Last of the Mohicans magnificent score and battle scenes

[Scepcop]

I think this film is kind of overrated, since the events in it are predicted, cliched, and the characters bland, so I don't know why it has been re-run on TV so many times as though it was a masterpiece. But the music score in it is definitely a masterpiece, like Dances with Wolves was. And the scenery in the film was breathtaking too. And of course, it's always fun to see uniformed European soldiers fighting wild savage looking American Indians. lol

Anyway, here is a great montage with clips from the film and the masterpiece score at the same time. It's really awesome.



Here is that ambush scene from the movie where a big squad of Indians kill off a whole brigade of Red Coats way too easily. I don't know why Hollywood always likes to make Red Coats look stupid and easy to kill.

[Scepcop]

Here are some exciting battle scenes from the movie "The Patriot" between American and British troops.







Frankly, I don't see how the Continental Army won that last battle scene. They were outnumbered and outgunned and did nothing special strategically. The only reason they won was because the script said so. lol. Typical Hollywood.

[NinjaPuppy]

[Scepcop]

That sounds crude. The English might as well have gone back to using archers, knights, and metal armor, like in the Middle Ages. lol Such troops would have fought the Indians better than the Red Coats with no armor at all.

[NinjaPuppy]

[Scepcop]

Well it's funny how in line battles, they just stand there when they are about to get shot by the other side, without ducking and with no shield. At least in the Medieval Era, they had shields and armor. It would seem then that the Medieval European warriors were much more efficient and protected than the 18th Century British Red Coats. Odd huh? lol

Also, if muskets had such a short firing range and could not shoot straight, why didn't they just use archers?

Also, I heard that guns in the Old West were also very short range and inaccurate. If so, how did they give the Americans an advantage over the Indians?

[Arouet]

I think the aboriginals were largely wiped out through disease that the westerners brought, not battle.

[caniswalensis]

Saying that British soldiers were stupid and easy to kill is wrong. At that point in history, The British empire was on the verge of becoming the first true super-power, and had a highly competent, disiplined and well-trained military force by the standards of the day.

The actions depicted in the movie are probably not unrealistic, but remember that they are based primarily on a work of fiction.

Here are some factors that may have affected the outcome of such battles in real life:

Initiative: The Native Americans in the movies seized it with both hands. They chose the time & place of the fight. More than that, they chose to make it an ambush, so they had total surprise on their side. Had the british been prepared & fighting on ground of their choosing, they no doubt would have faired much better.

Tactical purpose of the troops: The british troops seen in the movie were regular infantry, trained to fight and manuever in large formations and to deliver volleys of shot with a lot of killing power for the day. They were most effective when facing troops that were similar to themselves. The Native Americans were trained to fight as skirmishers, and highly skilled at individual combat. They were much more experienced with guerilla-style warfare. Given the point above about initiative, it is little wonder if the Native Americans would have enjoyed an overwelming victory.

Command structure: The British were specifically trained to fight in rigid formation and to stand & escew their natural impuses in favor of following commands given by their superiors. The Native Americans , as skirmishers were the exact opposite. They depended heavily on their own individual judgement and would have had difficulty taking orders & acting in unison as a large force.

Weapons: The British were armed with state of the art firearms for their time. While slow, short ranged and & inacurate by today;s standards, they were none the less deadly when correctly deployed in the hands of a properly trained soldier. Additionally, they had several advantages of more archaic wepons, like a bow & arrow. One is that while the weapon itself was much heavier than a bow, the ammunition was emminently more portable. A bundle of just 20 arrows is a bulky thing to carry around, while hundreds of rounds of powder & shot can fit in a small box. Next is training; it can take years of training to become proficient with a long bow, while a soldier can become competent and efficient after a few weeks of training with a gun. Also, with the addition of a bayonet, the rifle becomes an effective short spear for close-in fighting. Most importantly, is the relative damage that a firearm is capable of combared to a bow and arrow. In a battle field situation, I doubt that a bow is ver much more accurate than a gun, but when they connect, thaere is no doubt that a large bore musket of the day does a tremendous amount of damage, even up to severing a limb. While it is certain that you would know you had been wounded when an arrow hits you, it might not put you out of action.

As you can see, this sort of thing depepnds in large amounts on the situation. If it is an ambush on a narrow road surrounded by cover of regular soldiers trained primarily to fight in formation at a distance, by a guerilla force of skirmishers skilled at close quarters hand-to-hand combat, then it will probably be a rather lop-sided victory for the guerillas. If you move the battle to an open firld with no surprise on either side, then the regulars will almost certainly mow down the skirmishers handily.


If you want a real-life example of this, I can think of none better than the battles of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift from the Anglo-Zulu war at the end of the 19th century.

Two forces, one British regulars with state of the art firearms, one Aboriginal with spears, shields & a few antiquated firearms.
The battle of Isandlwana found the british surprised and the Zulu's able to use dried-out watercourses as cover. It was a humiliating defeat for the world's mightiest nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
The very next day, at Rorke's drift, the british were ready, and fighting from a prepared position of their choosing. A little under three hundred men fought off a force that numbered between 3000-4000 Zulu Warriors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift

Battles are much more about initiative and the proper use of force than they are about anything else. If you choose bad ground, or your troops are not suited to the job at hand, you are much more likely to lose the fight.

Regads, Canis

[craig weiler]

Open fields favor long range weapons and speed. If you are slow with shorter range weaponry in an open field you will most likely lose even if you have the larger force.

[AnnDempsey]

Open fields favor long range weapons and speed. If you are slow with shorter range weaponry in an open field you will most likely lose even if you have the larger force.

yes it is.. and depends on the distance of fields' if it is likely close battle field, i would prefer using blades or something hand to hand combat.. i would likely use crossbows in a long range fight..

[AnnDempsey]

I don't know why Hollywood always likes to make Red Coats look stupid and easy to kill.