The Battle of Monmouth was the very first time Continental soldiers went toe to toe with British Regulars and held their own without breaking thanks to Von Steuben's training. Seems like Von Steuben really put lots of thought into the type of men he was training with simple, efficient movements that reaffirm the soldier by focusing on his center of balance.

George Washington was Brilliant in appointing the best people for the job. Clearly Von Steuben did a Superior job. Love our history and freedom.

@kenziedew1628

2 жыл бұрын

1779 is not george washington

@davidkoehler136

2 жыл бұрын

@@kenziedew1628 Captain lieutenant , who was banned from the Prussian army, under penalty od Death for deviant behavior, he wasn't a Barron . He brought the Prussian manual of arms, and his training to the continental army, They turned a fraud into a hero

@Agent1W

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if Hitler thought about that regarding America, to appeal to the fact that it was Germans who actually made America great as a military power.

@chrisml8105

2 ай бұрын

​@@kenziedew1628I'm sorry... What?

@chrisml8105

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, they had a lot of really great men.

Dynamite brief here. BRAVO ZULU!!! Being an avid historian and U.S. Army retired, I appreciate the attention to detail given here. In the last few months I purchased a Pedersoli M1795 Springfield musket and a M1777 Charleville to supplement my collection of Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles.. Great demonstrations shown here.👍💯

I was taught this drill in the old 1MR (First Maryland Regiment 1964-1984) in 1974 by our drill master "Baron" Ernie Peterkin, who also taught the 3rd Infantry "The Old Guard" Washington's Regiment.

That moment when the Continental Army recieves *150% Discipline in 1778*

@AK47HEAVYMETAL83

2 жыл бұрын

With the way these dudes fought wars back then, you had to be extremely brave, disciplined with extreme military bearing to not break and run! lol

@theluiginoidperson1097

2 жыл бұрын

@@AK47HEAVYMETAL83 Literally Prussia only ten years before this war infact, its what even made the name of Prussia stand out in the first place during the Seven Years War

Thanks for this!

If you watch one man going through the drill it looks a bit funny. If you watch 120 men going through the drill like one man it looks intimidating. And that is how you win a war with fire locks.

Great video should do one on marching troops in the period as well

Woah! What a cool video.

Very neatly done!

I mean everyone today uses an prussian based drill today.

Sun Tzu would be proud.

would you guys mind if i re share this on our channel with full cred to your channel? Thanks for posting this!

In the movie Imitation General, star Glen Ford, captain, USNR, pointed out that sergeants were the ones who make an army go. Some things never change.

@Agent1W

Жыл бұрын

And of course it's the Specialists who put the 'go' in making an army go lol.

I was part of a State Chartered 1774 Well Regulated Militia .. Served 10 Years. / Grave Ceremonial Honor Guard "Rhode Island Militia" (RIM 1774 Kentish Guard" I Became Trained and Proficient In Old Manual of Arms , Fire and Colum Maneuvers We Used / Brown Bess/ & Charlotte Muskets Hitting 100 ft target / 4 Rounds per Min ... Haazaa! The Parades were Long Hot and Sweaty ..! But the Beers were Ice Cold. Thanks America .

Love it. I believe that the part of the drill “Take Aim” was first used by the American military, can you confirm this?

Resting slightly bent free hand side waist is Prussian style, I believe US army still does that...

I legit thought he said "The typical ordinance for a Continental soldier is f*ckin ball cartridge"

Did the Continental Soldiers really wear all white clothing into combat!?

@Weesel71

6 жыл бұрын

I'm thinking these represent a Rhode Island light infantry unit given the head gear and the presence of black troops in the ranks. Something to do some research on. History is full of surprises.

@junekomarrano2059

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you for helping me understand that.

@Sybok51288

5 жыл бұрын

@@junekomarrano2059 buckskins coats is actually what most of them wore especially in the first years (actually George Washington said should be worn since were both distinct and commonly available) , the fancy blue uniforms were in limited number and while becoming more common as the war went on, usually only the elite regiments had them in great number (since their rich officers could afford to kit everyone out)

@jeffreymcintire8273

Жыл бұрын

@Sybok51288 .. not buckskin. Those were LINEN "Hunting frocks" with the fibers on the hems pulled out into "fringes".

No USA, without a German gay ....greets from Germany 😂😂😂😂😂😂🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪😂😂😂😂

@trentenswett6306

4 жыл бұрын

It's Guy not Gay, Guy meaning a man or person. Gay which in older English meaning happy but today meaning some one who is homosexual. Not intending to be rude, however to help you with your English some what as it isn't your first language. Hallo und Guten Tag from America.

@harms5846

4 жыл бұрын

Trenten Swett von steuben was gay, thats the joke.

@trentenswett6306

4 жыл бұрын

@@harms5846 Ill have to take your word for it.

@joergfro7149

4 жыл бұрын

@@trentenswett6306 von steuben was a homosexual...its ok to be ...no prob this days ....but inthe days back ...oh my goodness

@laraisqueer7952

4 жыл бұрын

@@trentenswett6306 he was famously and openly gay. The fact that he was homosexual ended his military career in Europe, even the French kicked him out

"A well-regulated Militia.... (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IIa)"

Lol

Good history lesson. Looks pretty, but if we would have continued to fight like that, we would be ruled by England. Tactics learned from the native Americans and hunting the frontier is what helped us win the war against England.

@scottleary8468

2 жыл бұрын

An oversimplification. Armies of the 18th century had to utilize linear tactics. They didn't have radio technology developed before WW1 which enabled armies to spread out into smaller units. Nor did they have machine guns. Armies had to stand together in linear formation because orders had to be given out by voice and drumbeat and also because of the danger from cavalry cutting down infantry standing in open formation. Plus the smoothbore muskets of the 18th century were only accurate to about 50 yards. Indian style irregular warfare was only useful in wooded terrain. George Washington's Continentals (and the French) wouldn't have been able to defeat the British at Yorktown using Indian style irregular tactics. The Continental Army was able to defeat the British because they learned to fight in linear formation.

@hayes7979

2 жыл бұрын

@@scottleary8468 you are both correct. The continental army surely received the most discipline, and stood the best chance while engaged head on with England. But the American forces were made up of an eclectic bunch of men, and many tactics of war were used.

@scottleary8468

2 жыл бұрын

@@hayes7979 What you said was what I was trying to argue. Both the British and American forces utilized linear and irregular and skirmisher tactics. It's a common oversimplification arguing that the British practiced linear tactics and the Americans practiced skirmisher and irregular tactics. And Daniel Morgan and Nathaniel Greene excelled in using the strengths and weaknesses of regular and irregular and militia units. Particularly at the Battles of Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse. They both placed militia and irregular units in the first two lines and regular continental units in the last line. They both utilized a "defense in depth" strategy in both battles. Sun Zu argued the importance of knowing yourself and knowing your enemy. Daniel Morgan and Nathaniel Greene knew and understood the strengths and weaknesses of their men and the strengths and weaknesses of their enemies (Cornwallis and Tarleton) but while Cornwallis and Tarleton understood their men; they didn't understand their enemy (Morgan and Greene) and they suffered the consequences. Cowpens was a victory for the Americans and while Guilford Courthouse was a 'pyrrhic' victory for the British, it was also for them a strategic defeat. It was the turning point of the war.

They never said take aim. You don’t aim. That’s not how warfare worked. Edit: there is a heap of evidence that they did in fact aim. They however did not say take aim, the command is present, which combined with the inaccuracy of smooth bore muskets may have contributed to the misconception.

@josephwalukonis9934

3 жыл бұрын

Look at the manuals. By the AWI both American and British troops were taught to aim. The British 1764 manual specifically gives instructions on how to aim.

@kaziiqbal7257

3 жыл бұрын

@@josephwalukonis9934 I’ve recently found that out for myself. Apparently the sight is the thing everyone likes to call a bayonet lug. My mistake

@kaziiqbal7257

3 жыл бұрын

@@josephwalukonis9934 okay, I took a look at the von steuben manual and it does say take aim. I’ll go ahead and say that I was in fact wrong but I’ll consult more contemporary sources to see what actually was the command in the Continental Army. As a matter of personal preference, I like take aim because it allows for less confusion between present and present arms (which is another mistake that I see often as aiming is not a two part command unlike other commands)

ahahah black mamba in army