Re: The Art of War, and Yes, there IS such a thing as a dumb question...

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: : This question has occurred to me any time that I've seen a movie with Colonial-era soldiers fighting.  I know that this will sound like a dumb question to some of you military history buffs, but I'll put the question out there, and wait for you to enlighten me...!

: : OK---in scenes where soldiers are fighting, like the ambush scene in LOTM, the soldiers load their muskets, wait, and fire when ordered to "FIRE!".  Then, they reload, kind of standing out there as a sitting target, at which point, some of them are shot and drop dead.  Now, I know that armies have strategies and discipline, but I don't get this---standing there reloading and being shot at. It does, however, really make me appreciate the bravery of those soldiers!  In a more modern war movie, you'd see soldiers shooting, then taking cover to reload.

: : So, I guess my dumb question is---what was the strategy there?  Was that the traditional way that fighting/shooting was done?  And when did it change---when weaponry changed?  Or when casualties got too high?

: : I recently went to see the re-enactments of the Battles of Trenton, and I saw the same sort of thing---they fire on command, reload, and get shot at while standing out in the open!  Firing the muskets all at one time was formidable, but the reloading gets me.....!

: : BTW--the re-enactments were great!  Cannons and muskets firing, and soldiers marching through downtown Trenton--what a sight!  You could really get a sense of what a battle was like.

: : Anyway, thanks in advance to any of you military-types who care to comment.

: : Nancy

: :You pose a very good question.First,a little background on Eighteenth Warfare.In Europe,armies were marched to within almost dueling distance from each other,then proceeded to fire volleys at each other until one side broke.If you think about it,one soldier with a single-shot muzzle loading musket won't do a whole lot of damage.Compound this with one hundred soldiers firing in unison and you maximize your firepower!In the British army,there was very little individualism.This was because of the rigorous discipline involved.It was this same discipline that kept Gen.Edward Braddock's regulars in ranks and in the battle for over three hours on July 9,1755(on the banks of the Monongahela River about eight miles from Pittsburgh) while French & Indians sniped at them from behind trees killing hundreds.Afterwards,improvisations were made to adapt to warfare in the New World such as the use of rangers and light infantry and the greater use of Native Americans(at least for the British).BTW Braddock wasn't defeated because he didn't know how to fight insurgents in the wilderness.He did know how and went by the book.Instead,he became overconfident and relaxed his guard when his army encountered no immediate resistance after their river crossing(Read O'Meara's "Guns at the Forks" for a better understanding of this).The use of Linear/Napoleanic tactics continued into the American Revolution and American Civil War some one hundred years later.It was only after development of new weaponry(ie;the gatling gun and repeating rifle)and mass casualties that resulted that necessitated a change in tactics.FYI disease still managed to kill more soldiers than gunfire until well into the 20th Century.Clear it up for you any? :D


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: