Talk:Line infantry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Name of the article[edit]

It seems to me that the name [[Infantry of the Line]] is far more appropriate then the current name--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Crap Hats[edit]

Removed all of this as subjective. Also, RAF regiment are not infantry so are removed as are Royal MArine commandos. Only units of the British Army can be line infantry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boooooom (talkcontribs) 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RAF Regiment[edit]

There seems to be someone with an affiliation to the RAF Regiment who has restored their original references in a bid to make the 'Rock Apes' appear somehow better than infantry. This is misleading and the poster should know that such references are counter-productive to the Rgt since the Army regards them as little more than Walter Mitty-esque attempts to 'big up' the Rgt and those who serve in it. The references are far too subjective. The RM do not refer to line infantry as 'crap hats' in my experience, but 'pongos'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Edmund Bear (talkcontribs) 11:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Merger proposal[edit]

This article does not appear to add anything to Infantry of the British Army, I suggest it should be merged into that article. Highfield1730 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged as this article seems to attract no constructive additions Highfield1730 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New article[edit]

A new article was created which is about historical line infantry of European countries rather than about the modern infantry of the British Army. Ufim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC).

Gustavus Adolphus most assuredly did not issue his infantry with wheel-locks, like the vast majority of infantry during the first half of the 17th C. they were equipped with matchlocks. --Trithemius (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal 2[edit]

Line infantry and Line (formation) seem to cover basically the same content, with only slight changes in wording. I would suggest merging Line infantry into Line (formation). If the former covers something that the latter doesn't, then a new section could be added to the latter... but mostly, I think they're duplicates of each other. --Quuxplusone (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Line infantry used not only line formation. Line infantry also used column and carré.
Line formation was used not only by infantry, but also by some sorts of heavy cavalry and by fleet. Ufim (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Most of the content of Line Infantry is really about line tactics in the 17th. - 19th. century. However, Line infantry, as has already been said, used other tactics - they were line only in the sense that they were the "ordinary" infantry type who made up the bulk of the line, as opposed to specialists like grenadiers or light infantry (who also, of course, could use line formations and tactics). Other uses of line tactics (e.g. by cavalry) could be covered by expanding what is in the article or dividing it Line (infantry formation), Line (cavalry formation). There is already a separate article for ships and a stub on line for aircraft formations could be added if required. Monstrelet (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree. As noted by editor Monstrelet above "line" in most European armies had by the 19th century come to mean the numbered, regular infantry or cavalry regiments who did not have specialist roles, (such as mountain troops), or social status (such as guards). In short the majority of any army. If this definition can be given in a brief stub, the bulk of the present article should be collapsed into the one describing line formations and tactics. Buistr (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


"At the beginning of 17th century the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus decided to equip his army with firearms with wheellocks, but only his cavalry received them in his lifetime. Shortly after his death, the Swedish infantry was equipped with new muskets with wheellocks which were comparatively light when compared to older muskets, making it easier to fire the weapon without the aid of a support. "

I'd challenge that. Wheellocks were available, but were (for the time) precision weapons and thus very costly - far too dear to equip masses of infantry with them. Even the link to 'wheellock' suggests differently. Long-arms did indeed become lighter and rests were discarded, but that's another issue.