Swords VS Bayonets?

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

I realised that some infantry units in close combat used swords instead of bayonets and i always wondered which is better, swords or bayonets?

Correct if i'm wrong..Eastern factions' infantry units were more likely to use swords over bayonet..unlike the western faction's units???!!!!!!!!

PS: Eastern factions doesn't inculde Europe(for some misunderstandings)

[Caelius]

Spears beat Swords in real life, and since the bayonet essentially makes a rifle/musket into a spear...i'm going to go with bayonets on this one.

[Filibusteria]

dont know if they do... Imagine someone tries to stab you with a spear. you jump to a side and hit his spear with your sword and you break it. The other guy's screwed.

[Erwin Rommel]

just shoot him with your flintlock handgun

or throw a hatchet at em like mel gibson

[Elzabar]

dont know if they do... Imagine someone tries to stab you with a spear. you jump to a side and hit his spear with your sword and you break it. The other guy's screwed.

Yeah but with two guys one foot either side of you and another guy right behind you, jumping to a side or back is going to be pretty hard. I'd agree that in a one on one fight, sword would beat spear heavily, but in unit fighting, such as 18th century fighting was, bayonet/spear would beat sword. Mainly because of longer reach.

[El Brujo]

Tomahawks beat both of them.

[Elzabar]

Paper beats scissors!

[Spartacus the Irish]

Well, at Waterloo, many Prussian Infantry units were armed with a short, one-handed sabre as well as the always equipped bayonet, but the baoynet was preferred because of the reach and effectiveness of having it always equipped, despite being a hazard whilst reloading (spiking the hands whilst ramming the ramrod was a common injury).

EDIT: Plus, one-handed sabres (used for slashing) were often very ineffective against heavy woolen greatcoats. For example, the Prussian Infantry often wore their greatcoats/blankets rolled up and slung around their left shoulders, thus giving them (very effective) protection against a right-handed cavalryman attacking them from the front (an infantryman would present his left shoulder to the enemy when firing or bracing his bayonet/musket as a 'pike', thus being offered the greatest protection from the blanket).

[Elzabar]

spiking the hands whilst ramming the ramrod was a common injury

OUCH!!!

[Space Wolves]

bayonets

I'd always seen them as more effective, then again i like jabbing my enemy, and having an advantage in length, then a sword, up close and personnel?

meet bayonet on a stick.

*jab jab*

[Aloicias]

If a bayonet makes a musket a spear then it makes it a very unbalanced clunky spear. Bayonet as a spear were never as good as a spear. It probably depends on how close you already are to them. The bayonet have the reach but up close a balanced sword could slash and stab.

[Elzabar]

For example, the Prussian Infantry often wore their greatcoats/blankets rolled up and slung around their left shoulders, thus giving them (very effective) protection against a right-handed cavalryman attacking them from the front (an infantryman would present his left shoulder to the enemy when firing or bracing his bayonet/musket as a 'pike', thus being offered the greatest protection from the blanket).

Very interesting, thanks for that Spartacus

If a bayonet makes a musket a spear then it makes it a very unbalanced clunky spear. Bayonet as a spear were never as good as a spear.

Although eventually some very well-made, balanced bayonets were made.

[ivan_the_terrible]

In most battlefield situations - the bayonet would be better. Swords by this time were largely cavalry-specific weapons in europe, as well as status symbols for officers.

Then there are the costs of production, the speed of production, cost of training, time/speed of training etc which obviously favour the bayonet. It does not matter how effective the sword is or how proficient its wielder if there are 100 bayonets put out to every 1 sword.

[Adar]

I have a great book on the issue of the tactics during the spanish succession war and the great northern war (Europeisk slagtaktik by Gunnar Arteus) which also includes what the armies fought with and what tactics were used. I am quite stressed just now so I can't make a larger post but I can list what the different armies used. All armies where I have listed "sword" also became equipped with bayonetts before 1706 but still carried swords. As a bonus have I also included kind of fire (volley fire on platoon level or batallion level) each army used during the spanish war of succession.

Great Northern War:
Sweden: Pike/musket (ratio 1:2) and a sword.
Russsia: Pike/musket (ratio 1:8) and a sword.
Denmark: Bayonett
Saxony: Bayonett and sword
Poland: I don't know
Prussia: Bayonett and sword (they entered the war after the succession war)

Spanish succession war:
England: Bayonett (platoon level volley fire)
Austria Bayonett (volley fire)
Netherlands: I don't know (platoon level volley fire)
Prussia: Bayonett and sword (might be wrong on this one) (platoon level volley fire)
Denmark: Bayonett (platoon level volley fire)
France: Bayonett and Sword (volley fire)

[clibinarium]

Bayonets had a longer reach, a sword needs a bit of room to use effectively, and formations were usually quite dense, so you'd have practically no room either side. Officers did carry swords, but more for status, and personal protection as a last resort. Swords for line infantry were being phased out towards the Napoleonic wars, but there was some resistance from ordinary soldiers who viewed the sword as symbolic of their profession, if not that useful in reality.

Sword-vs- bayonet (admittedly + shield) finds interesting examples in two battles of the '45; Prestonpans, where the highlanders sucessfully rushed the redcoats and broke them, and Culloden, where the redcoats adopted their drill to deal with the highland charge, stabbing to the righthand opponent to get under their shield. Prestonpans is probably an aboration, since the green Government troops were taken by surprise and not used to the terrifying experience of the highland charge.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

why do all people think bayonets are just like spears..muskets are not like spears at all..they are heavy, incaurrate and not as long as a spear too!..they r just perfect for stabbing. and i always thought, if the sword is light and easy to control, then the sword can always block the bayonet stab and slash the enemy in 1 move!..so here is my conclusion:

The sword is lighter, perfect for stabbing and slashing, easier to control.

The bayonet(musket) is heavier, perfect for only stabbing, hard to control.

and the idea that spear beat sword. then the sword has no use at alllll!!!

[Spartacus the Irish]

why do all people think bayonets are just like spears..muskets are not like spears at all..they are heavy, incaurrate and not as long as a spear too!..they r just perfect for stabbing.

Why do you say that bayoneted muskets are not like spears, and then say that they were perfect for stabbing? And I don't know what you are getting at with saying that muskets are inaccurate - are you saying they are inaccurate when firing or meleeing with it?

and i always thought, if the sword is light and easy to control, then the sword can always block the bayonet stab and slash the enemy in 1 move!..so here is my conclusion:

That's rather idealistic. Point beats edge more often than not, it's that simple.

The sword is lighter, perfect for stabbing and slashing, easier to control.

The sword is lighter, and thus more likely to be overpowered by a strong bayonet thrust. A sword is not perfect for stabbing and slashing, it can only be 'perfected' for one of the roles. Either it would most probably be a slashing sword, probably a sabre,

This was sharpened on only the curved face, and was used almost exclusively for cutting strokes - this is an Early 19th century British Infantry officer’s sword.

Or it would have been a straight-bladed 'butcher' blade,

Which the French used exclusively with the point in stabbing motions, whilst the British Heavy Cavalry (for this is a 1796 pattern Heavy Cavalry sword) were taught to use the edge more often, effectively turning this blade into a bludgeon. Though it can be seen that the blade has been backsharpened to create a point.

The bayonet(musket) is heavier, perfect for only stabbing, hard to control.

A musket can be wielded with both hands, thus the increased weight is a lessened factor. It also includes solid wooden stock to club the enemy with, and it is here that it's weight comes in as an advantage. And you are very much mistaken over the control issue. It takes much, much more skill to use a sword rtather than a bayoneted musket. Why do you think that soldiers were issued with them rather than swords? Because it was far easier to teach an illiterate, uneducated thug to thrust with a bayonet, then club the enemy to death with the butt, rather than teaching him to wield a sword, teach him defensive guards and postures, attacking strokes, footwork, balance, poise, and all the things that make sword-fighting and fencing so bloody difficult to become good at.

Believe me, it's hard enough wielding an epee for a few rounds, never mind wielding a sabre, which requires different postures and flourishes to be taught and learned. It's much simpler to give a conscript a bayonet and say "Look, watch me: stab, stab, stab, club, club, club. Then repeat."

and the idea that spear beat sword. then the sword has no use at alllll!!!

The spear does beat the sword - however, the sword was a status symbol of being an officer (and, by definition, a gentleman) moreso than a weapon (I'm talking about the infantry here). It was a recognisable symbol of authority on a confused, smoke-filled battlefield. If you were a conscript and you didn't know what to do or were lost, you looked for two things - the Colours, or the officers. Anyone with a sword was therefore much easier to spot in the confusion than if he were similarly armed to the conscripts. Rifles officers sometimes equipped themselves with rifles because the sword was such a symbol of authority that it made them easy targets.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

the fact that bayonets are perfect for stabbing doesn't mean they r just like spears..muskets were primarly designed as a gunpowder wepaon and not for a close combat..by inaccurate i mean that they r clumsy, they r not designed for bayonets..u can't accurately control the musket for a perfect stab, unlike the sword which is designed to stab or slash.

and i agree with u that a sword can't outpower a musket, but i'm pretty sure there is someway to evade a bayonet stab. but i'm not a militay commander or a martial artist to tell u how.

i agree with u that a sword can't be perfect in both..but i thought the second sword was good in slashing too? i really dunno how they used the scimitar sword though.

carrying the musket with both hands does lessen the weight of the musket..but then it's harder and harder to control. a little out of topic..if u have seen tomb raider 2(i think) when angelina jolie had a kind of a musket and was trying to block her enemy's sword blows..it's crazy how she did it or as they say..only in the movies!

and about the idea of spear beats the sword..r u saying that throughout the history of warfare..sword had no use and spears should've replaced them!

[Elzabar]

Not saying swords had no use at all, but as you may or may not know, spear was the primary weapon in Roman times, and later in Medieval times, sword was the primary weapon. Why is this? Simply because of the way of fighting. In Roman times, it was unit fighting, each man fighting side by side to make a barrier. In Medieval times, it was more about the skill of the individual soldier. So to maximise the efficiency of the individual soldier, the soldiers were given space with wich to fight. A sword was far better when the soldier was given space to use it, but a Roman unit with spears and a gladius, with the men packed tightly together, was far better than a unit armed with swords.

[King Yngvar]

A group of swordsmen with shields would defeat a group of spearmen any time of the day.

To the topic, the reason why bayonets would be more effective are two.
1: Cheaper.
2: More effective to shoot and then charge. Rather than shoot, switch weapons, then charge. Plus, half the point of having a sword is having a shield, it would be very unpractical for musketmen to carry big shields.