bayonets bayoents-swords and sword(melee fighiting in empire Era).

[jo the greek]

in a site that was linked here
i read that in those time bayonet werent a lethal weapon most casulities during battle would come by a different cause.(really interesting)
sword bayonets were more lethal but their main advatange was tha gave to the troops a usefull tool to survive (wiki)
also i read that swords used to be more lethal espesialy in the cavalry battles in the fist site.
what do yu think?
would sword armed units be more lethal versus bayonets.
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in..._tactics_2.htm

[DisgruntledGoat]

Theres really not much to discuss here really. The saber which all officers and mounted units had was FAR FAR more lethal than a bayonet. The bayonet was attached to a heavy, long and un-wieldly weapon. Saber vs. bayonet the saber would win every time. So obviously a unit wielding a sword should have a bonus in hand to hand against bayonet armed units.

Now the common infantry man didn't carry a saber and would only be armed with his musket, bayonet and maybe a knife. Officers all carried sabers and most cavalry fought with them. Chances are an infantry man would only find himself up against a sword if he was up against an officer or cavalryman. In which case he's out classed no matter what.

[Trax]

Bayonet fights on large scale were very rare anyway.

Now the common infantry man didn't carry a saber

Actually most infantrymen in all armies carried a short sword, it was next to useless though.

[DisgruntledGoat]

Actually most infantrymen in all armies carried a short sword, it was next to useless though.

Like I said a dagger. It was only useful for gutting a man at really really close rang.

[Trax]

If you can call something half a meter long and curved a dagger then yes.

[General A. Skywalker]

Bayonet fights on large scale were very rare anyway.

'tis true, m'lord! Musket balls caused most casualties, followed by artillery. The bayonet was lethal, but as large scale melees were rare, not that many were killed by it. Quite logical.

Actually most infantrymen in all armies carried a short sword, it was next to useless though.

'tis also true, m'lord. I would inform thee that the British were the first ones to abolish this "dagger", I think. They did it before the Napoleonic Wars. The French did it during the Napoelonic Wars, 1810, or so. Don't know when exactly.
However, in the 18th century actually all infantry still had it, as you said.

[Mangalore]

Bayonet fights on large scale were very rare anyway.

....

I'd guess, that had more to do with the introduction of standard ranged weapons a melee was a usually challenged when one side considered it a certain win under which circumstances the other side would usually rather run away than wait for that to happen...

[Trax]

'tis also true, m'lord. I would inform thee that the British were the first ones to abolish this "dagger", I think. They did it before the Napoleonic Wars. The French did it during the Napoelonic Wars, 1810, or so. Don't know when exactly.
However, in the 18th century actually all infantry still had it, as you said.

The Napoleonics page in the original post tells us the following about the French infantry's attitude towards their sabres.

The sabers were of very little value in combat and a burden during skirmishing but the soldiers liked them. Maybe it was a question of status, the 'noble' cavalryman carried sabers so why not we infantrymen, right ? These sabers were mostly used in the camp although they were kept during combat. Sometimes the troops left their sabers in depots before marched into the field.

and

The Decree of 27th October 1807 forbade the voltigeurs to be armed with the sabers. Of course none of the guys took it very seriously and they kept their mini-weapons until 1815.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd guess, that had more to do with the introduction of standard ranged weapons a melee was a usually challenged when one side considered it a certain win under which circumstances the other side would usually rather run away than wait for that to happen...

The melee was more likely to happen, if there was something of value to hold on to like a battery of cannon of a forified position, a town or a village.
But two lines of men colliding on the open field - I don't think so.
Disclamer: I'm not saying it never happened.

[Eric]

I dunno, the bayonet certainly has the advantage of reach, and if the infantryman could put his bayonet into an officer's belly before that sabre could cut down across his shoulder... well, let's just say: Advantage, Infantry. But use of the bayonet was alot like use of the pike, not too handy in a man-to-man melee, but very good when used in group formations. Like the Square, which we all know is so effective at seeing off enemy cavalry.

[zerathule]

During the Napoleonic wars, the number one cause of death wasnt canon, musket or blade, it was dysentery.
Bacteriological warfare ftw

[Mechstra]

I dunno, the bayonet certainly has the advantage of reach, and if the infantryman could put his bayonet into an officer's belly before that sabre could cut down across his shoulder... well, let's just say: Advantage, Infantry. But use of the bayonet was alot like use of the pike, not too handy in a man-to-man melee, but very good when used in group formations. Like the Square, which we all know is so effective at seeing off enemy cavalry.

The point beats the edge, as the old adage goes. Troops proficient with the bayonet could wreak havoc against other troops in hand-to-hand, no matter what they were armed with. See the outnumbered Sikh pioneers at the Battle of Arogee, for instance - swarmed by Theodore's troops, armed with spear, lance, sword, etc, and they beat back the attack using the bayonet with barely a casualty on their side.

[surprisedbyjoy]

If you watched that documentary that's posted around here somewhere, you saw that the bayonet was incredibly useful for fending off cavalry attacks as long as you were in "squares." Men in the inner ring of the squares could still shoot at the horsemen while they were trying to find a weak point in the formation. A good defensive formation, really.

Also, during the American Revolution there was the Battle of Stony Point, where Colonial infantry, with unloaded muskets, took a lightly fortified British position with their mad bayonet skills they learned from Prussian officer Von Streubel. Of course, the British were outnumbered almost 2:1, but still, they were shooting!