Barry Lyndon

I think it's so you're not all exhausted when you get to the enemy. The key to winning a battle is to break the enemy's morale and get them to run away. If you run to the enemy, get there out of breath and start getting stabbed to shit, your men will break and run, and be slaughtered. The muskets and cannon don't kill as many as the bayonets will when the lines close, so getting to the enemy fresh, having intimidated them with a cold, fearless march into their guns, is better than running at them across the entire field.

t. 30+ hours playing Empire: Total War

It was the optimal way to own a quarter of the world.

>gorilla warfare
did you learn those tactics from that class you graduated top of in the usmc?

Because muskets and their ammo are inaccurate and take a while to reload so they want to get as close as possible to do the most damage. Also close enough so that the enemy artillery is less effective.

>Don't engage in open plains

lol good luck with that

>gorilla warfare
bravo

Also want to add: You want to all get there at the same time. If you all run, you'll get to the enemy a few at a time, and each group that arrives will be heavily outnumbered and easily killed. An orderly march is slow, but it ensures you will all get there simultaneously and be able to bring the full force of your numbers to bear.

>Don't engage in open plains and wage ambushes and gorilla warfare.
Not viable when your army is limited in numbers and spread thin in a foreign country
>Bait them into sieges and battling fortifications.
There aren't just readily available forts every 50 miles.
>Bombard them to hell with cannons from a hill.
You have to take the hill before you can defend it

Bravo, move over Napoleon.

Yeah I have read all those arguments about the weapons and tactics, etc.

But there is no point to fight like that in an open field, why they couldn't hide and move fast? make trenches, make some barriers or soemthing...

Why in the war of independence the colonialists change their tactics and could resist against a much bigger and powerful enemy?

If the colonialists would have fought like that, all together in an open field they would have lost in one single battle.

>But there is no point to fight like that in an open field, why they couldn't hide and move fast? make trenches, make some barriers or soemthing...

because they didn't have machine guns and sniper rifles to engage each other. all they would have are shitty canons. they'd sit in trenches for 10 years and nothing would happen. until they decided to just fucking march at each other.

>american education

It was considered the fairest way to settle a dispute, back in those days there was honor.

>why they couldn't hide and move fast? make trenches, make some barriers or soemthing...
Because if you're making an offensive you're ultimately going to have to leave your trench and advance on the enemy position anyway.
>Why in the war of independence the colonialists change their tactics and could resist against a much bigger and powerful enemy?
Because that was a population turned militia. The napoleonic wars were armies in foreign countries.

Make trenches? Why? So you can get surrounded and starved? You can't even volley fire from a trench. What do you mean move fast?

And the colonialists did fight in open fields. The War of Independence had a lot more facets than le Patriot ambush man.

It's simply a matter of communications. Remember that a message could still only travel as fast as a voice or horse could carry it during this period and so units needed to be tightly packed to ensure ease of movement and order being clearly given and spread. The inaccuracy of contemporary muskets was partly the reason but it was mostly communications which prevented any larger scale spreading out of formations barring specifically formed light troops. So high casualty rates weren't really a problem when it was something which both side of a given battle expected beforehand in the context of warfare known to them at the time.

It was all part of their master plan.

Christ next this faggot would be asking why there wern't trenches built pre-gunpowder and that all archers should be in trenches.

Fucking kek, you can shut your face as well. They fought like that because it was the best and most efficient way of killing your enemies. Read up on the 30 Years War and tell me where you find honor in that. Also, sabotage, ambushes, guerilla tactics, partisans, raids etc wasn't anything new, it wasn't invented in the War of Independence. Americans just romanticize the idea of a mountain man and his rifle living in the woods and winning against the odds because they think it can be done today against their own government.

The colonials had a massive home advantage. Their supplies and reasons for fighting were all around them, and they knew the terrain like their back garden. The British supplies had to come across the Atlantic ocean and they were fighting in a completely foreign land, because they were ordered to.

With a large army, abroad like that, you can't have your men spread out and hiding in a wilderness. You'll have deserters, low morale, and you'll be unable to coordinate troop movements effectively.

Ok buddy do me a favor. Load up empire total war and fight a battle where the enemy has one group of 100 men in formation and you have 12 separate squads of 9 men and try to rout the men in formation.

See how effective you are

Always the same arguments...

Can you explain me why they can't move running in gropus hide in the forest then attacking from behind or something different than going straight foward to the bullets???

I don't play video games, video games are for children, sorry.

HAHAHAHAAHHAA!!!! You cracked me up son. Is /tv/ your main board? I find your sense of humor too strong for /tv/.

You're not fucking listening.

Dude, you're on Veeky Forums you can't really call people out on being manchildren.

Cool, you hang out in the forest. We'll take the cities, the harbors, the breweries, the bakeries, the industries and the farmable land. Have fun surviving off squirrels and rain water.

>Always the same arguments...
Maybe because it's correct.

Spread your guys out and try to surround them, and your lines will be thin and vulnerable to a charge.

>youtu.be/tC7r8yBewTk

AMERIKEKS BTFO

>the world is all forest
>what is logistics
>what is morale

because the guns back then were fucking trash and weren't accurate. you had one bullet back then, if you miss then you either have to reload or go charge in (they didn't want to charge in, surprise surprise). ambushes didn't work the same way back then as they do now with modern weapons. they were in a weird area where they had guns but they were kind of shitty, but they also didn't want to go balls to the wall and charge in.

you can't fight all battles in a forest anyway. if you take your entire army and just go hide in a forest, how are you going to get supplies? you've just left everything including your supply lines open

...

>because the guns back then were fucking trash

Even in ancient times there was more tactics and there weren't even guns.

You're so dense. There were lots of men far smarter than you who led armies and developed tactics during that period of history. The tactics they relied on were the result of the limitations in weaponry, communications, and logistics of the time. For the most part they did the best with what they had.

In this engagement:

>British must advance upon the French position
>they must march forward while the French have the advantage of being on defense
>being on defense, the French may hold position and fire/reload until the British reach them
>the British must advance and reach them, and their cohesion would break down if they tried to fire and reload while marching
>hence, the British must advance to close-range, fire, then charge the French position

good bait but i'm happy to discuss this film and style of warfare since i love both

>Even in ancient times there was more tactics
Please elaborate.

because guns changed everything, don't you get it? they were limited in some ways but it took less time to train people to use them. that's the thing right there, less training and more effective.

You sound knowledgable, I bet you have done some in depth studies juxtaposing Napoleonic tactics versus warfare in Antiquity.

Yeah so intelligent to run towards a wall of guys ready to shoot you and with guns.

Very very intelligent, sure.

Sure those very intelligent officers didn't go in those front lines and watch the battle from a comfy hill.

Puppets marching slowly and proudly like the fools they were. There were most likely many undoubtedly shat themselves in fear, but trudged on anyway out of fear of being legally shot as a traitor.

All this, of course, while their kings sat back snuggly out of harm's way, unlike the older wars. These people were idiots.

>Yeah so intelligent to run towards a wall of guys ready to shoot you and with guns.

stop thinking every battle can be a fucking ambush, jesus christ. how the fuck do you think we take defensive positions today?

In ancient times you can see how armies make deception movements. Use trunks, use fire, make ambushes.

Ohhhh now we have muskets and they are a shitty weapong with only one shot and we can train soldiers faster so let's make a shitty tactic of running all towards death playing drums. Let's hope that they run ount of bullets or don't know how to shoot.

with planes, tanks, artillery, etc???

>Sure those very intelligent officers didn't go in those front lines and watch the battle from a comfy hill.

Neither do they today, great argument. I bet you would fight from the front lines with your merry band of forest dwellers.

Honestly, you have an entire board of people more knowledgeable than you telling you that you're wrong and don't have a clue what you're talking about, doesn't that tell you something?

Maybe time to cut your losses, read up on some of this stuff and stop making an ass out of yourself.

there was no way around it. they either used guns or they were fucked.

And you are?

tanks still get shot at.

air support is something different and that also completely changed how we fight wars, but that's a different topic

Can you explain me what were they defending in OP pic??? An empty field??

You obviously have some sort of interest in this subject, so why don't you just read up on it? You'd likely find it interesting and you wouldn't have to make these bait threads all the time.

I'm what?

maybe they were defending a supply line and their only way of defending it was to fight a battle on an open field?

You've managed to say so much dumb shit in one post that I don't even know where to begin in refuting it.

Yeah that worked great in Stalingrad.

>lol they just marched into machine gun fire what idiots i bet hitler wasnt even on the front line herp derp

I didn't make the thread.

Yes, who are you? Professor of modern history I know, but in what university? What are some of your best publications? I'm interested.

how do you know that?

>Americans just romanticize the idea of a mountain man and his rifle living in the woods and winning against the odds because they think it can be done today against their own government.
Evidence guerrilla warfare works against the US government:
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan

Ok, you should still do it though.

dont, just making up a scenario. perfectly adequate one too.

in the old British army it was either that or be flogged to death. or stoppage of the liquor allowance, which the drunks and criminals comprising their army probably dreaded most of all

Reading a few books doesn't make you a professor.

>lol what buttheads they shoulda just gone innawoods and snipe xD

Maybe you teach at West Point?

>just making up a scenario
Ahhhhhh ok.

Touche.

The Americans won thanks to France and her allies, not a batshit innawoods Christian with a tomahawk and musket.

>The Americans won thanks to France and her allies, not a batshit innawoods Christian with a tomahawk and musket.

And what does that have to do with my post?

wtf i love frogs now

What would have been people's preferred choice, serving in the army or the navy? Sharpe or Hornblower?

You have only watched some documentaries and read wikipedia articles son. Don't act like some professor of history. Be more open minded, you don't have all the answers and you don't have the only truth.

ITT: idiots who dont know the history of warfare. It was fighting in formation just as in greek and roman times but with weaponry of that time. It was most effective way of fighting. Also battles during this time had least casulties of all battles in history. It was a matter of breaking enemy morale and formation to make them run.

Vietnam was propped up by both SU and China, it wasn't just le spooky pajama man with an SKS.

>aristochratic
Even assuming you mean aristocratic you are retarded cause those are not aristocrats fighting.

>tfw there will never be a traditional war again
>either guerrilla war or wiping everyone out with nukes

>guerrilla warfare wasn't significant in the Vietnam war

k, please adopt a trip so I can filter the rest of your shitposts

well I like to think I'd have been protected from impressment by such friends as I've got at work. it wasn't unusual for groups of people to respond with violence and actually succeed at it. certainly I'd like to take a bashing instrument to some stinking cunt of a redcoat

When have I ever pretended to be a professor? I've just tried to explain that there's a good reason people did things the way they did.You however pretend to know better than all the generals of the time and all historians after. It's a bit pathetic. Everyone is just calling you on your bs.

As a private soldier Richard Sharpe was damn near flogged to death. I don't know how he survived it. Hornblower's an interesting case because he's such a 20th century character in a brutish historical milieu (hates flogging, loves hygiene, finds everyone he knows insufferably stupid).

>ywn slowly march with your comrades in a line while listening to a marching music waiting to see white in their eyes and shoot your musket then get shot while reloading

saying people were stupid for fighting like this is kind of like calling the romans stupid for not having airplanes dropping napalm on everything

they did the best with the limitations they had at the time

PhD student of modern history here. You are correct. The guy you are debating doesn't understand basic concepts of warfare.

>you are retarded cause those are not aristocrats fighting.
But the people who made the tactics yes. And that's what I meant.

trench won't help you for shit if your only firepower is inaccureate rifle with a very low firing speed. musketeers hiding in the trench would be very easy targets for bayonets and spears

I know how you feel, user. I myself frequently reflect on the injustice of not being torn to bits by canister or having a big ball of shot smash casually through both my legs.

>it wasnt just

Great reading comprehension.

But yeah I guess they still would've won without Chinese guns, ammo, food, medical supplies and fuel. Also Russian fighter jets, AA missiles and advisors didn't even help.

>its a 'i have no understanding of 18th century warfare but i'll make a thread about it anyway' episode

Aristocratic warfare since ancient times is 1on1 fighting. Here we got mass armies fighting with relatively poorly trained soldiers. Yes, there is some pre-modern concept of honor in this but it doesn't have a lot do do with aristorcracy but more with masculinity.
If it was limited to aristocracy people wouldn't be fighting like they did. The concept of honor was extended and transformed before people fought like this. There is also a lot of money involved btw.

>musketeers hiding in the trench would be very easy targets for bayonets and spears
But they have to come to the trenches in the first place. We shoot them when they are near and then you fight with them hand by hand in the trenches. It's better for a little army fight in the trenches because a bigger army can't use their gibber numbers. Termophilas tactic.

Isn't gorilla warfare usually the best option for small armies?

Why are you replying to me? I already said I'm not interested in your low level shitposting.

go back to r3ddit

Join ISIS.

>Termophilas
Just stop talking and pick up a book.