this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
528 points (97.3% liked)
Greentext
3957 readers
1129 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Muskets were not all that accurate. The plan, I suppose, was to get close and then rush in and fight man-to-man.
Lindybeige suggested that the opposite might be true, at least for the individuals
I guess I was basing my comment on novels, such as the Sharpe series, rather then actual history.
They're talking about urban fighting, I imagine fighting on an open field is quite different.
Indeed, although this video mentions a similar effect seen in open field formations
Right, but that effect seems to be quite different, and essentially the same as warfare today. It turns out people don't like killing other people.
But the "likelihood of surviving" calculus changes a bit when you're on a field with cavalry, cannons, and ranks of soldiers all around. Charging may be a more appealing option, especially if it gets you a better position (i.e. maybe the enemy has fortifications).
they had rifles in like the 15th century. Widespread use by the 17th. Muzzle loading rifles. They were accurate within a meter at 900 yards.
The last of the human soldiers who chose to engage in proper melee combat. Smh.