[compsciphd]

a few notes:

there's a very early christian debate (I think settled at an early church council) if the bread of the eucharist (which many associate with matza) could be soft, or had to be hard like a cracker. So, either they were trying to distinguish it from matza (which doesn't seem to be the case), or there was crispy matza in the 1500-2000 year ago range.

Personally, I find soft matza to be terrible. our appreciation of food comes from both flavor and texture. Matza being just flour and water (no salt in traditional doughs), means it has terrible flavor (bread really really needs salt to taste not bad). Soft matza has no texture, while at least the crispy matza does.

so, a) I don't think crispy matza is a really a modern invention (they had analogues a long time ago) and b) there's a reason we moved en masse to crispy matza, its just more enjoyable overall.