19th century warfare question?

Question

Any Revolutionary or Civil War movie I see, the infantry stay in enormous unifrom blocks and exchange a "courteous" couple of shots where the the first couple rows of each army inevitabley get killed before they charge at each other with bayonets. Why was warfare so organized and courteous in this fashion? I perceive it as being inefficient and wasteful...

I think I understand the volley concept, for maximum fire power. The idea that two gigantic armies marched up to each other nose to nose in perfect formation to fight a battle still seems preposterous to me, hehe. Were "guerilla" tactics, or the more modern style considered dishonarble or something? You know, small squads n platoons n stuff advancing their way across territory.

Oh ok! I didn't know that. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

Answer 1

Back then they didn't have semiautomatic rifles yet. They had flintlocks, and then later on, bolt-action rifles. A couple of shots at a time was all they could manage. They would try to shoot all together in "volleys" to have the greatest impact.

Answer 2

Movies have gotten it wrong. The men where arranged in ranks which were formed into blocks. This was because the smooth bore musket that was in general use up to the time of the American Civil War was notoriously inaccurate. The bore of the barrel was always larger then the calibre of the ball. This caused the ball to bounce side to side and up and down as it travelled down the barrel. When the ball left the muzzle it could be travelling in any direction at all. The only thing for certain was that it would travel generally toward the enemy. This is why you have the ranks of men firing as one because if a mass of men fired into a mass of men then most of the rounds would hit someone.The important thing was that the men be disciplined, would stand in rank and continue to fire no matter how many of their comrades fell. They needed to have the discipline to fill holes in the forward ranks as men fell. The courage or discipline to move forward and fill a hole caused by someone getting shot must have been great. They didn't fire a few courteous shots. Battles were bloody and horrific.The custom of waiting for a agreed upon time to start the battle went out during the English Civil War. Cannon carved through the ranks of men. The battle went to the side that that stood firm and continued to fire. The bayonet charge was used when the commander determined that the enemy was in disarray due to loss of men. Sometimes this never happened or as at Waterloo the British moved forward only after the Old Guard had retreated.Old Nosey hurried them along with the cry" Come on, you men, get them off our land."
The terrible causualties suffered during the American Civil War was attributable to the fact that commanders on both sides did not understand that the ranks of men lined up facing each other was a case for disaster when both sides were using rifled muskets.

Answer 3

It was seen as more honourable back then. It was Gentlemanly and fair to march into an open field, display your colours, and then battle each other out in the open, in formation and with respect for your enemy. Hence the volleys and the infamous bayonet charges. It may be inneficient, but that's how Gentlemen fought, like a duel, but on a larger scale.

That's why you see in films, that when the standard bearer is killed, another soldier picks up the colours and carries on fighting, despite the fact that he is debilitated by the flag.

It was when the dishonourable enemies started fighting with guerilla tactics that honourable tactics had to change. since then, soldiers started wearing olive drab and began digging trenches. Next came World War One.

Answer 4

As noted above, tightly packed formations were necessary to maximize firepower. As for moving in smaller formations (platoons and squads), that necessitates both weapons that can range the greater distance between these small formations (didn't exist until the rifled Minie muzzleloaders of the 1850's) and well trained junior NCOs trustworthy enough to lead those small formations without officers (again, didn't exist until WWI). So the modern form a warfare developed in the post-WWI era.

As for Americans shooting from behind rocks and trees, that's a common romantic notion, but not one that actually had alot of effectiveness during the Revolutionary War. While we did have harrassment troops with long rifles and good woodcraft, these troops numbered in the dozens, not going to dramatically effect battles between thousands. All major American victories were executed by uniformed forces fighting in close ranks in the same style as the British.

Answer 5

The large volleys advancing on fields represent many things
1. attempt to keep order on field
2. failure to recognize improved accuracy of rifled muskets (still had a slow rate of fire) over smooth-bore.
3. In many cases lines held together because you were fighting with peers and did not want to be considered a coward- still a reason folks do what many consider stupid things today ( I am talking about high school pranks etc.)
4. Bayonets were useful only mostly due to slow rate of fire.
5. Then along came breech-loaders, Henry rifles (try charging into a mass of those) followed by bolt actions. The use of the bayonet become more limited except in close and desperate conditions

Answer 6

A very easy question to answer.
First, Troops needed to be kept in control to move and operate as a unit. Thus in the noise & smoke of battle For the best command and control, troops were kepted close to there NCO's and officers giving commands. The Drummers keeped men in step & the Flag acted as a visual reference as well as a symbol of unit pride.
The second reason was the weapons. The single shot muskets of the day were accurate only at close distance. So to maximize theire effect you fired in ranks. That way as one rank is firing the one behind is reloading. Infantry in addition need to stay together to repel calvary attack. In the battle of Waterloo The French calvary were repelled by forming squares & fixing bayonets. The Horses would not charge the squares & the attacks failed. If they were spread out, the horsemen would overun and cut down the troops, (see the scene in The Last Samaruri where Tom Cruise is captured).

Answer 7

The generals studied the tactics of Frederic the Great and Napoleon. It's called fighting in ranks and until weapons technology improved before the civil war, it wasn't as dangerous as it might seem. The muskets fired large heavy projectiles that had a short range and traveled slowly. They were also very inaccurate. These tactics worked well until the Civil War when they were obsolete, but most generals were slow to change since they had never been taught anything else. Just before the Civil War, James Longstreet wrote a manual on defensive warfare. Had his ideas prevailed, the Civil War would have been less deadly.

Answer 8

Like he said, single shot and a minute to reload so you made one shot, hoped the other side was as lousy a shot as you and then charged in with the cutting tool which would do the job if you could avoid the other guy. It definitely wasn't courteous but it was bloody and personal. The idea of war was not to wipe out the other population although that was easier than taking prisoners, but to wipe out enough of the leaders and real fighters to force them to surrender.

Answer 9

I know what your saying.. I've seen a couple movies where the British (red coats) just keep marching to the good 'ol drum beat through the middle of a field getting wiped out. Think I would find a tree or hole to hide.

Answer 10

The American Revolution was fought in the late 1700s. The American Civil War was fought in the mid 1800s. The Industrial Revolution really didn't take off until around 1850, when steel production finally hit its stride. All those fun weapons such as machineguns and such needed that development to make it into the field, just in time for ...1914.

War is ultimately a question of resources, and most nations cannot afford to keep large armies indefinitely in the field indefinitely. This has been true as much for the ancient Egyptians (who couldn't wage war during Nile planting season because they couldn't spare the labor) or Napoleon's Grand Armee, caught out deep in the Russian winter without shelter or supplies both freezing and starving to death. Fortifications such as castles and forts have always tipped the balance for the defender, because protracted sieges were invariably expensive, and frontal assaults on prepared positions even more so.

Thus, when two armies went to the field against each other, it was in their best interests to engage each other quickly and decisively before lack of supplies, disease, privations, low morale and desertions took a number on everyone concerned. And the best way to decide a war for centuries, simply, was to mass large concentrations of troops and throw them at each other in one or more engagements until one side (or both) decided to call it quits.

What you perceive as the inefficient and wasteful expenditure of human lives in formation warfare is absolutely nothing compared to the number of men, women, and children who have starved to death or perished of disease thanks to large armies laying waste to the countryside, destroying crops and livestock, and littering the area with innumerable corpses. Far more have died under such conditions than under open battle.

The concept of using light troops is not unknown; from the Roman Legion's use of javelineers to irregular formations such as Cossacks and Zouaves. But with the primitive ranged weaponry available back in the day, the only way to inflict casualties was either by massed fire (which invariably meant massing men) and by shock, which meant charging and engaging hand-to-hand. The primary role of firepower for the Napoleonic era was to blast large holes in enemy formations so that a massed assault could exploit them and rout the enemy. "Guerilla" tactics as you call them weren't unknown, but they simply couldn't win wars, because they never inflicted enough casualties on armies to begin with. Successful insurgencies (such as Communist China, for instance) have always transitioned irregular forces into regular ones.

Think of your Civil war armies as approaching each other in a skrimmage line, or something out of American football. Each takes the measure of the other, approaches cautiously, sets into formations, and then violently clashes, with openings exploited by key players. The same is true for Napoleonic-style warfare. While there was a great deal of chivalry involved, it was more a necessity imposed by the technology of the day and the poverty of resources to keep wars going that forced armies to fight such sharp actions.

War by the way, is always inherently inefficient and wasteful, even when waged by incredibly resourceful and brutally efficient armies such as those fielded by the Mongols. That's always the way it's been.