Also, it is fraught with error in interpretation and ignorance of concurrent events leading to a far greater attribution of credit for "originating" this and that than is due. The comment section is worse, especially by American commenters who know little but loudly.
As far as the origins of light infantry and of the Rifles in the British Army, one should look at the Kings Royal Rifle Corp and its origins as the 60th and 62nd (Royal Americans) Regiments of Foot. There and then you find the introduction of so many of those concepts the video credits to Moore and the comment section credits to the (largely fictitious) American squirrel rifle toters of the American War of Independence.
The 60th and 62nd were raised in North America during the Seven Years War and trained for purpose, a lot of that training was groundbreaking both tactically and technically, as was the devolvement of tactical decision down to the small-unit level, with leaders informed of their place in the strategy and the mission with far greater control of how the mission was supported by their actions.
These were the experiences that moulded the military mindset of the Continental Army officers and NCOs, for the capable ones had served in the Seven Years War and had trained to that mindset.
This could go on into a masterclass on Origins of Doctrine (a course I happened to have taught) but I won't type it out for you to read in the manner of a textbook. BTW, I also taught the Light Leaders Course for the Army, so the academic concepts here I am familiar with.
I can say between those academic experiences and my career experiences, the video is pretty much a babbling regurgitation of buzz-phrases about which the writer (can't blame the AI narrator) knows nothing. Indeed, the whole thing could have been an AI researched and written production. It's lack of nuance, timing, and accuracy has all the hallmarks of AI generation.
It's mostly bullshit, I'm afraid.
Message Thread 
for sarge - MIKE October 6, 2025, 4:19 pm
« Back to index