In the Civil War (and other wars) why did they stand in lines and shoot at eachother? It doesn't seem logical?

Answer 1

It was the way warfare was designed to be fought. It was copied after the Napoleonic wars and was designed to have firepower break down a section. It took a great deal of courage to fight that way, honor and friends prevented you from running away. The rifled musket being so accurate made it more deadly.

God Bless You and The Southern Fighting Men!

Answer 2

They did not always stand in lines. The Civil was was when trench warfare was invented.

The lines, however, were standard military doctrine of the time, based on the British success with the double file and the square when dealing with Napoleon's massed columns.

The theory is that with the old muzzle loaders one rank can fire, then step back to reload while the second rank steps forward to fire, and so on. This kept up a moderately steady rate of fire and broke up massed formation attacks.

Further, the massed formations could be fired into from front and flanks when they charged the line. This doctrine made Arthur Wellesly a Duke.

By the end of the Civil War the practice had been discredited because of the invention of more accurate rifles with a longer range, as well as repeating weapons like the Spencer carbine, the Colt 45 and the Gatling gun. Those and the first modern artillery changed infantry doctrine again.

The Army of the Potomac was faced throughout the war with trenched Robert E. Lee had in place around Richmond and similar places. Because of the repeating weapons and the protection of emplacements his Confederates were able to regularly massacre attacking federal troops as they did at Fredricksburg.

Further, Sherman's army in the west was famous for their counter entrenchments. They would dig in in front of the southern troops and send detachments around the flanks to move their enemies out of their own trenches.

Despite the presence on both sides of military observers from the European powers, most armies in the First World War fifty years later went into their first battles convinced that the line doctrine was still the best practice, and spent many lives learning it was not. They also failed to learn the lesson of trenches, which is that frontal attacks waste lives for no purpose.

The failure of both sides to learn lessons from the Civil War resulted in a million deaths.

Answer 3

Because the smooth-bore rifles were so inaccurate and took so long to reload, It made sense to mass your fire. this improved your chances to hit the enemy and gave you more cover fire while you reload. The European wars were fought in this manner and we took our training from them.

It was only after the American Civil War and the invention of the "rifled" barrel that the method of fighting changed and the mass firing method was more or less abandoned.

It also had a moral effect on the soldiers. It was harder both physically and mentally to run away with everyone standing shoulder to shoulder. You were held both by a sense of honor and a mass of bodies.

It was illogical from the standpoint of artillery as the use of Canister shot and loose shot made for a slaughter at close range (less than 200 yards).

Answer 4

It made perfect sense in the given period. It was partially so that the officers could keep order. Partially to prove that you could stand up and be honorable under fire. Not to mention that is how they had been fighting for a good deal of time. Swordsmen and pikemen, etc etc would walk toward each other in lines in the exact same fashion. So that carried on into the gunpowder age.

But my personal opinion is that the commanders drew the fighting in lines to keep the population down.

Answer 5

Trolling is right, he deserves a thumbs up. In this way commanders were able to maximize their firepower against their opponent. It seems illogical to us today, because we have more modern, more efficient weapons. Back in 1861, the weapons had a much shorter range, and even the artillery was limited. Even prior to the Civil War in the Napoleonic Wars in Europe this way of fighting was common. However, by the end of the Civil War, the soldiers did begin to dig trenches.
* Your thumbs down means diddly squat to me*

Answer 6

They fought in lines because they did not want to expose their flank to an attack. They also would attack with bayonets after firing a volley because fighting was still basically hand to hand. Muskets could not fire that many shots and they would be vulnerable during the time they were trying to reload. Someone with a pike could easily dispatch someone with a musket if they survived the first volley. Of course weaponry has come a long way since then.

Answer 7

It was state of the art tactics at the time. It seemed more organized to the general. Plus the guns weren't as accurate and if they stood in a line they might hit the enemy. At the time there were still calvary charges and the line offered defences like a bayonet wall. It was also concidered honorable to meet your enemy face to face.

Answer 8

Threre was a certain way wars had always been fought. It was an honor thing as someone mentioned and that was the way everybody did it. It wasn't until they encountered Native Americans who fought the logical way that things changed.

Answer 9

Well, their pre-modern guns didn't exactly shoot as far as we can today. Their cannons weren't very precise and took precious minutes to load. When you were out of ammunitioin or the enemy was upon you, you fought hand to hand combat. Think of it like a game of chess with the soldiers representing pawns, sweeping down row upon row of the enemy, trying to make the others turn tail and run. Most of the time the victors being the side that was doing the most killing. I can see the picture, can you?

Answer 10

It was logical. if they stood behind each other and shot they would kill their own. Thats why they stood in lines, or came in waves. As for just shooting at each other, welcome to war! =D