Many viewers, while watching films about the Napoleonic Wars, wonder why soldiers marched in tight formations under artillery fire. Let’s break it down. First, it’s important to note that military tactics were developed by highly competent people. If linear tactics were adopted by armies across different countries, there had to be a clear reason for it.
The first factor that led to the adoption of linear tactics was the poor quality of early firearms. Smoothbore infantry muskets had low accuracy and limited effective range. Aimed, precise fire at a significant distance was simply not possible with such weapons.
As a result, infantry relied on mass. A coordinated volley fired by an entire line was what could actually inflict damage on the enemy—especially since the opposing side used the same tactics. Under these conditions, the chances of hitting a target were much higher. The exception were light infantry units armed with rifles, which allowed aimed fire at distances of up to 200 paces. These troops already operated in loose formations.
Closely packed soldiers were also much easier to command. Try issuing orders to scattered troops when muskets are firing and artillery is roaring all around. This was the second major advantage of the linear formation.
Infantry always faced two main enemies, aside from opposing infantry itself: artillery and cavalry. At first glance, nothing seems more terrifying than cannonballs and grapeshot tearing wide gaps through infantry ranks.
Here, however, mathematics came to the aid of tacticians and strategists. They kept records of which weapons inflicted the greatest losses on infantry. A cavalry squadron could easily annihilate a dispersed infantry company in a single charge. A dense formation, especially one that managed to form a square in time, posed a serious obstacle to cavalry. Thus, despite all its shortcomings, linear tactics proved to be the most effective option available at the time.
