In 1700-1850 warfare, would infantry still march in formation while retreating?

Upvote:4

It depends...

While on TV it is dramatic for a commander to order a retreat, the proper command in the British Army is to "retire" (opposite to advance).

This would require a well ordered march away from the enemy.

Even a retreat would be reasonably ordered - although, not necessarily following a specific command. Retreats are generally a unit deciding for itself to pull back.

Retreats, however, quickly become routs - which are the more familiar "every man for himself" and "run fast" disorderly retreat.

Upvote:6

Armies would "march in formation while retreating" if not routed.

Maintaining formation was all important in a retreat. Most casualties were caused by armies falling apart and individual men being "picked off" by the enemy, usually cavalry, not in the battle itself. Hence, the sacrifice of a "few" men marching in order was considered necessary for the army to remain coherent and not be routed.

Retreating armies marched at "double time" (speed), that is 6 mph instead of 3 mph. Pursuing armies (other than cavalry) could not advance at such speeds without risking falling into disorder. Which is one reason why most orderly retreats were successful.

More post

Search Posts

Related post