>Watching the Patriot>Final battle>American army charges through British forces and keep going>Come to the top of a hill and see another British line about 30 yards away>Lines aren't formed, they're still moving>Instead of continuing the charge, the Americans stop, line up, allow the Brits to shoot at them, and THEN charge againWarfare back in the 1700's wasn't this retarded IRL, was it?
>>54683552I don't know. I just like watching Mel Gibson fuck up the British for three hours.
>>54683552STAY THAT SWORD, COLONEL
>>54683552nigga warfare in the 2020's is this retarded, have you not seen how the Russians are conducting themselves in Ukraine?
>>54683793>third replies into a thread about the American war of independance and someone mentions Ukraine.Just ease up on it for a bit, Jesus Christ.
>>54683552it was popular back then to get shot, people looked up to you.
>>54683552Mel Gibson is a certified cryptojew retard, what did you expect?
Mel doesn't like the British much, does he.
>>54684264>jew fetishist defending the tribepottery
>>54683793>nigger already bringing up Ukraine ffs
>>54684298>defending the tribefrom what? being based?
>>54684264anne frank was trans btw
>>54683552>Hollywood portrayal is not accurate to the real worldMore news at 11, stay tunedNext episode: The truth behind porn
>>54683552Or maybe you're just watching a really retarded movie.
>>54683882> cryptojew> one of the easiest ways for regular people to make good money> jewishYou fell for a PSYOP
>>54685588>thinking cryptojew is referring to shitcoinget out
>>54683552It's a Hollywood movie, but it was a fairly typical taxctic to fire once then charge.
>>54683552>Director: Roland Emmerich Small chance the movie may not be historically accurate.
>>54684626Porn can give you some good ideas. Just don't be a retard and assume a woman will be ready for penetration after some corny dialog and giving head.
>>54683552warfare was retarded until mid ww2>>54683882>Mel Gibson is a certified cryptojewkill yourself
>>54683552perhaps... we will never know.
>>54683552No, the Patriot is pretty blatantly ahistorical and basically just made as an "America fuck yeah" movie. It's pretty entertaining though.
>>54683552Makes me want a battle axe.
>>54687097... was it? The majority of the movie is America getting their fucking ass kicked and needing to resort to guerilla hit and run tactics, which was true to history. America usually tried to avoid big battles like the ending one, but was forced to and through unusual tactics manages to win.
>>54687310The lack of 10,000 Frenchmen fighting for the Americans and 60,000+ Spanish, Dutch and French rekting the British all over the globe, with Polish generals helping the Americans out was a bit silly to ignore.
>>54687348Yeah, but that was only in the literal last 5 minutes. I understand why they did it like that as they couldn't prolong the movie anymore and had to just end it and show to the retards in the audience, in the context of the plot thus far, how the story ends.
>>54687348It’s a movie loosely based on the exploits of Francis Marion and you’re only seeing a microcosm of the war. This is like complaining that Pearl Harbor didn’t feature the British in North Africa
>>54687411It's so loosely based it's basically fiction. Shit like Brits rounding up people and burning them alive in a church is comical.
>>54683793why do you faggots make every thread about russia? tourists and propagandists are not welcomed here.
The Patriot is a retarded non sensical movie with a few cool scenes.One that always makes me chuckle is>British officer frees a slave on the condition he fights for the British = evil>Continental officer frees a slave on the condition he fights for the colonies = good
>>54687507I'm not agreeing with the guy you're replying to, but probably because /chug/ers do the same and therefore the Ukrainian side gets annoyed and resorts to the same thing. All arguments are nowadays is just spamming the same thing over and over and over regardless of truth or authenticity in the purpose of making people annoyed.
>>54687521>brit = badsounds logical to me
>>54687521the best part is the british were much truer to their word on that front than the colonists were, who often just re-enslaved them anyway lmao. also the scene with the british officers scheming about how they would take ohio, when one of the reasons the colonists revolted in the first place was because the british explicitly weren't letting anyone settle past the appalachians.
>>54684214He's Australian, what did you expect?
>>54687533In the way shown it makes no sense. Also the scene where the royalists burn the church for "reasons" like they're the Dirlewagner brigade or something
>>54687521the part that makes me laugh is that the black people working for the MC are all explicitly not slaves and are tell the evil brits they're just happy field workers while the character he's based on very much was a massive slave owner
>>54687540A decent revolutionary war film would be more french/british focused. But most Americans would not accept that France won the war.
>a shitty German director makes an American propaganda moviebased
>>54687522>The /chug/ersThe what? What the fuck are you talking about
>>54687553I mean, do you actually think the British didn't resort to such terror tactics? Because you need to learn history and find out just what exactly the British were capable of doing to keep a hold on their colonies. Americans did similar things with many pro-British Americans for the record.>>54687583/chug/? On /pol/? The retards who talk non-stop about how amazing Russia is and how well they're doing and how they love to organize and come in to /k/ in attempt to troll pro-Ukrainians?
That scene is hilarious because in Mels mind the Americans patriots were initally losing because they "fought too similar to the redcoats" and by fighting guerilla style they somehow won the revolutionary war.The British too fought with guerilla tactics. That's literally what most Royalist militias did, ironically it was the revolutionary war that gave way to the British development of rifleman tactics which they used later in the Napoleonic Wars.
>>54687600They unironically didn't, at least, not something so one dimensionally evil as that. War crimes exist, but if the British really fucking locked dozens of innocent women and children in a church and burned it down EVERYBODY would know about it, even today. Look at how propagandized the "Boston Massacre" was, which was really just 4 people dying after attacking British guards in a riot.The British still viewed the colonists as their subjects so there would be nothing to gain by such a pants on head cartoon villain move.
>>54687600>I mean, do you actually think the British didn't resort to such terror tactics?No. Nobody in the British parliament even wanted to continue fighting after a short while. William Howe was literally a member of a political party that was against the war. It was very expensive and almost cost the British gibraltar and jersey from the French, which was much more important to their secuirty than the 13 colonies.
>>54687635>by such a pants on head cartoon villain moveThose kinds of things were incredibly common back then in warfare. It wasn't considered some kind of unspeakable horror. And I'm sorry, I wasn't implying that the church scene was based on an actual act, just that such a thing was something the British were more than capable of doing based on the kind of shit they did in other colonies.
>>54687658The British would never burn a protestant church, especially in the 18th century.Now that I mention it, Catholics were more likely to be Royalists because the patriots were incredibly anti-catholic and against papal influence.
>>54687658High ranking military officials locking your own subjects, including women and children, in a Church and burning it down was not "incredibly common", point to something on a similar scale that happened in the Revolutionary War. What other colonies? Are you comparing how they treated the American colonists to fucking India or something? They were obviously much nicer to their, White, English, Protestant colonists.
>>54687658>Those kinds of things were incredibly common back then in warfare.Maybe if you were Roman, even then slaves were far more valuable than crispy Gauls
>>54685588How many millions did you make?
>>54683793Do you feel like fitting in yet?
>>54687521>movie opens on wealthy field owner who has a bunch of black fieldhands >for some fucking reason this aristocrat is doing all the field work himself, even leading the plow >brits come and announce they'll free the black people if they fight for them>HOW DARE YOU EVIL BRITS ASSUME WE'RE SLAVES, WE'RE NOT SLAVES, WHAT SLAVES>just a racially harmonious equal opportunity farming in fucking 1700s South Carolina and the Brits are just evil for daring to racially profile these proud black fieldmen as slavesI dropped the movie here, American films are something else lmao
>>54683552They kinda dropped the ball on not showing that one nigger Occam getting sent straight back to the plantation once the war was over. "Great fightin' there boy, but that cotton ain' gonna pick itself so back to the fields you go!"
>>54687732>American films are something else lmaoseething br*t
>>54687732I just want a revolutionary war film that focuses on loyalists. There were some crazy-ass units fighting for King George.
>>54687772That AMC show, "Turn:Washington Spies" was actually pretty decent.
>>54687658>burning down a church of your own faith, with your own countrymen, including women and children being locked inside wasn't considered a horror
>>54687540That’s not one of the reasons we revolted at all, that’s one of the reasons for the French and Indian War. We revolted because of taxation without representation and a desire for a government based on liberalism. (Individual liberty not modern Dnc politics, retards)
>>54687811Yeah I saw some of that.It also reminded me that Americans in the 1770s all sounded like they were from Cornwall.
>>54687816It was a mixture of all sorts of things, not just tax. More like "why are we being taxxed more than anyone else for a war we just fought in"I think there was also some shortages in food because of the damage to trade the Seven Years War had, and piracy.
>>54687816https://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of-1763The desire to settle past the Applachians was definitely one of the major reasons.>one of the reasons for the French and Indian WarThe Proclamation of 1763 which set the boundary was put in place after the French and Indian War.
>>54684626You mean everyone isn't packing monstercocks left and right?
>>54683793why must /k/ seethe about the ukraine war in every threadits almost a rule now
>>54689512I dunno, my cock is pretty big.
>>54687772The rangers were portrayed in a series called “Turn”, great show. >>54687811Oops
>>54687507probably because it's a current warand russians do a lot of retarded shitthus easily comes to mind when people talk about militaries doing retarded shitsimple enough for ya?
>>54687310>which was true to historyAmerica started winning when they got their shit together, quit being guerillas, and learned to stand in a line and platoon fire like Brits>>54687658>wasn't considered some kind of unspeakable horrorAlready was in the Middle fucking Ages, brainlet>WELL THEY COULDA DONE IT BASED ONso they DIDN'T actually fucking do it IN AMERICA then, retard>>54683552>Warfare back in the 1700's wasn't this retarded IRL, was it?No and yesNo, Hollywood obviously took some artistic license, the lines and squares would actually have been more disciplined than is shownYes, due to the limitations in command and control, and range and reload time of firearms of the period, similar apparently stupid actions can happen for sensible reasons. At Waterloo itself British infantry and French cavalry played games of "chicken", wherein the cavalry would fake-charge the square hoping to get them to fire and waste their shot, or otherwise flinch and run, whereupon the real charge would get in. Leading to situations where a bunch of dudes 25 yards from each other would basically dare each other to fire, and not actually fire. Another extreme example occurred earlier, in which a British infantry battalion advanced to 5-10 feet of a French one, fired, reloaded, fired, reloaded, fired a THIRD TIME, and then fixed bayonets and charged. Because that is indeed what you could do to a mob of disorganised conscripts.
>>54683552While it is a movie and probably didn't happen that way irl, it was common during that era of warfare for officers to stick to the written battle plan of their commander, due to lack of education as an officer and fear of punishment by his superiors. It was also common that commanders would reprimand and even demote an officer for acting on his own accord, even if it led to a victory. There were accounts from several observers that units would create a major gap in the enemy lines but the officer hesitated to exploit these gaps, therefore the enemy could recover easily and repulse any further attacks. Long story short: Yes, that era of warfare was a bit retarded. The Prussians would turn that around though, by creating the first officer academies and so on.
>>54687772>loyalistsnow known as "Canadians"
>>54687812But the King says so.
Read the "play-by-plays" of civil war battles, linear warfare absolutely could be a retarded clusterfuck. Stuff like important reinforcements taking a literal wrong turn on the way and arriving too late for the battle
>>54692707A fate worse than death
>>54686533This works 100% of the time in my experience. >>54687540Unless you're trying to do a triple bankshot argument here (because the Ohio/Pittsburgh area campaign was basically the George Washington show) then that has nothing to do with the revolutionary war and is 100% the French and Indian War. >>54690669Best Waterloo cavalry moment was the British realizing about .2 seconds after charging into curiassiers that, wait a minute, breastplate are actually still a really good idea.
>>54693039Didn't the Scot's Guards run into the un-breastplated uhlans, tho?