Swords VS Bayonets?

[Spartacus the Irish]

For all the sword lovers in here at your current skill level which would you rather in battle a musket with bayonet or a officers sword?

Musket. The officer with the sword charges towards me, I raise my bayonet and...

shoot him.

The socket bayonet combined anti-infantry (firepower) together with anti-cavalry (bayonet). The sword was a status symbol, and at best, a useful (though not essential) tool in villages and siege assaults.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Musket. The officer with the sword charges towards me, I raise my bayonet and...

shoot him.

The socket bayonet combined anti-infantry (firepower) together with anti-cavalry (bayonet). The sword was a status symbol, and at best, a useful (though not essential) tool in villages and siege assaults.

The sword was essentially a personal or cavalry weapon. As you say, a symbol of status the cost of which far out-weighed the benefit.

[Captain Jin]

Especially when you start seeing some of the flimsier blades some of those infantry officers were carrying. Give me a cavalry sabre or something but Ill take a musket first.

There's a reason ol' Sharpe still carried a rifle despite being an officer =D.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

The issue here is that people cannot separate the bayonet from the firearm.

Weren't there some kinds of bayonets that could be easily detached from guns? I'm pretty sure there were some in WWII, but what about this era? Not like it would matter much during combat though; dismounting your bayonet would only increase safety measures between combat engagements, to avoid accidents.

[Irishman]

I meant consider it as a separate weapon, not literally separate the bayonette. The reason the bayonet survived is because of the killing power of the firearm. Sorry should have been more clear.

[clibinarium]

The Russian army of the SYW is perhaps instructive; there is evidence that most of the rank and file left their swords in the baggage, and many officers prefered to use fusil over swords. Polearms were rarely carried by officers in battle, and in 1757 Fermor issued orders that all regimental officers carry firearms and bayonets.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

I meant consider it as a separate weapon, not literally separate the bayonette. The reason the bayonet survived is because of the killing power of the firearm. Sorry should have been more clear.

Well, without the gun, the bayonet would obviously falter. It is from the size, shape, and mass of the firearm that the bayonet gets its strength. If the sword vs. bayonet was played out as a duel rather than as a true piece of war, the bayonet would lose the quality of convenience over the sword. The only thing the bayonet would have gong for it would be its length and lunging power.

[DeaDBolT]

The issue here is that people cannot separate the bayonet from the firearm.

Firearms dominated 18th century battles and thus dictated formations, weaknesses, strengths and strategies which would be used.

The use of bayonets better complimented the use of the musket or rifle, because it gave better protection against cavalry, was easier to use and produce, and allowed the infantry formation to keep their rifles (if a unit relied on swords in close combat, they may loose their rifles which would severely cripple the unit in long battles.

For instance, if the line encounters a light cavalry charge, or infantry formation, it would be very bad to have your soldiers throw down their rifles (which they may need later in the battle) to use swords.

Ultimately the bayonet served as a better compliment to the firearm, but was quite a poorer primary weapon.

Just because swords gave way to bayonets does not mean that swords were worse weapons than bayonets, it means the firearm was a better weapon.

You cannot separate weapons from their historical context. The sword is a far better weapon in combat that the bayonet, but is far worse as a sidearm to the musket.

Many people here have a far too narrow view of history and context.

I would say this is the answer to the debate, its not that a bayonet was a good weapon by itself, its the fact that a musket and a bayonet complement eachother so well that they outlasted swords throughout history

The only reason cavalry and still used swords was because of a simple reason: a bayonet would be unwieldy on horseback, try to picture a cavalryman using a bayonet in close combat.

In fact i find this post so conclusive Irishman deserves a +rep for it.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

I would say this is the answer to the debate, its not that a bayonet was a good weapon by itself, its the fact that a musket and a bayonet complement eachother so well that they outlasted swords throughout history

It seems as though this point is just being repeated, only in different various wordings...

I thought it was implied that we were talking about infantry only, otherwise I'd have just mentioned the fact that swords were commonly used among the cavalry until the 1930's, including the 'Patton Saber.' At least, in the U.S., and until the tanks arrived...

[Emperor Taizu]

First of all, you jam the bayonet into someone's stomach. If the person doesn't die instantly, fire your musket while it is still jammed point blank.

[Black Fox]

It depends how well trained the person with the sword is...

[Spartacus the Irish]

I thought it was implied that we were talking about infantry only, otherwise I'd have just mentioned the fact that swords were commonly used among the cavalry until the 1930's, including the 'Patton Saber.' At least, in the U.S., and until the tanks arrived...

Well, soldiers still wear swords now - that doesn't mean they are used. Your point about them being 'used' in the 1930's is bollocks. Used against whom? They were ceremonial after 1871, pure and simple. A few isolated cavalry charges here and there, nothing actually decisive or effective.

[Furious Mental]

A French surgeon in the Napoleonic Wars, Dominique Jean Larrey, actually studied the results of 'bayonet' fights and found that even in a melee between the French and Russians (who both considered themselves afficionados of the bayonet) there were practically no bayonet wounds. The vast majority of wounds were caused by muskets fired in the melee. So I would say it was a big advantage to have a gun in a melee. Furthermore, having a pointy thing on the end of it was clearly far better when defending against cavalry. And it is simply awkward to fight with a musket slung over one's back. Some infantry fought with sabres and pistols but they tended to be skirmishers and border troops, in other words they were not likely to be involved in clashes of whole armies, at least at the epicentre, and often were not recruited and trained like other troops, coming from different military traditions.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

Well, soldiers still wear swords now - that doesn't mean they are used. Your point about them being 'used' in the 1930's is bollocks. Used against whom? They were ceremonial after 1871, pure and simple. A few isolated cavalry charges here and there, nothing actually decisive or effective.

Well, of course its "bollocks", we're talking about infantry, not cavalry. Otherwise, I would have presented more facts and details to represent my opinion. Since we aren't cconsidering the cavalry, I'm arguing for bayonets.

[Dulce_et_Decorum_Est]

Could someone explain to me exactly how a sword is supposed to be a more lethal weapon than a bayonet? A bayonet has penetration, necessary to reach the vital organs and cause a catastrophic loss of blood pressure and thus oxygen to the central nervous system, thereby disabling the opponent.

Unless you actually manage to hack off a limb or something, a sword seems like it would be prone to inflicting comparatively superficial wounds, which may not immediately disable ones enemy.

Oh, and as has been pointed out already, a bayonet has the significant advantage of necessarily being attached to a gun!

Now, were the game set a century or two earlier, we would all have a jolly good time balancing the numbers of pikemen, arquebusiers and swordsmen.

A French surgeon in the Napoleonic Wars, Dominique Jean Larrey, actually studied the results of 'bayonet' fights and found that even in a melee between the French and Russians (who both considered themselves afficionados of the bayonet) there were practically no bayonet wounds. The vast majority of wounds were caused by muskets fired in the melee. So I would say it was a big advantage to have a gun in a melee. Furthermore, having a pointy thing on the end of it was clearly far better when defending against cavalry. And it is simply awkward to fight with a musket slung over one's back. Some infantry fought with sabres and pistols but they tended to be skirmishers and border troops, in other words they were not likely to be involved in clashes of whole armies, at least at the epicentre, and often were not recruited and trained like other troops, coming from different military traditions.

I'm suspicious in general of quantitative, post facto battlefield wound analysis. How do we know that there weren't a lot of men wounded by bayonets because bayonets tended to be used in such a way that they just killed outright? A similar phenomenon occurred with analysis of wounds from WWI; artillery fire was vastly overestimated as a cause of casualties and small arms fire underestimated because artillery actually left maimed survivors for the doctors to examine.

That said, I agree about bayonets primarily being a cavalry deterrent, as have most polearms throughout history.

[Spartacus the Irish]

I'm suspicious in general of quantitative, post facto battlefield wound analysis. How do we know that there weren't a lot of men wounded by bayonets because bayonets tended to be used in such a way that they just killed outright? A similar phenomenon occurred with analysis of wounds from WWI; artillery fire was vastly overestimated as a cause of casualties and small arms fire underestimated because artillery actually left maimed survivors for the doctors to examine.

Well musket balls were pretty lethal, you know. Stabbing does little if it doesn't hit anything vital - many cases arise (especially in the cases of lances) in which men were repeatedly stabbed, yet survived. A musket ball was horrifically lethal if it hit. But your point still has some validity.

[Dulce_et_Decorum_Est]

Well musket balls were pretty lethal, you know. Stabbing does little if it doesn't hit anything vital - many cases arise (especially in the cases of lances) in which men were repeatedly stabbed, yet survived. A musket ball was horrifically lethal if it hit. But your point still has some validity.

I readily agree that it's entirely possible to stab someone and miss anything immediately vital.

What I don't see is how a musket ball wound is more devastating than a stab wound. Musket balls don't expand that much upon impact and they aren't really making temporary cavities the same way that high-velocity modern rifle rounds do, nor do they fragment. The largest musket balls used were on the order of .70 inches in diameter, and a bayonet blade is wider than that. If you want to get into really qualitative stuff, the smooth musket ball is going to have a tendency to merely displace tissue, whereas a sharp-edged bayonet would tend to tear and traumatize more.

Given all that, it seems far more likely to me that a stab wound from a blade would clip something vital than a musket ball.

[thatguy]

I guess you also need to look outhow easy it is to defend your self when being attacked by one.
If a guy thrusted a bayonet at another guy who had a sword its much easier (not saying its easy) for the man wit hthe sword to grab the musket and stab the other guy in the face with his sword. See a bayonet is only so long, untill you get to the rifle which is blunt so its alot easy (again..not saying it IS easy) to palm/ grab a musket then a long sharp chunk of metal. A person skilled/lucky enough could even let the bayonet flow under his arm, and clamp his arm down on the musket (not easy, but possible) so he's gripping it in his armpit the same hand on that arm is also prabably on the gun (and trust me, when someones holding something like that, unless you are FAR stronger then they are, its going to be hard to get it out) so that renders the muskateer defenseless (mostly...nothing brings a man down quicker then a swift kick to the nuts) while the swords man stabs him.


But personally, i think irishman has hit the nail on the head with this one

Could someone explain to me exactly how a sword is supposed to be a more lethal weapon than a bayonet? A bayonet has penetration, necessary to reach the vital organs and cause a catastrophic loss of blood pressure and thus oxygen to the central nervous system, thereby disabling the opponent.

Unless you actually manage to hack off a limb or something, a sword seems like it would be prone to inflicting comparatively superficial wounds, which may not immediately disable ones enemy.

You made the same mistake most of the romans enemies made:
A sword can do all that too.

[Spartacus the Irish]

I readily agree that it's entirely possible to stab someone and miss anything immediately vital.

Of course.

What I don't see is how a musket ball wound is more devastating than a stab wound. Musket balls don't expand that much upon impact and they aren't really making temporary cavities the same way that high-velocity modern rifle rounds do, nor do they fragment. The largest musket balls used were on the order of .70 inches in diameter, and a bayonet blade is wider than that. If you want to get into really qualitative stuff, the smooth musket ball is going to have a tendency to merely displace tissue, whereas a sharp-edged bayonet would tend to tear and traumatize more.

Musket balls do expand when they hit - they are made of soft lead, and flatten on contact with muscle, let alone bone. Especially considering the often poor casting process that left air pockets inside the lead - essentially making some musket balls hollow shell 'dum-dum' bullets.

You are entirely mistaken about their lethality.

A musket ball would have a very low muzzle velocity (the speed at which the projectile exits the muzzle of the barrel) when compared with modern high velocity guns. This means that the bullet is travelling (relatively) quite slowly when it hits flesh. In Vietnam, many enemy Viet Cong and NVA troops survived multiple hits by M60 rounds because the velocity meant the round would go straight through their bodies, hitting nothing immediately vital. The same in the Second World War, where a Stuka gunner was hit seven times by .303 shells from a Hurricane, yet survived. A slower round means that the entirety of the force would be transferred to the target - the shock from being hit by a musket ball would be tremedous in many cases.

A musket ball hitting you would, in all probability, not provide a linear entry and exit wound. It would probably hit, and either lodge in the wound, giving the soldier death by septacemia, or, a la the Nelson bullet, ricochet off bone, cartilage, and even muscle, tearing through organs and bodily systems, and even worse breaking bones; which would need immediate amputation to prevent deadly marrow poisoning.

Given all that, it seems far more likely to me that a stab wound from a blade would clip something vital than a musket ball.

Of course, there would be no statistics to prove or disprove this. And if they were, they could still not completely prove it in one case or the other, because the wounds would be received in different situations. A person receiving a musket wound could fall to the rear and get treatment - a fusileer receiving a bayonet wound would most likely be in close proximity to a large number of enemy troops, and thus more likely to receive additional wounds until dead; close combat was horrific in this period, even though field battles were often only a modicum less horrific.

We'll never get an answer over which was deadlier - but there is not doubt that the majority of casualties were caused by ball wounds rather than bayonet wounds.

A sword can do all that too.

It depends who was using it. British cavalry were taught to hack and bludgeon with their heavy, often blunt, swords. The french cavalry were trained to use the point. (Obviously this is on average - many French chasseurs preferred the edge, many British used the point.)

[General A. Skywalker]

A musket ball hitting you would, in all probability, not provide a linear entry and exit wound.

True. I have also read somewhere, that a soldier being hit by a properly loaded musket would feel like being hit by a large animal or something like that and wouldn't just go down but literally be "pushed" back a few paces. (Of course distance plays a role here.)
However, high velocity bullets would never cause somethign like that ^^ .

We'll never get an answer over which was deadlier - but there is not doubt that the majority of casualties were caused by ball wounds rather than bayonet wounds.

Exactly. Thank you for writing it, it's just a fact. (And I really hate it when people claim that most casualties were done by bayonets these days!)