What was victorian era combat like? Was it like napoleonic combat where armies would line up and shoot each other, was it like WW1 with trenches and fortifications? Why didn't the franco-prussian war or US civil war degenerate into a WW1 style stalemate?
What was victorian era combat like? Was it like napoleonic combat where armies would line up and shoot each other...
Asher Murphy
Robert Bailey
why don't you research it
Camden Evans
It says a lot that Waterloo which only lasted 3 days was seen as horrific.
Austin Moore
Was more like ww1 but on eastern front. Stalemate on the west happened because the sides had enough time and resources to fortify the entire border.
Julian Rivera
Battles were short but intense
At Borodino on 7 September 1812 Russia took as many dead as America did in the two decades of the Vietnam War
Isaiah Hill
>1800s-1860s
Still line battles n shit like in Napoopan's time.
>1860s-1890s
Faster firing artillery, fast firing breech loading weapons, cavalry increasingly becoming mounted infantry, line formations giving way to looser (though still cohesive) "skirmish lines" making up firing lines, basically erryone a skirmisher.
Look up how the Franco-Prussian War was fought by the Prussians/Germans. That was how war in the latter half of the century looked like.
Robert Murphy
>What was victorian era combat like?
The 19th century in general was pretty dank.
>Why didn't the franco-prussian war or US civil war degenerate into a WW1 style stalemate?
During WW1, one of the biggest reasons for stalemates was aerial reconnaissance. It made it very difficult for either side to really surprise the other side, except in cases where one side just completely dropped the ball, like at the Battle of Tannenberg. Also relevant is the rise of the machine gun, which made attacking in general much more difficult. Bayonets, the traditional way of bringing a battle to a swift conclusion, were suddenly almost entirely useless.
Liam Rodriguez
This is supposedly an action shot of the French of German attackers during the Battle of Sedan.
Notice how they still advanced in columns, but dispersed and went prone when in action.
Xavier White
Fun fact, an early form of trench warfare was practiced in some areas on the Eastern Seaboard during the American Civil War. Not totally related to your question, I just find it interesting.
Aaron Long
Wish we could go back to the good old days when we lined up to kill eachother
BAYONET IS A SMART FELLOW
Juan Mitchell
Nothing like organized and disciplined warfare where you can still see your adversary.
Angel Wood
wow story checks out
Have to include the Vietnamese dead as well, though.
Jaxon Murphy
Trench warfare was born almost hand in hand along with the conception of Gunpowder Artillery dating back as far as the late 13th century.
It gained as massive rise in use by the Renaissance as it was the only way to take a well defended city or fort.
Parker Ross
Basically a lot like Napoleonic warfare except with incrementally more lethal weapons and a corresponding incrementally increased dispersion of troops.
Zachary Ortiz
>Waterloo which only lasted 3 days
Waterloo only lasted 8 hours. Quatre Bras and Ligny are different battles.
Aaron Jenkins
>Vietnam: 58,318 dead; 303,644 wounded
>Borodino 40,000–45,000 dead, wounded, and captured
What.
Landon Butler
Most figures give Russia at Borodino 30,000 dead (out of 50,000 total Russian casualties)
So not quite Vietnam, but still half of it, in one mere day
Nolan Reyes
Like asking on a history forum or something?
Lincoln Bennett
>Most figures give Russia at Borodino 30,000 dead (out of 50,000 total Russian casualties)
Zamoyski says it's 40.000 total, and I have a lot of faith in him.
And differentiating between wounded killed and captured in the before 1900 can't be done. Most historians don't even try it because there is no clear data anywhere to be found.
Adrian Roberts
>US civil war
>not degenerating into a trench war stalemate
Jack Ortiz
bump