cRPG

Off Topic => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: Adamar on May 29, 2012, 12:17:30 am

Title: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Adamar on May 29, 2012, 12:17:30 am
Did the infantry really just march forward while getting shot at?
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Torost on May 29, 2012, 05:11:18 am
I am no expert.This is just what I believe to be true, not factchecked.

But yes, sort off.

Soldiers were "cheap", required little trainingtime to learn how to load and fire a musket/rifle.
And inorder to assure that soldiers did their duty, there was a strict regiment of drills and manovers. No way to hide or act cowardly.
The regiment commander did not have the pistol and saber for use on the enemy, but to enforce disiplin within their own ranks.

The pitched battles were in some cases very large. Hard to move and organize if the battalions did not move as planned.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Christo on May 29, 2012, 05:17:33 am
Did the infantry really just march forward while getting shot at?

They had to.

Artillery was the key element of 18-19th century warfare.

If the two sides would just stand far from eachother, the artillery would simply bombard them to pieces.

There was nothing else they could do, really.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: [ptx] on May 29, 2012, 07:53:40 am
Note that the muskets and shit were helluva inaccurate and even more slow, the best they could really do is break up the morale of the enemy through massed volleys.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Franke on May 29, 2012, 09:46:34 pm
I'm not an expert either (though 18th/19th century warfare is one of my favourite subjects) but want to comment on this question, too.
For us it seems rather unlikely that the soldiers in those times stupidly marched towards the enemy, enforcing the shootout like in some prominent movies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFTcrbRyEM&feature=player_detailpage#t=56s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFTcrbRyEM&feature=player_detailpage#t=56s)).
But I think there were no real alternatives to these tactics. As [ptx] wrote, the flintlock muskets of these times were inaccurate like hell; if you wanted to get a certain number of hits, you had to fire a lot of them at the same time and the only way to mass enough muskets on one spot was to form those lines we all know from the movies.

Another reason is what I want to call the spirit of the time. I cannot comment on all armies of that time as I mainly have sources about the Frederickan army but the infantry in those times formed lines three ranks deep with the tallest (and thus most impressing) men in the front rank. In case suddenly the whole line had to face about, it was unthinkable the the single men within the line simply turned around. No, the whole formation had to wheel around 180 degrees. The gentlemen officiers of those times who were so fond of good order surely wouldn'T have tolerated that their men lie to the ground seeking for cover.

Last but not least, keeping your men together in massed formations was the easiest way to control them and to avoid desertions in the heat of battle in a time when not patriotism made the men fight but rather fear of the own officers and NCOs.

So I would say yes, they really marched forward while getting shot.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Lange on May 29, 2012, 11:10:57 pm
German Wiki says
"Beim Pelotonfeuer gingen nacheinander erst sämtliche ungeraden Pelotons, dann die geraden Pelotons auf das Kommando des Pelotonführers schnell drei große Schritte vorwärts und feuerten je eine Salve. Dazu fiel das erste Glied auf die Knie, das zweite schloss auf, und das dritte rückte rechts in die Lücken. Auf diese Weise kam das Bataillon in der Minute ca. 10 bis 12 Meter voran. Die Feuereröffnung erfolgte bei einem Abstand von etwa 200 Metern zum Gegner. "
(Theres nothing like this in the english wiki). So, they opened fire at 200 meters (more than the effective range of a musket), then slowly advanced while firing in turns. Seems logical to me... and better than not firing, while the enemys fire is having effect.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Penitent on June 04, 2012, 07:50:44 pm
They wouldn't JUST move at each other and shoot, but that's how most of the killing was done.  They also tried to out-maneuver the other army.  While 2 units of muskets are firing at each other, try to wheel another unit around to shoot at the flank, establishing a cross-fire.  Or pin then down so the cavalry can charge.

Artillery was a big part of it, but they would also use terrain (elevation, natural cover) and formations/maneuvers to get the upper hand.  Read up on some of Napoleon's battles and how he won, and you'll get a pretty good idea.  It's pretty interesting!
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Penitent on June 04, 2012, 07:51:35 pm
dbl post
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: HarunYahya on June 06, 2012, 04:30:20 am
The most retarded era of battle history imo.

I mean seriously ? Wtf dude ... why would i march into an army who point rifles at my fucking face ?
Better cut my own throat ...
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Christo on June 06, 2012, 04:31:26 am
The most retarded era of battle history imo.

I mean seriously ? Wtf dude ... why would i march into an army who point rifles at my fucking face ?
Better cut my own throat ...

You must like WWI then.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: [ptx] on June 06, 2012, 07:07:15 am
Muskets, not rifles.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: HarunYahya on June 06, 2012, 07:27:43 am
You must like WWI then.
Nope but hiding in trenches and getting drowned in your own shit make more sense than going into openfield , forming ranks and firing volleys to each other.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Christo on June 06, 2012, 11:27:38 am
Nope but hiding in trenches and getting drowned in your own shit make more sense than going into openfield , forming ranks and firing volleys to each other.

Don't forget gas.

Gas is the worst. Also, charging at machine gun nests. Hell, machine gun nests in general.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Penitent on June 06, 2012, 04:58:35 pm
As stated, armies in the 18th century did NOT just march towards each other and shoot.  Only bad generals commanded their men to just do that.

They did to some of that, but not just that.  It's one of those historical myths, like the dark ages were completely backwards and barbaric, or the inquisition was a plot by the church to kill native americans.

Like those other myths, there is some truth to what we are talking about regarding 18th century warfare, but looking at the big picture it would be inaccurate to say they just marched in and shot each other.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Oberyn on June 06, 2012, 05:14:36 pm
Don't forget gas.

Gas is the worst. Also, charging at machine gun nests. Hell, machine gun nests in general.

Captured machine gunners had a tendency to end up with unexplainable cases of bullet hole in the face. Even their own side's regular infantry didn't like them much. Probably the weapon responsible for most deaths along with artillery.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Christo on June 06, 2012, 05:29:30 pm
Well, that makes sense.

At least the invention of Tanks stopped the extremity of trenches, the longest I remember was about 600 ish kilometers long.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Prinz_Karl on June 12, 2012, 03:07:54 pm
It's quite funny what everyone is thinking about that tactic because they forget about the given conditions of the muskets. I've read and seen quite much stuff about this time and I can tell you it was usefull.

It's fact they were using this kind of tactic (not as that guy stated it was a myth), the line formation was typical for the order of battle and that time it was the most effective way for infantry charges. Important reason influencing line formation defenitely was bad accuracy of firearms, the closer you get the more you hit (many commandors waited for the enemy to take first shot just to get closer). Also it was impossible to hit an enemy alone witht that accuracy which is why the lines have been so massed and filled with hundred's of men just to get more fire power.

In my opinion that warfare was the most aesthetic of all time even if was horrible (especially for the first man in line). But you will never see this kind of order in battles and thousand men walking side by side in a huge line. This time was the flowering of tactical genius, great men like Napoleon proved it.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Turboflex on June 12, 2012, 04:05:10 pm
That kind of musket combat wasn't much worse/different than medieval combat when formations came under archer fire or facing down a heavy cav charge. Or how about navy battles where you are sitting in a wood ship moving 10 kph while dozens of cannons shoot it up?

I guess the main exception of these 18th century battles was that cheap conscript soldiers dominated whereas in all previous eras, well trained soldiers did. It was very efficient to just hand 50,000 men some muskets and do basic training and they would perform relatively well as long as the officers and NCOs kept them together. Also remember that a lot of engagements came down to melee, basically spear/sword fighting that wasn't much different than medieval/roman combat and you need tight formations for that.

No point in training elite units besides for some moral reasons or to win some key engagements for tactical reasons. This situation continued through WW1 where lines of soldiers was still the key (although entrenched, since guns got better) until WW2 when planes and armour became a bigger factor.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Prinz_Karl on June 12, 2012, 07:39:05 pm
No point in training elite units besides for some moral reasons or to win some key engagements for tactical reasons. This situation continued through WW1 where lines of soldiers was still the key (although entrenched, since guns got better) until WW2 when planes and armour became a bigger factor.

There was many elite units that time just mentioning the old guard of Napoleon which became a legend. They were shoting a lot more accurate and faster compared to other soldiers and their discipline and height made the enemy fear them. In that time they were smashing for their enemies (even though they didn't actually fight in battles).
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: BlindGuy on June 12, 2012, 10:25:33 pm
Ok, time to lay some more facts down, about historic combat.

No, they NEVER mindlessly marched at each other in lines, firing.
(click to show/hide)
A bloodbath, sometimes yes. Mindlessly marching into enemy guns? No.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Penitent on June 12, 2012, 11:01:43 pm
Very nice description! 

I applaud you.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Dalfador on June 13, 2012, 08:13:48 am
dalfador died after opening that spoiler, this is his older brother
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Joseph Porta on June 14, 2012, 12:40:59 pm
Its all because of the retarded french influences, the Officer would stand beside the battle field and watch his men get slaughtered.. Instead of fighting with them, it always seemed to me like it was some sort of game to them.. :P this is what I've heard, i'm not a genius with 18th century warfare but i've heard that.. Still too much french influence in that age.

I don't know alot of the 18th century but its fairly interesting, nice thread!
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Oberyn on June 14, 2012, 02:22:12 pm
Yes, it's obviously not your own perceived stereotypes about the french that make you dislike the era's way of fighting.
One of the reasons the french kicked ass all over the world during this time period was because they were free citizens, fighting against scared, force recruited peasants, degenerate nobles and mercenaries. The army was a true meritocracy as opposed to the circle-jerking inbred mafia that it was everywhere else in Europe. So yes, obviously you are not a genius with 18th century warfare or era, and you believe retarded shit because it plays up to your dislike for the french. Learn to use the shrivelled organ you call a brain, you might actually learn something.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: chadz on June 14, 2012, 02:29:25 pm
In my opinion that warfare was the most aesthetic of all time even if was horrible (especially for the first man in line). But you will never see this kind of order in battles and thousand men walking side by side in a huge line. This time was the flowering of tactical genius, great men like Napoleon proved it.

Quote from: Pindar
War is sweet to those who have no experience of it.

Calling (real) warfare aesthetic is something that disgusts me, sorry. Especially this kind;  people getting torn apart by bullets, killing most of them very slow and painfully. My idea of aesthethics is different.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Oberyn on June 14, 2012, 02:35:39 pm
Calling (real) warfare aesthetic is something that disgusts me, sorry. Especially this kind;  people getting torn apart by bullets, killing most of them very slow and painfully. My idea of aesthethics is different.

The "aesthetics" in this type of war was all about psychological warfare anyways. No different than, say, the greeks using horse tail helmets to look bigger/more intimidating, or any of a hundred other examples throughout history. Only at the end of the 19th or arguably during the 1st world war did cammo and NOT being noticed on the battlefield become more important, obviously because of the technological advances in weaponry.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Prinz_Karl on June 15, 2012, 02:20:54 pm
Calling (real) warfare aesthetic is something that disgusts me, sorry. Especially this kind;  people getting torn apart by bullets, killing most of them very slow and painfully. My idea of aesthethics is different.

Certainly it's not war itself which is aesthetic and its horror like man facing a whole line of fire arms knowing their chance of surviving is low. It's more its countenance which was impressing, maybe you'll laugh if I refer to movies but its exactly that. Especially the uniforms, the disciplined soldiers marching account for aesthetic.

The "aesthetics" in this type of war was all about psychological warfare anyways. No different than, say, the greeks using horse tail helmets to look bigger/more intimidating, or any of a hundred other examples throughout history. Only at the end of the 19th or arguably during the 1st world war did cammo and NOT being noticed on the battlefield become more important, obviously because of the technological advances in weaponry.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: engurrand on June 17, 2012, 12:06:09 pm
There are some really good books out there concerning the nature of identity and the perception of the body as it changed throughout history. I know that may seem bland or uninformative but it is actually a very interesting subject. Some people here obviously have some knowledge about the topic and some points made are valid....

Basically, the body and innate skill were no longer as important as the training, this was a shift that occurred most strongly from 18th century onward. No longer were strong brave men needed, no longer was the body it self a thing of power that in rare and unique forms expressed the high levels of capacity... No... it was now the task of the state, of the nation, to "break" and "construct" a trained man. A fundamental shift in the perception of man, no longer did it matter what you had, what mattered was what you could construct within a man. Most men could be broken to become an agent of the state... Yet in more ancient forms of warfare i believe the common trend was to have trials by fire and sort out those capable from those not, whereby there was a logarithmic pattern of grown for the population of experienced and skilled warriors. You can see the trend of the mechanization starting to rise up around more recent times, when the esoteric essence of nation began to become the new ruler and holder of power.

I would venture to say the poor of the 17th -19th century were worse of then the poor of the middle ages. I know that is a side topic but sleep deprivation leads one's mind to wander.

War is coming.

Also, the nature of war has changed dramatically.

It's all about the black ops. And i don't mean secret missions, i mean highly skilled and heavily armed small units.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: BlindGuy on June 17, 2012, 03:06:29 pm
hmmm, not so. If any country currently has a unbeatable military machine, it is China. I'm sure they have nukes of every flavour, the largest army in the world by a long shot, and the belief that everything they do, they do for the good of the people. I hope no western power ever fucks with the Beast in the East, because China could whipe the globe of everyone it felt like taking out, no small heavily armed unit could stand againt them, mainly because no matter how well trained and able you are, you WILL run out of ammunition before China runs out of soldiers.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: Christo on June 17, 2012, 03:13:27 pm
China needs the other countries around the globe, to get raw materials and other goods.

It's war machine would be impossible to fuel without those connections.

They know this, and in a full scale war scenario, other countries would stop trading with them, in case they start a war.

So they assimilate slow and steady, through the fundamental world. Works well for them.
Title: Re: 18th century warfare, a question
Post by: engurrand on June 17, 2012, 10:31:25 pm
Blind guy you are thinking i'm talking about small heavily armed units going at it with each other in the field.

This is not what i mean, that is the style of war that is the old way, and not an effective use of small heavily armed units, nor is it part of the new style of war.

The new style of war is all about intelligence and precision strikes. The "targets" that are needed to be taken out to "break" the army, as one poster wrote about, are no longer other units of military force. They are generally logistical lines and priority individuals. The power of the air is why this is so, and aerial systems require a lot of logistic to keep running, so they are very vulnerable to subtle disruptions.