Author Topic: 18th century warfare, a question  (Read 5180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Christo

  • Dramaturge
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1844
  • Infamy: 371
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: No faction, methinks.
  • Game nicks: Sir_Christo, Christo, Cristo.
  • IRC nick: Christo
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2012, 05:29:30 pm »
0
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.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

                                                                                            Thanks to cmpxchg8b for the picture!

Offline Prinz_Karl

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 383
  • Infamy: 112
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
    • View Profile
  • Faction: HRE
  • Game nicks: Fridericus_II
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2012, 03:07:54 pm »
0
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.

Offline Turboflex

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 648
  • Infamy: 212
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Ravens of Valhalla
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2012, 04:05:10 pm »
0
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.

Offline Prinz_Karl

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 383
  • Infamy: 112
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
    • View Profile
  • Faction: HRE
  • Game nicks: Fridericus_II
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2012, 07:39:05 pm »
0
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).

Offline BlindGuy

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 996
  • Infamy: 583
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • De oppresso liber et plus ultra.
    • View Profile
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2012, 10:25:33 pm »
+1
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.
I don't know enough

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Penitent

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1389
  • Infamy: 220
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Penitent_Turtler
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2012, 11:01:43 pm »
0
Very nice description! 

I applaud you.

Offline Dalfador

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 898
  • Infamy: 81
  • cRPG Player Sir White Pawn
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Order of the White Stallion
  • Game nicks: Dalfador
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2012, 08:13:48 am »
0
dalfador died after opening that spoiler, this is his older brother
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Maybe some day they'll call us heroes.

Offline Joseph Porta

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1029
  • Infamy: 234
  • cRPG Player
  • (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻. take all my upvotes! Part-time retard
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild Enthousiast,
  • Game nicks: Wy can't I upvote my own posts, Im a fucken genius, yo.
  • IRC nick: Joseph_Porta
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2012, 12:40:59 pm »
0
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!
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 12:46:04 pm by Joseph_Porta »
I loot corpses of their golden teeth.
But he'll be around somewhere between Heaven and The Devil, because neither of them will take him in, and he'll be farting loudly and singing a filthy song.

i'll be there at around
chadztime™

Offline Oberyn

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1578
  • Infamy: 538
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Lone Frog
  • Game nicks: Oberyn
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2012, 02:22:12 pm »
0
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.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline chadz

  • The lazy
  • Supreme Overlord
  • *******
  • Renown: 3188
  • Infamy: 724
  • Sir Black King A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: irc://
  • IRC nick: chadz
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2012, 02:29:25 pm »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 02:34:52 pm by chadz »

Offline Oberyn

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1578
  • Infamy: 538
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Lone Frog
  • Game nicks: Oberyn
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2012, 02:35:39 pm »
0
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.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Prinz_Karl

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 383
  • Infamy: 112
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
    • View Profile
  • Faction: HRE
  • Game nicks: Fridericus_II
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2012, 02:20:54 pm »
0
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.

Offline engurrand

  • Psychopath
  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 359
  • Infamy: 101
  • cRPG Player
  • Trifecta
    • View Profile
  • Faction: The Kingdom of Veluca
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2012, 12:06:09 pm »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 12:21:04 pm by engurrand »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline BlindGuy

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 996
  • Infamy: 583
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • De oppresso liber et plus ultra.
    • View Profile
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2012, 03:06:29 pm »
0
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.
I don't know enough

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Christo

  • Dramaturge
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1844
  • Infamy: 371
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: No faction, methinks.
  • Game nicks: Sir_Christo, Christo, Cristo.
  • IRC nick: Christo
Re: 18th century warfare, a question
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2012, 03:13:27 pm »
0
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.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

                                                                                            Thanks to cmpxchg8b for the picture!