User:Broadside Perceptor

Stupid battlefield fighting back in the day
Why would they fight like this? Why stand in a line and just take the bullets? Why not spread out in groups and hide and fire in intervals, or maybe even forget about the useless muskets altogether and just attack in close combat, or at least mix it up a bit? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTz-kUVvQEY&feature=player_detailpage#t=293s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Muskets were very inaccurate. A wall of bullets stood more chance of hitting a few guys if fired all together. Also, they didn't all fight like that. There were light infantry, who took cover, and sharpshooters, who also took cover. This is just the very aptly named Line Infantry. Also, hand-to-hand did happen on occasion, which is why they had bayonets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would a wall of bullets have a bigger chance of hitting something? Wouldn't shooting the muskets one by one have the same chance? And what about the higher chance of getting hit, when standing in line with other soldiers? So far I know, these standing in line had little pragmatic reasons; being more a kind of honor thing for the commander, who would use his soldiers like chess figures. No wonder that guerrilla fighting techniques were invented. XPPaul (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are in a company formation of 150 men, you are more likely to run if 80 all drop simultaneously from enemy fire, than if they are all getting picked off one by one. It was all about hitting the enemy hard and fast, and making them scared of you, not killing them as such. This is what the wall of bullets was all about. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec x2)There are many reason early modern warfare took this form, which seems so counter intuitive, given that contemporary combat is based so much on maneuver and cover. Tradition is one part of the puzzle. Premodern warfare had a ritualistic aspect that had yet to be completely replaced with modern pragmatism during the time of the Revolution. Another issue is control.  Dispersed groups are very hard to synchronize without modern communications equipment.  Given that training was nothing like it is today, soldiers were really only expected to pay attention to what the men directly surrounding them were doing.  There was very little emphasis on individual initiative at anything but the command level.  Personally I think this is related to feudalism, which placed such emphasis on status, they really didn't give much credit to the common soldier.  Democratic/capitalist thinking places more value on individuals and gave more individual responsibility to soldiers.  The accuracy of the weapons was also a big issue.  Those muskets couldn't really hit anything reliably, the only way for them to be effective was en mass.  A four or five man squad armed with muskets really isn't a threat to anyone, but a 150 man regiment could be a real terror.  This is particularly relevant when cavalry is involved.  Dispersed groups not only can't hit the charging cavalry, they are also much more vulnerable. As accuracy and rate of fire increased dispersed formations and cover gained favor. My final point is that that type of combat really wasn't that effective against armies using more contemporary tactics.  Armies trained to operate in those types of mass formations run into serious trouble against guerrilla hit and run tactics.  Which is something that happened in the revolution and is illustrated in other scenes in the movie you link to. -- Daniel  18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One more item. Don't discount the psychological aspects.  It isn't all about killing the most enemies.  It is about forcing them from the field, which in early modern warfare, was generally accomplished more by routing the enemy rather than elimination.  Keeping your troops bunched together gives them more confidence and presents a more impressive front to the enemy.  -- Daniel  18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing to consider is that if your side started using modern methods (hiding behind cover), then the enemy would, too. Thus, there really wouldn't be any advantage to doing so.  (The American Revolution may have been a bit of an exception, since the British didn't take the Americans as a serious threat, so didn't think it was necessary to "stoop to their level".)  So, in general there wouldn't be a military advantage to changing methods, but you could predict more civilian casualties when your forces are hidden, as the enemy will then fire at any movement they see, which could very well be civilians who have taken cover.  So, you have the disadvantage of more civilian deaths with no corresponding advantage.  In extreme cases, like the Boer Wars, these type of hit-and-run methods also resulted in civilians being put in concentration camps, if they were suspected of helping the enemy.  Then, by WW1, we got to full-scale trench warfare, which resulted in a horrific stalemate.  It would have been better had they fought in lines and determined the winner far faster, with many fewer deaths.  StuRat (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point about the American Revolution. I always wondered why they went back to the old tactics in the American Civil War, despite having used more 'modern' tactics in the Revolution to beat the world's most powerful army (at the time). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There were bushwhackers in the Civil War, too. But keep in mind that disciplined armies more often succeed against undisciplined ones. You can't have large, gigantic armies of guerilla fighters. Guerilla war is an asymmetrical form of warfare, which more describes the Revolution than the Civil War. (Civil War strategy is all over the map, of course. The Northern generals by and large fought conservative, Napoleonic-style warfare, hoping that their numerical superiority would win out. The Southern generals added more speed and cunning to their attack to make up for their disadvantages. The Generals on both sides who "thought outside the box" are still the ones we talk about today — Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman. The ones who didn't — McClellan being the most famous example — are talked about only as being dolts.) The thing is, with the Civil War, the various tactics actually worked — they allowed the armies on both sides to take ground and hold it. It killed a lot of folks, but it wasn't a stalemate like WWI, where the defensive developments (machine guns, fast artillery) really offset the offensive developments. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * {EC} No Daniel, I'm sure they fought in close formation like this only because it worked. As you say "the only way for them to be effective was en mass". (actually 150 men is a company, the standard fighting unit was a battalion of 6 to 800). The usual technique was to exchange vollies until one side decided that they had an advantage and a bayonet charge would follow. The film Barry Lyndon shows it better. Napoleon revolutionised this type of combat by attacking in dense columns which didn't stop to exchange volleys. However, the British found that sticking to the old-fashioned line formation could be an effective counter if your musketry was good enough. We had very effective results with this at the Battle of Balaclava in 1856, the famous "thin red line tipped with steel" where a single infantry battalion repulsed an entire Russian cavalry division. You can see the effect of concentrated fire in the film Zulu YouTube clip depicting an action in 1879 using single-shot rifles. The advent of the repeating magazine rifle spelled the end of close-order fighting as the British found out at the Battle of Modder River in the Second Boer War. We were rather ahead of the game on this at the start of WWI; at the Battle of Mons in 1914, the German infantry advancing in Napoleonic columns singing hymns were met with rapid rifle fire from British troops firing from concealed positions. It didn't take them long to catch up though. Alansplodge (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have your units mixed up - in the time of line infantry you usually had regiments of about 500 men divided into 10 companies, each of about 50 men. As well as independent companies of quite random numbers of soldiers. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends. Some regiments (particularly in the American Civil War) consisted of a single battalion, which was also called a company, and would have as little as 150 men at full strength (and most units were never at full strength). Other regiments, in the Napoleonic Wars, for example, could consist of up to 10 or even 20 thousand men. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a later time period than line infantry with muskets, though. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The American Civil War? Sure they used line infantry, and some units only had muskets. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Muzzle-loading rifles were the standard issue of both sides in the American Civil War and the British Army of the time. Were there any units actually fielding only muskets? 75.41.110.52 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the Springfield Model 1861 was a Minié-type rifled musket, and was the most common infantry weapon in the American Civil War, whilst the Pattern 1853 Enfield was a muzzle-loading rifle-musket, and was the second most common infantry weapon in the American Civil War. Secondly, the the British Army was not involved in the American Civil War. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) I would agree with the answers above. Even as late as the Zulu War, the British still used the same line formation (complete with red jackets so people in space could see them), and they were massacred at the Battle of Isandhlwana (check out Zulu Dawn on Youtube if you are interested). This all began to change with the advent of the machine-gun. However, similar tactics still prevailed in the early years of WW1. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're on the same page, Alan ;) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't happen often! Recent analysis of the Isandhlwana battlefield concluded that we lost because we were standing too far apart and couldn't concentrate our fire effectively. See Battle of Isandhlwana. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it... why not at least kneel down and make yourself a smaller target? Or have a few people standing in front of the musketeers holding large shields? See Medieval warfare: "Bowmen were extended in thin lines and protected and screened by pits (as at the Battle of Bannockburn), staves or trenches." Archers knew better than to just stand in the open and fire, why did musketeers not use the same tactics? --Tango (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised. Light infantry would deploy stakes - usually to shield artillery from direct attck from cavalry, but such tactics were used. Also, digging pits and trenches in front of your main body of men will impede their mobility. In medieval times, the entire army was not made up of bowmen. This is why it would be possible to shield them. In the musket age, you'd have 70% of the army made up of men with guns. Making them immobile would really cause problems for your battlefield management. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "I still don't get it... why not at least kneel down and make yourself a smaller target?" Neither do I, which is why I think there is a ritualistic aspect. (Well there was kneeling during "fire by rank" drills, but no one knelt all the time) I think people are too quick to attribute military actions (both past and present) as purely pragmatic, when in actuality, they are often conducted according to a strict set of social norms and traditions. The era of line infantry was also the era of gentleman's warfare, where honorable conduct was of paramount importance (in some conflicts).  That being said, it is difficult to reload long muskets while kneeling and impossible while laying prone.  Nevertheless, if you put me in that line I'd get down whenever I wasn't reloading (or shitting myself), but I have a feeling it would be seen as cowardly even if it was effective. -- Daniel  22:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There certainly was a ritualistic aspect to it all, hence the bright uniforms, flags, and people in front playing musical instruments. It certainly was also a time of gentlemanly warfare, where generals fought each other personally, as if it were a chess game. Hiding and ambushing opponents was just not done, old chap. Have the men line up and fire. Jolly good show, what! In the first few years of WW1, things were still like that to a major extent, until people started to see sense and realise war is different now. This Monty Python sketch may be of interest. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surpised no one has mentioned communications yet. It's pretty difficult to centrally coordinate multiple detached small units instantaneously with hand signals, semaphore flags and runners (basically unchanged since Julius Ceasar's day). Mobile field radio did a lot to make modern small-unit warfare possible. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another aspect is the handling of the muskets. Soldiers where drilled to reload and fire at a very high cadence, always using the same steps, which involved biting open a paper cartridge, filling the powder into the muzzle, ramming down the paper wad, spitting in the bullet, ramming down again, priming the firing pan, and cocking the lock. Muskets can possibly be reloaded when prone, but not nearly as fast as by a man standing up and repeating the same drill over and over again. So a standing army (pun intended ;-) gave you maximal firepower. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Stephan Schulz, you can't get four rounds a minute en-masse while prone. Few people have talked about the other arms.  Cavalry could only be effectively repulsed by mass action, either in fire or in square.  Artillery's effect was limited to visual range only without spotted fire, making artillery's capacity to eliminate massed line or column limited.  And of course the point of holding line is to prevent an overrun of your logistic areas, which are actually fairly close up.  Break an opponent's line, and they can be forced to retreat onto a supply point. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, lying down for concealment and to minimise casualties was a tactic often used by the Duke of Wellington. "1,500 British Foot Guards under Maitland were lying down to protect themselves from the French artillery. As two battalions of Chasseurs approached, the second prong of the Imperial Guard's attack, Maitland's guardsmen rose and devastated them with point-blank volleys." But as you say, you can't easily reload a musket when you're lying down. You had to stand up to fight, hence Wellington's alleged command, "Up Guards and at 'em!"Alansplodge (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, when the French were attacking Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte in the same battle, it's interesting to note that the French troops did not attack in line formation (or column, as they usually preferred), as it was essentially an attack on concealed troops, concealed within farmhouse buildings, and they needed to breach the walls. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 was also one in which the troops fought largely individually, as the battles were conducted in largely urban (as in town/village) areas, prohibiting the usual long lines of troops. I could bring up the French retreat from Russia in 1812, plagued by Russian troops all over the hills and everywhere. The line formation was certainly used to a great extent in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it was by no means the only tactic, as portrayed by Hollywood. Anyone who is interested in military tactics from that period may find watching the Sharpe (TV series) fascinating. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

french
Le point que vous modifié a déjà fait l'objet de longues discussion, non pour faire disparaître la Catalogne mais pour faire apparaître l'Espagne. Donc, s'il y a un changement à introduire, il sera probablement de supprimer la référence au pays.

Quoiqu'il en soit, votre contribution seulement à cet article sur ce point vous classe ipso facto dans les POV pusher, avec la lithanie des comportements associés. Il y en a beacoup de votre sorte, et tous finissent bloqués en écriture après peu de temps. Je laisse donc un nouvel avertissement, avant que vous ne vous bloquiez tout seul. v_atekor (d) 2 janvier 2012 à 16:04 (CET)


 * La Catalogne n'est pas un pays état donc elle ne doît doit pas être apparaître dans l'infobox de nationalité. Cela est du POV-pushing et pas de mettre l'Espagne tu sais Ce serait du POV-pushing de ne pas y mettre l'Espagne, tu le sais. --Broadside Perceptor (d) 2 janvier 2012 à 20:27 (CET)
 * El frances es un idioma completo. El campo nacimiento significa nacimiento. La palabra nacionalidad existe, con el sentido de nacionalidad, el cual es distinto de nacimiento. La infobox no menciona la nacionalidad sino el lugar de nacimiento. Este lugar es Barcelona - y nada mas. Respecto del peso de Cataluña en la obra de Miro es necesario reforzar la mención de la región de origen. Así fue la conclusión de largas discusiones sobre el tema cuando fue la elección del articulo como articulo de calidad.

La mención de España, ahora puesta, fue añadida por agradecer a unos nacionalistas españoles que aparentemente, saben mejor pelear por una bandera que leer el francés, y entonces, distinguir el sentido de nacimiento del de nacionalidad. Hay casi 1.2 millones artículos sobre la wikipedia francesa. Si realmente eso fuera la única mejora posible, estuviéramos todos muy felices. No es el caso, y si quieres ayudar, hay trabajo para ti. v_atekor (d) 2 janvier 2012 à 22:11 (CET)
 * Alors, selon les séparatistes anti-espagnols comme toi, décrire la vérité objective "Joan Miró est espagnol" (donc la Catalogne n'éxiste pas sur le droit politique international) est "nationalisme espagnol". T'es un vrai un érudit! MDR! --Broadside Perceptor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 14:16 (CET)
 * Séparatiste anti espagnol... nada menos. Y con un DNI francés, obviamente. Espero que no te hayas pasado de detalles tales como el hecho que el artículo no hace parte de la categoría derecho internacional, sino PINTURA, en la cual, el derecho internacional no tiene nada que ver. Hubiéramos puesto informaciones sobre el pasaporte de Joan Miro si el color de su pasaporte le hubiera inspirado una tela. v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 18:28 (CET)

Pourquoi tu parles en espagnol exactement? Ceci est la Wikipédia en français. --Broadside Perceptor (d) 2 janvier 2012 à 22:50 (CET)
 * Parce que ton français est incorrect et recèle des tournures hispaniques trop évidentes. L'usage de ceci/celà par exemple, est typique d'un hispanique voire d'une traduction automatique.
 * D'un autre coté, ton espagnol est si mauvais que je à peine peux te comprendre. --Broadside Perceptor (d) 2 janvier 2012 à 22:54 (CET)
 * Sip, por eso deje a mi esposa española escribir. Pero te puedes tranquilizar, mi español no es peor que tu francés, Pero por lo menos no contestas mas sobre el artículo. v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 08:48 (CET)
 * Ta Ton "esposa española" doît doit être marrocaine alors. --Broadside Perceptor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 12:57 (CET)
 * ???? et raciste avec ça! Burgos, faut voir ... Par contre en français le pays, la nation et l'état une fois encore, sont des concepts différents. Tu perds ton temps. L'article est en AdQ, après des centaines de relectures. Les seules traces de nationalisme, c'est toi qui veut les introduires ; il n'y en a pas dans l'article actuel. v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 13:02 (CET)
 * Raciste?? MDR! T'es un véritable érudit. Ta (oui, c'est "ta" et non "ton" car "esposa española" est fémenin, érudit!) "femme", toi ou quiconque avait écrit cela n'est pas espagnol bien évidemment, c'est pour ça que j'avais choisi une nationalité étrangere pour ta "esposa española", MDR! Je pouvais avait dit qu'elle doit être russe ou chinoise. Est cela "raciste" aussi, mon cher érudit? MDR! --Broadside Perceptor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 14:09 (CET)
 * Une fois de plus ça confirme que les espagnols ont beaucoup de mal avec les liaisons françaises. Ton épouse et non ta épouse. C'est un cas d'exception, puisque suivre la règle implique que deux voyelles se suivent, et l'élision du a par une apostrophe change radicalement le sens de la phrase (tu épouses ... ). Mujer pour désigner l'épouse est très vulgaire (comme femme en français, même si c'est l'usage) Quelle est donc l'idée implicite à avoir une nationalité non espagnole, pour toi? v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 14:24 (CET)
 * 'Mujer pour désigner l'épouse est très vulgaire: L'érudit fait des affirmations sur  affirme des' choses qu' dont il n''’a aucune idée! MDR! --Broadside Perceptor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 15:17 (CET)
 * Mujer désigne l'être par sa condition sexuelle (mujer/hombre). Espos(o/a) par son statu légal. Le premier relève pour moi du sexisme et est donc vulgaire, même si c'est l'usage constant. Le point le plus sexiste est l'opposition qui se fait non avec hombre mais avec marido, actant que l'épouse est avant tout femme, alors que l'époux est marié, avant d'être homme. Sur ce point, mon avis est que traiter une personne par son statu sexuel est vulgaire, quelle que soit la langue, et ton avis m'indiffère. v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 15:20 (CET)
 * Tu n'as aucune idée de ce que tu parles, érudit. Tu es un exemple idéal de l'effet Dunning-Kruger ! --Broadside Perceptor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 18:11 (CET)
 * de ce que je parle... Hablas demasiado mal francés para que te conste en este idioma. No hay una sola construcción correcta en todas tus intervenciones. Y tengo una pequeña duda sobre tus conocimientos de tu propio idioma. Eso dicho, tienes derecho a usar expresiones que unos consideran como vulgar, que sea en España y en AL. Te doy gracia por llamarme erudito, es la única afirmación correcta. v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 18:23 (CET)
 * de ce que je parle... Hablas demasiado mal francés para que te conste en este idioma. No hay una sola construcción correcta en todas tus intervenciones. Y tengo una pequeña duda sobre tus conocimientos de tu propio idioma. Eso dicho, tienes derecho a usar expresiones que unos consideran como vulgar, que sea en España y en AL. Te doy gracia por llamarme erudito, es la única afirmación correcta. v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 18:23 (CET)

Miro catalan
Bonjour Broadside

J'ai beaucoup bossé sur Miro. Dis-moi, à part t'énerver sur sa région d'origine (la Catalogne), est-ce que tu aurais des informations supplémentaires à apporter? Si oui fais-le. Sinon ne perd pas ton temps. Tu as sûrement des tas d'autres choses à faire sur wp. Salut.--Lepetitlord &#91;Fauntleroy&#93; 2 janvier 2012 à 21:21 (CET)
 * L'article sur Miró n'est pas NPOV car il semble que la Catalogne est un pays si on le lis. --Broadside Perceptor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 14:14 (CET)
 * Voir l'article pays, et particulier pays.on peut dire que l'Angleterre est un pays. L'usage préfère dénommer « pays » l'Angleterre plutôt que le Royaume-Uni, ce qui n'empêche pas le Royaume-Uni d'être un État souverain et de mener la politique internationale. Et au niveau de la peinture, ça donne quoi comme impression ? v_atekor (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 14:24 (CET)

FAUX NEZ
Attention ceci est probablement la page d'un faux nez. Recherches en cours v_atekor (d) 2 janvier 2012 à 22:23 (CET)
 * Attention ceci est une calomnie. --Broadside Perceptor (d) 2 janvier 2012 à 22:51 (CET)
 * Non, ce n'est pas le sens usuel du mot "calomnie"...--Dfeldmann (d) 3 janvier 2012 à 23:48 (CET)

Conciliation
Bonjour,

Je te propose de dépasser ces conflits pour arriver à des contributions efficaces sur fr:Wikipedia.

Pour ma part, je m'engage à ne te parler qu'en français sur les pages de la Wikipedia française, et à ne pas te corriger sur les pages de discussions.

Pour ta part, je te demande le respect des règles de la Wikipedia française :
 * Considérer les contributeurs comme étant de bonne foi - donc pas des séparatistes anti-espagnols ou autres ;
 * Les articles de qualité et les bons articles (étoile jaune ou bleu) ont été largement relus par des dizaines de contributeurs, ils satisfont donc au critère de neutralité du point de vue sur Wikipedia; ce qui inclue une neutralité quant aux nationalismes. Je te demande de les considérer comme tels, y compris ceux qui concernent la Catalogne. J'ai participé activement à plusieurs de ces articles à propos de la Catalogne, notamment : Sagrada Familia, Ramon Llull, Joan Miro. J'ai également participé fortement à des articles de qualité n'ayant rien à voir avec la Catalogne : Clarinette, Oran, Oktoberfest ...
 * Toujours dans cette démarche, si un mot te paraît suspect dans son acceptation espagnole, il est préférable de vérifier avant tout ses différents sens en français avant d'affirmer que les contributeurs ont un parti-pris ;
 * Il y a des articles concernant l'Espagne (et même la Catalogne) qui peuvent être largement améliorés et sourcés. Je me proposait naguère de travailler à l'article Miguel de Cervantes. Si tu as des sources pouvant permettre de développer ce thème, ce sera très positif.

Une ultime idée de contribution qui peut être utile : les articles de qualités basés sur des traductions depuis l'espagnol et/ou le catalan sont généralement améliorés dans leur version française. Notamment, ils sont complétés et sourcés. Une mission pourrait être de reporter les améliorations des articles français sur leurs homologues ibériques.

Enfin, à titre personnel, je te propose de réfléchir à la contradiction qu'il y a à dire que l'espagnol n'est pas une de mes langues maternelles et à affirmer que je suis un séparatiste catalan; Le catalan et le français sont également des langues que je possède fort bien v_atekor (d) 4 janvier 2012 à 08:16 (CET)