How come during the American Civil War, the soldiers just reloaded

Because they had ammo and wanted to use it properly?

Because most of them liked the idea of being able to shoot a second time.

>>2657424
>Your volley
>Enemy volley
>You run towards enemy
>Enemy reloads
>Enemy second volley
>you are dead

>>2657424
Because bayonet charges are messy and frightening as hell seems like a good reason.

Because Americans are retarded

>>2657424
because the civil war was a transitional period of warfare with new guns and ships being deployed. It was the first large scale war featuring modern rifles, ironclad ships, advanced artillery, etc. Charging became less viable as defense became easier and easier, eventually leading to the situation he had in WW1

That doesn't mean they still didn't charge, it just didn't work out well anymore.

Because they had rifled weapons that were accurate enough to consistently kill at a distance. So why charge into a messy melee when you can reload and hit another person in 10 seconds.

File: general longstreet.gif (97KB, 356x433px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 356x433px

>>2657424

"You know what's gonna happen? I'll tell you what's gonna happen. Troops are now forming behind the line of trees. When they come out, they'll be under enemy long-range artillery fire. Solid shot. Percussion. Every gun they have. Troops will come out under fire with more than a mile to walk. And still, within the open field, among the range of aimed muskets. They'll be slowed by that fence out there, and the formation - what's left of it - will begin to come apart. When they cross that road, they'll be under short-range artillery. Canister fire. Thousands of little bits of shrapnel wiping the holes in the lines. If they get to the wall without breaking up, there won't be many left. A mathematical equation... But maybe, just maybe, our own artillery will break up their defenses. There's always that hope. That's Hancock out there, and he ain't gonna run. So it's mathematical after all. If they get to that road, or beyond it, we'll suffer over fifty percent casualties. But, Harrison...

...I don't believe my boys will reach that wall."

-General Longstreet

Well firstly Frodo, the distance of rifles in that era and terrain meant the defending side could deliver several shots into the enemy. Any advantage of the bayonet charge is removed when you have significantly less soldiers on the charge. Defenders an also very easily counter charge. And defenders often had some defensible terrain that negates any advantages of a cold steel charge.

Also, getting soldiers to commit fully to a bayonet charge is actually difficult mentally for even battle hardened veterans.

My turn, why the fuck didnt you give the ring to the eagles?

>>2657540
>why the fuck didnt you give the ring to the eagles?

Because then you'd end up with an Eagle Dark Lord. The reason the ring bearer was a hobbit was because they, for whatever reason, are uniquely resistant to its corrupting influence. (Among the major races, that is, i.e. not counting Tom Bombadil.)

>>2657682
>for whatever reason

they're lovers of nature and all things that grow, whereas the ring is a tool of power made by a guy who, along with his former master, only seeks to destroy. Because their views are literally opposites (one grows nature, the other destroys it) they're fundamentally more resistant to the desire to use it for power. Gollum merely horded it for himself and didn't even attempt to use it to control others which is the primary purpose of it. Same with Frodo, and Sam wanted to use it to grow, which in itself is contrary to the ring's desire to destroy. Hobbits don't seek to use the ring for power, and so they resist it more. They're still drawn to it, but they don't see it as a tool for power but of privacy and being left alone. This is manifested by the fact that Hobbits disappear when they put it on, opposed to every other race becoming powerful demigods when they wear it.

Because they lack a desire for power, they avoid opportunities for the ring to return to its master, because ultimately when people used it for power they inevitably used that power to try to kill sauron and that just played right into his hands

>>2657540
Because the orcs would have shot them down. Remember? That's why the Eagles won't take Thorin and company down to the more settled parts of the Anduin vales, they're scared of people with bows.

>>2657714
>whereas the ring is a tool of power made by a guy who, along with his former master, only seeks to destroy.
That's not actually true.

http://fair-use.org/j-r-r-tolkien/notes-on-motives-in-the-silmarillion/
> Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own "creatures", such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men. Melkor's final impotence and despair lay in this: that whereas the Valar (and in their degree Elves and Men) could still love "Arda Marred", that is Arda with a Melkor-ingredient, and could still heal this or that hurt, or produce from its very marring, from its state as it was, things beautiful and lovely, Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have "existed", independent of his own mind, and a world in potential.
>Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it.

>>2657734
I suppose sauron was less of a complete destructive force of nature(though this doesn't mean he didn't do quite a bit of destroying), but his destructive nature and quest for power and control are still fundamentally opposite of what Hobbits are all about, and this is why the ring has unique effect on them.

>>2657471

ding ding

they weren't messing about with brown besses.. some folks even had breech loading rifles. good luck charging across a field at that shit homie

>>2657424
>Why don't I know how to war?

>>2657755
True, but it's a fundamental misunderstanding both of the motives and the powers of the Ring, whcih is why the other Hobbit, Frodo, DOES use it to control people (like Gollum), and to see far away things and thoughts of other people (His thing on Amon Hen, or his guessing much of Galadriel's thoughts).

Now yes, Hobbit simplicity and "hobbit-sense" are good resistants to the lure of the Ring, but they too can be drawn by power. Plus, this statement

>This is manifested by the fact that Hobbits disappear when they put it on, opposed to every other race becoming powerful demigods when they wear it.
Is also wrong. Isildur disappeared when he wore the ring, and he was no hobbit. Frodo was able to use it to Command, just by having it on him and not wearing it. The disappearance due to the ring seems to be an effect of the interplay on Fea and Hroa; and very probably a shifting of the self (since men and men derivatives like Hobbits don't have an "active" Fea that interacts with the Unseen) into the Unseen. That's why, for instance, when Frodo is slipping from the wound of the morgul knife, he sees glowing god mode Glorfindel. But the Ring does not have unique effects on Hobbits, nor is it there to completely accentuate the native skills of the weilder.