Quote Originally Posted by Spino View Post
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.



I hate to break it to you but that was a widely accepted fact at the time. Thanks to its much greater depth in rows a column had a much greater chance of charging and beating an enemy deployed in line or square formation. Line formations were only good for maximizing firepower, their main drawbacks being lack of maneuverability, slower travel speed and extreme vulnerability to disruption and flanking maneuvers. Historically speaking deeper formations provide greater offensive melee strength, this same logic allowed the Thebans to beat the Spartans at Leuctra.

Columns may be more vulnerable to artillery and musket fire but they move much faster than line formations and can change direction and deploy into various formations must faster. Traveling long distances over a battlefield whilst deployed in line formation and under fire often left a unit disrupted and in disarray by the time it reached its destination.




The French only started experimenting with Attack Columns after the Seven Years War 1756-63. Armies almost exclusively advanced to the attack in the Line formation until the French started using Attack Columns fairly frequently after the start of the Revolution.