It’s hard to fathom that someone at some point wouldn’t have thought, “*hmmm, maybe just standing in a big line waiting to get shot isn’t the most optimal tactic*”
In: 0
Modern industrial warfare where technology has allowed for tens of thousands or millions of casualties in a battle gives the impression that goal of most battles is to destroy to the enemy. At its core though, the main goal of any battle is to break an opponents ability or will to fight so that you can “seize the hill” or city or whatever.
In 18th century guns were so inaccurate the safest spot was directly in front of the guy firing at you. If you had opposing troops spread out they could fire all day and not to do any real damage, so there’s no reason to cede your ground. To have a chance at victory you needed both sides have lines of troops and fire volley into each other. The goal wasn’t too kill hundreds of troops but make the other side break first. once one side showed wavering constitution the winner would seal the deal with a cavalry or bayonet charge to drive them off the field.
So basically…lining up was only way for war to be effective and so both sides agreed to meet on field and go tit for tat and see who blinked or bled first.
Latest Answers