Why did Civil War soldiers fight in lines?

Garry Adelman of the American Battlefield Trust explains the military tactics of the Civil War era. While they seem almost idiotic now, at the time armies were using the most modern strategies available.

Welcome to Battlefield U! We provide answers to your questions about the Civil War, Revolutionary War and War of 1812. We aim to increase your baseline knowledge for school, battlefield visits or just to help you show off at social events. Check in on Tuesdays for our newest Battlefield U installment.

[Stiglr]

What's missing in Garry's explanation is the fact that the weaponry of the day required "concentration of fire" to get results. Small groups and sharpshooters had their place (picking off officers and serving as a skirmisher barrier to an enemy's advance), but they could not put the necessary weight of fire on a target by themselves: the weapons were not accurate enough at distance. So, it became a "two-edged sword": you had to form enough men in lines so that they could mass thier fire against a distant target... but in so doing, you had to PRESENT a bigger target to the enemy.

[Generalfund]

Because of Napoleonic tactics taught at West Point, and a belief that you had to mass your musket fire for it to be effective. Unfortunately for all involved, the gun technology had improved significantly from the early 1800's, and musket rifles were now accurate up to 400 yards (or 4 football fields). The belief that you needed to engage the enemy by doing a spear style bayonet attack led to appalling losses. Enemy lines standing 50 yards (or less) from eachother, exchanging point blank rifle fire. It was madness.
Then this tragedy would be repeated in World War I as no one got the memo that human wave assaults no longer made ANY sense with the invention of the machine gun...

[rickrowell]

As in every war, the tactics of the last war are employed until it becomes evident that a new tactic needs to be employed to save what little man and weapon power you have left. As in the Civil war where you begin to see late in the war a precursor to world war one with trench warfare.

[johnhoudyshell]

The best strategy was to dig in and counter attack. If Lee had done that on the second and third day at Gettysburg it may have turned out much differently. Geography plays a big part in how battles are won, if the enemy has the advarage in geography, pick another place to fight, Stonewall Jackson was a master at such tactics.

[gareththompson]

To be clear, we fight in lines today (sometimes wedges). The question shouldn't be "why did they fight in lines?", but "why did they fight in close order?".

We have always fought in lines and always will for the foreseeable future. A line is simply the best way to put all your firepower (or stabbing power depending on the era) to the front. A column will give you more firepower to the flanks, and if you want to compromise a wedge will give you some firepower to the flanks while still providing good effect towards your front. But generally you try to attack with your front towards the enemy, so you will fight in a line.

In the Civil War (and Napoleonic wars) you fight in a line consisting of a battalion of around 1000 men (at full strength, but more likely 400-600) in close order (that means nearly shoulder to shoulder), two or three ranks deep.

At the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th century you fight in a line consisting of a company of around 250 men (at full strength again, expect real world numbers to be closer to 40-60% of the full authorized strength, so perhaps a little over a 100 typically) fighting in a single rank in extended order with about 2-3 meters between each man (they would march from point A to point B in close order, but they fight in open order...or at least they were supposed to fight in open order (there are some notable blunders where a commander failed to shake his men out into open order and they were subsequently slaughtered)).

Today you would fight in a line consisting of a squad (~10 men (7-13 depending on country and branch)) or a fireteam (typically 4 men (sometimes 3 or 5)) in a single rank in extended order with 5-10 meters between each man (always extended order in combat, even when traveling from point A to point B).

Additional fun fact: Modern loose order line formations evolved from Napoleonic skirmishers. Which you can tell instantly from the fact that the full name of a modern line formation is a "skirmish line".


Anyway, as to why they fought in CLOSE ORDER in the Civil War (and Napoleonic wars). It comes down to a series of trade offs. It was well known even in Napoleon's time that close order formations increased casualties as a result of firepower. But there were several factors that they felt made that worth while.

1. Moral: Being within a tight formation and surrounded by friendly troops makes you feel safer, makes you less likely to run (because someone would notice), and makes you more likely to continue the advance (because you are practically being carried forward by the momentum of men around you).

2. Command and Control: Close order formations take up less frontage than an extended order formation would, meaning that the commander's voice doesn't have to carry as far. Because the men are so close together you will quickly become aware of any commands you don't hear as the rest of the formation begins executing them. A close order formation is capable of much more precise drill than an extended order one, and can react much more quickly to orders.

3. Shock: Shock at this time largely refers to cold steel weapons such as the bayonet and cavalry saber (probably named for the psychological effect those weapons tend to have). Being so close together means you have a lot of bayonets all in one place that can more readily defend against enemy bayonets and cavalry. A formation in extended order has almost no defense against a bayonet charge by a much more densely packed formation but to run away, and has no hope at all against cavalry. But a formation in close order, with bayonets fixed, can put up a viable defense against cavalry and can give as good as they get against bayonet armed enemy infantry.

But, as already mentioned, the trade off is heavier casualties when faced with enemy fire (especially artillery). A trade off which was well known about at the time. Which is why some specialized troops did fight in extended order. Those troops trained to fight in extended order were called skirmishers, and their job was to screen the friendly army and harass the enemy army until the time came for the decisive engagement between the main forces. Skirmishers both in the Napoleonic wars and the Civil War proved extremely effective against enemy infantry provided that they could keep their distance. But they were extremely vulnerable to cavalry.

[WnrWnrChkinDnr]

They did NOT by the end of the war.
The archeological locations of battle lines shows small groups taking cover in tiny depressions of ground

[BA-gnqb]

Because . . . Standing in a circle facing each other didn't work out so well.

[mondoseguendo]

Because if they fought in circles it would be silly.

[RedsBigRig]

I’m surprised they didn’t think of 1. One ground line slit in half, one half lies down, the standing group fires, then crouches or lies down for reload, while reloading the other half stands and fires off, crouches, other group pops back up after reloading (this would also insure safety on at least half the team if when the opposition shot back, half the squad would be on the ground covered.. . But not only that… why would they even stand to begin with?? Why not shoot from a crouch or from laying down?? I mean the more cover the better yeah!??

[DeerHunter]

Firing in a line, at the time of the Civil War was a left over tactic of the "smooth bore era".

[anthonyhargis]

Actually, other experts claim that weapons merely overtook tactics. Old dogs and new tricks.

[sonny]

The way the soldiers fought in the American civil war started in the 1500's. Soldiers started fighting in lines since Spain was fighting the Japanese.

[bladestarX]

Another reason for this was that the folks barking orders, along with the King of England, were nowhere near the chaos. If you were on the front lines, your survival rate was practically zero. But the further away you got, the better your chances—so much so that by the time you reached the king’s comfy chair, the most dangerous thing was a paper cut from royal decrees!

[heyaytlgno]

I get the concept but I don’t get why they let the other side get ready to shoot

[zacharyclark]

They were still influenced by Napoleonic tactics.

[tbd-]

You are always ready to fight the last war you were in.

[jamesjacocks]

One thing that has certainly changed is the requisite courage to be a soldier. What it took to stand in the ranks in the American Civil War wouldn't be found in many soldiers today. Before armies focussed on killing civilians, it was killing enemy soldiers that mattered, that when they were defeated the battle was won. Now, economic and political warfare has made even infants the enemy. Terrorism operates on this principle.

[gedp]

Why are they walking and why not charging?

[Red-rlxx]

Also, there were no planes or tanks back then. They couldn't call in an airstrike to take out enemy positions and then send the infantry in to "mop up". And without any armor, there was no place to hide. You pretty much had no choice but to hurl masses of men at each other.

[derekthorson]

I trust people of the era to know best how to use the technology available. Have to believe at the time it was the best way to do what needed to be done with what they had.