During the American Civil War, did Napoleonic Linear Tactics make sense? Or was guerrilla warfare best?

Question

If you fought during the American Civil War, would you have preferred Napoleonic Linear Tactics or guerrilla warfare?

http://thomaslegion.net/napoleonictactics.html

Answer 1

Although Napoleonic tactics by the time of the American Civil War were almost obsolete due to the evolution of weapons,
as it was proven at least at Getysbourg (1863) and in Frederisbourg (1862) for Confederates and the Federals respectively, (not to mention other battles) they were the only tactics known and uderstood. The same problem was to reappear in the oppening campaigns of the First Word War in Europe. The guerrila tactics in the other hand ,although they were aready kwown for the Napoleonic Wars in Spain (1806-1813, where they played a vital part to Napoleon's defeat to that theatre of operations), were not used to large extent by the Confederate Leadership even in the end of the war, for political reasons, for guerilla warfare is essentially peole's warfare in witch, the hierarchical order, so quintessential for the antebellum Southern society would be lost and the Confererate military laedreship would be replaced by forces beyond its control, whereas if they choose to surender (as they did in the end of the war) they could retain de facto and in time de jure also, their reigning position over the remains of the Southern society (as it did happen, despite the Reconstruction).In other words the guerilla tactics may have been more effective than Napoleonic linear tactics from the Confederate point of view but they carried a price-tag that the Confederate leadership was unwilling to pay. For the Federals, the guerrila warfare tactics were useless any way for that kind of warfare is essntialy defencive, wereas the Federal war aims, to bring the Southern States back under Federal control, could be realised only by offensive tactics

Answer 2

At the beginning of the war Napoleonic tactics were used, but by the end of the war it had developed trench warfare, which was ignored by European commanders until 1914.

If I was there I would have to say, given the options, a combination. Guerrilla warfare isn't a good defensive tactic, yet Napoleonic tactics were becoming obsolete.

Answer 3

I personally would rather stand behind a tree or some cover.Walking straight into a battery of cannons firing grape shot or canister shot is a certain way to ruin your day. Linear tactics made sense at first because they thought the war would be over rather quickly and Napoleon had much success. Linear tactics was a way to have concentrated fire.
Guerrilla tactics weren't very effective until the invention of the rifled barrel because smooth-bore rifles weren't accurate and you had to be very close to your target to hit it.

Answer 4

Guerrilla tactics require that you give up point defense. At a very basic level, the slave economy of a plantation economy was being defended, and allowing the Federal forces to burn the plantation to be burned and the slaves to be freed would have been self-defeating. The tactcs used were ideal for the objectives and capabilities of the time.

Answer 5

Napoleonic Linear Tactics are better. ( Guerrilla warfare is not good for planes, meant for mountains - started by Shivaji in south India.)

Answer 6

i dont think its a matter of mking sense or being the best, linear tactics were the ones taught at west point so all that was really understood. furthur more guerilla tactics dont work well with large armys etc.. they are better suited to smaller forces causing havoc amongst the population rather than pitched battle fields.

Answer 7

American's learned from the American Indians how to fight in the Eastern territories! Behind trees; ambush and disperse; be hard to find; save your amunition until you have a sure shot!! Small numbers have to fight SMART!

Answer 8

I'd prefer trench warfare over both....