@DukoOsshiiKhan - also at waterloo Welligton was asked by a gunnery officer if he could take shots at Napoleon himslef, Wellington replied, Gernerals are not in the habbit of firing upon each other. Regardless even IF generals would fire at each other, which they rarely did, they would normally position themsleves where they could not be hit...
You know generals would plan thier strategy BEFORE the battle took place, with exception to timings, few "on the fly" decisions were actually made.
@DukoOsshiiKhan - Having decent soldiers is one thing, but having a general who is a master tactition is more important.
Anyone who knows a thing or two about warfare in this era, knows that most battles were lost due to poor leadership, poor strategy, obsalete tactics and incompetent leadership.
Go and read SunTzu the art of war, or read up on any great general.
Check out 2:13 the guy in the brown shirt gets shot in the back and gets the wind knocked out when he falls. He just moans as he hits the ground....lol
I love this film, the music is great and there are a more scenes like this one that are master pieces...it's a shame i can't find this version in DVD !
@De4dm4u5Rulez the standard british line infantry of this peroid did not use the musket rifle, they used the firelock rifle instead, that is what made it accurate, agreed, the musket in a smooth barrel so it is inaccurate, however the firelock rilfe was crafted to inprove accuracy, i forget the word but they were not a smooth barrel
Hey Jules7892, just to let you know the war is over. We all love to play armchair generals, but you're lecturing to a brick wall when you rant on the internet
In Relative Retrospect,Louis De Marquis Montcalm did NOT loose the Total War. Allied with the North American Indians together with Much Larger French Forces, Louis Montcalm taught his QUEBEC Generals,how to Master "Chess" in as best as possible.Thus before his Montcalm slower 4 daydeath,English General Wolfe was Instantly Killed on the Plainsof Abraham.General Louis Montcalm was capable of Educating his other Quebec Generals in"Tactical Chess"to overtake any English forces 5x Larger Vs. QUEBEC!!
The only tiny Hair that made CANADA have a English Language was because English Soldiers outnumbered French Soldiers. But this was NOT a Problem had General Louis Joseph De Marquis De Saint-Veran, was an Expert "Chess Player". FULLY Capable of Maneavering his Forces just like in"Tactical Mind Thought Chess". Due to this Capability,Louis MontCalm was Allied with the Huron Indians for "Intelligence" & Fully Capable of Destroying English Forces 5x the Size of his French Divisions.It was Very Close!
French General Montcalm is also "wounded" but lives 4 days after the Battle until succomming to his wounds,eventually dying.If French had even Early 20th Century Hospitals, Montcalm could have Survived,Thus ALL of CANADA would have become a FRENCH only Speaking Nation for General Montcalm was an Expert CHESS Tactician Battle Player and Defeated Forts 5 Times his own Armies Size!At the Plains of Abraham, here between the Ontario,Quebec Borders of CANADA.English General Wolfe was Killed Instantly!
General Montcalm Gets both University & College,Paris,France under the King Louis of FRANCE.This Man is much more Intelligent than Napolean but under "Civilized" French Monarchies NOT Dictatorship of Napoleon.On September 13th 1759,General Montcalm is Successful at Defending QUEBEC here in CANADA.But in that same year,the Less Experienced English General Wolfe draws Battle on the Plains of Abraham,After 20 minutes of Heavy Fighting French Forces break,but NOT untli England General Wolfe is DEAD!
I am Afraid Now,General Montcalm is a much better very well Educated French General,who plays lots of "Chess Battle" Games to Exercise his Mind in Battlefield Tactics,as compared to the English General Wolfe of English Forces.Furthermore,French forces are Allied with the Huron Indians in Ontario & Quebec giving French Montcalm Intelligence Reports of English Wolfe Forces in Upper & LowerCANADA.Montcalm is Very Well Educated in Chess & Intelligence garthering of English Wolfe Forces.1756Fort Ont.
its a shame they cut this diversion scene out of the film its the only scene to show how british redcoats fought properly firing well disciplined volleys with fixed bayonets, the other two ambush scenes they seem to have forgotton that historical fact, its a case of let the indians easily kill you just try and hit them on the head with your rifle butt, other than that its a really good film
@TheDarkwoodsterGeneral Montcalm was Known as a Avid"Chess Battle Tactical Player,always winning". This is an Educated Tactician unlike English General Wolfe.In 1756,Montcalm Captures English Fort Ontario at Oswego,Controlling Lake Ontario Shipping Military Supplies Lanes from FRANCE!In 1757,Montcalm Captures Fort Willium Henry on Lake George.In1758,Montcalm defeats even Superior English Forces at Ticonderoga,led by British James Abercromby.4th Victory comes in Montmorency in July 1759!Tactical!
@jgrdonquixote accurate in those days meant you could hit the broad side of a barn, those wern't sniper rifles, they're smooth bore, which means accuracy sucked.
@Taylorwest626 Long rifles, whether Kentucky, Pennsylvania, etc. were pretty accurate and had rifling in them. There were a lot of shortfalls like ease of use and loading time that made muskets still popular among most military units, but long rifles were very popular with frontiersmen even before the Seven Years War.
You sound like an idiot. The brown bess musket what the British Infantry were using were smooth bore and the projectile developed an inaccurate spin after the dischrge making it accurate only up to 65 yards. The Kentucky long rifle had rifled grooves much like modern day barrels except it still had to rely on black powder charges. Study a little history before you utter nonsense and rubbish.
Hell yes. A long rifle makesman could hit targets accurately up to 300 yards. There was a price to be paid for accuracy - a longer duration for loading as opposed to smooth bore muskets. The movie depicts accurately the way the rifle was loaded with the extra charge of powder in the flash pan . The longer barrel was used to increase the velocity since black powder was slow burning .
that scene with the british fighting was not on the movie i bought, strange, cool though, seeing british grendiers dominating that shit. i would never want to go mussle to mussle on the field against british troops :(
@De4dm4u5Rulez I find that you are wrong on the account of the reason that people underestimate the actual capabilities of muskets. If they were not anywhere near as accurate as that? Why use them? And furthermore, people dont seem to take account that they are still guns and can still easily hit people.
@zenoist2 There's also a mod for HL2 which makes an FPS about this stuff durig the American Revolutionary War.It's loads of fun,on many servers,people organize line battles.
@ILOVETHE1700s The full command is "Wheel to the right, on center, march!" (you can hear Heyward say, "Wheel to the right", in the previous frame when you see the French coming up). I guess they were supposed to swing the line to the right with the pivot on the center. It's interesting that you see the troops pivot their heads in different directions after the command, though they are hardly in the center of the line.
@Fortaker The head pivot is part of the command - all heads except those of the rank pivoting look inwards of the turn - the pivoting rank looks outwards. It's so the unit can watch the enemy, whilst the other rank watches the rear. Marker of the unit doesn't turn his head, so he can steer the unit and be dressed off of.
@ILOVETHE1700s Full command is, "Wheel to the right, on center, march!"
Unit pivots to the right by the center from a stationary position. Basically, it rotates the unit to face more to the right, so that they can face a threat coming from the right.
The British were also fighting France and Austria in Europe during this time (seven years' war). France had150k regular troops to Britain's 30k, and 80 newly built ships-of-the-line to Britain's ~100. If France had been able to convince Spain to join in the Franco-Austrian alliance, their combined fleets would have significantly outgunned England's - and the war would have probably ended very differently. You can see why America was less impt.Source: The War that Made America by Fred Anderson
I'm curious actually; would a British-Industrialized America have made an effect upon the Napoleonic Wars in the event of a French Invasion of the British homelands?
@GourmetItalia - Not by much. At this point in time Britain was trying to colonialize India which had vast wealth and was pivital in making the British Empire. If Britain had not taken India, then France most certainly would have which would have turned the Napolionic wars greatly in Frances favour. Britain really had to choose between India and the 13 colonies during the revolution, I doubt it could rule both and keep France at bay.
Hmmm ... that's a very good point. I suppose if France had taken India, the Napoleonic Wars might well have happened differently. Additionally, in other vital topics affecting the Revolution, I believe there's also evidence supporting the fact that King George was slowly losing his mind in reference to his personal diaries and the bafflement of parliament and members of Britain's aristocracy. Of course, there's also the taxation without representation and the fact that ...
...the fact that the British military was issuing officerial commissions to mainland British aristocrats instead of loyal and sometimes (but not always) capable American colonist candidates greatly angered the colonials, which also greatly contributed to antagonism against the British crown. British aristocrats offered large sums of wealth to the British land forces in exchange for high ranking captaincies amongst British regiments and in lue of the fact that there were limited...
...there were limited officerial openings, naturally American colonial candidates received none. I would like to know how history could have played out had the French taken India and the British had retained the colonies. How would France have become? What would have happened during the French revolution and what would Napoleon have done with India along with Egypt?
@GourmetItalia - The British army only recruited/sold officer placements to the aristocracy, the same thing was going on in just about every country in the world and only really changed around 50 years ago, and still to this day the British army only chooses well educated people. The vast majority of high ranking officers today have come from private schools with rich backgrounds. But of course nowadays all the officers are put through sandhurst and have to pass a series of very demanding tests.
@TomHartill it's entirely logical that those commanding the higest ranks should be those with the best abilities, which in those days was exclusively people from private schools and rich backgrounds.
@smoochym - in those days it wasn't. Nearly all officers were of the aristocracy in those days because nearly all of them payed lots of money for comissions. There were a hell of a lot more bad officers than there was good officers in those days. It was a huge feat to become an officer from the ranks, you would have to survive a forlorn hope a perform a very brave act, and nearly all that did would turn to drink.
@TomHartill I agree, it's just that the aristocracy we're the only ones who could afford an education. There was no state compulsory education, any education for the poor was designed to get them into a vocation.
As far as today is concerned, private schools generally have a better standard of education and produce more able students, not a bad thing for potential officers.
@smoochym - Education had nothing to do with it. In those days comissions were SOLD, the aristocracy were the only people who could afford it. The only other way to become an officer was to rise trough the ranks which would involve comitting an act of imense bravery like surviving a forlorne hope. The tiny minority of officers who came from the ranks would 99% of the time turn to drink and never get passed a LT.
@GourmetItalia - I suspect that Napolian may have failed with or without India, in the end he was beaten by the russian winter and a grave tactical error he made, which was; he should have committed the gaurd at Borodino and smashed the Russian army there and then, thus allowing him to march straight to moscow and shelter from the winter. But as for Napoleons plan to invade Britain then maybe he could have done so with India.
@GourmetItalia - In the end the only thing stopping him was the British navy which foiled his attempts a few times. I suspect the British navy would have still stopped him though, I don't think India had much of an impact on the British navy in the years before Napoleon came to power.
What would be interesting is what would have happened during WW2 with a British ruled America and a French ruled India.
@Schmidtah Even though it as a movie, that was an ambush on a retreating force that previously suffered a major defeat and humiliation. The Battle of Teutoburg Forest, for example, proved that a numerous, well trained force can be defeated via carefully planned ambush. Three entire Roman Legions were destroyed by irregular troops from a coalition of Germanic Tribes.
@d0minirican: The actual cinematography of the battle however just shows the British continuing to march instead of forming ranks and firing upon the advancing natives.
I am always astounded by the battles fought in the 18th century. How can soldiers at that time be able to stand in line while facing gun and cannon fire. You need to have nerves of steel to even stay in formation. What kind of training do they give to even mentally prepare them do do that?!
@CrimsonGuard1992 if you turndaround to run back your officers could shoot you. Just watch the Film Enemy at the gates, when the russians attack the gerrmans they are slaughtered, and those russians unfortunate enough to survive the german slaughter are wiped out by their own officers in the rear as they retreat.
@species6339 Yeah but that was WW2 and this is the 18th century. I just wondering if they have some kind of pharmacological conditioning or something.
@CrimsonGuard1992 - They were just amazingly disciplined. The main reason the British - and the Germans - were kings of the battlefield was because they stood thier ground. They were taught that if they stood firm they would win - and it worked - besides in europian warfare the main purpose of the cavalry was to pursue and chop down fleeing disorganised companies, so standing firm was the best option anyway.
Couldn't have said it better myself! Now, in addition to standing firm on the battlefield, suppose the British experimented more with the Ferguson rifle; so much so that it were as cheap as smithing a Brown Bess? Ferguson rifle could average 4 or 5 shots a minute (6 or 7 by a seasoned regular) and hit a target at precisely 2-300 yards. Additionally the breech loading mechanism made it much easier to load, requiring no ramrods. Imagine the ferocious firepower of a thousand of those!
@GourmetItalia - I think the Brits could have well won the revolution, despite everything going against them, with that rifle. In fact they did use it in the revolution but on a minor scale.
Of course the Fergy rifle never caught on because it was just too expensive and slow to make. They could make 500+ brown bess's in 1 month as opposed to 100 fergies in 6 at 4x the price.
Unfortionaly mass production was still years behind, everything had to be pain stakingly machined by hand.
Indeed, industrial technology slogged the better weapons and war always came down to economics. Production of the Brown Bess exceeded the Ferguson and was ideally much cheaper in the long in addition to the immense gunpowder requirements. The British Crown's gunpowder reserves were expensive and without proper industrial technology, the Ferguson's gunpowder requisitions were just anti-cost effective.
On a side note, I do believe the Brits only fielded 32,000 regulars in the entire American theater during the span of the Revolution's 10 year tenure. It'd be very intriguing to know what might have happened had the British committed 140,000 regulars and their entire Navy during the conflict. Logistically it would have drained their economy, but at the same time, if they were that much more pissed off, who knows what might have happened.
@GourmetItalia - Well at the time, the British empire was interested in India which was a country with vast wealth and wartorne between different Indian factions. Plus the French were also interested in India and the Brits did not want the French empire growing stronger. I think at that time, the key to having the largest and richest empire was controlling India and possibly parts of China. The politicle motivation for the war in America was simply not strong enough to continue fighting...
@GourmetItalia ...And I doubt the Empire could fight the French, Spanish, a host of other empires, rule India and win the revolution. I suspect they had to choose between India or America, otherwise the empire may well of collapsed - similar to what happened in WW1+2. I think at the time India was deffinatley the right option to strengthen the empire. If Britain would have chosen America and France taken India, France may well have been the strongest empire.
@GourmetItalia ... And of course that would have meant Napoleon may well have been a lot more successfull a few years later. I also think India would have been in a much worse state now if France would have taken it - France was not the best empire to be ruled with. But the British empire may well not have crumbled after 2 world wars with America under control and the French would have payed an even bigger price by losing thier empire instead of Britain...
@GourmetItalia ... But of course the British government would have eventually given America it's own independance like it has done with NZ, Au, Canada, etc... And at the end of the day all empires must end and Britian would not have the right to say they once owned the largest empire.
It's hard to imagin what things would be like if Britain chose America over India. It may sound bad but I think the US would be a better country and India a worse one, or maybe we would all speak French !?!?!
Ah man, a Spanish-Italian-French-Egyptian Empire ... I can't imagine a world of that layer. Man, the Frenchies were *this* close to bottling the Gibraltar. Let's also not forget what Napoleon did in Mexico. He setup a puppet ruler near the Mexican Empire and even though the Latins mismanaged their regions, we cannot simply deny France's meddling with the Americas. Eventually, at the end of the day, Empires crumble, and no one really takes all the gold.
Unless your Spain, in that case you almost get all the gold and you build a paper tiger of an empire based purely on the gold you take from the Indians.
All you yanks am just jelous of what the British had they had the biggest empire the world has ever seen and best army and they styll have the best army.
And if you knew your history you only won the war of independence is beacuse of the french and spanish navy blockade wich ment the british could'nt get supplies through and you need the british out in Afghanistan with you and you needed us in iraq in both Gulf wars. And look you have lost thousands of men the british have only lost around 250
@dazh953 you are right in the past, that happened. However, today, there are things called politics getting in the way of way, rules of engagement and idiot liberals that get in the way of the job being acommplished. The British have lost smaller numbers compared to us over there, there isnt really much for you to say about that except for that we are the ones that are fighting beause we have the better resources. You could beat you in a war today if we wanted.
@dazh953 Well the British sure aren't short on arrogance, in the past and it's apparently continued today. Yes the British had the biggest empire, thanks in large part to the industrial revolution, not necessarily because you had "the best army". China and India dominated the world market until Europeans literally had better military equipment. Also the British presence in Afghantistahn is around 10,000 compared to the 80,000 Americans, so your comparison is a bad one.
Ahhhhhhh ... the days when the British retained a well trained garrison of around 100,000 regulars in Afghanistan, held a stable foothold in the region, had no fanatical jihadists blowing things up in their faces, and brew good quality beer there. A stabler moment in another century and another time; maybe things will be different in the coming future ...
@GourmetItalia I am a former british soldier. And i study warfare history with a passion. The problem with afghanistan is not that we could nt beat them in open combat we just could nt keep them under control for long. this current conflict is the 5th time britain is there. The country is poor the and keeps being invaded by others means the afghans no nothing but war. there not better soldiers just tough fighters.
@jayers2 - Well actually most of parts of Asia had the same and in most cases better millitary tech than the British. As you said parts of Asia were very wealthy and had all the latest technollogy on the battlefield. What let them down in battle against the redcoats was inferia tactics and discipline, for example: Europian tactics was to arrange cannon on either flank to rake the enemy, most asian commanders simply placed their's in front which was considerably less effective.
@dazh953 please don't give my country a bad name just because you reckon you're better than the Americans. 1. The British did once have a better trained army than most other European powers, but that doesn't make it automatically the best. 2. If their army was still the best then we'd still have the empire. 3. The naval blockade was only part of the British defeat in the war of independence. The fact is, the American soldiers were good soldiers, and moreover were better motivated that the Brits.
@SupersonicAK47 You forget that you ran to the other noted empire at the time for help, THE FRENCH. We couldnt fight in africa and the americas something had to give. I just find it funny how you owe the french your freedom yet you of all nations are the last to help france when she needs it ...
great movie & this scene fills in a little gap - shows how Hawkeye had the perfect diversion to get his friend home to his family. It also shows how the British army of the time was an impressively organised fighting unit
i like the part close to the end were the indeans attack the british but sad thing is the british lost in that battle :( oh well its how much us native kick ass
i cant remember this part in the movie.0:45..to 1:45 i agree with @BarnyFart ...thank god this wasn't a Mel Gibson movie...like .PATRIOT ...i am into anything that shoots blackpowder. .Kentucky longrifles....flintlocks..muskets...breachloaders.... like LAST OF THE MOHICANS couldn't wait to see it hit the big screen..but .Mel. turned "patriot" into a joke...have never seen the ending .. the story just became too ludicrous... so who won in the end ? .
@sheepsfoot1 mel gibson has some serious issues with the brits..not just his alchohol problem..drinking tea on the beach at gallipoli .......burning down down churches with women and children locked inside on the patriot...and braveheart impregnating the queen of england....the problem is a lot of people dont know ...about history and what little they know is from movies like the abovementioned. mel gibsons rabid anti-british distortion of history...marty
Too bad that the producer must have thought that the audience seeing the British being even somewhat capable would detract from the overall feel of them being useless limey bastards.
@woffus I meant it was a shame that the movie chose to represent the British this way. If your only historical source for the Colonial War was the original cut of the movie then you'd have to be wondering how the British could have carved out an empire at all. All they do in this flick is getting ambushed, massacred and being general dicks towards the colonists.
So very wrong. In the War of 1812, British and Canadian units using massed smoothbore fire won most of the land engagements against American units. The day of the rapid firing Brown Bess didn't end until years later.
British Coldstream guards were amongst the finest soldiers in the British Empire. Very well disciplined, they can be considered to be on par with the Prussian elite line troops.
However, during the Napoleonic wars, French Old guard and imperial grenadiers were tide turners, they were solid in their drills, perfect soldiers that do not cower under fire.
It would be another hundred years before rifles became the commonplace weapon on the battlefield, during the Crimean War.
During the Napoleonic Wars the British used riflemen as skirmishers, but the breech-loading rifle was to slow and cumbersome to load to become the standard firearm in warfare.
Not until the emerging of the Enfield minie-rifled musket in 1851 did this happen.
Not exactly, right the future were infantry equiped with breech loading rifles these could fire very fast and exact. As a result infantry thinned out more in order to avoid shots. The american rifleman is an excellant example of good marksmanship but it never was the future of warfare ,higher fire volum was. You have to remind yourself that even in the american revolutionary war most of the continetal army was equipt and trained in the massed infantry tactics
well im very sorry but that great markmanship isnt given to you just because you happoned to live in america, real markmanship wasnt possible in that time, muskets were simply so inacurate that you had to be close to shoot. accuratly they dont even fire everytime! so please if you are convinced about american markmanship, convince me!
British grenadiers. You can tell they are because of their smaller caps (let you throw a grenade easily, than one of the three pronged thingies that common line infantry wore). Also at 1:23, the guy to the right of the screen is holding a hand mortar.
@williamthetard no the caps are too smal to be grenadiers. i think they are British Light Foot. the cap is only tilted opward on the front. grenadiers would have worn a higher cap
@LutzDerLurch Indeed, but Tricorne can also be used, for we all know what we are talking about. Yes the 1700s are definetly my favourite period in history. Especially before that industrial revolution creating an age of pollution and technicallity.
@ILOVETHE1700s I recommend the Video Series "Colonial Harpsichord and Violin Making" on youtube. it is a grat Series of 1970's Videos made in Colonial Williamsburg, showing, incredibly detailed, how they made those instruments back then, wit some incredible smart and simple solutions.
kool was wonder about that thing he was holding lol. The grenadier would go on o wear te famous bearskins after routing the imperial guard at waterloo.
haha If Mel Gibson was in this film, he'd single handedly charge the enemy and slaugher an entire regiment using only his shoe and feathy from his cap!
Rule Britannia
Imperialmatty 1 month ago
They are using Kentucky long rifles, not muskets.
SuperJogvan 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan - also at waterloo Welligton was asked by a gunnery officer if he could take shots at Napoleon himslef, Wellington replied, Gernerals are not in the habbit of firing upon each other. Regardless even IF generals would fire at each other, which they rarely did, they would normally position themsleves where they could not be hit...
You know generals would plan thier strategy BEFORE the battle took place, with exception to timings, few "on the fly" decisions were actually made.
TomHartill 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan - Generals did not order thier artillery to fire at each other, it was seen as not honerable.
Regardless, chess is a game of deception, so is war.
TomHartill 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan - Because the British general was better.
All I said is that arguably somebody who regulary plays chess will likely make a better tactition, what is so hard about this to comprehend.
You said something about adrenaline and life threatening danger, you do know that gnerals don't actualy fight in wars?
TomHartill 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan - Having decent soldiers is one thing, but having a general who is a master tactition is more important.
Anyone who knows a thing or two about warfare in this era, knows that most battles were lost due to poor leadership, poor strategy, obsalete tactics and incompetent leadership.
Go and read SunTzu the art of war, or read up on any great general.
TomHartill 2 months ago
Why would they step OUT of the Trench to fire?
360Nomad 3 months ago
@360Nomad - Because they plan on advancing, and also so they could fire in 2 ranks, which gives them more face of fire.
TomHartill 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan - Arguably it does help. Chess is all about decite... so is real war.
TomHartill 3 months ago
france should have sent the old guards to the americas
bloodndestroy 3 months ago
@bloodndestroy - The Old Gaurd did not exist then, and even they did, the British were a just match for them
TomHartill 3 months ago
@bloodndestroy you realize that Napoleon created the old guards during the late 1700s and the early 1800s
This took placed in the early 1700s -_-
woo1693 3 months ago
@woo1693 oh yeah i remember that, but didnt they exist in early 1700s too except with the name Consular Guard right??
bloodndestroy 2 months ago
Check out 2:13 the guy in the brown shirt gets shot in the back and gets the wind knocked out when he falls. He just moans as he hits the ground....lol
anglekan 4 months ago
@Jules7892 quit bitching britain won as it is better the end.
JRCflyball 6 months ago
I love this film, the music is great and there are a more scenes like this one that are master pieces...it's a shame i can't find this version in DVD !
DonPechito 6 months ago
@De4dm4u5Rulez the standard british line infantry of this peroid did not use the musket rifle, they used the firelock rifle instead, that is what made it accurate, agreed, the musket in a smooth barrel so it is inaccurate, however the firelock rilfe was crafted to inprove accuracy, i forget the word but they were not a smooth barrel
guardsman101 6 months ago
@guardsman101 You mean Smooth bore?
ThePalaeontologist 6 months ago
@guardsman101 Are you thinking of rifled barrels? With grooves?
TalesOfWar 4 months ago
@TalesOfWar Yes exactly that!
guardsman101 4 months ago
Hey Jules7892, just to let you know the war is over. We all love to play armchair generals, but you're lecturing to a brick wall when you rant on the internet
brickslearn 6 months ago
In Relative Retrospect,Louis De Marquis Montcalm did NOT loose the Total War. Allied with the North American Indians together with Much Larger French Forces, Louis Montcalm taught his QUEBEC Generals,how to Master "Chess" in as best as possible.Thus before his Montcalm slower 4 daydeath,English General Wolfe was Instantly Killed on the Plainsof Abraham.General Louis Montcalm was capable of Educating his other Quebec Generals in"Tactical Chess"to overtake any English forces 5x Larger Vs. QUEBEC!!
Jules7892 6 months ago
The only tiny Hair that made CANADA have a English Language was because English Soldiers outnumbered French Soldiers. But this was NOT a Problem had General Louis Joseph De Marquis De Saint-Veran, was an Expert "Chess Player". FULLY Capable of Maneavering his Forces just like in"Tactical Mind Thought Chess". Due to this Capability,Louis MontCalm was Allied with the Huron Indians for "Intelligence" & Fully Capable of Destroying English Forces 5x the Size of his French Divisions.It was Very Close!
Jules7892 6 months ago
French General Montcalm is also "wounded" but lives 4 days after the Battle until succomming to his wounds,eventually dying.If French had even Early 20th Century Hospitals, Montcalm could have Survived,Thus ALL of CANADA would have become a FRENCH only Speaking Nation for General Montcalm was an Expert CHESS Tactician Battle Player and Defeated Forts 5 Times his own Armies Size!At the Plains of Abraham, here between the Ontario,Quebec Borders of CANADA.English General Wolfe was Killed Instantly!
Jules7892 6 months ago
General Montcalm Gets both University & College,Paris,France under the King Louis of FRANCE.This Man is much more Intelligent than Napolean but under "Civilized" French Monarchies NOT Dictatorship of Napoleon.On September 13th 1759,General Montcalm is Successful at Defending QUEBEC here in CANADA.But in that same year,the Less Experienced English General Wolfe draws Battle on the Plains of Abraham,After 20 minutes of Heavy Fighting French Forces break,but NOT untli England General Wolfe is DEAD!
Jules7892 6 months ago
I am Afraid Now,General Montcalm is a much better very well Educated French General,who plays lots of "Chess Battle" Games to Exercise his Mind in Battlefield Tactics,as compared to the English General Wolfe of English Forces.Furthermore,French forces are Allied with the Huron Indians in Ontario & Quebec giving French Montcalm Intelligence Reports of English Wolfe Forces in Upper & LowerCANADA.Montcalm is Very Well Educated in Chess & Intelligence garthering of English Wolfe Forces.1756Fort Ont.
Jules7892 6 months ago
its a shame they cut this diversion scene out of the film its the only scene to show how british redcoats fought properly firing well disciplined volleys with fixed bayonets, the other two ambush scenes they seem to have forgotton that historical fact, its a case of let the indians easily kill you just try and hit them on the head with your rifle butt, other than that its a really good film
TheDarkwoodster 7 months ago
@TheDarkwoodsterGeneral Montcalm was Known as a Avid"Chess Battle Tactical Player,always winning". This is an Educated Tactician unlike English General Wolfe.In 1756,Montcalm Captures English Fort Ontario at Oswego,Controlling Lake Ontario Shipping Military Supplies Lanes from FRANCE!In 1757,Montcalm Captures Fort Willium Henry on Lake George.In1758,Montcalm defeats even Superior English Forces at Ticonderoga,led by British James Abercromby.4th Victory comes in Montmorency in July 1759!Tactical!
Jules7892 6 months ago
@gtk4158a I thought that was the case with pre-Minie ball rifles?
SeverEnergia 7 months ago
Fire by rank best tactic :)
paintballer1231 9 months ago
pitched battles were badass
Bigmanwithagun13 9 months ago
While , he must use the Hollywood musket that is deady at within 10 miles......... Lol ,...
ppqq66 10 months ago 5
is it really possible to be as acurate so consistantly & at that range with a musket of the type?
paulspydar 10 months ago
@paulspydar The soldiers are shooting muskets but the folks on the wall are shooting long rifles, those bad boys can be accurate up to 200 yards.
jgrdonquixote 9 months ago
@jgrdonquixote accurate in those days meant you could hit the broad side of a barn, those wern't sniper rifles, they're smooth bore, which means accuracy sucked.
Taylorwest626 9 months ago
@Taylorwest626 Long rifles, whether Kentucky, Pennsylvania, etc. were pretty accurate and had rifling in them. There were a lot of shortfalls like ease of use and loading time that made muskets still popular among most military units, but long rifles were very popular with frontiersmen even before the Seven Years War.
jgrdonquixote 9 months ago
@Taylorwest626
You sound like an idiot. The brown bess musket what the British Infantry were using were smooth bore and the projectile developed an inaccurate spin after the dischrge making it accurate only up to 65 yards. The Kentucky long rifle had rifled grooves much like modern day barrels except it still had to rely on black powder charges. Study a little history before you utter nonsense and rubbish.
VisionarysDomain 9 months ago
@VisionarysDomain well said
IvanBeSerious 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulspydar The soldiers are shooting muskets but the folks on the wall are shooting long rifles, those bad boys can be accurate up to 200 yards.
jgrdonquixote 9 months ago
@paulspydar
Hell yes. A long rifle makesman could hit targets accurately up to 300 yards. There was a price to be paid for accuracy - a longer duration for loading as opposed to smooth bore muskets. The movie depicts accurately the way the rifle was loaded with the extra charge of powder in the flash pan . The longer barrel was used to increase the velocity since black powder was slow burning .
VisionarysDomain 9 months ago
@VisionarysDomain thanks for your reply, v interesting,
paulspydar 9 months ago
I liked the original courier scene but it's great to see something new. This is one of my fav movies.
anarubickford 11 months ago
Yet again we owned the french!
mwillis1000 11 months ago
whats the grenadier on the far left front rank got a blunderbuss?
ww2feak 11 months ago
that scene with the british fighting was not on the movie i bought, strange, cool though, seeing british grendiers dominating that shit. i would never want to go mussle to mussle on the field against british troops :(
Crazyman1212 11 months ago
Wow. Those guys are pretty good marksmen, cuz the muskets werent anywhere NEAR that accurate...
De4dm4u5Rulez 1 year ago 10
@De4dm4u5Rulez True; but they are using rifles which were not only far more accurate but had a much longer range than a smoothbore musket.
mrbeast85 1 year ago
@De4dm4u5Rulez I find that you are wrong on the account of the reason that people underestimate the actual capabilities of muskets. If they were not anywhere near as accurate as that? Why use them? And furthermore, people dont seem to take account that they are still guns and can still easily hit people.
ILOVETHE1700s 11 months ago
@De4dm4u5Rulez it would of been rifles they used
JRCflyball 6 months ago
@De4dm4u5Rulez yh but their in line formation and so were the french so its pretty hard TO miss
ww2feak 2 months ago
@De4dm4u5Rulez omg mehicans
TheBrennan1999 2 weeks ago
if you like this type of thing there are 2 computer games called Empire total war and Napoleion total war.
Look them up here on YT and see what you think.
zenoist2 1 year ago 3
@zenoist2 There's also a mod for HL2 which makes an FPS about this stuff durig the American Revolutionary War.It's loads of fun,on many servers,people organize line battles.
lordofgangstas 1 year ago
@zenoist2 It's called Battlegrounds 2.
lordofgangstas 1 year ago
Being a courier must have been so cool. Imagine the adrenaline rush!
MisterSaltarello 1 year ago 25
@MisterSaltarello Imagine getting caught and tortured. You can have that rush today. Just go for holidays to Iraq wearing an "I hate Arabs" shirt.
htews 11 months ago
@htews ROFLMAO! you made my day. :P
cuzgandalfgothigh99 11 months ago
@MisterSaltarello It was cool, also was cool to be a redcoat... also adrenaline rush ;)
MIMALECKIPL 6 months ago
What does "on centre, march!" mean?
ILOVETHE1700s 1 year ago
@ILOVETHE1700s The full command is "Wheel to the right, on center, march!" (you can hear Heyward say, "Wheel to the right", in the previous frame when you see the French coming up). I guess they were supposed to swing the line to the right with the pivot on the center. It's interesting that you see the troops pivot their heads in different directions after the command, though they are hardly in the center of the line.
Fortaker 1 year ago
@Fortaker The head pivot is part of the command - all heads except those of the rank pivoting look inwards of the turn - the pivoting rank looks outwards. It's so the unit can watch the enemy, whilst the other rank watches the rear. Marker of the unit doesn't turn his head, so he can steer the unit and be dressed off of.
TheHandgunhero 1 year ago
@ILOVETHE1700s Full command is, "Wheel to the right, on center, march!"
Unit pivots to the right by the center from a stationary position. Basically, it rotates the unit to face more to the right, so that they can face a threat coming from the right.
TheHandgunhero 1 year ago
@TheHandgunhero Ah yes I had the sound two low I can hear what he is saying now. Thanks.
ILOVETHE1700s 1 year ago
The British were also fighting France and Austria in Europe during this time (seven years' war). France had150k regular troops to Britain's 30k, and 80 newly built ships-of-the-line to Britain's ~100. If France had been able to convince Spain to join in the Franco-Austrian alliance, their combined fleets would have significantly outgunned England's - and the war would have probably ended very differently. You can see why America was less impt.Source: The War that Made America by Fred Anderson
Phoenix2485 1 year ago
@Phoenix2485
I'm curious actually; would a British-Industrialized America have made an effect upon the Napoleonic Wars in the event of a French Invasion of the British homelands?
GourmetItalia 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia - Not by much. At this point in time Britain was trying to colonialize India which had vast wealth and was pivital in making the British Empire. If Britain had not taken India, then France most certainly would have which would have turned the Napolionic wars greatly in Frances favour. Britain really had to choose between India and the 13 colonies during the revolution, I doubt it could rule both and keep France at bay.
TomHartill 1 year ago
@TomHartill
Hmmm ... that's a very good point. I suppose if France had taken India, the Napoleonic Wars might well have happened differently. Additionally, in other vital topics affecting the Revolution, I believe there's also evidence supporting the fact that King George was slowly losing his mind in reference to his personal diaries and the bafflement of parliament and members of Britain's aristocracy. Of course, there's also the taxation without representation and the fact that ...
GourmetItalia 11 months ago
@TomHartill
...the fact that the British military was issuing officerial commissions to mainland British aristocrats instead of loyal and sometimes (but not always) capable American colonist candidates greatly angered the colonials, which also greatly contributed to antagonism against the British crown. British aristocrats offered large sums of wealth to the British land forces in exchange for high ranking captaincies amongst British regiments and in lue of the fact that there were limited...
GourmetItalia 11 months ago
@TomHartill
...there were limited officerial openings, naturally American colonial candidates received none. I would like to know how history could have played out had the French taken India and the British had retained the colonies. How would France have become? What would have happened during the French revolution and what would Napoleon have done with India along with Egypt?
GourmetItalia 11 months ago
@GourmetItalia - The British army only recruited/sold officer placements to the aristocracy, the same thing was going on in just about every country in the world and only really changed around 50 years ago, and still to this day the British army only chooses well educated people. The vast majority of high ranking officers today have come from private schools with rich backgrounds. But of course nowadays all the officers are put through sandhurst and have to pass a series of very demanding tests.
TomHartill 11 months ago
@TomHartill it's entirely logical that those commanding the higest ranks should be those with the best abilities, which in those days was exclusively people from private schools and rich backgrounds.
smoochym 10 months ago
@smoochym - in those days it wasn't. Nearly all officers were of the aristocracy in those days because nearly all of them payed lots of money for comissions. There were a hell of a lot more bad officers than there was good officers in those days. It was a huge feat to become an officer from the ranks, you would have to survive a forlorn hope a perform a very brave act, and nearly all that did would turn to drink.
TomHartill 10 months ago
@TomHartill I agree, it's just that the aristocracy we're the only ones who could afford an education. There was no state compulsory education, any education for the poor was designed to get them into a vocation.
As far as today is concerned, private schools generally have a better standard of education and produce more able students, not a bad thing for potential officers.
smoochym 10 months ago
@smoochym - Education had nothing to do with it. In those days comissions were SOLD, the aristocracy were the only people who could afford it. The only other way to become an officer was to rise trough the ranks which would involve comitting an act of imense bravery like surviving a forlorne hope. The tiny minority of officers who came from the ranks would 99% of the time turn to drink and never get passed a LT.
You are correct about today though.
TomHartill 10 months ago
@GourmetItalia - I suspect that Napolian may have failed with or without India, in the end he was beaten by the russian winter and a grave tactical error he made, which was; he should have committed the gaurd at Borodino and smashed the Russian army there and then, thus allowing him to march straight to moscow and shelter from the winter. But as for Napoleons plan to invade Britain then maybe he could have done so with India.
TomHartill 11 months ago
@GourmetItalia - In the end the only thing stopping him was the British navy which foiled his attempts a few times. I suspect the British navy would have still stopped him though, I don't think India had much of an impact on the British navy in the years before Napoleon came to power.
What would be interesting is what would have happened during WW2 with a British ruled America and a French ruled India.
TomHartill 11 months ago
of course this was axed from the movie, the americans cant show a film depicting any kind of good soldiering from the british
skintrade 1 year ago
@skintrade I'm American and think this film depicts the British Army as a disciplined, well-trained force.
d0minirican 8 months ago
@d0minirican: The Indian battle during the British retreat didn't seem so disciplined. American movies never depict them as disciplined.
Schmidtah 8 months ago
@Schmidtah Even though it as a movie, that was an ambush on a retreating force that previously suffered a major defeat and humiliation. The Battle of Teutoburg Forest, for example, proved that a numerous, well trained force can be defeated via carefully planned ambush. Three entire Roman Legions were destroyed by irregular troops from a coalition of Germanic Tribes.
d0minirican 8 months ago
@d0minirican: The actual cinematography of the battle however just shows the British continuing to march instead of forming ranks and firing upon the advancing natives.
Schmidtah 8 months ago
@d0minirican maybe thats cause a lot of the troops were born and raised Americans at the time?? ;-)
londonmarc1 7 months ago
4 people are Magua.
brego129 1 year ago
omg... OMfG. the guy next to Duncan has a 18th century grenade launcher!
tette666 1 year ago
Thats an amazing streak of shots for a musket....
rangergxi 1 year ago
@Doodaddaman They take refuge behind the Grenadiers. You can still see one of them crouching to the left at 0:51.
killer3000ad 1 year ago
are those in blue americans?
riseld4 1 year ago
@riseld4 french dood
carlnardo 1 year ago
@riseld4 French..... Thats why some canadians speak french.
rangergxi 1 year ago
@riseld4 This takes place in the American Theatre of the Seven Years' War, a.k.a, the French and Indian war.
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
LONG LIVE THE BRITISH FUCKING EMPIRE!
MajBlood 1 year ago
I wish there was just more of the messenger scene and less of the redcoats, good though it is.
historicaltrekking 1 year ago
Deleted scene huh?
chapdog82 1 year ago
I am always astounded by the battles fought in the 18th century. How can soldiers at that time be able to stand in line while facing gun and cannon fire. You need to have nerves of steel to even stay in formation. What kind of training do they give to even mentally prepare them do do that?!
CrimsonGuard1992 1 year ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 if you turndaround to run back your officers could shoot you. Just watch the Film Enemy at the gates, when the russians attack the gerrmans they are slaughtered, and those russians unfortunate enough to survive the german slaughter are wiped out by their own officers in the rear as they retreat.
species6339 1 year ago
@species6339 Yeah but that was WW2 and this is the 18th century. I just wondering if they have some kind of pharmacological conditioning or something.
CrimsonGuard1992 1 year ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 - They were just amazingly disciplined. The main reason the British - and the Germans - were kings of the battlefield was because they stood thier ground. They were taught that if they stood firm they would win - and it worked - besides in europian warfare the main purpose of the cavalry was to pursue and chop down fleeing disorganised companies, so standing firm was the best option anyway.
TomHartill 1 year ago
@TomHartill
Couldn't have said it better myself! Now, in addition to standing firm on the battlefield, suppose the British experimented more with the Ferguson rifle; so much so that it were as cheap as smithing a Brown Bess? Ferguson rifle could average 4 or 5 shots a minute (6 or 7 by a seasoned regular) and hit a target at precisely 2-300 yards. Additionally the breech loading mechanism made it much easier to load, requiring no ramrods. Imagine the ferocious firepower of a thousand of those!
GourmetItalia 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia - I think the Brits could have well won the revolution, despite everything going against them, with that rifle. In fact they did use it in the revolution but on a minor scale.
Of course the Fergy rifle never caught on because it was just too expensive and slow to make. They could make 500+ brown bess's in 1 month as opposed to 100 fergies in 6 at 4x the price.
Unfortionaly mass production was still years behind, everything had to be pain stakingly machined by hand.
TomHartill 1 year ago
@TomHartill
Indeed, industrial technology slogged the better weapons and war always came down to economics. Production of the Brown Bess exceeded the Ferguson and was ideally much cheaper in the long in addition to the immense gunpowder requirements. The British Crown's gunpowder reserves were expensive and without proper industrial technology, the Ferguson's gunpowder requisitions were just anti-cost effective.
GourmetItalia 1 year ago
@TomHartill
On a side note, I do believe the Brits only fielded 32,000 regulars in the entire American theater during the span of the Revolution's 10 year tenure. It'd be very intriguing to know what might have happened had the British committed 140,000 regulars and their entire Navy during the conflict. Logistically it would have drained their economy, but at the same time, if they were that much more pissed off, who knows what might have happened.
GourmetItalia 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia - Well at the time, the British empire was interested in India which was a country with vast wealth and wartorne between different Indian factions. Plus the French were also interested in India and the Brits did not want the French empire growing stronger. I think at that time, the key to having the largest and richest empire was controlling India and possibly parts of China. The politicle motivation for the war in America was simply not strong enough to continue fighting...
TomHartill 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia ...And I doubt the Empire could fight the French, Spanish, a host of other empires, rule India and win the revolution. I suspect they had to choose between India or America, otherwise the empire may well of collapsed - similar to what happened in WW1+2. I think at the time India was deffinatley the right option to strengthen the empire. If Britain would have chosen America and France taken India, France may well have been the strongest empire.
TomHartill 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia ... And of course that would have meant Napoleon may well have been a lot more successfull a few years later. I also think India would have been in a much worse state now if France would have taken it - France was not the best empire to be ruled with. But the British empire may well not have crumbled after 2 world wars with America under control and the French would have payed an even bigger price by losing thier empire instead of Britain...
TomHartill 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia ... But of course the British government would have eventually given America it's own independance like it has done with NZ, Au, Canada, etc... And at the end of the day all empires must end and Britian would not have the right to say they once owned the largest empire.
It's hard to imagin what things would be like if Britain chose America over India. It may sound bad but I think the US would be a better country and India a worse one, or maybe we would all speak French !?!?!
TomHartill 1 year ago
@TomHartill
Ah man, a Spanish-Italian-French-Egyptian Empire ... I can't imagine a world of that layer. Man, the Frenchies were *this* close to bottling the Gibraltar. Let's also not forget what Napoleon did in Mexico. He setup a puppet ruler near the Mexican Empire and even though the Latins mismanaged their regions, we cannot simply deny France's meddling with the Americas. Eventually, at the end of the day, Empires crumble, and no one really takes all the gold.
GourmetItalia 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia
Unless your Spain, in that case you almost get all the gold and you build a paper tiger of an empire based purely on the gold you take from the Indians.
BamFor07 1 year ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 draconian discipline ;P
stuka80 1 year ago
haha, my best movie scene ever: the messengers run and le longue carabine's long distance shots with lovely music!
DominikChlubna 1 year ago 18
Ok, so are some of those Scottish Highlanders with the french or did the English simply shoot them out of impatience?
BaronVonKenny 1 year ago
POWERFUL TO THE MAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lordinfidel 1 year ago
Why do the colonials have American accents? Shouldn't they have a range of British accents?
grobo11 1 year ago
How exactly did the hand mortar work?
ILOVETHE1700s 1 year ago
Real men fight in lines
Linkster2o 1 year ago
i,m so glad i,m an englishaman...
sneakeysmoker1 1 year ago
All you yanks am just jelous of what the British had they had the biggest empire the world has ever seen and best army and they styll have the best army.
And if you knew your history you only won the war of independence is beacuse of the french and spanish navy blockade wich ment the british could'nt get supplies through and you need the british out in Afghanistan with you and you needed us in iraq in both Gulf wars. And look you have lost thousands of men the british have only lost around 250
dazh953 1 year ago
@dazh953 you are right in the past, that happened. However, today, there are things called politics getting in the way of way, rules of engagement and idiot liberals that get in the way of the job being acommplished. The British have lost smaller numbers compared to us over there, there isnt really much for you to say about that except for that we are the ones that are fighting beause we have the better resources. You could beat you in a war today if we wanted.
evilclown9911 1 year ago
@dazh953 Well the British sure aren't short on arrogance, in the past and it's apparently continued today. Yes the British had the biggest empire, thanks in large part to the industrial revolution, not necessarily because you had "the best army". China and India dominated the world market until Europeans literally had better military equipment. Also the British presence in Afghantistahn is around 10,000 compared to the 80,000 Americans, so your comparison is a bad one.
jayers2 1 year ago
@jayers2
and thats our 500 dead and honored troops compared to your 4000 dead and honored troops.
SanguiniusSaint 1 year ago
@jayers2
Ahhhhhhh ... the days when the British retained a well trained garrison of around 100,000 regulars in Afghanistan, held a stable foothold in the region, had no fanatical jihadists blowing things up in their faces, and brew good quality beer there. A stabler moment in another century and another time; maybe things will be different in the coming future ...
GourmetItalia 1 year ago
@GourmetItalia I am a former british soldier. And i study warfare history with a passion. The problem with afghanistan is not that we could nt beat them in open combat we just could nt keep them under control for long. this current conflict is the 5th time britain is there. The country is poor the and keeps being invaded by others means the afghans no nothing but war. there not better soldiers just tough fighters.
species6339 1 year ago
@species6339 And there we were, three against a thousand. We knew we would have a tough fight on our hands...
They were the toughest three Afghans we ever fought...
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@jayers2 - Well actually most of parts of Asia had the same and in most cases better millitary tech than the British. As you said parts of Asia were very wealthy and had all the latest technollogy on the battlefield. What let them down in battle against the redcoats was inferia tactics and discipline, for example: Europian tactics was to arrange cannon on either flank to rake the enemy, most asian commanders simply placed their's in front which was considerably less effective.
TomHartill 1 year ago
@dazh953 please don't give my country a bad name just because you reckon you're better than the Americans. 1. The British did once have a better trained army than most other European powers, but that doesn't make it automatically the best. 2. If their army was still the best then we'd still have the empire. 3. The naval blockade was only part of the British defeat in the war of independence. The fact is, the American soldiers were good soldiers, and moreover were better motivated that the Brits.
SupersonicAK47 1 year ago
@SupersonicAK47 You forget that you ran to the other noted empire at the time for help, THE FRENCH. We couldnt fight in africa and the americas something had to give. I just find it funny how you owe the french your freedom yet you of all nations are the last to help france when she needs it ...
Adamski8588 1 year ago
The Limeys do a pretty good job on the Frogs with that first volley, alright!
therealhannoverfisk 1 year ago
great movie & this scene fills in a little gap - shows how Hawkeye had the perfect diversion to get his friend home to his family. It also shows how the British army of the time was an impressively organised fighting unit
londonmarc1 1 year ago
Part of this was not in the film, shame
MrPasarell 1 year ago
@MrPasarell i was told it is on the dvd..
sheepsfoot1 1 year ago
@parkerbrown2000 Dude your own civil war units used those tactics till 1864, american markmanship! Phiiiit.
Donryall 1 year ago
i like the part close to the end were the indeans attack the british but sad thing is the british lost in that battle :( oh well its how much us native kick ass
vidoman12 1 year ago
i cant remember this part in the movie.0:45..to 1:45 i agree with @BarnyFart ...thank god this wasn't a Mel Gibson movie...like .PATRIOT ...i am into anything that shoots blackpowder. .Kentucky longrifles....flintlocks..muskets...breachloaders.... like LAST OF THE MOHICANS couldn't wait to see it hit the big screen..but .Mel. turned "patriot" into a joke...have never seen the ending .. the story just became too ludicrous... so who won in the end ? .
sheepsfoot1 1 year ago
@sheepsfoot1 mel gibson has some serious issues with the brits..not just his alchohol problem..drinking tea on the beach at gallipoli .......burning down down churches with women and children locked inside on the patriot...and braveheart impregnating the queen of england....the problem is a lot of people dont know ...about history and what little they know is from movies like the abovementioned. mel gibsons rabid anti-british distortion of history...marty
louislungbubble 1 year ago
Too bad that the producer must have thought that the audience seeing the British being even somewhat capable would detract from the overall feel of them being useless limey bastards.
FlakMeister 1 year ago
@FlakMeister
Tosser!
woffus 1 year ago
@woffus I meant it was a shame that the movie chose to represent the British this way. If your only historical source for the Colonial War was the original cut of the movie then you'd have to be wondering how the British could have carved out an empire at all. All they do in this flick is getting ambushed, massacred and being general dicks towards the colonists.
FlakMeister 1 year ago
was this a bonus scene coz i do not remember this in the movie
thyuiooo 1 year ago
@thyuiooo Yeah, I think Hayward marching out with the soldiers was only on the DVD, not the original VHS.
ctchampagne 1 year ago
what is the music?
nounever 1 year ago
@nounever it is "the messenger' its on the disk.
Donryall 1 year ago
this movie is amazing. Great score aswell
punkrockxzz 2 years ago
wish they kept the the british part of the scene in
gothicnoob 2 years ago
If you pause at 1:30 what is that guy carrying in the middle?
Looks like one of those trench mortars?
youse12132 2 years ago
it's a primitive form of arquebus I think .. or a big handgun ... when they appeared in medieval times they looked liek that ... might be one aswell
MrPulamea 2 years ago
@youse12132
It is a grenade launcher.
uporabn1k 2 years ago
@youse12132 it's an old grenade launcher
Panz82 1 year ago
So very wrong. In the War of 1812, British and Canadian units using massed smoothbore fire won most of the land engagements against American units. The day of the rapid firing Brown Bess didn't end until years later.
pyramidsofmars64 2 years ago
British Coldstream guards were amongst the finest soldiers in the British Empire. Very well disciplined, they can be considered to be on par with the Prussian elite line troops.
However, during the Napoleonic wars, French Old guard and imperial grenadiers were tide turners, they were solid in their drills, perfect soldiers that do not cower under fire.
dishwasherman83 2 years ago
The French Old Guard turned and ran at Waterloo.
zenoist2 2 years ago
Arnt the Green Jacket's of the 95th rifle's legendary?
UnitedProviences 2 years ago
It would be another hundred years before rifles became the commonplace weapon on the battlefield, during the Crimean War.
During the Napoleonic Wars the British used riflemen as skirmishers, but the breech-loading rifle was to slow and cumbersome to load to become the standard firearm in warfare.
Not until the emerging of the Enfield minie-rifled musket in 1851 did this happen.
LarS1963 2 years ago
Music is puffy
AlienTechProductions 2 years ago
hey what version of the movie was that in????? more deleted scenes that should be in the movie and arnt.
striderman31 2 years ago
Not exactly, right the future were infantry equiped with breech loading rifles these could fire very fast and exact. As a result infantry thinned out more in order to avoid shots. The american rifleman is an excellant example of good marksmanship but it never was the future of warfare ,higher fire volum was. You have to remind yourself that even in the american revolutionary war most of the continetal army was equipt and trained in the massed infantry tactics
Smartypantsawesome96 2 years ago
well im very sorry but that great markmanship isnt given to you just because you happoned to live in america, real markmanship wasnt possible in that time, muskets were simply so inacurate that you had to be close to shoot. accuratly they dont even fire everytime! so please if you are convinced about american markmanship, convince me!
bartieboy93 2 years ago
British grenadiers. You can tell they are because of their smaller caps (let you throw a grenade easily, than one of the three pronged thingies that common line infantry wore). Also at 1:23, the guy to the right of the screen is holding a hand mortar.
williamthetard 2 years ago 19
@williamthetard no the caps are too smal to be grenadiers. i think they are British Light Foot. the cap is only tilted opward on the front. grenadiers would have worn a higher cap
GorinRedspear 1 year ago
@williamthetard
That "three pronged thingies" are tricornes
UDI1995 1 year ago
@williamthetard Also the British haven't used grenades since the early 18th century because they were too dangerous.
Gneisenau 1 year ago
@williamthetard The so called "three pronged thingys" are actualy called tricorne hats...
ILOVETHE1700s 1 year ago
@ILOVETHE1700s almost correct. "Cocked Hat" is the word. BTW, the 170ss are great :D
LutzDerLurch 1 year ago
@LutzDerLurch Indeed, but Tricorne can also be used, for we all know what we are talking about. Yes the 1700s are definetly my favourite period in history. Especially before that industrial revolution creating an age of pollution and technicallity.
ILOVETHE1700s 1 year ago
@ILOVETHE1700s I recommend the Video Series "Colonial Harpsichord and Violin Making" on youtube. it is a grat Series of 1970's Videos made in Colonial Williamsburg, showing, incredibly detailed, how they made those instruments back then, wit some incredible smart and simple solutions.
LutzDerLurch 1 year ago
@williamthetard
kool was wonder about that thing he was holding lol. The grenadier would go on o wear te famous bearskins after routing the imperial guard at waterloo.
Isthisthelongestname 1 year ago
If Mel Gibson was in this film, he'd be casted as the Marquis de Montcalm :D
scarlet512 2 years ago
haha If Mel Gibson was in this film, he'd single handedly charge the enemy and slaugher an entire regiment using only his shoe and feathy from his cap!
BarneyFlart 2 years ago 45
@BarneyFlart
If Mel Gibson was in this movie, the british would be the bad guys and the French/Indians the good guys.
Tiwaz81 1 year ago
@BarneyFlart
ROFL hahaha, and even cut for like 5 minutes in a single corpse just because he didnt like him during the heat of battle!
Stinkiestinkie 1 year ago
@BarneyFlart While shooting lightning from his eyes, and bolts of fire from his arse.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@BarneyFlart He'd also beat his wife in the process.
Thrawn6211 1 year ago
theme song??? name plz...???' ^_^
MrCenturion69 2 years ago
Randy edelman - the courier
llonathan 2 years ago
EPIC!!!
quangutusuranu 2 years ago
EPIC!!!!
quangutusuranu 2 years ago