What a horribly shot/directed 1700s battle! They got good costumes and sound, but appalling tactics. Scenes like this give the myth that they "just stood there taking turns shooting at each other." Both regiments should have been loading as fast as they could have to get off more shots. And why did they both charge at the same time? Why not just keep shooting? Charges were for very particular uses. Also, terribly cliché how once the melee began they just meshed together. In reality, by basic psychology, the two units would have mostly stuck together and there would have been a more clear line between them - think of it, you want to stay close to your friends and not surround yourself with your enemies. Further, the use of the cavalry is completely unclear the way the battle is filmed. And finally, how the heck did the cavalry just cut through what should have been a perfect square?? On the whole, it looks "pretty," but is entirely disappointing to those who know what it should be like, and lamentably misleading for those who do not.
Field Marshall Suvorov once said "shoot rare but precise" and "A bullet is fool, the bayonet is a good fellow". He hardly trained his soldiers to march fast and to not be afraid of close melee combat. He invented the column tactic. The man commanded in 60 battles against turks, poles and french and did not lose a single one, although in many he was outnumbered. The thing was that when you believe in your comrades and you do not fear melee combat you run that 20-40 metres in few seconds and run over your enemy making him panic and run away. That's the basic psychology too:) I know that british preferred to train shooting. But be honest - British were focused on fleet, not army. Meanwhile, on the continent, the melee rushes of a well trained regular army showed to be more effective than fire linear tactics. The best examples - Suvorov, and after him - Napoleon
You are wrong... Forming a square is valid only against cavalry... But in this battle the cavalry attacked together with the infantry. Prince Menshikov bypassed Charles's army from the right flank. And when he saw that the Russian and Swedish infantry were engaged in hand-to-hand combat, he struck along the line right into the center of the Swedish army... And she ran... This is not a movie, it happened in reality.
Зайди в Википедию и хоть чуть узнай об этом сражении. У шведом меньшая численность войск, поэтому менее глубокое построение и кавалерия преодолевала её легче. Шведская армия делала упор на быструю штыковую атаку.Карл просто зазнался после многих побед.
I understand the reasoning behind mass formations. Volley fire with muskets. All the way up until the first world War. Probably the most stupid form of battle
As I understand such cases of face-to-face volleys were not necessarily common. Probably formations were moving relatively sideways, terrain and gunsmoke hid formations from each other
It's a portrayal of the Battle of Poltava in 1709, it was the turning point of the Greath Northern War (1700-1721) mainly fought between the Swedish Empire and the Tsardom of Russia. It marked the end of the Swedish Empire as a European great power and the beginning of the Russian Empire as a European great power.
People always shit on line infantry warfare, but don’t realize the reason they did that (maybe not as exaggerated) was because the musket was inaccurate and all shooting at once guaranteed a couple kills. If they stood far apart and shot there would be friendly fire all the time and people would shoot and then leave themselves exposed to Calvary. This was the way war was fought until semi-automatic weapons came along. Even artillery didn’t stop them from doing this cause it just worked
При "косоглазости" оружия того времени это была самая умная тактика!!!! Массовость залпа компенсировала его кривость.... А перезаряжать на бегу такое оружие было довольно проблематично..... Поэтому и вставали друг против друга и палили.... Ну на худой конец после залпа чутка передвигались вперед, до следующего залпа....
They only seem useless to people who don't actually know what they are talking about. In reality there were many good reasons why they fought this way.
What a horribly shot/directed 1700s battle! They got good costumes and sound, but appalling tactics. Scenes like this give the myth that they "just stood there taking turns shooting at each other." Both regiments should have been loading as fast as they could have to get off more shots. And why did they both charge at the same time? Why not just keep shooting? Charges were for very particular uses. Also, terribly cliché how once the melee began they just meshed together. In reality, by basic psychology, the two units would have mostly stuck together and there would have been a more clear line between them - think of it, you want to stay close to your friends and not surround yourself with your enemies. Further, the use of the cavalry is completely unclear the way the battle is filmed. And finally, how the heck did the cavalry just cut through what should have been a perfect square?? On the whole, it looks "pretty," but is entirely disappointing to those who know what it should be like, and lamentably misleading for those who do not.
Field Marshall Suvorov once said "shoot rare but precise" and "A bullet is fool, the bayonet is a good fellow". He hardly trained his soldiers to march fast and to not be afraid of close melee combat. He invented the column tactic. The man commanded in 60 battles against turks, poles and french and did not lose a single one, although in many he was outnumbered.
The thing was that when you believe in your comrades and you do not fear melee combat you run that 20-40 metres in few seconds and run over your enemy making him panic and run away. That's the basic psychology too:)
I know that british preferred to train shooting. But be honest - British were focused on fleet, not army. Meanwhile, on the continent, the melee rushes of a well trained regular army showed to be more effective than fire linear tactics. The best examples - Suvorov, and after him - Napoleon
You are wrong... Forming a square is valid only against cavalry... But in this battle the cavalry attacked together with the infantry. Prince Menshikov bypassed Charles's army from the right flank. And when he saw that the Russian and Swedish infantry were engaged in hand-to-hand combat, he struck along the line right into the center of the Swedish army... And she ran... This is not a movie, it happened in reality.
Зайди в Википедию и хоть чуть узнай об этом сражении. У шведом меньшая численность войск, поэтому менее глубокое построение и кавалерия преодолевала её легче. Шведская армия делала упор на быструю штыковую атаку.Карл просто зазнался после многих побед.
LOOK American Patriot Film" With Gibson.
Usual Swedish tactics. Volley shooting and then bayonet attack.
Great Russia was, is and will be.
Narva?
nope
И в правду как театр. Все такие нарядные и привлекательные.
Для не понимающих это 18 век а лучники воевали в 16 веке и раньше при рыцарях и то узнайте где они жили и стреляли из лука ❤❤
Lol that people dont understand that is just funny
ИКЕА vs Пятерочка
Да уж, IKEA что-то сдулась😂
What is the name of the march of the beginning?
something from ABBA
@@TheGamadril 😂
March Preobrajensky regiment
I understand the reasoning behind mass formations. Volley fire with muskets. All the way up until the first world War. Probably the most stupid form of battle
I agree, definitely a hold over from earlier technology.
Not that stupid, it made a lot of sense in context.
As I understand such cases of face-to-face volleys were not necessarily common. Probably formations were moving relatively sideways, terrain and gunsmoke hid formations from each other
Epic
Флёров в роли Карла это кабздец
уверен, ты смотрелся бы лучше
@@viktorvolin56
похую в чем ты там уверен
😂😂😂
Can someone thell me the song?
Whats the Name of this movie? Which hidtorical armys fight there?
Россия - Швеция
1:0
I believe this is Демидовы (1983).
It's a portrayal of the Battle of Poltava in 1709, it was the turning point of the Greath Northern War (1700-1721) mainly fought between the Swedish Empire and the Tsardom of Russia. It marked the end of the Swedish Empire as a European great power and the beginning of the Russian Empire as a European great power.
The Sovereign's Servant
Marsch des Leib-Garde-Preobraschenski Regiments ua-cam.com/video/7FY1NV1pBL0/v-deo.html
Sit and eat popcorn in battle of poltava
People always shit on line infantry warfare, but don’t realize the reason they did that (maybe not as exaggerated) was because the musket was inaccurate and all shooting at once guaranteed a couple kills. If they stood far apart and shot there would be friendly fire all the time and people would shoot and then leave themselves exposed to Calvary. This was the way war was fought until semi-automatic weapons came along. Even artillery didn’t stop them from doing this cause it just worked
Плохая тактика боя была бессмысленно погибали и наши и противники
synd att sverige inte vann men armen var ganska sliten vid den tiden alla ryttare var långt bort och många kanoner hade ej hängt med =(
Не дождёшься.
@@luchshiy_v_ADU Responding to a 12 year old comment, didn't expect that haha
@@Dennizjoon ЛОЛ
заднеприводные проиграли.
@@Dennizjoon loll
ماهو اسم الفلم
The Sovereign's Servant. A Russian one.
Тупо стоит плечом к плечу чтобы не пропустить пули...
bu avrupalılar cidden savaşmayı bilmiyor :)
Like your country knows😂
@@Mr_breakingbad Turks are coming ,you know these words right ,I didn't make it up, your ancestors said it 😅👌
@@eraycakrlar2380 Say that to the Germans who stood up to the whole world.
@@amaral2844 немцы очень тупые
@@eraycakrlar2380 русские били турков на протяжении всей мировой истории
Ducks in a barrel.
pelean rusos y prusianos verdad?
Suecos
Imperio ruso vs imperio sueco
@@FredyVega117 La Gran Guerra Del Norte 1700-1721
meat grinder
medieval
Показуха.
Estas formas de batalla realmente eran estúpidas no tenian estrategias
Ignorancia, aprende estrategia, está es una mala representación
Most Stupid form of Battle ! Julius Caesar would be scratching his head in disbelief if he saw this type of Warfare !
Линейная атака самое тупое что могли придумать
Другой стратегии тогда для нас любителей Вар Кравт и тд тогда не придумали😅
Страшные войны были и кровавые.
Ти просто незнаєш що таке честь🤨
Сиди на кухне и ковыряй в носу, умник, развелось балбесов!
При "косоглазости" оружия того времени это была самая умная тактика!!!! Массовость залпа компенсировала его кривость.... А перезаряжать на бегу такое оружие было довольно проблематично..... Поэтому и вставали друг против друга и палили.... Ну на худой конец после залпа чутка передвигались вперед, до следующего залпа....
These kind of tactics are useless. One side should have empoyed archers. The Romans would have killed both sides at once.
In next ones deeds without fail.😊
They only seem useless to people who don't actually know what they are talking about. In reality there were many good reasons why they fought this way.
Oh yeah? Like what for instance? There are no 'tactics' at all. Amateurs.@@Seraphim7996
@@Seraphim7996can you explain the reasons please?
@@Jonesjon. To put it simply, bullets are deadlier than arrows.
Боже храни Россию🇷🇺✊
Dios maldiga a Rusia y bendiga a ucrania
@@jeremygonzales7820, Украина давно проклята, это Иудины дети
Хорони
Под железобетоном
@@KirbySmith77 и тебя вылечим 😉
Амин, Иншаллах. живи Русь в веках.