Swords VS Bayonets?

[Furious Mental]

Le Charrey investigated this, as I said. He found that most of those killed in melees, when they happened, had been shot at point blank range, and a small minority had been killed with bayonets, most of those had been stuck in the back, usually because their side was charged from the flank and enveloped and forced to flee. Often the fleeing side was caught up against some obstacle and butchered, especially because actual melees were most unlikely in open field, and usually happened in towns, forests, etc. For instance, an officer of a Russian Lifeguards regiment wrote that the first time he actually saw anyone killed with a bayonet was when his side charged some French, who fled before contract, but they then chased the French up to a hedge and massacred them. Similarly at Borodino when Russian 1st Jager Regiment went into bat - the French fled when charged, but were pursued down to the banks of a river and those that couldn't swim away were killed.

"I have seen melees of infantry in defiles and in villages, where the heads of columns came in actual collision and thrust each other with the bayonet; but I never saw such a thing on a regular field of battle." - General Jomini

[thePassenger]

Bayonets in a fixed position would have an advantage over units attacking with swords. one swords mainly sabers need room to slash you loose formation due to the charge while bayos are in a set position ready to parry and thrust.


if attacking there will be less of an advanatge though again swords need more room of attack while thrusting you dont need much as it is a presice attack.

one on one swords have clear advanatge over spears, but in massive groups spears have the clear advanatge in a fixed position, or attack(as sabers arent a defencive type weapon).


anyways that my take.

[Wexeee]

Bayonets were more really a deterrent or a threat that an actual weapon. It goes back to the old question who is brave enough to charge a group of men effectively holding spears or to be charged. Bayonets were only ever used on the open field as a defense or to rout the enemy.

[General A. Skywalker]

Bayonets were more really a deterrent or a threat that an actual weapon.

True.

[Mechstra]

Not sure if it's been cited already, but history has shown that skilled bayonet fighters can wreak havoc in close combat, even against opponents wielding sword and shield and experienced in their use.

As an example, take the battle of Magdala in 1868, where a small British force faced off against the Emperor Theodore's Abyssinians. Although the British were technologically superior, there was one bit of the battle in which the technological advantage counted for naught.

Sikh Pioneers, armed only with outdated flintlock muskets and bayonets, were charged by a large force of Abyssinian infantry, well-armed with their traditional weaponry of swords, shields, and spears. The Sikhs fought back with their service muskets in close-combat, with no time to reload after their first shot, and they repulsed the Abyssinian attack with great loss. The total British loss was 20 wounded, against the thousands of Abyssinians, and this can only be partly attributed to the slaughter done by rockets, cannon and rifles.

Computer-game-style what-ifs regarding how manoeuvrable a sword is compared to a bayonet just don't get close to the reality in this case.

[zind]

Swords were still used on a number of occasions in this period. Let us not forget the famous battle of fort Carillon (Ticonderoga) . Where the huge British force ordered a frontal assault on the weakly defended fort. The men leading the front line were Scottish Kelt-men. Wielding broad swords as they charged. It would have been very effective, if they had now been charging, a wooden wall.......... in any case, they actually lost against Montcalm and his tiny garrison. But imagine if Abercrombie didn't order the charge against the wooden wall, the french indian wars could have been over in a matter of months. xD

[Inhuman One]

Charging with two handed swords against bajonets could be very effective.

[Spartacus the Irish]

Charging with two handed swords against bajonets could be very effective.

Until the musketeer with the bayonet shot you.

A bayonet is integral with a firearm - I know people want to argue whether a guy armed with a bayonet could beat a sword, but that is moot unless you also take into account the fact that a bayonet must include a firearm, whilst a sword does not. That's the whole point of a bayonet - it is an addition to a gun.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

i just thought of something..if officers at that time wielded swords instead of bayonets(like the other troops)..does that make sword better than bayonet?!!!

and @ Spartacus the Irish..
it's true that bayonets are additions to a gun, but i don't imagine a soldier in the middle of a melee combat reloading his musket (and imagine how long it takes to reload a a musket). so in the middle of a melee combat..muskets (firearm) don't do any good.

[General A. Skywalker]

i just thought of something..if officers at that time wielded swords instead of bayonets(like the other troops)..does that make sword better than bayonet?!!!

Well, a sword was a status symbol, while a bayonet+musket wasn't. That's the main reason why officers carried swords.
And: Most officers had pistols instead of muskets, does that mean pistols were better weapons than muskets? Certainly not!

[Spartacus the Irish]

i just thought of something..if officers at that time wielded swords instead of bayonets(like the other troops)..does that make sword better than bayonet?!!!

As the General said, the sword was a social status symbol (gentlemen - and therefore officers - wore swords everywhere), and a recognisable symbol on the battlefield - you didn't know what to do, you looked for a guy with a sword.

and @ Spartacus the Irish..
it's true that bayonets are additions to a gun, but i don't imagine a soldier in the middle of a melee combat reloading his musket (and imagine how long it takes to reload a a musket). so in the middle of a melee combat..muskets (firearm) don't do any good.

Yes, I know. It was just that people here arguing the OP thread topic don't seem to realise that a bayonet will always be attached to a gun, and thus fail to take that into account; instead saying "l33t swordz beatz teh bajonets much lololololol!!!1!1"

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but there is a reason why modern soldiers still have bayonets - and not swords.

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

As the General said, the sword was a social status symbol (gentlemen - and therefore officers - wore swords everywhere), and a recognisable symbol on the battlefield - you didn't know what to do, you looked for a guy with a sword.

yes but besides being symbolic, officers and generals used them in battles...or should i stop watching Pirates of the Carribean?:hmmm:

[Oglethorpe1983]

Im sure all of this has been said before but Im gonna put in my 2 cents anyway...

A sword beats a beyonet hands down...

First of all the bayonet is a weapon of last resort... it was designed for extremtly close quarters combat or to use when in a situation where reloading was foolish or impossible. The Bayonet is a simple stabbing weapon but it is far from a spear; its range is much smaller, (though thats not to say it isnt a lethal weapon it just involves getting too close to the enemy for comfort) The sword had many more uses. [now by sword I use the general sense of the word...there are vast differences between lets say a hand and half bastard sword and a spanish rapier] it can be used to stab/slash/and perry making it an offensive as well as defense weapon.

Sorry to have to dork up the forums with this...but hey.... you asked for it

Have a good day

[clibinarium]

Officers did use swords for self defence,or perhaps more likely the polearm most carried, but an officers job was more to coordinate his men than to fight personally. Some officers did adopt the use of firearms, especially those in Grenadier companies, and just about all Russian battalion officers after 1757 (as referenced above).

Muskets and bayonets were more used than swords, as the primary purpose of the bayonet is to provide the footsoldier with the means of repelling cavalry, presenting a "hedge" of bayonets, in effect replacing the need for pikemen. A line of men with swords will have a much tougher time at that. While a skilled swordsman is undoubtedly deadly, we are not looking regiments of skilled swordsmen, but rather regiments of men who rarely used a sword, and whose training concentrates on their ability to fire their musket, because it is understood that most of they killing they will do is with the musket. The lack of actual sword use is reflected by the fact that later in the century armies stopped issuing them at all as they were regarded as a waste of money.

Most instructive in this debate is the fact that you rarely read accounts of musket armed men drawing their swords in preference to their bayonets, presumably they were chosing the more effective weapon in order to stay alive.
The only excepions I can think of are the Government Highlanders at Quebec, though this was more a psychological move to unnerve their foes (and they had abandoned their swords by the end of the SYW as they were too impractical anyway), and the Hungarian Infantry Regiment Haller at Kolin, though I have never come across an explanation of why they used their swords. Anyone know?

[schoenkoenig]

Yes, swords were only really carried for status purposes. In France, for example, one had to be a member of the nobility to legally carry a sword. An officer going into battle with a sword was a highly symbolic act.

When an elite regiment was allowed to carry a sword, it was no small sign of status. They were quite literally being given permission to do something illegal as part of their elite status.

[Emilio Aguinaldo]

Yes, swords were only really carried for status purposes. In France, for example, one had to be a member of the nobility to legally carry a sword. An officer going into battle with a sword was a highly symbolic act.

When an elite regiment was allowed to carry a sword, it was no small sign of status. They were quite literally being given permission to do something illegal as part of their elite status.

Yes... Only the aristocracy were allowed to wield or carry swords in France but this was only prevalent during the Ancien Régime.

[mesor]

The best way to test this would be to try it now.

If a person who has never handled a sword or bayonete was given each now and told to fight which one would be more effective.
In that period the best weapon was the one that could be provided and the soldier could be trained to use effectively in the shortest possible amount of time.

Ive been to a couple of reinactments of battles from this period and one thing that has always held true is the force with the bayonete has always won because the majority of them have no training to use either so the person who just has to stab or club has a much simpler job to use hes weapon effectively then the person with half the reach can slash or thrust and has to pay a lot more attention to hes own position and to hes own defense because of how close he has to get.

Maybe a dozen of us know how to use a sword and even then we've only won 5 times simply because it is to difficult to dodge or block stabs from left,right,infront and from the second rank all at the same time.
Then put that into a big battle they have 0 room to move around so you have to attempt to block attacks from multiple angles all at once because you've had to get in so close to use your weapon while the man with bayonete can keep you outside of your weapons reach and just keep stabbing until he gets you.

If you were to use a bayonete as a staff it could easily counter a sword in a 1v1 and you could deflect the sword with one end and continue through the block to hit your opponent with the other.

A sword is only more effective in a huge brawl where your in a loose formation so you have enough room to move the sword but the individual your facing dosnt have room to use the bayonete effectively to counter you except by stabbing so if you got inside its range you would have a large advantage.
But by the period where bayonete had come into use that kind of battle was largely gone and replaced my units attacking and defending in tight formation where a sword would be ineffective.

[Incomitatus]

Much earlier in this thread, and 4 years ago, someone brought up Prestonpans and Culloden as examples. Neither are good examples because neither battle result had much to do with how the forces were armed.

At Prestonpans, the Jacobite forces had moved in the night and were on the Hanoverian left when the sun rose. The Hanoverian (government) forces had to make a hasty re-deployment that severely impacted morale. When the Jacobites charged, their line split (unintentionally) and they hit the dragoons on the flanks first and drove them off. Meanwhile, the Jacobite reserve rushed forward to engage the Hanoverian front, and the forces now on the flanks turned inward and performed a double envelopment. The government army's morale broke and they ran, got hemmed in by the walls of a nearby estate, and were cut down/captured in droves. The whole battle took 15 minutes and the outcome was based on morale (being surprised, seeing the mounted dragoons run away, being enveloped, being trapped) rather than the weaponry of the men engaged.

At Culloden, the Jacobite army was demoralized from the long retreat from England. They attempted a night march around the Hanoverian flank like they had done at Prestonpans, but this time it didn't work: they got lost, moved too slow, and had to return to their original position just before dawn. They had neither eaten nor slept. The Jacobite army was drawn up in echelon, with their left furthest from the enemy. When the charge began, the Jacobite left ran into a bog and slowed to a crawl while under fire, and fell further behind the right and center (which broke formation and eased rightward to avoid the bog). The Jacobite left never made it to the Hanoverian line. The right, supported by the center, on the other hand, SMASHED the Hanoverian left (despite all the training the government forces had had to improve their firing rate and bayonet drill), but no officers or chiefs took charge to exploit the breakthrough.

The government forces, meanwhile, had been drawn up into two lines, and now the second line enveloped the breakthrough and began pouring round after round of fire into the Jacobite forces (and the knots of government men still fighting back). Jacobite morale broke, and that was that. Again, it was a battle of morale (no sleep, no food, bad terrain, nonexistent leadership).

As regards swords vs. bayonets in general? My money is on the swords, if the men are trained to the same standard. Contrary to popular belief, you can learn basic swordsmanship (sufficient to use a hanger or backsword, what soldiers of this period would have) in a few weeks. You won't be a master, but neither would your bayonet-armed opponent. I wouldn't necessarily want to be in the front rank of swordsmen who made contact with the bayonet line, but other than that, I'd feel quite confident.

The bigger problem, at least as was true in the Duke of Marlborough's day for grenadiers, is that men were given swords but no instruction. They had to pay for it themselves, and most didn't bother. I don't know if that held true for all soldiers at all times, but it wouldn't surprise me, given that armies were based around artillery and massed infantry fire - you train your men for what you expect them to most often have to do.

[Sir Bum]

Although I see myself as an officer type, and would therefore be using a sword, you can't deny that the point beats the edge. It takes some very fancy footwork to get past a jabbing bayonet.

[Incomitatus]

Although I see myself as an officer type, and would therefore be using a sword, you can't deny that the point beats the edge. It takes some very fancy footwork to get past a jabbing bayonet.

The use of a sword's edge in this time frame would have been incidental. Even with backswords and hangers, training was to fence with it, ie. use the point. Sabers and cutlasses being the principle exceptions, but since they were mostly relegated to hussars (dragoons and heavy cavalry usually carried straight swords) and sailors, they don't really figure into a bayonet vs. sword debate.