Me in total war empire messin the Brits up with my American hillbillies
@MindyLou-or7qk2 ай бұрын
I learn about her
@c.rutherford2 ай бұрын
I wonder how people at the conclusion of his term would describe his Presidency?
@bobtis2 ай бұрын
It's a shame he did this. He was such a smart man. Paranoia was what he was about. It could have ended in 1968
@ryanbrooke92702 ай бұрын
Such a stupid way to fight a war just stand there n get shot lmfao? What sense does that make?
@wandaarnt2342 ай бұрын
Thank You Blessings from Pennsylvania 🙏🎚🇺🇸🇮🇱John 3:16
@Elthenar2 ай бұрын
To think, we went from struggling to win a single battle against the British to the point where our Navy alone has three times the men of all of the UK's fighting forces combined.
@Agesilaus.883 ай бұрын
To think this whole Empire was about money and the Bank of England. They had no idea.
@palomaalejandramunoz46363 ай бұрын
I go to del sur my name is keyla my friend is Ariana
@ninojoselopez4 ай бұрын
One redcoat says" these bumpkins fought like real englishmen". His officer replied "of course, they are englishmen"...
@Mr._Martinez4 ай бұрын
Those darn flute melodies have stayed in my head for years. So catchy.
@isaiahjones20894 ай бұрын
Same here
@jamesrideout1232 ай бұрын
@@isaiahjones2089 same here
@baardar1236 күн бұрын
It's called the British grenadiers
@consalvewigert63364 ай бұрын
💯 Promo-SM
@jfontanez18384 ай бұрын
The American army back then were so not ready lol the British at one time was like the Roman Empire
@rvanleersum4 ай бұрын
Horrible movie... 18th century infantry didn't close distance this close before firing volleys. The muskets were relative dog shit for accuracy, but not that bad.
@zaldygallardojr.3224 ай бұрын
- "I am not going back." - "No, I did not expect you would! That General Gates is a damned Fool; he spent so many Years in the British Army. Going Muzzle to Muzzle with the 'Redcoats' in open Field would be Madness; this Battle was over before it began."
@dane0phelps5 ай бұрын
When training my soldiers I would use the example of these soldiers to describe courageous restraint when teaching about rules of engagement on our modern battlefields. The courage these men displayed is remarkable.
@MIchael-li7mq5 ай бұрын
Seeing that cannonball after being fired and hitting the ground decapitating that Soldier was a pretty gruesome way to go out especially if he didn't see it coming from how far away the cannonball was
@thelastjohnwayne5 ай бұрын
NOTE This is the Dumbest way to fight ever.
@0ThrowawayAccount05 ай бұрын
Anyone who has literally a modicum of knowledge about "Line Infantry" tactics and strategy rolls their eyes when they see comments like yours. The good news is you are on KZfaq. You have internet access. Instead of posting a mindless comment, why not go to Wikipedia and look up Line Infantry tactics, strategy, or better yet... find a KZfaq video that goes into great detail why this style of fighting existed. SPOILER: It was the best for land warfare in Europe given the terrain and the weaponry at the time. Black gunpowder and smooth-bored guns are HUGE factors in why they fight like this. The bright colors of the uniforms (instead of camouflage) was because the black gunpowder burns horribly and creates huge clouds of smoke, obscuring friend from foe; having bright colored uniforms help distinguish everyone so commanders could lead and direct troops. Now, you may have noticed the lack of radios and other communications tech out there. That's because there are not any. Not for a couple hundred years to portable enough at least. The reason drums and bugles and flags are present on the battlefield (along with actual GENERALS) is because communicating to people was limited to shouting but remember that dirty burning black gunpowder?? That is also fucking loud. No one can hear Generals who are perched up on some hill using a fucking telescope to command his troops.. So, soldiers were trained to respond to commands given by drums, bugles, or signals given by flags. Ah, but you are probably calling the Soldiers "dumb" for standing in a line just waiting to be shot. Well, you have a tiny point. This was the last relic of "chivalry" present in most battlefields. A lot of honor was left over from the days of old when officers were likely aristocrats. But the Soldiers themselves were likely low-born peasants or merchant-class. The biggest reason they fought in a "line" and "took turns shooting" is that other thing I mentioned, ... smooth bore guns. Smooth bore guns are fucking inaccurate as all get out. Also, those things have to be reloaded FROM THE MUZZLE. A well-trained Soldier was considered great if he could fire *3 rounds per minute* . Imagine that. A gun that fires 3 rounds a fucking minute and even if the dude is great with it, he likely would miss because the gun is smooth bored. And do not get me started on the delay from trigger pull to the actual gunpowder hopefully igniting and sending your round off. So, what does a glacier-slow reload on an inaccurate weapon have to do with standing in a fucking line? Well, the best way to hit your target was turning all your musket fire into basically a "shotgun" blast with volley fire. One dude may miss but if I have 50 dudes lined up and shooting in the same direction, SOME of the musket fire is gonna hit the enemy. You also may be asking, "Why not shoot and then like, lay down or something?" Great question; the point of a battle is to kill the other dude but also take control of advantageous terrain. I already said the guns have to be reloaded from the muzzle. You cannot take territory while laying down and trying to reload a musket (also, muskets are bitches and do not do well when you put dirt or gunk in the muzzle. It jams them with the ramrod and makes the musket inoperable... which is not good when the other dude is trying to kill you). So, they "took turns shooting while walking at each other" to account for the muskets inaccuracy and reload speed whilst trying to take advantageous terrain. There are loads and loads of more considerations with line infantry warfare. Even the fucking weather can dictate battles. I mentioned the black gunpowder right? that pan is not going to ignite in the rain. Hell, even if the humidity is too great the powder can be unreliable. That's why all the battles you see in this era tend to take place on bright, sunny days (at least in the European theatre). There is a big shift with how the 7 Years War (French and Indian War for the US peeps) was fought in the Americas by the Native Americans but that is a topic all on its own. I guess what I am trying to say is, "Fuck you. You are dumb. Stop acting like you are smarter than literally military generals who devoted their entire lives to killing people with the technology and weaponry that was available during their time. Your retarded self probably struggles to microwave food while you admire your Funko Pop collection."
@randomlyentertaining82875 ай бұрын
What's funny is that Camden was a loss because most of Gates' men were militia. Continental regulars were more than capable of standing up and holding their own against British regulars, as shown by the Battle of Monmouth. Even militia, when properly utilized in coordination with regulars, could be of use in a set piece battle, as shown later during the Battle of Cowpens.
@Rockhound61655 ай бұрын
One thing I never noticed in this scene is the demeanor of each side. The Americans wore fear on their faces and really showed fear after the first volley as they took off. The British on the other hand were stern and determined and even in the face of fire while soldiers were falling never flinched.
@tgriffin30594 ай бұрын
The British were a well-disciplined force. They had men who patrolled behind the lines and were ordered to shoot those who ran. This gave the men incentive to keep moving forward and do their job. If they went forward, they had a chance. If they tried to run, the odds were they'd be killed. An approach like that cannot fail but to instill order.
@davidneal69205 ай бұрын
The guys with the flutes were doing quite well. But its always the dudes on the horses who have to steal the limelight
@renevalice30565 ай бұрын
isn't that young continental also at the end of the movie as well? I think he wasn't killed off, but rather symbolized America as it was- a young, fledgling but fighting-spirited nation and people.
@Lancelot03114 ай бұрын
Which one ? I’ll watch it again and let you know. Give me a time stamp please
@dennischavante94865 ай бұрын
640 Tons of LIBERATION were dropped.
@uuzd4s5 ай бұрын
The B-17 is always being highlighted as WWII's best Bomber when in fast the B-25 Mitchell outperformed the B-17 in nearly every stat.
@timnanFrancis3 ай бұрын
B24
@lovetofly325 ай бұрын
Twelve thousand of them!?!??! Wooowwww!! Things people do and have done just amazes me!
@roblink47815 ай бұрын
The B 17 was only capable of 9000 lb bomb load, never exceeding that weight throughout the War.
@bdoo605 ай бұрын
Must have been thinking of the Lanc!
@ODSTdelta5 ай бұрын
3:22 one of the best disses ever
@D-LineReviews5 ай бұрын
I read some of the thoughts of English parliament members and they believed the war was lost on purpose …. They believed Freemasons brothers on both side played theatre while letting the men truly kill each other and allowed escapes and it was theatre to steal the first country in their new enlightenment world….
@nickandres78295 ай бұрын
1:41 NGL those dead stares while people all around them are dying would be just as unnerving as the cannonfire.
@APZachariah5 ай бұрын
Which is a silly thing to think. The Americans got crushed in nearly every engagement until Baron von Steuben taught them how to fight properly, and the militias were never trusted or liked by Washington. It was the Continental Army using traditional European tactics that won the land war, after the French pinned the Royal Navy.
@chrishernandez42665 ай бұрын
Isn't it ironic that eighty some years later, the North & South would still be fighting each other using Napoleonic tactics?
@DieFlabbergast4 ай бұрын
@@chrishernandez4266 They worked. You have a better idea?
@chrishernandez42664 ай бұрын
@@DieFlabbergast part of why the militias were so effective was bc they weren't so much "going muzzle to muzzle" with the opposite side. They were a little more stealthy about how they went about fighting, using rocks & trees, etc., for cover & guerilla tactics. At least that is my opinion. I wasn't physically present during those periods of history so I can only base my opinion off things I have read or heard.
@Foebane725 ай бұрын
2:50 I saw this in the cinema, and I remember blinking away when the cannonball bounced towards the camera, and I swear, I never saw the cannonball take the colonial's head off like that!
@melvinlee92635 ай бұрын
I look at Heath Ledger and see nothing but Joker (his greatest role).
@geoffreyturksmoney5 ай бұрын
Even 90 years later, during the Civil War, combat was exactly the same. Warfare didn't change until automatic weapons were invented in the late 18th century.
@esbam20025 ай бұрын
WWI as well
@0ThrowawayAccount05 ай бұрын
Uh... Warfare absolute changed in the American Civil War. Ever heard of a "rifle bore" or perhaps a Minié ball??? The sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg literally had trench warfare.
@esbam20025 ай бұрын
@@0ThrowawayAccount0Weapons changed. The tactics stayed the same.
@0ThrowawayAccount05 ай бұрын
@@esbam2002 Did you even read my comment, you dunce?
@DieFlabbergast4 ай бұрын
* In the late 19th century (1800-1899). The 18th century was the period of Bach and Mozart, the American War of Independence, and the French Revolution.
@tonyhewlett45275 ай бұрын
They should have taken a lesson from the vikings.
@TheSerpent215 ай бұрын
I like the comparison they make in this scene between colonials and the British army. How different their facial expressions are. Ya see absolute fear on the colonials but then shows the British marching and not an ounce of fear on them or hesitation in their movements and even when men around them are gunnee down they continue their march. Training and years experience there just shows how much out of their depth the colonials were compared to the British who had years experience in wars.
@techwatch12285 ай бұрын
And the Colonials still won. Sometimes you need something to fight for.
@MikMoen5 ай бұрын
Marching orderly straight into artillery and volleys of fire was the utmost stupidest Era in Warfare in Human history.
@jessiemeisenheimer86755 ай бұрын
Tell me you know nothing of the time period without telling me you know nothing of the time period.
@thedukeofswellington18275 ай бұрын
Such an awful movie, historically, creatively...just everyway
@Darek_B525 ай бұрын
okay britbong.
@DRock19995 ай бұрын
That scene was so powerful!!!!!
@k0sm0krat0re6 ай бұрын
I distinctly remember this scene having a man lose hisnleg at the knee from the bouncing cannonball, not a headshot. Was that some sort of tv censorship attempt?
@Rockhound61655 ай бұрын
Different battle. The battle where the men lose their legs is the final battle not this one. And why would they show a guy getting his head blown off but not show a few legs taken off?
@alessiodecarolis6 ай бұрын
Naturally it depends from the weapons employed, I strongly doubt that the redcoats would've been so disciplined against, f.e, some greek fire bombs!