alternatehistory.com

Hey AH,

Have a quick question I want to explore for my own personal knowledge. I know that in the majority of wars fought on at least the North American and European continents during the 1700's and the 1800's especially, they are typically (and sometimes popularly) remembered by the long lines of men that were amassed on either side and then marched at each other. In fact, remembrance of this style of combat is now considered so abstract and strange that younger children who are learning about this combat either through school or media are often appalled or confused as to why two full opposing armies would simply march their men at each other and exchange fire.

My question is: what necessitated this style of warfare and combat? Was it the belief that in order to mass your fire, you had to mass your men? Did this necessity come from the limitations inherent in blackpowder and musketry? Perhaps it was easier to control your men when they were amassed (as the role of the NCO is not as prevalent as it was back then as it is today, where they're popularly called the "backbone" of an organization) or were the reasons not purely militaristic? Perhaps social factors?
Top