What was the "Loadout" of an 18th Century Officer?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- I partnered with Ekster to give you an exclusive discount. Enjoy up to 25% off here: partner.ekster.com/Brandonf and use code BRANDONF at checkout!
~~Video Description~~
Who could have ever thought that most video games get the equipment and role of officers sorely incorrect? A terrifying thought, I know, but I'm afraid it is actually true! The "loadout," as games often put it, of officers in the 18th century might actually be very different from the image you have in your head. In this video, I'll go over what sorts of weapons officers would be carrying in the days of linear warfare, and more importantly I'll discuss what this can tell us about their role on the battlefield.
~~Sources & Further Reading On This Topic~~
You can purchase "With Zeal and With Bayonets Only" by Matthew Spring via my Amazon affiliate link: amzn.to/4aU8zEt
You can read Cuthbertson, and a whole slew of other primary sources, for free at www.nativeoak.org/library
Read the 1768 Royal Clothing Warrant here: www.redsandrevs.co.uk/clothin...
And if you'd like to see some more of my videos relating to this subject,
` My video about the scale of 18th C. combat: • Issuing Orders in the ...
' Halberts, Espontoons, Pikes, etc. in 18th C. armies: • Were Polearms Pointles...
` My series "Why Did Soldiers Fight in Lines?" • Why Did Soldiers Fight...
~~Other Links & Contact Info~~
You can directly support my work by becoming a Patron of this channel:
` / brandonf
You may also give a one-time tip here:
` ko-fi.com/brandonf
Find a free digital library, shop for merchandise, and learn more about this channel's charity work at: ` www.nativeoak.org/
Or, another great way to support my work is by booking me on Cameo! 50% of all these proceeds also go to charity:
` www.cameo.com/brandonfisichel...
And of course you can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
` / thenativeoak
` / brandonfisichella
~~Timestamps~~
Intro 00:00
Standardisation 01:45
Melee Weapons 03:50
Sponsored Message 09:25
Ranged Weapons 12:31
What This Tells Us About Officers' Roles 17:00
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #97 ЧЁРНАЯ МАТЕРИЯ [Анти Скинт] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k4MjXCzKsYw/mqdefault.jpg)
There’s a few exceptions to the rule of officers not carrying pistols: the first being if they’re mounted - e.g. the brace of riding pistols supposedly taken off Pitcairn’s horse at Lexington and Concord (which, incidentally, may not have belonged to Pitcairn at all). The other exception being if the officer in question is in a Highland regiment, they may carry a highland pistol - but that’s not an officer thing so much as it is a highland thing.
Aye, there are many portraits of highland officers or just highland gentry carrying Doune or other highland pistols and many highland officers carried the basket hilted broadsword over the other blades mentioned.
As they say in the imperial guard:
"You know the situation is fucked when the comissar starts shooting the enemy."
Mine killed more Guardsmen than Bad Guys.
As an Officer, your spadroon is for waving (and cutting wedding cake). Your ranged option is a deadly, multi-shot, self-propelled and self-loading weapon....... Its called a 'Company' (but it is a little large to tuck in your sash of a morning)
Well what a coincidence! The only thing my Marine officer sword ever cut was OUR wedding cake!
It's the only thing it could cut! Being strictly for cermonial use it's got no edge to speak of BUT it's high quality stainless steel!
You win this comments section. That killed me man.
@@watchface6836 Thanks! OOO-RAH!
@@wayneantoniazzi2706dang, I mean they probably should sharpen it, if there’s any group insane enough to attempt a sword kill in modern combat, it’d be the marines!
Besides, there was a Vietnam bayonet charge, maybe a sword isn’t so far off?
@@Davie-jx4rh You know, about ten years ago an outfit called Cold Steel (still in business) DID make a Marine officer sword with a sharpened edge! They had a demonstration video of the same with a guy working over a pig carcass. He did a number on that carcass, let me tell you!
However, not being a USMC authorized sword any Marine officer who bought one wouldn't be allowed to carry it during parades or other such things although there'd be no reason he couldn't buy one just for grins!
Now if you wanted to carry a sword in combat the smart one to use would have been Cold Steel's reproduction of the M1917 US Navy cutlass. That one was sharpened as well and in addtion to which it had a blued blade with a sudued color scabbard. The Marine officers sword (properly termed the Mamaluke sword) looks great in ceremonies but it's a little too glittery for the modern battlefield.
I've never heard of a bayonet charge in 'Nam but I wouldn't discount it, all sorts of crazy shit happened over there.
As we used to say when i was an infantry NCO, "If the Captain has to clean his pistol, it has *officially* been a 'Bad Day'."
Since we now know a regular redcoat had a musket and two pistols, i imagine a saber and 4 pistols for a british officer ?
how dare you
@@BrandonF :P
Wait wasn’t it a rifle
@@jackhiggins9926no no it was a blunderbuss
A spadroon, a spontoon and perhaps a musketoon (especially for a dragoon).
Your words echo the truths down the ages. When I was at the US Marine Corps Basic School, one of the instructors was none other than (then) Captain Oliver North, just back from a posting as a company commander in Viet Nam. When asked why he carried a shotgun in country, he stated something like "The shotgun was for personal defense. My main weapon was my platoons and squads....my men. I directed them towards the enemy. If I got caught up in the fight personally I lost "the big picture". If I had to actually USE my shotgun, we had already lost."
Semper Fi! It sounds like you were at TBS a few years before I was!
Remember the saying? "The best view of TBS is in your rear-view mirror!" 🤣
What about a more junior commissioned officers tho. I find it hard to believe that a lieutenant leading a platoon into combat would think the same, no?
@@am1na1996 A junior officer leading his men into combat HAS to think the same way. HIS weapon is his platoon. His job is to try to keep his men as safe as possible while he directs them into position to destroy the enemy. If he looses the big picture of what is going on around him and what he needs to do to control the situation he and his men will loose and, even worse, get hurt or die. It is VERY easy to get involved in personal combat when the bad guy down the road is shooting at you. That is why Captain North carried that shotgun. A shotgun has a limited range. Captain North didn't even have the capability to get into personal combat with a bad guy who was more than 40 yards away (which is not very far when nearly every military rifle on either side is easily effective out to 10 times that distance and MUCH more when it is in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot). So, since he couldn't get into the fight directly he could concentrate on directing his men to fight for him. It is even the same for a squad leader.
I role-played a Confederate Infantry Lieutenant during a huge Civil War reenactment, in Louisiana, in the early 2000s. The historical staff said I could carry a cavalry - type sabre, no other weapon, and its primary use was to flash signals to my men - I marched out front of them, held the sword high, and how I held it gave them a clear order, by sight, because they couldn't hear, above all the gunfire and cannons, whether to march, Forward at the Quick Step, Charge, or Retreat. It was great fun; I was told to die at the Hundred Yard (before the enemy) marker, or at their third volley, whichever came last. Still have that sword.
The officer's primary ranged weapon was the Company. To focus on a single firelock while letting dozens go uncommanded would be madness.
I imagine an officer has leveled up his inventory capacity enough to carry 4 pistols, 1 saber, 1 dirk, 1 claymore, 1 musket, 2 blunderbusses, 1 mace, 2 hatchets, 1 standard issue tea set, 10 health potions, 8 mana potions, 30 cooked lobsters (or lobbys), and maybe a teleport back to base spell.
Officer with blunderbuss? Lol
@@DesiredPlayer9287that's what you picked out of all that? 😅
@@bubbles581 Guts and Blackpowder private server, blud forgets about M16
You forgot the bagpipes and longbow in that loadout.
Why would an officer need a 6 foot long two handed sword?
When I was a Marine, one of the things I remember being clearly taught was that "the weapon of a Marine is a rifle. The weapon of a Marine Officer is his Marines. " It's interesting to see how enduring that philosophy is.
Everyone knows that Sargeant Majors carry a Nockgun!! Now that’s soldiering!!!
Only if they're over the hills and far away. 😊
It Says so in the scriptures!!
An officers weapon has always been his troops. If the officer is fighting, he is no commanding the troops. This has been the way for centuries. its still taught like that today. Its surprising that people think otherwise.
Likely influence by the maneuver warfare of the 20th Century where even senior officers had to be more hands on to keep up with the troops.
Exactly.
The exception is when you have officers on the platoon level. Armour branch officer WILL fight his tank, as well as command his platoon or company to point out an example.
Officer weapons are for self defense.otherwise they wouldn t carry them
Which is also why the idea of leading from the front is such a ridiculous notion. Since an officer's primary duty is to lead their men, being up in front and potentially getting caught in the fighting is not the way to do it.
Except in the air. Pilots are almost always officers.
As I've learned more about "linear warfare in the long 18th century " I have been struck by how sometimes the duty of the officer is simply to die, standing up under fire to encourage the men. Obviously not seeking death but risking it just so the enlisted men would follow. I don't quite get though, how junior officers would be able to avoid close combat during that grand old British tactic, the bayonet charge and melee. It would seem the officers, or at least the noncoms, would have to be right there dressing the line etc. the whole time. Another possible answer to the question what kind of ranged weapon did the officer have? Why, the whole damned platoon or company was his weapon!
Your final sentence is a very good point! Very true.
Brandon brings up the question of bayonet charges at around nineteen minutes in. Normally the enemy would retreat before the onslaught, not be meaningfully embroiled. If they DID stand and fight then yes, the sword could be used.
Not in the Spanish Army: in the Spanish Army the duty of the officer was to give in-site commands according to the missions each unit was assigned.
In "Master and Commander", Jack Aubrey pulls a cowering midshipman to his feet and tells him: "We stand tall on the quarterdeck." The job of an officer was to be seen. And in a way it was a duty to other officers, since promotion was often by filling a dead man's boots.
@@podemosurss8316 So the same as in any other army?
A FAST 25 minutes Brandon! Well done and very informative as usual!
For what it's worth, when I was going through the Basic School for (Marine) Officers despite our eventual military occupational specialty (MOS) we were trained as infantry officers. As such we were told an infantry officer's duty wasn't really to fight, but to direct the fighting, that is manage the violence. The issue weapon at the time (1975) was the M1911A1, the old .45 automatic. And it was issued for the officer's personal protectionif needed, not as an offensive weapon.
However the most recently concluded conflict being the Vietnam War the combat veteran officers told us that in reality they'd armed themselves as they saw fit, and usually so they didn't stand out from the rest. Some carried M-16's, some riot shotguns, so we can see some things didn't change too much from the 18th Century to the present! On the other hand some found carrying a rifle or shotgun a bit of a headache and stuck with the pistol although they'd hide it, the bad guys knew Americann officers carried pistols!
What they do now I have no idea.
Again, it's always enjoyable when you post! Thanks!
On a similar note regarding standing, in order not to stand out, officers in the field would not wear their rank insignia This was because back in the '90s, when I was in, Marine officers were only authorized shiny rank insignia, they didn't get subdued ones like us enlisted wore or like Amry officers wore, so they would not wear any at all when in the field. And we, the enlisted, were not supposed to salute officers in the field either, another sure fire way to get an officer killed by an observant enemy sniper. Although any sniper worth their salt who saw a Marine out in the field with no rank insignia but who looks to be at least in their 30s is most likely not a buck private.
@@Riceball01 Good post! In fact you reminded me of an article in the "Marine Corps Gazette" published back in the 1980s concerning Marine officers shiny insignia. In fact, there was a photo with the article taken at just the right angle which showed a Marine captain's "railroad track" insignia reflecting sunlight like an arc lamp!
The thrust of the article was "Gents, we REALLY should do something about this!"
Did they ever? I don't know. If anyone knows I love to hear about it.
NOT saluting officers in the field on the other hand goes WAY back, at least to WW2 and possibly to WW1.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 When I was in during the mid-90s they still hadn't done anything about it. The solution was for officers to simply not wear their rank insignia in the field, that's it. If subdued/blackened rank insignias existed and were authorized, I've never seen any of the officer in my unit ever wear them. Granted, I was a Reservist in a Wing unit so we didn't really go out to the field outside of CAX very often, but my unit did have something like 4 - 6 officers (for a light company sized unit) so if they were an option than I'd think that at least of one of them would have worn a set.
I think that now a days officers might simply have their rank (either insignia or title/name) embroidered onto a patch that they'd stick on their plate carriers instead of wearing anything on their collars or pinning to the front of their flak vests. I got out well before plate carriers became a thing but based on pictures I've seen online, name patches (like a pilot's) are now authorized and have the owner's name, blood type, USMC & EGA in the middle, with (I think) rank on them.
Personally, I think that the main reason why the Corps never adopted subdued/blackened rank insignia for officers is because the Army does. I personally the Corps does a lot of things the way it does just to be different from the Army, or vice versa. We roll our sleeves on our cammies straight up with the inside showing, the Army rolls there's so the camo patten still shows. We blouse over our pants, the Army allows their troops to tuck their pants into their boots. We're Marines, we can't be seen doing things the same way the Army does things.😂
@@Riceball01 Man, I got a chuckle out of that! I'm reminded of the old aphorism:
"The US Army is the most decentralized of the services, the US Navy is THE most centralized, and the Marine Corps NEVER changes!" 🤣
You know, a quick and easy solution to the rank isignia problem (and in my day it was plain old green utilities, nothing exotic) would have been a trip to a hobby shop for some small bottles of Testors paints and some brushes. Flat brown (or green) for covering gold insignia and flat black for silver. Every officer typically has some rank insiginia that's a bit worn so painting it wouldn't have been a problem.
By the way, I decided to "Swing with the Wing!" myself, a 7208, if they even have that MOS anyore.
Thanks for serving and keeping the faith! Semper Fi!
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 7208? Looks like we did similar things, I was a 7242 with the DASC. I was a part of MASS-6 det. A out Miramar, but in your day they would have been in El Toro. Did you get a lot of people not knowing what exactly your MOS did? From the recruiter all the way up to MOS school nobody knew what a 7242 was or did. But once I got to air school I knew that I'd like the MOS.
Semper fi, brother!
If anyone is wondering, the song “British Grenadiers” mentions fusils.
“When’er we are commanded to storm the palisade,
Our leaders march with fusils and we with hand grenades”
Thanks, I had thought it was "fuses"
@@chrisbeer5685 That is also correct, it is spelt in many ways
Fusils were basically a small musket with a firelock instead of the standard flintlock which were originally used by artillery and designed to prevent accidental spraks setting off artillery ammunition.
@@poil8351 Oh, that's interesting
@@poil8351 To be more specific, the practice of artillery guards carrying fusils originated in an era when troops were commonly armed with matchlock arquebuses, which depend on a piece of constantly-burning matchcord as an ignition source; naturally, it would not be safe to carry around a bit of burning matchcord near the artillery's powder stores. By contrast, a fusil, which creates its spark only at the moment the trigger is pulled, can still be carried safely under those conditions.
When I am reenacting, I wear my hanger and carry a Spontoon, having some years of experience in martial arts, I have with a compatriot attempted exercises with the Spontoon to test it's utility as a practical weapon. I have found that the spontoon actually works well, especially when facing men armed with socket bayonets, for the crossbar of the spontoon easily catches the bayonet and diverts it away when parrying. The large spear point of the spontoon also would deal a larger wound than the narrow point of a bayonet.
That's interesting, your eperience with a spontoon. I'm reminded that during the Revolution General Washington forbade infantry officers from carrying longarms like fusils believing if the officer was using it he wasn't doing his primary job of directing the troops. Spontoons were permissable however for the officer's personal protection. If there were any complaints I've never read any in the historic record.
Thanks to our drawing from British and French military tradition, the United States Army still to this day considers the pike to be a symbol of an NCO, and the exchange of a unit's guidon on a pikestaff between incoming and outgoing senior NCOs is still part of the ceremony.
Can we see the loadout of NCOs next?
We already know a regular British foot soldier has a "musket rifle" and two pistols, an officer must have dual sabers and 4 pistols
You mean officers didn’t charge in on a horse swinging a sword and killing enemy grunts!? I am so disillusioned right now.
Unless it's a cavalry officer?
Some did, in some wars. There was the "Great Northern War" that was basically Swedish Empire vs everyone else, say...
There was that one officer of the Swedish army who'd do things like sneak into a Russian general's field kitchen and listen to their breakfast discussions, and then either sneak or fight his way out... or just cause general mayhem. Oh and he kept a diary that's survived. It's got things like, "Found an encamped troop of cossacks today. Shot three, dispatched ten with my sword, the rest escaped. Captured 60 horses and various supplies." Occasionally he even got some number, up to about a platoon's worth very occasionally, of various helpers, but mostly not. Got promotions by basically sneaking back to Swedish-controlled territory and bringing his notes on what he'd seen...
Well yes, Tapani (Finnish) / Stefan (other languages) Löfving was basically at fiction protagonist levels in just about everything according to those diaries of his. Though it's pretty much verified that he caused a lot of trouble for the Russians during various wars but eventually managed to die of old age (in 1777, aged 88) during peacetime.
Cavalry officers did.
We definitely have a lot of examples of cavalry officers getting straight into the thick of the fighting, but at least in the 17th century we also see a lot of examples of why commanders might have preferred them to focus on command and battlefield conditions instead - the usefulness of your cavalry is rather limited if they ride straight off the battlefield, chasing the remnants of some enemy cavalry they smashed into, never to return.
On the subject of sword pattern regulations on swords, Matt Easton, of Scholagladiatoria, has shown that it wasn't unheard of for officers to skirt the regs in various ways. If the regulations call for a brass hilted, and officer who feels they might see combat would sometimes get a steel hilted sword but get it gilded to look like it's brass. Other times an officer might not like the current regulation sword, usually because they feel that the blade shape or size wouldn't be that effective in combat and so would use the blade of an older pattern of sword, or from a completely non-regulation sword and add a regulation hilt so that while sheathed it looks to be regulation or at least close enough.
Brandon, you should really reach out to Matt Easton one of these days and do a collab since you channels kind of overlap at times. You could both cover a particular battle, war, or campaign, and you could go over the uniforms and tactics while Matt would talk about the weapons, particularly the swords.
I dont know if it is being said by others, but your segways into video sponsors is fantastic. This is the only chanel I watch the adds on. They are a humorus addition to a serious subject, and a very welcome addition.
You say officer's didn't carry a primary or ranged weapon but on the contrary, the officer has a hundred ranged weapons.
they're called his men.
Thankfully an officer wasn’t required to carry them however…
I follow you since ..idk ever... that you still have less than 700k subs for the quality of the information you are dishing out.
Holy crap UA-cam algo...
Even later, during the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th Century (and still somewhat the case in many forces today), when pistols *are* commonly carried by infantry officers, they are as much a badge of rank as an actual weapon.
This is why you see a common push (particularly in Continental armies) for pistols in fairly small calibers (by WWI and WWII, .32ACP was considered a perfectly adequate pistol caliber for officers, particlurly for field officers and above - much like a senior officer in the 18th Century would be more likely to wear a small sword or a short hunting sword than the company officers would be.)
Not in Spain, though. Here our army learnt the hard way that combat can get high-intensity very quickly in the Napoleonic wars, and carry defense pistols ever since. In fact, in 1909, after having had problems on skirmishes against Morocco due to the lack of range for the previous officer pistols, the Spanish Army commisioned a new kind of ammunition for pistols, the "long" ammo (with longer range), used in the Bergmann M1909 and later in the STAR pistols.
In the words of sergeant Major Plumley, “by the time I need a rifle, there will be plenty laying on the ground”
A separation of functions between combat and decision-making is perfectly sensible. It’s great to walk through the logic of how armies worked. You’re fantastic at this!
It's interesting that you share a screenshot from War of Rights. The playerbase tends to come from reenactors and nerds. The COs in the game have pistols and sabres (with some exceptions where you can carry a rifle), but none of the players actually use them. Most of the time the COs are talking strategy with the other COs/NCOs or issuing orders to their own company. The only time they use their pistol/sabre is when they facing certain death (either leading a bayonet charge or getting charged out by the enemy). I'm not too sure how real combat works, but when I'm playing as an officer, the first thing on my mind is understanding the overall battlefield. If I find myself in the line shooting instead of ordering my guys to move, I'm likely condemning my team to a loss.
this was a good light video. Games really dont have a proper place right now to portray any kind of chaos, what we are mostly looking at in the modern real time strategy sphere are games based on Command & Conquers groundwork, which itself was a genre shift from turn based strategy games which all started out as computer adaptations of tabletop wargaming.
Id imagine it pretty difficult to properly portray the chaos of battle on a table in the living room where everyone can see all the toy soldiers
This is an pretty interesting topic i have not seen anyone talk about it before.
I’ve been so interested in the Napoleonic period for some time and your videos have been a wealth of knowledge as I’ve delved into this time, thank you for the content
Love your channel
well done. an officers role is situational awareness.
Well done sir as always
finally some holdfast on this channel! this game usually has full games during peak hours and fun as ever
Things seem to have been quite different for naval officers......
Nice Brandon! well done Sir. now I am intrigued by what would be the regulations for French officers since is my topic of Research...
13:34 That SHADE! XD It was so subtle but hilarious.
In a Vietnam War documentary, a senior NCO was asked why he didn't carry a rifle. He answered that if he needed to be shooting, there would be plenty of rifles on the ground.
Wow I was under the impression all Officers carried pistols thank you Brandon for clarifying
Most excellent transition to advertisement.
Great video as always! Would you ever possibly consider producing a video related to the Irish rebellion of 1798? There are dozens of areas you can choose from, there was a brutal crackdown of the rebellion, the French invasion, the numerous ingenious victories won by the under-equipped rebels, and many more!
That's a great idea! Maybe he can come up with something by next Saint Patrick's Day?
"Hurrah me boys for FREEDOM! It's the rising of the moon!"
Upon loading out, I equipped an officer’s power armour on the 4 tonne scale in the 40kw range; that’s my style, sir.
Finished my copy of With Zeal and Bayonets Only recently-- it really is a very good book, one of the best and most concise historical texts I've read.
Fortunately, when it came to uniforms, there were London tailors (usually around St James) who knew exactly what was required for each regiment.
"... no, this isnt to say that every officer was just running around in what ever crazy get up that they thought looked the coolest!" ohh man 😭😭😭
9:16 SMOOTH ASS TRANSITION, BRANDON
When did officer firearms become more standardized? I'm honestly curious when that trend began.
In the US military standardization certainly began by the Civil War, not so much by make and model but by caliber. .44 and to a degree .36 caliber pistol ammunition was supplied so an officer's pistol had to use either one. Mind you, during the Civil War officers had to purchase their own sidearms, they weren't supplied. It would be the same during the Indian Wars, .45 caliber ( .45 Colt or .45 Schofield) ammunition being suppled.
By WW1 officer's sidearms were issued so it didn't matter although an officer had the option of carrying his own if he wanted.
As an aside George Patton carried his one day famous engraved and silver-plated Colt Single-Action .45 during the 1916 expedition against Pancho Villa (He killed several Villistas with it) but when deployed overseas during WW1 he left the Single-Action home and carried a .45 automatic in combat. He didn't care for it saying:
"If you want to kill people use a revolver, if you just want to make noise use an automatic!"
I believe the British Army during the Victorian Period was pretty much the same, officers purchased their own sidearms but they had to chambered for standard issue ammunition.
By the way, John Dillinger didn't like automatics either. As he put it "Never trust an automatic or a DA's deal!"
... and conversely, in some other militaries this happened much later. British officers were buying their own pistols for WW1 still, certainly.
For Spain, around the Napoleonic wars (due to the high-intensity combat, the officers needed to defend themselves).
Totally off-topic, but I do want to remind all here (We're all history buffs, right?) that on this day, April 15 1912 at 2:20 AM the RMS Titanic sank after a collision with an iceberg, 1,500 souls losing their lives. 112 years ago. And it was a Monday as well.
"Roll on Titanic roll, you're the pride of the White Star Line.
"Roll on Titanic roll, into the mists of Time!"
I really like and enjoy your content. Do you know of anyone doing similar stuff but say more the 7 years war or the war of Spanish succession preferably in French?
Keep up the good work.
I know you are mainly focusing on British equipment, but a very simple google search would tell you that the Austrian Empire had standard issue pistol holsters for the infantry officers during the Napoleonic wars. So, considering at least one major powers of the time period made use of sidearms for the officer's, I'd say it is okay to include them in media.
Still a great video as always.
The Spanish Army issued pistols during that same period.
Dress swords are myth in moast cases. A sword can be butiful and functunal. And spadroons were very popular thay are nimble good at giving point and can cut weel. The bad 1796 swords are outfiters swords. Swords made to 100% pass "profing" but are thus way to bendy and light.
Hello Brandon. It sounded like the officers were one hundred years too early for the essential item? A swagger stick!
I don't know if this is true or not but I've read that SUPPOSEDLY the swagger stick was invented to keep the officers hands busy, it being MOST umilitary to be seen with your hands in your pockets!
So where do you mount the laser
Will you do naval officers next?
‘If two British Army officers are on duty and they find that they are dressed exactly the same, then the junior officer shall be required go and change…’ 😉
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if some Officers did actually go a bit hollywood with multiple pistols, knives, hatchets, even a short musket/rifle of their own (obviously on a variable spectrum). If they were men of means and influence they could acquire such things, if anything the deciding factor would be more down to how concerned they were with how others perceived them because this kind of stuff would be very frowned upon and seen as improper.
The Spanish Army did use pistols for the officers in the later stages, due to the high intensity combat they needed to defend themselves.
@@podemosurss8316 Been waiting for some smart ass to chime in with "well actually did you know the Officers main weapon is their men that commander hurr durr I'm so enlightened and clever". But thankfully not. Whilst it's a perfectly valid point people often seem to think it invalidates the fact things can go wrong and circumstances are dynamic and often unpredictable. Like there's literally nothing stop an Officer with several pistols still doing his job, having a brace of pistols or carbine on his horse doesn't magically make him inferior at issuing commands and conducting battles.
@@CoffeeFiend1 In the Spanish case, I'm talking during the Napoleonic wars, and in those the Spanish forces used a more irregular (and flexible) kind of warfare, more similar to what was later seen during the Victorian era (in fact, the term "guerrilla warfare" was made for that kind of war). So, not the best example to draw upon for a "typical 18th century army".
@@podemosurss8316 Thank you for critiquing yourself.
@@CoffeeFiend1 Every army was different at the time, the most "typical" would be the British and the French.
Good morning all!
I suppose i heavily depended on which army and which branch the officer came from. Some armies were somewhat different. Strangely the ottoman army was probably one of the armies with the most standardized unfiorms and equipment of course depending on unit and period.
Do you stream holdfast, or have a gaming channel?
It would be a much better portrayal in video game if the officer player can control a whole company of AI soldiers. Kinda like in Enlisted where the player is always accompanied by his AI squad.
What’s the difference between a fusee and a carbine?
Can you do french officer life or uniforms smth like that like that one video you did
The officer's primary ranged weapon was his file, platoon, company or regiment
Brandon can you break down the movie the crossing 2000.
I watched "The Crossing" when it first aired. In my opinion it was good, but not great. Not something I cared to watch again.
The Longitude Latitude illustration makes me imagine 18th century dwarves.
What do junior officers even do at the tactical level of combat?
Good question! I have a video all about that: ua-cam.com/video/7PSrjMfZXLQ/v-deo.html
@@BrandonFOnce again Brandon F, in his impetuous lust for glory and victory, has snatched education from the jaws of doubt and swiftly provided his men with the proper source of tactical understanding of... I don't know, I'm done
For the Spanish Army (exerpt of the Royal Ordenances of Carlos III, translation by me):
"Each officer on duty will be responsible of the observance of the orders given to his forces, both particular and the general Ordenances, as well as, in the case of accidents and unforseen circumstances, taking the lead on dealing with the situation, case and object, having to choose the most righteous option for his honor."
So, basically, a bit more "modern" than in the British Army, and on the line of what would be latter called "leading by task": each Spanish officer was given a set of objectives on the battlefield and a degree of independent thought for how to use their forces in order to accomplish those taks. The following excerpts in the Ordenances (book 2, title 17th) go in further detail on the rules that Spanish officers must obey for various kind of missions they might be ordered to, ranging from campament duties, escorting supplies and conduct in the battlefield.
@@BrandonF does not answer it. What do they even do on the field except trim the lines n stuff???
@@pyry1948 In general, for the Spanish Army it was taking direct command of their men so the units perform the mission it has been assigned to with "the due diligence". Giving that the British were more of a "top-bottom" approach, they probably did similar but with far less leeway.
If you would ask me what an officer would use for ranged combat, I would say he would use the body of infantry men under his command.
In the artillery we had a thing called the "Unit Basic Load". The UBL. Each platoon would have a mix of high explosive, smoke, DPICM, FASCAAM, and Copperhead to handle what would come up.
The Unit Basic Load. I translated that down to practical human understanding. For example, if you go to Burger King, the the UBL is a Whopper, then either the Big Fish ir the classic Chicken Sandwich. And onion rings. That is a proper UBL.
Where Spanish provincial units?
According to the 1768 Ordenances (Spanish regulation at the time), the officers were issued swords, but were also trained on using other weapons should the necessity arise.
In my NCO training in the Australian army it was made very clear that officers weren't soldiers per the Defence Act. You never march in the gutter because you're not an officer. QED.
I once saw a marooned platoon of dragoons with spontoons and spadroons playing bassoons!😂
Just so with regard to how officers were expected to equip themselves in the field and use what they had.
If only military miniature manufacturers took note that officers should not be firing pistols or slashing with swords in a melee. Their job is to direct the men, and a sword was sufficient for that.
How old was that war of rights screenshot lol
Officers don't fight the enemy.
They tell the men in line to fight the enemy.
Sometimes they have to defend themselves, though. Like, for instance, when they're waging a high-intensity campaign in a montainous area.
Sir you absolutely are, and shall remain, the only UA-camr that will ever get me to watch an entirely skippable add. And for a product i have no interest in none the less. Cheers to that
How would a battle between a longbowmen vs musket line infantry looks like, assuming they are at range 800 yard far away? A lots of people might think that longbowmen would win againt a musket line infantry because they will volley fire them with a rain of arrow at range 400-300 yard away and musket line infantry wouldn't be able to return fire until at range 100 or 50 yard because musket are so "extremely inaccurate" beyond 100 yard.For me this so silly and doesn't make sense because a musket line infantry would fire outside of the bow range, but some people are still denial and stubborn, even though we tell them that musket line infantry win against bow, they still think that bow would win againt musket line infantry and musket is a useless weapon compared to bow.
Brandon did a video on this topic
Also 800 yards is outside of effective range for either weapon.
It's hard to tell, as the kind of place in which the battle happens and so on would matter, also the skill of the commanders, training and organisation, and so on. The closest kind of engagement which I can think of is the battle of Garigliano in 1503 in which Spanish arquebusiers came on top against French crossbowmen, with the Spanish army defeating a force 1.5 times its size en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garigliano_(1503)
I LOVE HOLDFAST SO DAMNED MUCH hi brandon, good to see you!
What game is featured here at 12:30 ?
Holdfast: Nations at War
@BrandonF I didn't expect a response, thank you comrade!
Have noiced most images of early-late mid 18th century battles show Officers standing aside from the R&F lines & files.
They are to the side in the battle line. There was an era and a culture among leaders of armies to engage in 'Polite' battles - the classic example is 'allowing the enemy first volley'
My question is : were rank and file ordered not to fire on officers standing off to the side a touch ?
Forgot to mention . . . Believe this gentle type of war practice ended as a consequence of the 1st American Civil War when the Loyal Colonials, most native tribes ably supported by a navy and feet on the ground faced off with the 'woke' of the day and learned important lessons in the changing nature of warfare in America.
May God Forever Save the King, Confound His enemies and Protect Him from His friends and family . . .
Omg, the "MARTIAL macaroni"! Hahahaha!!!🤣
Pity the dyslexic young officer who went into battle armed with a spittoon.
What did officers use for ranged combat? A half-company.
Ive once read that officer were required to carry pistols to battle, not to should at the enemy but to kill deserters.
Is this any accurate?
At least for the 18th C. British army, no it is not.
@@BrandonF It's not for the Spanish Army either (at the time of the Ordenanzas). Specially not for killing deserters. Though in the Napoleonic wars pistols were introduced due to the high-intensity of the combat operations in that theatre: even though their role was (and still is) commanding the troops, officers still needed to defend themselves from enemies.
I know this is outside your expertise, but now I'm wondering about officers in previous centuries. A halberd? Would they still just have a sword? Would this be true of the Mughals and Ottomans and Ruriks? I would imagine it would be similar- just a sword or polearm to signal.
Two of my favorite anecdotes about the 96 smallsword I can't find, but one was of one British officer in the Niagara front in 1812 using his as a cooking spit before the battle, and the other is of one in India fighting the Marathas and having a Tulwar snap it in half.
I did once subscribe to the pistol brain bug before I learned better.I wonder if it was true in the Navy as well.
Spanish officers used the same weaponry as the soldiers they commanded until the 17th century (in which they adopted the spontoon), that is: the primary weapon (pike or musket) plus a sword. In the 17th century they began using the spontoon, which was dropped in the 18th century in favour of just a sword. In the 19th century (due to the high-intensity warfare of the Napoleonic wars) pistols were added.
@@podemosurss8316 Thank you!
British Dwarf named Latitude: 6:51
Brandon you should play the steam game called Batllegrounds III. It’s a mod of Half Life 2 that got a stand-alone release. The game is pretty nearly dead but has a dedicated fan base. It’s based off of the American revolution, and it’s as close to accurate as a mod for Half Life 2 can be.
I mean, wouldn’t having no lace be more sus? From a distance silver lace can be mistaken for a sergeants plain white lace, whilst no lace is much easier to notice and the facings will seem to nude to be a privet soldier
This is because it wouldn't be uncommon, in certain situations and times, for the men as well to wear "coatees" without any lace as well. So it was to match them in those cases.
So their long range weapon is their unit Battalion/Regiment!
Isn't a spontoon a kind of sword similar to a small sword? Am I confusing it with a phonetically similar word?
I think you may be confusing it with a "spadroon"
Spadroon! Sorry - spadroons is what I was thinking of.
@@BrandonF Yes, sorry, spadroon!
@@BrandonF Thank you for a wonderful video!
@@windalfalatar333 Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it!
You need to do a collaboration with Nick from the Academy of Historical fencing, I'm seeing a lot of misconceptions when it comes to the swords. 😬😬😬
I'm not familiar with that channel but I'll have to check it out! Though, mind if I ask for a rundown of the misconceptions? I didn't think I really talked about swords themselves too much in this video but I'd love to provide a correction comment.
@@BrandonF Take everything I say with a grain of salt, since I'm not in direct contact with antique pieces, all I know is what I've seen from channels like Scholagladiatoria and Academy of Historical Fencing.
First off, the saber/hanger where more common as infantry soldier's weapons, not officer's. In the early to mid 18th century, offier's used smallswords and other duelling swords on the battle field, as well as backswords and heavy spadroons in the very early 18th century, all gradually replaced by the smallsword. The first sword that was regulation was the spadroon that you mention, and it wasn't universally hated. It all depended on who made the sword. And the regulation was really loose. (Academy of Historical Fencing goes into great detail on the spadroon) If I remeber correctly it was 32 by 1 inch minimum with the hilt being of the same color as your buttons. But thats where the regulation ends. You could put a beefy backsword or even scottish broadsword blade and it would be fine. You could also put an incredably stiff and light double edged blade for thrusting and parrying bayonets with ease. And the hilts could vary greatly as well. The 1796 is a more strict regulation, but the blades could still be greatly varied.
The spadroon gets its bad reputation because a lot of officer's bought terribly low quality swords from goverment uniform retailers, but a good custom made spadroon, was a weapon to be feared.
I think most of this is more owing to miscommunication- I only said that sabres were the sword of choice for the American War of Independence, after which they were soon replaced. This is also the time when infantry basically stopped carrying hangers altogether for campaign use. It makes sense that some of the regulation swords would be more useful, though, because of the wiggle room allowed in those regulations.
How come British General James Wolfe is painted with a musket slung over his shoulder ???
Oh, there are definitely portraits of hoity-toity's wearing pistols! Look up the one of Lord Dunmore. Of course, he's dressed in traditional Highland garb, armed to the teeth. But he's definitely a hoity-toity!
That's a murdoch pistol, it's a highland thing.
Hm, so when do junior commissioned officers start wearing firearms per regulation with expectation of actually have to use them in firefights?
I can't tell you about every army in the world but in the American army it was certainly by the Civil War, 1861-1865. Possibly even earlier, but by the Civil War if an infantry officer wasn't carrying a pistol he was crazy.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 For the Spanish Army it was during the Napoleonic wars, there was a lot of high-intensity combat going on (not so much linear warfare but more guerrilla-style).
@@podemosurss8316 And it should be added it was VERY effective guerrilla warfare as well, so much so the term "Guerrilla Warfare" was born in the Napoleonic Wars. Prior to that combat of that nature was referred to as "Petit-War," "Partizan War," or "Predatory War."
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 The term "guerrilla warfare", in fact, comes from a mistranslation of the Spanish term "guerra de guerrillas", which would literally translate as "wall of small wars", or "war of skirmishes". The term was coined by the Spanish military to describe what was a high-intensity campaign made out of a lot of small skirmishes fought in order to atrittion the French, for the most part ambushes and those kinds of attacks. Later, in the Carlists Wars (a set of civil wars in Spain between the liberals supporting Isabella II and the reactionaries supporting her uncle Carlos) both sides engaged on that kind of skirmishing a lot, in addition to trench warfare.
@@podemosurss8316 Interesting indeed! Thanks!
During my time in service among other jibs I had I was also the Battery's Trumpiter and Bugler . We did a parade useing the freedom of Notingham as we were on foot not on hores RHA my position in the ranks was to the right of the Battery comander not in the ranks this I lernt was in the use of Trumpet and Bugle that I had two main jobs one was to listen for comands that were given to my unit and useing the Trumpet reply and Ackknowledgement also the use of the Bugle was to pass on Infantry orders to the Infantry and to send back there Acknowledgement my second job was to protect my Battery Comander with saber and carbine to protect his right side . This also seemed to be the job of the Buglers in Infantry Company's they also had a Batman Originally these men were chosen by the Company Colour Sargent to act as a liason between the Offcers Butler chief to make sure they had the means of food and shelter for the Officer and his personal staff and the Officer himself also on the field he would also act as a defence of the Officer and also act as his Compant Runner as his Closness to him in daily life he would also get to know other Officers buy face and name so when sent to deliver a message he would not Waste time looking for said Officer
Now all good officers have an iPad😂. If you don’t believe me, ask the Russian radar sites that just got hit. AFR-35-10 and AFI 36-2903, which is what we used in the modern day U.S. Air Force when I was in. It got very expensive the longer you were in because of maintaining all the ribbons and badges. You have rank insignia, US insignia, career badges, specialty badges like the missile badge for your dress uniform. You put your dress uniform on and then you have command, wing, and normally squadron badges. We do actually look at each other and can easily determine part of what the other person about based on what they’re wearing without talking to them. It does actually help us do our job quicker. You’re kind of wearing a mini résumé on your body so that we can identify what you’re capable of very quickly just by looking around. They really should be standardized across Services because when we do joint duty, you don’t know their ribbons as well. Actually, you don’t know much about them unless you’ve studied a lot. The rings are so different. It’s really hard to tell exactly who the other person is and the same thing goes with career field badges. They should probably do a better job of standardizing them across all services and that really includes NATO also. I also came up with the idea of them using the camo pattern on the battle dress uniform to allow AI to identify friend or foe much easier. we store the patterns that we’ve issued out and delete them, but it makes it easy for us to see who you are from the air within reason. That also means the enemy can use AI against you based on your uniform. If they see a particular camo pattern and you just killed a bunch of their people, they just stored in AI and target you at a higher level. Uniforms matter 😊
Did medieval or ancient times have their concept of a special forces? I know the Persians had their immortals, you’ve got the winged hussars, and other heavy Calvary. But did anyone make any state sponsored special forces where they were armed with the pinnacle of what their technology and scientific advancement could make. No dollar spared.
For instance at the time of 1700-1800s the best they could’ve done was a bulletproof steel chest plate, some kind of special leather and or chain mail protection, possibly rubber in the 1800s for joint protection. A hat helmet possibly even with cheek or face protection made of bulletproof steel plate in most vulnerable areas. Maybe steel toed boots, even with sole protection. Leathers used would be kangaroo or some other strong leather. The actual fabric uniform made from a special silk blend, more durable than standard wool or cotton.
They carry a Japanese katana or some other Japanese made blade made for European militaries. They carry semi automatic musket pistols and revolvers with tons of extra ammo, powder, and primer with a special way to quickly reload those expensive and awkward firearms.
In the middle ages there were few "state-sponsored forces", as most forces were simply noble's retinue. In either case, for Western Europe:
* Ancient times: The Roman Republic had elite units called "Triarii", which were formed by the most veteran soldiers in the Legion, and were extremely sturdy. Later, in the Imperial period, they had other elite units like the Praetorian Guards, or the Cathaphracts.
* Latte middle ages: The Spanish Royal Army established a few elite units of arquebusiers and cannoneers, which would be later used for the Tercios.
* Modern era (1500-1800): This is when most armies' special units began to shine. From marine units to the grenadiers and fusiliers, there were all kind of soldiers.
Poop. Gentleman Officers always needed a brace of pistols handy in case of a duel of honour.
I think it should be the other way around 🤔 if more of the higher-ups had to actually fight then I imagine there would be fewer wars!!!!
Officers tend to die at much higher rates than other ranks, in much of history.
They have defensive weapons