Why did Soldiers Fight in Lines? | Animated History

In a world where McCellan was actually not a bad leader:

Except the American militia defeated the British army, partly because of guerrilla warfare tactics. So this video still doesn’t make sense if they could’ve done that instead.

I feel like watching one of those battles would feel like a gambing match, you just keep sending one row at a time, you dont know how many will die or live, you could go on a massive bad luck streak and throw a 100k v 50k

Line Infantry: Can be weak to Artillery Fire

Since it's based to numbers and strategy, tactics can be implied in Line Battle.

And they're strong against Cavalry charge.



Militia: since they base on Guerilla tactics, they had some disadvantages against Cavalry charges since they're pretty much scattered.

They were effective on doing ambushes on a lined Company, the milita can go in Small numbers and will defeat a Well Disciplined Line Infantry if they stood their line.
The Militias Basically played a major role in Musket Era since they're pretty much a revolutionize Infantry that greatly Affected Opposing sides.

The funny thing is, we still fight in line formations, theyre just much more spread out

Being in a line is cool n all till you put to much blackpowder down the muzzle and turn your fire arm into a grenade

WOW this really made that strategy make sense.....everyone makes fun but there was advatages....Kudos for a great video explaining it.....

Traditional army in line formation

Machinegunner: I'm going to ruin this regiments whole day

Yeah sorry this seems like a lot of very weak excuses for a terrible tactic. There's no justification here that can't be overcome using simple solutions.

Worried about cavalry? Sharpen some sticks and stick them in the ground, use cover, shoot them.

Getting disorientated because of the smoke? Won't happen if you're not all standing in a line

Morale issues? I'm sure having everyone around you getting shot off isn't great for morale

Why would you need to concentrate your forces into the smallest area possible? Having a longer more spread out line literally would allow you to encircle the enemy.

Why don't they use fortifications? Dig a damn hole. Suddenly you can stand, cavelry is useless and you're like 90% less likely to be shot.

I've gotta say war in general seems quite ludicrous so fighting in lines isn't that much more of a stretch

Attack the D point!

Horses wouldn't impale themselves.... And they were valued more than the average soldier

Apart from how interesting are your videos, I really appreciate the clear English that you use. I am no native speaker and I don't need subtitles in your videos, they are pretty easy to follow, even when you use the more technical languange. My most sincere thanks.

It's not that why every time one get shot the other soldiers don't care

Also, honor was important or at least the appearance of honor and fair play during this time period. Using such tactics that differed from these formations was considered dishonorable, crewed and barbarous—not the act of a “gentleman.”

I get there are different points to every story but there is no one who can convince me that way of fighting is a good idea. Even an ancient soldier could rely on his skills and have a better chance of surviving then just standing there in the open hoping you don't get shot.

Sharpe: 3 rounds a minute
Armchair historian: 4 ROUNDS A MINUTE

A massive reason that wasn't really touched on, is that most soldiers at this time were conscripted. They had very little training and were not used to battles or really anything team related. It was/is significantly easier to control a block of men, most of which didn't want to be there, in the chaos of battle, than a bunch of spread out guys doing whatever seems best at the time (which usually was to flee).

Hello. One question. I have seen in movie that there were also people playing drums and music in those line while going towards enemy. Why was that?

One simple reason.... they were : stupid lol
Still great video

A good soldier can fire 3 rounds a minute

Vimy ridge was a line battle iirc. Canadians walked in a line behind an artillery barrage clearing whoever got spared from the bombs

The real question is why didnt soldiers just lay down when the enemy was about to fire and then get back up after the volley

Send this to Joe Rogan please 😂

he should of mentioned that the russian white army would form in lines and march to the enemy

They fought in lines because it was easier to have the peasants kill each other that way.
Wars are so that the Ruling Class can reduce the population of the Peasants and cull all of the bravest and most aggressive Peasants who would rock the boat.

until WW1 military officers cadre suffered from hubris (and high casualties), going back to line infantry era, the highest combat casualty percentage was due to artillery hits. So it is today, if we talk about the real war where both sides are able to fight conventional war. But nowadays armies know that with certainty.

Because if they fought in squares or circles they'd shoot each other 🙄

I still think there gitta be a better way. Than to just stand there. Maybe make urself some cover or idk.

I cannot stress enough how much I enjoy this channel but the way they sell their knickers to mobile games is sad

The Prussian punishment for disobedience, sounds eerily similar to the punishment we used as children in England, at least where I lived in SE London, in the 80's.
We called it "The Tunnel od Death"😂.
The loser of a game would have to run a guanlet of kicks of the other players.
Wed create a tunnel against a wall, using our bodies.
Both arms against the wall, and the loser would have to run through to the other side.
The choice was The Tunnel of Death, or run through 300m of Ivy😂😂😂

A minute in and he doesn't even have the proper name for the war of northern aggression. No thanks

I dont understand how people dont realize why people marched and fought in lines

I didn't know about the steam game!

I have actually wondered why many infantry corps fought in straight lines, and I always taught it was only to reduce damage to the unit should it get hit by artillery shells. Thanks for expanding my knowledge on the subject

Bismarck was by no means against the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, he was much more actively promoting it. He complained that the Germans were fighting "the fifteenth or twentieth defensive war in 300 years against this intolerably glory-seeking and quarrelsome people" and that France would remain eternally vindictive after a lost war, so he was keen to "move the base for the inevitable next French attack as far west as possible".

I'm happy this video exists. I just link it to my non-historian friends whenever I'm fumbling the intricacies of fighting in formation!!!

I disagree partly with your conclusion here. Americans partly won their revolution by using guerilla tactics and not using formations, though often they still would use them, and this was before the industrial revolution. What actually allowed them to do this was the terrain, not technological advancements. One could argue that while the colonial armies hadn't yet adapted to war in the Americas, those that had lived there for multiple generations would know how to use the terrain to their advantage.

Dude your videos are so cool

As a man from 2223, I just wonder why you put humans to kill each other. You can send cyborg or gundam to war.

Why didnt they Take portable Walls with them?

My grandfather told me why. It's weird I can't comment on utude

The more rounds on the ground the higher the casualties on the other side thus reducing morale and fighting efficiently. They reckon the British army during the wars against the French the British could fire 3 rounds a minute compared to the French 1-2. Even now we try to suppress the enemy with faster heavier firepower.

Oh thanks gods we found better ways to kill each other so we can reach highest KPI.