10 year old video but I'll comment anyway - the captain giving the narration did an excellent job. Being able to get up in front of an audience and speak off the cuff is very difficult, this gentleman really knew the material and presented it in an interesting way, while still commanding the company. The slip up in his comments between "battalion" and "company" was unfortunate - I'm sure this man knows the difference, but getting in front of an audience, stuff like that will always happen. It was a minor goof that did not detract from the presentation. He would make an excellent school teacher (in fact, I wonder if he wasn't actually one of those when not reenacting). This is exactly the way to bring history alive for people.
Everyone also should know a regiment holds 10-15,000 men which can equate to 3-5 Regiments. 2-5 divisions form a corps which also equates to a strength of 20-45,000 strong force. Now a four star general can command an Army. Example is WW2 4 star generals like Patton commanded armies like the 7th Army in North Africa and the Italian theater. Then the 3rd army in France and Germany. After a 4 star general comes the General of the United States Army. The 5 star, now a 6 star can and is also able to command like a 5 star but he just holds a lot more seniority. Nonetheless, this is an example of the rest of the layout of the US Army structure. You guys started it. I just finished it with my 2 cents. Yes, there are 6 star generals. Generals like John Pershing and General George Washington (later 1st President of the United States). Though for some reason people want to argue and in 1976 he was posthumously promoted to a 7 star general. Is there no limit. I guess one of us can become a US General and perform epically in the battlefield to see how high one goes. Am I right?
I just want one of those battle flags that honor my family members who fought in the 17th West Virginia volunteer infantry who fought for the union and also the normal Union Stars and Stripes
one more thing about bayonnetes: they were mostly just effective for troop morale. like 70% of soldiers would survive bayonnet wounds, the reason for their effectiveness was because of morale. As people back then had a culture against being stabbed so soldiers generaly were quite scared when they saw a bayonnet charge and due to this, it was common for them to retreat
It was my main grievance with re-enacting; we couldn't draw and use our ramrods which was integral to reloading for 'safety' reasons. Quite honestly the blank 'ladyfinger' loads we used wouldn't propel a ramrod if left in the barrel very far anyway. Too many 'safety' regulations that IMHO didn't give the public the correct 'this is how it was' interpretation.
I know this is very much impossible and a guaranteed unlikely possibility. But I'm gonna joke here. Imagine these guys behind that officer are actually Civil War soldiers in the Union Army Transported to the future. Then again. I said I know that it's not.
Nice demonstration except many Civil War battles had one side or the other behind stone walls, fences, etc so the side in the open was at a decided disadvantage. The rule of thumb is that the attacking force needs at least a 3 to 1 advantage over entrenched defenders. Thus now you can,understand why the Union forces were at a decided disadvantage in most battles like this one at Burnside Bridge.
Rank fire as Europeans know it was pioneered by the Dutch, reinvented by the Swedes, and then reinvented again over and over by Germans, Brits and French.
@@packr72 RE_ENACTORS are supposed to re-enact, that's why they're called that, and not "Some -sort-of rough-idea people' . The guys that fought in the Civil war weren't Professional soldiers either, most were draftees.
@@jimmclean9312 well damn, i thought they were reenacting real battles but imagine my surprise when i found out they didnt actually shoot each other with real bullets. utter cringe
Pretty sure most Yankee soldiers were armed with muskets... Don't know about mass produced and mass distributed rifled muskets... But a rifle and a musket isn't the same thing and a rifled musket as well.
Yes the rifled muskets were mass produced. There were several different models like the Springfield M1855 in .58 caliber, the Springfield M1861 in .58 and the Springfield M1863 also in .58 caliber. All "rifled musket" means is that the projectile is not as tight a fit in the bore, allowing for easy loading (for the first 10 or 15 rounds anyway) as the ball will almost, but not quite free fall down the barrel on loading (you still got to use the ram rod). The hollow base of the bullet expands when the hot gasses of the powder charge hit it, allowing to seal up the bore and catch the rifling. There were a few units in 1862 that still carried real smooth bore muskets. The 69th New York for one were armed with the Springfield M1842, .69 caliber round ball. The actual cartridge used was called "Buck and Ball", a .69 caliber ball and buckshot all in one cartridge. The range was minimal (50 yards at most) but a volley of buck and ball at 20 yards could ruin your whole day.
The word musket was used for the length of the barrel over 36 inch a rifle was in the 33 inch length . A carbine would be shorter . ie 1841 Rifle US with a over all length of 49 inch s & a 1861 Springfield rifle musket were 56 inch in length
8:59 The astute soldier in the middle intercepts the enemy carrier pigeon with his incredible skeet shooting skills.
Lol
He's looking for confederate witches.
10 year old video but I'll comment anyway - the captain giving the narration did an excellent job. Being able to get up in front of an audience and speak off the cuff is very difficult, this gentleman really knew the material and presented it in an interesting way, while still commanding the company. The slip up in his comments between "battalion" and "company" was unfortunate - I'm sure this man knows the difference, but getting in front of an audience, stuff like that will always happen. It was a minor goof that did not detract from the presentation. He would make an excellent school teacher (in fact, I wonder if he wasn't actually one of those when not reenacting). This is exactly the way to bring history alive for people.
Girl: he’s probably out cheating
Me and the boys: 0:01
That was bloody awesome. Do you still have the full video by chance? Would love to see the independent fire.
A company is 100 men. A regiment is 1000. Oh, well, no one's perfect.
LOL I know mate. Poor bugger
@@foxhoundr3364 It's an fairly easy mistake of the tongue. His point was made regardless , there once was many, now their are few.
I mean if you're talking southern units by the end of the war it's not entirely wrong 😂
Everyone also should know a regiment holds 10-15,000 men which can equate to 3-5 Regiments. 2-5 divisions form a corps which also equates to a strength of 20-45,000 strong force. Now a four star general can command an Army. Example is WW2 4 star generals like Patton commanded armies like the 7th Army in North Africa and the Italian theater. Then the 3rd army in France and Germany. After a 4 star general comes the General of the United States Army. The 5 star, now a 6 star can and is also able to command like a 5 star but he just holds a lot more seniority. Nonetheless, this is an example of the rest of the layout of the US Army structure. You guys started it. I just finished it with my 2 cents. Yes, there are 6 star generals. Generals like John Pershing and General George Washington (later 1st President of the United States). Though for some reason people want to argue and in 1976 he was posthumously promoted to a 7 star general. Is there no limit. I guess one of us can become a US General and perform epically in the battlefield to see how high one goes. Am I right?
@@wdavis6814 That is funny but true. 😂😂😂
Aw....I really want one of those flags
I just want one of those battle flags that honor my family members who fought in the 17th West Virginia volunteer infantry who fought for the union and also the normal Union Stars and Stripes
I think I photographed that same regiment later that year at Antietam. I remember the officer in my photos.
Perfect, except for the guys in the rear rank with the carbine and the yellow cavalry corporal chevrons. He does not belong in an infantry formation
@James Richardson reenactment horses cost the same as normal horses.
@@whowantsabighug Actually they cost more because you have to pay a horse trainer to desensitize them to gunfire
Awesome ! These men and women devote their time and money to recreate American history.
one more thing about bayonnetes:
they were mostly just effective for troop morale. like 70% of soldiers would survive bayonnet wounds, the reason for their effectiveness was because of morale. As people back then had a culture against being stabbed so soldiers generaly were quite scared when they saw a bayonnet charge and due to this, it was common for them to retreat
It was my main grievance with re-enacting; we couldn't draw and use our ramrods which was integral to reloading for 'safety' reasons. Quite honestly the blank 'ladyfinger' loads we used wouldn't propel a ramrod if left in the barrel very far anyway. Too many 'safety' regulations that IMHO didn't give the public the correct 'this is how it was' interpretation.
That was really interesting
Excellent.
Nice job Captain.
War of rights brought me here 👍
Great video!
Great Video - Mahalo! 😊😎🤙🏼
How about precautionary words of command?
1000 man company? Did he mean Regiment?
lol i kinda was thinking the same thought
Plot twist: 9:00 That guy killed a bird
Blanks
I bet Americans weren’t so hefty back in 1863
I know this is very much impossible and a guaranteed unlikely possibility. But I'm gonna joke here. Imagine these guys behind that officer are actually Civil War soldiers in the Union Army Transported to the future.
Then again. I said I know that it's not.
Very well done except the countermarch
Nice demonstration except many Civil War battles had one side or the other behind stone walls, fences, etc so the side in the open was at a decided disadvantage. The rule of thumb is that the attacking force needs at least a 3 to 1 advantage over entrenched defenders. Thus now you can,understand why the Union forces were at a decided disadvantage in most battles like this one at Burnside Bridge.
Btw... Rank fire was pioneered by Asians... Nice trivia.. fact? XD
John Reese I mean those Japanese have to kill their banzais somehow
I.e. the Chinese and Koreans pioneered this system of firing during the Middle Ages.
Aloha 😉🤙🏼
Rank fire as Europeans know it was pioneered by the Dutch, reinvented by the Swedes, and then reinvented again over and over by Germans, Brits and French.
Those guys are slower than the second coming ! British redcoats were expected to fire 3 shots a minute
These aren’t professional soldiers dude.
@@packr72 RE_ENACTORS are supposed to re-enact, that's why they're called that, and not "Some -sort-of rough-idea people' . The guys that fought in the Civil war weren't Professional soldiers either, most were draftees.
@@jimmclean9312 well damn, i thought they were reenacting real battles but imagine my surprise when i found out they didnt actually shoot each other with real bullets. utter cringe
Is there blacks at that rank?how many states in union armies have black reserved in civil war era
They are not Infantry. They are reenactors. They aren't 11B from Ft Benning.
Ah, Wally, have you been blousing your boots like a paratrooper again?
Pavia 1525 they represent infantry, in a different era
Holy lol.
Get out of here, boot.
No shit
Omg get over yourself
what crap. it wasn't really cool.
Pretty sure most Yankee soldiers were armed with muskets... Don't know about mass produced and mass distributed rifled muskets... But a rifle and a musket isn't the same thing and a rifled musket as well.
Most Yankees had the 1861 Springfield, which was a muzzleloading rifle.
@@custergroyper8208 Looked it up. Said to be a rifled musket. These things get confusing for exact specification technicalty?
Yes the rifled muskets were mass produced. There were several different models like
the Springfield M1855 in .58 caliber, the Springfield M1861 in .58 and the Springfield
M1863 also in .58 caliber. All "rifled musket" means is that the projectile is not as tight
a fit in the bore, allowing for easy loading (for the first 10 or 15 rounds anyway) as
the ball will almost, but not quite free fall down the barrel on loading (you still got to
use the ram rod). The hollow base of the bullet expands when the hot gasses of the
powder charge hit it, allowing to seal up the bore and catch the rifling. There were a few units in 1862 that still carried real smooth bore muskets. The 69th New York for
one were armed with the Springfield M1842, .69 caliber round ball. The actual
cartridge used was called "Buck and Ball", a .69 caliber ball and buckshot all in one
cartridge. The range was minimal (50 yards at most) but a volley of buck and ball
at 20 yards could ruin your whole day.
The word musket was used for the length of the barrel over 36 inch a rifle was in the 33 inch length . A carbine would be shorter . ie 1841 Rifle US with a over all length of 49 inch s & a 1861 Springfield rifle musket were 56 inch in length
@@littlehorseyhorsey rifled musket typically means a firearm which was manufactured as a musket and was then rifled later.