@NobleKorhedron Yes, they are Zouaves and are the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment which were behind the guns with the 1st Minnesota and the 14th Brooklyn Regiment but what the movie doesn't show is the 14th Brooklyn retook the guns but then fell back to Manassas-Sudley Road and tried to retake Henry Hill several times but failed aswell as other parts of the battle. The 11th Ney York lost 35 men killed, 74 wounded, and over 68 missing or captured.
@dbarnett87 The current Republican Party has a strong neo-confederate influence but not with the doctrine of a limited federal government-they need the fed ability to tax, spend, create huge militaries to protect the American Empire and Israel.
sone kake die warten bis se abgeschossen werden-.- ich würd mich da hinlegen udn en bisle aus ner entfernung schiessen und nich so wie die alle schön in ne reihe aufstellen un dwarten bis se sterben, so dumm ey-.-
US u are a great nation.u suffered much and today you are undisputed champions of the world..we love u u are the light of hope and shelter for many..a country which alws welcomed the unwanted,leeser of the gods childrena nd gave opportunity to millions of hopeless people and chance to make dream come true..we salute your struggle
its very heart crying to see americans killing americans.they are brothers but on the other side of the line.both the group wanted their version of america ..but by god both the factions were equally devoted to america and loved america to the core.i am an indian(not red).but wen i see the civil wat, i get so sad . a mighty nation of america today suffered so much pain to reach the glory it has reached today.long live US .long live US citizens
@mesmerizeme oh, and not to mention become the President of the United States, invent the gas mask, create Jazz music and all other forms of music thereafter, all so you white boys can prosper and make as much money as you can- the very reason why this country was founded... so it looks like we helped you out. =)
@GCmediacourse Interesting, yeah many men fought in the Civil War from different countries aswell as many Irish and German immigrants. Did you know one Hugh McVey, an Irishman over seventy years old and a veteran of Waterloo fought in Company D, 4th Kentucky, CSA and died at the Battle of Shiloh. Also Richmon had a Foreign Legion made up of mostly Englishmen. There was also a Russian General, John B. Turchin, who lead a charge at Chickamauga and fought at Missionary Ridge.
@AUG351 True, there was a variation in the specifics of the weapons used, however they all acted in much the same way, there was no side with a definite technological advantage. Also I did say they didn't totally wear similar clothing - but I do agree there was an extreme variation in places. However there was nothing really revolutionary used just for one side, certainly not in the early stages.
@Thisiswhywefight I would agree it was a rather silly war, yet rather crucial too. It was ridiculous as both sides were armed roughly the same, often (though not totally) dressed the same, and both often used similar tactics in order to win battles. However it wasn't dumb - as without it it is likely that America would have remained a very split country with north and south having greater prejudice than normal.
@DarkShadowMk4 Actually many different types of uniforms and weapons were used, there was many Zouave regiments that wore red or yellow uniformes and many soliders wore their civilian clothes especially the Confederates who didn't have many uniformes at the start of the war. Many different muskets and rifles were used aswell as revolvers, many brought their own weapons from home that they used to hunt with. It was really a mixture of different equipment, uniformes, and weapons.
One of the dumbest fought wars in history. Stand right in front of each other and shoot. They should have learned from the Revolutionary War that it's a dumb method of fighting. The Indians taught the Patriots guerrilla warfare which was instrumental in defeating the Brits.
@Thisiswhywefight Well, someone seems to know absolutely nothing about history and methods of warfare. By your comment its pretty obvious that your the product of poorly taught history classes.
Guerrilla warfare was implemented on supply lines in those times not on full forces like shown here it was issued out in small forces hit and run so like you don't need only history lessons but also some teachings about war tactics. Trough history guerrilla warfare changed and adapted trough warfare ambition so yeah
@KBourneify Yeah, they used many skermishers and which would be divided many times in groups of four and fought from cover. Also cavalry fought on foot many times skermishing and raided supply lines and tore up railroads behind enemy lines.
@Thisiswhywefight I A good reasoning behind Napoleanic wars was the fact that your average musket wasn't accurate so the platoon fired volleys instead of aimed shots. I'm sure that both sides did have light infantry but the philosophy was still pretty much 18th century. A point you could make is that casualties were high on both sides so clearly the tactics were outmodded. However guerilla tactics would not have been an answer to a head-on assualt of 1200 soldiers. U still needed an army.
@Thisiswhywefight I A good reasoning behind Napoleanic wars was the fact that your average musket wasn't accurate so the platoon fired volleys instead of aimed shots. I'm sure that both sides did have light infantry but the philosophy was still pretty much 18th century. A point you could make is that casualties were high on both sides so clearly the tactics were outmodded. However guerilla tactics would not have been an answer to a head-on assualt of 1200 soldiers. U still needed an army.
@Thisiswhywefight Actually they used many trenches and fortifications in most battles, only early battle slike Mannasas they used volleys and fomations in the open. There was two type of common battles in the war, back and forth fighting from trenches like at Spotsylavania or Cold Harbor and one side attacking and the other defending from fortifications. They almost never fought in the open after the first few battles.
@AUG351 Yeah, this actually was the end of the Napoleanic way of fighting. The mindset had changed after the carnage and the invention of the Gatlin gun and the refined artillery shell made it too costly to perform head-on assualts. See: Crimean War, and the Franco-Prussian wars in the late 1800s. European leaders still held on to this romantic philosophy of war all the way through the horrors of WW1.
@YadaBeats Yeah, In the Civil War there are many accounts of so many bullets and shrapnel flying arround that it mowed down trees and brush and cut men to pieces. Some regiments like the 1st Maine Artillery in a charge at Petersburg lost 635 of its 9oo men within seven minutes. So there was no way anyone could stand out in the open in a line and fire in volleys, they would be destroyed. Many comanders never learned this and got men cut down in many frontal attacks like Burnside or Hood.
@YadaBeats Gatling (not gatlin) gun was never used in the Civil war in combat. The true reason of the different tacktics needed was small invention of the Minnie bullit - the bullit with special hole in the bottom, that gone filled during the shot with gunpowders gas, and made bullit fit to the rifled barrel. That caused the shot was accurate on 500 yards, not as smoothbored weapons 100 yards. The 1861' Springfields was rifled carbines shooting Minnie bullits. Thats all difference. .
@tomenicus err, the Gatling Gun was used in the Civil War. Ben Butler used 2 of these in Petersburg. It was also deployed on gunboats. Yes it was limited but this was it's first true test.
@Thisiswhywefight You can only use guerilla war if someone is in your back yard, or to use proper terminology, if your territory is occupied by an enemy force. You cant fight guerilla war if you want to advance and conquare enemy territory. That said, you can use commandos to disrupt enemy lines and such, but those were hardly available at this time.
A little known fact about Jackson is he was sort of a Hypochondriac or health anxiety. He often felt "out of balance" and raised one arm to let the blood flow from one side to the other. He also felt most comfortable sitting strait up because he belived his organs were held naturaly. He also bathed and drank mineral waters and complained of different disorders he thought he had.
@hollywoodwerewolf I wish they would make The Last Full Measure that was planned after Gods and Generals. I've read the all three books and I think it would have been a great movie. Although they are going to make a HBO series called To Appomattox planned for release in 2013.
@AUG351 I wish they could've filmed Last Full Measure as well. The true attrition side of the Civil War, Lee vs. Grant, would've been the stuff dramas are made of. I hope To Appomatox has some of Petersburg and Pickett's battle at Five Forks and the last battle Saylors (sp) Creek.
@hollywoodwerewolf Yeah, from what I've heard about To Appomattox is that its going to focus on the story of the whole war and the lives of many of the generals and famous commanders and many of the battles that they leaded and that took place. I hope to see some western battles like Chickamauga, Shiloh, or Franklin that haven't ever been in any Civil War movies before.
@paintballKid545 Because at that time of the war, specific uniforms hadn't been given. The war had just begun, that they wore what they could. That's why if you noticed, some of the Confederates were even wearing red and what not. Jackson wore his blue US attire from when you was in the US military until JEB Stuart bought him a fancy grey one right before Chancellorsville.
@hAitztOn The soldiers wearing the red are what looks like the 11th New York Zouaves or the 14th Regiment New York State Militia at 6:46, unless you meant the the guy at 3:06.
@lonewolf8854 When I was up in PA doing the movie, we had to tell the director to remove a battle flag that had a battle honor for Gettysburg on it. This was Manassas 1861 and Gettysburg was two years later! They did fairly good with the commands, with the help of the reenactors, but there is a lot of stuff they had to do the Hollywood way, including the gosh-awful accent on Jackson. (Stephen Lang from New York City!)
@0neofthem The Star Spangled Banner, written by a Southerner, Francis Scott Key, and the flag it describes are just as much the South's as they are anyone else's. The Revolutionary War was won in the South (Yorktown) and the flag is still revered here. Our first National Flag was composed of our share of the stars (7, then 12) and stripes (two red, one white). The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of resistance to tyranny and known the world over as a symbol of courage and honor.
@Dennizjoon I would give anything to see a Stephen Spielberg ACW movie, so long as it was truthful and not another remake of the Great Yankee lie. I would have loved to have seen Mel Gibson play JEB Stuart as well!
@dafydd67 Thank you, sir. I find it a very welcome break from the normal hillbilly accents that Hollywood uses to portray us. The true Southern accent is quite beautiful and pleasant to the ear. A reenactor friend from Manchester once told me that it is much like a British accent, only slowed down.
@toefur69 We Confederates fought FOR the Constitution, and AGAINST the slave traders. Lincoln and his foreign mercenaries shredded the Constitution, destroyed the original Republic, and created the foundation for the mess we see in Washington today. Who should rot in hell, you say?
@cscptdave You arnt a confederate, there hasnt been a confederate in this country since the end of the war. thats a pretty good bending of the truth, since when is raising arms against the constitution saving it? The Union was the side fighting on behalf of the constitution, and those "foreign mercenaries" patriotic Americans that were more than willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for the flag, calling them anything less than Patriots is an insult to every person here who's ever worn a
@markmason1000 I AM a Confederate, like it or not and there are plenty like me, that still believe in States Rights and the original Republic. We separated with the wish only to be left alone, the Federal President invaded our country, and yes, with thousands of foreign mercenaries for all over the globe. Paid cannon fodder for an illegal, unConstitutional and certainly immoral war of invasion and conquest. Patriots, my eye! It was the South who fought for the Constitution and the Republic!
@cscptdave You are very wrong about the soldiers of the Union Army, you couldn't find a braver group of men in the 19th century. You keep saying the South fought for the constitution, You realize the Constitution gives congress the right to call forth the militia and to execute the laws of the Union, supress insurrections and repel invasions? It also gives the government the right to suspend habeus corpus in times of rebellion and invasion
@markmason1000 We neither insurrected nor invaded, sir. We left the Union by legal and Constitutional means, by the people voting through their elected legislatures, in order to form a better government and separate from a hostile section of the country - a right by ratification. The Congress has certain rights, your president usurped the rest, as befitting a maniacal tyrant and federalist. As for the Union soldier, deluded and badly led as he was, he should have stayed home where they belonged.
@cscptdave President Lincoln was voted in by the people of the United States in a fair election and didn't overstep his presidential boundaries, he was by no means a usurper or tyrant.
@markmason1000 He got not a single vote in the whole South, and if you think you didnt overstep his authority worse than any president before or since, then you are simply ignorant or in denial. The proof is there for you to see. Why do you people insist on sticking your heads in the sand? You know what that leaves you to think with, sticking up in the air? Use good sense son, Lincoln ordered the arrest of the CHIEF JUSTICE of the US SUPREME COURT, also imprisoned Maryland legislature. Geez!
@cscptdav do you realize that Southern states didn't even bother to put Lincolns name on the ballot? had they most likely people from eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia and Maryland would have voted for him, and before you go go spitting on the name of probably the best statesman the United States has ever produced, a man who rather than preach revenge against the south talked about forgiveness and bringing it back into the country you should get off your pedistool and show some
@markmason1000 Then you are a sucker. Lincoln hid behind that lie while he deliberately when about DESTROYING the original REPUBLIC and replacing it with the mess we have tody.
@cscptdave where do you get off saying the mess is Lincolns fault, The party existed before Lincoln was a republican. If anyone should be blamed it should be Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson for starting political parties. I said western Virginia, not West Virginia. On the subject of being imprisoned, do you know how many unionists, were imprisioned through out the South for supporting the United States without charges, do you realize how many men were hanged without tria
@markmason1000 they say that in Texas loyalty could be measured by the length of a rope, the confederacy's repression would have made any modern fascist state proud, even worse unlike copper heads in the North these people were dirt poor farmers
@markmason1000 Repression??? You have been drinking the yankee koolaid again, havent you, son? Lincoln had his political rivals jailed, shut down over 300 newspapers for disagreeing with his murderous policies, imprisoned the entire Maryland legislature, and even ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Show me a parallel.
@markmason1000 It should be obvious, even to you, that Lincoln changed the nature of the government from the original Republic of Sovereign States, to a strong, corrupt, tyrannical central government that screws up everything it touches. And in so doing, he laid the foundations for the myriad of problems we see to day, most seriously the shredding of the Constitution by one maniacal president after another and a totally corrupt and immoral Congress, and also a doddering, clueless Supreme Court.
@cscptdave that's nothing new Politicians have been shredding the constitution since the time after Washington, if your looking for the guilty party on corrupting the government your looking at the wrong person, the criminal is Andrew Jackson, and consider this, what was the "Original Republic"? oh thats right the original republic was an oligarch confederation of states in which only landed gentry had power and slave owners had a death grip on the government
@markmason1000 How old are you? I hate to think that I have wasted so much time debating with a twelve year old. Go get yourself a good book, READ it, then do some research into diaries, letters, first person accounts, the Slave Narratives, etc. Get a real education. I dont have time to keep on schooling you. This aint history class, boy.
@markmason1000 How ironic... WVa, the slave State that had not even been created? Maryland, the State whose entire legislature was jailed so they could not vote on secession? Statesman? The man who began a war of conquest and destruction of the Republic? Forgiveness? For the 625,000 dead, as well as at least 50,000 civilians? The man was a murdering psychopath, a tyrant, hypocrite and liar. The only things you are right about? I would not spit on him if he was on fire.
@DukoOsshiiKhan If we are talking about who "won" the war of 1812 between the USA and the British Empire, well, the Empire won, basically, hands down.
What many Americans tend to forget is that the objective of the US at the start of the war was to annex Canada. Not to gain a national anthem, a lick of white paint at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or to give Baltimore a tourist attraction.
From this, it would take a marvellous feat of imagination to consider it an American victory. So I think the gloating rights on this one goes to Canada
@MrAwsomenoob the us won the war of 1812? They got kicked out of canada, and got their whitehouse all burnt up, at the very most you could argue it was a draw. Any reasonable historian (not american) would say it was more of a defeat on the americans part.
@sprPee I'd agree with you on that. I think (me being American) that you could easily say that Britain won the war with the U.S., but got tired of funding and a lack of interest in the war caused them to pull out. It can be compared to how the U.S. won the Vietnam War, despite the U.S. winning nearly every battle, and accomplishing nearly every campaign, despite this the U.S. pulled out due to a lack of interest by the people, and the costs of war financially speaking.
@DukoOsshiiKhan "the conquest of canada is in our power. i trust i shall not be deemed presumptive when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet" - Henry Clay -
In addition, we burned the capital of "Upper Canada" during the war, modern day Toronto, and we won the majority of naval battles we fought against Britain. The British invasions from the South and East were utterly crushed, and the fighting in the North was at best a stalemate with most sides trading land, though we held more British land than vice versa. If we had gone to war with Britain to gain land, the war would have been a loss, but we didn't and so it wasn't in the end.
@Robertz1986 "though we held more British land than vice versa" no thats not true, US had no troops in canada at the end of the war, however British troops occupied large parts of the northern states.
The US wanted more land, the taking of Canada was their primary goal.
The US invaded Canada to force the British Empire to recognize our sovereign rights once and for all, and as an addition to force them off the continent if possible. We didn't capture Canada (though were never forced out, and at the end of the war we still held western Ontario, and had left occupied Fort Erie voluntarily after the British were slaughtered trying to retake it in the last major battle of the war, except New Orleans right after the war where it happened again...)
@DukoOsshiiKhan Despite what you say America was outnumbered in almost every fight both on land and sea . Britain did actually focus all it's economy and resources towards the war by 1814 and got seriously beaten by the American forces despite Britain sending veteran armies . Look the Americans (one of the least powerful countries in the world at the time ) got Britain (the most powerful country at the time) to recognize the Sovereign rights of the American nation , AGAIN .
@DukoOsshiiKhan Yeah and despite all that we still won , and Canada remained a British lap dog for years ahead . Was this supposed to be a criticism ?
@souerdik is that why britain had one of the largest empires in in the 19th and 20th centuries? is that why britain was the main force behind the defeat of napoleon?
It was British impressment of American sailors for the war with Napoleon that led to the War of 1812, we were neutral in the Napolionic Wars but the British didn't recognize that
@tette666 They create so much smoke in front of the camera that the director usually has only about 1 in every 3 fire in close shots. They add sound to make it sound like more, but the actual smoke would totally blot out the shot if everyone fired.
the US never surrendered after DC was burned, we rebuilt it in time for James Monroe's inaguration in 1815, and the British later lost at Baltimore and again at New Orleans. The war may have been a draw but here we see it as the "Second War of Independence" since it firimly cemented the US as an independent nation and ended any desire the British may have had to reconqure the US, also the US Navy won most of the battles against the Royal Navy in the war
@snakes3425 i doubt that the warof 1812 had that much impact on the british. for one, americans were in an inferior position when the treaty of ghent was negotiated. the battle of new orleans had not even started by the time it was signed. any historian will tell oyu that war of 1812 was lost by the americans. british returned america their land, americans returned british land. thebritish were more worried about the french at the time. america was 2nd priority at best.
The stonewall thing was supposed to be be kind of like him making fun of jackson because (I think it was lee who said this) he would say that jackson is just there standing there doing nothing but it just caught on
@AUG351 Yes, I was talking about that, he later said that jackson was just there standing doing nothing. It was to help rally the routing people and to show that jackson was just there undaunted. But he later commented on, and the nickname caught on like sideburns, burnside
@DukoOsshiiKhan" After two years of warfare, the major causes of the war had disappeared. Neither side had a reason to continue or a chance of gaining a decisive success that would compel their opponents to cede territory or advantageous peace terms.[53] As a result of this stalemate, the two countries signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814"
Excuse me sir i think you need to read a history textbook because the US owned Britain twice okay otherwise we wouldn't have won okay sir stop fooling around.
@DukoOsshiiKhan Sorry to interrupt, but WITHDRAW??? Last time I checked a withdraw from the war doesn't involve your top general being completely surrounded by men on land and navy on sea, and negotiating with enemy general to give up your weapons to the enemy. That is called a SURRENDER, now an example of withdrawl from a war is the U.S. in Vietnam. We won every major battle in Vietnam and then headed to the ocean to come home because we thought the South Vietnamese had control.
You probably should look at your own history. You guys had a civil war of your own between Charles I Royalists and the Parlimentarians that was similar to ours. Yet where as the American Civil War has pretty much become part of American legend: battlefields are preserved, the battles are reinacted, cemetaries and monuments to Union and Confederate Dead have been erected, the English Civil War has faded into obscurity in Britain
@cscptdave Yes I know . I think the original post was why they didn't have them on in some battle scenes . I think they would most of the time cause to hope you are going to get back to a '' drop off '' point is crazy most of the time . Here it is 10 at night , you have been fighting all day and ready to try and sleep . Oh well you are going to have to march miles in the dark through what may be in enemy hands now and then come all the way back . Anyone who thinks this has never done any hiking
@DukoOsshiiKhan You are mistaking naval superiority with quality of ships. The quality of the ships, when talking about hull integrity and guns, the French are universally agreed upon as the superior. But that does not win naval battles. The sailors do and the officers. Therefore that is why the British were superior overall. British Infantry of the 18th and 19th century were fabulous, but Frederick the Greats infantry was the model by which everyone tried to follow.
@DukoOsshiiKhan The British navy was the best not because of their ships, it was because of their sailors who were the best trained. They had a huge empire because of their navy not because of their army. The Prussians had the best Infantry of the the 18th century because they were a small upstart kingdom that had to protect themselves from Austria and Russia! The best disciplined British soldier-3 rounds per minute. Whereas the best Prussian infantrymen could fire four rounds per minute!
@DukoOsshiiKhan The British line of battle was NOT the best of the 18th Century! Frederick the Greats Prussians man for man were superior in every area. They were the model that everyone wanted to emulate. British Navy, ok, I'll give you that! However they were soundly beaten at the Chesapeake by the French keeping Cornwallis from escaping Yorktown. Also I read somewhere years ago that the French built the best ships. Better calibre guns, tougher and faster.
@rylege i'd suggest you read about The Battle Of Trafalgar , The Battle Of The Nile and Battle of Copenhagen 3 Battle's proving Britain's naval superiority Yes french built better Ships but are admiral's/tactics were far superior :)
@TheToxicPenguin I already know all that. I'm very versed in the naval exploits of the Royal Navy. They were the best! I agree. The only thing I was disagreeing was the myth of British line infantry. While exceptional, and cold take unbelievable punishment ( like at Waterloo), they were no match for Fredericks troops, but neither was anyone. Truth be told all armies of the 18th century were all excellent because they had to be as the Prussians set the bar very high!
@360Nomad That is one of several pre-war militia units that wore Revolutionary War uniforms mainly for drill and parades and such. When they volunteered for duty, they wore what they had, which was how they ended up looking about 80 years out of date.
But all you anti-whites say that you support the demographic elimination(GENOCIDE) of white children in the name of "celebrating diversity" so there is no need to "prove" that you are anti-white because you openly admit it although not in as many words to save your anti-white blushes.
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
They think that by calling it"celebrating diversity" that somehow means it`s not a program of geNOcide for us whites.Fewer and fewer white people until we`re all gone,hello?
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
@dungeoncrawler55 I donst see whites being Supressed or killed. No genocide there. And if you want everyone to stay on his Land, get out of America, it's Indian Land. But you have to decide who belongs where, which is significantly dependent on the Time. And how would you choose a Era, to determin Peoples Land? 1900? 1500? 30AD? 10.000BC?
Thousands of White men killing each other over a patch of dirt that today is being flooded with 3rd Worlders,in order to create a 'melting pot' of 'blended humanity'.
This is nothing but an attempt to 'mix' and 'blend' White countries out of existance.
@billyhunchback A Movie called "Gods and generals". It is VERY well made and well worth being Purchased on DVD or BlueRay. A very neat Piece of Cinema, highly recommended.
@nekwa2 At the time of the War, may State militia troops in the South wore blue uniforms (Virginia, Alabama, Georgia), and many in the North wore grey (New York, Indiana, New Hamsphire). At Manassas, it was very confusing. Jackson's uniform was the one he wore as a professor at the Virginia Military Institute, where he was an instructor.
Who are those guys in the red? They look kind of like French Zouaves.....
NobleKorhedron 2 days ago
@NobleKorhedron Yes, they are Zouaves and are the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment which were behind the guns with the 1st Minnesota and the 14th Brooklyn Regiment but what the movie doesn't show is the 14th Brooklyn retook the guns but then fell back to Manassas-Sudley Road and tried to retake Henry Hill several times but failed aswell as other parts of the battle. The 11th Ney York lost 35 men killed, 74 wounded, and over 68 missing or captured.
AUG351 1 day ago
i'd like to have died for the Confederacy
dbarnett87 3 days ago
@dbarnett87 The current Republican Party has a strong neo-confederate influence but not with the doctrine of a limited federal government-they need the fed ability to tax, spend, create huge militaries to protect the American Empire and Israel.
RPenta 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And when you charge, yell like furies! »!!!!!!!!!!!!
Al7417 6 days ago
« And when you charge, yell like furies! »?
Al7417 6 days ago
sone kake die warten bis se abgeschossen werden-.- ich würd mich da hinlegen udn en bisle aus ner entfernung schiessen und nich so wie die alle schön in ne reihe aufstellen un dwarten bis se sterben, so dumm ey-.-
MrTobeey97 1 week ago
ty i like this vid it was for my project ty much
loay726able 1 week ago
Hahaha, The guy's musket isn't even cocked, at 06:43.
ela1191 2 weeks ago
US u are a great nation.u suffered much and today you are undisputed champions of the world..we love u u are the light of hope and shelter for many..a country which alws welcomed the unwanted,leeser of the gods childrena nd gave opportunity to millions of hopeless people and chance to make dream come true..we salute your struggle
love from india
kaustav1933 2 weeks ago
@kaustav1933 Thank you my friend! When push comes to shove with china we're going to need you more than ever!
With Love - The United States.
ContinentalPatriot 1 week ago
@ContinentalPatriot
and we will stand beside u as loyal friend ...rather die for an ally than to see an ally die before me
kaustav1933 4 days ago
its very heart crying to see americans killing americans.they are brothers but on the other side of the line.both the group wanted their version of america ..but by god both the factions were equally devoted to america and loved america to the core.i am an indian(not red).but wen i see the civil wat, i get so sad . a mighty nation of america today suffered so much pain to reach the glory it has reached today.long live US .long live US citizens
kaustav1933 2 weeks ago
well they fought and won so the black boys could fuck and rape the white girls. Create gangs sell drugs and rob your homes. Just perfect
mesmerizeme 2 weeks ago 5
@mesmerizeme oh, and not to mention become the President of the United States, invent the gas mask, create Jazz music and all other forms of music thereafter, all so you white boys can prosper and make as much money as you can- the very reason why this country was founded... so it looks like we helped you out. =)
YadaBeats 1 week ago
my ancestors came to america and fought at this battle on the union side. He returned to england after the battle.
GCmediacourse 3 weeks ago
@GCmediacourse Interesting, yeah many men fought in the Civil War from different countries aswell as many Irish and German immigrants. Did you know one Hugh McVey, an Irishman over seventy years old and a veteran of Waterloo fought in Company D, 4th Kentucky, CSA and died at the Battle of Shiloh. Also Richmon had a Foreign Legion made up of mostly Englishmen. There was also a Russian General, John B. Turchin, who lead a charge at Chickamauga and fought at Missionary Ridge.
AUG351 3 weeks ago
@AUG351Thanks very intresting.
GCmediacourse 3 weeks ago
@AUG351 thats neat!
Civilwarbulletguide 2 weeks ago
@AUG351 True, there was a variation in the specifics of the weapons used, however they all acted in much the same way, there was no side with a definite technological advantage. Also I did say they didn't totally wear similar clothing - but I do agree there was an extreme variation in places. However there was nothing really revolutionary used just for one side, certainly not in the early stages.
DarkShadowMk4 1 month ago
@Thisiswhywefight I would agree it was a rather silly war, yet rather crucial too. It was ridiculous as both sides were armed roughly the same, often (though not totally) dressed the same, and both often used similar tactics in order to win battles. However it wasn't dumb - as without it it is likely that America would have remained a very split country with north and south having greater prejudice than normal.
DarkShadowMk4 1 month ago
Comment removed
AUG351 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkShadowMk4 Actually many different types of uniforms and weapons were used, there was many Zouave regiments that wore red or yellow uniformes and many soliders wore their civilian clothes especially the Confederates who didn't have many uniformes at the start of the war. Many different muskets and rifles were used aswell as revolvers, many brought their own weapons from home that they used to hunt with. It was really a mixture of different equipment, uniformes, and weapons.
AUG351 1 month ago
One of the dumbest fought wars in history. Stand right in front of each other and shoot. They should have learned from the Revolutionary War that it's a dumb method of fighting. The Indians taught the Patriots guerrilla warfare which was instrumental in defeating the Brits.
Thisiswhywefight 1 month ago
@Thisiswhywefight Well, someone seems to know absolutely nothing about history and methods of warfare. By your comment its pretty obvious that your the product of poorly taught history classes.
Royalfork1 1 month ago 11
@Thisiswhywefight its time you read a book
Guerrilla warfare was implemented on supply lines in those times not on full forces like shown here it was issued out in small forces hit and run so like you don't need only history lessons but also some teachings about war tactics. Trough history guerrilla warfare changed and adapted trough warfare ambition so yeah
KBourneify 1 month ago
@KBourneify Yeah, they used many skermishers and which would be divided many times in groups of four and fought from cover. Also cavalry fought on foot many times skermishing and raided supply lines and tore up railroads behind enemy lines.
AUG351 1 month ago
@Thisiswhywefight I A good reasoning behind Napoleanic wars was the fact that your average musket wasn't accurate so the platoon fired volleys instead of aimed shots. I'm sure that both sides did have light infantry but the philosophy was still pretty much 18th century. A point you could make is that casualties were high on both sides so clearly the tactics were outmodded. However guerilla tactics would not have been an answer to a head-on assualt of 1200 soldiers. U still needed an army.
YadaBeats 1 month ago
@Thisiswhywefight I A good reasoning behind Napoleanic wars was the fact that your average musket wasn't accurate so the platoon fired volleys instead of aimed shots. I'm sure that both sides did have light infantry but the philosophy was still pretty much 18th century. A point you could make is that casualties were high on both sides so clearly the tactics were outmodded. However guerilla tactics would not have been an answer to a head-on assualt of 1200 soldiers. U still needed an army.
YadaBeats 1 month ago
Comment removed
AUG351 1 month ago
@Thisiswhywefight Actually they used many trenches and fortifications in most battles, only early battle slike Mannasas they used volleys and fomations in the open. There was two type of common battles in the war, back and forth fighting from trenches like at Spotsylavania or Cold Harbor and one side attacking and the other defending from fortifications. They almost never fought in the open after the first few battles.
AUG351 1 month ago
@AUG351 Yeah, this actually was the end of the Napoleanic way of fighting. The mindset had changed after the carnage and the invention of the Gatlin gun and the refined artillery shell made it too costly to perform head-on assualts. See: Crimean War, and the Franco-Prussian wars in the late 1800s. European leaders still held on to this romantic philosophy of war all the way through the horrors of WW1.
YadaBeats 4 weeks ago
@YadaBeats Yeah, In the Civil War there are many accounts of so many bullets and shrapnel flying arround that it mowed down trees and brush and cut men to pieces. Some regiments like the 1st Maine Artillery in a charge at Petersburg lost 635 of its 9oo men within seven minutes. So there was no way anyone could stand out in the open in a line and fire in volleys, they would be destroyed. Many comanders never learned this and got men cut down in many frontal attacks like Burnside or Hood.
AUG351 4 weeks ago
@YadaBeats Gatling (not gatlin) gun was never used in the Civil war in combat. The true reason of the different tacktics needed was small invention of the Minnie bullit - the bullit with special hole in the bottom, that gone filled during the shot with gunpowders gas, and made bullit fit to the rifled barrel. That caused the shot was accurate on 500 yards, not as smoothbored weapons 100 yards. The 1861' Springfields was rifled carbines shooting Minnie bullits. Thats all difference. .
tomenicus 3 weeks ago
@tomenicus err, the Gatling Gun was used in the Civil War. Ben Butler used 2 of these in Petersburg. It was also deployed on gunboats. Yes it was limited but this was it's first true test.
YadaBeats 1 week ago
@YadaBeats: Agreed. It's main failing was jamming too much.
NobleKorhedron 2 days ago
@Thisiswhywefight You can only use guerilla war if someone is in your back yard, or to use proper terminology, if your territory is occupied by an enemy force. You cant fight guerilla war if you want to advance and conquare enemy territory. That said, you can use commandos to disrupt enemy lines and such, but those were hardly available at this time.
JokeeGA5 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:25 Boooooooooooo!
1:41 Yaaaaaaaaaaay!
PatchesRips 1 month ago
Comment removed
PatchesRips 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A little known fact about Jackson is he was sort of a Hypochondriac or health anxiety. He often felt "out of balance" and raised one arm to let the blood flow from one side to the other. He also felt most comfortable sitting strait up because he belived his organs were held naturaly. He also bathed and drank mineral waters and complained of different disorders he thought he had.
AUG351 1 month ago
shoutout to the mutton chops guy
BTblaktom 1 month ago
At exactly 9:00, my brief moment of sorta fame: I'm the guy with mutton chops (real) just beyond J.E.B. Stuart's upraised sabre arm.
usdragoons 1 month ago 24
@usdragoons are you an reenactor or so?
TheConfederate1863 1 month ago
@usdragoons how did you get in the movie!!?!?!?!?!
manop98 1 day ago
would it be too much trouble for Hollywood to make a Civil War film w/ blood and gore? They haven't done that since 1989.
hollywoodwerewolf 1 month ago
@hollywoodwerewolf I wish they would make The Last Full Measure that was planned after Gods and Generals. I've read the all three books and I think it would have been a great movie. Although they are going to make a HBO series called To Appomattox planned for release in 2013.
AUG351 1 month ago
@AUG351 I wish they could've filmed Last Full Measure as well. The true attrition side of the Civil War, Lee vs. Grant, would've been the stuff dramas are made of. I hope To Appomatox has some of Petersburg and Pickett's battle at Five Forks and the last battle Saylors (sp) Creek.
hollywoodwerewolf 1 month ago
@hollywoodwerewolf Yeah, from what I've heard about To Appomattox is that its going to focus on the story of the whole war and the lives of many of the generals and famous commanders and many of the battles that they leaded and that took place. I hope to see some western battles like Chickamauga, Shiloh, or Franklin that haven't ever been in any Civil War movies before.
AUG351 1 month ago
Why is jackson and other confederate officers wearing union atire
paintballKid545 1 month ago
@paintballKid545 Because at that time of the war, specific uniforms hadn't been given. The war had just begun, that they wore what they could. That's why if you noticed, some of the Confederates were even wearing red and what not. Jackson wore his blue US attire from when you was in the US military until JEB Stuart bought him a fancy grey one right before Chancellorsville.
hAitztOn 1 month ago
@hAitztOn The soldiers wearing the red are what looks like the 11th New York Zouaves or the 14th Regiment New York State Militia at 6:46, unless you meant the the guy at 3:06.
AUG351 1 month ago
@hAitztOn I thought so. Thanks
paintballKid545 1 month ago
This is Planet of the Apes all over again.
amitus8 1 month ago
@lonewolf8854 When I was up in PA doing the movie, we had to tell the director to remove a battle flag that had a battle honor for Gettysburg on it. This was Manassas 1861 and Gettysburg was two years later! They did fairly good with the commands, with the help of the reenactors, but there is a lot of stuff they had to do the Hollywood way, including the gosh-awful accent on Jackson. (Stephen Lang from New York City!)
cscptdave 1 month ago
@robisgangsta1 Geeeezzzzz. Wise up! Get a clue.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@alexiaNBC Yes, like on the first day of Shiloh? Or Murfreesboro? Or Chickamauga?
cscptdave 1 month ago
@82ndarmy Would have been the brightest days - same as the American Revolution - had we but won.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@darkside3330 Well said, darkside! Three cheers for the truth!
cscptdave 1 month ago
@PrinceMustDie666 When fought by reenactors, yes, I'm afraid so.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 15th Alabama, 39th Alabama, and 6th Alabama Cavalry here. Noli me tangere!
cscptdave 1 month ago
@ke4bss First Minnesota wore red battle shirts with black pants and hats.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@0neofthem The Star Spangled Banner, written by a Southerner, Francis Scott Key, and the flag it describes are just as much the South's as they are anyone else's. The Revolutionary War was won in the South (Yorktown) and the flag is still revered here. Our first National Flag was composed of our share of the stars (7, then 12) and stripes (two red, one white). The Confederate battle flag is a symbol of resistance to tyranny and known the world over as a symbol of courage and honor.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@Dennizjoon I would give anything to see a Stephen Spielberg ACW movie, so long as it was truthful and not another remake of the Great Yankee lie. I would have loved to have seen Mel Gibson play JEB Stuart as well!
cscptdave 1 month ago
@dafydd67 Thank you, sir. I find it a very welcome break from the normal hillbilly accents that Hollywood uses to portray us. The true Southern accent is quite beautiful and pleasant to the ear. A reenactor friend from Manchester once told me that it is much like a British accent, only slowed down.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@likojib William N. Pendleton, commander of the First Rockbridge (VA) Artillery.
cscptdave 2 months ago
06:48 who r those in red from the union side?
MingDynasty700 2 months ago
@MingDynasty700 The First Minnesota Regiment wore black hats and red battle shirts at Manassas. Several Union Zouave units wore baggy red pants.
cscptdave 2 months ago
this battle showed the resolve of the people of the south, and thus showed how long the war would truly last
TheJeffBala 2 months ago
o my god who the hell cares this is the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR not the war of 1812 if you guys want to bitch about it go to a war of 1812 video jes
MrAwsomenoob 2 months ago
This movie was garbage! Just made for Ted Turner to jack off to and pretend the rebels were anything but traitorous thieves who now rot in Hell.
toefur69 2 months ago
@toefur69 We Confederates fought FOR the Constitution, and AGAINST the slave traders. Lincoln and his foreign mercenaries shredded the Constitution, destroyed the original Republic, and created the foundation for the mess we see in Washington today. Who should rot in hell, you say?
cscptdave 1 month ago
@cscptdave You arnt a confederate, there hasnt been a confederate in this country since the end of the war. thats a pretty good bending of the truth, since when is raising arms against the constitution saving it? The Union was the side fighting on behalf of the constitution, and those "foreign mercenaries" patriotic Americans that were more than willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for the flag, calling them anything less than Patriots is an insult to every person here who's ever worn a
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 uniform
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 uniform
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 I AM a Confederate, like it or not and there are plenty like me, that still believe in States Rights and the original Republic. We separated with the wish only to be left alone, the Federal President invaded our country, and yes, with thousands of foreign mercenaries for all over the globe. Paid cannon fodder for an illegal, unConstitutional and certainly immoral war of invasion and conquest. Patriots, my eye! It was the South who fought for the Constitution and the Republic!
cscptdave 1 month ago
@cscptdave You are very wrong about the soldiers of the Union Army, you couldn't find a braver group of men in the 19th century. You keep saying the South fought for the constitution, You realize the Constitution gives congress the right to call forth the militia and to execute the laws of the Union, supress insurrections and repel invasions? It also gives the government the right to suspend habeus corpus in times of rebellion and invasion
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 We neither insurrected nor invaded, sir. We left the Union by legal and Constitutional means, by the people voting through their elected legislatures, in order to form a better government and separate from a hostile section of the country - a right by ratification. The Congress has certain rights, your president usurped the rest, as befitting a maniacal tyrant and federalist. As for the Union soldier, deluded and badly led as he was, he should have stayed home where they belonged.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@cscptdave President Lincoln was voted in by the people of the United States in a fair election and didn't overstep his presidential boundaries, he was by no means a usurper or tyrant.
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 He got not a single vote in the whole South, and if you think you didnt overstep his authority worse than any president before or since, then you are simply ignorant or in denial. The proof is there for you to see. Why do you people insist on sticking your heads in the sand? You know what that leaves you to think with, sticking up in the air? Use good sense son, Lincoln ordered the arrest of the CHIEF JUSTICE of the US SUPREME COURT, also imprisoned Maryland legislature. Geez!
cscptdave 1 month ago
@cscptdav do you realize that Southern states didn't even bother to put Lincolns name on the ballot? had they most likely people from eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia and Maryland would have voted for him, and before you go go spitting on the name of probably the best statesman the United States has ever produced, a man who rather than preach revenge against the south talked about forgiveness and bringing it back into the country you should get off your pedistool and show some
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 respect to a man who gave everything for his belief that the Union must be preserved
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 Then you are a sucker. Lincoln hid behind that lie while he deliberately when about DESTROYING the original REPUBLIC and replacing it with the mess we have tody.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@cscptdave where do you get off saying the mess is Lincolns fault, The party existed before Lincoln was a republican. If anyone should be blamed it should be Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson for starting political parties. I said western Virginia, not West Virginia. On the subject of being imprisoned, do you know how many unionists, were imprisioned through out the South for supporting the United States without charges, do you realize how many men were hanged without tria
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 they say that in Texas loyalty could be measured by the length of a rope, the confederacy's repression would have made any modern fascist state proud, even worse unlike copper heads in the North these people were dirt poor farmers
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 Repression??? You have been drinking the yankee koolaid again, havent you, son? Lincoln had his political rivals jailed, shut down over 300 newspapers for disagreeing with his murderous policies, imprisoned the entire Maryland legislature, and even ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Show me a parallel.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@markmason1000 It should be obvious, even to you, that Lincoln changed the nature of the government from the original Republic of Sovereign States, to a strong, corrupt, tyrannical central government that screws up everything it touches. And in so doing, he laid the foundations for the myriad of problems we see to day, most seriously the shredding of the Constitution by one maniacal president after another and a totally corrupt and immoral Congress, and also a doddering, clueless Supreme Court.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@cscptdave that's nothing new Politicians have been shredding the constitution since the time after Washington, if your looking for the guilty party on corrupting the government your looking at the wrong person, the criminal is Andrew Jackson, and consider this, what was the "Original Republic"? oh thats right the original republic was an oligarch confederation of states in which only landed gentry had power and slave owners had a death grip on the government
markmason1000 1 month ago
@markmason1000 How old are you? I hate to think that I have wasted so much time debating with a twelve year old. Go get yourself a good book, READ it, then do some research into diaries, letters, first person accounts, the Slave Narratives, etc. Get a real education. I dont have time to keep on schooling you. This aint history class, boy.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@markmason1000 How ironic... WVa, the slave State that had not even been created? Maryland, the State whose entire legislature was jailed so they could not vote on secession? Statesman? The man who began a war of conquest and destruction of the Republic? Forgiveness? For the 625,000 dead, as well as at least 50,000 civilians? The man was a murdering psychopath, a tyrant, hypocrite and liar. The only things you are right about? I would not spit on him if he was on fire.
cscptdave 1 month ago
@markmason1000 yo dude get over it. why are you saying we??? this shit went down long before you were born lol
fillipinodude 1 month ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan If we are talking about who "won" the war of 1812 between the USA and the British Empire, well, the Empire won, basically, hands down.
lebarosky 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Well there was the Mexican American war.
AUG351 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan And then when the English tried to take New Orleans they were utterly beaten :D
TheVoodooMaker 2 months ago
The comments of this video are a civil war within itself.
fireguy789 2 months ago
What many Americans tend to forget is that the objective of the US at the start of the war was to annex Canada. Not to gain a national anthem, a lick of white paint at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or to give Baltimore a tourist attraction.
From this, it would take a marvellous feat of imagination to consider it an American victory. So I think the gloating rights on this one goes to Canada
sprPee 2 months ago
@sprPee agreed
stevinatornl 2 months ago
why are you guys arguing about 1812 this is the civil war we won they lost becuse they were dealing with napoleon end of story
MrAwsomenoob 3 months ago
@MrAwsomenoob the us won the war of 1812? They got kicked out of canada, and got their whitehouse all burnt up, at the very most you could argue it was a draw. Any reasonable historian (not american) would say it was more of a defeat on the americans part.
sprPee 2 months ago
@sprPee I'd agree with you on that. I think (me being American) that you could easily say that Britain won the war with the U.S., but got tired of funding and a lack of interest in the war caused them to pull out. It can be compared to how the U.S. won the Vietnam War, despite the U.S. winning nearly every battle, and accomplishing nearly every campaign, despite this the U.S. pulled out due to a lack of interest by the people, and the costs of war financially speaking.
BFtagRETRIBUTION 2 months ago 2
@DukoOsshiiKhan Why would the British need to do Canada when they owned it
tonylast47 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan "the conquest of canada is in our power. i trust i shall not be deemed presumptive when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet" - Henry Clay -
yea... this quote speaks by itself.
sirlucifux 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
In addition, we burned the capital of "Upper Canada" during the war, modern day Toronto, and we won the majority of naval battles we fought against Britain. The British invasions from the South and East were utterly crushed, and the fighting in the North was at best a stalemate with most sides trading land, though we held more British land than vice versa. If we had gone to war with Britain to gain land, the war would have been a loss, but we didn't and so it wasn't in the end.
Robertz1986 3 months ago
@Robertz1986 "though we held more British land than vice versa" no thats not true, US had no troops in canada at the end of the war, however British troops occupied large parts of the northern states.
The US wanted more land, the taking of Canada was their primary goal.
sprPee 2 months ago
The last battle was actually a British victory at the Battle of Fort Bowyer on February 11th, 1815. This took place over a month after New Orleans.
sprPee 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
The US invaded Canada to force the British Empire to recognize our sovereign rights once and for all, and as an addition to force them off the continent if possible. We didn't capture Canada (though were never forced out, and at the end of the war we still held western Ontario, and had left occupied Fort Erie voluntarily after the British were slaughtered trying to retake it in the last major battle of the war, except New Orleans right after the war where it happened again...)
Robertz1986 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan False. American forces didn't get defeated in Canada, the troops refused to go. They refused to be involved in an invasion.
ParadigmShiftr 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Despite what you say America was outnumbered in almost every fight both on land and sea . Britain did actually focus all it's economy and resources towards the war by 1814 and got seriously beaten by the American forces despite Britain sending veteran armies . Look the Americans (one of the least powerful countries in the world at the time ) got Britain (the most powerful country at the time) to recognize the Sovereign rights of the American nation , AGAIN .
haibane13 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Yeah and despite all that we still won , and Canada remained a British lap dog for years ahead . Was this supposed to be a criticism ?
haibane13 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan you know that britain said that we would've been a british colony in 1776.. didnt happen.
republicanshield 3 months ago
That just shows you how awesome southerners are.... 1:58 Gen. Jackson checks his binoculars when a cannon shell explodes behind him!
Virginiaboy131 3 months ago
random history trollololololol. that is all.
kesselrunfun 3 months ago
@souerdik is that why britain had one of the largest empires in in the 19th and 20th centuries? is that why britain was the main force behind the defeat of napoleon?
avalsonline2 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
It was British impressment of American sailors for the war with Napoleon that led to the War of 1812, we were neutral in the Napolionic Wars but the British didn't recognize that
snakes3425 3 months ago
@souerdik Well i'll give you that their leaders suck, however some of their troops are amazing. The Royal Marines are on par with ours.
ContinentalPatriot 3 months ago
at 6:43... one of the union soldiers' weapon isn't really firing...?
tette666 3 months ago
@tette666 They create so much smoke in front of the camera that the director usually has only about 1 in every 3 fire in close shots. They add sound to make it sound like more, but the actual smoke would totally blot out the shot if everyone fired.
cscptdave 1 month ago
The Union officer riding out in front at 4:41 got owned lol
Goatoftheforest 3 months ago 11
@Goatoftheforest Yup! Virginians are awsome!
Virginiaboy131 2 months ago
@Goatoftheforest
Unlucky fella' :P
TheMrSmissen 2 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
the US never surrendered after DC was burned, we rebuilt it in time for James Monroe's inaguration in 1815, and the British later lost at Baltimore and again at New Orleans. The war may have been a draw but here we see it as the "Second War of Independence" since it firimly cemented the US as an independent nation and ended any desire the British may have had to reconqure the US, also the US Navy won most of the battles against the Royal Navy in the war
snakes3425 3 months ago
@snakes3425 i doubt that the warof 1812 had that much impact on the british. for one, americans were in an inferior position when the treaty of ghent was negotiated. the battle of new orleans had not even started by the time it was signed. any historian will tell oyu that war of 1812 was lost by the americans. british returned america their land, americans returned british land. thebritish were more worried about the french at the time. america was 2nd priority at best.
avalsonline2 3 months ago
Must have been a right laugh being an extra in a film like this.
TheGodParticle 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan We took provinces in canada away from the british empire and they took provinces from us. It ended in a draw.
ContinentalPatriot 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan And we won the war now didnt we......
mrjacobbunch 3 months ago
It must ve been hard for the british, as Brinainna is so far away from ameica, and it took so long for the british to reinforce themselves.
asparadog 3 months ago
The stonewall thing was supposed to be be kind of like him making fun of jackson because (I think it was lee who said this) he would say that jackson is just there standing there doing nothing but it just caught on
shiptech2k9 3 months ago
@shiptech2k9 Watch 2:56, that shows how he got the name "Stonewall" Jackson.
AUG351 3 months ago
@AUG351 Yes, I was talking about that, he later said that jackson was just there standing doing nothing. It was to help rally the routing people and to show that jackson was just there undaunted. But he later commented on, and the nickname caught on like sideburns, burnside
shiptech2k9 3 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan" After two years of warfare, the major causes of the war had disappeared. Neither side had a reason to continue or a chance of gaining a decisive success that would compel their opponents to cede territory or advantageous peace terms.[53] As a result of this stalemate, the two countries signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814"
waltab3 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan i think cornwallis surrendered his army to Washingtion at Yorktown, silly Brits never learn from history
waltab3 4 months ago
@waltab3 That's what I'm saying! He didn't withdraw he had a surrender treaty and had to give up all his weapons.
BFtagRETRIBUTION 4 months ago
7:20 how many times did they use that scene?
MrLordwells 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrLordwells 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
Ugh sir i think you just need to accept the fact that the US owned Britain's ass twice okay because if they could have they would have PEACE!
crackshack2 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
Excuse me sir i think you need to read a history textbook because the US owned Britain twice okay otherwise we wouldn't have won okay sir stop fooling around.
crackshack2 4 months ago
How can Yeanks lose all weight from a junk food?
Just watch this video.
smrt1111111111111 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Sorry to interrupt, but WITHDRAW??? Last time I checked a withdraw from the war doesn't involve your top general being completely surrounded by men on land and navy on sea, and negotiating with enemy general to give up your weapons to the enemy. That is called a SURRENDER, now an example of withdrawl from a war is the U.S. in Vietnam. We won every major battle in Vietnam and then headed to the ocean to come home because we thought the South Vietnamese had control.
BFtagRETRIBUTION 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
You probably should look at your own history. You guys had a civil war of your own between Charles I Royalists and the Parlimentarians that was similar to ours. Yet where as the American Civil War has pretty much become part of American legend: battlefields are preserved, the battles are reinacted, cemetaries and monuments to Union and Confederate Dead have been erected, the English Civil War has faded into obscurity in Britain
snakes3425 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan
Except America
We beat your ass in the Revo War and We beat your ass in the War of 1812 AMERICA II UK 0
And if you think America could never win an old fashioned battle with fancy lines look up Battle of Saratoga
crackshack2 4 months ago
Am I wrong or shouldn't the Confeds be wearing bed rolls ?
mollymu1 4 months ago
@mollymu1 Both sides carried knapsacks or wore bedrolls at different points in the War. There are few things that are specifically Southern or Union.
cscptdave 2 months ago
@cscptdave Yes I know . I think the original post was why they didn't have them on in some battle scenes . I think they would most of the time cause to hope you are going to get back to a '' drop off '' point is crazy most of the time . Here it is 10 at night , you have been fighting all day and ready to try and sleep . Oh well you are going to have to march miles in the dark through what may be in enemy hands now and then come all the way back . Anyone who thinks this has never done any hiking
mollymu1 1 month ago
If Britian would of won the Rev War it would of been about Slavery.
mollymu1 4 months ago
Comment removed
bigkevi1992 4 months ago
Dayum it! CHAARRGGE!!!! First redneck in history
ModellMeister 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan You are mistaking naval superiority with quality of ships. The quality of the ships, when talking about hull integrity and guns, the French are universally agreed upon as the superior. But that does not win naval battles. The sailors do and the officers. Therefore that is why the British were superior overall. British Infantry of the 18th and 19th century were fabulous, but Frederick the Greats infantry was the model by which everyone tried to follow.
rylege 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan The British navy was the best not because of their ships, it was because of their sailors who were the best trained. They had a huge empire because of their navy not because of their army. The Prussians had the best Infantry of the the 18th century because they were a small upstart kingdom that had to protect themselves from Austria and Russia! The best disciplined British soldier-3 rounds per minute. Whereas the best Prussian infantrymen could fire four rounds per minute!
rylege 4 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan The British line of battle was NOT the best of the 18th Century! Frederick the Greats Prussians man for man were superior in every area. They were the model that everyone wanted to emulate. British Navy, ok, I'll give you that! However they were soundly beaten at the Chesapeake by the French keeping Cornwallis from escaping Yorktown. Also I read somewhere years ago that the French built the best ships. Better calibre guns, tougher and faster.
rylege 4 months ago
@rylege i'd suggest you read about The Battle Of Trafalgar , The Battle Of The Nile and Battle of Copenhagen 3 Battle's proving Britain's naval superiority Yes french built better Ships but are admiral's/tactics were far superior :)
TheToxicPenguin 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheToxicPenguin I already know all that. I'm very versed in the naval exploits of the Royal Navy. They were the best! I agree. The only thing I was disagreeing was the myth of British line infantry. While exceptional, and cold take unbelievable punishment ( like at Waterloo), they were no match for Fredericks troops, but neither was anyone. Truth be told all armies of the 18th century were all excellent because they had to be as the Prussians set the bar very high!
rylege 4 months ago
Why are the confed officers using yankee uniforms?
megatron291 4 months ago
@megatron291 this was very early into the war, the confederates didn't have any "official" uniforms yet, so they wore what uniforms they had
Falcon764 4 months ago
@Falcon764 thnx for info m8
megatron291 4 months ago
3:48 Anyone notice some Confederates are wearing their VMI Revolutionary War ceremonial uniforms.
360Nomad 5 months ago
@360Nomad That is one of several pre-war militia units that wore Revolutionary War uniforms mainly for drill and parades and such. When they volunteered for duty, they wore what they had, which was how they ended up looking about 80 years out of date.
cscptdave 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm not an anti white."
But all you anti-whites say that you support the demographic elimination(GENOCIDE) of white children in the name of "celebrating diversity" so there is no need to "prove" that you are anti-white because you openly admit it although not in as many words to save your anti-white blushes.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
dungeoncrawler55 5 months ago
Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
They think that by calling it"celebrating diversity" that somehow means it`s not a program of geNOcide for us whites.Fewer and fewer white people until we`re all gone,hello?
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
dungeoncrawler55 5 months ago
@dungeoncrawler55 I donst see whites being Supressed or killed. No genocide there. And if you want everyone to stay on his Land, get out of America, it's Indian Land. But you have to decide who belongs where, which is significantly dependent on the Time. And how would you choose a Era, to determin Peoples Land? 1900? 1500? 30AD? 10.000BC?
LutzDerLurch 5 months ago
This all seems so pointless now.
Thousands of White men killing each other over a patch of dirt that today is being flooded with 3rd Worlders,in order to create a 'melting pot' of 'blended humanity'.
This is nothing but an attempt to 'mix' and 'blend' White countries out of existance.
ONLY White countries are targeted like this.
It's Genocide
Asian countries for asians
Black countries for blacks
but White countries for Everybody ?
'Anti-racism' is a codeword for Anti-White
zombiekiller117 5 months ago
@zombiekiller117 You'd like to do a reality check, Sir.
LutzDerLurch 5 months ago
Anybody help me here.Is this a movie or a mini-series.Would be much obliged.
billyhunchback 5 months ago
@billyhunchback It's the movie Gods and Generals
AUG351 5 months ago
@billyhunchback A Movie called "Gods and generals". It is VERY well made and well worth being Purchased on DVD or BlueRay. A very neat Piece of Cinema, highly recommended.
LutzDerLurch 5 months ago
@LutzDerLurch :Cheers,thanks for the info.
billyhunchback 5 months ago
5:26. Eat lead Yankee Scum!
ItNice26 5 months ago
What's the soundtrack that plays during this battle?
360Nomad 5 months ago
Hi, I'm from Sweden and I'm confused... Why does Jackson have a "North"- army hat? :/
nekwa2 5 months ago
@nekwa2 It's just what the confederate generals were issued to wear, not all the confederates
wore grey.
AUG351 5 months ago
@AUG351
Oh, thank's. Now i know. :D
nekwa2 5 months ago
@nekwa2 At the time of the War, may State militia troops in the South wore blue uniforms (Virginia, Alabama, Georgia), and many in the North wore grey (New York, Indiana, New Hamsphire). At Manassas, it was very confusing. Jackson's uniform was the one he wore as a professor at the Virginia Military Institute, where he was an instructor.
cscptdave 2 months ago
Who were the chaps in reds? Brits?
skintrade 5 months ago
@skintrade Looks like Zouaves
AUG351 5 months ago