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
An element missing from a lot of other responses is the fact that casualties from battles are actually significantly rarer than you have been led to believe. Situations where two opposing sides just slaughter each other until everyone from one side is dead are not very common.
People don’t want to die. Troops facing certain death will generally break and flee or surrender. And in many wars throughout history, both sides understood this. You could trust that you would be treated well if you surrendered and when the war was concluded would be returned home. Even when “rules of war” aren’t in place, people are very willing to surrender and risk any fate better than death.
So war was often quite a bit like a grand board game. You keep your troops together in formation so you can efficiently give them orders with flags or drums or trumpets. You maneuver around the terrain to give your troops an advantage as the real fighting unfolds. You dig trenches or build makeshift walls. You often meet with the opposing commander before a battle to basically argue “I have the superior position and will win, just surrender so we can both avoid any deaths.” And since this is just a job for both of you, you’re pretty favorably disposed towards a peaceful resolution either beforehand or after only a few skirmishes. Casualties usually only got out of hand if your unit lost communication with your commanders or they were too stupid to surrender when they should. If your unit lost order and people started fleeing everywhere, there’s a much stronger chance you all get cut down in the chaos.
Sticking with your unit is your best chance for survival. You will either surrender together and be mostly still alive or you will be one of the chess pieces on the winning side and be mostly still alive. Breaking into pieces is a death sentence.
There are a few points in history when the technology of war had significantly changed but the commanders hadn’t really learned how to operate a war under the new rules. These wars are very messy.
Short answer from the perspective of generals in that era:
“Well Mr. Smith we cant seem to hit anyone more than 100 stones away effectively. No single person can accomplish this”
“*Single* person? Mr Brewer, if we have not one, but one hundred men firing at the same target, chances are, at least ONE of them will hit SOMETHING.”
“An excellent idea Mr. Smith”
“Indeed”
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.
The weapons of the time were inaccurate, even at 100 paces. The problem you have is that you need to hit enemies to win a battle. By grouping together en masse, in a line, you can:
a) bring all your guns to bear on an enemy line
b) fire volleys which are both very effective at killing as many in the enemy line as possible but also psychologically terrifying to the enemy because of the smoke, noise, and the show of discipline your army is demonstrating to the enemy, oh, and you know, lots of the enemies comrades suddenly disappearing in a red mist next to them.
c) by firing volleys, your front rank can reload while your second rank behind them can advance, put their muskets over the shoulders of their reloading comrades and shoot. Sometimes a line may have three lines, where the second line steps to one side to allow the third line to shoot. By the time your third line has shot, your first line is reloaded and can fire. Firing revolving volleys is a devastating tactic to stop the enemy line from even reaching yours. It also has an advantage in the fact that if your first line is hit badly, you can still fire multiple volleys.
The line however is not invincible and can be countered with:
a) a cavalry charge – risky but effective. The line will either be smashed to pieces, cut apart and savaged or forced to form square with fixed bayonets. Suddenly, your line is now firing at horseman corralling your troops into an easy to hit target for artillery and musket fire who are also *not firing back at the enemy line.* A unit in square cannot move and also cannot retreat without breaking ranks. Getting your enemy to fix themselves to a point on the battlefield is a great tactic to pin certain units and then focus your volley fire on other weaker units that may break and run giving you a numbers advantage.
b) the column. Napoleon famously used skirmishers to harass and cause casualties in well disciplined lines of enemy soldiers. He would deploy the skirmishers for long enough to cause the line to waver and then send a column of troops at them. Now, a column has it’s drawbacks. The first lines in the column are often doomed to die or be wounded however the ranks are simply replaced by the men behind. A column can move quickly and everyone moves in the same direction, and troop discipline is generally better as they cannot see the carnage Infront until they are in it. The force of the men behind presses the men in front onwards. When the column meets the line, however, the tables are turned. The column will break through the line easily as it is only two to three ranks deep. Once the line is broken the column can wheel around the back of the line and kill the enemy troops from behind.
c) artillery fire. concentrating your artillery at the enemies lines is a great way to punch holes in it to make it easier for your columns and cavalry to be more effective. Napoleon loved artillery and would pound the ever loving crap out of enemy formations before he attacked *sometimes.*
Having fixed formations on the battlefield also allowed officers and generals to see what was going on. If you can see your big formation of men from half a mile away marching as ordered then you know you can concentrate on something else happening. Being able to see clear units of troops is a huge advantage in a battle. You can also see when they are being engaged or retreating too as it will be a big mass of men running or walking backwards.
Latest Answers