. Things tend to be a certain way for a reason, even if that previous reason is no longer valid by today's standards. At least until around the mid-1800's, marching rank and file and firing in a volley was useful for various militaries.
That war style became the new way because the Age of Enlightenment brought with it a thought out process of etiquette in all forms. So dying in a “respectful manner with rules” was more humanistic to the brutish way animals die.
The reason for the big line firing style of warfare was because muskets on their own weren't very accurate, but they were more effective when fired en masse. It was also very fast and cheap to train an army to use this technique, so armies could be put together and used effectively much more efficiently than, say, a feudal system in which the head of the army has to rely on his knights and noblemen to provide soldiers as a cobbled-together army. Linear warfare took that power away from landowners and noblemen and gave it to the government, who no longer needed to rely on them to field an army
Shane is like that funny history teacher we all wanted at school
History teachers are the best
And they are both wrong about half the shit they say
bro that guy is the best
This guy didn’t get one thing right, so yes he’s like a school teacher
@@greggoat6570 literally everything they are way off the mark on, Americans invented guerilla ware fare was my favourite quote
Shane is such a history buff. I walked in in, I said wow he knows a lot about history
And history is wonderful. Can you imagine the wonderful history we’re going to create? In they future they will say “wow, they where so wonderful”
I read that in his trump voice lmao
My father got shot in the face with a canon ball. I walked over and said wow what a big canon ball
"He was shot by a cannon ball, he cried. I wouldn't have cried"
Lmfao well played!
Shane is becoming one of Joes favorite, who knew he would be after that awkward first podcast 😂
Joe legit missed the main joke and let him sink in shame that first pod. Funny as fuck in all the wrong ways.
“Is that what you thought?” 🤣
What happened on the first podcast? I haven't seen it
@@star5962 Joe did my boy Shane dirty lol
@@star5962 ruclips.net/video/9ef0VMeRAvg/видео.html
There you go
Shane replaced Schaub as Joes favourite, and i welcome it in its entirety
not sure how you came to that conclusion lol... but Brendan just did a fight companion, but i guess whatever you want to be is true.
@@erikaw7767 no need to get offended on your boyfriends behalf
@@erikaw7767 shane gillis has been on jre 10 separate times since 2021. Brendan has been on 3 times since 2021. 😂
@@erikaw7767 please remove Schwabs schlong from mouth so we can understand 😊
Hold on hold the fck on?
Brenda is/was Blowies favorite?
Marching in formation was an anti-cavalry tactic - flat line to mass forward fire, then form squares when charged by cavalry. The Germans, Brits and French were all superb at this and became the super powers of their day. The bright uniforms were so you could easily identify friend from foe once the battlefield was obscured by black powder smoke (ie after the first volley). The walking to advance was because once you are exhausted you can't reload.
correct, and it was also to make sure you could see deserters easily. Many in the army were made to serve, and routinely abandoned their post to take a run for it
Bang on buddy! Shane wasn't speaking facts here at all.
I dunno buddy, that all sounds like a conspiracy pushed by Big Dye.
Yeah, due to the era the tactics and outfits were appropriate. When you get to WW1 the French lagged behind and wore bright blue whilst everyone else had moved onto camouflaged. There their uniforms got a lot of them killed in the early years of ww1. But before the new guns of that era, brightly coloured was like a standard for every nation.
I feel like I just got blasted by civil war facts
For anyone who's interested, to answer Joe's question the infantry squares of the 1700-1800s were roughly evolutions of pike and shot formations that became dominant in Europe during the 1500s as they were extremely effective against shock calvary.
The dreaded tercio
also no radio communication, limited number of shots per minute, not accurate shot placement....basically your marching to take enough people, untill you can get close enough and fight hand to hand
History Marche and Kings and Generals are youtube channels that do a good job of explaining different styles of combat over the years. They have a great video on the Ottoman invasions of Habsburg Austria that is relevant to this video. Trench warfare existed LONG before the Civil War. Trench warfare in the 1500s sounds even worse. The Roman Civil War was largely trench warfare. I would say you could argue Romans created modern warfare.
How far did they stand away from the other side?
Linear tactics were used primarily because of the inherent inaccuracy of the weapons back then. Smoothbore muskets are not at all a rifle. So by forming up and firing a concentrated volley of 100+ muskets at your enemy, this insured maximum effect on your opponents battle lines. Generally, those engagements took place at very close range…inside 100 yards…normally even inside of 50 yards. Casualties though were low because there is no way to affectively aim a musket. There are no sights on it. The nub near the muzzle is a bayonet lug and nothing more. It was all point shooting. Tactics are always outdated by technology though…fast forward and that’s why the casualties during the Civil War were so horrendous, because now you had troops with RIFLED muskets, which could be aimed, fighting each other the same way troops fought in the American Revolution. Entire brigades 1800 strong (or more) shattered in under 20min. Example reference: the assault on Marye’s Heights by the Union Army at Fredericksburg
Joe could not have Shane on too many times. One of the funniest comedians out there right now right up there with Normand. Always entertaining.
Mark Normand sucks
Mark Normand isnt funny. He steals all of his material
sam morril's up there for me too, but shane's gotta be my current favorite
Dude I feel the same about his podcasts with Duncan! I hope he'll have Shane on with Matt again
@@natehiggers42069 Pretty bold accusation. Got any proof? That’s a ballsy thing to say without providing evidence. 100 bucks says you wouldn’t say that to his face.
The late historian, Shelby Foote said the reason that Civil War officers had their men line up shoulder to shoulder was to mass their fire, but that tactic was for smoothbore musket fire, which is wildly inaccurate after 50 yards. By 1860, many used rifled muskets with "Minie" balls which had very good accuracy to 300-400+ yards, so the results were horrific casualties for both sides, to not even mention deaths from disease and infection.
I heard cavalry also played a roll in that tactic they didn't want to get cut down by men on horses so they all went together
@@randomhiphop5055 it was more that the fire was wildly inaccurate as recently as the Mexican American war, which is where all the generals learned to fight. The problem is that if you have two groups of guys standing shoulder to shoulder and firing at each other, the larger group of guys is going to win almost every single time. So what Lee’s genius was in the early parts of the war, was gambling by splitting his smaller army so that part of it could re-emerge and concentrate its fire on a single part of the Union line. The danger is that if the Union leaders realize what is happening they can absolutely destroy your even smaller army, but Union commanders were pretty incompetent in the east until Grant came over, at which point Lee had already wrecked his army by gambling and losing with Pickett’s charge.
Calvary also evolved during the war. It was great for scouting, but firing rifles that were often still smoothbore and wildly inaccurate and had to be reloaded anyway, really reduced their ability to make a difference on the battlefield. Now incompetence does in to okay here because commanders still ordered a lot of charges even though they were ineffective for the most part against civil war era fire power, and a horse can close a gap faster than men can, but they didn’t make that much of a difference, especially early on. As the war progressed a lot of Calvary’s stopped using swords and rifles and started using revolver’s because they could close the gap, get off multiple shots and get out of there quickly, but even this was most useful for murdering pickets and attacking supply lines, and not for charging armies of thousands of men firing in unison. There are some famously effective calvaries in the civil war, and a lot of great raids and scout movements, but as far as battlefield effectiveness, it was already too old fashioned to fight the new weapons, which is insane when you remember that 80 years later, Poland tried to use horseback Calvary against the Nazi war machine. Those poor brave bastards
Shut up, nerd!
I had a self historian, who is now a park tour guide at Gettysburg tell me they lined shoulder to shoulder to keep ranks, so men wouldn’t runoff being next to people they know they’re more likely to stay and fight
Big mixture of things. Legacy of hand to hand war, inaccuracy of muskets, and often soldiers not aiming to kill, danger of cavalry so tight infantry formations are defensive and inaccuracy of cannon/artillery.
Rifles and better artilery ended the line warfare.
Line war was still around in a form in WW1, because old generals stuck in the 19th century still thought there was honour in lines of infantry charging at each other.
my friend's dad was the extra in the patriot who got his leg blown off by the cannon... he actually was born without legs and worked for a prosthetics company...he's passed on now but lived an incredible life
was a shoe in. had a leg up.
i had nightmares cuz of your dad! so cool. RIP
Shane is the BEST comedian JRE has introduced imo. I’m so thankful for that first pod where he couldn’t get a laugh outta Joe.
Lol. JRE did not introduce him to comedy fans. He’s been doing it forbears before this.
Here is the recommended clip that says it all:,,
ruclips.net/video/Y-Yi7uxTYNw/видео.html
@@lessforloans Shane's first Pod was rough, tho.
re..tarded take
Shane Gillis, Tim Dillon and Mark Normand make the old lot look weak comedically!
Matt & Shane’s secret podcast is the most hilarious pod I’ve ever listened to in my life. Highly recommend
it's like a 2011 xbox party chat
What is the podcasts name?
Easily one of the best podcasts. Also “Marty and Michael Fully Actual”, their podcast is a rabbit hole and a half 🤯
@@willwillisproductions159 Matt and Shane's secret podcast.
The Anthony Cumia show is #1
Shane has to actively work to pretend not to be as smart as he is
And Joe has to work double-time to project that he’s smarter than he is.
I agree man even though he only attended for a month or so he was accepted into West Point. One of the toughest schools in the nation to get into. He's obviously very intelligent.
The guns were not bolted to the ship, they were tied with ropes to soften the recoil. That's where the term "loose cannon" comes from.
Some of those cannons weighed over two tons. Imagine a 4,000 pound cannon rolling around loose during heavy seas.
Lots of smashed seamen.
I think he was just joking like “how many times did they have to shoot it before they realized they could just bolt it to the floor” is probably what he meant 😂
@@NotAfraid280 They were on wheels though. The kickback brought the cannon out of it's gunport stopping it once the slack was taken up, so it could be reloaded quickly. Then it was pulled back into position for another shot. Rinse and repeat.
If you've ever been to the Alamo, you will see that one cannon killed most of the people that ran into one building of the Alamo. Not the mass of the Mexican Army, just a cannon
This dude is probably the funniest comedian out right now. Great that he actually talks about certain historical events/ themes. The presidents podcast with Louis CK is hilarious.
He talks about history but doesn’t know anything about the subject, it was embarrassing how wrong he was
Schulz is funnier
@@clos4474 Schultz laughs at his own corny jokes while Akash touches his leg.
@AL P and Shane jokes bomb lmao "It's ok if I get fired I'll just go the jre podcast" silence lmaooo "no?" Haha f'ken dork
@@clos4474 Everyone’s jokes bombs at some point. At least he’s self aware enough to know when he bombs. While someone like Schultz will just laugh his way through his own shitty unfunny joke.
As a history buff I love how knowledgeable shane is with his military history. And yes his expertise seems to be within the sphere of militaristic facts
Still kinda missed the mark on formation and such
Maybe that was covered sophomore year at West Point.
@@mofoyoung or after the first week of freshman year
as its a pretty big part of american history.. taught in late middle school-early highschool@@asdfasdf7199
Imagine how much more he would have learned had he stayed at West Point?
Shane's comedy especially shines when Joe tries to tell a joke right after him.
Joe Rogan is not funny.
@@RJT80 his bit on Chris Jenner and the other Jenner that turned into a women is hilarious !!!!
Good call
@@dylancounte1448 You described the behavior perfectly. Seems like that's been happening more often, as well.
@@RJT80 god only knows how the fuck he calls himself a comedian iv never laughed at anything he’s ever said
Oh God please give us a full episode of just shane talking to Joe about history
He has 4 with Louis ck
He shows a clip from Braveheart of the cannonball scene and Joe is like “ugh I can’t even watch that” 😂 same reaction as when Shane showed him the poop-eating woman
yes. totally, totally spot on.
@@CantTellYou the patriot bruh.
Why? Neither one of them know wtf they're talking about.
Apart from the reasons already stated in the comments why the infantry lines were useful, another reason was that the muskets only have one shot and then you have to reload them with gunpowder, having an infantry line marching behind another allowed you to keep shooting while the first line had already used his shot and was reloading. That along with cannons was practically unstoppable against any enemy without your technology or with few soldiers. And as for the uniforms, in a the open field battle what you wanted was to distinguish yourself from your enemies, to know who you should be shotting
The militia staging guerilla warfare was probably the result of the native americans.
Red dye was also the cheapest at the time those uniforms became standard sometime shortly after the English civil war…my memory is kinda hazy but I think that’s right.
@@JoeDirte157I think that’s correct because in the English civil war the parliament forces wore red and they won against the royalists so that probably contributed to the British use of red uniforms and maybe of the royalists one we’d be using yellow
This is very true. Rock on👍👌
I’m glad I’m not the only one frustrated that a “history buff” couldn’t explain why it was effective.
Fun fact: those square formations were used for a very good reason due to them being an excellent counter to a cavalry charge. If faced with a cavalry charge, the entire square would be able to get off at least one shot and then arrange their bayonets into a pike formation. They didn't necessarily use this formation every time they fought, it was primarily used if cavalry was deemed to be a threat. There were plenty of gunfights where they would utilize more cover
I get so annoyed when people talk about that and say they're so stupid. Like do 2 minutes of research and you'd learn why they fought that way. But instead people prefer to sound like idiots while thinking they are smarter than people om the past.
I had no idea, what I remember learning in school was that it was a traditional way to fight. Thanks for the info
@@Steve_H_131 The British were also known to train their men to never brake ranks even when their losing the fight. Last of the Mohicans is a good portrayal of this.
@@Steve_H_131 school also told us slavery was only done by HUWHITE RACISTS. Nevermind no COMMON MAN owned a slave, it was too expensive, and most people did not really care about having slaves. Also Joe and again thank the public school system “slaves was cheap! Noone wanted to pay!”
No, slaves were fucking expensive, like, one of the most expensive things to buy at the time. As a matter of fact, slaves were more expensive than the land they worked on and were mostly tied to the land leases/sales. And a big reason alot of people did not get rid of slaves. Go ahead let the slave go, than the company holding your land lease/sale whoever you may payments to will come seize your land and have the slaves caught and brought back.
Like all things in history, the elites/governments are the arbiters of all the bullshit.
Yep, it evolved from pikeman formations, then pike and shot (incorporating early gunpower), to then all gunpowder musket and rifles but with bayonets. It's funny that Joe mentions the mongols, because the mongol cavalry warfare tactics forced warfare to evolve into square marching formations. Loose groupings of men would get picked apart by cavalry charges and the tight formation buffered against morale shock from being charged (you got your bros bracing together close with you).
Shane is one of the best commentators and comedians on the podcast, loved how crazy he got in the last Protect our parks episode 😂
Is this episode up on spotify yet? I couldn't find it
@@zaclikescauliflower2877 me neither, this is bullshit
Joe acted a lot like Eddy bravo in this clip.
@@zaclikescauliflower2877 hit the notification button and you'll see it
"Just four poor guys from manchester operating it" I swear, Shane's off the cuff history quips are absolute comedic gold.
The idea behind the red uniforms was to help distinguish your allies on a smoky battlefield. It also concealed blood, which is demoralizing for the soldiers.
lmfao wrong!!! it was the cheapest to produce
That’s correct, those were among the reasons given. Now here’s a fun one to research, why the big expensive fluffy hats?
@@fran87blacon lol if that was the case they’d just use clothe colored clothes and skip uniforms altogether, not to mention skip out on the regalia and fanciful dress configurations. Sure it was a factor, they probably wouldn’t have used say, royal purple even with the same tactical theories applicable, but it’s one factor.
@@MackNcD depends on what hat we talking about and what era. Many regiments in the early days had the uniform bought and designed by the CO who was generally from the aristocracy and payed for it all even the wages to the troops.
Or maybe you mean the bear skins? There from Waterloo taken from the French imperial guard
@@MackNcD lol nope it was the cheapest to make that was still a colour as having a flashy “beautiful” army was all part of the style and intimidation factor.
What the hell would hiding the colour of blood do? Lol like really what is your reasoning the British used red to hide blood be?
It’s a fact scarlet was used because it was the cheapest. Over time it was just adopted as permanent due to the renowned.
Love Shane man and his interest in history.
The reason for linear warfare was to have long columns so cavalry wouldn’t outflank you. And also because muskets were inaccurate, that bunching up together and firing in mass columns, gave you a better chance of hitting the enemy.
Yup. And the Brits placed an extra emphasis on rate of fire. This wasthe precursor to the "mad minute".
Literally. Joe's assessment of it being silly was ridiculous. As if there was any alternatives.
@@sweeepzone5155 it was stupid. By the time of the civil war, guns were more accurate but they still had the same formations as the revolutionary war. Which is why way more people died in the civil war
@@jessel8481 and the artillery started to get real nasty lol
Also don't forget that communications were shit. If 50,000 dudes decide to break up and do their own thing the other more coordinated army will crush them.
I love how he lays down historical facts, and chugs a beer after lol Shane Gillis rules!
To answer Joe's question a good example of an evolution of infantry warfare in between swords and rifles were the Terceros of Spain. You had swordsman, pikeman and arquebusier work in a team where they would defend against infantry, long range and cavalry before better muskets, doctorine and the invention of the bayonet lug. Also the bright clothing was so you can see your own men in the smoke. Black powder was insanely smokey and there were occasions were full units were blasting at point blank. Brutal
Official_powerfuljre
👆Gift for you 🎁
Exactly. Infantry squares defeat light and heavy cavalry
Also, muskets were very, very inaccurate, which is why you see soldiers lining up and marching towards enemy fire. The most effective way to utilise muskets at the time was thru single file, column formations. Additionally, these soldiers were professional soldiers.
@@denisdiderot6779 and I bet you the first people that decided to line up like that only in a trench absolutely wiped everybody
The strategies and tactics during the Napoleonic era and American war of independence were actually more in tune with the capabilities of the different units at that time and less brutal than would come later in the US civil war, the Franco Prussian war and ultimately WW1 where technological advancement would outpace strategic and tactical advancement by quite a bit.
The point of fighting in a line was mass fire. Muskets weren't very accurate before rifling as Shane mentioned, so the strategy was to just have as many muskets as possible for maximum effect. It's also a holdover of the the olden days when it was all pitched battles.
he actually shows strong values of empathy, he puts himself there and really makes the info his sharing relevant
Exactly
Line formations were the most effective tactic at the time. What is the other solution Joe would present? If you come up in small groups to a large formation they can scatter you with massive firepower from a line. Muskets were not that accurate, but when fired en masse, they could devastate armies in volleys. The key is to route the enemy by causing as many casualties as you can in a short period of time. These were battlefield tactics, large army vs large army. Guerrilla warfare and hit and run tactics work but your enemy can still walk right through you with a larger army and burn your towns and take all your shit if you can’t stand in front of them and stop them in a large pitched battle.
Good points. As others have offered below, it was also a great way to prevent being outflanked and run over by cavalry. The issue was that line fighting remained a battlefield tactic for too long, and should have been replaced once 19th century artillery was put in place at the battlefield.
I was waiting for this comment. Nice, thus wslas the most effective
Joe always acts like war generals was willy nilly guessing the best tactics of the time. Lmao
None of what you said here is true or the reason why they fought the way they did
It couldn't have been that effective cuz they lost to a inferior Army😂💀
Just finished “1776” by David McCullough, highly recommend. It’s a miracle we made it through that year without losing the war. Washington was one bad dude.
Checkout book 'George Washington-- America's Most Indespensible Man'
Thanks to France Spain and netherlands
washington wanted to be the top guy lol and risked it all which was crazy
now were all just subservient slaves to the bilderberg group.
His Excellency by Joseph Ellis also very good, but 1776 is amazing and gives one snippet of why GW was essential.
Just finished reading Rebels at Sea by Eric Dolin and was so fascinated by how much of an impact privateering had on the outcome. Also how brutal life at sea was during that time. Also learned so much about the different types and sizes of the cannons and the types of shot used. Excellent book!
I live near a cemetery where there is two brothers buried side by side. One of them was a confederate and the other in the union. They both fought at Shiloh in April (06 same day) ....one was killed and died on the field....the other was wounded and died 5 months later at his home. Same day....same battle.
Shane is such a interesting guy to listen to because he's completely silly and outlandish and vulgar but at the same time he's a smart deep dude
As someone from South Carolina, loved hearing the mention of Francis Marion
Shane Gillis is the best geo-political commentator Joe has had on the show to date.
Without even trying
Here is the recommended clip that says it all:,
ruclips.net/video/Y-Yi7uxTYNw/видео.html
ALEX JONES
He’s a history guy. They are talking history. Geopolitics are part of it, but they aren’t even speculating trying to fill in blanks, they are just discussing historical facts, which necessarily include some geopolitics.
@@JackBlackNinja they're just making fun of Zaihan i believe lol
The Napoleonic-Era (existed before Napoleon, but was perfected by him) formations were an innovation not dissimilar to the Phalanx. When you are fighting en masse, you need to be able to dislodge other masses of people from a position, and until technology made these formations too susceptible to mass casualties, it was the most effective way to fight a traditional engagement.
Plus it was just the commonly agreed up on rules, through-out every era of history, warfare has been dictated by certain rules known to all. in Ancient Greece it was the rule for Commanders to fight at the front, they'd never have a reserve and would pretty much just clash with the same formation.
Phalanx in the centre, Cavalry on the wings, and Peltasts and skirmishers at the back, Alexander changed this with the 256 man Syntagma, and the Romans completely overhauled warfare with Camillus creating Maniple.
Nice to see people actually knowledgeable on history, logistics was almost more important than the actual fighting lol “kings and generals” is a great RUclips channel covering historical battles/militaries.
@@bnine6669 Tbf Logistics is probably more important, a well supplied small force, can do a lot more damage than a poorly supplied larger force
@@MasterIceyy absolutely, that’s why the mongols were unstoppable. They were able to consume dairy where the Chinese could not and they also ate the horses. Their Calvary was essentially their supply chain and they were devastating 😧
Wish more people took it upon themselves to be informed about history like ya’ll 🙏🏼
I just saw Shane live, I almost suffocated. I’ve never laughed that hard in my entire life…
same
He's the best in the biz currently I think
@@logang6583 facts
I said wow this guys so funny
Gillis is awesome. I would listen to an entire history lesson from him. Love it when Rogan has him on.
6 hours of Presidents pod with Louis CK
Imagine how crazy full out hand to hand combat with arrows flying everywhere, cavalry charges and sometimes elephants crushing everyone in its path was during ancient and medieval times. War is the most brutal experience you can get in this reality.
Yeah but in those days you had no choice but to get in close for combat. Once we had muskets tactics could have changed a lot, but they kept the idea of marching right towards each other in a open field.
@@bobbygetsbanned6049 "you had no choice but to get in close for combat." i like coming to this realization that they HAD to fight like this given their weapons.. they weren't just stupid or anything.
Nothing can compare with the soviet monstrosity.
They stood in lines because that was the most effective way of getting maximum fire power from MUSKETS.
It took 30 seconds to a minute to reload depending how skilled the soldier was.
So they'd form several lines. After the first line fired..The next line would advance for the next volley and so on while the soldiers were reloading.
It's not like they had Hitlers buzzsaws in the 1700s lol
We also apparently don't even know the physics of ancient sword fighting battles. Like we actually don't know what it's like to have two groups of people collide into each other with swords
Here’s a fun fact about the manner of warfare typical of the 1700s discussed in the video: what brought it to its downfall is that the Austrians employed this style of fighting against Napoleon, a man who recognized its foolishness. Napoleon’s style of fighting was inspired when, as a young man, he saw a wolf pack encircle and take down a stag. He noticed that the stag was most vulnerable as it kept turning into place to protect its vulnerable rear always under attack by the wolf it wasn’t facing. And so, that is the manner he revolutionized warfare. Ten, or even fifteen smaller groups of men rather than one large concentrated battalion. Draw enemy forces to fire in one direction, then have the groups encircle the army and shoot it from all sides. Napoleon’s army was also infinitely faster than its counterparts as each soldier carried his own weapon and ammunitions rather than wait for wagons to bring everything as was the manner forces were mobilized from one area to another.
Shane is lowkey *Top 3* funniest guests
Is Matt also in that Top 3?
@@davidcuellar7414 he could be but he didn’t get a chance to shine. Matt’s hilarious too
Here is the recommended clip that says it:
ruclips.net/video/Y-Yi7uxTYNw/видео.html
Yes crazy after the first time that he made it back it was good but a bit awkward
lowkey?
They fought that way because they had smooth bore muskets and it allowed them to mass fire. It protected them from cavalry but did make them susceptible to artillery and grape shot. It was also easier to direct these formations.
Most career soldiers made it to retirement and the majority of guys killed on the battlefield then were through bayonets or artillery. The tactics were designed around the weapon.
Shane is a clever guy, he knows the finer points of his banter.
he and Duncan get my vote
Both my favourites guests on jre, the only comedians that are actually funny and interesting to listen too
When matchlocks were first introduced they fought in square formations and fought with pikes and matchlocks(ie the Spanish tercios), but in the 30 years war the swedes found out if they could spread the formation out and fired en masse it was a lot more likely to cause the enemy to route. The pikes in the formations were later replaced with bayonets.
Official_powerfuljre
👆Gift for you 🎁
So awesome to see Shane getting mad respect from all these legends Joe, Norm, Stanhope
Hellyeah Shane 💗💗💗💗
Official_powerfuljre
👆Gift for you 🎁
A wall of bullets, Joe, that's why. At least Shane mentioned rifling
Shane pretending to be able to take compliments well is so relatable...
shut up dude
It’s the only option
Old military tactics in large part had to be dismantled as the world’s strongest militaries became more and more gunpowder based. Cannons alone made cavalry in open field much more dangerous and the castles/fortifications of the time effectively obsolete. The line formations came from the inaccuracy of the weapons and from the psychological factor of being fired upon by an overwhelming amount of bullets at one time being inflicted on the enemy, war ends when one side loses the will to continue the fight.
Shane’s “Live in Austin” is easily the best special of the last ten years. He’s the funniest comedian out today.
Beautiful Dogs is better
Gillis is a legend, my favourite comedian who’s come up recently and I’m British. Rogan is a buffoon at times, the walking side by side was the best way of winning in a battle involving muskets. You inflicting maximum damage on your enemy by firing side by side in volleys, damaged a far larger area by doing so.
Less effective against guerrilla warfare however. That far larger area of damage works best when the enemy is also walking side by side right in front of your muskets
@@Stacey_-bf2mb It was far more effective than Guerilla Warfare. The reason Britain lost the Revolutionary War was because of the terrain, the sheer vastness of Americans and the French being involved.
@@tomben6180 lol is that what they teach you in England? I was taught the war was won because England couldn’t economically sustain a war any longer after the French blockaded them and prevented them from supplying the main land. “Sheer vastness of Americans” sounds like pure poppycock. The redcoats had not only a much more organized and larger army on the continent, but they also had a Navy. The entire first half of the revolutionary war up until the crossing of the Saratoga was a resounding win for the Brits. Except for maybe Bunker Hill and a couple other select engagements. England lost the colonies for the same reason they lost all their other colonial possessions, pervious wars made them bankrupt and unable to adequately sustain a defense.
@Sean Markovich the UK didn't give a shit about the USA man. They had bigger, better, more lucrative colonies. India being their jewel. Remember USA only recently became a powerful nation. Wasn't much to fight for over there back then.
BAHAHAHAHA! Sure that's why we lost! We lost because we suck. Just like we suck at most other things. End of!
It's because muskets weren't accurate, so they weren't really effective except in volley form. That required massed lines. Formations like this also makes complex maneuvers more easily communicated to the common soldiery, and theoretically "holding" the line improved morale, if discipline held.
Plus so many things could go wrong with firing a musket, powder being slightly wet or not being wedged properly, or pan not sparking, it required a large amount of soldiers to be effective
Also don’t forget that there was a code of honor. Guerilla warfare was deemed uncivilized and barbaric..
This video taught me that Shane knows a surprising amount about history and Joe has the history knowledge of a toddler raised in the jungle
Shane’s degree is in History
Is anyone else having trouble watching the full episode on Spotify
It skipped 1955 in mine and when I searched for it then I found it and now it’s in the line up when I watched it…but this hasn’t appeared yet.
Yeah I can’t find it
It's impossible not to ❤ Shane Gillis 💯👌🏼
Shane is an American treasure and must be protected at all costs
Wow haven't heard that comment about someone before
Joe is an American treasure and must be protected at all costs*
The British Army's famous red uniforms were super useful actually. On a battlefield without wind, the heavy hanging smoke of musket and canon fire can sit there for a long time, and it amasses very quickly. Even during reenactment battles today with far less people than the historic battles, this proves true. The Battle of Lundy's Lane in July 1814, for example, was fought on a sunny summer day, but the smoke was so thick that some of the lines of soldiers from both sides were firing only metres away from each other. Skirmishers wearing green to help themselves blend in with the trees and bushes goes back to at least the 1750s though, from during the Seven Years War (French and Indian War in North America).
you didnt really say what the use was. all you said was there was a lot of smoke. that doesnt mean red uniforms would be useful
I read somewhere that good coats were very expensive, and the color was so that you would stand out if you tried to desert.
Yes, no one could see each other due to all the smoke.
When they finally introduced smokeless powder in 1880, the red uniforms were replaced with khaki soon after.
But it is a total myth that the bright red uniforms made them easy targets. Fire one musket and visibility is poor anyway.
I bet you are from Canada! My neighbors family are all from lundy's lane.
@@superdoonz1fag answer
musket volley combined with artillery was the most efficient form of combat given the technological, organizational, and logistics capabilities of the time
Well said. They fought that way for a reason. It wasn't "so dumb" as stoned Joe thinks.
So happy to see Joe finally getting on the Gillis train after Legion of Skanks has been promoting him for the past 8 years. Stanhope told Joe to have on Gillis after the SNL debacle, and Joe waited 3 years after to finally get Shane on. Glad JRE fans are finally on board with the Young Bull
Joe had Shane on years ago
I’ve probably watched The Patriot over 100 times and still one of my favorite movies
Shane: thee chillest history teacher of all time
They did this way of warfare because it concentrated fire en masse towards the target... It was crazy but the rifles weren't accurate. There was also honor and the rifle barely replaced swords and spears... so it isn't that surprising. Its actually the most effective way. Imagine the dude who was in 10 or so battles without even a scratch. They existed.
I don't think they were even rifled. I think they were smooth bore muskets, so past 50 feet accuracy was poor.
Also has less casualties when they all just meet on a field
@@brockwagner939 rifling came in civil war, which was even more crazy because they were fighting Napoleonic style ..
@@geminierica4077 well it's still dangerous as hell and the rebels were not sophisticated or trained as extensively as the British. Still we won. Pretty amazing.
For a long time it was more important to clearly see your own troops on battlefield than to utilise camouflage. The British defeated a larger French army despite being conspicuous on the battlefield because of this. This changed when modern weapons were introduced.
I don't know how many times I've tried to subscribe to this channel..
GOD IS GOOD THE DAWG IS BACK
Civil war joke went from not working at open mics to being one of the best jokes in one of the best specials of the year
The marches in those formations for a couple different reasons
1 communication between different combat groups
2 maximize a signal volley of fire
3 protection against CAVALRY
The more men on the battlefield, the harder it is to command, so keeping in these formations alongside other more spread out formations resulted in a good compromise.
So proud of you, Peepop
History professors are usually really funny. Nothing gives you an eye for irony or more cynicism than learning about humans.
Shane is the man of comedy for 2022-2023 for sure! Gillis for president!
Poor shane probably wanted to correct all of joes stupid historical takes so bad but couldn't risk antagonizing him and losing the best career opportunity of his life
I wish shane had a podcast dedicated to history I'd watch everyday
I’m sorry but Shane actually doesn’t know much about history because everything he says here are wrong.
The civil war didn’t start because of slavery but it was the main justification, rallying point and motivation of the Union population.
Trench warfare has been used at least since Roman times but artillery meant that open battles were made rare.
The British wore red because of friendly fire, it was the cheapest dye and firearm are so inaccurate and unreliable that you were forced to use tanks to fire. Also the British were never beaten by the Prussian’s and beat the French in every single war since 1697 and that wasn’t even an English war it was a Dutch war.
What was the civil war fought over?
Shane should honestly b on the show as much as possible.
History is an easy avenue to comedy for those talented enough. Eddie Izzard is another guy who I think did fantastic work in this space. I think audiences are more likely to get it now.
I loved Eddie’s first HBO special ❤😂
Someone needs to go onto Joe's podcast and explain how pre-modern warfare worked.
It baffles me how a man his age, who has spoken to so many people, is so ignorant on so many things.
I want to like him, but he comes across like a moron sometimes
@@sweeepzone5155 it baffles you that someone does not know something about warfare in a specific point in history? You might just be easily baffled then silly
@@jthen8454 There's a difference between not understanding something and calling what you don't understand silly or that people in the past were dumb because they couldn't work it out
Shane realizing his joke landed on deaf ears and immediate pivots towards "idk why thats funny" damage control lmfaooooooooo i fucking love this dude
Why is this not on Spotify?
it is
Much love from Lancaster, PA!
Much love from Lancaster, CA
Let's goooo with that hitter booyysss!!!
As a poor guy from Manchester this had me in hysterics
you dont need to say poor if you say youre from Manchester
Fun Fact: Canons on boats were know as guns and had ropes with some slack tied on the knob at the end of the canon. When the canon fired, it would recoil and roll backwards. (they had wheels). The ropes tied at the knob end at the back of the canon would stop it from rolling too far back. The recoil was enough to push the canon far enough for it to be reloaded, to then be rolled forward off the side and shoot again. If they were bolted down to the deck, the recoil would destroy the wooden deck planks. :D
Shane repping ND and the Eagles warms my heart.
Nate Diaz and the Eagles.
Thankgod jre is back❤❤❤
My great great grandfather fought for the Union and his older brother, my great great uncle, fought for the Confederacy in the American Civil War. It was a war that didn't just cut across state lines but family lines as well.
Civil war tactics mostly involved fighting outside towns rather than within them. Fighting in the neighboring areas was seen as a safe way to conduct war. Of course this war during a time when people would have picnics near battlefields
That was only during First Manassas (Bull Run). Then everyone realized, specifically the Union, how long and brutal this war was going to be.
Love Shane, but I'd love to see Matt on as well. The chemistry between the three is so good
They were both just on JRE! top tier ep
I don’t care for Matt
@@HenryPaulThe3rd ok thanks for sharing.
Wearing the red uniforms wasn't silly. It was actually really smart. Smoke all over the field you needed to see where your guys were. Command and control is very important.
Gilly by his lonesome? Thank the gods for this blessed day
There is only one God
Shane has an impressive knowledge of history.
So does Colin Quinn
FUN FACT: One British ship of the line wielded the equivalent firepower in every stroke as Wellinton did in his defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo.
We are talking about 160+ of these ships including Privateers.
That is FUCKING INSANE.
The British had a thing caleed a square with all guns facing outwards and in all the history of wars with red coats the British squares were only broken 3 times I believe, which is crazy.
Shane is the LAST person I'd pick to be 100% historically literate
I love this dude. I feel like I could chop it up with him all afternoon. Sorry about your bud light Shane. My heart breaks for you lol
The thing is early guns werent very effective at range and the tactics were widely adopted from previous methods of fighting, namely melee in its different forms. You would just give guys muskets now instead of spears and after you either ran out of muskets to fire (rear lines reloading and oassing loaded guns up front or alternating shooters) or the enemy was too vlose a melee would then ensue once more. Bayonets and swords etc... since you had to fight to resolve a battle you might as well do it this way. If both sides just sit in bushes 1km apart the battle would never be resolved due to lack of reach. So basically to fight you had to get close so there was really no other great way of doing it.
Joe is really uneduated in musket warfare (which is fine, most people are lol), I think it would be great if he got a guest to talk about that stuff and the evolution of ancient warefare INTO the pike and shot age. It makes a lot more sense to fight in that fashion, a la The Patriot, when you take into account conscription, cavalry, artilery, morale, and taking objectives.
And about Mongols, I'm uneducated in them, but I think their strategy worked because literally everyone in their society is a cavalryman. And then they also stopped fighting each other, united, into a giant mass cavalry army, so that really expedites your logistics for war. They were nomads and were used to moving around all the time, whereas the armies they faced were land armies - sedentary peoples who are more used to a farming society. Their food must be carried with them, they walk to the battle field.
Uneduated
The parents of a co-worker of mine were working on the Yucca Nuclear Waste project, and the question came up: what languages should we write the warning signs in? After all, they need to be understood thousands of years from now. The obvious answers were thrown out: English, Russian, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Arabic. When someone suggested Hebrew.
"Hebrew?" came the reply. "Only a fraction of 1% of the world speaks Hebrew!"
"Yes", the suggester answered, "but they've been speaking it for 6000 years."
Hebrew was added to the suggestion list.
Why ain't this on Spotify yet 😂
If you haven’t already, search directly for joe shane and the episode number. It will come up
I’ve check a dozen times already
While I appreciate the humor and the thoughts, black powder firearms/cannons and the general accuracy of weapons back then was significantly different than modern standards.
Marching in rank and file with firearms - until relatively accurate rifling came about - was simply an extension of spear/shield formations, just with a greater reach.
The time it took to reload an individual black powder firearm meant that individual soldiers were almost not worth considering in a fight, but rather a volley of fire from the formations line-by-line was the thing to consider. If each soldier shot their inaccurate weapons out of sync with each other, then the overall effect is lessened. Also, when coordinating with a large group, synchronization tends to be necessary to keep the speed up to a certain pace.
Of course, these antiquated strategies became downright harmful by the time that barrel rifling allowed an individual soldier to hit another individual soldier with some consistency, starting in the Civil War and especially becoming noticeable during the first world war.
Things tend to be a certain way for a reason, even if that previous reason is no longer valid by today's standards. At least until around the mid-1800's, marching rank and file and firing in a volley was useful for various militaries.
That war style became the new way because the Age of Enlightenment brought with it a thought out process of etiquette in all forms. So dying in a “respectful manner with rules” was more humanistic to the brutish way animals die.
How fuckin stoned was Joe in this episode?
He was on the space shuttle. Whenever he asks rhetorical questions in order to hear his own voice, you know he's completely baked.
The reason for the big line firing style of warfare was because muskets on their own weren't very accurate, but they were more effective when fired en masse. It was also very fast and cheap to train an army to use this technique, so armies could be put together and used effectively much more efficiently than, say, a feudal system in which the head of the army has to rely on his knights and noblemen to provide soldiers as a cobbled-together army. Linear warfare took that power away from landowners and noblemen and gave it to the government, who no longer needed to rely on them to field an army
Armies would wear bright colors to say “here we come and we ain’t hiding” it would intimidate their enemies.