French Musketeer vs British Redcoat

French Musketeer or British Redcoat ?


  • Total voters
    34
Joined Jun 2009
29,886 Posts | 49+
land of Califia
I watched a little of a film today, titled The Musketeer. Seeing as how Musketeer's are French Ninja, the Redcoat is doomed.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvBmkpvDQp4]YouTube - ‪The Musketeer (2001) HQ trailer‬‏[/ame]
 
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 52+
Canada
I only caught the battle at the end, on the swinging ladders. :zany:

It's an odd film, and definitely anachronistic, but my love for Hong Kong kung fu movies makes me enjoy the weirdness of this one, because the choreographed fight scenes are so similar.
 
Joined Apr 2011
6,626 Posts | 7+
Sarmatia
The books of Dumas are so great but movie makers instead of making the movie close to the book story line give us more and more crap. I belive such things should be treated like the criminal offence and require punishment. It looks like the most stupid of all Musketeer movies is in production:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQd3MwT2fAM]YouTube - ‪The Three Musketeers 3D (2011) - Official Trailer [HD]‬‏[/ame]
 

A7X

Joined May 2010
3,399 Posts | 1+
Orion arm of the milky way
How can you possibly say this?
The French army was actively engaged in war from 1792-1815, fighting on multiple fronts. The British army had less experience, as it fought on and off, and generally, whenever Britain's politicians decided it should. The French soldier was for the most part fighting in the defense of France (1793-1806) (1813-1815), the British soldier was not (fighting in the defense of Britain). Overall, the French army had many, hardened, well trained soldiers. Britain's men may have been better trained, but experience is pretty much like another form of training. That's my two cents.
 
Joined Apr 2011
7,869 Posts | 349+
Georgia, USA
The French army was actively engaged in war from 1792-1815, fighting on multiple fronts. The British army had less experience, as it fought on and off, and generally, whenever Britain's politicians decided it should. The French soldier was for the most part fighting in the defense of France (1793-1806) (1813-1815), the British soldier was not (fighting in the defense of Britain). Overall, the French army had many, hardened, well trained soldiers. Britain's men may have been better trained, but experience is pretty much like another form of training. That's my two cents.

The British army was actively engaged in war over the same period (actually first involvement was in 1793 when a British led force landed at Toulon) fighting on just as many fronts:

Denmark, North America, Iberian peninsular, invasion of France and finally Waterloo.

Not only that but the British army was actively engaged in colonial wars such as in India where Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) learned his warcraft in major battles like Assaye.

If there was a contest in experience, the British win. Moreover France suffered some severe defeats - none larger than their almost complete destruction in Russia.

The reason why British troops consistently beat French troops over the period was their superior training. It is well documented that British troops trained and trained with LIVE ammunition so as to maintain their murderous 4 rounds a minute ROF.
The British infantry was peerless at that time - none more so than it's elite light infantry armed with rifles rather than muskets.

I don't see how the goals of an armed conflict affect a soldier's training and experience levels, but I would argue that Britain fought the Napoleonic Wars in order to defend Britain.
Yes, Britain engaged in expansionist conflicts but so did France (Napoleon's ill fated Egyptian campaign and the invasion of Russia).

It is not widely known but the majority of losses in Napoleon's 500,000 strong Grand Armee that invaded Russia, were suffered before they got to Moscow (mostly disease and desertion).

A major problem Napoleon had at Waterloo was raw, young, untrained troops because Napoleon was so profligate with the lives of his soldiers.
 

A7X

Joined May 2010
3,399 Posts | 1+
Orion arm of the milky way
The British army was actively engaged in war over the same period (actually first involvement was in 1793 when a British led force landed at Toulon) fighting on just as many fronts:

Denmark, North America, Iberian peninsular, invasion of France and finally Waterloo.

Not only that but the British army was actively engaged in colonial wars such as in India where Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) learned his warcraft in major battles like Assaye.

If there was a contest in experience, the British win. Moreover France suffered some severe defeats - none larger than their almost complete destruction in Russia.

The reason why British troops consistently beat French troops over the period was their superior training. It is well documented that British troops trained and trained with LIVE ammunition so as to maintain their murderous 4 rounds a minute ROF.
The British infantry was peerless at that time - none more so than it's elite light infantry armed with rifles rather than muskets.

I don't see how the goals of an armed conflict affect a soldier's training and experience levels, but I would argue that Britain fought the Napoleonic Wars in order to defend Britain.
Yes, Britain engaged in expansionist conflicts but so did France (Napoleon's ill fated Egyptian campaign and the invasion of Russia).

It is not widely known but the majority of losses in Napoleon's 500,000 strong Grand Armee that invaded Russia, were suffered before they got to Moscow (mostly disease and desertion).

A major problem Napoleon had at Waterloo was raw, young, untrained troops because Napoleon was so profligate with the lives of his soldiers.

I surrender. You have my sword.

5144583926_72bf7a2b93.jpg
 

Trending History Discussions

Top