• Minotaur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s my understanding that they really didn’t. The American Revolution was won in part because the Americans more often “adopted Native tactics” (I.e. attacking from tree lines, on paths on unsuspecting units moving from place to place, aiming for officers, etc).

    The big Napoleonic blocks were done, but often just out of honor and so officers had some sense of “control” over the battle so they could both easily pull out before it descended into a large brawl where they might actually be killed

    • Nobody@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not really. The American Revolution was still fought with the same Napoleonic tactics used by the regular army. The irregulars might have adopted more guerrilla methods in the frontier, but they weren’t widely adopted.

      Reinforcements from the French army and navy won the war. The French Revolution followed shortly after.

      And IIRC those Napoleonic tactics were still used in the American civil war and beyond. The “big Napoleonic blocks” led to trench warfare in WW1.

      • Lyre@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I agree, also important to note that the “big square” actually served a purpose in preventing cavalry from picking off separated infantry and detering cavalry charges. From my understanding the formation was genuinely effective until horses stopped being a factor in war.

        I mean maybe “honour” played a role in why they did things but i think we’re sometimes too quick to assume people in the past were idiots.