Gentlemen, I need enquire of the hive mind.
Does anyone know of any examples of musket & bayonet armed infantry fighting sword armed infantry? I'm interested in the outcome of close combat.
Culloden comes to mind. I think a fruitful area may be the Ottomans and India.
I appreciate that other factors come to bear: training, morale etc, but all things being equal, is the bayonet more effective than the sword?
Maybe this will assist a little fsn
I have posted it before in a post about the effectiveness of the Highland Charge, but it is relevant to your question.
Thank you.
The bayonets primary objective was to give musketeers/riflemen an ability to to stop cavalry by replacing the pike. So its designed to be used at a distance.
A sword is designed as a close in fighting weapon.
The problem with the Musket/rifle and bayonet and the pike is that once you have stepped past the sharp pointy bit the rifle/bayonet/ pike is useless to defend yourself.THey are oth unweildy and you have to bring the blade back a long way to engage your opponent, by which time he has probably made a nasty wound on you.
That is why the ECW pikemen carried their own sword.
Renaissance Sword and buckler armed troops or Turkish Janissaries were both reasonable effective against the pike blocks, Push the blade aside step in and stab.
A rifle would be better than a pike as you can hold it halfway along and use it as both a blade and club.
The problem is getting past the pointy bit. I would make it more difficult for sword armed troops to actually close, but give them an advantage when actually in close combat. Often they would have a shield of some form as well.
A more modern example of this is the police batten that is only 21" long or for home defence - you are better with a shorter rounders bat than a baseball bat.
I'd disagree with Rilfe/Musket being too long. 1970's bayonette drill was Right Parry and stab, or Left Parry, BUTT STROKE, kill. An SLRaint so differnt in size to an India Pattern Land Musket. I suspect the drillm aint chainged much sine 1750.
:-\
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 06 May 2024, 01:50:25 PMI'd disagree with Rilfe/Musket being too long. 1970's bayonette drill was Right Parry and stab, or Left Parry, BUTT STROKE, kill. An SLRaint so differnt in size to an India Pattern Land Musket. I suspect the drillm aint chainged much sine 1750.
Yes but as you stab he knocks the bayonet aside with his shield, blocks it. steps forward and stabs you?
Hmmm. Granted that bayonets were anti-cavalry to begin with, but (relatively) quickly they replaced swords. This could be due to the improvement in firearms as well.
I'm not sure that the length of a musket would be that much of an impediment. For many centuries the most common weapon was the spear - a big stick with a blade on it. Granted weight may be a problem, but musketeers would fight in multiple ranks, potentially giving the swordsman more than one opponent.
Youtube videos seems to be a) one to one fights and b) done by swordsmen.
Some Ottoman regular infantry in the Crimea (& Caucasus) were issued with both bayonet and a short sword. There appears to be little or no logic in which units were so armed. But it is notable that those fighting in Rumania, against the Russians were not double armed.
We also see North American/Canadian native tribes armed with tomahawk hand axes apparently doing well against European regular infantry (in the French-Indian Wars/SYW). But they had to get in amongst the regulars in the 1st place.
My own thrupence-worth is that if the sword was 'mightier' than they bayonet, I'd expect to see a lot more troops double armed with it, and we don't. And it didn't do the Ansar in the Sudan or the Pathan on the N.W.Frontier or the Chinese Tiger-men during the Opium Wars that much good against bayonet armed British Empire Regulars.
I'm not aware of any conclusive scientific studies on the matter and would tend to be extremely wary of on-line videos by re-enactors on the subject (having been a re-enactor myself) as they seem to tend to favour the preferred weapon of the videos producer (in my humble experience).
QuoteGentlemen, I need enquire of the hive mind.
Does anyone know of any examples of musket & bayonet armed infantry fighting sword armed infantry? I'm interested in the outcome of close combat.
Culloden comes to mind. I think a fruitful area may be the Ottomans and India.
I appreciate that other factors come to bear: training, morale etc, but all things being equal, is the bayonet more effective than the sword?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War)
Bayonet, when you literally take a knife to a gun fight!
Quote from: fsn on 06 May 2024, 11:11:11 AM....I appreciate that other factors come to bear: training, morale etc, but all things being equal, is the bayonet more effective than the sword?
I can't help with examples other than Culloden but a book you might find interesting in this context is 'The Myth of the Jacobite Clans – The Jacobite Army in 1745' by Murray Pittock, Edinburgh University Press, 1995. It argues that the Jacobite army was not the amorphous, untrained, sword-armed mob, as it is sometimes portrayed, rather that it was trained, organised and relatively well armed. Also that it was as much a Lowland Scottish army as it was a Highland one
In aftermath of the battle, for example, 2,320 muskets were left on the field by the Jacobites, as opposed to only 190 swords – those numbers account for more than a third of the entire Jacobite army. In the surrenders of weapons subsequent to the battle, the musket also outnumbered the sword by a considerable margin. This suggests that that swords were not used nearly as much as imagined, or were carried away from the battlefield, and retained afterwards, or, perhaps, that swords were only carried by Highland officers and clansmen of higher status, and not by lower class Jacobite rank and file, Highland and Lowland, who were predominantly musket-armed. It does seem that the Jacobites favoured the musket as their predominent infantry weapon.
I general terms though, the bayonet is a secondary weapon and where the sword is the primary weapon it is only useful in hand-to-hand fighting. In the age of the effective musket, in the hands of trained infantry, examples of hand to hand fighting might be hard to find, and when they are, there are often other factors involved which make it the exception rather than the rule. I wonder if the answer to this question is similar to the 'is the longbow more effective than the musket' one, which, as I remember, is that the longbow is at least as effective, but only in the hands of infantry with long training and experience.
Excellent summary of the Jacobite situation.
Always bear in mind that contemporary accounts will over-emphasize the unusual, while often ignoring what's considered ordinary.
Accounts of Alexander and his successor's battles spend paragraphs on a handful of scythed chariots or elephants.
Meanwhile the evolutions of the 20,000 are ignores or dismissed in a sentence.
It's an age where most able-bodied men will have drilled under arms.
They don't need a lecture on how a phalanx fights.
That's unfortunate for we modern day gamers, who would readily gobble a complete drill manual.
But we ourselves do the same things with our armies.
Don't all our Wellington armies have a few kilted highlanders.
Don't the Napoleon rivals have Hussars, when Dragoons or Chasseurs a Cheval were far more numerous.
Admit it, we love the unusual and the pretty boys.
So maybe we shouldn't be too harsh on contemporary chroniclers and eyewitnesses.
Killiecrankie - highlanders taking horrendous casualties from musket fire before doing major damage with sword and axes (first action where British used plug in bayonet - probably a pretty fraught process when you have an enraged Scotsman with a bloody big sword screaming and running at you).
Quebec 1759, Frasers highlanders drawing swords and charging the French. Did loads of damage but again took large casualties in return from musket fire.
IMHO - if you have well trained ranked up troops you gonna pick the bayonet for the reach and the fact you can still shoot. Sword only useful in disorderly melee or cavalry engagement.
I fully agree a man needs to be well practiced with any weapon to be effective.
Couple of points
The sword was more expensive than the humble spear ( which is what an unloaded rifle with bayonet attached effectively is). So if a sword was more effective in close combat why go to expense of purchasing a weapon that is inferior?
I know you could throw a spear, but then you would carry more than one of them. Keeping the last for close combat if it was better than a sword..
QuoteSome Ottoman regular infantry in the Crimea (& Caucasus) were issued with both bayonet and a short sword. There appears to be little or no logic in which units were so armed.
Certainly by my period of interest (i.e.1813) short swords in European armies were issued only to elite companies. One wonder is if was expected that they would engage in some specific tasks. Perhaps in trenches in sieges? I don't think Ottoman infantry carried bayonets - preferring pistols, daggers and swords.
QuoteI can't help with examples other than Culloden but a book you might find interesting in this context is 'The Myth of the Jacobite Clans – The Jacobite Army in 1745' by Murray Pittock, Edinburgh University Press, 1995.
A well argued point as always. The 1745 is not a period I've studied, but my reading is supported by what you write.
QuoteDon't all our Wellington armies have a few kilted highlanders.
Don't the Napoleon rivals have Hussars, when Dragoons or Chasseurs a Cheval were far more numerous.
No. :P I have Highlanders where they appear in the OOB, but I actively eschew Hussars in favour of other forms of light cavalry. Prefer a good dragoon myself.
QuoteThe sword was more expensive than the humble spear ( which is what an unloaded rifle with bayonet attached effectively is). So if a sword was more effective in close combat why go to expense of purchasing a weapon that is inferior?
I think I agree. From Achilles to Agincourt, the sword was usually a secondary weapon to a spear or something similar. I remember reading that a Hoplite would prefer to fight with a broken spear than a sword. (This may say quite a but about early Greek swords.)
Quote from: Matt J on 07 May 2024, 10:55:13 AMIMHO - if you have well trained ranked up troops you gonna pick the bayonet for the reach and the fact you can still shoot. Sword only useful in disorderly melee or cavalry engagement.
I tend to agree, to a point. It's the bit where a body of muskets come sinto contact woth a body of swords that I am interested in. Granted any charging swordsmen are going to take casualties from musketry - but no more than any other charging infantry (perhaps less if the Scottish targe is carried.)
Quote from: fsn on 07 May 2024, 05:06:09 PMI don't think Ottoman infantry carried bayonets - preferring pistols, daggers and swords.
The Ottoman army reforms ahead of the Crimean War (& Balkan invasion by Russia) saw the 'new' regular army issued with bayonets as standard. Earlier, during the Napoleonic Wars I agree - swords and daggers would have been common.
Even later the more 'irregular' Balkan units were still stuffing their waist-sashes with a fist full of assorted daggers and pistols, which probably reflected a more 'skirmish' approach to warfare and suited the terrain they were mainly fighting in. They also dont appear to have used the bayonet, although the Greeks in Russian service were issued with bayonets, alongside their daggers and swords.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 07 May 2024, 09:50:21 AMAlways bear in mind that contemporary accounts will over-emphasize the unusual, while often ignoring what's considered ordinary.
That is a very important point to remember when looking at any primary source.
Revisiting this a few months on.
I suddenly recalled how new the Bayonet was during the Jacobite wars.
Some accounts of Culloden credit the redcoat's success to a recently developed bayonet drill.
Above we've examined some of the myths:
Every rebel wasn't a highland chief in full regalia with basket hilted broadsword, targe and dagger.
Many rebels were lowlanders who fought predominantly with muskets...
I'm left with the impression of one of the classic black powder match-ups.
The linear army relying on firepower meets the impetuous army who may shoot a volley, but rely on a dash to contact to quickly sweep the enemy away.
The pattern repeats and repeats.
Regular armies rely on their musket drill and it's all good until one army works out how to conduct a fast attack.
It might be Gustavus' Swedes, The highland rebels, The revolutionary french, the early civil war confederates or the Prussians in 1870.
With the exception of 1870, the guys in line lose out early on, then adapt and develop countermeasures.
1870 sees standard issue of Breechloaders, which adjust the dynamics for attacker and defender - but that's way beyond the scope of Sword Vs Bayonet.
Good observations Steve - and I agree with you on all of them.
The introduction of rifled muskets alongside bayonets also changes things in relation to the bayonet and sword question.
Early on rifled muskets don't change infantry drill or even tactics at all, but what it does appear to do is give confidence to the troops in the line, as they have the time to deliver at least one additional volley before an enemy contacts them (or is halted).
We see this with the 'Thin Red Line' at Balaclava during the Crimean War, when the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders (armed with both bayonet and claymore incidentally), aided by a small force of 100 walking wounded, 40 detached Guards, and supported by a substantial force of Turkish infantrymen, chose to receive charging Russian cavalry in Line rather than form square, and defeat the cavalry charge head on.
Had the cavalry actually managed to weather the storm of rifle shot and charged home, maybe this might have all ended differently, but we see the decline of the infantry square from about this era onwards.
Whether the 93rd felt even more confident, having their Claymores as well as the bayonet, is probably a question we'll never know the answer to.
Mark
I think the 93rd were confident in the fact that the Russian cavalry were pants...
Quote from: Matt J on 23 August 2024, 01:54:07 PMI think the 93rd were confident in the fact that the Russian cavalry were pants...
Absolutely (seriously pants!).
But we a similar situation with (not that great) Danish Line infantry v Austrian Cavalry in the First Schleswig War (1848–1852) - rifled muskets being used in a line formation to take-on charging cavalry, rather than the infantry forming into a defensive square.
By 1870, formed cavalry never successfully contacted formed infantry.
But moments like Vron or Von Bredlow's Death Ride skewed opinion that cavalry were still a worthwhile battle force, a myth that continued until late WWI when cavalry was meant to sweep through the gaps in the trenches.
Hence the reliance on lancers as they were felt to have better reach.
Reliance on the lance? Late WWI?
They were carrying rifles, not carbines, short Lee Enfields like the infantry, and were trained in musketry as well as any infantry regiment.
They weren't expected to conduct frontal charges, they were supposed to be a mobile force to exploit a broken demoralised enemy running from the infantry and artillery (and tanks), much as they had always been in many cases.
The return of fluid war in 1918 as Op Michael failed and the Germans cracked, allowed cavalry to be used again.
The Canadian Cavalry Brigade at Le Cateau on 9 October advanced eight miles on a three-mile front and took over 400 prisoners and 100 machine guns, along with several pieces of enemy artillery.
The 5th Dragoon Guards disposed of over 700 Germans when the cavalry attacked them disembarking from a troop train at Harbonniers on 8 August 1918.
Not perhaps attacking formed secure infantry, but then that hadn't worked as well over the preceding couple of centuries as we sometimes like to think. Normally there were other circumstances involved in successful cavalry attacks.
You'll be telling me they were lions led by donkeys next! (Donkey wallopers perhaps ;) )