18th century warfare, a question

[Adamar]

Did the infantry really just march forward while getting shot at?

[Torost]

I am no expert.This is just what I believe to be true, not factchecked.

But yes, sort off.

Soldiers were "cheap", required little trainingtime to learn how to load and fire a musket/rifle.
And inorder to assure that soldiers did their duty, there was a strict regiment of drills and manovers. No way to hide or act cowardly.
The regiment commander did not have the pistol and saber for use on the enemy, but to enforce disiplin within their own ranks.

The pitched battles were in some cases very large. Hard to move and organize if the battalions did not move as planned.

[Christo]

Did the infantry really just march forward while getting shot at?

They had to.

Artillery was the key element of 18-19th century warfare.

If the two sides would just stand far from eachother, the artillery would simply bombard them to pieces.

There was nothing else they could do, really.

[[ptx]]

Note that the muskets and shit were helluva inaccurate and even more slow, the best they could really do is break up the morale of the enemy through massed volleys.

[Franke]

I'm not an expert either (though 18th/19th century warfare is one of my favourite subjects) but want to comment on this question, too.
For us it seems rather unlikely that the soldiers in those times stupidly marched towards the enemy, enforcing the shootout like in some prominent movies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFTcrbRyEM&feature=player_detailpage#t=56s).
But I think there were no real alternatives to these tactics. As [ptx] wrote, the flintlock muskets of these times were inaccurate like hell; if you wanted to get a certain number of hits, you had to fire a lot of them at the same time and the only way to mass enough muskets on one spot was to form those lines we all know from the movies.

Another reason is what I want to call the spirit of the time. I cannot comment on all armies of that time as I mainly have sources about the Frederickan army but the infantry in those times formed lines three ranks deep with the tallest (and thus most impressing) men in the front rank. In case suddenly the whole line had to face about, it was unthinkable the the single men within the line simply turned around. No, the whole formation had to wheel around 180 degrees. The gentlemen officiers of those times who were so fond of good order surely wouldn'T have tolerated that their men lie to the ground seeking for cover.

Last but not least, keeping your men together in massed formations was the easiest way to control them and to avoid desertions in the heat of battle in a time when not patriotism made the men fight but rather fear of the own officers and NCOs.

So I would say yes, they really marched forward while getting shot.

[Lange]

German Wiki says
"Beim Pelotonfeuer gingen nacheinander erst sämtliche ungeraden Pelotons, dann die geraden Pelotons auf das Kommando des Pelotonführers schnell drei große Schritte vorwärts und feuerten je eine Salve. Dazu fiel das erste Glied auf die Knie, das zweite schloss auf, und das dritte rückte rechts in die Lücken. Auf diese Weise kam das Bataillon in der Minute ca. 10 bis 12 Meter voran. Die Feuereröffnung erfolgte bei einem Abstand von etwa 200 Metern zum Gegner. "
(Theres nothing like this in the english wiki). So, they opened fire at 200 meters (more than the effective range of a musket), then slowly advanced while firing in turns. Seems logical to me... and better than not firing, while the enemys fire is having effect.

[Penitent]

They wouldn't JUST move at each other and shoot, but that's how most of the killing was done.  They also tried to out-maneuver the other army.  While 2 units of muskets are firing at each other, try to wheel another unit around to shoot at the flank, establishing a cross-fire.  Or pin then down so the cavalry can charge.

Artillery was a big part of it, but they would also use terrain (elevation, natural cover) and formations/maneuvers to get the upper hand.  Read up on some of Napoleon's battles and how he won, and you'll get a pretty good idea.  It's pretty interesting!

[Penitent]

dbl post

[HarunYahya]

The most retarded era of battle history imo.

I mean seriously ? Wtf dude ... why would i march into an army who point rifles at my fucking face ?
Better cut my own throat ...

[Christo]

The most retarded era of battle history imo.

I mean seriously ? Wtf dude ... why would i march into an army who point rifles at my fucking face ?
Better cut my own throat ...

You must like WWI then.

[[ptx]]

Muskets, not rifles.

[HarunYahya]

You must like WWI then.

Nope but hiding in trenches and getting drowned in your own shit make more sense than going into openfield , forming ranks and firing volleys to each other.

[Christo]

Nope but hiding in trenches and getting drowned in your own shit make more sense than going into openfield , forming ranks and firing volleys to each other.

Don't forget gas.

Gas is the worst. Also, charging at machine gun nests. Hell, machine gun nests in general.

[Penitent]

As stated, armies in the 18th century did NOT just march towards each other and shoot.  Only bad generals commanded their men to just do that.

They did to some of that, but not just that.  It's one of those historical myths, like the dark ages were completely backwards and barbaric, or the inquisition was a plot by the church to kill native americans.

Like those other myths, there is some truth to what we are talking about regarding 18th century warfare, but looking at the big picture it would be inaccurate to say they just marched in and shot each other.

[Oberyn]

Don't forget gas.

Gas is the worst. Also, charging at machine gun nests. Hell, machine gun nests in general.

Captured machine gunners had a tendency to end up with unexplainable cases of bullet hole in the face. Even their own side's regular infantry didn't like them much. Probably the weapon responsible for most deaths along with artillery.