Would bayonets really be accurate historically?

[Ecthelion]

I've always just assumed, yes, of course, bayonets are universal to this period, so why not in Japan?

Then I started noticing a lot of period art shows infantry dressed with modern uniforms using katanas and not bayonets. And on the rifles themselves, again, no bayonets.

Then I got to thinking, who actually fought the Boshin War? Were they really just peasant armies?

I think not. The Boshin War started suddenly, after a long period of peace. Japan, was not prepared, its population not mobilized. I would venture the given the speed of conflict and the small sizes of the forces involved, that the majority of combatants were actually low ranking samurai, professional soldiers.

This would explain the preferrence of katana over bayonet. The bayonet was nothing but a shorter yari, a commoner weapon. Samurai used it often too in the Sengoku period out of practical necessity, but during the long Tokugawa peace, the cult of the katana came to permeate the samurai mindset. For the Boshin War samurai, the sword was the very symbol of their class, replacing the yumi and the horse.

From a practical standpoint, the katana is much more effective against infantry. And Japanese cavalry of that period were not significant on the battlefield to require spear formations.

[BullGod]

I see bayonets almost everywhere

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your arguments make sense, but I think that swords were rather secondary weapons in modern, rifle armed troops. When in battle, it would mean that soldier should drop his gun and reach for a sword, because I don't believe they would just hang them on their backs, like game suggests.

[Ecthelion]

With the exception of the first picture, the rest appear to be Western sketches...

I'm at work now so can't do too much google image search. But have a look at Japanese style battle panoramas in color, like the one depicting the Battle of Ueno that shows the "bear" units engaging Shogitai with swords.

[BullGod]

Yes, some of those pictures were made by westerners.
This was made by Jules Brunet, who was training those men:

But you're probably right and most samurai prefered katana over bayonet in close combat. As for peasants trained to soldier by foreign experts - they probably used bayonets,as they hardly knew how to fight with anything else, but how many of them there were? I'm curious myself.

[american samurai]

On a side note, here are some images of a very rare weapon, it is a bayonet mounted in a wakizashi koshirae. The blade even though it looks sharp actually has no sharpened edges at all, the point is dull as well. I believe that this was used as a samurai police type weapon due to its being purposely made to be non-lethal, although it would easily break bones and will not bend due to the triangular shape. Anyone seeing some one wearing it would have assumed that it was a real sword. I have done some searching and bayonets were available for use in Japan from around the mid 1800s.

[rekishiotaku]

According to Ritta Nakanishi in his book Japanese Military Uniforms 1841~1929, little is known of Japanese military uniforms before 1869, and the uniforms, arms, and military systems and organization of groups changed rapidly.
He shows the vast majority of armies both Shogunate and Imperial with a bayonet. However they all also seem to carry a sword as well, and as for me, I'd rather just grab my sword rather than try to attach my bayonet in the heat of battle.

I will also say that in most of the ukiyo-e the armies seem to be using swords in melee. This could however just be romantic symbolism as Bulldog has shown, the Western renditions show the armies with their bayonets attached. And it should be noted that while many of the samurai class within the armies would have traditionally been trained with a sword, the armies both peasant and samurai alike were trained in the Western style of warfare, which includes the use of a bayonet.

So in short, I personally believe both the use of a sword and bayonet are equally accurate and both would have been used at the time.

[BullGod]

I'd rather just grab my sword rather than try to attach my bayonet in the heat of battle.

According to Infantry tactics doctrine of that era, decision of attaching bayonet wouldn't be yours to make. In modern battalions of that time all manouvers were supposed to be conducted in precise and strictly regulated manner, with whole battalion acting as one organism. Soldiers were tought to stay in formation and wait for orders even if they were shot at. Bayonets were attached on command, in anticipation of incoming enemy charge, or before charging the enemy. Futhermore the whole idea was that bayonett attack would be executed by a wall of men, pushing enemies aside by sheer mass and momentum of the attack. It wasn't designed for one on one duels, like katana, or any kind of sword, that reqires room to manouver. Sword was mostly cavalry weapon by that time. Of course I understand that some units, like "Red Bears" for example, might have prefer to fight not according to those rules, but that wasn't the way regular infantry battalions were tought to fight by foreign advisors. The question is how many of those were taking part in battles during Boshin War.

[american samurai]

Japanese 1862 socket bayonet.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...qTBqrnZQ&pli=1

[rekishiotaku]

I wonder when that bayonet was put into service by the Japanese. Being stamped with the Imperial chrysanthemum, which I don't believe happened until after the establishment of the Japanese imperial army. I could be wrong though. It is also possible that the bayonet was in use in the early 1860s and then latter stamped around 1870.

[american samurai]

I wonder when that bayonet was put into service by the Japanese. Being stamped with the Imperial chrysanthemum, which I don't believe happened until after the establishment of the Japanese imperial army. I could be wrong though. It is also possible that the bayonet was in use in the early 1860s and then latter stamped around 1870.

You are assuming that the Imperial chrysanthemum was never used during the 1860s but swordsmiths were adding it to the nakago (tang) of swords way before the 1870s. Here is an example.


http://www.sanmei.com/contents/media...3243_PUP_E.htm

According to Wikipedia " The Shogunate is known to have placed an order for 30,000 modern Dreyse needle guns in 1866. In 1867, orders were placed for 40,000 state-of-the-art French Chassepot rifles, a part of which reached Edo by year end." These could have also been stamped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan

[american samurai]

At that particular time its possible that guns and or other items ordered by either the Shogunate or Imperial court forces could have been stamped or marked, you even had individual clans secretly upgrading their forces, who knows what the Western arms dealers would have marked on the equipment they were selling in order to get it to the eventual buyer or what the buyer may have asked for as far as markings.

[rekishiotaku]

No but before the Meiji period a swordsmith (or a school) would have to have official permission from the imperial court to put the chrysanthemum on a sword. The most famous of this being the Kiku-ichimonji under Go-Toba tennou. Where-as after the establishment of the Imperial army many weapons bore the symbol. I don't know when the Japanese started putting the imperial symbol on weapons that were imported. It seems a bit strange. I guess that perhaps soldiers fighting under the imperial banner were given permission to use the symbol on their weapons. I would like to know more about this.


Also a bit off topic, but I was just reminded of a really cool sword I saw a long time ago with a kikusui hamon. I can't find it, but it was similar to this, although its hard to see on this one.

[iqwerty]

No but before the Meiji period a swordsmith (or a school) would have to have official permission from the imperial court to put the chrysanthemum on a sword. The most famous of this being the Kiku-ichimonji under Go-Toba tennou. Where-as after the establishment of the Imperial army many weapons bore the symbol. I don't know when the Japanese started putting the imperial symbol on weapons that were imported. It seems a bit strange. I guess that perhaps soldiers fighting under the imperial banner were given permission to use the symbol on their weapons. I would like to know more about this.


Also a bit off topic, but I was just reminded of a really cool sword I saw a long time ago with a kikusui hamon. I can't find it, but it was similar to this, although its hard to see on this one.

Emperor Go-Toba's rules were made in 13th century so they were hardly obeyed during the Tokugawa Shogunate. According to wikipedia the Tokugawa Shogunate only banned use of their own Aoi symbol, but the chrysanthemum symbol ended up on civilian stuff such as sweets and Buddhist equipments. (Makes sense since the shogunate had conflicts with the Imperial court throughout the Edo period so they wouldn't bothered to check for the emperor) 16 pedal was limited to the emperor in 1869, and all the other chrysanthemum symbols (14 pedals etc.) were limited to the Imperial household in 1871. If the rule was enforced then they wouldn't have to make the rule again.

[rekishiotaku]

The 16 pedal Imperial chrysanthemum not something you could just put on anything you wanted. And the reason why weapons after the Meiji restoration have the symbol is because all weapons, and soldiers for that matter were considered to be the property of the emperor. Although granted the restrictions of the using of the imperial crest were far more strict after 1870. And I just don't think it would have been marked on a bayonet for no reason. I'm going to assume that either it was put on there by the imperial forces at or building up to the Boshin War as a symbol of their cause, or that after the establishment of the Japanese Empire those previously purchased weapons were retroactively stamped to symbolize their new ownership.

[american samurai]

The 16 pedal Imperial chrysanthemum not something you could just put on anything you wanted. And the reason why weapons after the Meiji restoration have the symbol is because all weapons, and soldiers for that matter were considered to be the property of the emperor. Although granted the restrictions of the using of the imperial crest were far more strict after 1870. And I just don't think it would have been marked on a bayonet for no reason. I'm going to assume that either it was put on there by the imperial forces at or building up to the Boshin War as a symbol of their cause, or that after the establishment of the Japanese Empire those previously purchased weapons were retroactively stamped to symbolize their new ownership.

Clans loyal to the Imperial family were ordering weapons from Western sources in the 1860's which easily explains how the Imperial chrysanthemum could turn up on a bayonet. Once an item had the Imperial chrysanthemum on it I do not know if there would have been any reservations from shogunate forces about using an item with the Imperial chrysanthemum on it. I also do not think that Western arms dealers would have had any respect for the Imperial chrysanthemum, it was a civil war and people wanted weapons, those were not normal times.

[rekishiotaku]

Clans loyal to the Imperial family were ordering weapons from Western sources in the 1860's which easily explains how the Imperial chrysanthemum could turn up on a bayonet. Once an item had the Imperial chrysanthemum on it I do not know if there would have been any reservations from shogunate forces about using an item with the Imperial chrysanthemum on it. I also do not think that Western arms dealers would have had any respect for the Imperial chrysanthemum, it was a civil war and people wanted weapons, those were not normal times.

I apologize, but I don't see your point. Are you saying that the mark was put on in Germany? Because I just don't think that is the case. Or that the mark was a selling point by Western merchants trading in Japan? Because I also don't think they were doing that either. The chrysanthemum was most likely put on in Japan. I know that all or most arms used by the Imperial army were given the symbol after 1870, but my question was if that bayonet was used before the Boshin War would it have still been stamped (not was was this bayonet or ones like it used prior to a certain date) or was it stamped after 1870 as the weapon was nationalized and the clan armies abolished, since its possible that arms used by the old clans both Imperial and Shogunate were not simply discarded. But if it was stamped in the 1860s, how early were modern Western weapons given the Imperial seal?

[american samurai]

I apologize, but I don't see your point. Are you saying that the mark was put on in Germany? Because I just don't think that is the case. Or that the mark was a selling point by Western merchants trading in Japan? Because I also don't think they were doing that either. The chrysanthemum was most likely put on in Japan. I know that all or most arms used by the Imperial army were given the symbol after 1870, but my question was if that bayonet was used before the Boshin War would it have still been stamped (not was was this bayonet or ones like it used prior to a certain date) or was it stamped after 1870 as the weapon was nationalized and the clan armies abolished, since its possible that arms used by the old clans both Imperial and Shogunate were not simply discarded. But if it was stamped in the 1860s, how early were modern Western weapons given the Imperial seal?

On individual traditionally made swords (nihonto) the chrysanthemum was carved but on an order of hundreds or thousands of mass produced swords this would not be the case. I have never seen any information on this particular subject but it is interesting. The time period was a transitional one were old ways were being rapidly replaced by new modern methods. While I have no proof it seems to me just a likely that a sword manufacturer in Europe would have stamped the entire order before shipment, otherwise someone on the other end would have had to do it. How early were imported weapons marked with a stamp and were was this done, and by who.....very interesting...at least to me, this time period is seriously lacking adequate research.

[rekishiotaku]

While it is possible that it was stamped in Europe, lets do some low level deducing. After 1870 the Imperial Japanese army stamped arms with the Imperial chrysanthemum as they were considered the property of the emperor. So that means that Japan had the means to stamp the symbol, after at least 1870. Now arms used during the Boshin War that were handed over from the individual clans and Shogunate army would be retroactively stamped correct? Well, they probably weren't simply discarded, or except from the marking. Which means Japan had the means to and did stamp previously used weapons. Therefore it seems increasing possible if not plausible that it was stamped after entering Japan.
Would the Japanese have requested the Imperial chrysanthemum stamped in Europe before purchase? Possible but not very likely. I do not think that Europeans would have been keen on stamping weapons with foreign symbols. Especially when there would have been no real reason for the Japanese to special request it prior to the nationalization of the army. If you look at arms in other country they often carry a few stamps, the marker or proofer in the country it was manufactured in, and then they often receive another stamp after entering the country that purchased it, whether that be another stamp certifying its standards or specification in the country it now or then rests in. Moreover, would the Imperial court give license to stamp the symbol to foreign powers? Probably not. And again, you have to think of the motivation of clans to request this to the German manufactures, would there have been any? And would they have trusted the Westerns to get the symbol right? And would the Germans have made the dye?

I think when you consider everything, it points to the stamp being placed after its arrival in Japan, and in my opinion probably put on after the nationalization of the army, although it probably saw service before then.

[Swerg]

Cost is also a factor which warrants consideration. A sword, even a mass produced one, is quite expensive. It also requires extensive training to use properly. If you had your average military recruit a sword, he's going to have no idea how to use it and will probably wind up stabbing himself in the eye or something. (That's hyperbole, by the way.)

A bayonet is a much simpler weapon in terms of cost and training techniques. You stamp 20 of them out of a sheet of metal, teach your men which bit is the pointy end and tell them to stick it in the enemy.

In an era of rapidly increasing army sizes, that sort of thing is very important.

[DannyTh3Man]

Jukendo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%ABkend%C5%8D