s this bizarre, persistent myth that the armies of the...¶

There's this bizarre, persistent myth that the armies of the early modern period had an ideological commitment to standing still, marching slowly, and letting themselves get fired upon for no reason other than being "proper." This couldn't be further from the truth. https://t.co/pztji8sDjE Line formation was an innovation of the era of small arms, and it was very, very effective at the specific purpose for which it was designed: the volley. Once in position, each rank of firearm-equipped infantry would fire in unison, shattering and dispersing enemy formations. As soon as the first rank finished firing, they would get out of the way (typically by crouching or moving into a column) and reload, while the next rank fired off a second volley. You can repeat this process until you run out of ranks and/or ammunition. This tactic was very useful as a form of saturation fire: bombarding the enemy with a large volume of lethal, ranged attacks. The same basic tactic as flurries of archer fire in antiquity or artillery bombardment in WWI. It is used for suppressing and redirecting enemy movement. That was the value of the line formation: stand your ground, suppress the enemy, and set the stage for a charge to mop up the enemy without giving them a chance to advance on your position. Armies were never composed solely of line infantry, and the lines weren't immutable. First of all, they typically didn't slowly march in lines. They moved in fluid columns, then reformed into lines once they neared their objective.

Battalions protected their flanks as best they could, and had separate formations of skirmishers waiting in the wings. One way this myth of the "inflexible, useless line" often comes up is a false narrative of the American war of independence. The story we're told is that the torpid, sclerotic British troops were consistently outflanked by rascally American minutemen. In truth, the rebels were routed over and over by the organized, suppressive volleys of the redcoats. It was only once the militias were subsumed into a central command structure, with regimented tactics and operational standards, that the Americans were able to make headway. So what was Napoleon's true military genius? Simple: he was even MORE organized! Napoleon heavily emphasized logistics, setting up roads and supply depots to ensure speedy deployment and a consistent supply of food and materiel to the front lines. He famously used this rapid deployment to outflank his enemies and cut off their ability to reinforce and rearm their flagging front lines. And his eventual downfall came from him outstripping those same supply lines, pushing too far away from the logistical engine, too fast. Moral of the story: wars aren't won by being disorganized and "hard to pin down." They're won by controlling your enemy's movement, securing your own, and building the logistical and tactical infrastructure to keep that machine going for longer than your opponents.