Chalupa Batman
Centurion
(id: ccsantos)
posted 17 May 2007 02:05
EDT (US)
77 / 188
Why is this part of the forum discussion limited to the 17th (or 18th?) century?
dsmi1
Legionary
posted 10 June 2007 01:11
EDT (US)
79 / 188
My question is about standard bearers. It was actually something i was going to make a similar thread to ask, because its probably not worth its own.
Were they required to fight? I know they carried the banner and helped them stay in formation or what not. But when the lines met would they move to the back, or drop the banner and fight? Surely they would not be effective fighters if they had to spare a hand/ arm to hold it.
Or if someone had a good reference instead of an explanation that would be just as appreciated.
dsmi1
Legionary
posted 10 June 2007 05:52
EDT (US)
81 / 188
Yeah I had the idea that later on there was some sort of sleeve they could use, similar to stuff you see today. So for medieval battles, your saying there were better soldiers put into formation near the bearer to specifically keep him alive. Seems like a good idea, although having the bearer on the third line might make sense. That being said i wasnt there and im not a military commander haha. Thanks for answering that question Kor.
dsmi1
Legionary
posted 19 July 2007 19:46
EDT (US)
91 / 188
Some interesting discussion here so maybe I will continue.
My question comes from reading a novel last week, I know this forum is limited to 'early' gunpowder era so perhaps it fits. If not then the description on the forum is not detailed enough! Anyhow, onto the question.
When firing musket volleys, why was it so important for everyone to close ranks and stay tight? They even had ( which im assuming was in real life) rank or file closers to make sure everything was in order. Now I assume its so that each volley is more 'concentrated' and is sure to put down more enemies. But what wouldnt being that much closer together up make you an easier target for the return fire? My question really is about these rank closers and fillers their role etc.
Im not judging these tactics because as like most people, I have zero military experience, but the reasons why interest me.
Any reasons / ideas?
Mechstra
Banned
posted 20 July 2007 04:43
EDT (US)
93 / 188
Actually the US War of Independence was won on the strategic scale for the US, not the tactical scale, in which the British were generally victorious. It was poor strategic generalship rather than battles that lost it for the British. Also, the Confederates were just as fond of ranks and volleys as the Union soldiers were in the US Civil War - they were, however, generally more proficient, and as in previous eras that counted for a lot. Being able to reload faster and not break as early when under fire was what won straight fights when all facets of generalship were removed.
Musket volleys were as they were because muskets were horrendously inaccurate and ranks of men all firing at once (at least to start with) was the most effective way of using them. The standard French infantry musket didn't even have sights, I believe, while the Brown Bess had only a rudimentary stump which was no use to man or beast (although it was possibly the other way around). This was to discourage infantry from attempting to sight along the barrel, as muskets were so hopelessly inaccurate that a single shot fired at a single man standing 50 feet away would have a better than evens chance of missing him. Volume of fire, and aiming low so that the spread of musket balls would be more likely to hit something critical (they had a tendency of firing higher than it seemed to the soldiers), was what was important. Closing ranks was indeed to allow for a greater concentration of fire - this won battles. The much-vaunted British thin red line prevailed over the French columns because every musket in the line could fire - in the columns, mathematics dictated that only the front ranks and side ranks could fire. Also, closing ranks meant that the line stopped getting thinned out in places - a line with gaps is far easier for a charge of men to break through, starting a rout.
It was not until the advent of rifled barrels that modern infantry doctrine became at all applicable, although even musket-equipped light infantry used cover and concealment and skirmish order, much like later troops would. In the British army, each regiment had a light company which took these duties, and regiments such as the 60th Royal American Rifles (mostly made up of Germans by the time of the Napoleonic Wars) were distributed throughout the army in companies, to perform skirmish duties and nothing else. The French army had voltigeurs and chasseurs who performed light infantry duties with muskets, and in all armies which used rifles, the rifle-equipped troops fought with tactics more appropriate to their accurate weapons while the musket-equipped ones formed the line battalions. If it truly had been a stupid era of warfare, then the massed-ranks attitude would have been applied to the entire grand sweep of soldiery.
To say that the tactics of the 18th and early 19th centuries were stupid shows a gross lack of understanding of how these tactics had come about through trial and error and finding the best way of using the resources available. The middle of the 19th century is a far better example of 'stupid' warfare, as tactical mindsets were broadly stuck in the rut of ranks of men and volleys even though technology was racing ahead with breech-loading rifles and the like.
dsmi1
Legionary
posted 23 July 2007 00:36
EDT (US)
97 / 188
Thanks for the responses CavalryCmdr, D Furius Venator and Mr Dunn. Sorted those issues out.
On the point of reassurance from having your mates around, i was reading an account of an American officer in Vietnam and how he felt something similar. One part in the book he said that when the man in front went around the corner, even though he knew he was less than a few metres away he ran to get around the corner so he could see him again. I guess its important to feel like your not the only one there. And if theres more people about then your perhaps less likely to be shot / attacked, and more likely (at least in your mind) to be able to get them before they get you.
Anyone got any other points to talk about?
dsmi1
Legionary
posted 09 August 2007 19:02
EDT (US)
98 / 188
Was Procopius' description of Justinian a fair one? Im wondering what kind of state he left the empire in after he died, and if it really as bad as he made out. It has left a fairly negative view in my mind that soon (post university project period) I hope to find out some more details. What do you guys think?
I did do a search of Justinian on the forums which returned no results so I thought about asking here.