I'm quite interested in the Euopean warfare in the late pre-industrial era. One thing that really confuses me is why captains or general back in that time prefer to use the line formation for their musketeer infrantry? I agree it maximums the damage inflicted upon the enemy, but the same time, the same damage could applied to yourself.
Did they really didn't care about the casualties, and were there some other attributes that made such stategy viable?
There were a few different reasons.
Cavalry. Close-order formation allowed a unit to form a square or other anti-cavalry formation.
Morale. Close-order formation prevented individual soldiers from fleeing the battle as easily. Given that pre-industrial militaries generally lacked the resources or economy for long-term training, this was no small thing. It took a lot of effort to get untrained or less-trained soldiers to follow military procedure.
Volley fire. This plays into the second element. Given the relative inaccuracy of the weapons used in the 17th century, volley fire was the best way to ensure casualties among an enemy force.
Cohesion. In addition, given that bayonet fighting was common, you needed unit cohesion to fend off a bayonet charge. Most casualties happened in the pursuit phase of a battle, after one side had broken and was fleeing. Without unit cohesion, soldiers cannot support each other and you have a mob, not an army.
Communication and coordination. Without some sort of order, it is difficult for a commander to exercise control of a battle. Today, we have radios to allow a commander to issue orders to widely dispersed, small units. In the 17th century, units used musical instruments, flags, and runners. Any time a commander split up his force, there was a danger that each of his units might be defeated in sequence by a numerically inferior enemy, something we call a defeat in detail.
/u/The_Alaskan covers all the bases. Linear tactics allowed for cohesiveness which allowed "musketeer infantry" to defend themselves as a unit against cavalry. It also provided a lot of morale; it has been demonstrated countless times that men in close order support each other and provide other men 'gusto' compared to when they are out on their own or in looser skirmishing formations.
The thing he kind of glossed over though which is the biggest is bayonet charges. I made a diagram a while ago for a similar topic; seen here. Just think of it logically: If you're more spread out yes you are less prone to taking hits but it doesn't matter because shooting was not the primary decisive actor in this period. The bayonet was. With exceptions, notably the British who had exceptionally defensive tactics, generally infantry would fire while advancing or by rank and then charge. And you can see from the picture basic math: Skirmishers are always outnumbered by those in dense lines and columns and will always lose a direct firefight and a bayonet charge for that reason alone.
There's numerous thought exercises I like to run people through for this topic and this is my favorite: Did ancient generals not care about casualties when they made people walk into spears and just prod at each other in a neat line? No; of course not. For the same reasons Spartans lined up with interlocking shields and spears in depth people lined up with bayonets and muskets; mutual support, unit cohesion, overwhelming local firepower. Considering this; is linear tactics any more "dumb" than 15th, 16th, and early 17th century warfare which was centered around pikemen ramming into each other? Or hoplites in Ancient Greece?
There are a million social reasons I could go into for why skirmisher infantry did not arise until the later end of the 18th century and even then only marginally but that removes the simple reason of them all why it did not: Skirmishing, light, open order troops was something that required heavily disciplined, highly trained marksmen that were lead by seasoned, professional, top of the line officers. Linear infantry could be lined up, shoot once or twice in a mindless drill fashion, and then charge with bayonets and decide a battle right then and there with any ol' regular joe. It was simple and brutally effective.
You can see from the battle records that, in fact, most casualties did not come from men just standing in lines 20 feet apart blasting away at each other because that did not happen. Most casualties, just like most wars before it anywhere in the world, happened when one side was routed and they were cut down by cavalry and assaulting infantry. It's when people turn tails and run that the deaths happen in pre-modern (modern meaning 1815-1945 in military history generally) battlefields and even bleeding into the modern.
You might also be interested in some previous threads on 18th and 19th century line formations:
Key Factors
Did Line Infantry really march into enemy fire at a dignified pace before attacking? (As is portrayed in many films set in the 1750-1812 period) - 27 comments, over 2 months old.
The commenters list cavalry, organization, and inaccurate weapons as the primary factors and also link to a variety of posts on the topic.
Napoleonic Battlefield Tactics - 5 comments, over 11 months old.
The commenters here summarize the threat of cavalry charges to open order infantry, the morale damage caused by massed volley fire, and the training requirements for large groups of sharpshooting skirmishers.
Was the colonial tactic of "stand in a line and shoot" really the best tactic for war, or the product of not knowing how to best use guns? - 26 comments, over 9 months old.
The topmost comment addresses the problems that line formations solved while top level comments below it put it in context with early modern firearm development and also the noise and smoke of the period battles.
Please help me make sense of how infantry battles were fought in 18th century Europe. - 6 comments, over 1 year old.
This summarizes how line infantry actually conducted themselves once in range of opposing formations.
Would line infantry keep a musket loaded for when they charged, so they could use it at extremely close range? - 6 comments, over 1 year old.
The commenters in this thread discuss why and how bayonet charges were conducted.
Were battles during the time of the american revolution truly fought with two lines of armies standing across from each other with each army taking turns firing at the other? - 40 comments, over 8 months old.
This thread touches on the threat of cavalry, range limitations, and how period line infantry fit into the whole of contemporary armies filled with skirmishers, cavalry, and artillery.
When was the first instance of a bunch of guys with muskets lining up in a line and firing at each other in volleys? - 12 comments, over 11 months old.
The commenters here summarize the evolution of European firearm tactics European from 15th to the 17th centuries.
Mechanics of Linear Tactics
Why did armies in the 18th and 19th centuries face each other through lined combat? - 1 comment, over 4 months old.
The lone comment gives a summary of line infantry tactics and also discusses how these soldiers would be used in various phases of the battle with links to other posts on the topic.
18th-century battle formations - 24 comments, over 7 months old.
The topmost comment discusses the use of line and column formations while a top level comment down below it digs deep into how line formations interacted with skirmishers and cavalry to show the importance of closed order units.
Did armys really just stand in line and shoot at each other back in the 1700's? - 21 comments, over 10 months old.
This thread both explains the theory behind the tactic and uses a variety of examples from Early Modern european battles to showcase the mechanics which allowed it to be effective.
In "What was warfare actually like in the 18th/Early 19th centuries?", a user makes a relevant comment here - 5 comments, over 2 years old.
This posts discusses in detail the tactics and strategy of period sieges, cavalry, light infantry, and artillery to show how line infantry filled a crucial role in 18th and 19th century warfare.
What books (websites?) describe the military maneuvers used during battles of the 18th-19th century? - 5 comments, over 1 year old.
A variety of sources are given by flaired users.
Evolution of Linear Tactics
Can someone give me an authoritative explanation of 17th and 18th century gunpowder tactics? - 13 comments, over 2 years old.
This thread traces line tactics from their birth in the 17th century to their maturation 18th and 19th centuries.
How did the line formation evolve in battles? - 89 comments, over 2 years old.
The commenters in this post detail how firearm equipped soldiers and eventually line infantry fit into European warfare from 16th century until the early 19th century.
European battlefield tactics between pike-and-shot of 16th-17th centuries and line formations of 18th - 2 comments, over 1 year old.
This thread goes into the development of new bayonets and artillery which favored line formations as well as the unintended effects this had on the decisiveness of battles.
Related Topics
When units of ranged troops fired en masse, did individual soldiers pick their targets or fire straight forward/at an area? - 41 comments, over 9 months old.
The commenters in this thread give detailed answers for British forces during the Revolutionary War as well as 18th century Russian soldiers.
In 18th century Europe, how was artillery deployed offensively during battle? - 7 comments, over 6 months old.
Various flaired users discuss the types of artillery and their roles in European battlefields from the 17th century into the early 19th.
American Revolution: When the red coats intially saw the hiding tactics of the americans, was it seen as constoversial as current day "terrorist" tactics? - 3 comments, over 1 month old.
A flaired user gives a detailed post (with primary source evidence) showing the tactics and formations used by British infantry during the American Revolutionary War.
