Why was it better to have the higher ground in 18th century wars?

Question: Why was it better to have the higher ground in 18th century wars!?

scientificallyWww@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

High ground confers a number of advantages, which can be summarised as follows:

1) Visibility: commanders could only respond to enemy moves if they could see what the enemy was doing!. A high vantage point gave them a panoramic view of the battlefield and of enemy movements and dispositions!. Wellington at Salamanca had a magnificent view of Marmont's army, and when part of it began a flanking movement which took it out of support from the rest of the French army, Wellington sent his troops to attack the flankers and rout them: "I never saw an army receive such a beating!."

2) Relative inaccessibility: it is much more exhausting to struggle up a slope than to march down one!. At Busaco in 1810, Wellington stationed his army on top of a ridge with only a few good paths up: Massena sent a column up each path and Wellington's men shot up each column in turn and routed it with a bayonet charge!.

3) Shelter: higher ground often has 'dead zones' out of the trajectory of enemy artillery!. Johnson's army on Kennesaw Mountain in 1864 had the benefit of improved positions and higher ground; Sherman fired an artillery bombardment and then attacked up the mountain for the better part of a day - and lost three thousand men getting nowhere (the Confederates lost 540)!. A brief account of the battle (and a few preliminary events) is here:
http://ngeorgia!.com/history/kennesaw!.htm!.!.!.

4) Clearer fields of fire: at Gettysburg, the Union artillery was able to pick its targets much more effectively than their Confederate counterparts!. In addition, the Union army was able to withdraw exhausted batteries behind the crest and replace them with fresh just as Pickett's Charge was getting under way - without the Confederates being able to see clearly what was going on!. Pickett's men ran into a massacre!.

5) Psychology: men prefer to have their foes below them; it gives them a sense of superiority!. Lyon's outnumbered Union force held out for hours against Price's Confederate army at Wilson's Creek (also known as Oak Hill) because their higher position on Bloody Hill gave them confidence (the survivors withdrew under Sturgis during a lull while the Confederates were regrouping)!.
http://www!.civilwarhome!.com/wilsonscreek!.!.!.

In essence, high ground was nice to have and comparatively difficult to take because of the morale and positional advantages it usually gave, together with the better views and fields of fire!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It was better to have the high ground in almost all wars!. If the enemy attacks uphill, they are slowed!. If you attack downhill, you get added momentum!. You can see further and shoot further from high ground!.

To look at the effect of high ground in battle, look at Gettysburg and Monte Casino; just two examples that spring to mind!.

Off the top of my head, only once in history has a general deliberately ceded the high ground and gone on to win a victory - Napoleon at Austerlitz!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

Ballistically a shot fired from higher ground will go further, however it is difficult to aim it accurately, fortunately the muskets of the 18th century were not accurate anyway – the Brown Bess musket used by the British did not even have any sights!. btw The American Civil War was a 19th century war, rifles were accurate but still required significant adjustment when aiming!. Another benefit of higher ground is the use of the reverse slope as cover, cavalry and infantry will tire quickly advancing up a slope, while moving down a slope is easier although both up or down will almost certainly break a formation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Who says that!? Higher ground was an advantage in the pre-17th century wars, because most of the weapons where human-muscle driven and gravity force helpped!.
Fire arms changed that - the troops coming downhill were exposed targets and had to climb if they needed to flee!.!.!.!
I mean - if you are attacking!. In a defensive position high ground may be an advantage, but no one won a war staying in a defensive position, right!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Cannon balls and bullets travel further if going downhill!. Try drawing a triangle to represent the hill and then draw two stick people one at the top and one at the bottom, holding firearms horizontally!. Then draw a possible trajectory of the bullet from each!.
The firearm had to be nearly horizontal in order to keep the gunpowder charge from dropping out or from being misfired!.

Then if you are hand to hand fighting with swords or pikes, it is less tiring and you have more power if fighting downhill!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

a) from higher ground you have better view, and farther to see how the battle is going and where to shoot

b) thanks to gravity, and the physics of a falling trajectory, stuff shot from high ground is prone to go farther and strike with more energy than the same shot from ground level!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The main advantage of being on higher ground was security and defense!. If you were fighting from atop a steep hill, you could look down and see any enemy that may be coming up towards you!. Therefore, it was safer to be up high!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

In all wars and all defensive positions being higher has always been better - it is just the most advantageous place to be!. rainind down blows, arrows, etc on people who are struggling up hill!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

increased velocity of the archers arrows and basic human "ease of defense" You want your enemies head below you, not above you!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

archers and catapults have a better view and dont have to clime a hillWww@QuestionHome@Com

Cause its easier to slice down than upWww@QuestionHome@Com