the whole "red coats to hide blood" misconception has always puzzled me, like why would you not want to see where the blood is. sure makes it easier to treat a wound if you know where it is
@@amkrause2004 yeah, and to help distinguish each other through the smoke and chaos of battle. Worked a lot better when fighting a conventional enemy than a guerilla force like the Americans
That would be hillarious The worst part is I can imagine that happening as well. I can't remember when I saw it but there was some roman historian who's work was dug up basically roasting the fuck out of Herodotus. F
@@BrandonF He is doing good work. He saw a problem and directed it towards someone who was in a position to do something about it. If we are lucky another yt channel will pick this up and it'll spread to the point where people making decisions about what kind of books are used to educate children about history might have to take notice, and actually improve what is being taught.
I think Brandon should make battlefield medicine for the 18th century. I think Master and Commander, the novel series at least, who were glad that they had an actual doctor rather than some idiots even if he did have to resort to amputations from time to time (also addicted to cocaine).
I’ve been to the exact spot in Gettysburg where two confederate soldiers had to steal all of their doctors supplies because he would habitually get super high off of opium and pass out in a ditch away from camp instead of treating the men
Also in the ACW both sides often had so many wounded and dead that men with minor treatable injuries could just lay in a field for days, get infected or dehydrated and die.
@Oliver Eales Considering the subject, people have a responsibility to teach children the accurate truth. If it was Dr. Seuss then it wouldn't really matter.
Sir Henry Simmerson: Wellesley, ha! Wellesley don't know what makes a good soldier! Not many do. Do you know what makes a good soldier Mister Sharpe? Sharpe: Yes, Sir. Sir Henry Simmerson: And what makes a good soldier, Sharpe? Sharpe: The ability to fire *three* rounds a minute in any weather, sir.
Do English males have gonads? News to females everywhere, I'm sure. I suggest trying to grow some testicles. Maybe you would be worth listening to then...
Jamm6 the borders in that map are from 1815 superimposed onto an area corresponding to modern Germany. It completely leaves out East Prussia and the rest which were all majority German at the time.
@ So in the Napoleonic wars, Baden fought with Napoleon as well as other German states, and Prussia fought against Napoleon. What side was the Holy Roman Empire on? The Holy Roma Empire was nominal, and included areas not part of Germany or spoke German.
Like something out of a Hollywood movie script. Perhaps that is where the author got the idea of each British soldier carrying two pistols into battle.
The cherry on top would be: “Both armies, even by 18th century standards, were barbaric compared to that of Prussia. An army known for its kind officers, semi formal atmosphere, and ice cream socials whether they won or lost the battle.”
Secret Baguette Ewwwww, thats not good for business. I need people to shoot at each other with *my* guns that *they* bought for as long as possible, not skulk around and bankrupt it by not murdering each other!
@@retardcorpsman But the business of killing people is never a good one to be in, for we tend to avoid such drastic action until it is nescescary, leading to large swaths where no one is looking to buy the pew-pew tubes.
Secret Baguette Oh, I never looked at that way actually.....I kinda forgot the long term. Ah that’s it! I shall sell guns that dont kill people and break down easily! I shall call them non-lethal firearms and civilians/soldiers alike shall love their efficiency!
Reminds me of a time I was doing thesis research in the UK. I commented on a mural in a museum depicting Anglo-Saxon warriors in a phalanx-like formation and asked the curator how the museum had settled on depicting Anglo-Saxons fighting with over-lapping shields instead of a more open order formation. He just looked at me and told me that the museum considered itself to have done a good job if visitors left knowing who the Anglo-Saxons were.
@@davidbarr9343 Sure, terms you could translate as shield wall ("scyldbur" in the poem The Battle of Maldon and "bordwael" in the poem The Battle of Brunanburh") turn up in Anglo Saxon literature, but I've yet to see any evidence that that means that people were fighting with overlapping shields. What evidence we have of shields from that period indicate that they were *really* different from that of the specialized hoplite phalanx-fighting shield (much lighter and flimsier, held with a center boss grip instead of hanging on the arm, and probably a little smaller in diameter, although it's hard to say for sure) but people hear "shield wall" and assume it must mean "hoplite-style phalanx." It's possible that's what it means, but I've yet to see much in the way of evidence, and most of the experiments I've heard about that pit an overlapping shield formation against guys in open order see the the close order guys get picked off by opponents who are better able to maneuver and wield their weapons. It's still entirely possible that a "scyldbur" did mean some kind of phalanx, but I want to see some evidence before I accept it as truth.
@@dashiellharrison4070 I agree with you that the evidence for "overlapping shields" is bare. Many armies of the period did fight in close order battle lines hence "shield wall". I also totally agree with you that a disciplined army fighting in open order would have a decided advantage against any opponent relying on a "phalanx style" way of combat. I think the Romans proved that when they conquered Greece. Thank you for your insight as I wasn't aware of the information you gave in the first line of your reply. I have saved your comment so as I can find out a bit more on the poem etc. You learn something new every day!
@@dashiellharrison4070 there are several depictions of the shield wall being used at Hastings in the Bayeux Tapestry. Obviously, it’s not the same as a phalanx but the English did use it with some success in the period. They might even have won at Hastings if they hadn’t broken ranks when they thought the Normans were in flight.
Reminds me of something... Oh! Julius Caesar's Bellum Gallicum! "The Gauls were brave and fiersome warriors and they outnumbered us but we won anyway..."
@@arnocharrier3438 interesting, I've seen already finest german divisions and finest german planes in ww2, finest British army in american war of independence and now you say, this propaganda meme is even older.
@@urlichwichmann6456 yeah that's one of the oldest propaganda trick, if you want to show how good of a general you are or how well trained your soldiers are, you show the ennemy as the best warriors of the world... (In the case of Ceasar, I think it worth saying that he shows off a LOT, but he came very close to defeat at Alesia).
Don't thank me, pal. Thank the shades of those in the US Congress who howled so loudly for US entry into the first world war. Those and the foolish Japanese Empire in WW Two. In short, get ****ed.
Something's that really grind my gears about the whole "against the greatest empire in the world" thing. 1. We were very much a naval power, our power came from our ships. While only maintaining a professional but small army compared to other European powers. 2. It makes it sound like we poured absolutely everything we had, sent every army we had to stop the revolution. Yeah no we still had an empire to maintain and other enemies to contend with.
It's so common for American history books to ignore that the conflict was global in scale; India, the Caribbean, Indonesia, Spain. The biggest action was the siege of Gibraltar. The last action was the siege of Cuddalore. The British needed help from Hesse, from American loyalists, from native Americans, from Indian Sepoys, and they were up against Spain, the Netherlands, France, Mysore, the native Americans on the Patriot side, the Marathas, etc.
@@ybuRnoipmahC Then the children will keep it as fact. And when told how it really was, They will think you intern are incorrect. Even though you may have studied the topic for years, And know you are correct.
@@ybuRnoipmahC Children generally believe what they first learned. It will take a lot of work to correct them later. And they will think the *correct* version is a lie. Many kids lose interest in history they thought they love this way.
How on earth did we lose? We had nineteenth century technology, the best land army in the world, we could conscript our population, and magic uniforms that soak up blood.
When I was a kid in elementary school our “hands on” American Revolution books contained muskets and step-by-step instructions for how to find a British person and blow their ribcage out of their back. *EDIT- Man, you weren’t kidding about this book. It reads exactly like a 4th grade school project. Abysmal.
Of course! Who would forget the account of the British atrocity of burning down a church full of civilians or the stabbing of a British officer with an Rebel flag?
"But son War is dangerous!" Jimmy "I want to go contribute to something that will get me into history books about my brave actions" 22th Century book: "A soldier called Jimmy was tragically wounded by an M1A2 Abrams, whilst shooting his Bazooka at the terrifying tiger 1, he was then rescued by a chinook and then died due to his helicopter being shot down by SAM Wielding Communist Russians"
I think I can explain the 5 shots a minute thing, actually! The English LONGBOW is often cited as a weapon that a trained English archer could fire roughly once every 10 seconds. Someone writing this book probably got confused and mentally mixed up the longbow and the musket's fire rates. That's terrible.
@@alexanderthegreat6682 *laughs in superior range* *laughs in kite shield* *laughs in armor* The lomg is is good, but a musket pierces armor, which a longbow can’t , at the distance a standard skirmisher fires
@@Smelly556 laughs in Hellfire LongBow firing a dozen of missiles in a few second from a Toyota... I want to see new russian mobiks finally getting issued muskets for the final charge at Bakhmut.
@Smelly556 The trick, when using a warbow, is to shoot your arrow through the weak points in the armor. While the armored man is charging at you on a horse. With years of practice, it can be done.
See, the soldier charges, bayonets the first man they encounter, hurls their rifle like a spear at the next guy then expertly guns down two more with their dual pistols. Do they teach you nothing in American schools?
That reminds me in shogun 2 total war there is a mod where you can play the uk and one of the animations is a soldier hurling his rifle at the chargeing enemy.
@@BobbyB1928 I cant remember but I thick the animation is native to fots and the mod itself is not radius yes you have an increased roster but with the mod I'm talking about makes the brits French and Americans there own factions
As someone who is teaching a US History class for the first time and combing through various sources, the book under discussion is a classic example of the poor (i.e., lack of) research common in curriculum for children. I'm amazed at how often I find incorrect dates and wild assumptions made and simply stated as facts. Thanks for calling one source out for such foolishness! I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
Due to having had quite a few discussions about history with Americans, and having had a hard time of convincing them of things that are taken as historical facts by most Europeans, I am curious how widespread the problem of grossly inaccurate history books actually are in the American education system. Can you provide a bit of insight to this? A simple ratio of good/bad books that you have looked at would suffice, but feel free to go more in depth if you wish.
There is a book by an eminent professor at Vermont University named James Loewen called Lies My Teacher Told Me in which he lampoons the errors and omissions in American high school history text books which is quite an eye opener.
@@henleinkosh2613 Well in my experience (I love history) I would say around 3 bad to every 1 good book. If you have any recommendations for good European history books, I would love to read them..
British corporal explains the uniform: "This is the crossbelt! It is used for carrying you off if you've decided to lie down and die on the battlefield! Oh, and it also carries equipment."
I remember being a little boy and going to the library and renting a lot of books about medieval history, especially on medieval arms, armor & castles. There were a lot of illustrations in them. I totally loved those books. But I wonder how much disinformation was in those ;)
the average soldier had grenades,either bow, crossbow, gun, or dual sword sheild or dual axe loudouts and the average gunsman could fire 10 rounds per minute
I could just imagine how a battle during the Revolution must've looked like: Droves of undisciplined militiamen running from professional British soldiers dual wielding pistols.
Remember, the British soldiers were all bleeding profusely though no one could tell, as there are usually no other indication of being shot at close range with a musket than unsightly crimson stains developing. No stopping to worry about that
I remember my history teacher in high school calling the head gear of the British troops at Lexington and Concord shako. I objected, and said that the British troops at Lexington were light troops, and would not have worn the "bearskin caps" of grenadiers. I was told I didn't know anything.
Well, talking with modern US "patriots", belittling the contributions of the French seems to be sort of the gold standard when telling tales of the revolution...
Yeah, they often forget that the rebels and their supporters only made up about 1/3 of the population, and before that most considered themselves to be English
Yeah I pictured something similar to those "baby holder's" that mothers sometime wear, when it's crossbelts with a kangaroo-style pouch in the middle to hold a kid. I pictured a British soldier running around with another British soldier in his crossbelts like a child lol.
I imagined like five guys dropping their weapons, taking off their crossbelts, looping them around the wounded man, and carrying him off like pallbearers.
I love how they completely ignored the contributions of the Tories fighting for the British who were fighting for their homes. The Patriot cause was hardly Universal.
@@silverletter4551 you can be an imperial power and a republic Look at France The French Republic was very mutch an imperial power with their colonisation of Africa , indo China etc The definition of Empire is “an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.” The US was and still to some extent is a group of states or countries ruled over by a sovereign state Particularly in the past with The Philippines , Many Central American countries etc But still today with its territories across the world it got through conquest Hawaii , Puerto Rico etc DIDNT voluntarily join the US they were through conquest and war And then imperial typically means someone or something that is Dominating , intrusive , expansionist etc And the US lines up with this in the past and still to this day the US has intruded on other countries and often invaded and replaced regimes against a countries will to expand their Sphere of influence By all feasible definitions the US is and has in the past been an imperial power Imperial does not require an emperor or even a monarchy
The same crap happens in high school books, too, Brandon. Professors MIGHT do a cursory examination of the materials, and they get their payout from the booksellers. James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me" goes into great detail all the fallacies taught in history books. Texas has a huge influence on these books, and many have rightfully criticized the politicization of the textbooks to changing words like "slaves" to "workers," as if by removing the word, they can slowly eliminate the institution of slavery altogether and thus the reason for all those "worker" rebellions and that little dustup of Northern Aggression in the War Between the States (vs the Civil War). Loewen calls many of his colleagues to task for their rubberstamping of high school texts, which they do for the money, which they use to research and publish in their field; some unis still have the publish or perish rule. Professor Loewen was quite right in his complaint -- history is the ONLY profession that cannot count on building on what a student learns from elementary school onward. Rather, the teacher often must spend time disabusing them of myths and outright inventions (lies) when it comes to history. Too, politicians and school administration focus on using history to indoctrinate, to instill obedience, and to squash any notion that history had anything to do with discontent, blood, and that word espoused by heretics and terrorists -- revolution. Notice how some now call it the War for Independence? They were patriots and Founding Fathers, not revolutionaries. Loewen said his first judge of any high school history text was how it treated two persons that were equally famous and contemporary figures: Woodrow Wilson and Helen Keller. Loewen does much better justice, but here's the summary for those who haven't read the book: Keller became a founding member of the NAACP and an ardent critic of corporations, robber barons, and social injustice; the newspapers that once remarked on her intelligence went to great lengths to remind their readers to ignore her words because she was born deaf, blind, and dumb, and being a woman could not make reasoned judgments in any event. Keller bitterly remarked that once she began expressing political opinions that it was remarkable how pundits and the press accused her of idiocy, ignoring their own previous accolades of her brilliance. Wilson was an ardent racist, and his attitudes forced thousands of black workers in the federal civil service to leave by his presidential policies; a once nearly 25% black representation in the workforce dropped to less than 10% at the end of his administration, impoverishing those families and helping set back race relations a hundred years. He snubbed Ho Chi Minh at the end of WW1, forcing him to turn to the Soviets for aid in the 1930s; peace and justice were for whites like America and the European Powers, and the Vietnamese needed the French to teach them civilization. Wilson publicly called "Birth of a Nation" -- Griffiths' romanticization of the Klan's acts of terrorism as the "God's honest truth;" thus helping undo one of Grant's truly admirable legacies following the Civil War -- that of ending that noxious group's bid for political power based on violent racism. Nativism -- and the Klan -- resurged openly in the 1920s because of Wilson's endorsements of racist policies of the decade before. The passing of the Sedition Act of 1918 whereby it became a federal crime to criticize the government in any way or manner during wartime -- with the odd exception that financial advisors were immune (have to protect the bankers!). George Creel and his censors arrested over 2,000 citizens in violation of the 1st Amendment, and socialist candidate Eugene Debs spent the 1918 presidential election in prison. Wilson had previously been president of a college that during his tenure, continued to exclude blacks. Wilson's anglophile bias made his anti-German policies unpopular; there were many large sectors of German immigrants in New York, Chicago, and surrounding areas, and many still had family in "the old country." It was part of Creel's work through films and posters and adverts that Germans were vilified as "Huns" who it was implied committed war crimes against civilians. Creel's office encouraged people to watch their neighbors for suspicious activity or for criticizing the government. The 1917 Sedition Act allowed the Post Office to refuse to carry publications not government approved. Many current history texts barely mention Keller at all, and if they do mention her, it's all about the "miracle" of Anne Sullivan's work to educate Keller, and no mention at all of her life after adolescence. Back to the Revolution: Revere was one of three riders going to Lexington, yet most don't know of Dawes or Prescott, or that Revere was caught; Revere had a good PR man in Longfellow, the man who wrote that poem that influenced so many schoolchildren in days long past. Washington had Parson "I cannot tell a lie" Weems. Jefferson idealized as an advocate of rights and law, yet only frees slave and lover Sally Hemmings and her children by him after his death. Washington, at the start of the Revolution, once Martha's holdings were folded into his, was the third-largest slaveholder in the colonies. He also grew and liked to smoke hemp. Benjamin Franklin loved running around without clothes on -- his "nude air" baths. History is important. When we lose our history, we lose our past. Its purpose is not to make us feel guilty for the actions of the past nor should it be used to aggrandize us above others; rather, we need to acknowledge the past and embrace it before we can move forward. Historian Patricia Limerick observed that two great dilemmas mar the US psyche -- slavery, which we've admitted to but have yet to fully reconcile, and the genocide and conquest of the native nations that were here first -- which we have yet to fully admit to. In a way, you are absolutely correct. History must be taken seriously (though you can certainly have fun with it), and the sooner you start with the young readers, the sooner it will become second nature to becoming discerning and critical readers and thinkers and not ideologues. Politicians and plutocrats, however, prefer obedience to reason; after all, if you can fool all the people once, it's good for four years. Santayana's comment remains as true today as ever.
So true, especially about Hellen Keller. Previously I didn’t know about her life after adolescence. We were just taught she was born blind and deaf and she had to be educated one on one.
I always thought it was weird that we learned about Helen Keller in history class. We read a book (the shape of water) and watched several films about her. All of the lessons focused on her learning to speak and write. It just didn't make sense to me to learn about her in American history class. I always thought "well there must have been plenty of disabled people, what makes her so special". Later in life I learned of her contributions to the NAACP and her outspoken activism towards several causes. These things making her a quite important piece of American history. Which makes it even stranger we weren't taught about what she actually did.
Im gonna go out on a limb and say that Monica, on the day she "reviewed" this atrocity of a book, she was having one of those "i don't want to even wear pants" days.
It's also possible they were severely overworked and forced to rubber stamp it. Publishing companies are notorious for cutting costs in recent years as margins have shrank.
"Yankee Doodle" was the song of the Revolution. "Yankee Doodle Dandy" was written by George M. Cohan for the musical Little Johnny Jones in the early 20th century.
That explanation always amused me. The true explanation appears to be cost. At the time the British were deciding on what colour their army should wear after the English Civil War there was a form of red mineral based dye in Europe that was dirt cheap. So they went for that. Later came back to bite them when that dye fell off the market and red dyes became more expensive, but by that time the red had become so ingrained that it stayed. Only the Guards or Officers had the Scarlet coats though, Scarlet WAS expensive, that particular dye still is, and is still used on the ceremonial coats of the Guards.
I heard this line about Spartans red coats... and while that is probably also BS the though that the british army would chose red BECAUSE OF THAT is astonishing.
This reminds me of someone going “how did these farmers rise up against the worlds greatest army” and someone in the back of the room yelling “they weren’t and they didn’t”
everybody gangsta until the British Lobster Back arrives with his two pistols, a bayonet and a rifle while charging at you firing five shots per minutes out of his musket rifle
Its a common myth taught in mainly in elementary schools. Blame really should rest with the text book companies As elementary school teachers usually have to teach all the subjects to students and therefore are not specialists in history (or math, english etc.) The teachers just regurgitate what is in the books. Unfortunately with history too much of what is in our text books are myths and misunderstandings
I feel your pain so much, Brandon. Try being a technological or industrial historian and reading any book, including some scholarly monographs, that talks about trains and railways. Few things make me scream internally more.
@@Quickpatch12 Saddly no. I don't have a link to the Atomic bomb in the text book any longer or I'd put it in. Seems to me that this came up in the news in the late 1990s. Lots of stories about how textbooks had math equations wrong, some science experiments that were dangerous, physics experiments where the image was reversed ( imagine a rainbow where the colors are in the wrong order) and errors in history books. High school textbooks it seems were written by college students. With different students writing each chapter.
@@prussian7 Sputnik (USSR, first ever satellite) was a "nuclear-powered orbital battle station, armed with lasers". From a L.A. Unified School District history text in the mid-80's.
@@bradmiller2329 Also, sputnik is JUST "a satellite" in russian. "Sputnik 1" aka ПС-1 (Простейший Спутник 1 - Simplest Satellite 1) was the first satellite. Saying THE Sputnik is a misconception as if was a specific type or brand or whatever... no.
The idea that every British soldier had two pistols and a rifle is ridiculous. I mean, they'd literally be better equipped than most armies of the time, let alone onwards...
Next we'll have female lesbian amputee British soldiers wielding six barreled pistols riding on a tank based on Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings. The untold stories of the revolution! George Washington was bisexual! And the only decent story will be the British one which comes out later as free DLC.
Everyone knows that british soldiers travelled back in time to the AWI with future flags and camouflaged themselves by making themselves look like blood (after all, why would u shoot something that is already covered in blood and thus dead?). During com,bat, they would strap wounded men to themselves within their cross belt sachets. This allowed for both transport of crippled colleagues and use of corpses as body armour. They brought with them the future technology of musket rifles, a weapon uncomprehendable for most common people. Trust me. I am an expert.
Honestly, you call yourself an expert? You didn’t even mention the part where the British soldiers would dual wield pistols from behind their corpse body armor, thus making the American soldiers think that the dead had risen up for intimidation purposes.
Side note, rifling was a concept understood even back in the 17th century. Probably earlier, too, but that's just the earliest example I know of. There are dozens of designs of sporting guns which were rifled. These, however, were obscenely expensive and really only used by the elite, and even then, not very often, but the concept was well understood, which is why the Baker, despite being the first mass produced rifled musket, was such a good gun. It wasn't the first of a new type of weapon, it was just the first cost effective version of that type of weapon
I couldn’t stop laughing through out your entire production 😂🤣 I hate historically inaccurate books with a passion too. If an author/ publisher is marketing material as historical then it should be, not an “interpretation”. From across the pond, I salute you sir 💂♂️
"Yankee"?... No... You should meet some of my dental surgeons! Lost several teeth in an accident when I was a teen due to an accident. A year later one of those teeth came lose, a second dentist re-cemented it with a really strong adhesive. About 2 years later, I needed all those teeth to come out: The first couple just popped right out after a few strikes of a little tap hammer. That 3rd one though, which had been replaced... It took this Dr. approx. 1 hour with a mallet to beat it out of my mouth! His hygienist eventually ran from the room. However, with sweat on his brow, that man continued to pound on my mouth until with the snap of bone the tooth broke free! He handed me a cup of water and told me "Rinse," with such a relief. Ha! And he thinks HE was relieved!? :-O Let's call him the "Pounder"!
Nick Jung - Sort of. It’s because the British Army is created by an act of parliament. During the restoration the British were afraid of having a standing army in the hands of the king (or any one person really), so parliament must renew the act creating the army every few years. It’s not a punishment for rebelling.
Amateur Joe's World in Miniatures it really an English thing rather than a British one. There have been a number of Scots regiments that had the term "Royal" in their title and, of course, there are the guards and the Household division that enjoys direct Royal patronage as does the Royal Artillery and the RTR. Regiments of the line are more directly descended from the New Model Army and, whilst the Crown does not seek to "punish" them, omit does not allocate the term to most line regiments. Of course, all serving soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
Brandon: * compliments and acknowledges Prussian military might * Me (A historian primarily focused on German history): Oh yeah! Brandon: "... The French military was the best..." Me: Nein! You almost had it!!!
I'm always amazed that so many of my fellow Americans believe that Britain at this time was some sort of oppressive tyranny when in fact it was one of the most democratic and free countries on earth when compared to everywhere else. I mean, where do they think the Founders got most of their ideas for a democratic/republic government?
And even more surprisingly, I am amazed by how they think the British army was somehow the best of its time. Bitch, if they were even close to what the French, Prussian and Russian armies were at that time, the continental army would have gotten it's ass kicked so hard that the war would have lasted maybe a year or two at best. The simple fact that the colonists managed to win (though thanks greatly to foreign powers siding with them) proves that the British army could not have been such a mighty force to begin with
How can you call parliamentary circumvention of colonial legislative assemblies, later followed by the outright revocation of the charters upon which those assemblies were based, as anything but tyrannical?
@@kyledonahue9315 .....By today's standards. But if you reread the original post it was talking about this time period. And if you look at the late XVIIIth century then Britain was incredibly tame compared to France, Spain, Prussia, Austria, the Ottomans or Russia. The only countries that could be more "democratic" by today's definition and standards that I can think of were the Netherlands and Switzerland. The US constituon didn't come from thin air, a great deal of it was inspired by the rights that Englishmen got
@@sephikong8323 Actually, the British Army of the time was indeed one of the best (for the purposes of the British aims) and one of the most experienced. However, due to the demands of the Napoleonic wars on the continent, the "embarrassing" and incompetent officers and their units were sent to America as it was considered an inconsequential backwater by the government at the time. Once the war on the continent ended, the experienced troops were deployed and indeed began to do quite well. However, the government didn't want to exert a large logistic effort to fight a war over what was considered a relatively worthless tract of land, especially as the population war tired of war and the taxes that a large war required (taxes that were lower in the American Colonies than they were in the British Isles - mostly because the taxes were set by the colonies themselves). Take the battle of Bunker Hill for instance. There was only one attack ordered. There was first a recce in force, followed by a junior officer (probably a Lieutenant) making a platoon or company (I cant remember which) scale attack which wasn't ever going to succeed. The Officer in command of the British forces involved, ordered the soldiers to "off-packs" and made a full scale attack which was executed properly and forced the rebels off the hill with relative ease.
"Soldiers were harshly punished for breaking the most minor rules" yes, that is how being in the military works if you don't believe me, ask your local veteran about when they were allowed to actually load their service weapon
As a 2A and constitutional activist I was literally internally screaming the moment with the “to hide the blood” bit. At that moment I knew this was going to be a travesty! 😨
At first I thought Brandon needed to take a pill, but after hearing him out, I think he is correct. This book has a lot of avoidable errors. Even children's history books should be fact checked.
I love these long videos. It's so awesome to hear you talk about this kind of stuff for just ages. You and Lidybeige just hit something in that vein that makes it so enjoyable.
Did the book explains how the IW was won thanks to the french aid, the french expeditionary force and the french and spanish fleets ? If not I can understand your frustration.
@@paganphil100 no we don’t? It’s basically common knowledge for most Americans, considering our relationship with the French following the war (XYZ affair, quasi-war, etc.) defined American foreign policy, and we basically owe the country to them. It’s just not talked about much because the third estate killed the monarch we made a deal with almost immediatly, so our good relationship ended. Spanish fleets are usually mentioned in passing, considering they didn’t play nearly as big a role, but definitely known. Everybody thinks that America is just the racist, unknowledged, Confederate apologists that are an extremely outspoken minority in the Deep South..
@@belgarath6508 sadly, the American voting system is a bit fucked because of the electoral college. Trump didn’t win the majority vote in 2016, and most Americans who didn’t vote were not supporters of him. When they did vote (2020 elections) he lost comfortably. And, although I hate the guy, Trump isn’t a confederate apologist. He just appeals to Confederate apologists, which yes, are sadly a decently sized minority in the Deep South and therefore America. That said, the vast majority of Americans who voted for Trump (outside of that area) are just die-hard Republicans, who agreed with his other policies (immigration, etc.), or disagreed strongly with supporting Clinton. But yes, Trump is racist and un knowledgeable. That said, obviously most Americans do not support the literal rebellion that happened, and racism is just as much a problem here as other countries like England and Canada. Sorry for the long comment. Edit: Also, Trumps position of being for the common man (which is bullshit considering he’s literally the rich oppressing those people, but people bought it) in comparison to Clinton helped him out.
24:56 to 24:49 No one gonna talk about his rapping skills? I mean c’mon. “...example *citation* for that *information.* Where they got the *inspiration* ...”
Polish Winged Hussars actually had two pistols. During a charge, after the pike was already broken, they fired them in the enemy croud before they started using their sabers and hammers. This was mainly possible because hussars paid for their (insanely expensive) gear themselves, so equipping them with two throw away pistols came with no cost for the state. And since all hussars were recruited from the richest gentry, they could afford it - compared to their armours, horses or skins from exotic animals a pair of pistols was quite inexpensive
Well, the Hussaria had a TON of weapons: a lance, sometimes a bow, at least one sword, sometimes two, pistols, the nadziak AND the armor. The reason they were disbanded was the Polish crown was pretty much bankrupted after the Deluge.
I loved that show as a kid, but I can appreciate just how horribly inaccurate it was. Though I sometimes like to watch an episode or two just to remember how much I loved it.
I re watched it during the summer and it was a lot better than I remembered because there are scenes that humanize the British and some episodes touch upon the morally gray aspects of the time such as slavery and the treatment of native Americans and loyalists.
@@ricardoaguirre6126 Isn't that just sad? a Children series outmatching in human character compared with other AWI movie that Shall NoT BE MENTION IN THIS HOUSEHOLD! Ps: I doing a guest that you speak spanish, where are you from?
I have a hypothesis that they got the "five rounds a minute" from the TV show Sharpe, where simmerson, to show up Sharpe, questioned him on what makes a good soldier, Sharpe replied "to be able to fire 3 shots in any terrain " he challenged him to demonstrate it as his soldiers (simmerson) could only muster two. Sharpe fired four but it was referenced that he cheated as he counted his preloaded shot. Now. This was in the books, in the TV series they upped that to five, I'm guessing for dramatic reasons, but interestingly enough it was in this same episode that we meet a loyalist American officer. Simmerson makes the reference "some Americans know their place" . It's that "some" that perked my ears when referencing the amount of them. Additionally the episode was about how simmerson was a tyrannical abusive officer that punished his men for tiny infractions. It should also be noted that the rifle company Sharpe is part of did have additional weapons and pistols . From what you described it really seams that they got all their information from this TV show...as well as Hornblower , a naval BBC drama that referenced lobsters when talking about their soldiers. Now the books were slot better then the TV shows but it's just uncanny that all your issues have parrellels to the over simplification s of the TV shows....
@@fransandersson4717 I know they weren't uncommon in WW2 and can even be seen on modern weapons, but I thought WW1 was when they stopped being standard issue in most nations.
I mean bayonets are still standard issue, since having a makeshift spear is pretty good in any possible close encounter, but instead of people making purpose built bayonets they just made a combat knife with a bayonet lung.
There was one British Soldier - John Moore - later (Napoleonic war era) General Sir John Moore - who could indeed load and fire the Brown Bess 5 times in one minute, but he was exceptional, and had to practice this skill constantly. John Moore introduced a number of badly needed reforms in the British Army before he was killed in action, leading his troops at the Battle of Corunna in Spain. Google the Poem "The Death of Sir John Moore at Corunna". Lieutenant John Moore did fight during the Revolutionary war, indeed he was part of the British Victory at the Battle of Penobscot Bay in what is now Maine, where a force of some 750 British troops held off, then defeated, a colonial land and sea expedition from Boston massing over 2000 men. At sea the Americans suffered their worst Naval defeat until Pearl Harbor almost 170 years later. (Weirdly one of the American soldiers was one Colonel Paul Revere...and he was later on almost court-martialed...for theft of the expedition's payroll! (It was last seen in his custody, as he was rowed ashore, away from the impending naval defeat...) Oh, and that same Paul Revere's famous ride? He was one of 20 riders that night, he was the ONLY rider captured by the British.. and, with a fine sense of his actual worth, they kept his horse and sent him on his way!
Every time I hear “musket rifle” I die inside. I’ve heard other people use the term (when not talking about rifled muskets.) The problem is the modern usage of “rifle” to describe any long gun. Which is just bad linguistics.
@@danc3868 Most shotguns are long guns which are not rifled. The military use of shotguns is very niche. Most soldiers are armed with rifles. And to us pedants, that is no excuse for calling historical smooth bore long guns rifles.
Love how this book ludicrously elevates the British army and navy _solely_ to make the revolutionaries/rebels eventual triumph over them seem all the more impressive by comparison! Fire 5 rounds a minute, best army in the world, etc = cracking stuff if, at best, contentious, at worst, utter fiction.
Having seen it done with live rounds, you are right about one thing, cracking is a good way to describe it! Very experienced people who are not following the drill exactly. Best I could ever do was 4. The difference between reasonably well-trained recruits, and well practiced veterans would really show.
"Lobsters" is also used in Horatio Hornblower in an episode/story set during 1795. I'd suspect that the origin is indeed from the RN when referring to the army.
You know you've found an interesting history channel when the host loses their mind not over bias, but over rifled musket rates of fire. The sub and like is yours.
Between their musket rifles, 5 shots every minute, and their dual pistol loadouts, someone please nerf the British Army.
The rule Britania exe. video has been shown to be accurate by this book aparently
Don’t worry they will be nerfed in balance patch 19.4.8
@@zacharymohammadi First a few buffs in 18.0.5 and 18.1.2
@@Nemesismaker Oh and let's not forget the buff in 19.0.9 when they introduced the 'Mad minute' ability to British riflemen.
@@Nemesismaker Those were mostly naval buffs though.
"When facing the soldiers of the British army, the worst fear of the Colonial infantry soldier was the mg-42."
Suomismg wot? Whose colonial infantry......and when?
@@nickjung7394 Just thought the book might as well start making up things like that. Like the meme picture with Roman legionaries using machine guns.
Wasn't this around the time when the British army started to deploy tanks in large numbers?
@@jwadaow The first deployment of Challenger tanks was funky.
The pop ups don't work in that book.
the whole "red coats to hide blood" misconception has always puzzled me, like why would you not want to see where the blood is. sure makes it easier to treat a wound if you know where it is
because that way the enemy won't know they hit you, and will continue shooting you until they run out of shot
@@nm-cp4ck "stop ! stop ! He is already dead !!"
@damon gant maybe they're just resting though. probably pretty tiring, all that marching and fighting
I figured they wore red so their generals could easily see their troops during combat.
@@amkrause2004 yeah, and to help distinguish each other through the smoke and chaos of battle. Worked a lot better when fighting a conventional enemy than a guerilla force like the Americans
Imagine if 500 years from now, a historian/archeologist digs up something from our era and it's Brandon roasting even earlier historians.
That would be hillarious
The worst part is I can imagine that happening as well.
I can't remember when I saw it but there was some roman historian who's work was dug up basically roasting the fuck out of Herodotus.
F
@Moritami Kamikara lol
Moritami Kamikara
Do you have the name? I want to read it!
Semi Fully Automatic
So Polybius?
Guess who gave him the book, guys. Glad you all enjoyed it, lol
Why did you do this to me? To all of us?
@@BrandonF He is doing good work. He saw a problem and directed it towards someone who was in a position to do something about it. If we are lucky another yt channel will pick this up and it'll spread to the point where people making decisions about what kind of books are used to educate children about history might have to take notice, and actually improve what is being taught.
Thank you for exposing the rebels' folly.
LoL
That was awesome! More please!
Grabs the popcorn
"American pirates" No, no, we called them privateers so that made all the piracy ok.
Do you not know standard, we have honest privateers, the enemy have dishonest pirats....
...of course, I think the French were calling English privateers "pirates" a few years prior.
How lame. All countries had privateers in use. Captain Kidd was a privateer until he took over a Spanish ship after the war ended.
Not like the british didnt do the same.
well i think elizabeth startet this whole privateer thing with drake
*british soldiers had the finest doctors to treat them*
British doctor: well old boy, I see you’ve got a stubbed toe
GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THE LEG
I bet blood letting would help, let me gash open this artery. (Edit corrected autocorrect)
I think Brandon should make battlefield medicine for the 18th century.
I think Master and Commander, the novel series at least, who were glad that they had an actual doctor rather than some idiots even if he did have to resort to amputations from time to time (also addicted to cocaine).
*AMPUTATION IT IS*
[Pre-industrial surgery music slowly playing]
I’ve been to the exact spot in Gettysburg where two confederate soldiers had to steal all of their doctors supplies because he would habitually get super high off of opium and pass out in a ditch away from camp instead of treating the men
Also in the ACW both sides often had so many wounded and dead that men with minor treatable injuries could just lay in a field for days, get infected or dehydrated and die.
Someone writes a historically inaccurate children's book.
Brandon F: *I'm about to end this man's whole career*
Innacurate History content: *exist*
Brandon: *I'm about to end this man's whole SUBJECT*
@colin minhinnick immagine Mel Gibson being outraged about historical inaccuracys :D thanks for the laugh
@Oliver Eales Considering the subject, people have a responsibility to teach children the accurate truth. If it was Dr. Seuss then it wouldn't really matter.
Well Monica is probably a womans name, so he ended that WOMANS whole career.
I'm going to correct the incorrect book, by getting epaulets wrong and having to correct it with a text overlay in the first 4 minutes.
"trained to load and fire 5 rounds a minute."
*Sharpe nuts on his splatter gaiters in the distance*
Ironically they probably watched an episode of Sharpe and assumed spit/tap loading was an actual thing.
@@lufsolitaire5351 i think all the muzzleloaders out there wished it was a thing. 5 shots a minute is ridiculous 😂
Sir Henry Simmerson: Wellesley, ha! Wellesley don't know what makes a good soldier! Not many do. Do you know what makes a good soldier Mister Sharpe?
Sharpe: Yes, Sir.
Sir Henry Simmerson: And what makes a good soldier, Sharpe?
Sharpe: The ability to fire *three* rounds a minute in any weather, sir.
Do English males have gonads? News to females everywhere, I'm sure. I suggest trying to grow some testicles. Maybe you would be worth listening to then...
Movie!Sharpe can do that, but that's because he's Sean Bleeding Bean
When you’re so angry at bad history that you slip into German.
he's so angry at bad history that he slips an innacurate map of germany in the 1800s
Western Prussia
Eastern Prussia
It's a German Tradition to split the country
Jamm6 the borders in that map are from 1815 superimposed onto an area corresponding to modern Germany. It completely leaves out East Prussia and the rest which were all majority German at the time.
There was no map of German until 1871, Germany was many independent states! Where I live was part of Baden and before 1806 part of Austria!
@ So in the Napoleonic wars, Baden fought with Napoleon as well as other German states, and Prussia fought against Napoleon. What side was the Holy Roman Empire on? The Holy Roma Empire was nominal, and included areas not part of Germany or spoke German.
18th Century British Soldier: * get's in close and drops his "rifle" *
* Pulls out pistols *
"So anyway, I started blasting"
Like something out of a Hollywood movie script. Perhaps that is where the author got the idea of each British soldier carrying two pistols into battle.
Blasting pistols - "Bang!"
...................................."Bang!"
Sh*t! Now where's me f***king bayonet!"
@@MandyJMaddison Well after that they'd pull out their 2 Uzi's and after that their pump action shotguns
*Drop musket*
>Quartermaster sees
queue to benny hill theme and QM chasing soldier round the battlefield
Dragoons had carbine, saber, and a pair of pistols so that could make sense
I have never seen such an articulate and passionate hatred for a children's book.
Lie is lie, tiktok is shit
*Cough Cough* (The Poisonous Mushroom) *Cough Cough*
The book is nowhere near as bad as the movie, "Pearl Harbor".
@@raypurchase801it sucks from a filmmaking and acting perspective also
@@raypurchase801 Luckily the US cinema produced *The Patriot* to clear up any such historical errors.
The cherry on top would be: “Both armies, even by 18th century standards, were barbaric compared to that of Prussia. An army known for its kind officers, semi formal atmosphere, and ice cream socials whether they won or lost the battle.”
In Scandinavia we had a tradition of both parties combatants feasting together after the battle
@@stupidperson9250 That would be a good tradition. Make the war a lot shorter, once you real8ze the enemy are in fact, humans.
Secret Baguette
Ewwwww, thats not good for business.
I need people to shoot at each other with *my* guns that *they* bought for as long as possible, not skulk around and bankrupt it by not murdering each other!
@@retardcorpsman But the business of killing people is never a good one to be in, for we tend to avoid such drastic action until it is nescescary, leading to large swaths where no one is looking to buy the pew-pew tubes.
Secret Baguette
Oh, I never looked at that way actually.....I kinda forgot the long term.
Ah that’s it! I shall sell guns that dont kill people and break down easily! I shall call them non-lethal firearms and civilians/soldiers alike shall love their efficiency!
"The british are coming!"
Me: *pulls out Musket Rifle and starts to shoot 5 bullets per minute*
Level 15 mafia boss.
Echo *Drops Musket Rifle and whips out two pistols*
So anyway... I started blasting!
I like how you snuck in the anachronistic "bullet"
@@vincentheartland2088 Forgive him for he doesn't have the balls...
Reminds me of a time I was doing thesis research in the UK. I commented on a mural in a museum depicting Anglo-Saxon warriors in a phalanx-like formation and asked the curator how the museum had settled on depicting Anglo-Saxons fighting with over-lapping shields instead of a more open order formation. He just looked at me and told me that the museum considered itself to have done a good job if visitors left knowing who the Anglo-Saxons were.
The formation you refer to is called a "shield wall" and was a common way of fighting in that period.
@@davidbarr9343 Sure, terms you could translate as shield wall ("scyldbur" in the poem The Battle of Maldon and "bordwael" in the poem The Battle of Brunanburh") turn up in Anglo Saxon literature, but I've yet to see any evidence that that means that people were fighting with overlapping shields. What evidence we have of shields from that period indicate that they were *really* different from that of the specialized hoplite phalanx-fighting shield (much lighter and flimsier, held with a center boss grip instead of hanging on the arm, and probably a little smaller in diameter, although it's hard to say for sure) but people hear "shield wall" and assume it must mean "hoplite-style phalanx." It's possible that's what it means, but I've yet to see much in the way of evidence, and most of the experiments I've heard about that pit an overlapping shield formation against guys in open order see the the close order guys get picked off by opponents who are better able to maneuver and wield their weapons. It's still entirely possible that a "scyldbur" did mean some kind of phalanx, but I want to see some evidence before I accept it as truth.
@@dashiellharrison4070 I agree with you that the evidence for "overlapping shields" is bare. Many armies of the period did fight in close order battle lines hence "shield wall". I also totally agree with you that a disciplined army fighting in open order would have a decided advantage against any opponent relying on a "phalanx style" way of combat. I think the Romans proved that when they conquered Greece. Thank you for your insight as I wasn't aware of the information you gave in the first line of your reply. I have saved your comment so as I can find out a bit more on the poem etc. You learn something new every day!
@@dashiellharrison4070 there are several depictions of the shield wall being used at Hastings in the Bayeux Tapestry. Obviously, it’s not the same as a phalanx but the English did use it with some success in the period. They might even have won at Hastings if they hadn’t broken ranks when they thought the Normans were in flight.
@@davidbarr9343 Happy to help! It really fascinating stuff.
Two pistols, is every single British soldier John Wick!?
Nah, they’re just fans of Halo 2
I just had a image of a British Soldier whipping out his pistols and deul wielding them Wild West mode 😂
@@viracocha6093 At least they didn't get access to battle rifles...
It interesting that they claim the soldier had 2 pistols but forgot to include them in the picture.
No, they were German reiter from the 16th century.
"The Finest Army in the world"
means
"My ENEMY was the best in the world .... and I BEAT HIM"
When he had two hands tied behind the back thanks to being forced into global war by the French...
Andrew Barnett Took a few decades, but yeah
Reminds me of something... Oh! Julius Caesar's Bellum Gallicum! "The Gauls were brave and fiersome warriors and they outnumbered us but we won anyway..."
@@arnocharrier3438 interesting, I've seen already finest german divisions and finest german planes in ww2, finest British army in american war of independence and now you say, this propaganda meme is even older.
@@urlichwichmann6456 yeah that's one of the oldest propaganda trick, if you want to show how good of a general you are or how well trained your soldiers are, you show the ennemy as the best warriors of the world... (In the case of Ceasar, I think it worth saying that he shows off a LOT, but he came very close to defeat at Alesia).
An American who wears a poppy in November? As a British veteran, I salute and thank you.
Don't thank me, pal. Thank the shades of those in the US Congress who howled so loudly for US entry into the first world war. Those and the foolish Japanese Empire in WW Two. In short, get ****ed.
UA-cam: Wanna watch half an hour of a guy roasting a history book?
Me: yes, please and thank you
_history_ book
"history" book
one page of a "history" book.
Muskets : *Exist*
Rifles : *Exist*
Author : It’s free real estate
Something's that really grind my gears about the whole "against the greatest empire in the world" thing.
1. We were very much a naval power, our power came from our ships. While only maintaining a professional but small army compared to other European powers.
2. It makes it sound like we poured absolutely everything we had, sent every army we had to stop the revolution. Yeah no we still had an empire to maintain and other enemies to contend with.
It's so common for American history books to ignore that the conflict was global in scale; India, the Caribbean, Indonesia, Spain. The biggest action was the siege of Gibraltar. The last action was the siege of Cuddalore. The British needed help from Hesse, from American loyalists, from native Americans, from Indian Sepoys, and they were up against Spain, the Netherlands, France, Mysore, the native Americans on the Patriot side, the Marathas, etc.
"We"?
@@ShinM. British people use UA-cam…
@@Portaldog British people who were alive during that era are alive and use UA-cam? Wow. Didn't realize that you folks had such crazy lifespans.
@@ShinM. God you want it really specific, relax.
Giving soldiers freedom would be a terrible idea. "Where's the sentry?" "pub" "sergeant?" "pub" "why hasn't the latrine pit been dug yet?" "FREEDOM!"
“pub”
The term “latrine pit” is akin to the term “musket rifle” lol
Giving soldiers freedom is asking for them to march through the capital and take over in a coup.
@@maximilienfrancoisderobesp202
I'm sure you could relate.
Why’s the trench unkempt?
In this episode:
“Brandon gets Mad at a Children’s Book”
Well children will read this and may pass it onto their kids and so on and so on. It will spread misinformation
@@ybuRnoipmahC Then the children will keep it as fact. And when told how it really was, They will think you intern are incorrect. Even though you may have studied the topic for years, And know you are correct.
And the misinformation lives on from a bad book on down, of a war called the Revolution.
@@ybuRnoipmahC Children generally believe what they first learned. It will take a lot of work to correct them later. And they will think the *correct* version is a lie. Many kids lose interest in history they thought they love this way.
Media made for children deserve to be held to higher scrutiny because children are so impressionable.
American: “The British are coming!”
Americans: *Equips machine gun and calls an airstrike*
British general: we need to arm our soldiers, what should we use?
Everyone else: give em all 2 pistols and a musket rifle
Everybody gangsta til the British soldier turns into John wick and duel wields pistols
.... and a Holy Hand Grenade each ... Oooops that's Monty Python .. Brandon's already mad enough.
I love _musketted rifles_
Remember it is always faster to switch to pistol than reload your musket rifle
@@yetipotato8567
But only just apparently.
How on earth did we lose? We had nineteenth century technology, the best land army in the world, we could conscript our population, and magic uniforms that soak up blood.
And don't forget the two pistols. Never underestimate the John Wick that slumbers in every red coat
Why?
America have Trump, and you have only Boris Jonson :-p
Tihomir Rasperic Regan and Thatcher?
@@nickjung7394 sorry Regan and Thatcher are amateurs versus Trump and Boris Jonson :-p
@@sephikong8323 Keanu had to train had for Patriot before the film was turned into a betrayal.
When I was a kid in elementary school our “hands on” American Revolution books contained muskets and step-by-step instructions for how to find a British person and blow their ribcage out of their back. *EDIT- Man, you weren’t kidding about this book. It reads exactly like a 4th grade school project. Abysmal.
Damn
Shoots the lung RIGHT OUT
But Brandon, surely Mel Gibson’s Patriot was a stirring example of historical accuracy. XD
Definitely
Of course!
Who would forget the account of the British atrocity of burning down a church full of civilians or the stabbing of a British officer with an Rebel flag?
Only an absolute patriot like Comstock could argue a thing like that!
@@fds7476 That a Bioshock reference? If so, I love you.
Well, compared to this yes haha.
Dragging a wounded soldier from their cross belts off the battlefield sounds so funny
Mallyoo Thanks
I first thought they were to lift them up and put them in like some chest baby carrier.
Everyone knows the cross belts were for cross fit training.
At first I thought the book meant you hang a wounded soldier on your own belt and carry them home that way. Equally as rediculous
@@CrazyRandomLord Same xD
"But son War is dangerous!"
Jimmy "I want to go contribute to something that will get me into history books about my brave actions"
22th Century book:
"A soldier called Jimmy was tragically wounded by an M1A2 Abrams, whilst shooting his Bazooka at the terrifying tiger 1, he was then rescued by a chinook and then died due to his helicopter being shot down by SAM Wielding Communist Russians"
No wonder they needed to rise taxes to pay for all the pistols.
Doesn't the bouncer usually have a whole mess of pistols?
"Musket rifles" got me. I managed to hold it in up until that point...
i smoke a pipe! is that ok? :)
@@robertgreen6027 Wat.
@@robertgreen6027 Depends on what you define as ok... it is not good for your lungs, though.
@@robertgreen6027 smoking a pipe won't extend said pipe's expiry date.
@@Xaiff what do you mean?
I think I can explain the 5 shots a minute thing, actually! The English LONGBOW is often cited as a weapon that a trained English archer could fire roughly once every 10 seconds. Someone writing this book probably got confused and mentally mixed up the longbow and the musket's fire rates.
That's terrible.
Longbow is the superior weapon, obviously. Who would want a slow, loud stick when you could be Legolas instead? SMH...
@@alexanderthegreat6682 *laughs in superior range*
*laughs in kite shield*
*laughs in armor*
The lomg is is good, but a musket pierces armor, which a longbow can’t , at the distance a standard skirmisher fires
@@alexanderthegreat6682 (Agrees in Benjamin Franklin)
@@Smelly556 laughs in Hellfire LongBow firing a dozen of missiles in a few second from a Toyota... I want to see new russian mobiks finally getting issued muskets for the final charge at Bakhmut.
@Smelly556 The trick, when using a warbow, is to shoot your arrow through the weak points in the armor. While the armored man is charging at you on a horse. With years of practice, it can be done.
Brandon: pulls out *THAT* book
Me: Oh God
Hola
Dear God I remember reading that XD
...never read it. Huh. Feel like I got lucky. Heh heh.
It's the supreme ruler of south america
Direct rule from Mexico City
See, the soldier charges, bayonets the first man they encounter, hurls their rifle like a spear at the next guy then expertly guns down two more with their dual pistols.
Do they teach you nothing in American schools?
That reminds me in shogun 2 total war there is a mod where you can play the uk and one of the animations is a soldier hurling his rifle at the chargeing enemy.
@@mckitsune7600 Sweet jesus
It is quite cool even though i could not stop laughing at what happend.
@Mckitsune Radious Mod?
@@BobbyB1928 I cant remember but I thick the animation is native to fots and the mod itself is not radius yes you have an increased roster but with the mod I'm talking about makes the brits French and Americans there own factions
This book might as well have been saying that there were Panzer IV tanks in the American Revolutionary War.
Used to capture the airports, of course
@@Tareltonlives no! Used to sink enemy cruisers
Wait, if there weren't Panzer IV tanks in the Continental Army, then what the hell was Baron von Steuben even doing?
@@pavelthefabulous5675Fucking the little army twinks
As someone who is teaching a US History class for the first time and combing through various sources, the book under discussion is a classic example of the poor (i.e., lack of) research common in curriculum for children. I'm amazed at how often I find incorrect dates and wild assumptions made and simply stated as facts. Thanks for calling one source out for such foolishness! I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
Due to having had quite a few discussions about history with Americans, and having had a hard time of convincing them of things that are taken as historical facts by most Europeans, I am curious how widespread the problem of grossly inaccurate history books actually are in the American education system. Can you provide a bit of insight to this? A simple ratio of good/bad books that you have looked at would suffice, but feel free to go more in depth if you wish.
@@henleinkosh2613 I'm also amazed at the inaccurate ideas many Europeans have about U.S. history.
There is a book by an eminent professor at Vermont University named James Loewen called Lies My Teacher Told Me in which he lampoons the errors and omissions in American high school history text books which is quite an eye opener.
@@henleinkosh2613 Well in my experience (I love history) I would say around 3 bad to every 1 good book. If you have any recommendations for good European history books, I would love to read them..
@@henleinkosh2613 Well our Education System is ran by Boomers who care more about money and power, than the education of the people.
British corporal explains the uniform:
"This is the crossbelt! It is used for carrying you off if you've decided to lie down and die on the battlefield! Oh, and it also carries equipment."
I remember being a little boy and going to the library and renting a lot of books about medieval history, especially on medieval arms, armor & castles. There were a lot of illustrations in them. I totally loved those books. But I wonder how much disinformation was in those ;)
the average soldier had grenades,either bow, crossbow, gun, or dual sword sheild or dual axe loudouts and the average gunsman could fire 10 rounds per minute
Book:”British foot soldiers where given supplies”
Brandon: 🤔🤔”yes”
British soldiers were usually born in Britain
British foot soldiers tended to fight on foot
@@classifiedamphibian4649 British soldiers more often than not fought on land
Most notably British Foot Soldiers got shot on foot
British Soldiers were often part of the British Military
I could just imagine how a battle during the Revolution must've looked like: Droves of undisciplined militiamen running from professional British soldiers dual wielding pistols.
As faithfully portrayed by Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam in the famous Warner Bros. documentary about the battle of Bunker Hill.
@@thecactusman17
I saw that documentary. It was enlightening. I had no idea that Hessians were all so angry.
Remember, the British soldiers were all bleeding profusely though no one could tell, as there are usually no other indication of being shot at close range with a musket than unsightly crimson stains developing. No stopping to worry about that
@@sverrg "ain't got time to bleed"
360 No Scope from a musket is No joke!
I remember my history teacher in high school calling the head gear of the British troops at Lexington and Concord shako. I objected, and said that the British troops at Lexington were light troops, and would not have worn the "bearskin caps" of grenadiers. I was told I didn't know anything.
"Machineguns at that point"
As a former machinegunner I must defend my honor and state that I am capable of greater than 5 rounds a minute.
😂😂😂😂
more than 5 rounds per minutes?! must be witchcraft
That's fair. I hear that veteran machine gunners can fire over 9 rounds a minute in optimal conditions.
Well, talking with modern US "patriots", belittling the contributions of the French seems to be sort of the gold standard when telling tales of the revolution...
Oliver H something something freedom fries
Yeah, they often forget that the rebels and their supporters only made up about 1/3 of the population, and before that most considered themselves to be English
And what about the Spanish contributions? Which is just simply forgot
Or forgetting to credit the Spaniards for their contribution. Battle of Pensacola...
@Denise Bond yep
Ngl when he read the crossbelt was for carrying wounded soldiers I pictured a dude strapping the casualty to his chest and it made me die laughing
Yeah I pictured something similar to those "baby holder's" that mothers sometime wear, when it's crossbelts with a kangaroo-style pouch in the middle to hold a kid. I pictured a British soldier running around with another British soldier in his crossbelts like a child lol.
Same! :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Damn, I had that exact same mental image as well
I imagined like five guys dropping their weapons, taking off their crossbelts, looping them around the wounded man, and carrying him off like pallbearers.
They missed the point of the term "body armor".
I see what you mean about the difference between a "Historian" (general) vs. the "Military Historian."
I love how they completely ignored the contributions of the Tories fighting for the British who were fighting for their homes. The Patriot cause was hardly Universal.
Fighting for an imperial power is usually a lost cause from the start.
@@silverletter4551 Like fighting for the USA then?
@@Davey-Boyd no. The United States is a constitutional Republic
@@silverletter4551 Canadians fought for an imperial power in 1812
@@silverletter4551 you can be an imperial power and a republic
Look at France
The French Republic was very mutch an imperial power with their colonisation of Africa , indo China etc
The definition of Empire is
“an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.”
The US was and still to some extent is a group of states or countries ruled over by a sovereign state
Particularly in the past with The Philippines , Many Central American countries etc
But still today with its territories across the world it got through conquest
Hawaii , Puerto Rico etc DIDNT voluntarily join the US they were through conquest and war
And then imperial typically means someone or something that is Dominating , intrusive , expansionist etc
And the US lines up with this in the past and still to this day the US has intruded on other countries and often invaded and replaced regimes against a countries will to expand their Sphere of influence
By all feasible definitions the US is and has in the past been an imperial power
Imperial does not require an emperor or even a monarchy
“The British stood no chance against the average American gunslingers from the west”
Love how the camera zooms in for emphasis *TWO* *PISTOLS!*
Inaccurate history book: *Exists*
Brandon F: So anyway I started *talking*
Im trying my best okay? Other soul just take my idea out of my brain
Is this The Matrix?
The same crap happens in high school books, too, Brandon. Professors MIGHT do a cursory examination of the materials, and they get their payout from the booksellers. James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me" goes into great detail all the fallacies taught in history books. Texas has a huge influence on these books, and many have rightfully criticized the politicization of the textbooks to changing words like "slaves" to "workers," as if by removing the word, they can slowly eliminate the institution of slavery altogether and thus the reason for all those "worker" rebellions and that little dustup of Northern Aggression in the War Between the States (vs the Civil War). Loewen calls many of his colleagues to task for their rubberstamping of high school texts, which they do for the money, which they use to research and publish in their field; some unis still have the publish or perish rule.
Professor Loewen was quite right in his complaint -- history is the ONLY profession that cannot count on building on what a student learns from elementary school onward. Rather, the teacher often must spend time disabusing them of myths and outright inventions (lies) when it comes to history. Too, politicians and school administration focus on using history to indoctrinate, to instill obedience, and to squash any notion that history had anything to do with discontent, blood, and that word espoused by heretics and terrorists -- revolution. Notice how some now call it the War for Independence? They were patriots and Founding Fathers, not revolutionaries.
Loewen said his first judge of any high school history text was how it treated two persons that were equally famous and contemporary figures: Woodrow Wilson and Helen Keller. Loewen does much better justice, but here's the summary for those who haven't read the book:
Keller became a founding member of the NAACP and an ardent critic of corporations, robber barons, and social injustice; the newspapers that once remarked on her intelligence went to great lengths to remind their readers to ignore her words because she was born deaf, blind, and dumb, and being a woman could not make reasoned judgments in any event. Keller bitterly remarked that once she began expressing political opinions that it was remarkable how pundits and the press accused her of idiocy, ignoring their own previous accolades of her brilliance.
Wilson was an ardent racist, and his attitudes forced thousands of black workers in the federal civil service to leave by his presidential policies; a once nearly 25% black representation in the workforce dropped to less than 10% at the end of his administration, impoverishing those families and helping set back race relations a hundred years. He snubbed Ho Chi Minh at the end of WW1, forcing him to turn to the Soviets for aid in the 1930s; peace and justice were for whites like America and the European Powers, and the Vietnamese needed the French to teach them civilization. Wilson publicly called "Birth of a Nation" -- Griffiths' romanticization of the Klan's acts of terrorism as the "God's honest truth;" thus helping undo one of Grant's truly admirable legacies following the Civil War -- that of ending that noxious group's bid for political power based on violent racism. Nativism -- and the Klan -- resurged openly in the 1920s because of Wilson's endorsements of racist policies of the decade before. The passing of the Sedition Act of 1918 whereby it became a federal crime to criticize the government in any way or manner during wartime -- with the odd exception that financial advisors were immune (have to protect the bankers!). George Creel and his censors arrested over 2,000 citizens in violation of the 1st Amendment, and socialist candidate Eugene Debs spent the 1918 presidential election in prison. Wilson had previously been president of a college that during his tenure, continued to exclude blacks. Wilson's anglophile bias made his anti-German policies unpopular; there were many large sectors of German immigrants in New York, Chicago, and surrounding areas, and many still had family in "the old country." It was part of Creel's work through films and posters and adverts that Germans were vilified as "Huns" who it was implied committed war crimes against civilians. Creel's office encouraged people to watch their neighbors for suspicious activity or for criticizing the government. The 1917 Sedition Act allowed the Post Office to refuse to carry publications not government approved.
Many current history texts barely mention Keller at all, and if they do mention her, it's all about the "miracle" of Anne Sullivan's work to educate Keller, and no mention at all of her life after adolescence.
Back to the Revolution: Revere was one of three riders going to Lexington, yet most don't know of Dawes or Prescott, or that Revere was caught; Revere had a good PR man in Longfellow, the man who wrote that poem that influenced so many schoolchildren in days long past. Washington had Parson "I cannot tell a lie" Weems. Jefferson idealized as an advocate of rights and law, yet only frees slave and lover Sally Hemmings and her children by him after his death. Washington, at the start of the Revolution, once Martha's holdings were folded into his, was the third-largest slaveholder in the colonies. He also grew and liked to smoke hemp. Benjamin Franklin loved running around without clothes on -- his "nude air" baths.
History is important. When we lose our history, we lose our past. Its purpose is not to make us feel guilty for the actions of the past nor should it be used to aggrandize us above others; rather, we need to acknowledge the past and embrace it before we can move forward. Historian Patricia Limerick observed that two great dilemmas mar the US psyche -- slavery, which we've admitted to but have yet to fully reconcile, and the genocide and conquest of the native nations that were here first -- which we have yet to fully admit to.
In a way, you are absolutely correct. History must be taken seriously (though you can certainly have fun with it), and the sooner you start with the young readers, the sooner it will become second nature to becoming discerning and critical readers and thinkers and not ideologues. Politicians and plutocrats, however, prefer obedience to reason; after all, if you can fool all the people once, it's good for four years.
Santayana's comment remains as true today as ever.
So true, especially about Hellen Keller. Previously I didn’t know about her life after adolescence. We were just taught she was born blind and deaf and she had to be educated one on one.
Bro, no one cares
@@stephenzavatski8016this was an incredibly informed well thought out comment. Yours on the other hand pretty clearly reveals your lack of education.
I always thought it was weird that we learned about Helen Keller in history class. We read a book (the shape of water) and watched several films about her. All of the lessons focused on her learning to speak and write. It just didn't make sense to me to learn about her in American history class. I always thought "well there must have been plenty of disabled people, what makes her so special". Later in life I learned of her contributions to the NAACP and her outspoken activism towards several causes. These things making her a quite important piece of American history. Which makes it even stranger we weren't taught about what she actually did.
Im gonna go out on a limb and say that Monica, on the day she "reviewed" this atrocity of a book, she was having one of those "i don't want to even wear pants" days.
It's also possible they were severely overworked and forced to rubber stamp it. Publishing companies are notorious for cutting costs in recent years as margins have shrank.
"Yankee Doodle" was the song of the Revolution. "Yankee Doodle Dandy" was written by George M. Cohan for the musical Little Johnny Jones in the early 20th century.
Yankee Doodle the song of the Revolution?? Origins of this ‘song’ where sung all over Europe (Ireland, Holland etc.) and Pre-Revolution times.
3:55 To hide blood? By that logic, even members of the Royal Artillery would be clothed in red uniforms.
That explanation always amused me. The true explanation appears to be cost. At the time the British were deciding on what colour their army should wear after the English Civil War there was a form of red mineral based dye in Europe that was dirt cheap. So they went for that. Later came back to bite them when that dye fell off the market and red dyes became more expensive, but by that time the red had become so ingrained that it stayed. Only the Guards or Officers had the Scarlet coats though, Scarlet WAS expensive, that particular dye still is, and is still used on the ceremonial coats of the Guards.
I heard this line about Spartans red coats... and while that is probably also BS the though that the british army would chose red BECAUSE OF THAT is astonishing.
Hides the guts and stops them from falling out before the expert doctors getting to you!
But they are Royal, as their name says. So have blue blood. :-)
The Alright Tank Historian being a chicken, I would have needed brown trousers as well
This reminds me of someone going “how did these farmers rise up against the worlds greatest army” and someone in the back of the room yelling “they weren’t and they didn’t”
I love watching Brandon rant about innacuracies in media about the 18th century. Love the passion.
I loved the video but maybe I'm an asshole for being annoyed with the pseudo accent its whatever tho ok love you brandon byem
you know Brandon is mad when he skips the intro.
Also, he's shouting the like entire time.
everybody gangsta until the British Lobster Back arrives with his two pistols, a bayonet and a rifle while charging at you firing five shots per minutes out of his musket rifle
Christ, if one of His Majesty's soldiers could fire 5 rounds in a minute, they probably wouldn't have lost the war!
No problem - if you lined up five pre-loaded muskets next to one another.
5 shot per minute + 2 pistol
@@sephikong8323 Isn't jhon wick from Bulgaria?
Well, if one of them could fire that fast it wouldn't make much of a difference. If a majority of them could it'd be a different matter entirely.
Well that explains the 5 shots. 3 musket rounds and 2 pre-loaded pistol shots.
Omg I was taught the “to hide the blood” thing in school.
I hope your teacher was called out on it.
They actually teach that? I said it out loud as a joke along with the brown pants but I didn't think people thought it was real
@@Nerd2Ninja Sadly yes, this is being taught.
Its a common myth taught in mainly in elementary schools. Blame really should rest with the text book companies As elementary school teachers usually have to teach all the subjects to students and therefore are not specialists in history (or math, english etc.) The teachers just regurgitate what is in the books. Unfortunately with history too much of what is in our text books are myths and misunderstandings
The uniforms were red because red was the cheapest dye.
I had this book as a kid, I loved it! I feel so betrayed. I may never recover from this.
We had it in our school library
I feel your pain so much, Brandon. Try being a technological or industrial historian and reading any book, including some scholarly monographs, that talks about trains and railways. Few things make me scream internally more.
I can't wait to see how he reacts when he gets the history (text) book that says "The first Atomic Bomb, was dropped on Vietnam...".
Please tell me that you are joking
@@Quickpatch12
Saddly no. I don't have a link to the Atomic bomb in the text book any longer or I'd put it in. Seems to me that this came up in the news in the late 1990s. Lots of stories about how textbooks had math equations wrong, some science experiments that were dangerous, physics experiments where the image was reversed ( imagine a rainbow where the colors are in the wrong order) and errors in history books.
High school textbooks it seems were written by college students. With different students writing each chapter.
@@prussian7 Sputnik (USSR, first ever satellite) was a "nuclear-powered orbital battle station, armed with lasers". From a L.A. Unified School District history text in the mid-80's.
@@bradmiller2329 To be fair, Spotnik I included the necessary weapons to fight every other man-made object in space at that time!
@@bradmiller2329 Also, sputnik is JUST "a satellite" in russian. "Sputnik 1" aka ПС-1 (Простейший Спутник 1 - Simplest Satellite 1) was the first satellite. Saying THE Sputnik is a misconception as if was a specific type or brand or whatever... no.
The idea that every British soldier had two pistols and a rifle is ridiculous. I mean, they'd literally be better equipped than most armies of the time, let alone onwards...
dual wielding flintlock pistols charging in to battle.
Don’t forget your rifle and bayonet.
Next we'll have female lesbian amputee British soldiers wielding six barreled pistols riding on a tank based on Leonardo Da Vinci's drawings. The untold stories of the revolution! George Washington was bisexual!
And the only decent story will be the British one which comes out later as free DLC.
Everyone knows that british soldiers travelled back in time to the AWI with future flags and camouflaged themselves by making themselves look like blood (after all, why would u shoot something that is already covered in blood and thus dead?). During com,bat, they would strap wounded men to themselves within their cross belt sachets. This allowed for both transport of crippled colleagues and use of corpses as body armour.
They brought with them the future technology of musket rifles, a weapon uncomprehendable for most common people.
Trust me. I am an expert.
this is the gold of "source: trust me bro" encounters
Honestly, you call yourself an expert? You didn’t even mention the part where the British soldiers would dual wield pistols from behind their corpse body armor, thus making the American soldiers think that the dead had risen up for intimidation purposes.
@@GradyDP goodness yes
How could I forget that
@@1000yardstares you seem so confident. How could I not question everything you state. Have you considered applying to talk in Prager U videos?
Side note, rifling was a concept understood even back in the 17th century. Probably earlier, too, but that's just the earliest example I know of. There are dozens of designs of sporting guns which were rifled. These, however, were obscenely expensive and really only used by the elite, and even then, not very often, but the concept was well understood, which is why the Baker, despite being the first mass produced rifled musket, was such a good gun. It wasn't the first of a new type of weapon, it was just the first cost effective version of that type of weapon
I couldn’t stop laughing through out your entire production 😂🤣 I hate historically inaccurate books with a passion too. If an author/ publisher is marketing material as historical then it should be, not an “interpretation”.
From across the pond, I salute you sir 💂♂️
.."yankee" should be a derogatory term for a dentist....
:D good one!
You mean "The one yanks" ?
Surely a dentist would be the "yanker" while his patient is the "yankee" there.
"Yankee"?... No... You should meet some of my dental surgeons! Lost several teeth in an accident when I was a teen due to an accident. A year later one of those teeth came lose, a second dentist re-cemented it with a really strong adhesive. About 2 years later, I needed all those teeth to come out: The first couple just popped right out after a few strikes of a little tap hammer. That 3rd one though, which had been replaced... It took this Dr. approx. 1 hour with a mallet to beat it out of my mouth! His hygienist eventually ran from the room. However, with sweat on his brow, that man continued to pound on my mouth until with the snap of bone the tooth broke free! He handed me a cup of water and told me "Rinse," with such a relief. Ha! And he thinks HE was relieved!? :-O Let's call him the "Pounder"!
Its what my wife calls me when im in trouble...
Also R.I.P the british "ROYAL" army being crushed by that book
So completely that they have been wiped from historical memory.
The term "Royal" is not used when referring to the British army because the Army rose against King Charles in the English civil war.
Nick Jung - Sort of. It’s because the British Army is created by an act of parliament. During the restoration the British were afraid of having a standing army in the hands of the king (or any one person really), so parliament must renew the act creating the army every few years. It’s not a punishment for rebelling.
Amateur Joe's World in Miniatures it really an English thing rather than a British one. There have been a number of Scots regiments that had the term "Royal" in their title and, of course, there are the guards and the Household division that enjoys direct Royal patronage as does the Royal Artillery and the RTR. Regiments of the line are more directly descended from the New Model Army and, whilst the Crown does not seek to "punish" them, omit does not allocate the term to most line regiments. Of course, all serving soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
That was a joke refering to the book being incorrect and saying ROYAL army r/woosh
5 rounds a minute?!
"Now, that's Soldiering"
18th century punishment for mistakes: *lenient*
Modern day, a US soldier in Leavenworth: "what're ya in fer?" I missed a dentist appointment.
For a given definition of lenient...
@@jwadaow lol
“some”…?…entire Canadian nation (including the Québécois) start getting Angry in an incredibly polite way.
Book: 5 rounds per minute
My brain: 18th century tactical reload
Brandon: * compliments and acknowledges Prussian military might *
Me (A historian primarily focused on German history): Oh yeah!
Brandon: "... The French military was the best..."
Me: Nein! You almost had it!!!
Das ist Verrat!!!
@@theodorkorner1497 Ja, das ist wahr.
1670s-1680s French were the best of their time period.
@@BobbyB1928 I am extremely biased...... Prussia was better.
@Steven Smith You don't think I wore the whole uniform and carried a flag as well?
I'm always amazed that so many of my fellow Americans believe that Britain at this time was some sort of oppressive tyranny when in fact it was one of the most democratic and free countries on earth when compared to everywhere else. I mean, where do they think the Founders got most of their ideas for a democratic/republic government?
And even more surprisingly, I am amazed by how they think the British army was somehow the best of its time. Bitch, if they were even close to what the French, Prussian and Russian armies were at that time, the continental army would have gotten it's ass kicked so hard that the war would have lasted maybe a year or two at best. The simple fact that the colonists managed to win (though thanks greatly to foreign powers siding with them) proves that the British army could not have been such a mighty force to begin with
@@sephikong8323 Very true! if you listen to historian Mike Duncan, this reminds me of "gentleman Johnny's party train." Lol
How can you call parliamentary circumvention of colonial legislative assemblies, later followed by the outright revocation of the charters upon which those assemblies were based, as anything but tyrannical?
@@kyledonahue9315 .....By today's standards. But if you reread the original post it was talking about this time period. And if you look at the late XVIIIth century then Britain was incredibly tame compared to France, Spain, Prussia, Austria, the Ottomans or Russia. The only countries that could be more "democratic" by today's definition and standards that I can think of were the Netherlands and Switzerland.
The US constituon didn't come from thin air, a great deal of it was inspired by the rights that Englishmen got
@@sephikong8323 Actually, the British Army of the time was indeed one of the best (for the purposes of the British aims) and one of the most experienced. However, due to the demands of the Napoleonic wars on the continent, the "embarrassing" and incompetent officers and their units were sent to America as it was considered an inconsequential backwater by the government at the time. Once the war on the continent ended, the experienced troops were deployed and indeed began to do quite well. However, the government didn't want to exert a large logistic effort to fight a war over what was considered a relatively worthless tract of land, especially as the population war tired of war and the taxes that a large war required (taxes that were lower in the American Colonies than they were in the British Isles - mostly because the taxes were set by the colonies themselves). Take the battle of Bunker Hill for instance. There was only one attack ordered. There was first a recce in force, followed by a junior officer (probably a Lieutenant) making a platoon or company (I cant remember which) scale attack which wasn't ever going to succeed. The Officer in command of the British forces involved, ordered the soldiers to "off-packs" and made a full scale attack which was executed properly and forced the rebels off the hill with relative ease.
"Soldiers were harshly punished for breaking the most minor rules"
yes, that is how being in the military works
if you don't believe me, ask your local veteran about when they were allowed to actually load their service weapon
A musket says to a rifle, "let's fuse!"
and with their powers combined, they became a brand new legend.
*the musket rifle*
This is the biggest on screen meltdown since Joker (2019)
He's gonna murder them with his musket rifle
As a 2A and constitutional activist I was literally internally screaming the moment with the “to hide the blood” bit. At that moment I knew this was going to be a travesty! 😨
I don’t see what supporting the right to keep and bear arms has to do with your comment
Please define "constitutional activist"
At first I thought Brandon needed to take a pill, but after hearing him out, I think he is correct. This book has a lot of avoidable errors. Even children's history books should be fact checked.
I reckon that is how this wasn't, it'll be a loophole that since history books are rarely for children they don't need to be checked.
Oh, a pill, or rather pills, are needed for Brandon. To grow a spine for one thing, as well as some other things.
@@starmnsixty1209 No. That's just you. Spineless.
Perhaps the waist-belt was needed to hold the two pistols?
They can fire 5 times a minute after Sharpe taught them to spit the musket ball in
I love these long videos. It's so awesome to hear you talk about this kind of stuff for just ages. You and Lidybeige just hit something in that vein that makes it so enjoyable.
Did the book explains how the IW was won thanks to the french aid, the french expeditionary force and the french and spanish fleets ? If not I can understand your frustration.
Maniac Mando: Most Americans conveniently "forget" those details.......
@@paganphil100 no we don’t? It’s basically common knowledge for most Americans, considering our relationship with the French following the war (XYZ affair, quasi-war, etc.) defined American foreign policy, and we basically owe the country to them. It’s just not talked about much because the third estate killed the monarch we made a deal with almost immediatly, so our good relationship ended. Spanish fleets are usually mentioned in passing, considering they didn’t play nearly as big a role, but definitely known.
Everybody thinks that America is just the racist, unknowledged, Confederate apologists that are an extremely outspoken minority in the Deep South..
@@micha3l7 well, Trump seemed to embody that mentally, and he got voted president.
It seems like a pretty large minority.
@@belgarath6508 sadly, the American voting system is a bit fucked because of the electoral college. Trump didn’t win the majority vote in 2016, and most Americans who didn’t vote were not supporters of him. When they did vote (2020 elections) he lost comfortably. And, although I hate the guy, Trump isn’t a confederate apologist. He just appeals to Confederate apologists, which yes, are sadly a decently sized minority in the Deep South and therefore America. That said, the vast majority of Americans who voted for Trump (outside of that area) are just die-hard Republicans, who agreed with his other policies (immigration, etc.), or disagreed strongly with supporting Clinton. But yes, Trump is racist and un knowledgeable. That said, obviously most Americans do not support the literal rebellion that happened, and racism is just as much a problem here as other countries like England and Canada. Sorry for the long comment.
Edit: Also, Trumps position of being for the common man (which is bullshit considering he’s literally the rich oppressing those people, but people bought it) in comparison to Clinton helped him out.
Lafayette we are here!
The redcoats reloading in the book:I am speed
24:56 to 24:49
No one gonna talk about his rapping skills? I mean c’mon.
“...example *citation* for that *information.* Where they got the *inspiration* ...”
Hamilton starring Brandon F
@@sariekitchen I would pay to watch that
All those in favor of a part 2 say "Aye!"
AYE
@@Speederzzz I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Unlock!
Polish Winged Hussars actually had two pistols. During a charge, after the pike was already broken, they fired them in the enemy croud before they started using their sabers and hammers. This was mainly possible because hussars paid for their (insanely expensive) gear themselves, so equipping them with two throw away pistols came with no cost for the state. And since all hussars were recruited from the richest gentry, they could afford it - compared to their armours, horses or skins from exotic animals a pair of pistols was quite inexpensive
Well, the Hussaria had a TON of weapons: a lance, sometimes a bow, at least one sword, sometimes two, pistols, the nadziak AND the armor. The reason they were disbanded was the Polish crown was pretty much bankrupted after the Deluge.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the PBS show Liberty's kids.
he'd have a fucking field day with that show
@Mallyoo let us not forget that every British regular in that show are grenadiers
I loved that show as a kid, but I can appreciate just how horribly inaccurate it was. Though I sometimes like to watch an episode or two just to remember how much I loved it.
I re watched it during the summer and it was a lot better than I remembered because there are scenes that humanize the British and some episodes touch upon the morally gray aspects of the time such as slavery and the treatment of native Americans and loyalists.
@@ricardoaguirre6126 Isn't that just sad? a Children series outmatching in human character compared with other AWI movie that Shall NoT BE MENTION IN THIS HOUSEHOLD!
Ps: I doing a guest that you speak spanish, where are you from?
24:20 That's SO dumb, I am no historian and I still know that well after WW2, soldiers started to wear a secondary weapon.
I have a hypothesis that they got the "five rounds a minute" from the TV show Sharpe, where simmerson, to show up Sharpe, questioned him on what makes a good soldier, Sharpe replied "to be able to fire 3 shots in any terrain " he challenged him to demonstrate it as his soldiers (simmerson) could only muster two. Sharpe fired four but it was referenced that he cheated as he counted his preloaded shot. Now. This was in the books, in the TV series they upped that to five, I'm guessing for dramatic reasons, but interestingly enough it was in this same episode that we meet a loyalist American officer. Simmerson makes the reference "some Americans know their place" . It's that "some" that perked my ears when referencing the amount of them. Additionally the episode was about how simmerson was a tyrannical abusive officer that punished his men for tiny infractions. It should also be noted that the rifle company Sharpe is part of did have additional weapons and pistols . From what you described it really seams that they got all their information from this TV show...as well as Hornblower , a naval BBC drama that referenced lobsters when talking about their soldiers. Now the books were slot better then the TV shows but it's just uncanny that all your issues have parrellels to the over simplification s of the TV shows....
"Even though Bayonets weren't usually attached to Rifles"
*Angry SMLE noises*
Rifles were always bayoneted up until the fiftees
@@fransandersson4717 I know they weren't uncommon in WW2 and can even be seen on modern weapons, but I thought WW1 was when they stopped being standard issue in most nations.
@@RRW359 the last bayonet charge was done by the French in 1995 during the battle of Vrbanja Bridge.
@@RRW359 no it was in ww2 they stopped being standard issue
I mean bayonets are still standard issue, since having a makeshift spear is pretty good in any possible close encounter, but instead of people making purpose built bayonets they just made a combat knife with a bayonet lung.
There was one British Soldier - John Moore - later (Napoleonic war era) General Sir John Moore - who could indeed load and fire the Brown Bess 5 times in one minute, but he was exceptional, and had to practice this skill constantly. John Moore introduced a number of badly needed reforms in the British Army before he was killed in action, leading his troops at the Battle of Corunna in Spain. Google the Poem "The Death of Sir John Moore at Corunna". Lieutenant John Moore did fight during the Revolutionary war, indeed he was part of the British Victory at the Battle of Penobscot Bay in what is now Maine, where a force of some 750 British troops held off, then defeated, a colonial land and sea expedition from Boston massing over 2000 men. At sea the Americans suffered their worst Naval defeat until Pearl Harbor almost 170 years later. (Weirdly one of the American soldiers was one Colonel Paul Revere...and he was later on almost court-martialed...for theft of the expedition's payroll! (It was last seen in his custody, as he was rowed ashore, away from the impending naval defeat...) Oh, and that same Paul Revere's famous ride? He was one of 20 riders that night, he was the ONLY rider captured by the British.. and, with a fine sense of his actual worth, they kept his horse and sent him on his way!
Remember, it’s quicker to switch to your two pistols than reload your musket rifle.
Every time I hear “musket rifle” I die inside. I’ve heard other people use the term (when not talking about rifled muskets.)
The problem is the modern usage of “rifle” to describe any long gun. Which is just bad linguistics.
David Umstattd
modern usage of weapon names
short dinky gun: pistol
long big boye gun: rifle
fast gun: assault rifle
I guess we can be happy they did not call them 'assault rifles " :) :)
@@danc3868 Most shotguns are long guns which are not rifled. The military use of shotguns is very niche. Most soldiers are armed with rifles. And to us pedants, that is no excuse for calling historical smooth bore long guns rifles.
David Umstattd "Bad linguistics"... what do you mean? To my knowledge, linguistics is the study of how language changes, not the changes themselves.
Love how this book ludicrously elevates the British army and navy _solely_ to make the revolutionaries/rebels eventual triumph over them seem all the more impressive by comparison!
Fire 5 rounds a minute, best army in the world, etc = cracking stuff if, at best, contentious, at worst, utter fiction.
Having seen it done with live rounds, you are right about one thing, cracking is a good way to describe it! Very experienced people who are not following the drill exactly. Best I could ever do was 4. The difference between reasonably well-trained recruits, and well practiced veterans would really show.
"Lobsters" is also used in Horatio Hornblower in an episode/story set during 1795. I'd suspect that the origin is indeed from the RN when referring to the army.
25:32
So anyway, I started blastin’
I was waiting for this.
You know you've found an interesting history channel when the host loses their mind not over bias, but over rifled musket rates of fire. The sub and like is yours.
no no, _musketted rifles_
How they got 5 shots in one minute- shoot 2 pistols, then a Brown Bess and a rifle and reload and shoot your last shot
Musket rifles, 5 shots per minute, and dual-wielded pistols? And yet them lobsterbacks still couldn't stop the Germans from bombing Pearl Harbor.
Germans?
@@rinck17 I was on a roll.