Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 84

Thread: Bayonet- That important?

  1. #61

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    horses are not suicidal, they will not charge FULL SPEED into anything solid, and it actually doesn't matter if its pike square or infantry square. whole point of charge was to scare infantry off, so their morale breaks and they start running away BEFORE contact was made. If infantry didn't run, cavalry unit had to turn sideways otherwise it would get stuck in front of infantry (its not possible to turn entire cavalry unit that fast... it would generate huge amount of confusion) and get shot to pieces. Bayonet gave infantry something that allowed them to defend themselves against cavalry better - musket with bayonet was about 2m long, so infantry had longer reach, than cavalrymen with his sword..Anyway nothing of this matters if infantry morale breaks before cavalry reaches them.

    So, forget about full speed charges - those never happen, cavalry always slowed down before contact, and then tried to enter formation walking speed.. horse can kick,bite, cavalrymen can slash you or stab you with his sword. so standing in front of one with just a short weapon is not helping - thanks to bayonet reach, he was able to fend off cavalrymen effectively...

  2. #62
    Goutlard's Avatar Janissary
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    France / Turkey
    Posts
    818

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    horses are not suicidal, they will not charge FULL SPEED into anything solid, and it actually doesn't matter if its pike square or infantry square. whole point of charge was to scare infantry off, so their morale breaks and they start running away BEFORE contact was made. If infantry didn't run, cavalry unit had to turn sideways otherwise it would get stuck in front of infantry (its not possible to turn entire cavalry unit that fast... it would generate huge amount of confusion) and get shot to pieces. Bayonet gave infantry something that allowed them to defend themselves against cavalry better - musket with bayonet was about 2m long, so infantry had longer reach, than cavalrymen with his sword..Anyway nothing of this matters if infantry morale breaks before cavalry reaches them.

    So, forget about full speed charges - those never happen, cavalry always slowed down before contact, and then tried to enter formation walking speed.. horse can kick,bite, cavalrymen can slash you or stab you with his sword. so standing in front of one with just a short weapon is not helping - thanks to bayonet reach, he was able to fend off cavalrymen effectively...
    Definitivelly agreed. Horses have a brain. They are not vehicules, they are living creatures. They only charged to downgrade the morale, or, if armored horses, for the "charging power". [Catraphracts]

    ETW/NTW era horses are not good soldiers. In close combat they are (and were) seriously vulnerable to nearly anyone unline in the Medieval Ages with their superarmor. But cavalry still kept it's huge effect on morale and either broke cohesion in the ennemy ranks or morale, sometimes both enough to crush the ennemy if well used.
    Wind from the East's Awards :

  3. #63

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Savoyard View Post
    Is that really true? I mean before gunpowder, cavalry did a whole lot of charging and that's with bigger pikes.
    This is still a matter of heated debate amongst historian's, and the argument stretches back through time to the point where written records are so sparse that just about everything is conjecture and historians are basing their evidence on the writings of a senile monk who claims that the coming of the Vikings was heralded by the appearance of dragons in the skies over Northumberland.

    My own opinion is based on the pure logic that horses and men haven't really devolved from being mad suicidal idiots into useless wimps over the last 2,000 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that both responded to being threatened with solid obstacles bristling with sharp pointy objects in the past pretty much as they respond today. Which is turn suggests that much of the written history of battles from the past is probably little more than propaganda and hype.

    There are however, tantalising glimpses of fact amongst the fantasy which appear to support my preferred version of history. For example, Roman tactical manuals do record the fact that a successful tactic employed to defeat enemy chariots was to open gaps in their front line maniples, whilst maintaining a solid formation in the supporting line. Apparently, this lead the chariots to charge through the gaps, and then become trapped between the first and second line, whereupon unable to manoeuvre the charioteers were dragged from their vehicles and slaughtered. The clue lies in the fact that if horses of this period were suicidal the tactic wouldn't have worked.
    Last edited by Didz; February 12, 2013 at 04:10 PM. Reason: very late spelling corrections

  4. #64
    AUSSIE11's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    417

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    The Bayonet was useful and important in dealing with Cavalry. Remember the difference between Napolonic Infantry and Medieval Pikemen was as much doctrinal as material. From my somewhat limited understanding of Medieval and renaissance warfare it was (to grossly simplify matters) a kind of Rock, Paper, Scissors situation, i.e. Sword>Pike>Horse>Sword. Later the integration of the Arquebus created a situation of Pike>Horse>Arquebus>Pike and Sword. which lead to the mixed pike and shot formations where pikes protected arquebusses leading to a dominant formation. The bayonet allowed the convenient combination of Pike and Arquebus therefore multiplying both the firepower and anti cavalry melee capability of any given infantry formation.
    The eight most terrifying words in the english language... I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    AUSSIE11: real world doesn't work well with rock>paper>scissor philosophy so it hardly ever worked that way... Bayonet was in no means anyhow more dangerous to cavalry than any other weapon would be.. what was a huge problem for cavalry was natural fear of horse to run into a solid object at full speed... Horse is not a car, it will try to prevent the collision...

    As i mentioned before, bayonet was effective weapon as it was an ultimate thrusting weapons available to infantry. Thrusting attacks produce very lethal wounds with limited amount of energy needed to deliver the strike.. that made bayonet so effective in the hands of capable men. But of course if you give bayonets to inexperienced men, that never experienced horror of close combat, they will hesitate and will run away... as happened over and over... its not like just because you have a bayonet, you automatically defeat horsemen...


    And even with infantry against infantry, lots of men would have quite a problem to go into close combat with weapon that is perfectly suited to deal deadly damage but against which there is just limited defense... and if you even identify Grenadiers on the battlefield marching against you... you automatically know they are strong and tall... such a view was enough for most of the units (and imagine if they saw French Old Guard Grenadiers... men that had often 10-15 years of combat experience...or more)
    Last edited by JaM; February 12, 2013 at 05:18 AM.

  6. #66
    AUSSIE11's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    417

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    I was using the rock paper scissors to symbolise the advantages of combining two weapons types. I do realise that was an gross simplification but it was a very general statement.

    In regards to horses not running into things i actually wrote something on thata yesterday but my browser crashed causing me to lose it and i was too lazy to write it again, but i'll write it now.

    Some of you may know that i'm quite an experienced horseman and own both hunters and showjumpers. What i'm going to explain now is how equine stupidity is very simila to human stupidity, it should never be underestimated. When a horse is frightened, excited and or injured all common sense can go out the window. I was riding my sisters hunter a few years ago inthe paddock he normally lives in and in the height of an argument he charged chest first into a post and rail fence i was foolish enough to think he would try to avoid. this horse wasn't spooked, wasn't scared and was being told to do the opposite and he still ran straight into a solid object, at speed and in the process quite badly injured himself and put me in hospital. Another horse, my hunter, i have successfully trained to push through hedges, and experince which to a horse must be quite similar to pushing through a rank of men. Also all police horses are trained to charge into mobs and groups of people and just push them out of the way. The bayonet stops this however as it give the standard infantryman the ability to attack the rider as well as the horse before they can push through.
    The eight most terrifying words in the english language... I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Hi Aussie 11: Where comparisons of pike, arquebus, musket and bayonet come unravelled is when one looks at the reverse side of the arguement and discover that it made no difference.

    There are numerous such theories batted about by various historians, none of whom seem capable of checking their logic by looking for exceptions that disprove their theories.

    For example I have seen claims that muskets discouraged cavalry through close range firepower, and yet there are numerous primary accounts of infantry squares successfully resisting cavalry attacks without firing at all, and one Austrian square did so in the pouring rain when no musket in the regiment was capable of being fired. Not to mention of course that tight formations of Roman soldiers were able to resist enemy cavalry attacks armed only with a short sword.

    Pikes of course were a deterrent to cavalry, as any long pointy object would be to a horse, but pikes were in use long before the arquebus and had a much more vital role on the battlefield than simply protecting the arquebusiers. The Phalanx and the schiltron were offensive formations used not in defence but in attack and intended to drive the enemy from the field. Their weakness was not the sword but the archer, as any two handed weapon left the bearer exposed to missile fire.

    There is no doubt that the bayonet renders pikemen redundant, but that was merely because an 18" bayonet on the end of a musket is pretty much as effective as a pike, thus ensuring that cavalry and infantry were just as reluctant to get too close as they had been before. It basically allowed one man to act as both, but it made little difference the overall reluctance that any man or horse had to throwing themselves into the midst of a closely packed enemy formation, whether armed with a sword, musket or bayonet.

    Interestingly, noting your point about police horses, I did quite a study of video's of police horses engaged in riot control. Firstly, let me point out that police horses are not trained to charge into anything. The are conditioned to tolerate loud noises and sudden events going on around them without panicking, just as French cavalry horses were trained using similar techniques. But crowd control with police horses is based upon controlled use of intimidation and pressure not violent assault. There are videos of mounted policemen attempting to charge down on demonstrators and rioters, but one thing which becomes clear is that whilst the riders may have violent intentions and enthusiasm to kill someone, the horses go to extraordinary lengths to avoid any sort of direct collision with anything.

    In one video a group of three or four mounted police deliberately try to ride down a bunch of students carrying a protest banner, and you can hear one of the students shout out 'Stick together, stay in a huddle' and they manage to bunch up with the banner wrapped around them, at which the horses flatly refuse to ride into them and swerved around them on either side nearly toppling one of their riders to the ground in the process. The conclusion being that horses are not stupid, even though policemen are.

    The latest historian I've found who is doing some investigation into the behaviour of horses in combat is a guy called Alan Larsen, and he's pretty much confirmed what Mike Loades had already established, which is that horses don't run into solid objects. It's actually what makes them brilliant combat mounts.
    Last edited by Didz; February 13, 2013 at 02:26 PM.

  8. #68
    AUSSIE11's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    417

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Hey Didz,

    I may have worded it poorly but that was my point, that the bayonets importance allowed every man on the field to be both a musketeer and a pikeman. This had a multiplier effect over the mixed units in that over an equivalent numbr of men a musket and bayonet equipped unit had double the firepower and double the melee capability assuming an original 50/50 split between pikes and arquebusses. My comparison was merely to point out the difference between the "specialised" versus "multi-role" (to use modern buzz-words) infantry equipement. I agree it was clumsily worded but hey, im writing this at work so have limited proof reading time.
    The eight most terrifying words in the english language... I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    I agree, and thats about the extent of the benefit. Instead of a unit of 200 pikemen and 200 musketeers, you now had a unit of 400 musketeers.

    The interesting thing is what followed next, as its clear that giving a man a weapon which could kill at a distance had a subtle psychological affect on the behaviour of troops on the battlefield. It would appear that given the option, very few men opted to get up close and personal, and so we begin to see the trend towards missile combat at longer and longer ranges and a increasing reluctance to close.

    Likewise, the immediate impact on cavalry combat was to render mounted firepower ineffective and we see the re-emergence of shock tactic's which then remained the main doctrine for mounted combat right up to WW2.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    ... he's pretty much confirmed what Mike Loades had already established, which is that horses don't run into solid objects.
    I guess that theory wasn't tested in a mass charge, where the horses in the front row can hear other galloping horses right behind them - making clear, that an immediate stop to evade the soft squishy mass in front is no option - and with horses in the front row packed closely together - making sure that moving to the side isn't an option either - but with a only couple horses going at their target in loose formation?

    I'm sure, if a horse has the OPTION to evade contact with a wall of humans in front of it, it will try to do so. So don't give it the option. When it survives the first charge, it will learn that humans are soft squishy things to be run through. Unless those humans got long sticky things in their hands, that is.. *cough*

    And considering bayonett charges between troops - it's a kind of "who blinks first" contest. Two lines stand. Two lines fire. One loses cohesion, firing gets slower.. You know those guys know they are losing.. it just needs a little push, to make them turn around and run.. so "CHAAAAARGE!"

    Works great, when it's trained professional soldiers against a bunch of rag-tag towelheads, german peasants or suchlike, who went into the fight ready to run at the first occasion anyway. Doesn't work so good, if the unit on the other side is made of experienced soldiers, too, who know when to hold their fire "until You can see the white in their eyes, men" and then throw some lead Your way..

    So in most cases it's either the opponent running away or the attacker noticing a high amount of lead in the air and retreating to rethink the strategy.. in good order, when experienced (and lucky..) or running very fast and disorganized, when not.
    So yeah, in line to line battles the bayonet was used mostly as a psychological weapon. It was when the opponents met in the trenches, that the real stabbing started..

  11. #71

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Natural reaction to this situation for horses would be to slow down.. and it actually happened lots of time on the battlefield.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandelion View Post
    I guess that theory wasn't tested in a mass charge, where the horses in the front row can hear other galloping horses right behind them - making clear, that an immediate stop to evade the soft squishy mass in front is no option - and with horses in the front row packed closely together - making sure that moving to the side isn't an option either - but with a only couple horses going at their target in loose formation?
    Testing in a mass charge is obviously quite difficult to do in today’s modern culture of animal rights. The risk to man and horse alone would be sufficient to put a stop to the exercise. However, Mike Loades did conduct a very interesting series of tests with a troop of the Household cavalry. If I recall this was a mere 15 to 20 troopers, but enough to produce a dense formation.

    The aim of the test was to determine exactly the points you are making about the behaviour of horses in a group. Mike wanted to determine if the herd instinct of horses in a dense group would override their timidity in running into a solid object, or treading on prone bodies.

    The test itself was deemed valid because historically cavalry normally operated at troop level for manoeuvre and attack, and with the exception of British cavalry, who were notoriously badly trained, rarely committed more than one troop at a time to any attack as doing so limited the able of the cavalry to react to events due to bunching and depth.

    The results were surprising even to Mike, who was expecting to see some measurable change in horse behaviour.

    Running into solid objects.

    The troop were asked quite simply to charge a solid line of hay bales, and if possible to burst through them and out the other side. The usual muskets and bayonets were omitted for obvious health and safety reasons, and the hay bales were stacked on end so they toppled easier. But they were stood in the hay bale equivalent of ‘shoulder to shoulder’ line with no visible gaps, and only one rank deep.

    The cavalry advanced at a gathering pace and were exhorted to remain boot to boot in order to maintain their cohesion, and the horses being well drilled seemed perfectly happy to approach the wall of hay bales at a steadily gathering pace.

    However, at about 10 yards or so from the wall the horses suddenly appeared to realise that something weird was happening. They had what can only be described as a ‘WTF’ moment when they realised that their riders were not giving them the sensible commands to stop or turn and there was a ripple of horsey confusion along the entire line.

    The horses on the end of the line began to pull to the side angling towards the end of the line of hay bales and their riders attempts to pull them back were ignored. This released the boot to boot pressure on the other horses near nearer the centre who also began to turn either left or right, and some baulked when they then found their path blocked by another horse which had chosen to turn in the opposite direction.

    Those nearest the centre with nowhere to turn simply stopped, quite violently and some nearly threw their riders. In some places hay bales were toppled over simply by horses bumping into them as they tried to stop or turn away, but at no point did a horse pass through the line.

    The worse damage to the line was done on it’s extreme right flank where one horse misjudged the space available to circumvent the end of the line. It had tried to follow the horse on its right and angle it’s advance to go round the end of the line, but as it got close to the corner it found its path forward blocked by horses from the second line who were trying to do the same thing but had not left it enough room to squeeze through. It found itself boxed in between the hay bales and it’s fellow horses with its rider still urging it to move, and basically it panicked. It spun in a full 360’ circle threatening to throw its rider over the wall or under the hooves of the horses trying to squeeze around the end of the line, and in doing so its back-side knocked over three or four hay bales at the end of the line and it managed to push its way past the end of the line through the small amount of additional space it had created with its rider desperately clinging to its neck.

    Running over prone bodies

    Mike wanted to test the reaction of horses to being asked to charge over prone or dead bodies on the battlefield to reach their objects.

    Hay bales were considered too dangerous to use for this so the ground was strewn with pillows and piles of softer material, which was less likely to cause injury.

    The previous test was repeated and the results were immediately apparent. Faced with a field at their feet covered in strange lumps and obstacle’s the horses used their own intelligence and ignoring their riders instructions to stay boot to boot and walk over them the horses jostled each other for space and threaded their way at whatever speed seemed sensible to them through the maze of obstacles. Horses which found their path blocked simply stopped, and waited for a gap to appear, regardless of what their riders were trying to get them to do. There was a lot of bunching which ties in with the eyewitness accounts of the advance of the massed French cavalry at Waterloo, and one can imagine that as this advance progressed over a ground strewn with more and more dead and wounded the amount of bunching would have increased and some horse would have been crushed by the weight of others trying to avoid the worst of the obstacles. It also explains why few of the troops sent forward chose to go back the way they came.

    Surprisingly, watching the test I never noticed one attempt to jump over a prone obstacle and I think that might have been because the horses were equipped with curb chains to stop them doing so. But curb chains were quite a common feature of historic horse equipment and were designed specifically to stop horses rearing up when in close formation.

    By the time the formation reached the hay bale line it was no longer in boot to boot and this time the horses had no trouble at all avoiding the obstacle and going around it.

    Now, I accept that this test was not conducted with hundreds of closely packed horses, six or seven ranks deep, like you see in CGI mastered films by Universal studio's. But if you have studied cavalry tactic's of the period you will know that cavalry didn't operate that way in real life anyway, moreover in the old black and white films before health and safety, and animal rights had a hand in stopping it, and large numbers of horses that were used then to produce dramatic and unrealistic cavalry charges, watch a few of these old movies and you will see right from the start of the take that the horses immediately go for space. Certainly no film I've seen of a cavalry charge using real horses has managed to produce a 'boot to boot' close order charge. Horses are natural herd animals, and they understand how to move over the ground as a group without suffering injury, just as veteran commuters learn how to navigate their way across the crowded concourse of Liverpool Street station in the rush hour without killing someone.

    Mistakes undoubtedly occur in both scenario's but they are mistakes and cannot be relied upon. I general the system works for the benefit of everyone and was an important feature of cavalry combat. It was why horses were favoured as mounts over other animals, such as elephants, which do have a natural attack behaviour of running things down, and its why the tactic's for dealing with elephants on the battlefield differed from those dealing with cavalry.
    Last edited by Didz; February 16, 2013 at 04:44 AM.

  13. #73

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Sounds very similar what i have read about Roman cavalry behavior when attacking infantry - Cavalry formation was supposed to turn to left or right about 100m in front of enemy infantry if it stood still, to prevent entire cavalry unit would fall into confusion in front of enemy..

    But of course, Roman Era cavalry didnt used close ranks for charges, while 18.century cavalry didnt galloped full speed against enemy infantry - for such attacks keeping formation was very important, so they charged at slower speed, slowing down and then forcing horses through infantry blocks... While horse would hesitate to run into men full speed, good warhorse would have no problem to walk through tight formation of men (kick and bite them)... police horses are trained to do this even today (except biting and kicking) - but of course, good cavalrymen would not sacrifice his horse to get stabbed to death by bayonets, even though there were some examples where Squares got broken because of dead horse falling on infantry line, which opened the square for other cavalrymen..
    Last edited by JaM; February 16, 2013 at 05:01 AM.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Yes, the whole dynamic between cavalry and infantry is dominated by psychology and group behaviour and it's really interesting when you can get hold of reliable first hand testimony to read about the seemingly tiny little incidents that swung the result one way or the other. There is actually a lot more of this available for infantry v infantry combat, which is quite surprising considering that it was a much more rare event, but it seems it's very rarity leads to it being mentioned more in letters and journals when it did happen.

    The primary factors for success in cavalry v infantry combat seems to be:

    a) Does the infantryman (singly and collectively) believe that his formation, and his position in it, is safe from being trampled by the horses.
    b) Do the horses (singly or collectively) believe that there is a way though the the obstacle in the direction their rider is asking them to move.
    c) Do the cavalrymen (singly and collectively) have enough skill and control to manage both the approach and consequences of the reactions above to their advantage.

    If the answers to the three questions above are a) No b) Yes and c) Yes, then the cavalry should win
    If the answer a) is Yes and b) is No, then attack should fail.
    If the answer to c) is No, then the importance of a) and b) are lessened, but the likelihood of success for the cavalry reduces significantly.

    Incidently, I'm personally dubious about the frequent reports of horses 'biting and kicking' during close combat. It does get mentioned in some reports most notably that of the charge of the Scots Greys, but rarely by people who were actually present, and I suspect that this image of the horse joyously joining in the carnage like a good British horse is more poetic license than fact. I would be prepared to believe that a panicked horse unable to find a way forward, and unable to turn left or right, and hemmed in behind so it can't back out of a situation, might resort to it's natural fight response of rearing up and lashing out with its front hooves to try and clear a path for itself. However, it might just as easily decide to kick out with it's hind legs to try and create some space behind itself, so in my opinion this isn't a fight mechanism, but a flight mechanism. Not only that but cavalry regiments were well aware of the risk that a horse might panic like this in a closely packed formation, whether or not it was in combat, and they took steps to prevent horses doing it. The whole point of the curb chains built into a cavalry horses equipment is to stop it rearing up to kick out at other horses in the formation, so that same chain would also prevent a horse rearing up to kick an enemy horse or infantryman. Not that a horse would actually know the difference.

    Biting is even less likely, as it's not a normal fight mechanic for a horse at all. Their mouths are simply not designed to be used as a weapon, and I suspect that reports of horses trying to bite enemies might be misunderstandings. Horses do bite each other and people, but it's part of their social interaction, not an aggressive response, and you can go onto any horse lovers website and type 'Why did my horse bite me?' and get a detailed explanation of what the owner was doing wrong to trigger that response. My personal theory on these reports, and it can only ever be a theory as there is no way of verifying the facts, is that what writers witnessed was a frantic horse desperately trying to find an escape route, or trying to rear up and yanking on its curb chain. This rapid head movement from side to side and/or up and down coupled no doubt with with a rider that's yanking on it's bit and reins, might well result in a head movement that looks like it's trying to bite everyone around it. But until I see a casualty report that says clearly 'bitten to death by horse', I will remain sceptical.

    If you're still not convinced try a little personal experiment. Most 'Why did my horse bite me?' threads on horse owners forums refer to situations where the horse in question was being groomed, or during tacking. I've not found one so far where the horse was being ridden, and this make sense if you try this experiment. 1) Firstly stick a pencil in your mouth to simulate a horses bit, 2) get a trusted friend of partner to stand behind you, hold both ends and apply reasonable pressure, to simulate a rider pulling on the reins, or use a long rubber band to hold it in place, 3) Now take a bite out an apple. Enjoy!
    Last edited by Didz; March 04, 2013 at 03:32 PM.

  15. #75
    AUSSIE11's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    417

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Hey Didz,

    With regards to rearing up horses will often do that in response to harsh aids on the part of the rider. in combat and particularly noticing the harsh bits used historically this would have been quite a likely occurrance. I'll explain how that works, imagine you have a flexible rod (a plastic ruler or somesuch), put a finger in front of it and the push it from the other end. You'll notice firstly how the ruler will arch. This is how horses work when they are "collected", i.e. contact on the reigns and some pressure from the riders seat/legs. however if you keep pushing, without letting go the ruler will get higher and higher until eventually it jumps over your front finger, our simulated horse gould go neither forwards nor backwards so went upwards. That is how a horse could easily rear in a combat situation, indeed the majority of horses rearing in normal riding situations is due to the improper application of aids in this manner. This could be exacerbated by the increased pressure upon the horses mouth due to a hash bit and the other stimuli inherent upon the battlefield leading a horse to rear up and give the impression of lashing out.

    Also i'm not sure as to the overall horsemanship of some of the Napoleonic troopers. dealing with horses is an imprecise art and even extremely experienced horsemen regularly have trouble with even the most simple of tasks, let alone complex tasks on the battlefiend with a multitude of distractions and stimuli for the mount.
    The eight most terrifying words in the english language... I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

  16. #76

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Yes the quality of horsemanship, and the quality of horses must have varied enormously over the period, particularly with the move away from professional armies to armies of conscripts.

  17. #77

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    duplicate post.

  18. #78

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Yes, and quite overlooked fact is the horse looses. Even if you started with perfectly trained warhorses, after few months in campaign lots of these were dead, and you had to use whatever was available, even untrained ones.. so actual effectivity of cavalry units was decreasing.

  19. #79
    Alwyn's Avatar Frothy Goodness
    Content Director Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,242

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    To be completely accurate what usually happened was one of two things:

    Either:

    a) The two lines blazed away at each other until one or the other looked like it had had enough and began to falter. (one officer summed this up nicely by noting that nothing can be done to persuade ones men to advance with the bayonet before they see the enemies backs, after which nothing can hold them back). As soon as the enemy begins to turn their backs, typically the result of men in the front ranks trying to force their way through their comrades to the rear, then the ordering of a bayonet charge usually ended the confrontation.

    b) One line ignores the fire of the other and keeps advancing regardless of its losses. This tactic was used in the early eighteenth century before improvements in firearms and fire control systems made it too expensive in human lives. But basically the idea was just to keep moving forward and absorb the enemies volleys. You would get about fifteen volleys fired at you as you advanced starting at a range of around 200 paces, but at some point the enemy would get the impression that their fire wasn't having any effect and that you actually weren't going to stop. At that point they became demoralised and usually broke and ran off before you reached them. This tactic was used by the British under Marlborough and later adopted by the French who enhanced the effect by using massed columns and shouting a lot. The British always preferred to advance in menacing silence, and were actually punished for making a noise. The French preferred to make a lot of noise to try and intimidate the enemy, whilst the Prussians liked to sing hymns.

    However, neither system was 100% effective.

    At Waterloo for example Kempts Brigade trying to use the first option were ordered to charge with the bayonet, only to discover that the French weren't as ready to leave as they thought they were and the whole advance degenerated into a confused mess as men wandered about getting shot at by the French. Some men stopped and tried to start firing again others turned and tried to scramble back through the hedge to their original position, other probably kept going and were either shot down or easily bayoneted by the French. Officers were rushing back and forth trying to restore order, and Picton was riding back and forth screaming abuse at everyone and ordering them to reform when he was shot through the head at short range and killed. The French seeing the moment of victory in hand immediately ordered their own advance to commence and they were in the precess of driving Kempts brigade off the field when the Union Brigade descended on them to stop the rot and give the infantry time to reform.

    A Frenchman also described that the second approach could also go wrong. In his own words he describes that there were certain expectations amongst the men about such an advance. The idea was that you made a lot of noise, banging drums and shouting 'Vive l'Emperor' etc. to let the enemy know you were coming, and that there were a lot of you. The enemy are then supposed to begin firing at you at about 200 paces, e.g. maximum effective range. This would create a lot of smoke and eventually nobody would be able to see what was going on, but as the French kepted making a noise the enemy would know they were still coming. At about 100 paces (still quite long range) the French expected to detect signs of the enemy panicking, because by now they realised that you weren't going to stop, and that their fire wasn't having any effect, or at least they could hear you getting closer so assumed it was having no effect. Normally by the time the French were within 50 paces of their target the enemy had withdrawn or broken and it was just a case of marching into the position they previously held and occupying it.

    However, he notes that the British had a nasty habit of not playing by the rules. The first problem was that the British rarely began firing at 200 paces, no matter how much noise the French made. Instead they would stand impassively like a red wall with their weapons at the order as if nothing was happening. Which was really frustrating for the French.

    More worrying was the fact that because they weren't firing they remained perfectly visible and as the French advanced they could see them just standing there waiting for them. The impression that you were making all this noise and effort and the enemy were taking no notice was very worrying, and began to make the French nervous. They realised that something wasn't right and as they got closer and closer without seeing any reaction they got more and more nervous. The shouting became louder but the men in the front rank began to worry about how close they were getting to the enemy and so the speed of the advance began to slow down as men began to fidget.

    The impression began to form in the minds of the men at the front of the attack that at this short range when the British did begin to fire they were going to die very quickly. At a range of under 100 paces and still no movement from the enemy some of the men in the front ranks began to panic and would begin stopping to fire at the enemy, others would try to keep pushing forward. The column would begin to lose cohesion as men at the back pushed those in front of them and arguments would break out about whether to keep moving or stop. At this point the braver officers would run out ahead of the men and try to inspire them to keep moving.

    Then at a range of about 50 paces the British finally reacted bringing their weapons from the order to the present.

    This was the 'Oh! moment' for the French who knew that at that range a fresh volley was going to be lethal. The column usually stopped dead even before the firing started as the men in front rank tried to push themselves backwards into the second rank or just stood mesmerised by their own imminent deaths. Then the British fired and all hell broke loose.

    Contrary to the english myth the British did not fire a single volley. It was much worse than that, a single volley would have left the British with empty muskets and given the French a chance to recover (20 seconds), what the French describe is a rolling volley of fire which began in the enemies centre and then spread outwards to each flank, before beginning again in the centre. So, that they were flayed by a constant stream of lead that never stopped coming and piled men on top of men as they tried to reform and keep moving forward.

    Some columns would stand like this for several minutes just being shot down as they tried to keep moving. But eventually they would give up and try to return the enemies fire often trying to expand their front to increase the number of muskets they could bring to bear.

    But essentially at that point they had already failed to achieve option 2 and were trying to switch to using option 1, but at a major disadvantage in that they were already shaken and demoralised. Most men by this point were beginning to edge backwards trying to put some distance between them and the enemy, and preferable a few of their comrades too to provide them with a meat shield. The British bayonet charge would then be timed for the moment when they had had enough and were about to run.
    I find Didz' comments (originally posted here) very helpful, so I am taking the liberty of re-posting them here. Is it possible to (perhaps indirectly) re-create these sorts of psychological effects in the game through mods (and, if so, whether any mod has achieved that - e.g. Empire Realism)?

  20. #80

    Default Re: Bayonet- That important?

    It's an interesting discussion. I'd highly recommend John Keegan's 'Face of Battle' in regards to this whole topic. He begins the books interestingly by criticising historical authors' use of language when describing Napoleonic combat. 'Crashing into', 'hurling themselves', 'the unit hit their opponents' are all quite misleading common phrases. There were no crashes. As regards the bayonet, it was extremely rare for two bodies of infantry to engage in hand to hand combat at all in the open, and certainly not for protracted periods as in ETW. This generally happened in confined spaces such as towns and famously, La Haye Sainte. Usually, one side would run. I think football violence is probably the closest we come to this kind of thing these days. Generally there's little actual serious injury. One side or another generally runs. Another interesting point of Keegan's is that in a previous Medeival age, chivalry and one on one combat was the norm. This remained amongst Napoleonic cavalry but not with the infantry, although exceptions did occur.

    Keegan takes a very psychological look at Agincourt, Waterloo and The Somme. It's very thought provoking reading.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •