Military structure and change (II): The dilemma presented by a major innovation
More on the dilemmas of change in the military.
More on the dilemmas of change in the military:
More on the dilemmas of change in the military:
In the 18th century, the best response of infantry to cavalry charges had been to form a tight square. Then, as I understand it, first line kneels, second line sort of squats, and third line stands. As they face a cavalry charge, they fire as often as they can, but then, as the horsemen come upon them, they hold their muskets steady. These reached out five feet or more, and were topped with bayonets two feet long. Bayonets were a surprisingly recent invention — first they fit directly into the muzzle, but around 1678 the ring or socket bayonette came along. This made infantry able both to fire and defend themselves, which in turn made pikes less necessary, and freed up pikeholders to be musketmen.
But change never stops. By 1800, field artillery — a new branch, different from stationary guns — was changing this equation. The more infantry squares you formed, and the tighter they were, the better your defense against cavalry was. But those same squares also made great targets for the increasingly important (and accurate) light cannons being fielded.
The more I read about Napoleonic-era field artillery, the more I think it was the cyberwar of its time. It was new, unsettling, and technical, and its practitioners were seen as not really gentlemen by the other officers. Don’t forget that Napoleon comes out of this new branch. I wonder if the great general of the 21st century will be a hacker?
The move from small militaries to mass forces was part of the solution to the problem of field guns killing infantrymen: Get more men. “With the manpower resources of entire nations behind them, commanders could hold human life cheap, no longer capital to be saved as much as possible, but income to be expended,” writes Gunther Rothenberg. As William McNeill puts it, France by raising mass armies managed to trim its excess population and also export hundreds of thousands of hungry stomachs to be fed off the land as they marched through other countries, mainly Belgium, Germany and Italy.
Franz Moritz Brückner/Wikimedia Commons
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
