Is line warfare the most uninteresting type of warfare there is? Uniforms from that era are the very definition of uncool, two rows blasting at each other hoping they will hit is not entertaining to read about or watch, the weapons are not very interesting either those wars were just so fucking boring
>I get my history from movies and games
Thanks for sharing OP
>>361464
Well depending on your definition almost all warfare that isn't tribal warfare was line warfare until 1860. The Romans and vikings fought in lines too.
That said you mean strictly 1700-1815 stuff you should look a bit more into it. Especially cavalry did some interesting things in those days.
>>361464
>>361464
"Line warfare" yielded some of the most awful battles in history until the 20th century. I don't see how a nigh-unimaginable level of human suffering in a localized area is uninteresting.
op buggers men
Yeah, war really started going downhill with the discovery of firepower in terms of tactics. The line warfare silliness was an attempt to maintain some kind of decency i think.
>>361503
>>361510
>>361464
You should play Age of Empires III m80
>>361510
I love how it looks like a huge hooligan brawl but with pikes instead of baseball bats
>>361520
Welcome to pike warfare, enjoy your stay.
>>361531
>>361555
Tricorne warfare is the coolest and most interesting kind of warfare
>>361510
It used to be an honest struggle, man against man. Looking them in the eye. Now it's just point and click from hundreds of feet away and the only advantage is getting the drop on the other guy. It's cowardly.
Making lines of gunmen walk up to eachother was trying to keep things honorable, but it didn't last.
>>361531
why no armor?
>>361600
>Honest struggle
Getting impaled by a pike while his friend knocks the brains out of your skull hardly sounds honest.
>>361600
archers and crossbowmen were a thing
>>361600
also it wasn't because of honor but because muskets were innacurate and had low range
>>361603
Usually the front rank wore metal armor but the rest didn't.
Either they were to poor or it didn't help much.
>>361603
They are in armor. Brigandines usually look flashy and colorful and not at all armor-like, but underneath that layer of clothes you basically have a coat-of-plates and it's pretty tough.
>>361611
Didn't they usually charge in for melee after one or two volleys as well?
>>361464
> line warfare
So you mean basically every kind of conventional warfare until WWI? Lmao. If you think this shit is boring go back to Marvel comic books kiddo
>>361620
Nope, these guys used either solid plates or mail mantles, brigandins had fallen out of use after 1500-1520
>>361600
you have some strange ideas, friend.
>>361624
Rarely did two armies clash when charging, The receiver of the charge usually just fucked off into the other direction where they could fire again.
Who in their right mind would order (and lose) a shitton of men in a melee clash.
>>361634
>Posting 1980s osprey shit
Man that has been revised decades ago. Delete it!
>>361632
I thought they were still being used into the early 17th century. A museum I visited earlier this year had a colonial era suit, (good protection against indian arrows), and the guy who was doing the tour assured us that they were at least being used up in England and Scotland well into the 1580s.
>>361464
t. uneducated on the topic
Pic related, tell me about the boringness of these "two rows" and the uncoolness of their uniform
>>361464
>Uniforms from that era are the very definition of uncool
stopped reading here, baiting faggot
>>361654
England was hopelessly outdated on the military front after 1500. They only caught up quite late.
You have to remember plate armor was being increasingly discarded by foot soldiers after 1500, a solid breastplate with tassets and helmet are all that remained in use until the thirty years war, also due to the fact that a breastplate can be produced cheaper and faster than brigandine.
I believe you might be thinking of a Jack of plate which is something different but quite similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_plate
>/his/ thinks this is cool
LMAOing at your life a fucking middle ages peasant levy looked better not to mention world war soldiers
>>361676
just because hugo boss didn't exist yet :^)
>>361676
100% /fa/ desu senpai
I thought they fire for like three volleys before charging each other
>>361712
Mostly not.
Depended a lot on the situation.
>>361464
Well, line warfare hapened in the first place because when the first line arquebus infantry appeared they where wulnerable to cavelry charges, so they got blended with pike units to cover the shooting arquebuseers. But with the invention of the bayonette the pikemen werent necesary anymore and all warfare since then became with only the usage of firearms(with the exception of cavelry of course).
>>361723
Line arquebus?
I don't think such a thing ever existed mate. You're thinking of matchlock muskets.
>>361605
It was never completely fair but it's been becoming less by degrees. Maybe my opinions would be different if i didn't see such reckless misuse of guns today. If you just want to kill another army then it's a good way to do that, but you aren't really proving you are superior to them in any way like you see in the wild with survival of the fittest. As much as some people want to think they can shoot a deer from their mobility scooter and that means they are better than that deer, it doesn't make it so.
>>361732
Survival of the fittest stop meaning anything when the neolithic revolution hit.
Or really not in the way it applies to animals.
>>361611
Yeah, that was a factor too, but still doesn't explain why they took turns shooting.
>>361732
marksmanship is also a skill and using guns is far from being as simple as point and click (again those are acrossbows you forgot about) I'm not even a gun nut and prefer pre gunpowder wars but come on
>>361756
Firepower alone didn't stop charging infantry or cavalry.
Not until the latter half of the 19th century did it.
>>361756
I don't have any proof, but I'm pretty sure they didn't take turns shooting, other than due to the necessity of reloading?
>>361664
It's sheeps warfare.
The sheeps get conducted by the shephards, which stand safely in the rear, to form a line and shoot at each other at close.
The sheep aims and shoot and waits standing to be shot. Cannot duck, cannotprotect himself, cannot take initiave. Only reload a shoot, like a worthless sheep.
It's no wonder that countries that hate bravery, skill and individualism love the sheep warfare.
>>361503
Nope. It was to make sure the soldiers actually hit something with their shit guns.
>>361732
Guns made every men equal
>>361789
You do realize fighting like take took courage.
Oh and that it defeated every non-European army on earth.
>>361807
Except for nine out of ten guys who couldn't afford to buy a gun and train with it.
>>361732
>implying it's easy to shoot a deer from a distance
Noguns sissy confirmed.
I really can't decide if the idiot who thinks line warfare is boring or the muh honorable warfare fag is more obnoxious
>>361664
>80k casualties of the best available troops from both sides in a single day and not a single fuck was given
>today losing 3k soldiers over a decade is deemed unacceptable
>>361789
Implying mid ranking officers didn't march in the front of the line. No generals put themselves in danger due to it being bad tactics. This point of view is derived from a complete lack of knowledge about this kind of warfare. Go read a book son.
>>361789
so whole Europe and USA during the civil war?
>>361807
please don't use that fucking colt slogan on /his/
>>361716
Wasn't that Charles XII's favourite party trick?
>>361809
>Oh and that it defeated every non-European army on earth.
This
Pic related is how the Turks fared against French squares
>>361843
Not that familiar with post thirty years war Sweden desu.
>>361712
After the french revolution, yes. Figting at bayonet range favours tge army with higher morale, add in overwhelming french numbers and poor discipline in formation, and bayonet range was pretty much the only way the french could win before napleons reforms.
>>361854
Russian severely BTFO'd Persians too.
During the first Opium war the English were still using muzzle loading smoothbore muskets and they defeated the Chinese quite decisively.
>>361839
By the time of America's civil war there was no line warfare. That's a thing of the 18th century-mid 19th.
Afterwards formations had more flexibility thanks to better weapons and individuals more mobility. It wasn't like stand in your spot and wait to be shot like a helpless idiot by some other guy in your same situation.
Except when le happy general would order a long, open field, frontal infantry advance against fortified infantry, as in Gettysburg with obvious results.
>>361854
>From 6am to 4pm the French withstood repeated Ottoman charges. They suffered few casualties and easily held their square, but as the day wore on their ammunition ran low and the men suffered from lack of water and hunger. The Ottomans suffered substantial losses, but they could easily replace their casualties and keep up with good supplies and strength to continue repeated strikes throughout the day.
>Just when all seemed to be lost, and Kléber prepared for a last-ditch breakout towards the Jordan, some soldiers claimed to have briefly seen a military force advancing from the north. Kléber tried to verify their report, which could be a relief column under Napoleon, but he saw nothing but the open desert and a monstrous enemy force. However a moment later Kléber saw the relief column; at the first moment Kléber had looked, the relief column under the personal command of Napoleon Bonaparte had marched right into a dip. Although Kléber saw and his men began to feel relief, their opponent still had many times more men than Napoleon and Kléber together.
>Napoleon found himself between the Ottomans and their camp; he decided to distract them by detaching 300 men to pillage and destroy the Ottoman camp. This succeeded far more than Napoleon could have imagined: upon seeing the destruction of their belongings, the Ottomans assumed they were surrounded. In response, the Ottoman army began to retreat to the south and across the River Jordan. Kléber ordered his men to charge in a last effort for the day, and supported by the rest of the soldiers under Napoleon – who were relatively fresh - this charge transformed the Ottoman retreat into a general rout. Kléber’s men found their thirst replaced by an adrenaline rush, and the waters of the Jordan turned red with the blood of the Turks who were killed in the rout.
Lmao
All he needed was 300 good men
>>361875
>By the time of America's civil war there was no line warfare
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>>361904
>>361907
>I believe marching and deploying in columns because reasons = linear warfare.
Tell that to Sherman.
>>361856
From Robert K. Massie
>In the sheer dynamism of their attack, however, the finest infantry and cavalry in Europe were no the English but the Swedes. Swedish soldiers were trained to think only in terms of attack, no matter what the odds. If an enemy somehow seized the initiative and began to advance towards the Swedish lines, the Swedes immediately charged forward to break the attack with a counter attack. Unlike the English under Marlborough, whose infantry tactics were based on making the most of its devastating firepower, the basis of the Swedish attack remained the "armes blanches'-cold steel. Both infantry and cavalry deliberately sacrificed the firepower of their muskets and pistols in favor of closing with sword and bayonet.
>It made an awesome sight. Slowly, steadily, silently except for the beating of their drums, the Swedish infantry advanced, holding its own fire until the last minute. At close range, the columns deployed out into a long wall of blue and yellow four ranks deep, halted, poured in a single volley and then erupted with a bayonet charge into the reeling enemy lines.
This is talking about the background to the Great Northern War so I'm not sure how it developed over the course of the century but late 17th and early 18th the Swedes were all about getting close and stabbing cunts.
>>361515
What is that sole tatar doing there?
>>361904
time for a movie about another 300 soldiers
>>361985
Did he mean fire by platoon?
>>361837
>No generals put themselves in danger due to it being bad tactics
Except for this absolute madman (who as a matter of facts didn't give a shit about tactics unfortunatly for Napoleon)
>>361996
I think he meant the opposing sides took turns shooting each other.
Maybe it made sense to fill the positions of the fallen in the front ranks before shooting back while the enemy was reloading.
>>361986
He seems pretty calm desu.
Like, everybody is dead but I will pew-pew them pussy faggots with my bow and shit.
>>361496
I know right....
O maidens and young men I love and that love me,
What you ask of my days those the strangest and sudden your talking recalls,
Soldier alert I arrive after a long march cover’d with sweat and dust,
In the nick of time I come, plunge in the fight, loudly shout in the rush of successful charge,
Enter the captur’d works—yet lo, like a swift running river they fade,
Pass and are gone they fade—I dwell not on soldiers’ perils or soldiers’ joys,
(Both I remember well—many of the hardships, few the joys, yet I was content.)
But in silence, in dreams’ projections,
While the world of gain and appearance and mirth goes on,
So soon what is over forgotten, and waves wash the imprints off the sand,
With hinged knees returning I enter the doors, (while for you up there,
Whoever you are, follow without noise and be of strong heart.)
Bearing the bandages, water and sponge,
Straight and swift to my wounded I go,
Where they lie on the ground after the battle brought in,
Where their priceless blood reddens the grass, the ground,
Or to the rows of the hospital tent, or under the roof’d hospital,
To the long rows of cots up and down each side I return,
To each and all one after another I draw near, not one do I miss,
An attendant follows holding a tray, he carries a refuse pail,
Soon to be fill’d with clotted rags and blood, emptied, and fill’d again.
I onward go, I stop,
With hinged knees and steady hand to dress wounds,
I am firm with each, the pangs are sharp yet unavoidable,
One turns to me his appealing eyes—poor boy! I never knew you,
Yet I think I could not refuse this moment to die for you, if that would save you.
I cry every time.
>>361712
depends on the preferences of the general and the national culture, along with the tactical situation and location of the battlefield.
Brits preferred shooting because they were good at it (lots of money to spend on practice drilling), while the Russian's and French (especially during the revolution) preferred Bayonet charges, often without any shooting.
These are, of course, gross generalisations, but I think it gets the point across
>>362059
>while the Russian's and French (especially during the revolution) preferred Bayonet charges, often without any shooting.
And when both met on the battlefield, all hell broke loose
>>362088
I wonder if it hurts more to get shot or stabbed
>>361958
>English
>Swedes
>"""""""the finest infantry"""""""""""
>>361997
Ney was an amazing general at the level of a division, its just he probably wasn't suited for command of a Corp. Also, he seemed to start going a bit loopy after the invasion of Russia
He was a badass though
>>362103
>implying they weren't
Marlborough would have taken Versailles if the parliament had let him.
>>362131
And then he'd have gotten stabbed by a French immigrant in the London subway
>>361996
One side shooting then having to stand there while the other side shot at them. If you left the line to try and dodge or run while someone lined up a shot on you, you'd be killed by your own side. Your natural instinct would be to make yourself a harder target, which is where firearm warfare is now, so it says a lot for the discipline of the troops that did this sort of crazy shit. And it was all in the name of honor.
>>361464
the age of muskets is one of the coolest eras of warfare
>>362180
Standing shoulder to shoulder and firing by volley meant you're more likely to survive.
>>362183
mid 18th century to Napoleonic were goat uniforms as well
>>361600
>muh honor
>>>/Reddit/
Fuck you OP, line infantry era is best era.
>Best Weapons
>Best Uniforms
>Best Battles
>Best Generals
>Best tactics
>Best everything
>Worst medical care
>>361562
>Fucking Fibonacci Spiral formation
>>361706
>Dem tits popping out of her clothes
Corsets need to make a comeback
>>361875
American Civil War used Napoleonic tactics until late 1863 desu senpai. It wasn't until after Gettysburg that troops began to understand the rifles had superior range and accuracy. IIRC Grant noted in his memoirs how every time a column of the Army of the Potomac would halt the troops would began digging trenches and putting up abatis without orders.
The South also stopped deploying in lines and began fighting like skirmishers because of manpower issues.
The early parts of the ACW were 100% Napoleonic tactics though.
>>362102
I have obviously never been shot or stabbed, but from what i've read stabbings hurt at lot worse. Often times soldiers would not even realize they had been shot until someone pointed it out. Or being shot is sometimes described as feeling like being stung by a hornet. During the ACW dead soldiers were often found with torn open clothing because they knew they had been shot but not where. In contrast being stabbed is supposed to be immediately, and excruciatingly painful from what I understand. It's supposed to be like getting touched with a hot poker, except the pain is inside of whatever limb or organ got stabbed and it doesn't go away. I've also heard that bayonets actually hurt more coming out than going in.
>>362271
pure sex
>>361958
How come they turned into pussy shits by the time of the war with Russia ten years after the death of Carolus?
>>362332
I imagine medieval warfare was extremely painful then
>>362418
UUUU
>>361464
Fuck you, line warfare was/is awesome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZVpwlMCd6M&t=16m15s
CHIVALRY
>>361600
>>362370
Russians got gud and Swedes could not compete
>>361854
You can't even pull numbers that good in Total War games.
>>361624
That was a common Swedish tactic, of advancing under fire, firing a volley at extremely close range and immediately charging.
Other forces had less aggressive doctrines, repeatedly firing until the enemy formation was broken up, and then charging.
>>362332
>During the ACW dead soldiers were often found with torn open clothing because they knew they had been shot but not where.
I heard the same in a documentary about one of the WWI. Something about them looking for the entry and exit holes because they knew they were fucked if the bullet had completely pierced them or something like that.
>>362271
Old Guard coming through.
>>364878
he looks like a faggot who is he? Sergeat Gaylord of the Analbust company? LMAO I'm LMAOing at musket era warfare
>>364890
Isn't it way past your bedtime?
>>362180
>all in the name of honor
Yeah sure people joined the army for honor and not because they where forced.
> If you left the line to try and dodge or run while someone lined up a shot on you, you'd be killed by your own side
They did that because if one start running away everyone will start running. Which meant they would lose. Fearing your own more than the enemy is not honor.
>>361464
>Im a total and utter ignorant pleb and this is my post
>>366170
>forced
While this is true in some cases many joined of their own free will. People fought for ideals.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>363607
Is this what Japanese people actually beleive?
>>362370
Sweden had an organizational advantage that offset Russias massive resource advantage when Russia was an unorganized mess, When Russia got their shit together there was no way for Sweden to keep competing.
>>361464
>Uniforms from that era are the very definition of uncool
kill yourself
>>361600
>honour in warfare
Warfare was always the most pragmatic part of any nation. Lives and the future of your nation lie in the use of arms, tactics and logistics. You don't "try to keep things honourable". You use anything that gives you an advantage over the enemy. Line warfare is an example of that. Organizing your infantry into line regiments instead of a skirmisher approach meant they could form a square if attacked by cavalry, their morale would be improved by the closeness of their comrades and the officers could issue orders with ease, allowing the army to exploit any holes in enemy formation or to concentrate fire on a particular segment of the enemy line. The formation was also important because it allowed the infantry to either attempt or withstand a bayonet charge. Muskets were also not accurate enough to present a great threat at the distance the engagements took place (the threat grew exponentionally with proximity, meaning that charging a fresh regiment frontally was suicide). Only with the Franco-Prussian war and the widespread introduction of rifles did line regiments adopt a skirmishing stance.
Conclusion: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Also, line infantry uniforms uncool? What are you smoking?
>>366688
I hate the tricorne, but after it soldier hats are fucking cool. Pre-ww1 uniforms are the more stylish.
>>366919
>I hate the tricorne
What is wrong with you?
Plenty of great military history from that era.
The combat stories that get to be a drag at the Western Front 1914-1918
> Artillery fires for 20 hours.
> One side gets out of trenches and marches directly into machine gun fire
> Dies
> Other side fires artillery
> Gets out of trenches and marches into machine gun fire
> Dies
> 100,000 deaths in a single battle later, front lines are within 200 yards of where they started.
>>362131
>implying this based frog wouldn't have stopped him
>>367014
Given how great he was at stomping the frogs I don't think they would have.
>>367045
He'd already stopped him at the Battle of Malplaquet.
Churchill was great and all but he wasn't a tier above contemporary generals like the bongs would have you believe
>>366988
>WWI
>line warfare
retard alert
Will we ever create some new form of weapon that makes the current meta-tactics of camouflage and ambush obsolete? That way we can have soldiers marching into battle wearing bright colours a la the 18th century once again.
>>367254
It was still very much line warfare, only their lines were in pits instead of in the open.
>>367939
Why even post if it's going to be dumb shit?
>>361600
That is a problematic opinion since most losers here are American and will scream >MUH GUNS whenever their beliefs are challenged
>>367933
Yes. Giant blue space lasers.
>>361834
You're supposed to improve over time, anon.
>>368109
>>368218
>>366988
How about the Battle of the Frontiers?
Incredible things that we will never know about happened during those few weeks. And if you think about it, nobody at the time really knew either.
>>366688
There was a degree of honour. I'm pretty sure the targeting of officers was crowned upon by most (not riflemen) during the Napoleonic era.
>>368736
That´s something I never understood. They did so much dirty shit to try and get the upper hand. Why specifically avoid that one thing that would really give it?
Was it just the high society shielding itself so that they weren´t always targeted?
>>369088
Probably so there was a degree of diplomacy available. It would be hard to discuss terms if all the enemy officers were mistreated/dead
>>368109
>Warning enemy make a counterattack
>>366688
Except honor was often times pragmatic. There were things where escalation harmed both sides more than it was worth, and it's usually been the case that officers, generals and rulers have been treated with special care and privilege when taken as prisoner.
>>367939
please never post on /his/ again
>>366688
>Only with the Franco-Prussian war and the widespread introduction of rifles did line regiments adopt a skirmishing stance.
actually it was a couple of years prior with the prussians and their rifles against austria,
>>361464
nah senpai
Modern Warfare is the most boring warfare ever
>enemy strongpoint
>lol, time to use drones
It's literally just some guys pushing buttons on a computer
>>367254
desu, early ww1 battles were kind of similar to line battles. Except all the lines were btfo by artillery.
>>368272
Perfect.
>>369514
Correct. That is not contradictory to anything I said. Utility still comes first.
>>370009
>be american pilot
>get PTSD from piloting drones
>muh home of the brave
can't make this up
>>369527
The ACW had mass adoption of rifles, railroads, telegrams, observation balloons, trenches, and giant skirmish lines, before it was cool.
>>369489
You talking shit about Fritz Joseph "Yang's plot armor" Bittenfield?
>>370314
>trenches
Trenches are literally a centuries-old thing in warfare.
>>370314
That is not really correct - mass use of rifles and railroads and trenches were already a thing in the European conflicts of mid 19th century. Skrimishing lines even before that. I don't know how massive balloon usage was in the ACW so there might be a point to that but at least some degree of military use of balloons was a thing for decades by then.
>>369514
Because you can ransom them for a lotta money
>>361464
>I have shit taste please validate my awful opinions
Get out. Gentlemanly warfare best warfare dishonorable curs get out
>>361756
Because you don't want your men flinching when the enemy fires at them, it spoils there aim (No one really aimed muskets anyway, they presented them, but that's not the point)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXVhwK45yw
The guy in the video explains the necessity of bright uniforms and fighting in line quite well.
Even if their drill is completely wrong for the period they represent.
Naval warfare is the best thing about this era pêh
>>370066
Blowing real people to pieces sitting at a computer can really fuck with a person's head.
When you kill them close up in heated combat you don't think about the moral implications of it because it's either you or them and the stress of the situation doesn't let you stop and think about it. But sitting in an air conditioned room in Nevada firing missiles at "targets" that can't even fight back day after day would cause anyone to stop and think about what they're doing. And you could never really be sure if those people you had killed were really enemies.
>>368235
Pretty much no, after the Great Northern War Sweden became a constitutional monarchy instead of absolute in the age known as the Age of Liberty. Sweden wouldn't fight another war until 1788.
>>370066
>>370926
>getting ptsd from vidya
are you a kuk
Look at the great northern war !
>>361464
Why didn't anyone think to dress the soldiers up in plate armour? Would presumably give them a lot of protection when trading musket volleys, and probably wouldn't slow down the rate of fire much if it was well designed and they were well drilled.
>>371844
Meat is cheap.
Metal is expensive.
>>371844
Obvious troll is obvious
>>371821
Hello /pol/.
>>371821
It's really easy to say things like that sitting in your room with a sippy cup of gin and tonic and a plate full of Doritos.
Doesn't mean that when people actually have to make moral decisions, things don't get crazy.
>>369527
This. It was the Prussians who changed the old style linear infantry warfare in the Austria-Prussia war, btfo of Austria in Sadowa.
Also, during the American Civil War.
>>364890
He clearly has a bigger dick that you
First by nature that he is a soldier
Second, hes not afraid to let it show through those pants
>>361464
That's because the entire army didn't just line up. There were lots of attempts at outflanking with cavalry or infantry, deploying skirmishers, positioning artillery well, etc. It was hardly "get in a line and start shooting"
>>361756
Where do you get the idea they took turns? The reason for fire-by-line was that it allowed you to concentrate your firepower, because of the terrible ballistics of early muskets - they were reasonably accurate out to a 100m, but a lack of stabilizing spin on the ball meant that they would often veer unpredictably after that. As a result you would pack up your firing line so you'd let loose with a solid wall of shot.
Sure, you can spread out your men, but that just means they'll die with more certainty one at a time and be unable to put up effective resistance, because they're shooting all from different angles. The best way to avoid casualties is to kill the other guy first.
>>370926
Actually I think that drone operator PTSD is much rarer than "frontliner" PTSD. It doesn't matter whether you don't stop or think at that moment or not, aside from hearing and seeing people die you also see a lot of other shit that, if you haven't become a latent psychopath already, wounds up biting you in the ass later.
A drone operator by contrast sees a world in black and white, without details, and shoots at the people shaped forms. He doesn't hear, not even exactly see anything.
>>372126
Then what about air force ptsd?
The guys that dropped bombs and shit, they have reported ptsd.
>>361464
>>361600
>>368042
>>361789
>>361732
>>370066
>>370926
>>371821
>>372126
>>372132
The bait in this thread has reached critical mass. I can't fucking deal with it. I'm going to get PTSD from all this fucking bait. I refuse to believe that people who'd engage in discussion of warfare on the History board would believe in such naive bullshit and aren't merely trolling for laughs. Please no. No more bait. My feeble tolerance cannot take any more.
>>372150
Nice bait.
>>370708
Bad food, crappy water, horrific medical conditions, flogging and all that jazz. I like my Hornblower and Aubrey but I'd rather in a steel navy anyday
>>372169
I think among worst things, outside of the actual naval battles of the era, is the practice of gang pressing sailors and ships into the navies of another nation. I'm not particularly jingoistic, but I'm pretty sure that I'd still cry if I had to lower the stars and stripes and put up the union jack.
>>372578
Wasint conditions in the british navy better than the murican navy tho?
Not defending gang pressing, still deplorable.
>>361600
>I've got more muscles so I have the right to kill the guy with less
If anything like it's said, guns were the equalizer of war and made it somewhat romantic, everyone is equal in front of a rifle
>>372797
not really the other guy might have shittier model and even back in the ancient times it wasn't a matter of muscles it's not like anyone used those fucking MMORPG 3 meters long 40kg heavy weapons
>>361478
>The Romans and vikings fought in lines too.
No, they didn't. A manipular army isn't line warfare. A formation is not automatically a line, for fuck's sake.
>>372821
A man larger than you has the advantage in hand to hand combat.
Yes, there are ways around this, but he has more options avalible to him than you would in that situation.
godo era
>>361510
>tfw if you tried to join that melee, actually pick up a sword or pike, you'd be dead before you could swing twice.
>>361510
HEY NIGGA LOOK AT ME PULLING THE TRIGGER MT IN A FAGGOT ASS HAT HOPING IT WILL FIRE BECAUSE IT HAD A 1 IN 5 MISFIRE RATE AND WAS SO INNACURATE EVEN IF IT FIRED IT MIGHT DO FUCKING FUCK ALL YOU FUCKING FUCKER
MANLETEON SUCKS COCKS
FUCK LINE WARFARE
>>366446
>many joined of their own free will. People fought for ideals.
No most of the people in the British army where petty criminals, beggars, laborers, or farmers. Not really the people you would say "fought for ideals" they did it for money or because they where forced
>>373042
>what is france
>>374276
>what is Sweden
>what is Britain
>what is Russia
>what is conscript
>>373039
go suck a dick
I know this thread is bait and is full of bait and retards but the era of line warfare was fucking epic.
It was a time when the tools and practices of war highly standardized, much more so than ancient times, so the fighting was more balanced. Most military officers underwent years of study and training and military theory was constantly evolving. The art of war had become a science. It was also the dawn of the era of total war. The scale and complexity of the battles were greater than any before in human history. It was also a time when the future of Europe was very fragile. One small victory or defeat could change the course of history. The battles were huge and epic, the stakes were high and the commanders were some of the greatest military tacticians in human history.
It would also be the last era of war that men would decide battles through massive, grouped melees, something that humans have been doing since the dawn of civilization. It was a fascinating mix of modern infantry tactics and primal, ancient warfare.
IMO, it was the golden era of warfare. I don't think anyone can say that one era was "the best", but I think you can say that the Napoleonic era in particular set the high mark in many ways. The uniforms, the tactics, the weapons, the stories and the people were amazing. Napoleon himself was, in a way, the last of the great conquerors.
