Why did Soldiers Fight in Lines? | Animated History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2023
- Special thanks to War and Peace: Civil War for sponsoring this video. Start your career with the Union Army or Confederate forces and support our channel by downloading the game today for FREE! warandpeace.onelink.me/g1tb/s...
Armchair Historian Video Game: store.steampowered.com/app/16...
Support us on Patreon: / armchairhistorian
Sign up for Armchair History TV today! armchairhistory.tv/
Promo code: ARMCHAIRHISTORY for 50% OFF
Merchandise available at store.armchairhistory.tv/
Check out the new Armchair History TV Mobile App too!
apps.apple.com/us/app/armchai...
play.google.com/store/apps/de...
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / armchairhist
Sources:
Chandler, David. The Campaigns of Napoleon. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1995.
“Concerning Fire-Arms.” Harper's Weekly, A Journal of Civilization . August 3, 1861.
Gates, David. Warfare in the Nineteenth Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.
Jones, Archer. The Art of War in the Western World. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001.
Washington, George, Dorothy Twohig, Philander D. Chase, and William Wright Abbot. The Papers of George Washington. Charlottesville (Va.): University press of Virginia, 1999.
Music:
Armchair Historian Theme - Zach Heyde
Victoria 2 Soundtrack - The Royal March
Flying Serpent - Dream Cave
When Johnny Comes Marching Home - Traditional
The Final Mile - Anthony Earls
Reunion - Wendel Scherer
Blind Faith - Phoenix Tail
Battle Hymn of the Republic - Traditional
Top Patrons:
Jonathan Woody
Nep Nep
MatsMan
Hilgy
Avery Mullins
Kure
John R. Merlino Jr.
CPTTanker Joe
Christoph Wißmann
Alden Simmons
The Demon Lord
Special thanks to War and Peace: Civil War for sponsoring this video. Start your career with the Union Army or Confederate forces and support our channel by downloading the game today for FREE! warandpeace.onelink.me/g1tb/si2sht32
Armchair Historian Video Game: store.steampowered.com/app/1679290/Fire__Maneuver/
Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/armchairhistorian
Sign up for Armchair History TV today! armchairhistory.tv/
Promo code: ARMCHAIRHISTORY for 50% OFF
Merchandise available at store.armchairhistory.tv/
Check out the new Armchair History TV Mobile App too!
apps.apple.com/us/app/armchair-history-tv/id1514643375
play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tv.uscreen.armchairhistorytv
Discord: discord.gg/thearmchairhistorian
Twitter: twitter.com/ArmchairHist
Let's hope this video gets as many views as possible, to educate uneducated people on the reality of linear warfare during the early modern period!
Your game is basically like rules of survival, warpath, and those other games. Same concept and it’s boring In my opinion.
I thought the industrial revolution happened before the Napoleonic wars.
@@aaronfield7899 well it began in Britain around the 1750s, but there was only the most minor of advancements before the 1820s and 1830s.
so no, but I can understand where the mistake comes from, as the industrial revolution is often said to begin around 1750
This game is garbage. They will spawn a strong AI to attack your base with max everything and they decimate your base and when your units die, they prompt you to buy micro transactions. They did the same with this WW1 game called “Game Of Trenches” and its the same thing.
It really took balls of steel to march in such formations against cannon and musket fire
It's him again!! He has appeared once again!!
But then again, these soldiers have been very strictly disciplined to exactly stand in front of these ranged weapons to the point it didn't matter all that much for them anyway.
Early muskets and other guns weren’t very accurate, so if soldiers weren’t close enough to the enemy, they weren’t get hit.
This form of warfare is HUGLY less stresful than standing in shield wall and looking the enemy in the eyes while stabing them with a sword in the face, as for instance Romans did in certain period.
@@ZofTheFather I don't get this whole "muskets were innacurate" all that much, though. Yeah, they _were,_ but when you bunch a lot of gunners in a wall against _another_ line or wall of men, does the inaccuracy even matter at all? Unless vertical accuracy were also something at play, but it wasn't exactly the only type of accuracy of a gun or projectile.
Nice pun
In the Russo-Japanese War during 1904-1905, western military observers already considered the use of the volley fire on Russia's side to be obsolete.
I'm pretty sure by that time armies on both sides were fighting in loose skirmish lines rather than close order formations most of the time (not saying it didn't happen but it wasn't the norm at that point)
what did the japanese do? (Rather than volley fire)
@@Godzillagamer1577 Frontal charges, which of course gave the military observers wrong impression how battles should be fought in WW1.
@@BadBomb555 90% of WW1 generals stop their frontal assault right before they overwhelm the enemy.
But to be serious, there's not much you can realistically do when you're going up against a line of trenches (that can not be out manuevered in any real fashion) that streches from the alps to the english channel. The very start of WW1 was much more like the Eastern Front and the Franco-Prussian war, and that's how most assumed the war to go in the West. WW1 was unfortunately the product of being right in the middle of the industrial revolution, where you have all of these advancements, but they were too undeveloped to be used effectively (planes, tanks, radar, AA, etc).
That is not an excuse for throwing away the lives of these soldiers, there shouldn't have been 12 battles of the isonzo
@@dylanroemmele906 did they have radar in WW1 I thought that came in WW2?
A point that cannot be stressed enough. People in the past *were not stupid* and we we not only do them a disservice by assuming that but we also severely handicap our ability to understand the past if we simply write off anything we don't understand as simply people in the past being dumb-dumbs who aren't as smart as us enlightened modern folk.
Its like that one guy that asks why shields werent used in the age of muskets and line formations. Like bruh humans have been fighting wars for thousands of years, do you really think we were so different back then that we cant figure out whats practical and what is not. Btw that shield questions is quite a good one, they didnt use shields, put it simply, because theyre too cumbersome, a soldiers was already carrying alot of kit, so you would need extra soldiers to hold the shield which wasnt worth the cost or manpower to do because each man could carry a musket, also shields would need to be produced in huge quantities, and why do that when you can give every man a musket instead which actually shoots and has potential to harm the enemy, basically tacticians at the time deemed a man with a musket is worth more than a man with a shield, and who am i to say theyre wrong since they lived at the time and observed warfare just like we do today
One thing I've disliked about movies or shows set in the past.
The amount of knowledge a "caveman" needed to know in order to survive is huge. They observed everything about the world they lived in.
I one saw part of a video on people in Siberia. They know exactly what furs from what animal should be used for every layer of warmth - with the added complication of needing to be killed in the right time of year so the coat is right for that specific purpose
The knowledge of materials and construction for making a compound bow is intricate.
There’s a big trend today to depict people from history as stupid (especially this era for some reason) but people from history are no smarter than you or I.
@@Quincy_Morris It's not a new trend, it's always been that way.
Ok, they weren't stupid, but they weren't very smart either to dress in bright clothing and not hit the ground when bullets are coming at you!
Not gonna lie, if I was in an 18th century battlefield and I saw a massive line of soldiers all aiming their muskets at me, I'd be terrified
@oliversherman2414: especially if they are a line of red coats, emerging from the smoke as one, unstoppable force.
@@bmyers7078 God save the King 🇬🇧
@@oliversherman2414Cringe
@@skyhappy No U
@@skyhappyhow do u call that cringe
When I used to tutor history to kids I used line tactics to explain how morale functions in strategy. Kids would ask me "Why would soldiers stand in line like that? Weren't they afraid of getting hurt?" "They were! And when they got too scared they'd run away, and if too many of your dudes run away then you lose!"
He obviously meant to write ‘would.’
@@b.jellis Use the context and come to your own conclusion
I try and remind students of the little fact that most casualties in ancient warfare occurred during the rout/retreat. Up until the moment one force breaks, casualties were generally not significant. Some historians have gone as far as saying Phalanx warfare in particular was about as dangerous as American football as long as formations hold. I don't know if I buy that, but bronze weapons were not terribly lethal, and ranged weapons were largely ineffective in that age.
@@fortusvictus8297Yes, esp once Calvary could be used against the fleeing men.
@@fortusvictus8297 That kind of gets me thinking: If you just get a bunch of REALLY confident soldiers armed with the weapons as all the rest of the armies of that time, then would they be practically invincible just for being confident?
I’m glad the the armchair historian is remaking older videos with improved animation
Agreed I think several people will like this.
@@NSRailfan69-20 I would love a remake for the Russo-Japanese War tbh.
@@yeng1855 same
Agreed
Great video, i TRULY HOPE u guys take a break from Europe and take a focus on the naval battles on the Pacific for a change
Loved this. Im a history teacher in Brazil and I will be showing this to my students when teaching about warfare in the XVIII and early XIX centuries. They often think it is absolute madness to form soldiers in lines and have them standing there, taking fire and your video explaina the reasoning perfectly. Outstanding work!
@@b.jellis I'd assume majority if not all tribes in the amazon has some form of contact with modern civilization, be it just sending a couple tribesmen to work / do stuff in cities or towns.
@@b.jellis we dont know for sure. The Amazon is huge and dense and it is generally accepted that we havent explored every single bit of it (think of it as "around about 95% explored"), so there may still be uncontacted populations. Also, our government agency that handles indigenous matters, FUNAI, doesnt tell us about uncontacted populations as a way of keeping them uncontacted, so that missionaries and other kinds of people who might make them suffer some sort of violence cant get to them, but they have said that they know about indigenous groups who have not had direct contact with us and they suspect they have heard about us and what we have done to other indigenous groups, so these uncontacted populations deliberately avoid us
@@b.jellisSame thing I ask you, do Native Americans keep in touch with modern society or are they isolated?
Answering your question, yes, the indigenous people still live from hunting and gathering, yes, there are still several tribes that are isolated, our institutional bodies do not speak or do not know about the whereabouts of the indigenous people, but this is the choice they made themselves, they preferred to preserve their way of life. life and its culture, which is part of our Brazilian society, since our society and indigenous society, have completely different values, there is a lot of conflict in terms of values, morality and worldview, so that no one gets hurt, each one is on their side , so no one is bothered
Gotta make sure to play this video 20 times on repeat and re-explain it every single time given the cognitive capacity of your average BOSTtillian if you what I mean, lol.
One other thing to consider: Victorian era warfare used black powder, which creates a thick dense smoke. They line infantry firing in unison as a single volley created a giant cloud of smoke that concealed them entirely within only a couple shots.
While firearms were introduced alongside pikemen as mentioned in this video, as a means to hit advancing enemy and cause chaos, the commanders quickly realized that the smoke screen was in fact the most powerful advantage of it. It's hard to hit an enemy you can't see...it's even harder to defend against those pikemen and bayonets when they're being thrust into you before you saw them coming.
The use of artillery smoke rounds and smoke grenades in WWI to conceal advancing troops on the trench lines in what was known as the "Creeping Barrage" was a tactic that was born out of this.
I can imagine future generations remarking, "Can you believe as late as 2023 they were still sending actual human beings into combat? Madness!"
I hope they are saying "can you believe they were still fighting those things called wars?".
@@tnwhiskey68 War never changes.
@@tnwhiskey68humans will never stop warring on each other
@@tnwhiskey68 I guarantee you, that will NEVER happen!
To be fair, they might actually say that but not because there are no Wars anymore but they might no longer call it that.
Look at the Wars today. They are called "Military Operations" or "Anti Terror Ops" or "Peace Keeping Missions".....of course they are Wars in all but name but we like to lie to ourselves a lot!
As long as there is life and death, there will be Wars!
Generally, we send *other* humans into battle. We just supply munitions and encouragement.
To sum it up, the three big reasons seem to be:
-Concentration of Firepower
-Protection from Cavalry
-Unit Cohesion
Battlefield "ethics" (of that time)
It's also worth pointing out that linear warfare was just a continuation of formation fighting that was used for thousands of years. It was just the most practical way of organizing and commanding huge numbers of disciplined units instead of a disorganized armed mob. You can't effectively command an army if they're all spaced out and it's every man for themselves seeking cover. That's how you get routs like in The Patriot.
It's only when guns got stupid accurate and artillery extra explody that fighting in formation was no longer practical.
That's what the video says.
He mentioned that in the video?
@@denvil6489 Yeah I know. It just felt like people really undersell the practicality of formation fighting so I felt like emphasizing it.
@@ryanluong2005 this is the internet after all, bound to be someone asking that even after watching.
I more or less agree in the comment I made above with the exception that line formations were really not any better or worse then just letting one's soldiers "spread out" if they wish to. I'm guessing that in open terrain it might be better to have soldiers cluster together in a line formation if there is ABSOLUTELY no cover if for no other reason then they would be better prepared to defend against (or take part in) an overrun attack but I would have to assume if there was any kind of real cover that it would be better to use it than to have to stay in formation. I imagine that it would be more effective to do things like order one's soldiers to only shoot "when they can see the whites" of their enemies eye and have rotating volleys then maintaining a line formation. If you have a chance read the comment I made and give me your thoughts. :D
The thing about early modern warfare that always gets me is this: throughout most of history, the average infantryman could expect that their way of fighting would provide SOME protection against the typical weapons of the era. The ancient Roman legionary had his mail and laminar armor providing layered protection for the shoulders because his shield covered most of the body, the medieval knight had mail and shields that steadily gave way to full-body plate armor, the modern soldier has field fortifications and ballistic armor, etc. At no point could they be sure of their invulnerability, but they could always expect that they had some bare minimum protection against what their enemy was using.
But line infantry outside of cover has nothing, just the hope that their volley fire is more effective than the enemy, or maybe the anticipation of a bayonet charge. They had to stand there and exchange fire in the open, as vulnerable as the poorest skirmishers of other eras.
Not even the worst of it. Massed cavalry charges & cannonfire were even more concussive for infantry waves.
Field artillery was murder. A bag of shot had over 200 musket balls. Sometimes they'd double up the bags. It was used like a giant shotgun.
Or they'd have a bag of shot backed up by a cannon ball. Then they'd aim downwards so the cannon ball would hit the ground and bounce around, hopefully (to the artillerymen) going through that line formation.
And infantry was just supposed to close up ranks, filling in where the dead guys were.
their formation is their minimum protection about what they're about to face: cavalry charge, and rout. if you play Medieval 2 Total War, you'll notice how devastating a cavalry charge could be along with the possible rout it would cause. Arty at the time before Napoleon is quite cumbersome for field use. so there's little worries of Arty killing a lot of your men. Arty become more prevalent after Howitzer shown to be capable of bombarding enemies without even see them (was it during Schelswig war?). thus the trench of WW1 to protect against them.
you're absolutely correct about average infantrymen would expect that their way of fighting would provide some protection tho.
@@alifkazeryu8228 Yeah, because horse artillery totally wasn't a thing before napoleon...
@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t and such arty is easily overrun by cavalry charge since they're not that far from the frontline. Not to mention how cumbersome it is to carry around. Throw in extensive logistics required to move such arty pieces.
YES. There's a reason why arty isn't that prevalent before Napoleon. Horse arty exist, yes. Not exactly practical to have.
No shields for cover no armor to protect themselves and no helmets
Just their coats, their hats, their breeches, a musket and an incredible amount of luck
Whoever fought in those lines were the bravest souls no matter what country they were from
I salute all of them
Maybe, but more than a super majority of line infantry survived numerous battles and went home to have babies. A typical unit would rout long before decimation. Decimation being 10% manpower loss. So perhaps they weren't as stupid or insanely brave as we think. If you're a shooter, buy a smoothbore musket. Take shots at 100 yards, tell me how many you hit? You'll see what I mean.
@@SaanMigwellThe reason why some survived was due to safety in numbers
Soldiers were deployed by hundreds
I never said anything about them being stupid
But the soldiers were open targets there was no room to duck or dogde most of the time and fired only when given order
Fighting in those lines was truly the riskiest think ever and I'd rather serve in the Roman legion or in the Spartan army at least I would be able to use shields and armor to protect myself from projectiles
Armor was mostly ineffective against the weapons at the time, this was literally HUNDREDS of Years before Kevlar and other materials that were effective against bullets. They had steel jacketed vests in Vietnam but that wouldn't protect you against a direct hit. Plus they were hot and heavy, not a good combination in a tropical climate.
@@jackalhead7433 not to mention fighting in lines guarantee that bullets do hit you and it takes courage On Standing in line knowing youre not lucky enough to be on back row
@@WT-Issues Indeed you get it and even if the muskets had terrible aiming when they were fired by hundreds with synchronized rate they were bound to hit a target
The battlefield back then was just a huge meat grinder
Even the most experienced veteran could've gotten himself killed by a rookie if he was unlucky
Experience in combat mattered very little if you had no protection against the enemy bullets
I've also heard there was a huge psychological component to fighting in tight line formations. Soldiers were much more likely to hold their ground if they were side-by-side with men they trusted, whereas if they didn't have close support from their comrades they were much more prone to falling victim to their self-preservation instincts and running away.
Absolutely terrifying to imagine yourself in that situation, knowing a wall of lead will come flying in your direction as soon as the guys on the other side finish reloading
There was a Spanish tactic in the earlier days that involved the entire unit going prone just as the enemy ranks were starting to fire. Very hard to go “wait never mind” as you are giving the order to fire to thousands of men.
most would probably miss you anyways
Correct me if I am wrong, but it also sounded like terrain also played a big factor on whether or not this tactic was useful. You mentioned the broken terrain allowed guerrilla warfare to be more effective and mentioned light infantry using terrain to survive Calvary. Now I wonder if Europe had similar terrain to the East coast of America, how much would have changed.
You are quite correct. Though to be fair, Europe used to have terrain similar to the East Coast of the US.
Edit 1: The following isn't completely incorrect, but I made some assumptions I shouldn't have. Apologies. Edits have been made to the wording and a second edit made to point out additional things, there's also a reply to mine that's a good read.
However, like the US throughout its history, the many forests and other terrain features that caused a barrier were removed for farms, cities and roads.
While forests did and continue to exist, due to a mix of increases in farming throughout history, the mining or gathering of raw materials and the industrial revolution the percentage of clear areas in the East Coast has increased.
In fact, this is (a small) part of the reason why between the 7 years war (French Indian war) and the American Civil War, the tactics used in the USA changed to resemble those used by European armies.
Edit 2: I feel like How I worded this may have accidentally overstated the effect of farming and industry on the terrain of the USA. While I don't believe I am completely incorrect as some patches of land were cleared for farms etc, the majority of grassland (which battles were often raged on) were already grassland.
@@Ihavpickle I don't want to be that guy but *You're
Also provide explanation, I'd actually love that.
@@IAmTanker Wdym? It's already "you're"
@@Ihavpickle Y'know what? That's fucking hilarious, mate.
@@IAmTankerMuch of cities like NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia were originally grass lands and prairies, large open plains mixed with very thin forests easy to walk through. This allowed the British Marines/Navy/army to quickly land large forces and grab cities or set up sieges and why very small terrain changes made large differences in battles. Once you go a bit more inland it turns to forests.
"YOU will only be risking your lives, whilst *I* will be risking an almost certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!" - Hedley Lamaar, "Blazing Saddles!"
Hedley: "Repeat after me. I."
Hoodlums: "I."
Hedley: "Your name here."
Hoodlums: "Your name here."
Hedley (to himself): "Shmucks!"
In military matters, if everybody does something the same way with the same technology for hundreds of years, it's probably the best way to do it.
The phalanx comes to mind
Then again charging into machine gun fire may not be the smartest
@@kringle7804 Well, people haven't been doing that for hundreds of years
@@DjeauxSheaux sometimes you have to, now people just charge behind a vehicle at the offensive positions lol
@@DjeauxSheaux
Machineguns have still been around for some decades at that point. There's just NO WAY common sense shouldn't have kicked in the heads of those officers upon being even vaguely familiar with what was essentially "The musket, but it goes 'pew-pew' dozens of times faster than any line of infantry formation of 100 soldiers". Specially when they themselves have used those quite a few times before in their colonial wars, which makes it so much worse. And the worst part is that THEY STILL KEPT DOING IT REPEATEDLY IN THE SAME WAR!!!
I tend to be very comprehensive to militaries throughout the ages and not judge their tactics when I see them, but WW1 is the exception. They might have eventually adapted over the course of it, but damn, did they take LONG to do so.
They called it gentleman’s warfare back then cause the enemy was so kind to line up neatly in rows to be shot
Ps I’m just making a joke
@@TheArmchairHistorianI'm pretty sure he was joking
@@lesliejacoby9137 Just realized that haha. I just hear so often people unironically calling it "gentlemen tactics" that I immediately had to respond.
@@TheArmchairHistorian I can fully understanding especially when dealing with topics where people suggest some of the dumbest of theories.
@@TheArmchairHistorian I’m sorry for the confusion I meant for it to be a joke also really love the videos man and I’ve been watching for a long time keep it up
Try ww1 battle of Somme
I came into this all ready to pick it apart -- but I must admit, you did an excellent job of hitting all the main points and presented a very good explanation. Well done!
Thank you for making this episode on "Lines of Armies Firing". It shows the progress behind what was the common mindset of warfare, the trade-offs, developments, lessons, recording(s), & it's insights😮.
You never know when obsolete tactics become used again. Catapults were widely used during WW1 and also in the Syrian Conflict
Yeah but only out of desperation due to a lack of resources. No modern fighting force with access to howitzers would opt for a catapult instead.
Donkeys were crucial in Afghanistan for carrying supplies
While many military tactics might seem strange, many of them had very good reasons for them. After all, no soldier wants to die. And no sane commander wants to kill his men.
It's also important to note that, despite depictions of these battles in movies, it wasn't the mass slaughter people think it was. It wasn't until technology advanced significantly that fighting this way became a bloodbath. And unsurprisingly, they immediately stopped fighting like this. And that's been the story with every single military advancement through history. Fighting is done one way, then someone innovates and battles turn into slaughters, then tactics change to adapt to the new technology.
@@dash4800 Well it was exactly immediately, they did take some rather brutal battles to learn that it wasnt really efficient anymore. Of course any commander that was paying attention to the end of the US Civil war and the several conflicts between then and WW1 should have learned that lesson.
@@dash4800When the musket with a round ball was accurate to 100 yards or so, the linear formation made sense. When the shaped Minét or "Minnie" ball arrived, rifled muskets made these tactics suicidal. The American Civil War was unspeakably bloody. Yet 50 years later, they still attacked this way. Why? I was an Army officer and a college history instructor. For a long time, I thought I was the only one who knew. Then I saw a program where an audience member asked an expert what would have happened if one side had had just one machine gun. The expert said that the big change would have been if one side possessed a working set of walkie talkies. I almost fell out of my chair. He knew. Linear tactics persisted at least until the 1930s and in some places beyond. It was tactically futile before 1860. The linear formation was necessary for command and control. Soldiers hate officers for a variety of understandable reasons, but the officers know what the unit is supposed to be doing. They communicate with lesser units to keep the unit on task and on mission, AND to make adjustments to the plan when the situation changes. When thousands of rifles and dozens of cannons fill the air with sound and smoke, how to communicate? Flags. Fife and drum. Bugles. Messengers on foot or on horse. Flares and smoke signals some times. Carrier pigeons on occasion. That's about it. To keep control of an army, soldiers had to be kept together. Even through WW1, where machine guns mowed men down by the thousand (a young Adolf Hitler was a regimental messenger in WW1. An undersized carrier pigeon named Cher Ami carried the message giving the location of the "Lost Battalion" of the US 77th Division so they could be relieved). In WW2, man-portable radios allowed the infantry to communicate over distance and stop bunching up. Nowadays, officers try to keep their soldiers spread out, as they tend to bunch up. Grouping together is still dangerous, but soldiers tend to bunch up for comfort, to chat, etc.
@@dash4800 In early modern warfare, far more soldiers died from disease and infection than directly from enemy action. In addition, the armies of the early modern period were significantly smaller than those of the Industrialized era, when mass production techniques made it economically feasible to produce weapons and kits for huge armies.
Before the Industrial Revolution, nearly all firearms were made by hand, and without interchangeable parts. Thus, if the frizzen on your musket broke, you'd have to get a gunsmith to make you a new one--simply unscrewing the frizzen from a dead soldier's musket and sticking it onto yours may not have worked, as there was no guarantee that the parts on his musket would fit yours precisely.
Ukrainians would like to have a chat with you in their glorious offensive.
3:27, Thin red line reference love it!😆
I had the same question for a couple of years. Thanks Armchair!
7:19 nice 'The Patriot' reference, lol
Nice to see remakes of old videos. Hope to see more of these type of videos!
Great work on this! Super informative and illustrative history.
The Reputation of 18th century warfare suffers so much because people think that just because guns are the main infantry weapon now they can just apply 20th/21th century warfare logic to it. People dont understand the factor cavalary and the Limited effects of artilery of the time. And they dont understand the huge role the bayonet played.
Yep, modern ignorance leads people to think that the people of the era that birthed the foundations of modern science, math, and medicine, were too stupid to know the drawbacks of skirmishing tactics that had already existed for millennia.
Linear warfare being like a bloody game of chicken is the best explanation I've heard, along with ease of command and melee defense.
It's batshit insane to be one of the guys standing in line shooting at the other guys, but the other guys are thinking the same thing, and the only worse thing than staying in formation and getting shot at was breaking formation and being run down
Your animation is getting so good really impressed
Perfect job as always, we will keep supporting your channel well done
Wars are still fought in lines. It's just that one unit can control a very large area on its own, so the lines are very, very, very long.
7:21 Thank you for including the Caroleans in this remarkable video!
Generals and soldiers of all nations for about three centuries: *uses line tactics
Some nerd who get's winded from climbing the stairs out of his basement: "lol, idiots."
Apart from how interesting are your videos, I really appreciate the clear English that you use. I am no native speaker and I don't need subtitles in your videos, they are pretty easy to follow, even when you use the more technical languange. My most sincere thanks.
Man Fire and Maneuver was so popular that they recreated the game in real life lmao.
I can’t even imagine being a soldier in those times. Seeing this huge army marching towards you, standing still as they point their weapons at you awaiting that moment of fire, absolutely terrifying.
Imagine now. You don't even see your death coming from the air. It makes sense why asymmetrical warfare is now so common. If you are fighting a superior enemy then that is your only option.
That was most of human civilized warfare. Imagine being the guys who were looking at thousands of sharp spears and swords, but also MF'ing elephants.
@@recoil53 The idea that european warfare is 'civilised' is a liberal fantasy. Guns may tale out the up close and personal nature of warfare but its far more barbaric than its ever been considering wars used to mostly happen between two armies loyal to king/lord as opposed to a state fighting another state/state like entity. There has always been raiding and sacking but civilian casualties would still always be less than the armies which is now almost never the case due to strategic bombing and drones
@@perhaps1094 the only liberal here is you fruitcup
@@recoil53
The difference is that you at the very least had some sort of individual protection to deal and react to circumstances as needed. Be it your armor, your melee training skills to parry and block with your sword/spear and shield, or the formation of your comrades supporting eachother in the brawl.
With muskets, all you had on your side was luck and nothing else. You couldn't dodge a musketball. You couldn't "face tank" it because you had no armor. You couldn't take cover anywhere. You couldn't even move around to make aquisition harder.
You essentially had to forgo all the layers of the Survivability Onion and pray...
I remember in 8th grade, me and my history teacher had a lengthy discussion on the real value of the use of line warfare from the American revolution on
I have actually wondered why many infantry corps fought in straight lines, and I always taught it was only to reduce damage to the unit should it get hit by artillery shells. Thanks for expanding my knowledge on the subject
Thanks for doing this video. You hit all the marks as to why they fought this way. There are always people who call musket line tactics "stupid" but as you said, the reality is that the level of technology and other factors made it the most effective tactic for such a long time. Like, one question I always see is "why don't they take cover and spread out" - it's not like they didn't know about light infantry tactics, but as you explained in the video, the inaccuracy and slow rate of fire of the muskets meant light infantry were extremely vulnerable to cavalry and they still could not outshoot close order musket lines in a straight up fight. It sometimes gets tiring to explain that stuff to people lol now I can just link them this handy video
I'm pretty sure it was to maximize the effectiveness of the one-shot musket and stoke fear in the enemy seeing all those massed men, guns and smoke.
That’s exactly what was said in the video :)
The smoke played a far bigger role than most realize too. Black powder made a thick wall of it, and it concealed movement, and turned the battlefield into chaos. The better disciplined troops would thus prevail, especially when the flanks got his. It was from this reason that Carl von Klausewitz referred to that which is outside your field of vision in battle the "Fog of War".
As I recall, the Prussians popularized it with the general idea being the best defense is a good offense.
Essentially, by fighting in tight line formation it allowed you to maximize fire power for the time, and do so in a way that has easily managed formations.
The idea being the better trained and commanded army would win by overwhelming the lesser army.
Before this style of line formation, mixed formations of pike and shot was all the rage. This new strategy overwhelmed that one like a single shot rifle going against an M1 Garand.
“…in short, I think like Frederick - better to be on the attack than the defensive.” - Napoléon
_"the Prussians popularized it"_
I'm pretty sure it was already popular for more than one century, when the Prussians became considered the best soldiers of Europe, during the Seven Years war (1756-63) or even during the war before (the war of Austrian succession (1740-148)).
The previous comment I made is a brief summary of the history of linear warfare in its creation and early form and is prone to many mistakes...... If you want more information and accuracy, please search it up..
Nah, the change from pike blocks to more linear formations was a gradual thing. You can already see it with Maurice of Nassau or the New Model Army during Cromwells time, decades before Frederick the Great started his reign.
This is really interesting to watch. And explained a lot of questions.
This is a great video, thanks Armchairhistorian
WOW this really made that strategy make sense.....everyone makes fun but there was advatages....Kudos for a great video explaining it.....
It amazes me, how some people can call these professional officers that have literal decades of experience in some instances, stupid or dumb for forming into lines.
Did you not watch the video? Forming into lines was very tactically effective.
@@android175 Do you read my comment?
@@fellington2398 you know what, i get it
Well it turns out that they were stupid, tight squads that can move independently and use the ground as cover (trenches or foxholes), was the superior tactic. Hence why they lost. Yeah, it's easy to call them stupid now, back then they couldn't change their entire strategy based on theory.
@@C_CREATURE_ Guh? Must be trolling.
3:00 the blue coated solders are the Maryland Guard, one of the units organized by Baron Von Steuben.
Note the Brown Bess muskets used by both sides, and the breeched trousers, as well as the commander having a red sash around his waist
Wow, these animations are the next level. Congrats.
That was really interesting. I has always wondered why such tactics, which seem ridiculous and overly fatal, would have been used. I has no idea and had never learned that it was largely due to the level of weapons technology of the time.
The impact of cavalry alone is if at all understated here. With a muzzleloading musket, you get *ONE* shot at an incoming cavalry charge. Even if you're the ideal of a well-drilled shot and fired at max range, by the time you can reload you'll be about to get very closely aquainted to sabres and hooves. (So the actual best move is to hold your shot until the last moment.) And if you're not in a tight formation with bajonets out and everyone holding their nerve at the point that charge reaches you, you're a dead man. Loose order skirmishers getting hit by cavalry is not a fight, it's a massacre.
I understand why people fought in lines during the age of muskets, but its still absolutely horrifying. at least with shields and swords there is a degree of skill and strength, and if you get wounded you'd likely survive even despite subpar medical knowledge of the time.
meanwhile in the age of muskets its all about luck, and even shrapnel from one of the leadballs could kill you.
The thought of bieng exposed like that must be frightening, a musket ball at like 50ft away
Yep. In basically any other era, even today, the equipment and tactics used give a soldier some bare minimum protection against the weapons of the era. Whether it be shields and armor in older eras, or defensive positions and ballistic armor today, whereas line infantry had to just trust in volume of fire.
You'd survive but you'd probably bleed out to death, be trampled by your comrades or the enemy if you collapse, or when the battle is over you'll just get a spear to the skull.
Today it is again all about luck. Just look at the Ukranie war, only a few percent dies in actual combat while fighting. The majority is either killed by a drone, or artillery or air strike. Things most of the time you dont even see. Imagine, you are not in combat, but you get killed by a rocket in the blink of an eye. Or not, depends how lucky you are. Skill doesnt matter.
@@HofEE52 still. at least you're hiding in a trench or in a building. you can be perceptive, potentially see the drone before it sees you and run for cover.
in modern war your objective is to survive long enough to be useful, using whatever means in your arsenal exists.
Congratulations on reaching 2 million subs! You’re videos are amazing!
I've missed the pre 20th century history on this channel. It's nice seeing some back.
Too many people look at stuff like this in the past and just jump to “people were stupid back then” which is a terrible way to look at history
Yes it is. And its if they dont realize there will be people in the future who could say the same thing
Always cracks me up because most officers back then had better education in regard to both history and mathematics than most modern college grads.
@@somethinghappened3721or actual military officers. I met some real officers and thought I speak to ten year olds.
I couldn't think of anything more chad than being among with the French Old Guard in a line.
Routing the French guard?
@@loyalpiper ?
Just brilliant. Thank you team.
For the people who are calling this dumb keep in mind that line battles of the 18th and early 19th centuries happened mostly on open fields, where there was practically zero cover for the troops, and where cavalry had full freedom of movement if the troops were scattered they would easily be picked off by sharpshooters in the enemies light infantry brigades and cavalry would easily isolate them into small pockets and systematically run them all down, the only effective counter to this was forming up tight linear ranks with alternating volley fire so that any skirmishing attempt from light infantry or cavalry would be repelled with a screen of volley fire. However militias did still make use of guerrilla and asymetrical tactics if the terrain provided sufficient cover and they could catch the enemy off guard.
I know it's not much but I wanted to thank you somehow for your great content!
it's important to remember that the order wasn't to aim and fire, they said "level" and fire
that depends on the drill, which can vary from army to army and regiment to regiment. Some would probably have said aim, what im familiar is the order "present"
Many armies did not provide sufficient range time for their soldiers to become proficient with their muskets, and aiming a long, heavy firearm is difficult anyway. It didn't help that volley fire meant that everyone fired on command and not when individual soldiers were actually pointing the muzzle at the enemy ranks.
the americans used aim instead of present due to lack of soldiers
Still soldiers would aim
It's pleasure to see, what this channel has become.
Interesting and informative and very well presented. Thank you.
having troops in a line also became obsolete when artillery was exploding and no longer a solid ball that will only hit soldiers behind the frontline soldiers.But when artilery shells started exploding it was easy to wipe out most soldiers in a compact formation
Ditto for grapeshot
@@eriztonoqarzwoss cannister rounds you mean were used extensively during the Napoleonic wars and didn't stop the need for lines.
These rounds require the cannons to be closer to the troops. It was a defensive shot used mostly against charging cavalry.
There were 250 French cannons at Waterloo and these shells exploded. Lines were necessary for an effective battlefield.
That's been the case for centuries. Rather close order formations became obsolete as rifles became increasingly deadly which allowed troops to more easily hold off enemy cavalry.
"The musket's ball makes a small hole. The cannonball makes an even larger one." - Fridericus Rex Grenadiermarsch
This music is unironically fire
I was just rewatching that old video of ashtynandjohn "reacting" to the original, what timing!
Like in many RPGs, War in history went from turn based combat to real-time full action fights.
I love this analogy.
The fact that we get free videos on UA-cam by The Armchair Historian is truly a gift. 👏👏👏
This was very informative, thank you.
Thank-you. For making this video. This was an old question I had.
A massive reason that wasn't really touched on, is that most soldiers at this time were conscripted. They had very little training and were not used to battles or really anything team related. It was/is significantly easier to control a block of men, most of which didn't want to be there, in the chaos of battle, than a bunch of spread out guys doing whatever seems best at the time (which usually was to flee).
On the nose. "Stay together. Shoot that way." are orders than minimally trained soldiers can usually handle under pressure. "Scramble to find cover and do the right thing without supervision" works less well.
And the matter is more clear if you actually win (or lose) the local battle. Now someone has to gather you all up and send you somewhere else that is useful. If you all are dispersed among the rocks and tree that can take a long time, and you are temporarily forfeiting any advantage of winning the local battle, i.e. you are stuck and useless.
The video if at all also kinda undersells the sheer threat of cavalry. Even if you're damn well drilled, the timeframe between a cavalry charge coming into musket range and you getting more closely aquainted with sabres and hooves than you'd ever care for is too short to reload. You get *ONE* shot before that charge is right in your face. And if your unit's not in close order with bajonets out at that point, you're getting massacred. Loose-order skirmishers had their place on napoleonic battlefields, but they needed to stay close to the friendly Line to survive if there was any enemy cavalry present.
@@magni5648 The video is not wrong, but it is incomplete in an annoying way. Every formation has its advantages and disadvantages, but such do not exist in a vacuum. If you do not do X, are alternatives Y or Z actually better in this situation? Close order and linear tactics persisted because the alternatives so often proved disastrous under real world battlefield conditions, not because close order or linear tactics did not have significant downsides.
In the age of slow firing weapons, without good cover or terrain advantage, non-close order formations were easily swept aside by cavalry or properly drilled close-order formations. Sudden retreats can result in a wholesale rout of the army.
Just saw the earlier version of this today and now a revamp comes out!
Thanks- I was wondering about this!
Excellent depiction of the French in their Pre-Barden uniforms, much improvement as per always.
What was even worse than this type of fighting (yes hard to imagine) was the absence of competent doctors and field medics, plus the lack of proper hygiene. A small wound become a big problem because the doctors in those days did not sterilize let alone even wash their operating instruments between patients. More men died from the incompetence of field doctors than died in the battlefield.
Even in Hardee's book on tactics (and the later U.S. Tactics - same book) soldiers are instructed to fire in the direction of the enemy, not specifically at the enemy (and that's with rifle muskets). Volume of fire is the key phrase in the concept.
I keep seeing quills with the vanes left on and that causes me to wonder if most wouldn't just shave the vanes off such a writing implement, both to improve the ability to store them and fit in the hand.
Gustavus Adolphus was a huge innovator for this style of warfare!
I had a battle with some people on a Joe Rogan video about this exact topic lol. Joe was shitting on line formations. Glad armchair historian backs me up.
thank you for that catchy tune from war and peace. "Johnny i hardly knew ya" will be in my minde the next 2 weeks :D
I'm happy this video exists. I just link it to my non-historian friends whenever I'm fumbling the intricacies of fighting in formation!!!
They fought in lines because that was the only shape they knew
Bucket war when?
thanks for this information ive always did wonder why they fought in lines
That Victoria 2 music brought back so many memories
Honestly i feel so bad for the solider at 7:35 Bro's like "Where is everyone? did they leave me?" got me crying a bit bro-
Bro is the literal definition of a snowflake
It was a tactic that befuddles the modern mind, but to the average soldier, he could take comfort in that he was among heavy numbers and his musket would be more effective than on his own.
That guy's nose cracking before blowing his head off, I got that reference, great video
The funny thing is, we still fight in line formations, theyre just much more spread out
indeed, that is what modern audiences don’t understand
It's pretty interesting seeing an antiquity tactic continue for thousands of years almost to the modern era
war never changes
Cover the Indo-Pak wars pls 🗿
This is great! Thanks for doing this
love the use of the Victoria II soundtrack for this video. It fits perfectly with the theme!
Interesting that the father of the US and an icon of todays 2nd Amd. devotees has such a poor view on unorganised, militias. Shows how important centralised command and discipline is.
I was wondering when this comment would show up. And I am curious how pro and anti 2nd amendment activists would view that quote.
Doesn't really apply to the 2A outside of a militia being "well-regulated" (trained). Washington had an initial poor view of America's militia because he went from commanding trained, organized British soldiers to disorganized and inexperienced farmers.
@@somethinghappened3721
The thing that bugged Washington was the inconsistency of Militias. Some of them could fight on par if not better than British regulars but others suffered from obvious discipline and morale problems due to being inexperienced. It depended on the region, population, etc. As the war went on those militias became more trained and after some offical reforming they eventually became the Continental Soldiers. It's why in the letter he says, "Militias can't be solely relied on for national defense" not that they were ineffectual. It's basically the more modern drafted conscripts vs career soldier dynamic.
Obviously they should’ve just had machine guns or hid in the trees.
lol, I love the reference my guy.
Officers and people in general from that era were way better educated then we often give them credit for. Excellent video. Thank you!
I think you used the wrong word.... People were NOT educated. They might have more intelligence... Has often been argued, as they had to solve things and get creative themselves. Can't just google something or buy a product to solve a problem. But educated, they were not.
Can't wait to see more!
I'd really like to see more facial expressions for generic troops. Seeing essentially a photocopy of the same timetraveller is a bit sad.
My favorite description comes from my college western civ/history teacher, who described volley fire as "Being part of a human shotgun"
This was really well done, thank you sir. I was also thinking about different formations with men stacked behind each other and how many men would be cut down by the cannons.
they still do fight on lines, battle drill 1A "get on line".
You’re not gonna shoot your buddy right in front of you while shooting the enemy.
Two man Buddy team bounding is also a thing.