In the future, whatever prevailing power will make a movie set during WW2, having american soldiers carrying m1 garands outfitted with acogs, and general patton will roll in on an m1 abrams supported by apache helicopters. Someone will cry for historical accuracy, and the producers will say it's within the margin of error, give or take 50 to 100 years. The film will also roll opening credits with 'Based on a true story.'
@@kipter well, given that kelley's heroes was a historical comedy, and, i think, a satire to boot, i think we can ignore the innaccuracies. The movie Pearl Harbor, on the other hand...
@@Joisey11 only on Utah beach, which is only one of five landing sites and what is mainly depicted in movies. The other beaches were far more tame and in some cases there were barely any defenses left after bombardment.
I just realized what the British in this movie remind me of... the AI from Empire Total War "Sir there is a cannon battery in front of us and they are loading grapeshot!" "Form a line right in front of the cannons and volley fire them!" "....what?!"
Enemy cavalry is closing toward our cannons! Send the pikemen that were guarding it to chase the cavalry way too far away from the cannons, leaving the cannons exposed! The cavalry will die before they reach the cannons! Sir... Don't question your superiors!
I swear Saving Private Ryan has caused more problems for historical accuracy in film/television since 1998 all because everyone and their brother wants every battle to be Omaha beach.
There are no historical acurate movies regarding that esp not Ryan. There are very few war movies I consider realistic and all are from Europe and painful to watch. The best impression about a landing imo is the documentary "war in the pacific in colour" Battle for Tarawa etc. Disturbing but you get an impression. As soon as a hero story is told forget it.
To be fair, if you actually followed the plot a little, aside from the "Medieval Landingcraft" (literally Higgans boats, because fuck history), That is how a landing likely would have looked had an army been caught unaware. According to the plot, the French on the beach where not expecting to be attacked while they where offloading, due to the Traitorious Duke, who was supposed to be distracting the king with raiding up North, allowing the landings to go unopposed. That is also why dispite a "Fleet" of ships and soldiers still waiting to disembark, the French just left their first group on the beach, because an opposed landing would have been disasterious for them.
Possibly because Pirates having done few amphibious assaults themselves have picked the best place for such action? the only plausible reason that come to my mind, is that disembarking elsewhere was either imposible or highly impractical
6 ปีที่แล้ว +1
MichalSoukup1995 yeah in the show they said something like that
Pirate crewman: Hey Cap'n, uh... there is jungle about 20 yards behind us. Why don't we walk back there and take cover. Then we can shoot as they close in, the cannons won't be able to target us effectively, and the redcoats will be forced to close in, under fire, to close range. And hey, we are pirates! Close in fighting is our specialty! Good plan eh cap'n? Pirate Captain: ARRRRR!!! SCALYWAG! ARRRR! Crewman: Right. So I guess we're dragging the wood over here then. Great.
@@tombkings6279 They do. That's the point of that scene. The pirate leader (a former British officer) is gambling everything that the Brits get cocky and walk into the woods after seeing the pirates break. He knows that an enemy commander (and former pirate) will expect something like that, so the episode has a whole plotline dedicated to convicing both the Brits and the pardoned pirates to take the bait and assault the forest fortification. So they can fight in close range. Great plan, cap'n! That's why they did it xD
@Sovereign They do proceed to the pirate base. That's the point of the episode. That's what they commit to doing and they get ambushed by the main pirate+slave force in the woods and are slaughtered, as was the plan. That's exactly why the pirates "break" so easily in this scene - to goad the Brits into doing exactly that. The entire island is desolate and hard to attack under time constraint (which the British are in the show, that's a plot point and the reason they even attempt this assault in the first place other than just arrogant cockiness), and it has been fortified by marooned slaves for years. They lose because they attempt to do exactly what you're saying, and what the pirates expect them to do. In fact, Benjamin Hornigold (who in the show has allied with Woodes Rogers at this point) specifically warns the British *not* to attack the enemy camp, because it might be... exactly what it is, a set up. But they are convinced due to other factors, proceed to attack, and end up losing. I'd say, given how many people here come up with the same plan as the Brits, that this idea is not actually that far off, since it seems to be widely agreed upon to be the right move.
@@Dhomden Whilst I don't doubt there was a time constraint, could you tell me about said time constraint, how it happened and how it would affect the Brits had they not just bombarded the pirates into oblivion?
m.th-cam.com/video/aHF-AMA_cAw/w-d-xo.html Ferguson breach loading rifle, you load from the back instead of up front, much higher rate of fire almost 7 rounds a minute for some people, was used during revolutionary war and as this is set in 1815 I believe they should have some, at the time 7 rounds per a minute was very fast. Not full auto by a long shot but to someone on the receiving end of that rate of fire it would feel like it, 100 men all firing that fast would be suppressing your enemy fast.
I am not expert, but I knew that this amphibious assault was garbage, only to make the British army look bad as always and make the pirates, the underdogs look good since this is an American show. And I am American by the way.
Brandon F. Well the British navy absolutely were the bad guys, the morality of the pirates depends pirate crew to pirate crew but the British navy absolutely were the "bad" guys
By the definition of the word, no pirate can ever be the good guy. Unless you mean in the context of this television show that is, in which case it's all up to the strange and seemingly history-devoid narrative.
Brandon F. Well if said pirates let's say only raid the East India trading company then they certainly can be the good guys. Though I admit it is shady I more meant good in the sense of how they are too their own people and those they dealt with. In that era most everyone was guilty of something terrible, always some pirates were Democratic and even honest depending
Brandon F. The British navy absolutely had no redeeming qualities they were imperialistic, kidnapped people from docks and forced them to enlist, treated their men like garbage, etc. Pirates could be better than the British navy....because it's kinda hard to be worse than the British navy in that era
It's amazing how the British dominated land and sea for a thousand years and yet nearly every movie with the British in it they seem to be totally inept in battles no matter where they are. On the opposite side of the coin the US forces never seem to do anything wrong in movies and are able to mount expert attacks and counter attacks with the fewest team possible.
For a thousand years? Really? The British didn't even pose a serious threat till the 18 century. Even then the French dominated land and before that the Spanish dominated both land and sea.
@@biohita you really need to check you're history mate the British constantly beat the French both on sea and land all over the world and as for the Spanish things didn't go well from them at sea from the armada to Francis drake then trafalgar and on land they very rarely beat the British and then ended close allies against napoleon
That's fair enough, just seems to me you'd loose all ability to enjoy television with this "must be historically accurate" mind set, since most movies/shows go for a more cinematic route.
@@Mieqo I find it hard to believe that there could be context in the show that makes this realistic. Did, perhaps, the officers all tie one on the night before the landing, so they weren't thinking properly? Or were they all simultaneous victims of major head trauma? And were they transporting a cargo of boats for the East India Company or something, thus explaining the amazing number of them available to land the men? I submit that to analyze the tactics of this particular landing, one doesn't need to watch anything but how the landing is portrayed in that scene.
To make the good side seem clever you either need clever writers or a completely stupid bad guy. Unfortunately the British have become the Imperial Stormtroopers (blasters not Stoß) of history. Edit: jeeez guys I was talking about Star Wars Stormtroopers..
It's sad really, we are either incompetent fools or cunning evil bastards.our empire will only be remembered for it's wrong doing. and the only one at that.
David Whitehead Well the Nazis did some good things (stopped animal testing, created an adorable car for the comman man, took Germany out of a major recession, etc), but that doesn't right their wrongs, does it. Fuck the british empire, and every empire really. Death to monarchs.
If you care to take your head out of the imperial dark ass, and read historic books from OTHER sources and nations OTHER than anglofile publishers, then you would OF COURSE find a much LESS glamourous or glorifying study of the British eMPIRE and their wrongdoings. Power corrupts.... always been, never changes. Never make the mistake that the english were some sort of benign god given "race" or "class" of good people...
They also would have avoided landing on the beach that was covered by the defensive position, rather they would have been dropped off a few miles away on a safe place and marched to outflank or surround the pirates.
Let's just say that it makes better drama to attack a fortified position from the front. :-) We have to ignore the fact that no commander in his right mind would have done such a thing it being the hardest course and apart from being just what the defenders would have wanted, it also allowed for an easy retreat.
@@Oberstgreup they scaled the heights at Quebec (which I know was 45ish years later, but they had rope and ladders by 1712), so other than for sake of plot, there is no reason why they couldn't have landed literally anywhere. Even in modern warfare, no commander in their right mind orders an opposed landing (including the senseless big one in France in 1945... change my mind), let alone in the era of muskets and tight formations of troops with drums and flags as the only means of communication. Edit: Adam How, you are correct, it was in 1944, my mistake.
I totally agree with your assessment of the attackers exchanging fire for an extended period prior to engaging in a bayonet assault, A British commanders view of an assault I think is best summed up by General (later Field Marshal) Sir Hugh Gough's comment during one of his battle's in India in the 1840's. On being told that the artillery was running out of ammunition (during the initial bombardment) he opined, "Thank God, now we can be at them with the bayonet!".
Excellent video. The one thing I want to bring up is that, traditionally, off-shore bombardments were conducted before friendly forces ever touched land. A ship firing on shores with friendly forces in close proximity with enemies could very well result in a blue on blue situation. Establishing a beach head and fire superiority with a mortar battery would not be so far fetched, as indirect fire would be perfect for use against a fortified position
Or just, you know, blast their fortifications with cannons that can hit ships from hundreds of meters away and not even bother landing troops, which is probably what would have happened to such an insignificant threat
@@Batchall_Acceptedthat wasn't possible in the context of the show. The goal here isn't to annihilate the pirates, it's to capture some of them alive because they have buried a treasure chest that the brits need to get. Blasting them to bits would mean failure because the treasure chest would be lost.
I can kind of understand bringing Mortars to shore, I guess the idea is prevent the possibility of the British ships firing on their own men. And given how hilariously inept the ships crews seem to be...
Not to mention that even if the gunners weren't incompetent the ships guns fire on an almost flat trajectory. The infantry march up a rise before they form line, meaning that they'd probably be about level with where shots from the lower gun decks would be passing.
The mortars on shore are somewhat understandable (please see the end for what I mean by "somewhat"); the last thing you wanted was those heavy shipboard guns firing over the heads of friendly troops, especially in light of the (aforementioned) flat trajectory and also their relative lack of accuracy at the range they were firing at. Given their drafts, the ships (I agree they appear to be third rates, possibly fourth rates) would need to remain some distance offshore. At that range many would question the wisdom of firing on a target so large as an enemy ship; against a very low target like those field works the gunners would probably have some trouble hitting their targets. Also, given how close the lines are (close enough for musketry), attempting to hit the enemy with shipboard guns would be dangerous; at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, a large number of British casualties were the result of British guns firing over their own troops heads, and those were field pieces - imagine the effects of a 32-pounder naval gun. So the deployment of guns ashore makes sense; indeed, most landings of the time brought small pieces ashore (in later years some guns were designed for this role, most notably the Dahlgren boat guns). What does not make sense is the decision to use mortars. 3- or 6-pounder guns would make more sense, or even 12-pounders. Why mortars? As to the attempt to make it look like Saving Private Ryan, there were opposed beach landings during the 18th Century which resembled Saving Private Ryan; perhaps the most notable was Wolfe's (failed) attempt to land troops for the siege against Quebec at the Battle of the Beaufort Shore. Contemporary accounts of the battle paint a picture reminiscent of the Omaha Beach scene in SPR. On a final note, I will take exception to your statement that fixing bayonets and pushing forward will do good, particularly your use of Bunker Hill as an example. You mention that it was on the third assault that the British overran Bunker Hill. Yes, the third bayonet charge at Bunker Hill succeeded - because we ran out of ammo. Both British and American sources at the time, and today, tend to agree that had we had enough ammunition the works on Bunker Hill would have held. They could have been flanked, but the only reason the third attempt succeeded was a lack of ammunition with which to repel it. The Bunker Hill position was formidable: the hill steep, the trenches deep, and it was held by determined men. A simple bayonet charge cannot take such a position on its own; if you don't believe me, ask George Pickett of Ambrose Burnside.
Lateral ship guns are not meant to attack land targets, so they use bomb ships instead, or disembarked mortars. th-cam.com/video/HJQY3erNShE/w-d-xo.html
couple of points here one the bayonet at the time would proably have been of the kind that was pushed down the barrel of the musket - nice and simple but it disabled your musket as a fire arm. The British ability with the bayonet came later! Wer are still pretty good with the things! the other thing that must be remembered was that pirates did not go to the pirate recruiting office to join up - they mostly were British (and anybody else's) deserters. Where do you think the American professional soldier came from during the war of Independance? On that point remember that when a British Regiment went out to the colonies they invariably stayed there, retiring and being given land on retirement, with this in mind those soldiers married amongst the locals and thus in fact became locals! Rather short sighted!!
Black Sails might not be the most realistic show out there in terms historical correctness, but it sure is one of the best shows inspired by history. The blend of actual real life pirates like Jack Rackham and Blackbeard with the fictional material of Treasure Island with Flint and John Silver works very good, and while the show starts somewhat slow with the first season, from the second season onward, it is one of the best tv shows i have ever seen.
I would put it up there at the same level as The Wire (which arguably went on one season too long) and Deadwood (which got cut off without a coherent ending.)
I'd still recommend Black Sails. It's a really fun show. I really like how the show gets rid of the romantic notions of 18th century piracy and portrays the main characters more as gangsters. I'd also recommend Peter Linebaugh's book "The Many Headed Hydra" if you're looking for a good book on 18th century piracy.
You may have missed the point of the show. They are sort of depicted, in a hard light, as gangsters, but ultimately the main characters represent a kind of advocacy for human rights. Mostly in its depiction of various transgressive romances, but certain characters, like Eleanor represent other causes like women's rights. So the show arguably romantacizes them in certain respects. It is really all in on this stuff, I'm kind of shocked they didn't find room for Mark Read.
Great series, appeals to my childhood obsession with authentic history. The Brits had troop transport ships that would have likely been a big part of this kind of mission, and those transports would have their own boats. I was going to point out their shallow draft landing craft type flatboats that were used at Kipps bay, but I found out these were invented later, mostly because of the shortcomings of using conventional longboats. So one point of this film is that the boats are appropriate.
A lot of this can be accounted for in-universe. You could have an incompetent OC who bought his position, and dithers rather than ordering a bayonet charge. The Americas were notorious as the dumping ground for the worst units of the British army (good units were needed for service in Europe and India), which might explain the lack of discipline and precision, and the decision to assault the beach rather than bombard it could be put down to army/navy rivalry. This all assumes that the men on the beech are part of the British army rather than Royal Marines of course, which I think is reasonable given the hats and colours. Don't ask me why they're all wearing French Napoleonic briquets rather than hangers though.
lancer D I'm new to this channel. Why did the British use the least skilled units in the Americas than anywhere else? Did they simply see the Americas as less valuable than their other colonies?
The British often saw colonial service as a way to get unwanted or unpopular officers or difficult units out of sight and out of mind. A good example is those sent for service in the Australian colonies who were so bad, they became known as the "rum corps". Colonial service was a bit of a dead-end career-wise unless war broke out (one of the reasons certain officers defected to the continental army- better career prospects!). In relatively peaceful places like the Americas most of the government forces acted as garrisons or militia, with many soldiers being recruited from the local population. The quality of training between regiments was not yet standardised, so it also varied enormously, often deteriorating if skills were not kept up through active service. All of this meant that colonial forces were often not regarded particularly highly. You did see good units serving in the Americas, and the other colonies, but this was generally only after war broke out. Britain had an enormous empire, so quality troops were in high demand and the best regiments often acted as a kind of fire brigade, being sent to hot spots around the Empire as and when needed.
You're right in saying the British in the Americas were the bottom of the barrel, but the War of 1812 shows that even then they could still be effective.
As a history student from the Netherlands you have my respect for your obsessive correction of this scene. I myself often get peeved about similar ahistorical displays in films depicting combat in antiquity, although I opt to communicate my gripes to the closest person around on the spot.
When I was looking the show, British landed coz the coast was shallow and their ships could not effectively come to range, (out of 300 cannons you see only few shots hit barely), so they land at only part of the island which (supposedly) is fit for embarking the troops on the shore. Additionally they were in the rush, they had to take Pirates their gold before Spanish ships show up. Only thing I could not find the way to justify is them forming the line, instead of charging (or flanking) pirate position.
Yea i don't think he watched it, since the actual ships and how many cannons they had where discuses in an episode as wel. although not accurate for there budget the show did a good job of showing fun battle scenes
Barely in range is still in rage. Moreover, sailing ships are not motor ships, they can take days to arrive in one location, which in that time it was considered "fast".They could have easily sieged the position until the pirates broke or use bayonets if they were truly pressed for time. I have to agree with his critique because I thought the same thing when I saw that episode. Everything felt like I was watching Saving Private Ryan, but with muskets.
Exactly. If your going to criticize the actions taken you have to have the full understanding of the reasons for said actions. It’s not just them attacking random pirates because. There’s reasons for their rush and understanding the characters and actions in said universe is needed to fully discuss it. If he doesn’t watch the show or the episode he doesn’t have the context to understand what’s going on and have the full picture
No. I felt that the lesson of the day was, stay on your god damn ship and work on gunnery practice. Anyone who's heard the Star Spangled Banner knows that's how the British did amphibious assaults. They sit there on their ship and shoot for a few days or occasionally land elsewhere to mount a normal land assault from behind while their ships distract the enemy with sheer firepower.
It’s just an American accent with non rotary Rs. It’s actually more common then you would think, as a lot of people who have trouble with stumbling over words find it easier to speak clearly with non rotary Rs, and so adopt it for convenience.
@@dantecaputo2629 I've never met an American who talks like him. It sounds like he keep trying to sound British and then reverting back to talking normally periodically. He doesn't even do it consistently. One moment he says "wheah" instead of "where", the next moment he clearly pronounces "bomBARding".
@@danielroberts1846 That's the only thing I can think of. I'm almost reminded of Mid-Atlantic (you know the old timey 20s-50s radio broadcaster accent).
Never seen the show or read the book BUT qualified to give an honest, educated and comprehensive commentary upon the subject matter. That's ballsy my friend.
No, there's no way that an entire ships crew could fit on board its own boats. Even on civilian/merchant vessels, the legal standard of ensuring everyone has a place in case the ship goes down is a modern development. Ship's boats were used for a variety of purposes, such as deploying landing parties, ferrying officers between vessels, conveying supplies (food, ammunition, water, materials), and things like that.
The Titanic was actually a turning point, it was that tragedy that prompted regulations be changed so there would be enough lifeboats for all the passengers and crew on a ship In fact, it's a common misconception that Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats for everybody because they were overconfident in the ship, actually the opposite was true, they actually had More lifeboats than was legally required. Before the tragedy of 1912, the purpose of boats on a ship was not to save people if it sank, the purpose was to transport people from a sinking ship, to a rescue ship, they would ferry people from one to the other, with the crew and captain being the last to leave the ship. But after the Titanic sank, it became apparent that even in the veritable freeway that was the North Atlantic, survivors of sunken vessels could be stranded for hours before rescue arrived. It was even worse in the 18th century, back then most ships only had three or four small rafts for about 400 people, if a ship sank the crew were expected to drown, or float with the debris, the actual purpose of the dinghies was for a more practical reason, they were intended to transport the crew or landing parties to shore, boarding ships, or even for whaling.
The boats were mainly used to transfer officer between ships or land, also for boarding parties. Sometimes two of the boats were used to tow the mothership when there was no wind but that was the exception
i'm sure someone has commented this already, that episode, the fleet specifically ventures out with amphibious assault in mind, and If I remember correctly it was at least 5 ships, at most 7, several ships were 48 gun, some were 20, a few in between. the pirate ploy was to trick them into attacking the island, which was laden with traps and hidden forces. I know it isn't the most accurate, but I highly recommend Black Sails. it is fantastic!
I must say, as tactically inept the British seem in this scene this show is fantastic. The acting is fantastic, the writing is fantastic the character development is fantastic. Don't let it put you off the show. But I must agree with Brandon on this one. Just seen this channel and I am a big fan of black sails, this channel is very very interesting.
In the siege of San Juan (Puerto Rico) 1797, the british general, General Abercrombie, decided land in the night of 17-18 of April. He had about 3,900 soldiers, about a thousand are German Chasseurs and Fusiliers. While he had a fleet around 60 ships (most transport ships) including the 100-gun HMS Prince of Wales, he only could get 3 sloops near the chosen beach (today known as the Balneaeio de Carolina), because of the reef. The beach was defended by 300 Colonial Spanish regulars (Fijo de Puerto Rico), and were divided in three groups of 100 men. First group was at the western part of the beach at a point, the second one at the middle part of the beach (both groups had either 1 or 2 cannons), the third group was a the most eastern most part of the beach, next to a mouth of a lagoon (no cannon). They were entrenched but i dont know to what extent, they had less than a day to prepare. Abercrombie wasnt sure if there were defenders in the beach (a small tropical beach with thick vegetation, would be easy to hide. Also, about 1,000 feet from the beach to inland was a big lagoon, so its a small land corridor. Anyway the attack started with 4 boats landing at the positions of the third group of defenders. These boats would most likely have Lowenstein Fusiliers and Chasseurs (german mercenaries), since they have the most dead men (11) and the most wounded men (45) among the regiments that participated (the 14th, 42nd, 53rd, 60th, and the 87th) (they would also have most missing men too, 110), and the Spanish accounts claim that they cut down many men on that attack. Apparently there was a Staff Officer there too. It was nighttime. When these men stepped on the beach, the defenders of that area opened fire, and the defensing cannons followed. Those who survived either retreated in their boats or just faked their deaths. The Officer was wounded. So now, the sloops know the Spanish positions and concentrated their fire on the third group, followed by a second attack of the whole army (3,000). Spaniards knew they had the retreat and reform. They left some of their cannons. The Spanish lost 2 men and had 1 wounded. The British followed them for 5 miles until they saw that the Spanish were leading them to a fortified line of San Juan with many cannons. The British then retreated to secure the beach. Some British soldiers spotted Spanish engineers placing a battery near their beach. Two columns approach the unfinished battery, but the Spanish managed to escape with some gunboats on the nearby channel. The Spanish sent a small force of 50 infantry and 20 calvary to counter attack. They managed to reach the beach and either spike or retrieve their cannons. But the British reorganized and drove the Spanish away again. This time the Spanish stayed in San Juan and the cut the bridge connecting San Juan with the mainland. British sieged San Juan until the 1 of May of 1797. The British retreated, leaving their siege batteries. They entrenched marines in the beach in case the Spanish attacked the reembarking army. Just wanted to see anyone’s opinion on this strategy.
Black Sails is an imagined prequel to a very famous story. Whilst being fictional, it has a fairly true back story. Without watching it, you can have no frame of reference to the action taking place in this scene.
"Sir, I see miles of unopposed beaches. Shall we land to the East?" "No, we will go directly towards their small area of fortifications and smash them"
When in context this scene makes a lot more sense. The reason the British were forced to do an amphibious landing was because of a few extenuating circumstances explained in the show: - The island in question was chosen as a home to escaped slaves not so much because it was defendable but moreso because it was well hidden and difficult to land on. The beach we see is the only suitable landing ground for troops and supplies, the rest of the coastline is comprised of cliffs -The reason the British immediately went for an amphibious assault was because they were on an incredibly short timetable. The pirates had in their possession a massive amount of stolen Spanish gold from a defeated Treasure ship, equal to about six million pounds. Originally the British had captured it and the Spanish were holding them responsible on returning it before it was stolen again (in the form of easily transportable black pearls). The Spanish gave Woodes Rodgers (yes the historical figure, yes I know this is a fantasy plot) two weeks to return the gold's value before coming to burn New Providence to the ground. At the time of the assault, the deadline for the return of this cache was in four days time, three of which would be needed to sail back to rendezvous with the Spanish envoys. I think it is understandable with pushing immediately onto the only available beach with such a short amount of time to recover the goods they need. I would go into more detail but that would mean explaining the plot of three seasons of a TV show and I'd just would rather not for a TH-cam comment that will likely just be ignored. -In regards to the pirates, they purposefully made the beach defenses look like crap because they wanted the British to underestimate them before drawing their forces back into the jungles where they had laid traps and ambushes. The whole battle on the beach was a ploy by the pirates to draw the British in. -On the mortars: they were certainly not necessary on the beach. But the real reason they were brought to shore was because the British were aware of the slave settlement hidden in the jungle and they knew that it had walls and defenses in place. The mortars were brought for exactly the reason you suggested: for the upcoming siege on the settlement. Aside from historical fallacies in uniform and weaponry, I have nothing to say in their defense because they are indeed wrong, but for the sake of the story I think they can be ignored. Story-line wise and why they did what they did with the assault does indeed make sense though when you take the circumstances from the show into account. Hope this helps :)
Justin Dicke And why would the british, (whom often privateered from and had just come out of a 13 year long war with the spanish) surrender such a huge quantity of either privateered or captured valuable goods to their enemies even if they threaten them?
Okay yeah that part of the story doesn’t make sense but when you take that part as true the context of this one scene does make sense and everything else they’re doing
TY for filling in the details. It allvvays seems that movies screvv up alot because they are only concrned vvith vvhat looks good on camera so logic & historical accuracey usually get tossed out the vvindovv in favor of a scene vvith a dramatic explosion.
Bringing in the mortars during the beech assault still makes no sense though they had the shipboard guns for that, would have made more sense to bring only what you need in order to secure the beachhead to start with. Then once you have the beach secure you can proceed to ferry any additional supplies and equipment.
I also appreciate how a piece of *driftwood* about 23 mil thick can stop a musket ball weighing about an ounce (Imperial measurement nonsense) with about 130 grains of black powder behind it.
Some background info from someone who watched Black Sails: The ships were at the absolute maximum range as the bay area shallowed out and they could not approach any closer, putting them at an inefficient spot for a sustained bombardment. The pirate captain, Flint, was an ex British naval officer who knew their tactics well. The entire beach defence line was intended to collapse in short order and lure the British force into the jungle where the real fight would occur. Overconfidence and underestimating the resolve of the combined pirate and escaped / liberated slave forces played a large part in them taking the bait after an "easy win" on the beach. The beach in question was in fact the only viable landing point on the island with no other approach possible for a landing. Sheer cliffs dropping almost directly into the sea. Plus, the pirates needed the British to take their challenge and move inland from there anyway. Later on in the episode, a series of ambushes and traps deep in the jungle resulted in the complete and total defeat of British regulars. That said, it IS a horrible, poorly executed mess of a fight but it was fun to watch this series nonetheless. (It's basically a sort of "prequel" to Treasure Island with the emergence of Captain Long John Silver and his legendary treasure)
It is a brilliant show. I didnt like it when I 1st watched it many years ago (not historically correct enough for me at the time). I gave it another chance a few months ago and took it as it is, a fictional show (based on treasure island as a prequel to the book) with historical characters and events thrown in to make it feel more like reality and I was hooked. I couldn't stop watching episodes back to back. Well worth trying a few episodes, give it a good chance and keep an open mind. It is just a fictional, pirate action show after all.
A good number of your points are answered in the show via the situation both participants are in. A few examples: The royal navy fleet partaking in the attack consists of 6 ships of the line and 3 militia frigates, which explaines the large number of longboats. The mortars were brought, not for the beach fight, but because they (rightfully) excpected there to be a maroon camp in the jungle. Now as much as I love the show, I cannot defend the poor organisation of the infantry. And why the british didn't just bombared the beach... well plot armour, and I suppose you could blame the admiral who is an incredibly arrogant person, who underestimates his opponants to an extreme degree. In this case an opponant who used to be a promising royal navy captain, with now a burning hatred for the crown and nothing to loose. It's worth mentioning that the pirate captain is deliberatly fighting in the open and sacrifing his men instead of hiding in the dence jungle, in order to lure the navy into the jungle by making it lool like they are in full retreat when they fall back. All in all the british navy is always treated as an imance threat in the series. Look no further than the next season, the soldiers of the navy are tough and routhless and basically wins every battle. So I assure you that all in all the show dosen't represent them as the star wars stormtroopers. The show is really good and by far the most interesting and least cliché pirate fiction out there, they incorporate real history and mix it with Treasure Island characters and plot points which evantually forms a prequal for the Treasure Island book.
I absolutely love your love for historical accuracy. To the average person, none of this matters, but to people like you and me it's all that matters. Too many people are caught up with "Hollywood glamour". No one actually wants to research and read about true military tactics. This is why it's so hard to indulge in anything cinematic involving Warfare. When it comes to me, at least 75 per-cent of war movies are turned off within five minutes...
"Sir should we really stand on the beach? those ships have a lot of cannons." "either you stand on this beach or i run you down do you understand." "yes sir."
Bomb ketches were like mortars, they were used for sending explosive shells arcing over defensive walls rather than battering through them with solid shot. For a big fort with earthen ramparts faced with stone or brick it wasn't practical to batter through them, but the light works seen here would be blasted to splinters by the ships' cannons.
Read some of the Wikipedia about the British siege of Manhattan/Brooklyn in the revolutionary war.. The British had 200+ ships and 32,000 soldiers.. They did a ton of ship to shore bombardment,, (and the batteries fired back, often to no effect/missing). One of the bombardments tore an American unit to pieces before flat bottom boats landed.. the British army was one of the absolute best in it’s day.. and was extremely experienced from wars with France and Spain at this point.
Not to mention the apparent use of the Brown Bess. Flintlock muskets were however in us from the 1660s and onwards. The muskets had a range of around 100 paces at the max. The British are seen at a distance of much further out than that. As for artillery, you are correct, but it would be alright if the red coats had deployed galloper guns.
Also, with a landing beach that extends hundreds of yards in each direction direction, why would a amphibious force decide to land of the face of only that particular section of the beach is fortified? Why not hit the beach where there are no defenders or fortified?
I loved the part of the mortars cause when I saw that scene I was like, dont they ahve like sips, like really big ships with really nice cannons?, wouldnt like the captain go "heh those silly pirats are there sitting like ducks, lets blast them and go back home for tea"
@@parabellum1488 I know I'm late but whatever. I think ships didn't shoot after landing because after accuracy they've shown so far they would decimate their own troops on the beach with minimal danger for pirates
First I've seen from your channel, looking forward to checking out the rest. Do you have any recommendations for 18th and early 19th combat being portrayed well in film or television?
Simple solution: 1. If enemies are stupid enough to concentrate so close to the beach, bombard the hell out of them and keep them concentrated by landing some soldiers trained and equipped to resist the enemy fire rather than charging. 2. Spread men around and have them land at other areas where it's less defended (if at all). Give clear instructions so that they scattered troops can group and muster an organized invasion force. This will require some scouting prior to the battle. Make sure the formation happens relatively close as people could get lost if they meet up deep into the island. 3. All the assembled troops landed at other sites assemble and flank the fortification with max. surface area. Keep the bombardment going just before infantry charges. If warships have limited supplies, provide light fire and havoc just before the infantry advances.
Okay so I love this show so I'm gonna unapologetically defend it. 1. Those 2 gun deck ships are not man o wars. They would be frigates and the smaller ship is most likely a sloop. 2. The ships clearly didn't obliterate the defences by themselves because those guns are not that accurate when targeting a very thin line from a distance. Not only that but the pirate position is elevated slightly, prove able by the camera shot showing the soldiers only just appearing over the hill (so why soldiers are getting hit by the boats I don't know, that's inconsistent). This elevated position was also used in the real battle of Waterloo by Wellington to substantially reduce the effect of French artillery. Therefore to continue to bombard such a small position would be very costly on ammunition with not very much effect (the show accurately shows the distribution of cannon shot with the aerial shots). 3. The fleet is admittedly not large enough to field that many marines. 4. The rather rushed volleys serves two purposes. First is a cinematography decision to keep the pace of the battle going. Secondly is a military decision to try and volley fire into the fire into the pirates as fast as possible to try and pin them, reducing the rate of fire on themselves. 5. I have little problem with the use of mortars in the assault, at closer range they're more effective artillery at hitting them behind fortification (bar the shrapnel rounds which you correctly identified were ahead of invention). 6. A bayonet charge would've been desirable but mainly once the pirates started using their buried cannons as it would've made sense to cover ground ahead of the pirates trapped terrain. This also may have forced the pirates to retreat earlier assuming they didn't have a plan to stop the charge dead (the main plan for this battle was for the pirates to draw the British in the forest where the real trap was). In summary the engagement is fun to watch, it is a cool battle, very good cinematography, I'd say with about 70% historically accurate. The main problem with this is continuity, not accuracy, but incontinuity is really difficult to manage in such large scale TV production
I might not use Bunker Hill as an example when talking about effective frontal assaults - given that 1/3 of the British force that attacked the Americans in that battle were killed or wounded, and this led the British to adopt more cautious tactics in the future. Furthermore, the British failed to repel the Americans in the overall Siege of Boston, and the British evacuated to Halifax early in 1776. That doesn't invalidate your point that the commanders here may have been better off if they had ordered a charge once they landed their forces (or landed elsewhere along the beach and approached on a flank). However, I tend to view these sort of nonsensical tactics in films and TV as the failings of the officers in that show. Many officers in history have made simplistic and bad tactical decisions in battle. The British Army Officer corps in the 1710s was not exactly a brilliant meritocracy. The commander, who may have been a naval Commodore rather than a Army or Marine officer, probably just decided that a simple frontal attack made the most sense.
8:51 looks like a stuntman with his head up his arse to me.. He had his face awfully close to the blast and seems to realise it a little too late. Though the one on the right lighting the thing also seems surprised by the blast. So maybe that blast was somehow bigger/different than what they had expected and/or intended?
Regard the boats. They arrive in Nassau with 8 ships and take 5 ships for this 'mission' we'll call it, leaving the other 3 behind to defend. Say it's just 5x boats on each that's 25x boats and as this was pre-planned it would also be within the realms of plausibility that they may have taken an extra boat or two each from their 3 defending ships too, it's something that is very much doable. I think the barricades withholding under such a large volume of fire from 5 ships would have been made a bit more believable in the defenders were in trenches and foxholes in conjunction with barricades. Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
*Ahem* Land somewhere else, maybe? Use light infantry skirmishers to harry them and keep them busy while proper battle lines form - screen and skirmish. Occasionally use cannonshot from the ships so the pirates keep their heads down. Advance behind skirmish lines and prepare to charge when close enough.
So canonically there are 2 frigates of 60 guns, 1 frigate of 48 guns, a vessel of 30 guns, a vessel of 20 guns, a sloop of 18 guns, a sloop of 10 guns, and a privateer of 30 guns.
Imagine a WW2 army, instead of using battleships and other ships for costal bombardament during a naval landing, bringing artilery and mortars ashore to bombard the enemy. Now why didnt people who made this scene think that doing so a couple of centuries earlyer would also be deadly stupid.
This is more artistic liberty than anything else. The pirates are plucky individuals standing up to authority. The red coats are automatons following the starwars storm trooper tradition.
The reason why the British bringing the mortars up to shore had something to do with the range of the cannons on the ship. If you looked back at the front part of the vid, you can see that sure.. The cannons on the ship did hit the pirate fortifications but like you said, out of may be 200 guns, only a few stray ones did hit the column of pirates while many landed waaay short of the pirate's position so if, like you said, the ships could be used as an "artillery piece" and decimate the pirate's stronghold on the beach, those poor Redcoats would be destroyed in a freak case of friendly fire as the cannon would not reliably hit the pirate lines but instead fall on the stricken Redcoats on the beach. Besides, guns that could reliably aim and shell accurate coordinates on land by ships only appeared a few years after the introduction of ironclad ships and shown great promises during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 between the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) and the Imperial Russian Navy where the Japanese shelled fortified Russian positions into a total flatland and in some regards the Beiyang Fleet of the Qing Dynasty also had such effective firepower when they fought against the French, English and Japanese during the Sino-French War, 2nd Opium War and the 1st Sino-Japanese War.
Don't be. Most of this stuff is actually reasonable when you learn of the actual plan behind it. The rest of the stuff is really well made, despite some strange wardrobe choices here and there
It's best not to over analyze Hollywood movies. And I agree with Reading through history. Pin them down with fire from the ships, land the troops a few hundred yards down the beach and attack their flank.
"Dear commadore let us destroy these pirates once and for all!!" "And they are on land yes?" "Yes commadore!" "Then send around 30 boats with 9 men each straight for a charge in our tight easily dirtied pantaloons on the boiling hot itchy sand right into their defenses!" "Sir i dont think...." "C'mon chaaaarge men!" "Sir if we could just go around then we'd save 60% more men mayb__" "ATTAAACK!!" "Sir i know these are infantry but lot's of these men were made for naval com__" "TALLY HOOOOOO!"
Actually muskets were surprisingly accurate at that range, it's just the training of the troops was poor for accuracy. In the hands of someone actually trained in accurate fire, or experienced enough, they would hit their target at that distance. We could probably assume they have a fair bit of shooting practice and don't adhere to the line fire of infantry of the day, which actually made them quite deadly opponents as they fought like skirmishers, or modern day troops almost.
No, they were not accurate, but they aren't as inaccurate as popular belief would have it. Most of the inaccuracy was down to three things, firing far beyond effective range, the lack of training for accuracy for soldiers as they drilled for line fire, not accuracy, and the fog of war that often occured after several volleys had been fired.
How it would really happen *Ships keep up prolonged bombardment. *Marines board boats on larboard side (starboard was firing) *Marines land a mile up the beach, form, and flank the pirates *Ships keep firing until the Marines can close
I'll address why they didn't further utilize the ships' cannons after the soldiers went ashore. Simply put: it was an unnecessary risk. Artillery support of any kind from any source requires careful coordination and even more so constant communication. I may be misremembering this, but in 1715 rifled barrels for cannons weren't a thing yet. It was difficult enough to do it with a small arm, but the point is smoothbore barrels aren't that accurate once their target is at a certain distance. The ships' gunners may be aiming for the pirates' fortifications, but they could end up hitting their own troops instead, and one accidental volley could cause way more casualties in one go than a bunch of cornered pirates. The infantry commanders would've only coordinated with the ships' officers about where to bombard the enemy, and to cease once their infantry were ashore. Next bit: the bayonet charge theory. Yeah, that worked a number of times on the militia and less-disciplined Continentals during the American Revolution. Here's the reason: most colonials were not formally trained in hand to hand combat. The veterans who participated in the French & Indian War (if you're across the pond then I think you refer to it as the Seven Years War) would've learned from experience some hand to hand combat, but not all militia or Continentals were veterans. Pirates as a whole however would've had lots of experience with effective, and I use that word deliberately, hand to hand combat. Boarding an enemy ship is always by far the most dangerous action a crew can take, and in the case of pirates if they want to live then they need to fight to win, and they won't play by any rules that could compromise their win. They know they will die if they lose; so they will use any means to win. Sun Tzu made quite a good point about that in his Art of War.
About the mortar: It's about tracetories! Those ships' cannons give direct fire while the mortars give indirect fire better suited to fight entrenched infantry.
The smaller ship in the background is neither a sloop (which had only a single mast) nor a frigate (which had square rigging and at least three masts), it is probably a brig or a brigantine.
In the future, whatever prevailing power will make a movie set during WW2, having american soldiers carrying m1 garands outfitted with acogs, and general patton will roll in on an m1 abrams supported by apache helicopters. Someone will cry for historical accuracy, and the producers will say it's within the margin of error, give or take 50 to 100 years. The film will also roll opening credits with 'Based on a true story.'
Hahaha
Alot of classic ww2 movies used Patton and other cold war era tanks. Kelly's heroes used a car with painted boxes
Christoper Cardona Kelly’s hero’s is a great movie though
@@kipter
Considering that was due to the lack of actual equipment than going “ahh screw it” that’s forgivable.
@@kipter well, given that kelley's heroes was a historical comedy, and, i think, a satire to boot, i think we can ignore the innaccuracies. The movie Pearl Harbor, on the other hand...
"Sir, should we land slightly to the left"?
"That would be most unsportsmanlike, Jenkins! Look at all the trouble they've gone through!"
pretty much how Gallipoli went down
hahaha
Pretty much how the American landing in Normandy in 1944 went down as well. The landing craft opened their doors right in front of the German MG's.
@@Joisey11 There were mgs along the entire coastline
@@Joisey11 only on Utah beach, which is only one of five landing sites and what is mainly depicted in movies. The other beaches were far more tame and in some cases there were barely any defenses left after bombardment.
I just realized what the British in this movie remind me of... the AI from Empire Total War
"Sir there is a cannon battery in front of us and they are loading grapeshot!"
"Form a line right in front of the cannons and volley fire them!"
"....what?!"
Sol Invictus gotta get darthmod
''Sir they've formed square formation''
''Ahh, very good, cavalry charge that square''
you win the internet.
Enemy cavalry is closing toward our cannons!
Send the pikemen that were guarding it to chase the cavalry way too far away from the cannons, leaving the cannons exposed! The cavalry will die before they reach the cannons!
Sir...
Don't question your superiors!
I didn't like the semi circle charge my troops did against the enemy in total war sometimes. Your getting shot stop showing off and close in.
I swear Saving Private Ryan has caused more problems for historical accuracy in film/television since 1998 all because everyone and their brother wants every battle to be Omaha beach.
From the Battle of Osgiliath in LOTR to Robin Hood.
It was one of the best beach landing scenes, so much so everyone tried to copy it no matter how unfitting
There are no historical acurate movies regarding that esp not Ryan. There are very few war movies I consider realistic and all are from Europe and painful to watch. The best impression about a landing imo is the documentary "war in the pacific in colour" Battle for Tarawa etc. Disturbing but you get an impression. As soon as a hero story is told forget it.
Everything sci-fi since Star Wars tried to copy that.
@OneGxxdSpliff Thats because yanks are soft..gung ho to begin with ..but afterwards..
The Russel Crowe Robin Hood beach landing is painfully hilarious.
If you hadn't said that, I wouldn't have looked it up. I blame you for this pain.
yes, that was very silly. the landing craft were from "The Flintstones."
lol. pretty sure they stole those boats from Lord of the Rings
To be fair, if you actually followed the plot a little, aside from the "Medieval Landingcraft" (literally Higgans boats, because fuck history), That is how a landing likely would have looked had an army been caught unaware.
According to the plot, the French on the beach where not expecting to be attacked while they where offloading, due to the Traitorious Duke, who was supposed to be distracting the king with raiding up North, allowing the landings to go unopposed.
That is also why dispite a "Fleet" of ships and soldiers still waiting to disembark, the French just left their first group on the beach, because an opposed landing would have been disasterious for them.
Bob Butts I don't remember boats I LOTR but it's been awhile
I was asking, "Why not flank them?" from the very first moment.
Hey diddle diddle, right up the middle!
Hey diddle dee, kill as many of our soldiers as physically possible to make it look cool! Wee!
Possibly because Pirates having done few amphibious assaults themselves have picked the best place for such action? the only plausible reason that come to my mind, is that disembarking elsewhere was either imposible or highly impractical
MichalSoukup1995 yeah in the show they said something like that
then it would make sense, you you can face the enemy at a choke pint you do just that.
Pirate crewman: Hey Cap'n, uh... there is jungle about 20 yards behind us. Why don't we walk back there and take cover. Then we can shoot as they close in, the cannons won't be able to target us effectively, and the redcoats will be forced to close in, under fire, to close range. And hey, we are pirates! Close in fighting is our specialty! Good plan eh cap'n?
Pirate Captain: ARRRRR!!! SCALYWAG! ARRRR!
Crewman: Right. So I guess we're dragging the wood over here then. Great.
They could use guerilla warfare in the forest
@@tombkings6279 They do. That's the point of that scene. The pirate leader (a former British officer) is gambling everything that the Brits get cocky and walk into the woods after seeing the pirates break. He knows that an enemy commander (and former pirate) will expect something like that, so the episode has a whole plotline dedicated to convicing both the Brits and the pardoned pirates to take the bait and assault the forest fortification.
So they can fight in close range.
Great plan, cap'n!
That's why they did it xD
@Sovereign They do proceed to the pirate base. That's the point of the episode. That's what they commit to doing and they get ambushed by the main pirate+slave force in the woods and are slaughtered, as was the plan. That's exactly why the pirates "break" so easily in this scene - to goad the Brits into doing exactly that. The entire island is desolate and hard to attack under time constraint (which the British are in the show, that's a plot point and the reason they even attempt this assault in the first place other than just arrogant cockiness), and it has been fortified by marooned slaves for years. They lose because they attempt to do exactly what you're saying, and what the pirates expect them to do. In fact, Benjamin Hornigold (who in the show has allied with Woodes Rogers at this point) specifically warns the British *not* to attack the enemy camp, because it might be... exactly what it is, a set up. But they are convinced due to other factors, proceed to attack, and end up losing. I'd say, given how many people here come up with the same plan as the Brits, that this idea is not actually that far off, since it seems to be widely agreed upon to be the right move.
@@Dhomden all the people shitting on this scene haven't seen the show
@@Dhomden Whilst I don't doubt there was a time constraint, could you tell me about said time constraint, how it happened and how it would affect the Brits had they not just bombarded the pirates into oblivion?
"The British were trying to carry some crates on shore, for some ungodly reason."
I love the way he puts things 🤣
he is British military version of Report of the week they are 2 of the moat interesting folks on youtube for sure
What, no fully automatic Ferguson rifles?!
No puckle guns firing like a gatling?
How can those muskets fire only one shot? Why didn't the soldiers take cover and set them to full-auto?
m.th-cam.com/video/aHF-AMA_cAw/w-d-xo.html
Ferguson breach loading rifle, you load from the back instead of up front, much higher rate of fire almost 7 rounds a minute for some people, was used during revolutionary war and as this is set in 1815 I believe they should have some, at the time 7 rounds per a minute was very fast. Not full auto by a long shot but to someone on the receiving end of that rate of fire it would feel like it, 100 men all firing that fast would be suppressing your enemy fast.
P.S. Calm down, Forgotten Weapons. Good job listening.
Dean Keys I have recreational McNuke if u look at my property
I am not expert, but I knew that this amphibious assault was garbage, only to make the British army look bad as always and make the pirates, the underdogs look good since this is an American show. And I am American by the way.
Indeed, we have far too many portrayals of pirates as protagonist these days, rather than the Navy representing the forces of good.
Brandon F. Well the British navy absolutely were the bad guys, the morality of the pirates depends pirate crew to pirate crew but the British navy absolutely were the "bad" guys
By the definition of the word, no pirate can ever be the good guy. Unless you mean in the context of this television show that is, in which case it's all up to the strange and seemingly history-devoid narrative.
Brandon F. Well if said pirates let's say only raid the East India trading company then they certainly can be the good guys. Though I admit it is shady I more meant good in the sense of how they are too their own people and those they dealt with. In that era most everyone was guilty of something terrible, always some pirates were Democratic and even honest depending
Brandon F. The British navy absolutely had no redeeming qualities they were imperialistic, kidnapped people from docks and forced them to enlist, treated their men like garbage, etc. Pirates could be better than the British navy....because it's kinda hard to be worse than the British navy in that era
It's amazing how the British dominated land and sea for a thousand years and yet nearly every movie with the British in it they seem to be totally inept in battles no matter where they are. On the opposite side of the coin the US forces never seem to do anything wrong in movies and are able to mount expert attacks and counter attacks with the fewest team possible.
Hahaha couldn't not have said it better👍👍
For a thousand years? Really? The British didn't even pose a serious threat till the 18 century. Even then the French dominated land and before that the Spanish dominated both land and sea.
🧐
I think the battle of Trafalgar was a decisive example of Britain's sea power over France and Spain
@@biohita you really need to check you're history mate the British constantly beat the French both on sea and land all over the world and as for the Spanish things didn't go well from them at sea from the armada to Francis drake then trafalgar and on land they very rarely beat the British and then ended close allies against napoleon
Jeez, the amount of "muh show don't be so picky" in the comments.
He's doing the history buff equivalent of Mythbusters. Not out of hatred.
That's fair enough, just seems to me you'd loose all ability to enjoy television with this "must be historically accurate" mind set, since most movies/shows go for a more cinematic route.
Have you heard or watched Cinema Sins? I recommend looking them up. This is basically what it would be like if historians made Cinema Sins.
Nick the History Buff Except this actually has a point.
When I criticize something so openly on youtube, I at least have the courtesy of watching said show, or at least the whole episode.
@@Mieqo I find it hard to believe that there could be context in the show that makes this realistic. Did, perhaps, the officers all tie one on the night before the landing, so they weren't thinking properly? Or were they all simultaneous victims of major head trauma? And were they transporting a cargo of boats for the East India Company or something, thus explaining the amazing number of them available to land the men?
I submit that to analyze the tactics of this particular landing, one doesn't need to watch anything but how the landing is portrayed in that scene.
To make the good side seem clever you either need clever writers or a completely stupid bad guy.
Unfortunately the British have become the Imperial Stormtroopers (blasters not Stoß) of history.
Edit: jeeez guys I was talking about Star Wars Stormtroopers..
Indeed!
It's sad really, we are either incompetent fools or cunning evil bastards.our empire will only be remembered for it's wrong doing. and the only one at that.
lanz0r4techwin and a great way of minimising casualties from bouncing cannonballs.
David Whitehead
Well the Nazis did some good things (stopped animal testing, created an adorable car for the comman man, took Germany out of a major recession, etc), but that doesn't right their wrongs, does it. Fuck the british empire, and every empire really. Death to monarchs.
If you care to take your head out of the imperial dark ass, and read historic books from OTHER sources and nations OTHER than anglofile publishers, then you would OF COURSE find a much LESS glamourous or glorifying study of the British eMPIRE and their wrongdoings.
Power corrupts.... always been, never changes. Never make the mistake that the english were some sort of benign god given "race" or "class" of good people...
They also would have avoided landing on the beach that was covered by the defensive position, rather they would have been dropped off a few miles away on a safe place and marched to outflank or surround the pirates.
Dean Keys lets just say that we can see that there is nothing after the defended line
Let's just say that it makes better drama to attack a fortified position from the front. :-)
We have to ignore the fact that no commander in his right mind would have done such a thing it being the hardest course and apart from being just what the defenders would have wanted, it also allowed for an easy retreat.
It's a small island, maybe that's the only beach suitable for landing?
Yes but there wouldnt be a series
@@Oberstgreup they scaled the heights at Quebec (which I know was 45ish years later, but they had rope and ladders by 1712), so other than for sake of plot, there is no reason why they couldn't have landed literally anywhere. Even in modern warfare, no commander in their right mind orders an opposed landing (including the senseless big one in France in 1945... change my mind), let alone in the era of muskets and tight formations of troops with drums and flags as the only means of communication. Edit: Adam How, you are correct, it was in 1944, my mistake.
'Three paces forwards' = 'get your asses between me and the bullets'
Well the thing with historical accuracy is, that most of the time it doesnt look good on camera
Mr Duke Silver A heavy bombardment from heavy guns followed by a bayonet charge wouldn't look good on camera?
It would look cool as shit and cement the unwielding strength of the British Empire.
Based on what exactly? I'm not sure I can say I've ever seen it. >_>
but then how would my "muh heroic pirates" can surive againt the "tyrannic british "
Reof heroic rapists and murderers and thieves
I want a movie were they portray the Royal Navy in Pirate hunting
Am not even mounting an amphibious assault? why the hell am i here?
Sir Miles just incase you need to defend the motherland
Joe;
Like Jekyll Island, circa 1910?
Cuba, now? ;)
This:
th-cam.com/video/u0_Eo2Y770Y/w-d-xo.html
I totally agree with your assessment of the attackers exchanging fire for an extended period prior to engaging in a bayonet assault, A British commanders view of an assault I think is best summed up by General (later Field Marshal) Sir Hugh Gough's comment during one of his battle's in India in the 1840's. On being told that the artillery was running out of ammunition (during the initial bombardment) he opined, "Thank God, now we can be at them with the bayonet!".
Interesting quote! I hadn't heard of Gough until now.
@@BrandonF Gough was an excellent general, able to defeat one of the finest armies in Asia with the Anglo-Indian EIC army.
Excellent video. The one thing I want to bring up is that, traditionally, off-shore bombardments were conducted before friendly forces ever touched land. A ship firing on shores with friendly forces in close proximity with enemies could very well result in a blue on blue situation. Establishing a beach head and fire superiority with a mortar battery would not be so far fetched, as indirect fire would be perfect for use against a fortified position
Within musket range?
Or just, you know, blast their fortifications with cannons that can hit ships from hundreds of meters away and not even bother landing troops, which is probably what would have happened to such an insignificant threat
@@Batchall_Acceptedthat wasn't possible in the context of the show. The goal here isn't to annihilate the pirates, it's to capture some of them alive because they have buried a treasure chest that the brits need to get. Blasting them to bits would mean failure because the treasure chest would be lost.
Black Sails is a beautiful show and Toby Stephens is an amazing Captain Flint.
He was born for that role!
I can kind of understand bringing Mortars to shore, I guess the idea is prevent the possibility of the British ships firing on their own men. And given how hilariously inept the ships crews seem to be...
Incompetency of those ships gunners may be a valid point!
Not to mention that even if the gunners weren't incompetent the ships guns fire on an almost flat trajectory. The infantry march up a rise before they form line, meaning that they'd probably be about level with where shots from the lower gun decks would be passing.
The mortars on shore are somewhat understandable (please see the end for what I mean by "somewhat"); the last thing you wanted was those heavy shipboard guns firing over the heads of friendly troops, especially in light of the (aforementioned) flat trajectory and also their relative lack of accuracy at the range they were firing at. Given their drafts, the ships (I agree they appear to be third rates, possibly fourth rates) would need to remain some distance offshore. At that range many would question the wisdom of firing on a target so large as an enemy ship; against a very low target like those field works the gunners would probably have some trouble hitting their targets. Also, given how close the lines are (close enough for musketry), attempting to hit the enemy with shipboard guns would be dangerous; at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, a large number of British casualties were the result of British guns firing over their own troops heads, and those were field pieces - imagine the effects of a 32-pounder naval gun.
So the deployment of guns ashore makes sense; indeed, most landings of the time brought small pieces ashore (in later years some guns were designed for this role, most notably the Dahlgren boat guns). What does not make sense is the decision to use mortars. 3- or 6-pounder guns would make more sense, or even 12-pounders. Why mortars?
As to the attempt to make it look like Saving Private Ryan, there were opposed beach landings during the 18th Century which resembled Saving Private Ryan; perhaps the most notable was Wolfe's (failed) attempt to land troops for the siege against Quebec at the Battle of the Beaufort Shore. Contemporary accounts of the battle paint a picture reminiscent of the Omaha Beach scene in SPR.
On a final note, I will take exception to your statement that fixing bayonets and pushing forward will do good, particularly your use of Bunker Hill as an example. You mention that it was on the third assault that the British overran Bunker Hill. Yes, the third bayonet charge at Bunker Hill succeeded - because we ran out of ammo. Both British and American sources at the time, and today, tend to agree that had we had enough ammunition the works on Bunker Hill would have held. They could have been flanked, but the only reason the third attempt succeeded was a lack of ammunition with which to repel it. The Bunker Hill position was formidable: the hill steep, the trenches deep, and it was held by determined men. A simple bayonet charge cannot take such a position on its own; if you don't believe me, ask George Pickett of Ambrose Burnside.
Lateral ship guns are not meant to attack land targets, so they use bomb ships instead, or disembarked mortars.
th-cam.com/video/HJQY3erNShE/w-d-xo.html
Still couldn't they possibly fire before landing?
If I'm not wrong the British favored the bayonet and were feared for their skill with it why not charge at the Pirates and route them lol
Quite! The bayonet was among the most fearsome weapons of the day, and certainly among the most deadly.
Well in that case the pragmatic pirates just route them anyway for teevee.
couple of points here one the bayonet at the time would proably have been of the kind that was pushed down the barrel of the musket - nice and simple but it disabled your musket as a fire arm. The British ability with the bayonet came later! Wer are still pretty good with the things! the other thing that must be remembered was that pirates did not go to the pirate recruiting office to join up - they mostly were British (and anybody else's) deserters. Where do you think the American professional soldier came from during the war of Independance? On that point remember that when a British Regiment went out to the colonies they invariably stayed there, retiring and being given land on retirement, with this in mind those soldiers married amongst the locals and thus in fact became locals! Rather short sighted!!
Brandon F. Espechly since muscutes take more then a miniut to reload
+commander demicleas Not so long. Closer to 20 seconds on average.
-when you could literally land anywhere else on the beach but you decide to land in the one area that is actually fortified.
Black Sails might not be the most realistic show out there in terms historical correctness, but it sure is one of the best shows inspired by history. The blend of actual real life pirates like Jack Rackham and Blackbeard with the fictional material of Treasure Island with Flint and John Silver works very good, and while the show starts somewhat slow with the first season, from the second season onward, it is one of the best tv shows i have ever seen.
I would put it up there at the same level as The Wire (which arguably went on one season too long) and Deadwood (which got cut off without a coherent ending.)
Jack Rackham was the single most incompetent yet overrated pirate in history
Also, make sure you land directly in front of the fortification to give your enemy the maximum advantage.
You land one thick unit right in front of them and then one on each side of ther flanks to flank and encircle them.
I'd still recommend Black Sails. It's a really fun show. I really like how the show gets rid of the romantic notions of 18th century piracy and portrays the main characters more as gangsters. I'd also recommend Peter Linebaugh's book "The Many Headed Hydra" if you're looking for a good book on 18th century piracy.
You may have missed the point of the show. They are sort of depicted, in a hard light, as gangsters, but ultimately the main characters represent a kind of advocacy for human rights. Mostly in its depiction of various transgressive romances, but certain characters, like Eleanor represent other causes like women's rights. So the show arguably romantacizes them in certain respects. It is really all in on this stuff, I'm kind of shocked they didn't find room for Mark Read.
I came to say the same thing, this was an excellent series just from an emotional stand point even if it’s not completely accurate.
I love how cannons are always pretty much useless in these films/shows
Ye
Great series, appeals to my childhood obsession with authentic history. The Brits had troop transport ships that would have likely been a big part of this kind of mission, and those transports would have their own boats. I was going to point out their shallow draft landing craft type flatboats that were used at Kipps bay, but I found out these were invented later, mostly because of the shortcomings of using conventional longboats. So one point of this film is that the boats are appropriate.
ohhh boi Every Turkish film about Gallipoli SPR omaha beach scene copy
I don't even want to begin imagining it...
cemo1999 Oh god...
Robin Hood from 2010 has an 1200 AD Omaha beach landing, complete with Higgins boats and all!
Don't remind me...
I say this: Never another Gallipoli. Seriously. Not ANOTHER ONE!
A lot of this can be accounted for in-universe. You could have an incompetent OC who bought his position, and dithers rather than ordering a bayonet charge. The Americas were notorious as the dumping ground for the worst units of the British army (good units were needed for service in Europe and India), which might explain the lack of discipline and precision, and the decision to assault the beach rather than bombard it could be put down to army/navy rivalry. This all assumes that the men on the beech are part of the British army rather than Royal Marines of course, which I think is reasonable given the hats and colours. Don't ask me why they're all wearing French Napoleonic briquets rather than hangers though.
lancer D I'm new to this channel. Why did the British use the least skilled units in the Americas than anywhere else? Did they simply see the Americas as less valuable than their other colonies?
The British often saw colonial service as a way to get unwanted or unpopular officers or difficult units out of sight and out of mind. A good example is those sent for service in the Australian colonies who were so bad, they became known as the "rum corps". Colonial service was a bit of a dead-end career-wise unless war broke out (one of the reasons certain officers defected to the continental army- better career prospects!). In relatively peaceful places like the Americas most of the government forces acted as garrisons or militia, with many soldiers being recruited from the local population. The quality of training between regiments was not yet standardised, so it also varied enormously, often deteriorating if skills were not kept up through active service. All of this meant that colonial forces were often not regarded particularly highly. You did see good units serving in the Americas, and the other colonies, but this was generally only after war broke out. Britain had an enormous empire, so quality troops were in high demand and the best regiments often acted as a kind of fire brigade, being sent to hot spots around the Empire as and when needed.
You're right in saying the British in the Americas were the bottom of the barrel, but the War of 1812 shows that even then they could still be effective.
QuakeRiley that was a war so they sent actual British troops and not just troublesome ones
Yes, many of them veterans of the peninsular war too.
"we need a defendable position against the enemy" *ignore the tree line and set up on an open beach*
As a history student from the Netherlands you have my respect for your obsessive correction of this scene. I myself often get peeved about similar ahistorical displays in films depicting combat in antiquity, although I opt to communicate my gripes to the closest person around on the spot.
When I was looking the show, British landed coz the coast was shallow and their ships could not effectively come to range, (out of 300 cannons you see only few shots hit barely), so they land at only part of the island which (supposedly) is fit for embarking the troops on the shore. Additionally they were in the rush, they had to take Pirates their gold before Spanish ships show up. Only thing I could not find the way to justify is them forming the line, instead of charging (or flanking) pirate position.
Yea i don't think he watched it, since the actual ships and how many cannons they had where discuses in an episode as wel. although not accurate for there budget the show did a good job of showing fun battle scenes
Barely in range is still in rage. Moreover, sailing ships are not motor ships, they can take days to arrive in one location, which in that time it was considered "fast".They could have easily sieged the position until the pirates broke or use bayonets if they were truly pressed for time. I have to agree with his critique because I thought the same thing when I saw that episode. Everything felt like I was watching Saving Private Ryan, but with muskets.
Exactly. If your going to criticize the actions taken you have to have the full understanding of the reasons for said actions. It’s not just them attacking random pirates because. There’s reasons for their rush and understanding the characters and actions in said universe is needed to fully discuss it. If he doesn’t watch the show or the episode he doesn’t have the context to understand what’s going on and have the full picture
I agree with you
So lesson of the day, charge the enemy when doing a naval assault.
And please a part 2 good sir
I hope you remember this one, it will come in handy some day I'm sure.
No. I felt that the lesson of the day was, stay on your god damn ship and work on gunnery practice.
Anyone who's heard the Star Spangled Banner knows that's how the British did amphibious assaults. They sit there on their ship and shoot for a few days or occasionally land elsewhere to mount a normal land assault from behind while their ships distract the enemy with sheer firepower.
No the lesson is to spam artillery and send in the ground troops to search and kill any survivors
Jesus, your accent is all over the place. One minute it's american and the next minute it's all "'Ello Guvna"
It’s just an American accent with non rotary Rs. It’s actually more common then you would think, as a lot of people who have trouble with stumbling over words find it easier to speak clearly with non rotary Rs, and so adopt it for convenience.
@@dantecaputo2629 I've never met an American who talks like him. It sounds like he keep trying to sound British and then reverting back to talking normally periodically. He doesn't even do it consistently. One moment he says "wheah" instead of "where", the next moment he clearly pronounces "bomBARding".
@@headphonic8 I think it's just a Midwestern accent. I'm not too familiar with where it would be.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 It’s not Midwestern.
@@danielroberts1846 That's the only thing I can think of. I'm almost reminded of Mid-Atlantic (you know the old timey 20s-50s radio broadcaster accent).
Never seen the show or read the book BUT qualified to give an honest, educated and comprehensive commentary upon the subject matter. That's ballsy my friend.
shut up
That seems to be a lot of his videos.
Were the boats for abandoning ship? Could they hold all the crew?
No, there's no way that an entire ships crew could fit on board its own boats. Even on civilian/merchant vessels, the legal standard of ensuring everyone has a place in case the ship goes down is a modern development. Ship's boats were used for a variety of purposes, such as deploying landing parties, ferrying officers between vessels, conveying supplies (food, ammunition, water, materials), and things like that.
Brandon F. Ah i see, well the titanic is an example of not enough lifeboats, due to Ismay and laws
The Titanic was actually a turning point, it was that tragedy that prompted regulations be changed so there would be enough lifeboats for all the passengers and crew on a ship
In fact, it's a common misconception that Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats for everybody because they were overconfident in the ship, actually the opposite was true, they actually had More lifeboats than was legally required.
Before the tragedy of 1912, the purpose of boats on a ship was not to save people if it sank, the purpose was to transport people from a sinking ship, to a rescue ship, they would ferry people from one to the other, with the crew and captain being the last to leave the ship.
But after the Titanic sank, it became apparent that even in the veritable freeway that was the North Atlantic, survivors of sunken vessels could be stranded for hours before rescue arrived.
It was even worse in the 18th century, back then most ships only had three or four small rafts for about 400 people, if a ship sank the crew were expected to drown, or float with the debris, the actual purpose of the dinghies was for a more practical reason, they were intended to transport the crew or landing parties to shore, boarding ships, or even for whaling.
The boats were mainly used to transfer officer between ships or land, also for boarding parties. Sometimes two of the boats were used to tow the mothership when there was no wind but that was the exception
The Arctic Gamer it had 16 normal and 4 collapsibles, which as you say was over legal requirement, was originally meant to have 64 i think.
i'm sure someone has commented this already, that episode, the fleet specifically ventures out with amphibious assault in mind, and If I remember correctly it was at least 5 ships, at most 7, several ships were 48 gun, some were 20, a few in between. the pirate ploy was to trick them into attacking the island, which was laden with traps and hidden forces. I know it isn't the most accurate, but I highly recommend Black Sails. it is fantastic!
I must say, as tactically inept the British seem in this scene this show is fantastic. The acting is fantastic, the writing is fantastic the character development is fantastic. Don't let it put you off the show. But I must agree with Brandon on this one.
Just seen this channel and I am a big fan of black sails, this channel is very very interesting.
In the siege of San Juan (Puerto Rico) 1797, the british general, General Abercrombie, decided land in the night of 17-18 of April. He had about 3,900 soldiers, about a thousand are German Chasseurs and Fusiliers. While he had a fleet around 60 ships (most transport ships) including the 100-gun HMS Prince of Wales, he only could get 3 sloops near the chosen beach (today known as the Balneaeio de Carolina), because of the reef. The beach was defended by 300 Colonial Spanish regulars (Fijo de Puerto Rico), and were divided in three groups of 100 men. First group was at the western part of the beach at a point, the second one at the middle part of the beach (both groups had either 1 or 2 cannons), the third group was a the most eastern most part of the beach, next to a mouth of a lagoon (no cannon). They were entrenched but i dont know to what extent, they had less than a day to prepare. Abercrombie wasnt sure if there were defenders in the beach (a small tropical beach with thick vegetation, would be easy to hide. Also, about 1,000 feet from the beach to inland was a big lagoon, so its a small land corridor. Anyway the attack started with 4 boats landing at the positions of the third group of defenders. These boats would most likely have Lowenstein Fusiliers and Chasseurs (german mercenaries), since they have the most dead men (11) and the most wounded men (45) among the regiments that participated (the 14th, 42nd, 53rd, 60th, and the 87th) (they would also have most missing men too, 110), and the Spanish accounts claim that they cut down many men on that attack. Apparently there was a Staff Officer there too. It was nighttime. When these men stepped on the beach, the defenders of that area opened fire, and the defensing cannons followed. Those who survived either retreated in their boats or just faked their deaths. The Officer was wounded. So now, the sloops know the Spanish positions and concentrated their fire on the third group, followed by a second attack of the whole army (3,000). Spaniards knew they had the retreat and reform. They left some of their cannons. The Spanish lost 2 men and had 1 wounded. The British followed them for 5 miles until they saw that the Spanish were leading them to a fortified line of San Juan with many cannons. The British then retreated to secure the beach. Some British soldiers spotted Spanish engineers placing a battery near their beach. Two columns approach the unfinished battery, but the Spanish managed to escape with some gunboats on the nearby channel. The Spanish sent a small force of 50 infantry and 20 calvary to counter attack. They managed to reach the beach and either spike or retrieve their cannons. But the British reorganized and drove the Spanish away again. This time the Spanish stayed in San Juan and the cut the bridge connecting San Juan with the mainland. British sieged San Juan until the 1 of May of 1797. The British retreated, leaving their siege batteries. They entrenched marines in the beach in case the Spanish attacked the reembarking army.
Just wanted to see anyone’s opinion on this strategy.
Why can't we have a TV show about that?
a chasseur is a rider
Black Sails is an imagined prequel to a very famous story. Whilst being fictional, it has a fairly true back story. Without watching it, you can have no frame of reference to the action taking place in this scene.
"Sir, I see miles of unopposed beaches. Shall we land to the East?" "No, we will go directly towards their small area of fortifications and smash them"
The Black Sails is a good series but I agree, this scene was pretty stupid
Are you a professional military to judge it?
@@Arch757 dude
When in context this scene makes a lot more sense.
The reason the British were forced to do an amphibious landing was because of a few extenuating circumstances explained in the show:
- The island in question was chosen as a home to escaped slaves not so much because it was defendable but moreso because it was well hidden and difficult to land on. The beach we see is the only suitable landing ground for troops and supplies, the rest of the coastline is comprised of cliffs
-The reason the British immediately went for an amphibious assault was because they were on an incredibly short timetable. The pirates had in their possession a massive amount of stolen Spanish gold from a defeated Treasure ship, equal to about six million pounds. Originally the British had captured it and the Spanish were holding them responsible on returning it before it was stolen again (in the form of easily transportable black pearls). The Spanish gave Woodes Rodgers (yes the historical figure, yes I know this is a fantasy plot) two weeks to return the gold's value before coming to burn New Providence to the ground. At the time of the assault, the deadline for the return of this cache was in four days time, three of which would be needed to sail back to rendezvous with the Spanish envoys. I think it is understandable with pushing immediately onto the only available beach with such a short amount of time to recover the goods they need. I would go into more detail but that would mean explaining the plot of three seasons of a TV show and I'd just would rather not for a TH-cam comment that will likely just be ignored.
-In regards to the pirates, they purposefully made the beach defenses look like crap because they wanted the British to underestimate them before drawing their forces back into the jungles where they had laid traps and ambushes. The whole battle on the beach was a ploy by the pirates to draw the British in.
-On the mortars: they were certainly not necessary on the beach. But the real reason they were brought to shore was because the British were aware of the slave settlement hidden in the jungle and they knew that it had walls and defenses in place. The mortars were brought for exactly the reason you suggested: for the upcoming siege on the settlement.
Aside from historical fallacies in uniform and weaponry, I have nothing to say in their defense because they are indeed wrong, but for the sake of the story I think they can be ignored. Story-line wise and why they did what they did with the assault does indeed make sense though when you take the circumstances from the show into account.
Hope this helps :)
Justin Dicke And why would the british, (whom often privateered from and had just come out of a 13 year long war with the spanish) surrender such a huge quantity of either privateered or captured valuable goods to their enemies even if they threaten them?
Okay yeah that part of the story doesn’t make sense but when you take that part as true the context of this one scene does make sense and everything else they’re doing
TY for filling in the details. It allvvays seems that movies screvv up alot because they are only concrned vvith vvhat looks good on camera so logic & historical accuracey usually get tossed out the vvindovv in favor of a scene vvith a dramatic explosion.
Justin Dicke a
Bringing in the mortars during the beech assault still makes no sense though they had the shipboard guns for that, would have made more sense to bring only what you need in order to secure the beachhead to start with. Then once you have the beach secure you can proceed to ferry any additional supplies and equipment.
I also appreciate how a piece of *driftwood* about 23 mil thick can stop a musket ball weighing about an ounce (Imperial measurement nonsense) with about 130 grains of black powder behind it.
Lands on dead grounds
Charge into enemy sight instead of cutting around
Bravery 100
Tactic 0
Casualty rate 100
Some background info from someone who watched Black Sails:
The ships were at the absolute maximum range as the bay area shallowed out and they could not approach any closer, putting them at an inefficient spot for a sustained bombardment. The pirate captain, Flint, was an ex British naval officer who knew their tactics well.
The entire beach defence line was intended to collapse in short order and lure the British force into the jungle where the real fight would occur. Overconfidence and underestimating the resolve of the combined pirate and escaped / liberated slave forces played a large part in them taking the bait after an "easy win" on the beach.
The beach in question was in fact the only viable landing point on the island with no other approach possible for a landing. Sheer cliffs dropping almost directly into the sea. Plus, the pirates needed the British to take their challenge and move inland from there anyway.
Later on in the episode, a series of ambushes and traps deep in the jungle resulted in the complete and total defeat of British regulars.
That said, it IS a horrible, poorly executed mess of a fight but it was fun to watch this series nonetheless.
(It's basically a sort of "prequel" to Treasure Island with the emergence of Captain Long John Silver and his legendary treasure)
TH-cam has summoned me here at 1 am for a subject I'd never think about but am now interested in.
Love your videos! Historical inaccuracy is a real turn off when I watch something in a historical setting.
It is a brilliant show. I didnt like it when I 1st watched it many years ago (not historically correct enough for me at the time). I gave it another chance a few months ago and took it as it is, a fictional show (based on treasure island as a prequel to the book) with historical characters and events thrown in to make it feel more like reality and I was hooked. I couldn't stop watching episodes back to back. Well worth trying a few episodes, give it a good chance and keep an open mind. It is just a fictional, pirate action show after all.
And the best part is that black sails is still just about the most historically accurate pirate show.
A good number of your points are answered in the show via the situation both participants are in. A few examples: The royal navy fleet partaking in the attack consists of 6 ships of the line and 3 militia frigates, which explaines the large number of longboats. The mortars were brought, not for the beach fight, but because they (rightfully) excpected there to be a maroon camp in the jungle.
Now as much as I love the show, I cannot defend the poor organisation of the infantry.
And why the british didn't just bombared the beach... well plot armour, and I suppose you could blame the admiral who is an incredibly arrogant person, who underestimates his opponants to an extreme degree. In this case an opponant who used to be a promising royal navy captain, with now a burning hatred for the crown and nothing to loose.
It's worth mentioning that the pirate captain is deliberatly fighting in the open and sacrifing his men instead of hiding in the dence jungle, in order to lure the navy into the jungle by making it lool like they are in full retreat when they fall back.
All in all the british navy is always treated as an imance threat in the series. Look no further than the next season, the soldiers of the navy are tough and routhless and basically wins every battle. So I assure you that all in all the show dosen't represent them as the star wars stormtroopers.
The show is really good and by far the most interesting and least cliché pirate fiction out there, they incorporate real history and mix it with Treasure Island characters and plot points which evantually forms a prequal for the Treasure Island book.
I agree with everything here.
How do you know? You weren't on the frontlines unlike the soldiers in the video.
I absolutely love your love for historical accuracy. To the average person, none of this matters, but to people like you and me it's all that matters. Too many people are caught up with "Hollywood glamour". No one actually wants to research and read about true military tactics. This is why it's so hard to indulge in anything cinematic involving Warfare. When it comes to me, at least 75 per-cent of war movies are turned off within five minutes...
"Sir should we really stand on the beach? those ships have a lot of cannons."
"either you stand on this beach or i run you down do you understand."
"yes sir."
0:19 that was a really good crumple to the ground fall from the Brit holding the box
Were ships of the line able to carry out bombardments at such distance? Or will they more likely use a dedicated support ship such as a bomb ketch?
J.A.J. 522 they would be more than capable to bombard them
Everything Expert I see, thank you for the reply.
Bomb ketches were like mortars, they were used for sending explosive shells arcing over defensive walls rather than battering through them with solid shot. For a big fort with earthen ramparts faced with stone or brick it wasn't practical to batter through them, but the light works seen here would be blasted to splinters by the ships' cannons.
They would definitely be able to bombard them. I'm pretty sure those cannons could fire to a distance of 600 meters atleast.
Read some of the Wikipedia about the British siege of Manhattan/Brooklyn in the revolutionary war.. The British had 200+ ships and 32,000 soldiers.. They did a ton of ship to shore bombardment,, (and the batteries fired back, often to no effect/missing). One of the bombardments tore an American unit to pieces before flat bottom boats landed..
the British army was one of the absolute best in it’s day.. and was extremely experienced from wars with France and Spain at this point.
Thank you , I was going to do an amphibious landing in the 18th century until I saw your video
Not to mention the apparent use of the Brown Bess. Flintlock muskets were however in us from the 1660s and onwards. The muskets had a range of around 100 paces at the max. The British are seen at a distance of much further out than that.
As for artillery, you are correct, but it would be alright if the red coats had deployed galloper guns.
Also, with a landing beach that extends hundreds of yards in each direction direction, why would a amphibious force decide to land of the face of only that particular section of the beach is fortified? Why not hit the beach where there are no defenders or fortified?
I loved the part of the mortars cause when I saw that scene I was like, dont they ahve like sips, like really big ships with really nice cannons?, wouldnt like the captain go "heh those silly pirats are there sitting like ducks, lets blast them and go back home for tea"
Señor Don Filio nah , their range got nerfed
@@parabellum1488 I know I'm late but whatever. I think ships didn't shoot after landing because after accuracy they've shown so far they would decimate their own troops on the beach with minimal danger for pirates
First I've seen from your channel, looking forward to checking out the rest. Do you have any recommendations for 18th and early 19th combat being portrayed well in film or television?
While it certainly has its problems, the 1970 film _Waterloo_ is often regarded as a titan in the genre.
Simple solution:
1. If enemies are stupid enough to concentrate so close to the beach, bombard the hell out of them and keep them concentrated by landing some soldiers trained and equipped to resist the enemy fire rather than charging.
2. Spread men around and have them land at other areas where it's less defended (if at all). Give clear instructions so that they scattered troops can group and muster an organized invasion force. This will require some scouting prior to the battle. Make sure the formation happens relatively close as people could get lost if they meet up deep into the island.
3. All the assembled troops landed at other sites assemble and flank the fortification with max. surface area. Keep the bombardment going just before infantry charges. If warships have limited supplies, provide light fire and havoc just before the infantry advances.
This movie made something wrong. The are shooting too far away the rang of a musket is 500 yards past that you cant hit the broad side of i barn.
I would just like to say that Black Sails was a great series and I recommend it highly
Okay so I love this show so I'm gonna unapologetically defend it. 1. Those 2 gun deck ships are not man o wars. They would be frigates and the smaller ship is most likely a sloop. 2. The ships clearly didn't obliterate the defences by themselves because those guns are not that accurate when targeting a very thin line from a distance. Not only that but the pirate position is elevated slightly, prove able by the camera shot showing the soldiers only just appearing over the hill (so why soldiers are getting hit by the boats I don't know, that's inconsistent). This elevated position was also used in the real battle of Waterloo by Wellington to substantially reduce the effect of French artillery. Therefore to continue to bombard such a small position would be very costly on ammunition with not very much effect (the show accurately shows the distribution of cannon shot with the aerial shots). 3. The fleet is admittedly not large enough to field that many marines. 4. The rather rushed volleys serves two purposes. First is a cinematography decision to keep the pace of the battle going. Secondly is a military decision to try and volley fire into the fire into the pirates as fast as possible to try and pin them, reducing the rate of fire on themselves. 5. I have little problem with the use of mortars in the assault, at closer range they're more effective artillery at hitting them behind fortification (bar the shrapnel rounds which you correctly identified were ahead of invention). 6. A bayonet charge would've been desirable but mainly once the pirates started using their buried cannons as it would've made sense to cover ground ahead of the pirates trapped terrain. This also may have forced the pirates to retreat earlier assuming they didn't have a plan to stop the charge dead (the main plan for this battle was for the pirates to draw the British in the forest where the real trap was).
In summary the engagement is fun to watch, it is a cool battle, very good cinematography, I'd say with about 70% historically accurate. The main problem with this is continuity, not accuracy, but incontinuity is really difficult to manage in such large scale TV production
This is literally how the British fought the Chinese during the Opium Wars.
I might not use Bunker Hill as an example when talking about effective frontal assaults - given that 1/3 of the British force that attacked the Americans in that battle were killed or wounded, and this led the British to adopt more cautious tactics in the future. Furthermore, the British failed to repel the Americans in the overall Siege of Boston, and the British evacuated to Halifax early in 1776.
That doesn't invalidate your point that the commanders here may have been better off if they had ordered a charge once they landed their forces (or landed elsewhere along the beach and approached on a flank). However, I tend to view these sort of nonsensical tactics in films and TV as the failings of the officers in that show. Many officers in history have made simplistic and bad tactical decisions in battle. The British Army Officer corps in the 1710s was not exactly a brilliant meritocracy. The commander, who may have been a naval Commodore rather than a Army or Marine officer, probably just decided that a simple frontal attack made the most sense.
Alexander Kerensky 1715 is a bit to early for india
8:51 looks like a stuntman with his head up his arse to me.. He had his face awfully close to the blast and seems to realise it a little too late. Though the one on the right lighting the thing also seems surprised by the blast. So maybe that blast was somehow bigger/different than what they had expected and/or intended?
Regard the boats. They arrive in Nassau with 8 ships and take 5 ships for this 'mission' we'll call it, leaving the other 3 behind to defend. Say it's just 5x boats on each that's 25x boats and as this was pre-planned it would also be within the realms of plausibility that they may have taken an extra boat or two each from their 3 defending ships too, it's something that is very much doable.
I think the barricades withholding under such a large volume of fire from 5 ships would have been made a bit more believable in the defenders were in trenches and foxholes in conjunction with barricades. Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
The Battle of Bunker Hill except at least 60 years earlier and against a different enemy.
And if you had ships you could land on a different beach
*Ahem*
Land somewhere else, maybe? Use light infantry skirmishers to harry them and keep them busy while proper battle lines form - screen and skirmish. Occasionally use cannonshot from the ships so the pirates keep their heads down. Advance behind skirmish lines and prepare to charge when close enough.
So canonically there are 2 frigates of 60 guns, 1 frigate of 48 guns, a vessel of 30 guns, a vessel of 20 guns, a sloop of 18 guns, a sloop of 10 guns, and a privateer of 30 guns.
Given the number of ships and small boats, it would appear that between 400 and 500 men could be on that beach.
Hornblower, Ship of the Line, describes in great detail, how much damage one ship of the line can do, with shore bombardment
It's one of my favourites for that scene!
Thank you for a brilliant review. You have the most hilarious way off ripping the show apart.
Well, thank you!
Imagine a WW2 army, instead of using battleships and other ships for costal bombardament during a naval landing, bringing artilery and mortars ashore to bombard the enemy.
Now why didnt people who made this scene think that doing so a couple of centuries earlyer would also be deadly stupid.
This is more artistic liberty than anything else. The pirates are plucky individuals standing up to authority. The red coats are automatons following the starwars storm trooper tradition.
Wow excellent wit, taste and intellect my friend. Well done.
Isnt it a bit presumptuous to judge the entire show that you admit you havent watched based off the one scene?
Shipmate: sir...um they seem to have there flanks uncovered
Captain: SiR...uM ThEy SeEm tO hAvE tHeRe fLaNkS uNcOvErEd
Their*
The reason why the British bringing the mortars up to shore had something to do with the range of the cannons on the ship. If you looked back at the front part of the vid, you can see that sure.. The cannons on the ship did hit the pirate fortifications but like you said, out of may be 200 guns, only a few stray ones did hit the column of pirates while many landed waaay short of the pirate's position so if, like you said, the ships could be used as an "artillery piece" and decimate the pirate's stronghold on the beach, those poor Redcoats would be destroyed in a freak case of friendly fire as the cannon would not reliably hit the pirate lines but instead fall on the stricken Redcoats on the beach. Besides, guns that could reliably aim and shell accurate coordinates on land by ships only appeared a few years after the introduction of ironclad ships and shown great promises during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 between the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) and the Imperial Russian Navy where the Japanese shelled fortified Russian positions into a total flatland and in some regards the Beiyang Fleet of the Qing Dynasty also had such effective firepower when they fought against the French, English and Japanese during the Sino-French War, 2nd Opium War and the 1st Sino-Japanese War.
Congrats, apparently the algorithms smiled upon your video.
This is the kind of analysis I'm looking for. I'm afraid of starting Black Sails for the fear of historical cringe attacks.
Don't be. Most of this stuff is actually reasonable when you learn of the actual plan behind it. The rest of the stuff is really well made, despite some strange wardrobe choices here and there
Rule Britannia
lord snooty Not nationalism, patriotism.
lord snooty, traitors and pirate sympathizers should be hanged.
Patriotism is the love of your nation.
Nationalism is the love of your nation and the belief that it is superior to all others.
No. It's not the belief that your nation is superior to all others... :/
Count Asti i sure aint
British soldiers were professionals of their time and masters of the type of fighting done in that period
But then, we have this.
"Lets hide behind these piles of woodchips instead of using the treeline behind said woodchips to give us cover from artillery."
It's best not to over analyze Hollywood movies. And I agree with Reading through history. Pin them down with fire from the ships, land the troops a few hundred yards down the beach and attack their flank.
You can tall they are two deakers by the two cabin. In my opinion they land to early didn't fix bayonet the squadron of ships won't upon an enemy
Me and the boys recreating D-day in the 18th century
"Dear commadore let us destroy these pirates once and for all!!"
"And they are on land yes?"
"Yes commadore!"
"Then send around 30 boats with 9 men each straight for a charge in our tight easily dirtied pantaloons on the boiling hot itchy sand right into their defenses!"
"Sir i dont think...."
"C'mon chaaaarge men!"
"Sir if we could just go around then we'd save 60% more men mayb__"
"ATTAAACK!!"
"Sir i know these are infantry but lot's of these men were made for naval com__"
"TALLY HOOOOOO!"
The musket shots from the pirates were way too accurate especially for that range
Actually muskets were surprisingly accurate at that range, it's just the training of the troops was poor for accuracy. In the hands of someone actually trained in accurate fire, or experienced enough, they would hit their target at that distance.
We could probably assume they have a fair bit of shooting practice and don't adhere to the line fire of infantry of the day, which actually made them quite deadly opponents as they fought like skirmishers, or modern day troops almost.
Muskets were not accurate weapons.
allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/
No, they were not accurate, but they aren't as inaccurate as popular belief would have it. Most of the inaccuracy was down to three things, firing far beyond effective range, the lack of training for accuracy for soldiers as they drilled for line fire, not accuracy, and the fog of war that often occured after several volleys had been fired.
The Hound accurate because pirates using rifles.
The shots were fine, they didn't even kill that many from gunfire
Nope, Black Sails is a pirate soap opera, with lots of sex and betrayal, think Game of Thrones on a tropical island.
Wrong.
@The Crazy Cat Gentleman and sodomy?
Did it end as badly as Game of Thrones?
It had a perfect ending. The only other comparable ending that I've seen is (maybe) The Americans in terms of narrative satisfaction.
How it would really happen
*Ships keep up prolonged bombardment.
*Marines board boats on larboard side (starboard was firing)
*Marines land a mile up the beach, form, and flank the pirates
*Ships keep firing until the Marines can close
I'll address why they didn't further utilize the ships' cannons after the soldiers went ashore. Simply put: it was an unnecessary risk. Artillery support of any kind from any source requires careful coordination and even more so constant communication. I may be misremembering this, but in 1715 rifled barrels for cannons weren't a thing yet. It was difficult enough to do it with a small arm, but the point is smoothbore barrels aren't that accurate once their target is at a certain distance. The ships' gunners may be aiming for the pirates' fortifications, but they could end up hitting their own troops instead, and one accidental volley could cause way more casualties in one go than a bunch of cornered pirates. The infantry commanders would've only coordinated with the ships' officers about where to bombard the enemy, and to cease once their infantry were ashore.
Next bit: the bayonet charge theory. Yeah, that worked a number of times on the militia and less-disciplined Continentals during the American Revolution. Here's the reason: most colonials were not formally trained in hand to hand combat. The veterans who participated in the French & Indian War (if you're across the pond then I think you refer to it as the Seven Years War) would've learned from experience some hand to hand combat, but not all militia or Continentals were veterans. Pirates as a whole however would've had lots of experience with effective, and I use that word deliberately, hand to hand combat. Boarding an enemy ship is always by far the most dangerous action a crew can take, and in the case of pirates if they want to live then they need to fight to win, and they won't play by any rules that could compromise their win. They know they will die if they lose; so they will use any means to win. Sun Tzu made quite a good point about that in his Art of War.
I can see you are trying to sound sophisticated by adding a little bit of a British flare to you accent.
Yeah it's pretty retarded
American and British accent do not mix.
Not sure if he's American or not. Could be from Canada
It sounds like an old aristocratic sort of American accent, or the kind that the American colonists would speak in.
He’s form somewhere in America where they have retained some weird aristocratic accent form here over the pond
Or maybe that's an autisticly adorable charm of Brandon and he can speak however the hell he likes?
why aren't they shelling the beach?
Heavy guns like the ships had didn't fire explosive shells, they fired solid shot.
Sharia Creeper they might hit their own men
About the mortar: It's about tracetories! Those ships' cannons give direct fire while the mortars give indirect fire better suited to fight entrenched infantry.
The smaller ship in the background is neither a sloop (which had only a single mast) nor a frigate (which had square rigging and at least three masts), it is probably a brig or a brigantine.
basically the pirates have some Spanish gold, witch the British need to stop a war with them
spain stole/ mined/ traded (for what ever reason)