Swords VS Bayonets?

[AUSSIE11]

people keep missing the point though. we are talking about a standardised infantry weapon that is to be carried In Addition to the primary infantry weapon of the period, a flintlock musket. In my collection at home i own a 1834 Model 1822 Springfield Flintlock, still with its 18 inch Bayonet. Now this weapon weighs a lot, (About Double my Lithgow No1 MkIII* .303 and Husqvarna M38 at a guess) as well as being significantly longer (1.45 Metres).

Now Imagine a combat situation of the period. Closed ranks and the opposing lines approach for close combat. one line possesses Muskets tipped with bayonets, the other is equipped with muskets and the sword i think would be most effective in this role, a roman Gladius. Both lines would wish to fire for as long as possible the last volley being fired at extremely short range. the bayonet equipped side before charging/receiving a charge merely have to fix bayonets.

the gladii equipped troops would however have to sling their muskets (not to easy in tight ranks) and then draw their gladii. throughout the engagement the gladii equipped soldiers would then have to fight with a 5-8 kilo weight which is 5 foot long slung over their shoulder. also the gladii in roman periods was so deadly due to the mutual support of the cohort with the large shield covering each other. the gladii without the shield is only one half of the weapon and it would be ridiculous for troops of that period to carry shields. also the gladii would provide no defence against cavalry and the gladius equipped sodiers would be forced to push through the bayonet "Hedge" before engaging. and this would be a lot harder than merely swatting aside the bayonet of the man facing you and closing, because the men on either side of him also pose a large threat to ur wellbeing.

[Incomitatus]

Aussie, you started making one point in your first paragraph... at least I thought you were... and then went another way with it. Care to back up a bit? Yes, muskets are heavy. And they aren't nearly as long as pikes. They are heavy, unwieldy spears. The men using them don't have shields. Why, in a melee combat, would anyone expect bayonet-armed troops to perform better than spear armed troops against swords when they are armed with an inferior (for melee) weapon?

Your point about the men with bayonets to each side also being a threat is an interesting one, while say the man on my right is helping me, who's helping him? The Duke of Cumberland introduced a special drill for his army prior to Culloden to teach his men to stab to their front right quarter, to catch the Highlanders under their upraised sword arms. Note that this was *special* training for a *particular* tactical situation and it didn't work. The Jacobite army smashed Cumberland's front line where they reached it, and were finally routed by musket fire from the second line, not by bayonet drill.

I'm not suggesting that infantry should have been armed with swords. The question was just which was better in a melee. Your point about what to do with the musket when one draws the sword is spot on. Nevertheless there is a reason artillery crews were armed with swords at least up through the American Civil War and swords were still used by the various navies. Marines on shipboard would have sea-pattern muskets and bayonets, but the majority of boarding parties would be formed of cutlass and pistol armed sailors. Frankly, in that type of wild and disorganised brawl, I'd prefer a cutlass over a musket and am rather glad I wasn't born then to be a marine!

[AUSSIE11]

Thanks for bringing me back on track Incomitatus, i'm writing this at work so don't have as much time as i'd like to proof read. In many ways a sword, with the requisite training, is more efficient and effective in melee. My main point is that in the period in which in my view this discussion is primarily centred upon, the 18th and 19th century, melee was not the standard form of combat. Most actions where held using firepower with melee against other infantry being of tertiary importance to the standard infantry formation with ranged engagement and defence against cavalry as primary and secondary.

These factors combined to make the sword an impractical standardised infantry weapon in the period especially as the formations and tactics that were practiced. The fact that artillerymen were equipped with swords is easily explained in that i would assume they were not equipped with muskets, making the bayonet an impossible choice of weapon. Also artillery men would only use their personal weapon when they have been over-run and as they do not have the numbers to form a rank and fight as an effective cohesive unit the sword is more logical as they would have enough room to wield it effectively.

I shall have to do some research into whether the men of the British rifles used their sword-bayonets as swords or bayonets the most...

Anyway just to recap my point. it is not that bayonets are more effective than swords in all melee combat but as a tool of war within the military structure of the period the bayonet clearly comes out on top from my perception.

[Incomitatus]

Quite right. If I knew I was going into a melee, I would want a sword. If, on the other hand, I were organizing the procurement for an army of the period, I would give my men bayonets: as you say, they'll mostly be shooting and/or fending off cavalry.

Still, to me it's quite clear that officers being armed with swords wasn't just about carrying over an archaic status symbol - when distant from the enemy, they needed to be paying attention to what was going on, not shooting, and when in close combat, their swords remained superior weapons. That's not in response to anything you've said, Aussie, just more in general to the thread.

[AUSSIE11]

Still, to me it's quite clear that officers being armed with swords wasn't just about carrying over an archaic status symbol - when distant from the enemy, they needed to be paying attention to what was going on, not shooting, and when in close combat, their swords remained superior weapons. That's not in response to anything you've said, Aussie, just more in general to the thread.

I Think it's a combination of factors. in addition to the symbol and the prestige there is also the fact that many officers fought mounted meaning a sword was much more practical.

[PikeStance]

This is one of the strangest debates I have ever read. Some seem intent on debating the two weapons in a vacuum. Unfortunately, military combat do not operate in a vacuum. Its all about utility. People also seem to ignore the evolution of weaponry. The bayonet made pikesman obsolete, not bands of swordsmen.

If you want to debate the these two weapons in a vacuum, be my guess; but what's the point. Its their utility that is important.


----

[ErikBerg]

The bayonet made pikesman obsolete.

I'd say it depends on how you use it. Bayonet-wielding Danish infantry was run over by Swedish pikes at Helsingborg in 1710, making the Danes re-introduce the pike shortly thereafter.

[PikeStance]

I'd say it depends on how you use it. Bayonet-wielding Danish infantry was run over by Swedish pikes at Helsingborg in 1710, making the Danes re-introduce the pike shortly thereafter.

This is exactly what I am talking about.... you chose one exception from 1710 when by the 19th century the Pikeman units no longer existed on the battlefield (in fact earlier than that in Europe). Again the bayonet made the usefulness of pikesman obsolete.


----

[ErikBerg]

This is exactly what I am talking about.... you chose one exception from 1710 when by the 19th century the Pikeman units no longer existed on the battlefield (in fact earlier than that in Europe). Again the bayonet made the usefulness of pikesman obsolete.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that pikes would always outperform bayonets. Too many variables and circumstances to determine what is the better weapon at any given time. I am saying that it seems to me that the introduction of the bayonet didn't at once make the pike obsolete, the pike still had its uses before eventually being phased out of the military organization.

Then again my perspective is limited to Sweden, I don't speak for other nations.

[wangrin]

Even if bayonet didn't always outperform pikes, to have a fire weapon (musket, etc.) that can be then transformed into a kind of small pike was a major advantage.
The problem with bayonet was to find a solution to fix it to the musket. Plug and ring bayonet were not good solutions, the first one make the musket unable to fire and the second often fall on the ground.
Even firsts socket bayonets were not a perfect solution. Depending of models, they can be in the way of the ball or hurt soldier when he reloaded his weapon.

Moreover, eastern Europe had a specific context.
Polish use heavy cavalry lancers as well as Ottomans, so armies had to adapt to fight against those units and pikes were an effective solution as long as musket-bayonet tandem was not enough effective itself (firepower, misfire, reloading time, etc.)

[ErikBerg]

Indeed, versatility on the battlefield is preferable.

Curiously, the 'ring bayonet' seems to be absent in the Swedish armoury, I've not found any trace of either surviving specimens or the term itself.
On socket bayonets, the first trial models were introduced in the Swedish army in the 1690's, with m/1696 and m/1699 being successful models that were firmly locked onto the musket barrel, to prevent them from getting stuck in bodies in battle or simply falling off as you said, and with off-set blades.

[PikeStance]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that pikes would always outperform bayonets. Too many variables and circumstances to determine what is the better weapon at any given time. I am saying that it seems to me that the introduction of the bayonet didn't at once make the pike obsolete, the pike still had its uses before eventually being phased out of the military organization.
Then again my perspective is limited to Sweden, I don't speak for other nations.

This is a logical fallacy! No one claimed anything to the contrary (at least in the three pages I have read). So, I am not sure why you are suggesting otherwise.


---

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Im not entirely certain what the point of this thread is. One is not better than the other, just like a shotgun is not better than a rifle. They're simply used in different ways.


Now, one on one, a man armed with a sword is going to beat a man armed with a musket/bayonet. Simply for the fact that a musket is NOT a melee weapon. It's a firearm, designed for shooting. You can attach a blade to it, and use it to fight up close, but that is not what it's made for. It's clunky, and unwieldy, compared to a sword. The sword is, in a vacuum, as Pikestance said, a better melee weapon in every way. It may lack the length of a musket (Not by too much, though) but it more than makes up for it in basically every other way.


Now, think of it like this. The bayonet didn't replace the sword. The sword became obselete, not because of the bayonet, but because firearms simply became to accurate and long ranged. Not to mention the rate of fire increased incredibly. A mostly untrained man could just shoot down a veteran swordsmen from 500 meters away, so training with a blade became.... Well, silly.



Sorry if this post rambles a bit, gentlemen, but I am tired.

In more modern times, however, melee is becoming important again. For instance, the US special forces (Im unsure which branch, probably the SEALs) actually use a Tomahawk in combat, because a lot of their missions take place in very close combat. But that's beside the point, and I digress.


Back on topic: The bayonet is NOT better than a sword. Nor is a sword better than a bayonet. They are used differently. Bayonets became more widely used because they were cheaper, more effective in the dense formations of their time, and you could train someone to use it much more easily.

[wangrin]

The latest debate was not between bayonet and sword but between bayonet and pike.


About bayonet vs sword, you have also to consider that using a bayonet need less training that a sword and transform a musket in a "versatile" weapon able to fight against cavalry (square).
Moreover, in a melee, having a musket armed with bayonet isn't a disadvantage. Heavier than a sword, you can use it to knock opponents end you can use bayonet to trust on them.

So, I doubt there is a global answer to the "bayonet vs sword".

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

The latest debate was not between bayonet and sword but between bayonet and pike.


About bayonet vs sword, you have also to consider that using a bayonet need less training that a sword and transform a musket in a "versatile" weapon able to fight against cavalry (square).
Moreover, in a melee, having a musket armed with bayonet isn't a disadvantage. Heavier than a sword, you can use it to knock opponents end you can use bayonet to trust on them.

So, I doubt there is a global answer to the "bayonet vs sword".

Ah, forgive me, I only read the first and latest page. A pike is, again, better for what it was designed to do, but a musket with a bayonet is.... Well, a musket with a bayonet. It's shorter than a pike, but you can use it to shoot people, so...


A bayonet is not only heavier than a sword, but it's also unbalanced. A man with a sword will almost always beat someone od equal skill level with a musket, simply because a sword is a better melee weapon. I've handled both, and let me tell you, a sword is by far an easier weapon to handle. In a one on one duel, a sword is clearly superiour.


However, in formation, it's a different story. Without the room to move around, a sword loses many of it's advantages. This is where the bayonet shines, since it doesn't require as much space to use, and can more easily force it's way past a swordsmen's guard.


Again, one isn;t better than the other. It's all dependant on the situation.

[JaM]

Musket with bayonet is not like a spear... Spear was used in one hand, underarm or over arm, which reduced its effectivity, as second had held the shield. Musket and Bayonet at the other side, are held both hands. Per modern tests, good athlete could manage about 60 joules with underarm thrust, and about 115 with overarm. with both hands used this energy delivered is much higher, as more muscles are used for the thrust.

Thrusting damage is much more dangerous to human body than slashing or cutting. even very weak thrust might penetrate deeply into human body, while you need quite a lot of strength to do a lethal slash or cut. Another important factor here is a weapon weight - to parry certain weapon, you need to use certain strength to move it sideways. 4kg heavy musket with bayonet thrusting at you will require actually a lot of your strength to parry it sideways with infantry sword that was just about 1kg heavy...

Bayonet was the ultimate infantry close combat weapon, it was extremely effective in that role which resulted in very interesting thing - bayonet was effective in attack, but much less effective in defense besides providing standoff against shorter weapons (like swords). Anyway agaisnt other infantry armed with bayonets situation was different, and in such engagements no side would have an advantage, which actually meant, MORALE of the unit decided such matters - in 99% of charges, defenders rather withdraw from their positions than facing enemy in close combat! And it makes perfect sense - humans have high selfpreservance mechanism, you just wont stand still if you facing bad odds.. So, you can completly forget about two masses of infantry meeting with bayonets in the middle of a plan field as such thing (almost, there are actually 3 recorded examples) happened... Anyway, that doesnt automatically mean there was no melee combat at all.. it happened a lot, anyway it was also matter of small units fighting over some broken terrain like villages or some ditches or redoubts...

Btw, if you read carefully, those reports about wounds are not counting dead... only wounded men... so low numbers for bayonets could also mean that being hit by it resulted in death more often than not..

[Goutlard]

Bayonnet, as said by JaM was definitivelly more letal than a sword. Taking a thrust means, normally, death whereas swords depend on many other factors, the strenght of the strike, the quality and deviation capacity of the armor. Even further the bayonnet is more efficient against cavalry thanks to it's higher reach. And blocking or deviating a thrust attack is harder than doing the same with a cutting attack, especially if your weapon is 3 times lighter than the ennemy's weapon.

Bayonnets were as well cheaper and easier to mass produce and needed less skill. Yet, the sword is not bad either, lighter and having a better balance than a bayonneted musket, it provides a higher speed and efficiency in very close combat. Yet the formation should be loose otherwise the grouped use of bayonnets will prevail.

I would not tend to say that "this weapon is better than this one !", but bayonnets were more adapted to the standarts of the time, whereas swords were from another age. But a weapon is a weapon, and it is made to kill. The sword has many advantages in parallel, but those are not adapted to the standarts of the time and to the way line infantry was used to be : polyvalent.

[Tritus]

I recall someone saying earlier that the spear easily beats the sword..

One on one, the sword wins very easily. I've "sparred" with a friend. A sword is considerably swifter, lighter, and maneuverable. However, the spear is very limited. You can easily strike the spear, ward off the blows, or grab it. And once you get close to the wielder, you can cut him down.

[Goutlard]

I recall someone saying earlier that the spear easily beats the sword..

One on one, the sword wins very easily. I've "sparred" with a friend. A sword is considerably swifter, lighter, and maneuverable. However, the spear is very limited. You can easily strike the spear, ward off the blows, or grab it. And once you get close to the wielder, you can cut him down.

Definitivelly, and the same applies to the bayonnets as they are heavy, unbalanced as not made for close combat. But the way bayonnet was used made it more efficient. But on one on one I'd prefer a sword against a pike or a bayonnet !

[JaM]

i'd say it would depends what are you better with... if you are inexperienced in swordsmanship, you will be better off with simpler to use bayonet..