Did the officers really walk in front of the others while not carrying a gun themselves? Were they stupid?

Did the officers really walk in front of the others while not carrying a gun themselves? Were they stupid?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Their job is to direct their men not participate in the fighting. So all they get is a defensive weapon like a sword or a pistol.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      But wouldn't they have the highest chance of dying?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yes like everyone up front, but the moment some fricking captain begins working the loading procedure of a fricking musket is a moment that he's not commanding men. And more homosexuals will die as a result.

        This is still a thing today you know, Junior Commissioned Officers don't participate directly in the fighting until they truly have to.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Why walk in front of everyone else then? They don't do that today but rather stay in the background.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            These are Frontline officers.The field officers (Generals) are the ones actually drawing up the strategies. The Colonels, Majors, Captains, and Lieutenants are the ones who carry out those orders by commanding brigades of men and giving them direction.
            If the officer gets shot, authority switches to whoever is left alive.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/iKrrqgO.jpg

            Did the officers really walk in front of the others while not carrying a gun themselves? Were they stupid?

            The best communication system at that time is waving your hands and shouting. Maybe you have a bugle that can issue broad, general commands if your men are trained well enough to know what it means. If you’re up front, everyone can see what your motioning or yelling. You can also lead by example for your men. How can I ask you to stay calm under fire or to calmly advance under fire if I’m cowering behind you?
            Also, as the other anon said, your goal is to lead, not to be busy messing with a musket and it’s not going to matter if you have a musket or not. The whole reason they’re fighting in line formations is because muskets are inaccurate and rather useless by themselves. You need a bunch of them together, firing in unison to get shit done.
            Your posts also imply that you don’t understand that logic behind line tactics and the reality that muskets are so inaccurate that the captain up front probably isn’t going to die. It could happen, but it was routine for officers to get shot at and never hit.
            There was some napoleonic French Marshall once who was showing off his grand estate to some dude. The dude said he wished he had such a big frick off estate. The Marshall told the dude that he could have all of it if he would let the Marshall take 20 shots at him with a musket from a distance 20 paces, then the dude could have his whole estate. When he refused, the Marshall remarked that he had been shot at hundreds of times at much closer before he got any of this.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            yes

            The causality rate of captains and other commanders has always been far higher than the rank and file since they were expected to be the first one in and last one out. From the Roman Centurions to the Commanders of the British army, it's why they were so respected and paid so much more. They were the crack men, the bravest and the more intelligent.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Russian officers would sometimes walk behind their troops and poke their sabre at them, forcing them into the grinder.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and that was the strategy of american farmers at lexington and concord

        Simply shoot the officers

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Yankee ingenuity, baby.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Was that like a war crime back then? Or at least, "against the rules"?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It is extremely dishonourable.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No they most likely did not. Stop getting your history lessons from hollywood you zoomer

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      he isn't. he is getting his history lessons from IQfy

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    why do people sperg out about 1700 warfare?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Line warfare makes sense when you understand the context and limitations of tech ology at the time, but you have to admit it looks moronic if you don't.

      They'll say the same thing about trench warfare stalemates in the future.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        No it doesn't. They could've had another line with men holding shields while the line behind them would reload.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Those are some heavy ass shields and way less guns. How will you counter the enemy just walking up to you and blasting your ass? You got fewer guns, they can charge you with way fewer men

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          They tried that, it didn't work. You're just an easier cannon target now.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      burgers never got to experience the kino napoleonics.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Americans fought in line formations during the war of Independence and subsequent War of 1812.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        War of 1812 doesn't count ig then

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >implying old muskets would actually hit men and not shoot at random spots

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      cope

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *