Damned if they don't make the most of having only a single cannon on the set. The display of horror is, of course, exceptionally. Hollywood: Oh, there goes my pals head flying. Oh well.
this looks like more realistic war footage than most of the real news reals shot during WW2 the hand held camera, and the fact the soldiers actually look and talk to the camera men, something which WW2 correspondents were told not to do.
I think the fact that the men making that film were WWII and WWI veterans matters here. They were using their own experiences to fill in the gaps in their own knowledge and the knowledge of historians.
Weird to think that world war 1 only ended like 45 years before this film ended. At first I was like nooooo there were no ww1 veterans on set here but yeah you’re right there definitely could’ve been. If they brought vets on it definitely helps because like you say their experience can help fill in the gaps only a soldier whose seen combat can. I just wish they could’ve gotten men who actually fought at Culloden but they were indisposed.
This movie is actually a good example of the constant question authenticity vs. accuracy. Does a movie has to be accurate to be a good portrail of a certain era? I think, yes and no. It does have to be accurate enough to not misrepresent things, but going like this movie, having artillery and muskets fire a bit too fast, is actually benefitial to make the movie mor authentic, Bringing that feeling of the 18th century to people that have not read any books or watched any documentaries about that time.
As someone who was a intern at the national park service. I worked as an intern teaching people about cannons /artillery at Richmond battle field parks. You would not believe how many people think that cannons do not re-coil and when we were would go though gunnery drills how many times I would have to remind them that if we were really firing this cannon they would have a broken leg or a broken foot. Secondly, One thing that you have to keep in mind and you did not discuss about it , though I loved your explanations and everything. Is that in reenactments and in movies they are not using full charges to fire cannons they are using half charges and are not Shooting live rounds. Because of that the cannons do not recoil as much as they would in real actual combat and are not as loud or as much black powder in the air to. I Feel like this movie which I’ve seen before, portrays that very well.
I believe that a full charged gun recoiling could kill someone. General John Gibbon at The Cornfield at Antietam writes of a veteran Gunner who was so flustered by the action he forgot to step back and was crushed by the recoil of the piece’s wheel!
On cannons. That siege cannon shown in "The Patriot" clip is a 24 pounder and would not have been used in a field campaign. I have an actual solid 24 lb. shot from the Yorktown siege (apparently fired from the Grand French Battery based on location of find). My father acquired it in an authorized dig when they were improving the battle field and visitors center for Queen Elizabeth's visit in 1957. He did survey work for the construction company hired to make improvements on the battlefield and Colonial Parkway.
When it comes to films about the Jacobite rebellion I’d just be overjoyed if they managed to get the politics correct instead of the whimsical Victoriana myth that it was Scotland Vs England. Not only were there plenty Scots in the Government ranks the Jacobites were not heavily supported in Scotland at all. Their Catholicism and belief in feudal serfdom were at odds with the vast majority of post reformation enlightenment Scottish society. In fact, It is highly likely that a lot of the foot soldiers in the Jacobite ranks were not particularly keen on the serfdom that saw them forced onto the field of battle.
It's because otherwise there would have to be a settling of accounts of how the British monarchy and institutions were not this timeless, national treasure that Britain kept by holding the line against new bad ideas, but an assemblage of invented traditions like any other, shaped by a series of revolutions which reactionaries tried to overthrow by force.
The Jacobite Wars were ultimately a petty affair driven by religious or local prejudice than any great national clashes. Many men went to one side or another simply based on what clans/families were involved. It's a bit of a crossover between greater Anglo-French wars, a dynastic feud between the Stuarts and Parliament, and local enmities between clans and between the highlands and lowlands. The film is nice in showing that while the whole affair is nothing in the large scale, it was deeply personal and people still died. Think of the Ethiopian Civil Wars. The news barely mentions them, but they are still bloody, intense, and very personal for the people fighting for their minor factions and regions.
Although this may be very accurate and authentic I cannot overlook the fact that it has (as one might expect) the standard 1960s BBC documentary narration accompanying it. Due to the fact that this sort of thing was so heavily and relentlessly spoofed by Monty Python; I am unable to watch this without expecting the camera to pan across the battlefield to reveal John Cleese sitting behind a desk in a tuxedo, or for Graham Chapman to pop up and shout "stop this, it's far too silly."
Culloden really shows how budget isn't an excuse for a lack of intensity and verisimilitude I'd like to see a movie about Castillon: the dreaded English archers, kings of the battlefield, suddenly getting dismembered by more cannons than they had ever seen before, just getting torn apart. Or about Mohacs: 350 cannons present on the field. That's one thing I will take away from Gettysberg: it kinda makes the sheer lethality of the cannons underwhelming. You'd need to show trees and humans alike just getting torn to shreds, limbs of both littering the ground.
I'd like to also see a film showing rockets not as harmless fireworks but something very deadly. People don't take seriously how harmful they are (even the sound). In medieval China, rockets killed thousands of people in a flurry of arrows and smoke. An intense sight and smell noise as the whizzing and cracking and roar mixes with the cries of the stricken.
I have at least three ancestors that fought at and survived Culloden according to family anecdotes and the Jacobite muster roll from the day. That charge just captures me. That had to be about the longest three hundred yards ever run. And over boggy ground.
You should definable talk about the movie Peterloo. I loved it. I'm not an expert on that time period or that particular history but to me, it seems great.
Maybe the problem is that larger-scale films have to show the damage closer to scale to help people understand the battle from Napoleon's or Wellington's perspective, while smaller-scale battles can exaggerate the scale a bit, to emphasize the psychological effect.
Excellent video as usual. You're so animated, and you really get across the kind of emotional scale of the things you cover, which is so rarely focused upon. Was led to your channel view the Operation Odysseus collaboration you did a while back. Keep up the good work.
@@carbon4454 There were, of course, Irishmen fighting on both sides together with Scots on both sides, English on both sides. Altogether a terrible, pointless mess of death for ordinary people who had no choice.
This is a good way of putting it. No matter who you are, and no matter the weapon or period. First time a mortar round came down in anger near my platoon first time on active deployment, I needed to change my trousers. In the world of the sword, the cannon is the wrath of the Gods. The final argument of kings indeed.
When you described the lack of recoil of guns on many movies it reminded me of Hornblower, I love the tv series, but the cannons recoil is tiny and sometimes they just wheel it back manually but you can tell, it just makes it feel less real and does not make you think of what kind of danger the cannons are doing.
Not a whole lot of movies get it right about artillery, the first place I personally found that really communicated its devastation was actually Cracked ("5 stupid war myths everyone believes thanks to movies"). When I actually learned the statistics, I was shocked that it was *that* dominant on the battlefield. But after some searching and more learning, it just began to make sense. In WW1 alone, something like over a billion shells were fired (the number varies, but it was probably over a billion across all theaters of the conflict). That's a lot of shells when one alone can kill multiple dozens if it lands in the right spot. Just one, and not even a particularly big one. And then you see where the technology has gone since...truly a terrifying weapon to face.
The Sovereign Servant is a more recent movie set in the 18th century, It would be interesting to see Brandon compare the goal of such movies, one being more adventurous type.
Brandon....You point out some interesting facts. One thing, however, at 4:53...I don't think the reference to being "shelled" is accurate given the artillery pieces shown in the movie. But...I will admit the special effects people were using some hefty charges in those guns to get the recoil they did. I still contend the movie S.E. guys messed up when they used modified breech loaders rather than actual flintlocks. That is a major flaw in my book...but I agree the human reaction portrayed by the actors in this movie was spot on.
I was once surprisingly close to a tank exercise, and was astonished at how different the noise was from what I was used to from the movies. That being said, I was actually, at a different occasion, really close to a blackpowder 3-pounder firing, and it was an astonishingly visceral experience. They are LOUD. I was maybe 7m to the side, and I could feel the blast go through my guts. Being shot at with one of these once every couple seconds is not a situation I want to find myself in. Ever.
portrayed, that was the word i was looking for a while back, i kept using conveyed. Excellent video, Happy Halloween. Good movie too, watched this with a friend, really does capture the grit
I know very good case of artillery totally destroying morale of opposing force. At Battle of Koniggratz, in the centre part of the battle, some 80 000 Prussians were marching forward against about 50 000 Austrians, who also had grand battery of 134 cannons. Intensity of fire of the cannons was so big, that as Prussians were getting closer and closer, they were forced to find shelter in local woods and they would stay in those woods for loooong hours, getting massive casualties (remember, it is 80 000 troops we are talking about). Many Prussian battalions started to retreat, their own artillery couldn't reach the frontline, because it would be destroyed by fourious Austrian artillery. Prussians themselves thought they lost and were preparing for reatreat. This was all achieved only thanks to 134 cannons! (However it would all go in vain, as Austrians still lost the battle)
They did a great job with a couple of dozen extras and a single gun. By using clever camera angles, the director was able to give an impression of horror and drama. Modern directors could take a leaf out of the book. This was the era when the BBC made some superb TV...(unlike these days)
If I have understood things correctly the speed of the projectiles from 17th and 18th century cannons was such that you could very well see the cannon balls coming towards you, at least the bigger ones like 24 pounders. That in itself must have been especially terrifying, since they still moved extremely fast and as soldiers were in a formation chances of actively dodging that cannonball must have been close to zero.
hey brandon im a big fan, thought it might be worth noting, for some reason youtube randomly unsubscribed me from your channel, i dont know why this is the case, but i thought it was odd not seeing any uploads from you untill i searched you up might of happened to other subscribers aswell
Noah - The first such term to be coined (by Eric Hobsbawm) was the "long nineteenth century", from the French Revolution (1789) to the Great War (1914), as this period shows a consistent pattern of historical development. The "long eighteenth century" is a less well-defined period, but from the end of the Thirty Years' War (1684) to the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) is a convenient bracket - or, in British history, from the Glorious Revolution to the Industrial Revolution.
Could you review the beginning battle scene of “Free State of Jones”? I know it’s a bit out of your focus. But I feel that’s it’s a really visceral and real portrayal of the American Civil war. And the horrors of shrapnel shot during the 18th and 19th century. Edit: To clarify, I mean the battle scene directly after the opening credits. Also the field hospital scene afterwards. The only clip I could find on RUclips is after both of those scenes and just shows Newt Knights desertion.
johncashrocks221 I mean, they’re not totally accurate but maybe not the worst I’ve ever seen. The uniforms were fairly accurate for a Mississippi regiment during the civil war. The reason I only mentioned the very first battle scene is because it’s really the only accurate duplication of linear warfare. The rest is just small groups of soldiers running around by themselves, led by sergeants and corporals.
@@drinks1019 I don't think you've ever seen original photographs of Mississippi men from the civil war or seen extremely authentic reenactors, because the outfits in a movie almost looked like they were bought in a fucking halloween store. The confederate troops in that film looked like what uneducated people in the 21st century think Confederate soldiers looked like, including the people who produced the film.
any info on when those chock blocks were introduced into artillery batteries not sure if its a ww1 thing or 18th century. the thing im talking about are the blocks that are placed behind the wheel then the recoil rolls the wheel up the ramp and down back to its original spot
They likely appear after gun carriages that can adjust train without relocating the piece are introduced. Field guns and howitzers of the 18th and most of the 19th century require turning the entire carriage to alter the point of aim left and right, which rules out the practicality of chocks in most situations.
I think it shows very well 'the truth which makes a nonsense of war, that the girls of all nations say much the same things when they are ina soldier's arms and that the men of all nations look much the same when they are dead'. A quote from one of the Brensham Village series by John Moore (from memory so it may not be quite accurate).
Doesn't show how round shot actually worked either. It relied on bounce where it gained momentum and would tear through the ranks. Too many films about the 18th century show artillery "shells" exploding on impact. I guess it makes it more exciting and expected by modern audiences. Also,I must add that I don't think the scene is too brutal. Maybe for the RATE of shot,as you stated. But I'll bet it was even MORE brutal with the amount muskets being fired,for after the well executed volley's were fired, supposed to be 10th century warfare battles degenerated into a "load and fire as fast as you can" affair. So I'm guessing the result was that there would be shots fired from...wherever and at no marked intervals at all. The great thing about this documentary is it shows the results of gunfire and cannon fire resulting mostly in wounds rather than immediate fatalities. Most die from wounds whether it's in a couple of seconds, minutes,hours.... or a couple of days!
I dressed as a British Grenadier Drummer on the first day of Halloween and a Highland Grenadier Drummer for second! (Seven Years War, French and Indian War, or Jacobite Rebellion.)
The best and most terrifying video I've ever seen of artillery from this general period is this video of an American Civil War replica cannon firing live rounds at a range at Fort McCoy, WI. ruclips.net/video/jL1DkrYL70s/видео.html I think it's the only video footage that captures the noise that men on the receiving end of these cannons would've heard. The different noises they make is something truly lacking in film.
It should be pointed out that the three-pound balls flying through the close packed ranks would do terrible damage, as witnessed by the survivors of the Napoleonic and US Civil War. Those men wrote of seeing whole files of 4-6 men being killed by one round. At Waterloo one survivor, Ensign Leek of the 52nd Regiment, watched as French gunners loaded and fired apparently at him. The ball took off the heads of the 4 men in the rank next to him.😲😲😲
The piping is accurate as well. The piper is playing solo, and he is playing a piobaireachd, the music of the time, if a little slowly for the time. The pipes the piper plays, however, are from the 20th or very late 19th century. The pipe band in “Waterloo” is completely wrong. Pipers never played with drummers until the Crimean War, when groups of pipers played together with drummers, like fifers.
Cumberland’s veterans of Fontenoy and Dettengen did a magnificent job of defending their homeland against the Italian rabble rouser and his horde. Not since Flodden had the English Army, aided by loyal Scots, defended their nation so well. But where do you get these fantastic casualty figures? Jacobite casualties of around 1800, mostly dead, is probably pretty accurate. But the Royal army lost no more than fifty killed and 250 wounded, some of them mortally. A couple of Stuart Reid’s books list the name of every redcoat casualty and how they were injured. If all your videos are this inaccurate you could use a bit more research.
Sorry, Brandon (Probably you won't see this anyway) but I think this time you get just a little carried by sentimentalism. As One who has experimented not war, but combat, the movie looks a lot more dramatic than the actual thing is in reality. Yes... we all see that 13 yo child screaming but... IRL the child would pass out due the enormous pain (non-lethal wounds) or dead after a few minutes... there is no wat that after all the bombardment the child was still there (I mean they put the scene twice) and yes, I understand they are afraid but... professional soldiers would not look like that, and amateurs would lose cohesion and run away... it seems very VERY unreal and kind of a film "against" war rather than historically accurate
I'm with you. The rate of fire is much too quick. Yet it is a difference to sit in comfort in front of a TV set or to stand in missery in front of incoming cast iron balls. It's hard to translate the feeling of utterly helpless horror to us later generations. So they just had to add some drama to get it as right as you can.
I feel that's a common thing in this period in media: it took time to reload so it's not cinematic and has to be done in montage; this applies to small arms.
The thing that I always notice with portrayals of solid-shot artillery is that it behaves as if it's all late-period HE _shells_ which were usually just not around at the time they're trying to portray. I have a theory that a lot of this stuff comes from WWI itself, this is the period that filmmaking took off in, so it's inevitable that veterans found their way onto productions and were consulted on martial matters; "What sound does a sword make when it's drawn?" "I've got mine at home, I'll bring it tomorrow." (Brings modern steel-sheathed cavalry sabre which indeed goes "schwing" quite impressively when drawn) "What does cannon fire look like?" "I saw it at Verdun. It's...(Proceeds to describe modern bombardment and its effects).
Oh my ! I know precisely what part of the book Im Stahl Gewittern youre referring to, the shell landing right on his company just before the march 21st 1918 assault, it's absolute horror, the first and only time Ernst Jünger has a mental breakdown through the entire book
In Flanders Fields grows the red poppy. Artillery is god of war for a reason......a well aimed shot can devastate an enemy’s morale...I.E. the cannon shot at battle of New Orleans, War of 1812.
4 года назад+4
It's as they say: A bulet with a name on it. An artillery shell? 'To whom it may conern'
my great-great-...something grandfather was a private infantry soldier with the 82nd Illinois Volunteer Regiment (A Company) during the Civil War, mustered out of Springfield. he served at Chancellorsville. some of his letters survived. i've read them, and there are some very insightful, interesting passages that give a glimpse into the reality of war: "all the boys love the gun crews. the best they do their job, the least [less] we have to do ours." "during the last battle [Chancellorsville], i heard the guns thunder and big balls skipped across the field like stones tosed [sic] across a pond. i never hurt such a startle in my life. one came directly on me, and the man straight [in] front of me lost his right shoulder. scrap of bone hit my face and cap and i was disgustted [sic], but we stepped on. [Colonel] Hecker got shot in the action. like to die. my friend Emil who i enlisted with caught a ball in his knee and like to limp once its [sic] cut off. Lizzie [his wife] you can't picture 500 boys shot apart all at once, screaming and bleeding and carrying on like devils from hell, and the guns never stopping a minute." "friend Emil passed to God last Sunday. the sargent-major [sic] told me he went poorly, cursing the army and the war and the enemy. he said he'd wished he'd never heard of the confedrates [sic] or abe lincoln or anyone else who started this business. his brother Paul gave me his shoes that are a good size for me. mine are broken through to the dirt and i am glad to have them. though i'd pray all day to heaven if i could give back the shoes and keep the man who used to wear them."
Looking at the recoil they are firing actual ammunition at full powder charges a couple of those shots seem like could possible be even more than is required. But my it really does show the horror and power of these weapons.
this is maybe too intense? i am either completely desensitized too violence or you dont consume violent content at all ..,i actually smiled at the scene , thinking at first it was a joke but yes i entirely agree with Brandon , cannons are pussy-fied in most movies either because of safety concerns or directors fearing their PG-13-fetish is endangered
Yes, though mostly in the range and precision departments. The caliber of heavy artillery has mostly standardised around 15cm for practicality. Then again, the heaviest field guns the 17th to 19th century soldier would face had a munition weight of 24lb round shot (roughly 14kg) from a range no further than they could see while a modern 15cm howitzer fires an almost 50kg shell from up to 50km away, and about 10kg of that weight is high explosives with a fuse capable of detonating the shell 4-8m above the ground or with a delay to detonate it after passing through the roof or wall of a building to explode within.
My headmaster in my school in Inverness was an extra in the film, he’s one of the Gaelic speaking Jacobites, young looking with a bonnet on, the artillery portrayal is very accurate, the recoil particularly effective, also the balls bouncing on the moor. I’m an ex Gunner, ex British Army. #UBIQUE
Several things are seen-here that are almost never shown!! 1. The gunners are rolling the piece back-into position after it has been fired! 2. At 5:53 a misfire has occurred and the charge is being drawn from the unfired and STILL Dangerous Piece!!!🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
A small battle but the world would be completely different today if the Jacobites had won The battle only lasted 40 minutes If it had gone the other way their would have been no British empire, no American wars of independence as there would have been no United Kingdom etc
The production crew only had one gun for this whole film and still capture the terror of the arty.
I've watched the film several times, and I'm constantly amazed at how much they accomplished with as miniscule a budget and crew as they had.
Due to the recoil it looks like they're firing actual shot
Well, for one, they seem to be firing actual shot out of the guns. That's not something you can do a lot on movie sets. Hats off to them.
Damned if they don't make the most of having only a single cannon on the set. The display of horror is, of course, exceptionally.
Hollywood: Oh, there goes my pals head flying. Oh well.
this looks like more realistic war footage than most of the real news reals shot during WW2
the hand held camera, and the fact the soldiers actually look and talk to the camera men, something which WW2 correspondents were told not to do.
I think the fact that the men making that film were WWII and WWI veterans matters here. They were using their own experiences to fill in the gaps in their own knowledge and the knowledge of historians.
Weird to think that world war 1 only ended like 45 years before this film ended. At first I was like nooooo there were no ww1 veterans on set here but yeah you’re right there definitely could’ve been. If they brought vets on it definitely helps because like you say their experience can help fill in the gaps only a soldier whose seen combat can. I just wish they could’ve gotten men who actually fought at Culloden but they were indisposed.
This movie is actually a good example of the constant question authenticity vs. accuracy. Does a movie has to be accurate to be a good portrail of a certain era?
I think, yes and no. It does have to be accurate enough to not misrepresent things, but going like this movie, having artillery and muskets fire a bit too fast, is actually benefitial to make the movie mor authentic, Bringing that feeling of the 18th century to people that have not read any books or watched any documentaries about that time.
As someone who was a intern at the national park service. I worked as an intern teaching people about cannons /artillery at Richmond battle field parks.
You would not believe how many people think that cannons do not re-coil and when we were would go though gunnery drills how many times I would have to remind them that if we were really firing this cannon they would have a broken leg or a broken foot.
Secondly, One thing that you have to keep in mind and you did not discuss about it , though I loved your explanations and everything. Is that in reenactments and in movies they are not using full charges to fire cannons they are using half charges and are not Shooting live rounds. Because of that the cannons do not recoil as much as they would in real actual combat and are not as loud or as much black powder in the air to. I Feel like this movie which I’ve seen before, portrays that very well.
I believe that a full charged gun recoiling could kill someone. General John Gibbon at The Cornfield at Antietam writes of a veteran Gunner who was so flustered by the action he forgot to step back and was crushed by the recoil of the piece’s wheel!
Hello Sir, an interesting video as always but I wanted to say thank you for wearing your Poppy.
"We Will Remember Them"
Glad to see that cannonballs actually bounce and not EXPLODE!
I’m glad that this movie is finally getting the attention it deserves. It is criminally underrated
Great thing about this clip is seeing the 3pdr kick back and the professionalism of trained gun crew. Great scene
On cannons. That siege cannon shown in "The Patriot" clip is a 24 pounder and would not have been used in a field campaign. I have an actual solid 24 lb. shot from the Yorktown siege (apparently fired from the Grand French Battery based on location of find). My father acquired it in an authorized dig when they were improving the battle field and visitors center for Queen Elizabeth's visit in 1957. He did survey work for the construction company hired to make improvements on the battlefield and Colonial Parkway.
When it comes to films about the Jacobite rebellion I’d just be overjoyed if they managed to get the politics correct instead of the whimsical Victoriana myth that it was Scotland Vs England. Not only were there plenty Scots in the Government ranks the Jacobites were not heavily supported in Scotland at all. Their Catholicism and belief in feudal serfdom were at odds with the vast majority of post reformation enlightenment Scottish society. In fact, It is highly likely that a lot of the foot soldiers in the Jacobite ranks were not particularly keen on the serfdom that saw them forced onto the field of battle.
It's because otherwise there would have to be a settling of accounts of how the British monarchy and institutions were not this timeless, national treasure that Britain kept by holding the line against new bad ideas, but an assemblage of invented traditions like any other, shaped by a series of revolutions which reactionaries tried to overthrow by force.
The Jacobite Wars were ultimately a petty affair driven by religious or local prejudice than any great national clashes. Many men went to one side or another simply based on what clans/families were involved. It's a bit of a crossover between greater Anglo-French wars, a dynastic feud between the Stuarts and Parliament, and local enmities between clans and between the highlands and lowlands. The film is nice in showing that while the whole affair is nothing in the large scale, it was deeply personal and people still died. Think of the Ethiopian Civil Wars. The news barely mentions them, but they are still bloody, intense, and very personal for the people fighting for their minor factions and regions.
I feel like atleast some of the production crew had been too war and used that to create the atmosphere and characters too a certain extent
Had been toooooooooooooo war?
1964 britain? I would think a large number of them served during the war.
@@thedamnyankee1 Kind of my point.
Although this may be very accurate and authentic I cannot overlook the fact that it has (as one might expect) the standard 1960s BBC documentary narration accompanying it. Due to the fact that this sort of thing was so heavily and relentlessly spoofed by Monty Python; I am unable to watch this without expecting the camera to pan across the battlefield to reveal John Cleese sitting behind a desk in a tuxedo, or for Graham Chapman to pop up and shout "stop this, it's far too silly."
Most Movie Cannons Do Not Even Have Recoil But Some Of Them Like This Movie Has Recoil AND I LOVE IT!
Culloden really shows how budget isn't an excuse for a lack of intensity and verisimilitude
I'd like to see a movie about Castillon: the dreaded English archers, kings of the battlefield, suddenly getting dismembered by more cannons than they had ever seen before, just getting torn apart. Or about Mohacs: 350 cannons present on the field. That's one thing I will take away from Gettysberg: it kinda makes the sheer lethality of the cannons underwhelming. You'd need to show trees and humans alike just getting torn to shreds, limbs of both littering the ground.
I'd like to also see a film showing rockets not as harmless fireworks but something very deadly. People don't take seriously how harmful they are (even the sound). In medieval China, rockets killed thousands of people in a flurry of arrows and smoke. An intense sight and smell noise as the whizzing and cracking and roar mixes with the cries of the stricken.
I am thinking it must have been hell seeing a ball tear threw the ranks and watching the gun reload for the next one.
"We're being shelled to pieces." 4:53. Surely they didn't use artillery shells at Culloden.
I have at least three ancestors that fought at and survived Culloden according to family anecdotes and the Jacobite muster roll from the day. That charge just captures me. That had to be about the longest three hundred yards ever run. And over boggy ground.
You should definable talk about the movie Peterloo. I loved it. I'm not an expert on that time period or that particular history but to me, it seems great.
Maybe the problem is that larger-scale films have to show the damage closer to scale to help people understand the battle from Napoleon's or Wellington's perspective, while smaller-scale battles can exaggerate the scale a bit, to emphasize the psychological effect.
Excellent video as usual. You're so animated, and you really get across the kind of emotional scale of the things you cover, which is so rarely focused upon. Was led to your channel view the Operation Odysseus collaboration you did a while back. Keep up the good work.
It's completely ridiculous that "Star Wars" has a more accurate depiction of cannons than most movies about the 18th and 19th century
I watched the movie 2 times because of the first video! Once again, great job!
_Sound the pibroch loud and high_
_Frae John o' Groats to the Isle of Skye_
_Let every clan with battle cry_
_Arise and follow Charlie!_
Imagine, another Stuart on the throne...
God save the one true king!
Ehhhhhh........ Éire go Bragh!
@@carbon4454 There were, of course, Irishmen fighting on both sides together with Scots on both sides, English on both sides. Altogether a terrible, pointless mess of death for ordinary people who had no choice.
I didn't expect to see the poppy again. #welcome back poppy
This is a good way of putting it.
No matter who you are, and no matter the weapon or period.
First time a mortar round came down in anger near my platoon first time on active deployment, I needed to change my trousers.
In the world of the sword, the cannon is the wrath of the Gods. The final argument of kings indeed.
When you described the lack of recoil of guns on many movies it reminded me of Hornblower, I love the tv series, but the cannons recoil is tiny and sometimes they just wheel it back manually but you can tell, it just makes it feel less real and does not make you think of what kind of danger the cannons are doing.
Not a whole lot of movies get it right about artillery, the first place I personally found that really communicated its devastation was actually Cracked ("5 stupid war myths everyone believes thanks to movies").
When I actually learned the statistics, I was shocked that it was *that* dominant on the battlefield. But after some searching and more learning, it just began to make sense. In WW1 alone, something like over a billion shells were fired (the number varies, but it was probably over a billion across all theaters of the conflict). That's a lot of shells when one alone can kill multiple dozens if it lands in the right spot. Just one, and not even a particularly big one.
And then you see where the technology has gone since...truly a terrifying weapon to face.
The Sovereign Servant is a more recent movie set in the 18th century, It would be interesting to see Brandon compare the goal of such movies, one being more adventurous type.
I remember this from the series "You are there"
Brandon....You point out some interesting facts. One thing, however, at 4:53...I don't think the reference to being "shelled" is accurate given the artillery pieces shown in the movie. But...I will admit the special effects people were using some hefty charges in those guns to get the recoil they did. I still contend the movie S.E. guys messed up when they used modified breech loaders rather than actual flintlocks. That is a major flaw in my book...but I agree the human reaction portrayed by the actors in this movie was spot on.
You've gotten really good at making these, cheers man
I was once surprisingly close to a tank exercise, and was astonished at how different the noise was from what I was used to from the movies.
That being said, I was actually, at a different occasion, really close to a blackpowder 3-pounder firing, and it was an astonishingly visceral experience. They are LOUD. I was maybe 7m to the side, and I could feel the blast go through my guts. Being shot at with one of these once every couple seconds is not a situation I want to find myself in. Ever.
portrayed, that was the word i was looking for a while back, i kept using conveyed. Excellent video, Happy Halloween. Good movie too, watched this with a friend, really does capture the grit
I know very good case of artillery totally destroying morale of opposing force. At Battle of Koniggratz, in the centre part of the battle, some 80 000 Prussians were marching forward against about 50 000 Austrians, who also had grand battery of 134 cannons. Intensity of fire of the cannons was so big, that as Prussians were getting closer and closer, they were forced to find shelter in local woods and they would stay in those woods for loooong hours, getting massive casualties (remember, it is 80 000 troops we are talking about). Many Prussian battalions started to retreat, their own artillery couldn't reach the frontline, because it would be destroyed by fourious Austrian artillery. Prussians themselves thought they lost and were preparing for reatreat. This was all achieved only thanks to 134 cannons! (However it would all go in vain, as Austrians still lost the battle)
Dang, I'd never even heard of this one, surprisingly good.
Awesome, let's talk about artillery. The film you're talking about is a solid piece of work . As regards historical accuracy, 6/10.
I have been to culloden. A very tight battlefield. The redcoats fired approx 7 artillery rounds to Scottish one.
No CGI here guys, each man is a man. And also the guns is just one gun! ❤
We need more movies like culloden
They did a great job with a couple of dozen extras and a single gun. By using clever camera angles, the director was able to give an impression of horror and drama. Modern directors could take a leaf out of the book.
This was the era when the BBC made some superb TV...(unlike these days)
I went to cullodon when I went to Uist in the summer
If I have understood things correctly the speed of the projectiles from 17th and 18th century cannons was such that you could very well see the cannon balls coming towards you, at least the bigger ones like 24 pounders. That in itself must have been especially terrifying, since they still moved extremely fast and as soldiers were in a formation chances of actively dodging that cannonball must have been close to zero.
hey brandon im a big fan, thought it might be worth noting, for some reason youtube randomly unsubscribed me from your channel, i dont know why this is the case, but i thought it was odd not seeing any uploads from you untill i searched you up
might of happened to other subscribers aswell
Hum, that is rather strange! Thank you for letting me know. I'm glad you found out!
Wow the recoil of those guns is immense
Would like to know more about the size guns that were used in the field at that time
All they had in Cumberland’s Army were three pounders. “Battalion” Guns.
@@grenzer45
So the tininess of the gun is accurate. Good to know.
I would imagine light guns were most suited to Highland roads.
Love your new suit! I dressed as a British Grenadier and a Highland Grenadier Drummer in that time period!
I love the new suit.
Might I ask as to why you refer to the ‘long’ 18th century?
Noah - The first such term to be coined (by Eric Hobsbawm) was the "long nineteenth century", from the French Revolution (1789) to the Great War (1914), as this period shows a consistent pattern of historical development. The "long eighteenth century" is a less well-defined period, but from the end of the Thirty Years' War (1684) to the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) is a convenient bracket - or, in British history, from the Glorious Revolution to the Industrial Revolution.
Tevildo Thank you very much!
Could you review the beginning battle scene of “Free State of Jones”? I know it’s a bit out of your focus. But I feel that’s it’s a really visceral and real portrayal of the American Civil war. And the horrors of shrapnel shot during the 18th and 19th century.
Edit: To clarify, I mean the battle scene directly after the opening credits. Also the field hospital scene afterwards. The only clip I could find on RUclips is after both of those scenes and just shows Newt Knights desertion.
The uniforms and battle tactics in Free state of Jones were some of the worst I've ever seen, but the visceral violence they somehow got spot on.
johncashrocks221 I mean, they’re not totally accurate but maybe not the worst I’ve ever seen. The uniforms were fairly accurate for a Mississippi regiment during the civil war. The reason I only mentioned the very first battle scene is because it’s really the only accurate duplication of linear warfare. The rest is just small groups of soldiers running around by themselves, led by sergeants and corporals.
@@drinks1019 I don't think you've ever seen original photographs of Mississippi men from the civil war or seen extremely authentic reenactors, because the outfits in a movie almost looked like they were bought in a fucking halloween store. The confederate troops in that film looked like what uneducated people in the 21st century think Confederate soldiers looked like, including the people who produced the film.
any info on when those chock blocks were introduced into artillery batteries not sure if its a ww1 thing or 18th century. the thing im talking about are the blocks that are placed behind the wheel then the recoil rolls the wheel up the ramp and down back to its original spot
I'd guess sometime after the Franco-Prussian War, due to the increase in accuracy and power of artillery.
But it's just a guess.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher yeah im not sure either but itd be a good video idea for brandon
They likely appear after gun carriages that can adjust train without relocating the piece are introduced. Field guns and howitzers of the 18th and most of the 19th century require turning the entire carriage to alter the point of aim left and right, which rules out the practicality of chocks in most situations.
I think it shows very well 'the truth which makes a nonsense of war, that the girls of all nations say much the same things when they are ina soldier's arms and that the men of all nations look much the same when they are dead'. A quote from one of the Brensham Village series by John Moore (from memory so it may not be quite accurate).
My god
Doesn't show how round shot actually worked either. It relied on bounce where it gained momentum and would tear through the ranks. Too many films about the 18th century show artillery "shells" exploding on impact. I guess it makes it more exciting and expected by modern audiences.
Also,I must add that I don't think the scene is too brutal. Maybe for the RATE of shot,as you stated. But I'll bet it was even MORE brutal with the amount muskets being fired,for after the well executed volley's were fired, supposed to be 10th century warfare battles degenerated into a "load and fire as fast as you can" affair. So I'm guessing the result was that there would be shots fired from...wherever and at no marked intervals at all. The great thing about this documentary is it shows the results of gunfire and cannon fire resulting mostly in wounds rather than immediate fatalities. Most die from wounds whether it's in a couple of seconds, minutes,hours.... or a couple of days!
The only thing which broke the illusion were those wider shots where you could see how few extras there were.
Happy Halloween! I went as a British soldier.
Which period? There are a wide range of soldiers. Just curious. I used my napoleonic uniform (black Brunswick)
American Revolution. Got it online.
I dressed as a British Grenadier Drummer on the first day of Halloween and a Highland Grenadier Drummer for second! (Seven Years War, French and Indian War, or Jacobite Rebellion.)
Sorry for the late reply, I was a regular, but I was considering bringing my trumpet.
Nice! I was a regular, and I was considering bringing my trumpet.
20 plus years as a reenactor the confusion smoke and noise from a bombardment cannot be put on film accurately at all
Artillery is the decider, Infantry is the fodder
Is cavalry the hammer, or the scalpel?
@@eldorados_lost_searcher Maybe the flipping of the table?
Remember: in war infantry is queen but ARTILLERY IS KING!
Given the sheer amount of people on the Waterloo set, it would have probably been utter folly to actually shoot something out of those cannons.
I have a 24 pound solid shot with impressed broad arrow. Fired in 1760 near Montreal. Isle Noix . Then came the French surrender soon after .
The best and most terrifying video I've ever seen of artillery from this general period is this video of an American Civil War replica cannon firing live rounds at a range at Fort McCoy, WI.
ruclips.net/video/jL1DkrYL70s/видео.html
I think it's the only video footage that captures the noise that men on the receiving end of these cannons would've heard. The different noises they make is something truly lacking in film.
It should be pointed out that the three-pound balls flying through the close packed ranks would do terrible damage, as witnessed by the survivors of the Napoleonic and US Civil War. Those men wrote of seeing whole files of 4-6 men being killed by one round. At Waterloo one survivor, Ensign Leek of the 52nd Regiment, watched as French gunners loaded and fired apparently at him. The ball took off the heads of the 4 men in the rank next to him.😲😲😲
Godamn
The piping is accurate as well. The piper is playing solo, and he is playing a piobaireachd, the music of the time, if a little slowly for the time. The pipes the piper plays, however, are from the 20th or very late 19th century. The pipe band in “Waterloo” is completely wrong. Pipers never played with drummers until the Crimean War, when groups of pipers played together with drummers, like fifers.
The tune is “The Glen is MIne” IIRC, which is a MacDonald tune, so that’s correct as well.
What is the best civil war movie?
to those who dought the effectiveness of artiely try standing on the receiving end
Cumberland’s veterans of Fontenoy and Dettengen did a magnificent job of defending their homeland against the Italian rabble rouser and his horde. Not since Flodden had the English Army, aided by loyal Scots, defended their nation so well. But where do you get these fantastic casualty figures? Jacobite casualties of around 1800, mostly dead, is probably pretty accurate. But the Royal army lost no more than fifty killed and 250 wounded, some of them mortally. A couple of Stuart Reid’s books list the name of every redcoat casualty and how they were injured. If all your videos are this inaccurate you could use a bit more research.
Steve Kaczynski yes, I know. Politicians are always screwing over the military, never giving credit where due.
@@stevekaczynski3793 No one claims battle honours from a civil war.
Where can I get a poppy ?
Sorry, Brandon (Probably you won't see this anyway) but I think this time you get just a little carried by sentimentalism. As One who has experimented not war, but combat, the movie looks a lot more dramatic than the actual thing is in reality. Yes... we all see that 13 yo child screaming but... IRL the child would pass out due the enormous pain (non-lethal wounds) or dead after a few minutes... there is no wat that after all the bombardment the child was still there (I mean they put the scene twice) and yes, I understand they are afraid but... professional soldiers would not look like that, and amateurs would lose cohesion and run away... it seems very VERY unreal and kind of a film "against" war rather than historically accurate
The visual effects are a bit too outdated to make me fear of teror!
:)
👍
Is that wargaming figures? :)
paper poppies are lame no matter what they symbolize
15th like and 5th coment
"It reminds you more of a WWI movie" because theyre both linear warfare
Trigger warnings? Sigh. It's a channel about war, what do people expect to see?
Ultima Ratio Regum (The Last Argument of Kings)- inscription upon every French cannon under Louis XIV
So would the guillotine be considered the Last Argument of the People, Louis?
@@54macdog
At times, it could be argued that the guillotine was the first argument.
Interesting, indeed! Thank you for sharing.
@@54macdog first counterargument of the people.
Seen this quote in Empire Total War's loading screen.
I'm with you. The rate of fire is much too quick. Yet it is a difference to sit in comfort in front of a TV set or to stand in missery in front of incoming cast iron balls. It's hard to translate the feeling of utterly helpless horror to us later generations. So they just had to add some drama to get it as right as you can.
I feel that's a common thing in this period in media: it took time to reload so it's not cinematic and has to be done in montage; this applies to small arms.
The thing that I always notice with portrayals of solid-shot artillery is that it behaves as if it's all late-period HE _shells_ which were usually just not around at the time they're trying to portray. I have a theory that a lot of this stuff comes from WWI itself, this is the period that filmmaking took off in, so it's inevitable that veterans found their way onto productions and were consulted on martial matters; "What sound does a sword make when it's drawn?" "I've got mine at home, I'll bring it tomorrow." (Brings modern steel-sheathed cavalry sabre which indeed goes "schwing" quite impressively when drawn) "What does cannon fire look like?" "I saw it at Verdun. It's...(Proceeds to describe modern bombardment and its effects).
Ernst Jünger wrote a good description of what effect a shell has that lands amidst a group of men.
Oh my ! I know precisely what part of the book Im Stahl Gewittern youre referring to, the shell landing right on his company just before the march 21st 1918 assault, it's absolute horror, the first and only time Ernst Jünger has a mental breakdown through the entire book
@@rififidanslerif8439 - exactly that part.
In Flanders Fields grows the red poppy. Artillery is god of war for a reason......a well aimed shot can devastate an enemy’s morale...I.E. the cannon shot at battle of New Orleans, War of 1812.
It's as they say: A bulet with a name on it.
An artillery shell? 'To whom it may conern'
my great-great-...something grandfather was a private infantry soldier with the 82nd Illinois Volunteer Regiment (A Company) during the Civil War, mustered out of Springfield. he served at Chancellorsville.
some of his letters survived. i've read them, and there are some very insightful, interesting passages that give a glimpse into the reality of war:
"all the boys love the gun crews. the best they do their job, the least [less] we have to do ours."
"during the last battle [Chancellorsville], i heard the guns thunder and big balls skipped across the field like stones tosed [sic] across a pond. i never hurt such a startle in my life.
one came directly on me, and the man straight [in] front of me lost his right shoulder. scrap of bone hit my face and cap and i was disgustted [sic], but we stepped on.
[Colonel] Hecker got shot in the action. like to die. my friend Emil who i enlisted with caught a ball in his knee and like to limp once its [sic] cut off.
Lizzie [his wife] you can't picture 500 boys shot apart all at once, screaming and bleeding and carrying on like devils from hell, and the guns never stopping a minute."
"friend Emil passed to God last Sunday. the sargent-major [sic] told me he went poorly, cursing the army and the war and the enemy. he said he'd wished he'd never heard of the confedrates [sic] or abe lincoln or anyone else who started this business. his brother Paul gave me his shoes that are a good size for me. mine are broken through to the dirt and i am glad to have them. though i'd pray all day to heaven if i could give back the shoes and keep the man who used to wear them."
Looking at the recoil they are firing actual ammunition at full powder charges a couple of those shots seem like could possible be even more than is required. But my it really does show the horror and power of these weapons.
anyone else here from the latest video?
this is maybe too intense? i am either completely desensitized too violence or you dont consume violent content at all ..,i actually smiled at the scene , thinking at first it was a joke
but yes i entirely agree with Brandon , cannons are pussy-fied in most movies either because of safety concerns or directors fearing their PG-13-fetish is endangered
Artillery is still being improved at this time.
Yes, though mostly in the range and precision departments.
The caliber of heavy artillery has mostly standardised around 15cm for practicality.
Then again, the heaviest field guns the 17th to 19th century soldier would face had a munition weight of 24lb round shot (roughly 14kg) from a range no further than they could see while a modern 15cm howitzer fires an almost 50kg shell from up to 50km away, and about 10kg of that weight is high explosives with a fuse capable of detonating the shell 4-8m above the ground or with a delay to detonate it after passing through the roof or wall of a building to explode within.
Look up non line of sight cannon. Unreal.
@@joshdelaet3536 Cannon aiming is more of a math equations than the British train musketry.
Real life isn't viewed through shaky-cam.
My headmaster in my school in Inverness was an extra in the film, he’s one of the Gaelic speaking Jacobites, young looking with a bonnet on, the artillery portrayal is very accurate, the recoil particularly effective, also the balls bouncing on the moor. I’m an ex Gunner, ex British Army. #UBIQUE
watched the film after the last video - it was actually really good
Same, and agreed!
As a revolutionary war artillerist I’m slightly offended that he thinks an experienced crew can only get off 3 shots a minute
As I said...extreme example!
Several things are seen-here that are almost never shown!!
1. The gunners are rolling the piece back-into position after it has been fired!
2. At 5:53 a misfire has occurred and the charge is being drawn from the unfired and STILL Dangerous Piece!!!🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
A small battle but the world would be completely different today if the Jacobites had won
The battle only lasted 40 minutes
If it had gone the other way their would have been no British empire, no American wars of independence as there would have been no United Kingdom etc
Re Waterloo, the very worst aspect of it was the G-awful horse riding scenes of some of the commanding officers. How embarrassing!
The way you said " The Patriot" with such disdain really made me chuckle.
Absolutely nightmarish. I don’t know what this engagement was all about but I sure hope to hell it was worth it
Kind of plays out like British Pathé footage.