Line Or Column: Which Is Better?
A tactical analysis of which formation is better, and in what circumstances
By Mark Coomber.
It is the question that military commanders and historians have argued over for decades; the line has firepower, the column has brute force. The column favoured by Napoleon, against the line used by the Duke of Wellington. Yet the conclusion decided by the result of The Battle of Waterloo (1815) could be questioned by other confrontations like Jena (1806) and Austerlitz (1805). .....
Unlock for 2 fraxions
Login to fraxion payments
This is slightly modified by the time of the US civil war, where cavalry were more like mounted infantry than shock troop cavalry of the Napoleonic era. The advantage of column to square was thus lost. Also the range and accuracy of the weapons had increased so columns make poor choices for combat indeed.
Their advantage was speed and manoeuvre. This was so even in Napoleon’s time when his forces, having advanced in column, were often expected to deploy to supported line before charging. This did not often happen because the columns needed quite a distance between them to allow the line to deploy. Often it was more convenient to just charge in.
In playing Line of Muskets I find it useful to consider these factors. March columns are for rapid advance. Field columns for nimble moves and occasional massed charges. Supported lines for a good punch. Finally battle line to hold a position and shoot lots!