Just march towards enemy fire in a straight tightly packed line bro

When armies changed from predominately cold steel to gunpowder weapons the old warrior caste abandoned the military and the new armies of the state were made up of literal retards, criminals, and poltard tier nationalists, all of whom were considered undesirables by their monarchs. No one cared about soldier's lives - quite the contrary, the more of them that died, the less undesirables there would be in society. Plus you don't have to pay a dead soldier, and wars were so irrelevant and indecisive that losing a battle hardly changed the position or wealth of a monarch.

They existed and they were rare. Rifled muskets & long rifles also existed but they were also rare/cost-prohibitive due to time involved & skill involved. You could not have a large army of sharpshooters with rifled weapons.

the guys in the front are a mobile shield wall for the guys behind them
its kind of genius actually

The guys in front would kneel for fire by rank.

the webm the filtered Yea Forums...

3 ROUNDS A MINUTE

Attached: 55.png (728x612, 1.01M)

Sharpshooters were skirmishers. If you sent 30 sharpshooters out there they could easily be routed by cavalry or a larger infantry force.

>have front rank carry these
>wins all battles
ppl were really retarded back then.

Attached: maxresdefault (12).jpg (1280x720, 368.59K)

Imagine thinking the majority of an army is special forces.

the guys in the front are human shields for the knees of the guys in the second row
the guys int he second row are human shields for the guys in the third row
its kind of genius actually.

THERE'S 40 SHILLINGS ON THE DRUM

You probably think ancient armies fought by just marching pike men at each other as well.

>gets blown up by canonfire

o'er the hills and far away

user...

You're a retard. Standing armies didn't exist in Europe throughout most of its history and were made up of conscripts and (sometimes though rarely) random mercenary groups. Also, the claim that wars weren't relevant and were indecisive is a retard take. They shaped the borders of modern states and set the ruling class in order.

Ah yes a bunch of incels on Yea Forums know more about warfare than the seasoned generals who ended up conquering the known world

you basically need gunpowder weapons to enable mass conscription.
Bow and melee weapon training takes too long. English long bowmen trained from childhood for example.

i still refuse to believe people back then were so stupid to not use any kind of defense or shields
maybe the guns were so inaccurate and slow and thus casualties so low that it was basically risk free to walk up to the enemy... but then why have a battle at all

A smoothbore musket is accurate up to 100 meters. There were many reasons they fought in these lines but lack of accuracy wasn't one of them.

laugh all you want, that strategy rekt everyone else in the world for 200 years.

Shields and armor were phased out by various armies as they became less effective, believe it or not the line infantry model existed because the smartest people in the world determined through trial and error that it was the best way to fight with the technology they had, you can look at all the people who tried other tactics against it and they usually ended up getting killed.

is this historically accurate? i would imagine that people would break this retarded battle etiquette all the time.

>literal retards, criminals, and poltard tier nationalists
also, the ir*sh

I literally remember it. I was there, reincarnation.

wypipo rly do be like dat

>break formation
>get run down by a transexual on horseback

Its really an accident of history, despite what other anons are saying. The were still locked into the ideas from either periods that just simply didn't work with very little thought put into it. You see the same shit happen again in ww1

>you basically need gunpowder weapons to enable mass conscription
No you don't. Mass conscription was how armies worked throughout most of human history. Armies weren't widely professionalized in Europe until around the time of Lous XIV.

>I have hidden a Barry Lyndon thread somewhere on the Yea Forums. If you find it, you can post in it. You are free to look anywhere on the catalog for it. I will think little of you if you do not find it.

Attached: file.png (299x169, 57.72K)

RIP

Plate armour was not cost effective to equip a whole army. And people would often dig trenches or use defenses depending on where the battle was fought.
>maybe the guns were so inaccurate and slow and thus casualties so low that it was basically risk free to walk up to the enemy
If you have a slow reloading weapon only accurate to 100 metres then there is every possibility of someone closing the distance and if they have more troops then they would overwhelm you.

Even now with modern weapons the time it takes for a police officer to draw their weapon and shoot a suspect with a bladed weapon can be an issue. Watch 43:11 onwards:
youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZpyKSmgdE
Minimum distance is 21ft to react and fire two rounds centre of mass and move out the way. But that is with a modern weapon.

Now imagine smoke and sounds of battle and trying to shoot your weapon 2-3 times a minute at most against a closing enemy. The possibility of melee means you needed large formations.

youtu.be/97dBfdNrf9A
Watch this, it is a movie version of Waterloo where they used Soviet army troops to recreate formations. The French cavalry charged in and the men formed square to defend themselves. If you had guys in heavy armor or with heavy shields trying to form into formations it would take longer time. Having mass formations meant better fields of fire and defending against melee.

>training a peasant to use a spear takes too long
They've been training since childhood with a pitchfork retard.

They should have formed columns of 6 or so, where the front person fires then moves to the back to reload and so on... but hey I'm just an armchair tactician, what do I know?

It was a battle of balls. If you break rank and run their horses will just chase after you and cut you down.

modern guns are even more gay than muskets. you and everyone you know will probably get killed by a zionist faggot controlling a drone. we must return to swords.

Imagine being assigned as cannon fodder on the first line. There's no skill you can use to try to change your fate, no smarts, no training, just march and die. Fuck.

Now I want to watch Barry Lyndon again.

Attached: 1603821401933.gif (112x112, 803.08K)

They formed lines so first rank could fire, then second rank, then third etc. Then the first could fire again. Columns wouldn't offer a great field of fire and columns would make them an easier target for artillery. One canon ball or shell would devastate a column.

Why don't they run? Why don't they shoot while moving forward? why don't they stand their ground and shoot as well if the opposition is able to hit them from this range? Why do they not care about their own life in the slightest?
People in the past were crazy

They tried something like this comming out of the later era tericios and discovered that they had better results with wider firing lines
t. armchair historian

They realised later on with better guns like rifles its easier to have small unit tactics that arent bogged down in heavy armor. Even today most infrantry take in consideration that they shouldnt really be sending in a soldier like a heavily armed and armored pack mule.

Tell that to my DI buddy

It's all psychological warfare. The point is not to kill all the ennemies, it's to make them flee. If you can keep walking in formation while taking bullets, you become increasingly terrifying and when your at melee range the other guys will have fled.

>Conscripts in Europe's armies for most of it's history

Attached: 1643506477231.webm (1280x720, 255.58K)

>things women and trannies could never understand
youtube.com/watch?v=O9cnir-C-yM

Attached: 1633790966848.jpg (720x871, 77.57K)

Most of Europe's history consists of feudalism.
Nobles enlisting their serfs to fight for the lord/king are conscripts. Get it retard?

(Serfs enlisted are conscripts).*

Most soldiers didn't die when they lost a battle they routed. Its incredibly intimidating seeing a line infantry march straight at you even when you are firing straight into them. its one of the reason volley fire was used if 20 guys to your left and right all suddenly drop dead at the same time its gunna unnerve you alot more then 1-2 guys dropping every few seconds. Its literally just a contest to see who blinks first.

While semantic it would be better to use the term levy while talking about Medieval troops as opposed to conscription. Conscription is more used for more modern conflicts as it was more organised and used on mass as compared to levies.

How were the men at the front chosen? Imagine your fucking luck being one of the guys who has to face the fire directly

yes let me but n a position for the accuracy of getting shot