Facing away when firing musket.

[Sorkenlol]

Hello, I've seen that in the patriot, they face away from the musket just before firing, but I've also seen other movies where they don't (Barry Lyndon (I think), Rob Roy (I think aswell).) So what is it? Do you have to face another direction when firing or is that bollocks?

[Carl von Döbeln]

I think they did it just because of the risk of the musket exploading (or just not to risk getting smoke/gunpowder into their eyes.)


Carl

[CBR]

It's a very natural reflex really with sparks and smoke going off not far away from your face.


CBR

[♔Oggie♔]

I agree with Carl, I don't like to get smoke and blackpowder in my eyes in the mid of a battle

[Doberman_Pharaoh]

I would also say that
1: what you see in movies - does not show a historically correct way that would often ruin the "action" or "romance" of the movie.

2: unreliable weapons and sparks as previously mentioned would be a good explanation - maybe bad actors with no guts could also be the reason?

[Emperor of Europe]

There is no reason to have ones eyes open.

Ordinary soldiers in the line were not supposed to aim at specific enemies. The drill was to hold the gun level and in the direction af the enemy unit and press the trigger when ordered to do so.

That's why the command wasn't "aim!" as it is now, but "level!"

rgds/EoE

[JaM]

actually - Patriot was quite accurate movie, they had a very good historical advisor - Gordon Fry - facing away during fire was common thing in 18.century - at that time accuracy was not important - rate of fire was most important thing... muskets didnt even had any sights - 16.century muskets had rear and front sights -but they had different tactics - during 16.century it was lenghty process to load a heavy musket (around 8-12kg), so every shot could be the last, so musketeers actually preffer to hit the target instead of firing in "hail Mary" 18.century style.... (there are historical mentions that for exampe musketeers in 16.c trained with targets at 100,200 and 300 paces, (300 paces is aproximatly 220m) against 4x4 target - and compare it to 50-80m max effective range of 18.century muskets...)

another difference is that musketeers of 16.century were the most experienced or elite soldiers - they spen a lot of time training. musketeers of late 17.c and 18.century were standard issue troops with very little live fire training (powder wasnt cheap, especially if collonel has to pay it from his own money...)

[schoenkoenig]

actually - Patriot was quite accurate movie, they had a very good historical advisor - Gordon Fry

It's roundly acknowledged that when it comes to historical accuracy, The Patriot falls flat on its face.

It sounds to me like the extras just looked the other way to save their eyes.

[JaM]

depends on what are you refering - combat battle scenes were absolutly realistic.

[remosu37]

That's why the command wasn't "aim!" as it is now, but "level!"
rgds/EoE

That depends on the type of troop, and country. Many different countries have a variety of different order schemes--i believe in Great Britain, redcoats had the order "Present arms", in a similar way.

However, other countries used different orders. For example, the Continental Army is a famous exception. In the US, average citizen soldiers commonly had extensive firearm handling experience unlike other nations (most countries could only afford to give at most a few dozen rounds of ammunition to soldiers for training purposes/year). Therefore, the whole concept of aiming was widely considered within the competance of the average soldier, thus the order given was generally "Ready, aim, fire"--excepting some officers with more extensive British Army experience during the French and Indian wars (7-years war in UK, 9-year war in Continental Europe).

Another big exception was light infantry, who were generally trained to aim at targets of opportunity (especially sergeants & other NCOs). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirailleurs, among others). These elite soldiers would generally have recieved the best marksmanship training (excepting the most honored troops in the regiment, the Grenadiers), and so would be expected to aim.

So I can say with a fair amount of confidence, that at least US troops, and most light infantry brigades (and I think most armies in general) overwhelmingly would have been looking at where they were shooting.

For example, the Prussian infantry training techniques, which became a standard in Continental europe, included instructions for troops to "aim low"--due to the tremendous 'kick' from the recoil of hte mustket. That is, if you aimed at the feet of the enemy, the gun would kick up enough that the ball would fly at chest level. If you pointed the gun straight at your opponent, the ball would generally fly harmlessly into the air. So, yet again, we see that it would simply be impossible for a person to not look at his enemy as he fires, were he actually following his training. As to how firearms were discharged in practice I don't know--but i've never heard of soldiers looking away as they discharge their weapons as common practice.:hmmm:

[Emperor of Europe]

I agree that some troops like skirmishers and some late era line infantry actually aimed at individual targets.

But for the majority of armies and the majority if line infantry units in those armies, firing was all about speed, not accuracy. They were expected to fire at an enemy unit when ordered and as quickly as possible. Nothing more.

rgds/EoE

[El Sid]

Firing a flintlock musket always involves the risk of powder burns to the face and eyes, from the priming flash that shoots out from under the frizen. Soldiers from that era often had pocked cheeks from powder burns and grains of powder embedding in the face.

[{***}Gen.ALW{***}]

Some exceptions were some specialised skirmisher units or rifle units who sometimes would affix a small curved plate between the lock and their face to help sheild.

Sorry no siting here, just remember it from visiting a battlefield in days of old.

[Gaius Julius Civilis]

excepting some officers with more extensive British Army experience during the French and Indian wars (7-years war in UK, 9-year war in Continental Europe).

I do not think any veterans of the 9 years war were in any state to fight in 1776. The Irish 9 years' war was in 1600-ish and the European one was in 1688-1697

The number of years in the 7 years' war is 7 years long throughout Europe afaik, but I've been wrong before

[ForVictory]

There is a great Russian movie called Sluga Gosudarev aka The Sovereign's Servant and its about the Northen War between Russia and Sweden and in several scenes u see soldier looking away when firing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24gQKRF9aJ0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLYaf6Q_snw

[Culhwch]

There is a great Russian movie called Sluga Gosudarev aka The Sovereign's Servant and its about the Northen War between Russia and Sweden and in several scenes u see soldier looking away when firing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24gQKRF9aJ0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLYaf6Q_snw

God what an awfull movie. Well atleast the swedish soldiers spoke swedish, albeit modern swedish.

[remosu37]

I do not think any veterans of the 9 years war were in any state to fight in 1776. The Irish 9 years' war was in 1600-ish and the European one was in 1688-1697

The number of years in the 7 years' war is 7 years long throughout Europe afaik, but I've been wrong before

What's commonly refered to as the 7-years war in english speaking countries is occasionally referred to as the 9-year war on continental europe as i understand it (I learned it as the 7-year war in the US). It went from 1754-1763, also known as the French and Indian War in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War. Britain got involved in 1756, hence why its known as the 7-years war to them.

[Relic]

As stated by EoE, they only aimed in the direction at the enemy, not at an enemy. Muskets; you see were not the most accurate weapons in the world.

[Gaius Julius Civilis]

What's commonly refered to as the 7-years war in english speaking countries is occasionally referred to as the 9-year war on continental europe as i understand it (I learned it as the 7-year war in the US). It went from 1754-1763, also known as the French and Indian War in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War. Britain got involved in 1756, hence why its known as the 7-years war to them.

Actually, the war started for Europe in '56, but Britain and France had de facto been at war since '54 (in North America as the French and Indian War). The French and Indian War simply merged into the 7 Years' War, as I understand it.

In 1756 Austria and Prussia went to war and each dragged its respective allies into war. As the British and the French were already in a state of war in their colonies (though not at war), North Americans might consider it 9 years, but for Europe it was just 7 (European things being smaller than American things)

[MrOsterman]

We could do a whole thread on how wrong the Patriot was.

But to keep it simple: Solidiers did not routinely turn away. It happened once in a while but mostly men just looked down range out of habit, rather than turning away.

Mr. O