Soldier specialities pre 1900s.

Not really, unless you were the child of a wealthy and/or noble family who attended a military academy to become a career artillery officer or cavalryman or whatever.

>>32712181
>cavalryman

On that note how did the cavalry recruit its ranks? Only rich men could ride an down horses. And all rich men had to become officers. So how did they find enlisted soldiers for cavalry regiments?

>>32712181

a lot of those guys couldn't read, so they were told what to do and they did it. Kind of like today's armies.

>>32712276
Think of Cavalry back then as aviatiors today. Pretty much all cav units until around the late victorian era were exclusively rich men who were junior officers being led by higher-ranked officers. Today, pilots are - with the exception of army rotary wing - junior officers to start.

>>32712181
>Recruiting office
Most states had conscription. You just get assigned to the local line regiment or something. If you show promise or special skills, someone may select you for something else.
If you volunteer for some reason, you could probably ask for a special job, provided you have the skills and trustworthiness.

File: Minute_Man_Statue_Lexington_Massachusetts_cropped.jpg (187KB, 732x1211px)

187KB, 732x1211px

>>32712181
>wanting to be anything but a volunteer willing to fight for freedom

>>32712953
Well I'de rather be able to take cover, take aimed shots with a rifled weapon at will all whilst not wearing a bright red or blue uniform. or better yet be able to gallop into a position, dismount, fire a round then mount and trot away. Line Infantry must have surely known their service was a death sentence. Artillery yeah youde be deaf completely but youde be alive. You're biggest threat is counter battery fire but generally the enemy artillery is out of range and shooting at your own infantry.

>>32712314
>who were junior officers
Hmmm not really. The enlisted men had ranks and NCOs like infantry units, albeit with different names. Am I to believe that cavalrymen who s kind of middle class? Could afford a horse and a pretty uniform yet weren't high up enough in society to buy a commission?

File: Confederate_cavalry_1st_virginia_bw.jpg (43KB, 640x453px)

43KB, 640x453px

>>32712276
in the civil war pretty much all of the confederate cavalry owned their own horses, and were experienced as a result

the north just straight up recruited randoms without even testing their horsemanship at times

>>32712181
>Ywn be a royal Welsh fusilier
Why even live?

>>32712953
>Wanting to be a traitor to the government that spent all the ebil taxes protecting you
Yeah go burn down your neighbours house and kill his kids for not supporting your rich elite class over a different rich elite class
Our revolution gets so whitewashed it's terrible, it's civil war tier not people casting off oppressive shackles

>>32712181
The only people that could pick what they wanted to be were rich men and the sons of rich men. They literally just purchased a commission in their regiment of choice. Everything else was based on regional recruitment.

>>32712181
>Back in the day(lets say 1700-1899) were soldiers able to pick what type of soldier they wanted to be?

No. If you were poor, you were a cannon fodder.

>>32713458
Cannon fodder in the same way that infantry nowadays is cannon fodder, rather than thinking of them as poor untrained smucks only there to get shot instead of someone else
A well drilled and disciplined line mattered a lot, that's part of why Austria sucked so fucking bad

>>32712181

You would start as a basic infantryman unless you were rich. As your experience (and pay) stacked up you could go to the armorer and get modifications to your primary (cut down barrel, calibration, etc) or you could buy new gear. When you got enough and right equipment (think a load carrying equipment and soeed loader) you could apply for fitting positions, like assauler or grenadier. You would do your qualifications in your new unit and then be attached to it.

I don't know about american armies but that is how it basically went down in Europe from The Third European Civil War of Europe on.

>>32712973
Remember there were also Dragoons, which were distinct from calvalry and more made up of what we would consider middle class

>>32713604
Dragoons, for those of you who dont know, were light infantry who rode on horseback to key areas and then dismounted to fight like regular light infantry.

>>32713665
Not the guy you responded to but you are right, depending on the period of course, dragoons were also used simply to ride to better positions for firing too
They also served as a medium cavalry, heavy cavalry were coolest though, biggest balls to the walls crazy mother fuckers, on biggest horses with the job of charging into cannon and musket fire straight into bayonet squares and the like, that or cutting down broken lines

>>32713505
>life used to be like video games
born too late ;_;

>>32713695
It must have been fucking terrifying, maybe one of the most brutal and dangerous jobs that man has done in war, watching cannons pound your men apart, lines of muskets mowing down, thick smoke choking you as you charge forward with a sword, with the intension of crashing straight into a wall of bayonets with the hope your horse and you might crash through, dead or alive and break the line enough for your peers to smash through too

>>32713695
>>32713714
why are you doing this

>>32713695
You ever read about the Polish Hussars? Some of the best heavy cavalry in the world. Plus they wore metal wings into battle.

The worst part about heavy cavalry is that they still were in regular front line use up through world war 1. Several of the earliest battles had French Cuirassiers, in full breastplate armor with drawn swords, charging against machine gun emplacements.

File: c__data_users_defapps_appdata_internetexplorer_temp_saved-images_dqxrjn6.jpg (62KB, 758x500px)

62KB, 758x500px

>>32713730
French Cuirassiers in 1914.
>>32713714
Think about the line infantryman, how would you feel with a thousand pounds of flesh and metal charging at 30 miles an hour right at you.

>>32713730
Have a look at french uniforms from 1914 before they got their new uniforms, you'll be amused by it I bet
And polish hussars get memed a lot, they're also a fair bit earlier like mod 17th century, however they were awesome as fuck, have a read of the siege of Vienna for example
Their wings were attached to the saddle I believe, used to create a whistling kind of sound as they all charges and the air passed through, may have been similar to the distinctive sound in the way some planes make which may have struck fear into their combatants

>>32713762
Depends if we were in square, and where I was in it
I'd rather be the stationary guys with a blade attached to a long piece of wood
Not that I'm diminishing the bravery it must have taken the line to hold strong and keep in formation, truely I'd say it was possibly one of the most brutal times in warfare, with showings of bravery given by most men at the field

>>32712969

Yep until infantry bear down on you and destroy you with volley fire and bayonet charge or cavalry runs you down.

>>32713879
Pisses me off to no end see people who don't know what they're on about say something like
>Lol why did they line up to get shot everyone from the past is so stupid

>>32713075
>neighbours
>our revolution

I suspect that your kind and my kind were on opposite sides of our revolution.

>>32713712
>life used to be like video games

Only with more dysentery and less dentistry.

>>32712181
Militaries have been made up of conscripts up until a few decades ago
You didn't choose shit, you were a fucking illiterate peasant whose life wasn't worth anything, you were given a weapon and sent to your death.

>>32713947
No, during the revolution neighbours turned on eachother, just like any civil war, the losers were driven or left to Canada
I just think many people don't actually understand the revolution all to well, they just see patriotic American vs evil oppressive redcoat, rather than simply rebels and loyalists

>>32714266
Fuck off with your meme history fucktard, I bet you believe everything you were thought about the 'dark ages' too

>>32714266
Peasants had it better relative to the ruling class, than we do today. (in many cases)

>>32714593
>can't refute anything

Really made me think

>>32714266
>Conscripts
wew lad. Most of armies back in the day were professional requiring people to sign up and get paid, although some of the recruitment techniques were rather insidious.

>>32714266
>>32714593
>>32715014
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/
Keep in mind it would likely be the poor illiterate to enlist or be drafted.
That doesn't mean they were illiterate by intention; it was about the early 18th century state education became a thing (though it was not always effective).

Also, any soldier would be extensively drilled, possibly even taught in other matters (like literacy). They were expensive and thus cared for (in some states more so than in others) - though their lifes were still expended in wars that they might have cared little about. They could also advance into NCO positions and were sometimes given state employ after their service.

>>32712181 In the British army it just depended what regiment the recruiting Sergent you signed up with was from

>>32714266
>Militaries have been made up of conscripts up until a few decades ago
Conscription is 17th century idea that became really common by Napoleonic wars and this not everywhere.

The early modern militaries that didn't have conscription(like - most of them) had somewhat professional armies but most people don't understand how recruitment to such army looked like.

Imagine you went to a tavern, got 3 completely smashed guys to place X near their surname and put them on a cart to the regimental barracks. They were contracted "professionals" from now on. If you wanted professional sailors you did the same but picked tavern close to a port and sometimes bribed a captain of the ship they served on before so he could hire somebody else(sometimes in the same way).

Of course forced "hiring" was also practised but it wasn't really conscription.

File: 13892157_742270165876537_4112738979662918798_n.jpg (39KB, 480x343px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x343px

>>32713730
Cavalry units remained in use later in the war on more mobile fronts like the Eastern and Middle Eastern fronts.

Cavalry (more accurately, mounted scouts) has been used in several wars since WWI like the Banana Wars, Rhodesian Bush War and the Portuguese Colonial War. A mounted soldier can patrol much further than foot mobile one, very effective for counter insurgency.

>>32713895

Generally speaking, people just don't know or care to understand military tactics utilized more than a century ago, much like all bits of niche information you may know.

There is no reason to get upset.

>>32713075
Found the Britbong still salty that we told the queen to go fuck herself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGMyxfzg8WM

>>32712181
If you were rich enough, you just bought your commission and preferably with a posh regiment. This system allowed incompetents to be in charge, for example The Charge of the Light Brigade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_Army

>>32715702
I'm not disputing literacy rates, I'm calling bullshit on the idea that all armies were just filled with worthless conscripted peasant that were there to just die, professional armies are ancient

>>32715014
I mean, for one massive point, mass levies didn't like using peasants, because peasants are for working your fucking fields, if you are going to use scum then you'd use jobless city scum first of all
Secondly, professional military forces are ancient as fuck, how do you think the mid republic Roman army worked, they were professionals, their gear payed for by Rome, their life in service to rome, English longbow were actually peasants, peasants that trained with their bows so much their right arms were abnormal, they were peasents that were payed so well they could afford about 3 swords on a weeks wages in the late 14th century, they were highly valued professionals, armed and armoured

>>32715981
>We told the queen
I'm American, and God damn do you seriously have this poor an understanding of the most important part of US history?

>>32713714
>willingly charging into an unbroken line of line infantry or a square of line infantry
No. Unless you were stupid.

>>32715916
Don't forget the initial US invasion of Afghanistan.

>>32713730
t.Someone who learned about World War One from Facebook posts

>>32716174
Apparently two guys were arrested for smoking in duty (or something similar) but since they were about to attack they couldn't be taken to the stockade/rear/whatever.
So instead they were disarmed and ordered to charge with everyone else.
Mental.

>>32717058
Yes, cavalry did charge square, hopefully after they'd been barrages by artillery, but they did charge square, I used to have a good quote about a cav charge breaking through one, but I've not been able to find it as of yet

>>32717240
>>32717058
Also I believe Waterloo contained a lot of hot square on cavalry action if you wanna do some delving, don't think cav pulled off any major breakthroughs there though, not to my memory anyway

>>32715981
I like to think all the stupid posts like this are made by the same angry autist

>>32717127
>>32716174

Why does everyone call the Charge of the Light Brigade a "military disaster"? They won! They captured the Russian guns, and while a casualty rate of 1/6 isn't trivial it's not nearly an Isandhwlana- or Little Big Horn-scale massacre. More to the point, on the very same day at the very same battle there were two other resoundingly successful military marvels - the Charge of the Heavy Brigade (successfully leading a cavalry charge uphill) and The Thin Red Line (infantry driving off a Russian counter-charge with disciplined gunfire), and really the Charge of the Light Brigade should join them as another triumph of succeeding against the odds.

An infantry square is basically impervious to a horse charge. Not because the riders aren't made enough but because a horse doesn't like to run into a wall of mounted bayonets - plus at least a couple of dozen muskets can fire at the horses at close range. Wasting a hundred mounted men and their horses to kill as many infantry is just madness. Btw I used to do Napoleonic reenactmen and was part of squares at times. Fascinating experience.

>>32717687
>they won
>they captured the Russian guns
Whilst the Light Brigade did make it to the guns, they scattered the gunners but withdrew almost immediately, at which point the Russian gunners returned to their guns and fired on then as they withdrew.
Basically they senselessly charged into well prepared positions for nibgaij other than casualties.

>>32717884
*negligible

>>32717687

Attackers:
Strength: 650 or so
Deaths: 110
Wounded: 161. Keep in mind that this was before most types of medicine, and before cleanliness was an item. 90% of all actual death happened in the hospital.
Taken prisoner: about 60....

Would you like to have taken part in that?

>>32717878
They most certainly don't, the breeding of a horse was important along with their temperament, and why buying destriers could cripple knights financially in the middle ages
Yep, but on the chance the line isn't drilled well enough, or they havent formed their square cohesively enough the cav has a chance to break through, not so much beating squares as such as taking advantage of the faults of the soldiers forming square, but it did work
I wish I could find that quote, it's pretty interesting desu, and reenactments sound cool, I've been very tempted to get some transitional plate and a sword with my buddy and start learning and practicing

>>32717687
Because the Charge of the Light Brigade should have never happened. The commanders gave botched orders and they charged at an entrenched enemy. It proved to be such a waste that a board of inquiry was created to review the commission system in place.

>>32717687
>succeeding against the odds
>only happened because a lt. misdirected his superiors
>"captured" the guns
>promptly retreated
>1/6 dead
>1/6 wounded and most likely died

That is some mental gymnastics right there.

>>32718010

There's reenactment and reenactment. You get the whole range from guys with foam weapons who just bash about and have fun, to the guys who do everything so by the book that they miss out how lousy the real soldiers were.

Btw horse treatment ranged from great to abysmal, too. There was no kind of happy ending for a military horse, and I don't mean dying in combat. Napoleon practically decimated western Europe's stock of riding horses.

The horse cavalry basically died with the advent of the heavy machinegun.

>>32718124
Yeah we're not into any of that LARP shit, were both just massive history nerds that both happen to be /fit/ so we're pretty keen on learning HEMA and practicing swordsmanship and skill at arms from treatises and whatnot
And yeah machine guns fucked cav over, they were still employed in some successful cases in WW1 and a rare couple in early WW2 iirc but their time was gone

>>32718225

Don't knock off larping, it can be insane fun. Just not too serious in the weapon area.

The last hurrah of the horse cavalry was British I think, when Lord Kitchener managed to get his riders to fire their rifles and actually hitting something while riding. I suspect he may have peeked at the US Cavalry and their native indian counterparts who managed the same things with Henrys.

I think the last cavalry charge ever known was an Australian unit in 1917(?); lacking sabers they used their long bayonets.

>>32718345
>I think the last cavalry charge ever known was an Australian unit in 1917(?); lacking sabers they used their long bayonets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Izbushensky

>>32718345
Well I'd love to take part in something like a melee, or just go for regular fights with my friend if we do it, buy enough gear that we're sure we wont accidentally maim eachother and actually become proficient enough through a fuck tonne of practice and learning
Then I'd be most definitely wanna get involved in actual fights, maybe reenactment but my interest lies more in the personal skills tbqh

>>32718345
Please stop, your 'historical' knowledge is giving me a nosebleed.....

>>32718449

Doing Napoleonics we had working replica muskets and fired black powder blanks. For the rare melees - I was in Leipzig and Waterloos with 3000 and 5000 reenacters in play - we fired over each others heads, but stormed the enemy with bayonets fixed, and at close up we raised the rifles so we bounced into each other. Security is fairly high, weapon firing drill is at times fanatic and what you train for is to become part of the machinery. If you want to excel in personal combat then other types of organisations than military style is probably to be preferred.

>>32718547

Then give better 'historical' knowledge. If talking about weapons and war isn't your thing then perhaps you are in the wrong place?

>>32717687
My relative lead that charge

>>32718010

Well, there was that one guy who's name I always forget that broke pikemen behind a barricade by charging cavalry uphill at them. Sometimes things work.