aaaaand we’re calling this race a victory for the republican challenger. now that’s real terror. cuz they’re really killing us by encouraging our addiction to fossil fuels as if the climate crisis isn’t happening right now.
It was Metternich, he was talking about how one could repress revolutionaries successfully but that means one can never take a break in that act, you can't sit on the bayonet.
The psychological argument makes sense. It's easier to disregard a musket ball that you'll never see but the man charging at you with a blade on a pole is very, very evident.
The lack of bayonet wounds in field hospitals is indeed for the reason you stated 'the weaker side fled' but there's also another reason.. There were typically no survivors to treat.
I don’t think there were field hospitals back then. Officers could hope for medical assistance (if they had servants and money at hand), but lower ranks were unlikely to receive any treatment
@@chelyukha Field hospitals absolutely did exist, the sources on that point are overwhelming, armies have always had some sort of hospital. However before the rise of modern medicine in the mid 19th century they just weren't particularly effective due to the risk of infection. There were only a few types of operations they could carry out that were actually effective such as amputations and occasionally cleaning wounds and extracting bullets.
Bayonet wounds weren't necessarily any more deadly than any other melee weapon, a hit anywhere other than the chest or head had pretty good chances of survival.
Modern armies use bayonets to increase the moral of their troops because in training they have been prepared to stab the enemy in close combat if needed, so staying at a distance and shooting becomes less terrifying by comparison.
For example - one of most respected Russian military commanders, general-fieldmarshal Suvorov teach his officers and soldiers to rely mostly on bayonets charges, his famous qoute -“a bullet is a fool, a bayonet is a good fellow”.
@@joecanteen7428 What point? You have no data and no logic. Even in video its best tactic of the time period, russians use it, but "hurrrdurr this is why lossess" Which lossess, snowflake? Suvorov lossess, who defeat french armies on several ocasssions with much lesser lossess, or later French invasion, where in general russian = french lossess (untill retreat where french army crumble)? You have no point, only wishful racist stereotypes.
It’s very interesting that something which was common in human warfare for 1000s of years, close range melee fighting almost completely ceased to happen when not necessary anymore. It shows you need a lot of drill and force to get humans to do something which is very much against basic survival instinct
To be fair it probably has more to do with the fact that: If you were being bayonet charged it was because the enemy officer had deemed that you had been shot and artilleried enough to be on the brink of collapse. The charge was the method to make you rout.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 One of the old website have a lot of document collection from officer during linear warfare era, Why line infantry is inefficient even in 100 yard range officer note that a lot of soldier are not shoot to kill.
I love that you mentioned the moment the "rubber meets the road" of these formations; a charge by the attackers, like a thrown punch, a volley from the defenders, like a block or jab, and then counter-charge when they falter, like a riposte. Such battles between entire formations were much more complex than we typically see depicted; though the tactics were at a larger scale, they were no less present than in the modern era. I also like that you cited sources that identified the slaughter of battle as being when one side breaks. It always amazes me to hear of accounts between formations where total casualties don't even reach triple-digits until one made to flee, then the numbers ballooned into the thousands.
I love those last bits of footage in the video. You really start to see how much of a last resort the Bayonet has become simply from its size. Its incredible to see long rifles with basically mini swords attached to them, to carbines with knives attached to them in a span of about 100 years. In some countries, an even shorter amount of time.
Fun fact, in Iraq, the bayonet found some use as a policing tool, as civillians were not particularly afraid of American troops pointing weapons at them to dissuade them from approaching, but putting a bayonet on the end of their rifle was much more effective at keeping civillians at a distance.
That sounds a bit backwards, usually pointing a gun at someone is such an insane level of escalation that it's a terrible idea when policing and bayonets provide a helpful middle ground where you aren't literally threatening to kill someone. I'm guessing that it's not that civilians weren't scared at having a gun pointed towards them but that they had become so used to it happening (because the US army in Iraq would just randomly threaten people all the time for no reason) that they had called the bluff and knew that the soldiers weren't actually gonna fire. As stated the bayonet actually carried a credible threat since you can use it to just poke someone without murdering or maiming them.
It is often said how terrifying and brutal bayonet fighting was, yet the same thing is not applied to medieval melee anywhere near as much. I think the biggest reason is the complete lack of armor soldiers of the gun era had. Even a padded jack and some chainmail would at least provide some reassurance. When you're just wearing clothes... yeah, a bayonet fight sounds awful.
Dude its not about armor or smt like this but the shape of tringular bayonette - a wound from this thing couldnt be treated and most soldiers were dying, thats the reason it was so fearfull and soldiers run from them. In medieval fight you could tread your sword or spear injury and live to fight another day.
@@adamek1503 The wound of a triangular bayonette being uniquely untreatable is a myth. Further if you had armor you would still have more protection from such a wound, and therefore still would be a factor to consider.
@adamek1503 Most medieval weapons would leave wounds much worse than a bayonet. The pike part of a halberd was triangular, so the same as a bayonet. A spearhead was probably larger then a bayonet, so the wound was most likely worse then bayonet. Warpick triangular and larger, a warhammer would leave you with a massive open wound that is impossible to stich as it's a giant gaping hole of thorn flesh.
I've heard of the medieval battles akin to a forest of razor blades so armour made sense then. But both the bayonett and the musket could just punch through the mail and leather armour, so it just became an incumbersom weight as infantry walked toward the enemy line to try to break it. As Major Sharpe said, the point of a battle is to see who's infantry line can get to the others first. The enemy line fled because they know the battle is lost if they ever get to bayonet range.
@@ToudaHell As far as I am aware, armor was dropped because it was too ineffectual against musket fire to justify its cost. However I see no reason that armor wouldn't have helped in the bayonet charge. Even mail would decrease the effectiveness of the bayonet, but I am pretty sure mail was phased out for plate based armors by this time anyway.
Take a look back through any point in history and you'll find that the one defining trait of the "elite infantry" of their day is their greater willingness to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat. Melee weapons are just the first and final form of achieving that.
Not even remotely, usually they would clash for a couple minutes, sometimes for a few, and then one side, usually the one getting charged would break, but bayonet fighting was very common, running before fighting wasn't unless you were already losing the battle severely, where there is occasions of both infantry or cavalry refusing to take orders as they saw the battle lost. The rise of marksman actually was the real reason bayonet charges became relatively less common, and so to became bayonet combat, but as seen in the Carlist Wars, the Carlist commonly low on ammunition employed them to devastating use. Infantry would even commonly stand against cavalry charges, and usually they were entirely routed upon being hit, not because they started to run, but because they were overthrown by the charge, and then they started to run in the chaos, many to be cut down on the spot and the rest pursued.
A former British soldier who I used to work with once told me that if you ever hear the command to fix your bayonet, you know things are about to get a bit nasty. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000’s
I told my drill sergeants during bayonet training when I was in Army basic training in the late 1960s that I really wasn't too keen on having to fight other soldiers with a bayonet, that shooting them at a distance was more my style.
I remember hearing a story about how a British observer of the American Civil War was horrified that when one side would bayonet charge, the other would often either hold rank or counter charge into them, instead of just using it as a mostly psychological weapon
The American Civil War was really kind of hard to compare with contemporary european warfare. Armies were both way more shy about the bayonett (which in turn led to equally horrifying bloodbaths as formations would just stand in line and shoot each others to pieces in extended gunfights, when a bajonett charge could have decided the whole issue a lot faster and with *less* death toll on both sides), and then in turn would sometimes be suicidally stubborn when it did come to a bayonett action. The main culprit of this is that leadership on both sides was just very limited - ACW armies were led by mostly green amateur officers with little formal training or education (with the comparatively few pre-war professional officers mostly kicked upwards to high-level positions as the Union and Confederate armies ballooned in size), while the larger, standing european armies had vast reserve systems in place to ensure that they had well-trained officers all the way down.
@magni5648 well yeah. The civil war split our officer corps almost down the middle. We lost a lot of officers to the south, and didn't have the time to replace them with experienced commanders, so instead we filled roles with rich kids. Like Robert Shaw.
@@danvondrasekIt's not just the split, it's that the pre-war US Army was just *tiny* before both sides started splitting. There just wasn't nearly enough fully-trained officers for armies the size either side mobilised, and no way in hell was the existing academy system going to be able to provide such a number.
@@magni5648 .. about being shy of using the bayonet charge and just staying in line and fire at each other, remember that it's the time of RIFLED muskets. Which were deadly accurate at at least 200 yards. So yes, a bayonet charge would have decided the whole issue a lot faster. The charging side would be wiped out or badly crippled even before reaching the enemy line. Picket charge was the textbook example of this outcome. Or the battle of Fredericksburg. It was deemed more effective to shoot at each other until one side reach the breaking point and flee.
@@CipiRipi-in7dfRifled muskets didn't push out engagement ranges as much as you'd think. Between rather low marksmanship standards amongst most line infantry and blackpowder fumes quickly reducing sight lines, line infantry engagements in the era of the Civil War tended to take place at ranges quite similar to those of napoleonic times. Pickett's Charge was a case of a nigh perfect situation to make a bajonett charge falter. Long distance, up an incline, multiple obstacles, insufficient artillery preparation etc. on top of the shortcomings of the Civil War armies. (And much the same goes for Fredericksburg.) And yet Pickett's Charge still came pretty damn close anyway. To put this quite simply: If you replaced Longstreets three divisions with prussian regulars, the Union line would have been broken through, just from better coordination, low-level leadership and drill. Or if you want an ur-example of this whole tendency of trying to shoot it out instead of going for a quick and less bloody bajonett action, look no farther than the Sunken Road at Antietam. The Union troops at several points decided to keep trading fire with the Confederates in the road at ranges under 100 yards instead of pressing in, and the result was an indecisive mutual slaughter.
The last known bayonette charge by a modern army was by British soldiers at the Battle of Danny Boy in the second Iraq war. It was apparently a very, very, very messy affair.
Another (relatively) recent example, would be the British paratroopers in the Falklands war. The Argentinian body armour was too thick to penetrate, so the Paras had to bayonet the Argentinians in the face. Also a very messy affair.
It honestly surprises me how it took so long for the ring bayonet to be invented. Contless conflicts during pike and shot but nobody thought of simply attaching a spear to a gun. Similarly also cavalry stirrups.
Stirrups weren't necessary for a long time. there was the 'celtic saddle', a series of wooden fastenings that held you in the saddle via your thighs. Originally, stirrups advented in china as a riding aid for the elderly.
If I remember correctly, the issue is that the ring bayonet has complications with production. The actual blade of the bayonet needs to be connected to the barrel by a thin piece of metal, which may be hard to properly produce so that it doesn't break under wear and tear. If it's hard to produce then it's expensive to produce, and as thus would not be kitted out to all soldiers when there's an alternative in the pike. EDIT: Do further research, however.
@@stephenkenney8290 Reminds me of the production of Lawrence of Arabia. Peter O'Toole had a rough time adjusting to riding his saddle atop the camels, and his discomfort led him to take a piece of neoprene and stick it on his saddle. The Arab extras saw this and started sticking similar cushions on their own saddles (supposedly cutting up anything on the set that could be used as such). O'Toole then was dubbed with an Arabic nickname that translated to "The Father of the Sponge."
I think a great topic for another video would be "How the Grenadiers (haven't) lost their grenades", basically a history about the use of grenades in warfare from the 1500s to the Cold War.
I heard from a video on "forgotten weapons" that bayonets are still useful to have, when guarding prisoners, because it will make them less inclined to try to take the weapon away from the guards
chances are you are watching a video that no one proof checked or fact checked to find out if it was real. Instead of find out you believe him? Bayonets are still useful, period...no need to explain, if you don't get it, you should probably stay in school
Bayonets remain a useful weapon even in the 21st century. While obviously horses are not usually a factor, and Mass wave charges are no longer usually viable, having a melee weapon with range beyond a simple knife is still very useful. A great example is the US Marines in 2005, during the urban fighting in Fallujah. Having a blade on your gun when entering compact areas can be very useful.
Bayonets are also useful for policing since they provide a middle ground between pointing a loaded gun at someone and just making a general threatening gesture. The only threatening gesture you can make with a gun is to point it at someone and that's basically threatening to kill them which is usually an unnecessary level of escalation and counterproductive since in policing operations you want to de-escalate tensions. A bayonet gives you a clear middle point where you can just sorta wave it in the direction of someone to tell them to leave. It's a lot more similar to a police baton in the level of implied violence and you can even use a bayonet while doing minimum damage by just sorta poking someone without putting much force into it. Also knives in general are just a useful tool to have so why not also stick it on your gun.
Worth noting, the introduction of the flintlock musket itself helped make the universal use of the bayonet possible. Before the flintlock, muskets were either matchlocks (with its obvious disadvantages to using it as a bayonet platform), or wheellocks (expensive, and sometimes fragile). The hardy, relatively inexpensive flintlock was both tough enough to be used as a close combat weapon, and accessible enough for it to become “easy” to give everyone a firearm.
@@KaizerKlash111Matchlocks rely on a slow match (basically a small length of rope that's been infused with flammable substances-most commonly potassium nitrate, known as saltpetre) to ignite the powder in the pan. You would light the match before entering combat, and it would (hopefully) stay lit for the duration of fighting. It would be quite dangerous to try and perform the classic techniques seen in bayonet fighting, or using it as a pike to repel cavalry. Other than the unreliable nature of the match itself, matchlocks were fairly hardy weapons, with little to go wrong.
The image you used to represent a bayonet charge during WW2 is actually a painting representing the last battalion-sized bayonet charge by the 65th Infantry "The Borinqueneers" a Puertorrican Regiment of the U.S. Army during the Korean War. Honor et Fidelitas
Weird how a simple piece of metal seems to have been responsible for the radical changes in warfare and army composition, but by making an unit of musketeers self reliant in melee, most of the uses of renaissance infantry could just be absorbed by them, like the square formation of musketeers protected against all but the heaviest charges
In the Bundeswehr they taught us anti-assault shooting. If you run the risk of being overrun by the enemy in close combat, you should have a full magazine in your rifle and the folding spade open and ready to hand. Funny time.
Horses are fairly intelligent animals that have a well developed instinct for self-preservation. In my experience, they will not run into a barrier of spikey objects (thorns, barbed wire fences, pointy-looking fence posts, etc.) unless they can't avoid them for some reason. Many horses are risk averse and won't even attempt to jump over such barriers even if they're typically capable of clearing similar sized barriers that lack points and barbs. When faced with barriers like this, horses will simply refuse to move forward, and if pressed to do so, they will sometimes try to throw their riders.
not a single horse on this planet that are trained like the old war horses of Europe. I get that you think this, but theres dozens of accounts of them doing just that. Again. These horses are heavily trained.
Actually that's why they were replaced by tanks. Humans are arguably less smart and definitely have much worse sense of self-presevation, especially those with military training. Now, seriously, training horses for war seems to be an art. You can't ride just any horse in a cavalry charge but you may be able to ride a well trained cavalry horse (or even mules, which apparently medieval bishops favored as mounts for symbolic reasons). Said that most cavalry charges were just feints, they had to stop, pull back regroup, try again at some weaker point, etc.
They say that with modern weapons the chances of actually needing your bayonet are very very slim. But if you do need your bayonet, you REALLY fucking need it.
My personal belief is that the Bayonette (and flintlock) is the most important invention in political science. This is because it fundamentally changes how armies are recruited and who is suitable as a soldier. In the period before linear warfare, pike and shot, it was complex and difficult to be a soldier. The pike square with supporting fire was a complex and difficult organization to run. The regular soldier was a professional, often called mercenary, who worked for whoever needed soldiers. It required an exising company with novice and experienced soldiers. It took about 10 years of campaigning to become truly experience and all those 10 years needed to be with the same company. This means that soldiers were a class within society. This is why Maximilian makes them all nobles. It was also a class of limited size. To become a soldier meant competing for a position as a trainee among the various companies and rulers competed for the ability hire these companies at war and often had strong relations e.g. the valvois and the swiss and the hapsburgs and the swabians . Whent the bayonette and linear warfare is introduced it fundamentally changs the economics of making an army. You no longer need 10 year veterans. It is of course good to have them but you don't need them. You can grab a peasant from a field beat him into submission and teach him basic drill in about a month and voila you have an army. Guns were relatively cheap as was powder and shot. At this point armies are no longer making their own, since that is a skill, they are being issued with ammunition and uniforms and boots and everything. This moves power from the lower nobility which made up soldiers during the later pike and shot into the hands of the upper nobility which could organize large groups of peasants into large armies. This is the fundamental basis for absolutism, royal or parliamentarian. This fundamental change changed the politics of states and the ability of states to wage war. States that reformed early prospered, like sweden, and states that didn't reform at all disappeared, like poland. This is the core fact that defines the long 18th century and why it was different from the 17th before it in such a significant way. I give you the humble bayonette.
I think you got it backwards. Pikemen were in fact extremely cheap and easy to train up to an acceptable standard. The change from mercenaries to conscript and professional standing armies has more to do with changing socio-economics than equipment changes. States got wealthier and more centralised, and hence able to wield the money and manpower that standing armies of conscripts and volunteer professionals require.
@@magni5648 but the musketment zweihander doppeltsoldner etc etc and the entire system of coordination and experience was expensive. Recruties started as pikemen. This is one of the reasons why pike and shot era armies were often 2/3 cavalry.
@@gudmundursteinarNot really, especially as it was rapidly simplified down to just pikes and muskets, as well as changing gradually from pike squares to linear tactics. Lest we forget, the switch from mercenaries to professional and conscript-based armies PREDATES the abandonement of the pike in favour of the bajonett. The bajonett didn't simplify training by much at all, it just increased equipment standardisation and firepower further for the already prevalent linear formations at the time.
@@magni5648 It was 'simplified' from swords, pikes and muskets to just pikes and muskets... however a late pike and shot era block had at least 9 separate functional units doing different things at the same time all of which were mutually supporting. This was much much much more complex and much much much more difficult to organize than a simple triple line of men with bayonettes and flintlocks. Mercenaries were professionals, that's the point. Linear warfare removed much of the need for professional and experienced soldiers in favor of a few experienced officers with large blocks of often green men.
@@gudmundursteinarAnd yet training for the soldiers remained extremely simple and quick. It's OFFICERS where you needed sophisticated training to make that work. And yes, linear tactics further simplified things and were good for green leadership, too. And also PREDATE THE BAJONETT. So again, you got it backwards: It was political and socio-economic change that drove the change in battlefield tactics and technology in this case, not the other way around.
The Carolinians had started before this issuing all gunners with swords and employed the charge shock tactic as their primary method of war, typically firing only 1-3 times in total before charging. It was more inconvenient and they still retained pikes without bayonets but still, that is the general offensive bayonet tactics predated the bayonet.
Fun fact : the last "official" bayonnette charge in french military history occured around the mid 90's, during the Yugoslavia's war. It was conducted by an French officer named Lecointre. Lecointre continued his military career to the point, if I am not outdated, where he became Général en chef des armées de France, under Emmanuel Macron. This story is still remembered, and many of my relatives and friends who were or are in the french army know it. Other fun fact : Lecointre took the place, as Général en chef, of Pierre de Villiers, when de Villiers retired (and after quite a hard argument with Emmanuel Macron). Pierre de Villiers is the brother of Philippe de Villiers, who is the creator of the Puy du Fou park. ;)
Actually the most recent bayonet charge was in October 2011 when the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment led a bayonet charge against Taliban fighter in the Helmond Province, Afghanistan. Before that in May 2004, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlander bayonet charged a force of 100 insurgent near Al Amara, Iraq which killed 28 insurgents in a 5 hour fierce hand to hand combat sustaining only 3 British wounded.
It's messed up to think that until around the Vietnam War, we as humans have been fighting with what are essentially spears. A rifle with a bayonet is just a spear that shoots, until it doesn't
somehow it`s weirdly fascinating, when thinking about line formations and warfare, the image of being shot while in rank seems less terrifying than closing with the enemy and having that foot long shank being rammed into your stomach.
Bayonette was extremely useful not just in WWI but also in WWII. The Greeks casually attacked with bayonet-mounted rifles the Italian positions in the Greek-Italian War (part of WWII) in 1940-41. They would do the same against the Germans trying to invade the Fortresses (a thick line of defense in the Greek Bulgarian border) in 1941. Bayonets were used as peer my knowledge up to the Vietnam war but as some US veterans here claim, they were using them in the Afganistan War when clearing encampments. And it makes total sense.
M1 Carbines also had bayonets too for US forces, The M4 adopter was put into use in 1945 but there were instances where paratroopers in Europe used them when it was first adopted in 1942.
Really? I find the use of bayonet charges in that game almost exclusively results is a bloody slugfest leaving both units half strength or less and take up to two minutes to resolve...
@CataciousAmogusevic the vast majority of real bayonet charges involved little to no contact between the engaged units, in ntw they almost exclusive clash physically, and it generally takes over 30 seconds for one to break.
The bayonet was also a key weapon in the American Revolution. In an interesting twist of fate, the Americans turned the bayonet which they used to fear on the British after they were trained and disciplined by Baron von Steuben. The Americans won several battles such as Stony Point in New York in 1779, and during the capture of Redoubt 10 during the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 with the bayonet
There were also psychological factors in determining whether a bayonet fight would take place. One bit of open ground was as good as another, so there was little incentive for a unit charged with the bayonet to stay put and make a Braveheart-style fight (boy does that movie have a lot to answer for). In built-up areas, however, as much as the possibility of two sides coming together unexpectedly, was the desirability of the holding the location. In the case of a contested village or earthwork, for example, the attackers had somethng to gain by driving the attack home, and the defenders had a somethng to keep that was worth staying put and fighting for, much more so than an empty stetch of field, so the result was often a close quarter fight that would have been very unlikely to happen in the open. More than one Napoleonic general commanted that he had never seen two sides crossing bayonets in open ground. No doubt he would be amused to see how often in happens in movies in television today...
It's probably also that if you get into bayonet range with someone accidentally you can't flee anymore and your best chance is to fight but if they charge you on an open field you still got plenty of time to flee. From the point of the individual making the calculation fleeing is obviously the best idea in an open field if it looks like the other side will charge home, however when making that calculation they of course aren't thinking about the greater battlefield and how fleeing impacts their entire force. Also another thing that generally holds true is that if you're the first to flee your chances of survival are always the best, so if a soldier thinks his unit might flee his own incentive to flee becomes much higher.
I think it was the battle of Fallujah.. Marine rifle company was running low on ammo in a intense engagement. The company commander ordered “fix bayonets!!”.. the opposition saw this.. thought about it.. and then decided to disengage and pull back.. they wanted no part of it. Lol
If only it had actually happened, since the chances of an insurgent refusing the chance to drop 30 guys in seconds are slim to none. There's a similar myth surrounding Lewis Millet supposedly winning charges, while the reality is he was a senile old boomer who got his guys killed. Look at the Ukraine war and closerange trench warfare: Nobody's using bayonets. And there's footage out there of guys shooting eachother with barrels touching chests,
@@nvelsen1975Fixed Bayonets, not so much. But Shovels, knives, and bayonets held on the hand, oh yes. Absolutely there's a LOT of that going on. Mostly because fixed bayonets are nearly unusable in a narrow and confined trench.
@Mygg_Jeager that's a gimmick, even though Shovels, trench knives, trench maces were used to bludgeon the enemy, you can still see some stabbing with bayonets in the trenches in world War 1.
the swedish caroleans were an interesting step in between the pike and shot combination and the bayonet musketeers as they used pikes to defend against cavalry but used rapiers as the melee weapon when they charged.
The Swedish caroleans were a hybrid formation of pike and muskets, the pikemen were at the front of formation during melee combat. They used both weapons against cav and inf.
@@Dudefrom8Carson - They still don't use them almost ever. They are much more likely to shoot at point blank these days bc weapons are automatic, there's no need to use pointy sticks when you can shoot many bullets in that same precious time.
What a wonderful topic! I've been struggling to nail down exactly when Bayonets started overtaking Pikes--Early 18th Century is at least another step closer
pikes were much better up until they figured out they didn't need to plug the muzzle with the bayonet, they could attach it to the outside! It seems like basic info, if I plug the muzzle I can't fire or reload my weapons. But it took a genius to figure out how to have a bayonet and be able to fire still
Bayonet use in Europe: "Just a prank bro. Got you running! Hahaha!" Bayonet use in the Pacific: "I'mma use this as it is intended to be used. Tenno heika, Banzai!"
No it's iterally the same use, to scare your enemy into abandoning a position.
ปีที่แล้ว +3
For me, it would be interesting to know more about how the combat formations inherited from the 30 Years' War were adapted in Europe, after the incipient adoption of bayonets by all the powers of the time, which would be between the 1670's. until the year 1703 (which is when the pikes were completely abandoned); I know of interesting cases such as that of the French in their military ordinances in 1680, when it was indicated that there should be three groups of pikes (the largest in the middle and two smaller ones close to the flanks) along the rectangular formation of each Battalion (approximately 700 men), while the rest were musketeers and grenadiers (practically 80%), so that when making defensive squares against cavalry, they could have time to cover the muskets, who would support them with the bayonet attached ( gaining the density that the pikes could no longer offer due to their small number). The case of the Spanish at that same time in 1680 (where the Tercios had already been reduced to a size similar to that of battalions of approximately 400 soldiers), they simplified by having all the pikemen in the middle of each rectangular formation, while musketeers with bayonets on each flank (60% of the unit); I would like to know what it was like in the other kingdoms. Here I put a diagram of what the two cases that I know of looked like, being the pikemen (P) and the muskets (s): French (700 soldiers): sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss Spanish (400 soldiers): ssssssPPPPPssssss ssssssPPPPPssssss ssssssPPPPPssssss
bayonets today are apparantly used mostly to dissuade POW's from trying anything whilst being escorted away people might deign to try and grab a gunbarrel and wrestle a guard for the weapon but when the danger is not just getting shot but also stabbed as well as being certain of cutting yourself in the struggle for sure just isn't appealing
That is one way to interpret the lack of talk of bayonet wounds, the other is that such wounds were fatal. Rather like the incorrect assumptions some garnered from planes that came back damaged during WWII.
Or the sudden rise of soldiers reported with head wounds after the introduction of helmets into the army. Survivors bias is a hell of a thing. but yes, I can easily imagine bayonets leaving nasty, large and heavily bleeding wounds that even today would be dangerous, and likely fatal given the available medicine at the time.
@@moshonn9318 "likely fatal given the available medicine at the time" We didnt even really evacuate soldiers from the battle field until the USA Civil War. Most people who were stabbed simply bled out on the battle field with zero medical treatment whatsoever. Battalion surgeons existed but your chances of ever seeing one during a battle were basically zero.
The changes in weapons and tactics described are both ~gradual~. Lots of pikes and few muskets becoming lots of muskets and few pikes, then all muskets. PLUS the improvements in firepower. Even if firepower hadn't changed, employing 1810 tactics in 1650 would or could have had devastating effects on ~both~ sides - the lack of pikes, or the slow rate of charge versus cavalry.
Great video as always, SandRhoman. Just to let you know that in English, if someone has the title 'sir', then they are referred to by their first name. Hence Sir John Stuart would be Sir John, not Sir Stuart. On the other hand, if he were Lord John Stuart, it would be Lord Stuart. Hope this helps!
My father, born 1938, asked as young man veterans from wwl what they feared most. They told him, assaults had been fearfull, you see Like in long gone days an angry enemy charging you. But pike didn' t dissapear in early 18th century. In case of pure pallace units , pikes existed in french royal guards until 1789. In case of lowtrained and bad equipped militias / Landsturm of many small HRE states, pikes and matchlock muskets had been used long into 18th century. During , Freedom wars' many prussian Landwehr units had few muskets, so many soldiers started the war with pikes or axes , until they could capture french muskets or got ones from Russia or Brittain. Also in 1813 württembergian King created four Landregimenter/ rural regiments, only half of usual size and only armed with halfpikes. A Police and guardforce only. During US civil war, thousands of pikes had been produced in Confederate states, there are interessting Videos, but the purpose is not exactly known. And during 19th century europe, many Rebel forces or semiofficical citizens units had been armed with warscytes.
Pikes and other melee weapons kept being used by more civilian units because they're great for peacekeeping and hard to overthrow a government with. Its the same reason why riot police (generally) don't carry fire arms but instead use shields and batons, their job isn't actually to win a fight it's to intimidate and de-escalate. Like with a melee weapon it is easy to threaten someone with the pointy bit but you also can't cause mass slaughter and you can't accidentally kill someone because you loose your nerves, all things you want in a police force that's meant to not escalate the situation. Soldiers losing their nerves or accidentally firing guns have started at least a few revolutions and several revolts.
@@hedgehog3180 : I am german, Brittas boyfriend. When Napoleonic Era was over, HRE with more than 300 states no more existed, new German Federation consisted of about fourty states. So after centuries, real policeforces could be established. In larger states, there was mostly a communal Police in Towns , which had been capitals of countries, districts, provinces or whole state. Also villages or ,rural towns' sometimes had a Communal Police, when rich. In villages and small ,rural towns' there had been state payed Gendarmerie/ Landjäger, basicly soldiers doing policework In case of unrest also the Citizens Militias had been up to 1848/49 mobilized as Support force for Army and Police. This militias had been a Mix of lowtrained and bad equipped militias, target shooters societies ( Schützenverein) and tradition keeping organisations. During 1848/49 Revolution attempt, additional militia units had been formed, often only armed with warscytes. In many Museums of my homeregion, former Kingdom Württemberg, you still see this warscytes. After 1849, at least in my state, those still existing militias are only tradition Keepers in historical uniforms. They appear at traditional Events, their band is playing, they do a short march and Drill Show and fire a salvo of blanks. But in addition to this militias, town Police and rural Gendarmerie also relicts of medieval Police still have existed. At first the Communal Nightwatchmen. In württembergian capital Stuttgart they had been replaced by , Nightpolicemen' in 1862, but in Weilheim/ Teck there was a Nightwatchman up to 1931! Well, there was a change of weapons. From 1923 to 1931, last nightwatchman was armed with a pistol in .32 Acp,but before, short polearms had been common, in Museums you see mostly worn down halberds or Spears with broad Tip. Then there was the Amtsdiener/ Büttel/ towncrier. This men wore a Kind of uniform, often an old worn down Uniform of any Kind, this and their short Saber or Baton gave them some authority as auxillary policeman. In 1945 in US occupation Zone this Amtsdiener lost their Status as auxillary policemen, but in rural Germany of those days an uniformed Person still had authority. In my Village the , towncrier ' was in 1955 replaced by a Kind of weekly official newspaper, but my girlfriend Britta told me , that in her small hessian homevillage still in early 1970s a towncrier was in service, a wwll Veteran, who had lost a Leg. Then there had been Field guards, in french ,gardes champetres ', whos Task it was, to protect the farmers fields from harvest thiefs. Bavarian field guards seem to have had some firearms for a short time after wwll, but according to my father, württembergian fieldguards had only canes and dogs. In my Village, last fieldguard ended his Work in 1979.
The last bayonet charge I heard about happened during the Battle of Sarajevo where French soldiers led by their captain charged onto a bridge and pushed over Serbian soldiers, killing quite a few of them. It was almost the 21st century.
@@olivierpuyou3621 you need not have a battle for charges to happen and since it was 2 sections tops i doubt it was any major force on force action. But charges happen from time to time, even in ukraine today, tough mostly as a last resort
@@lolasdm6959 Ok, I saw Danny Boy's battle, but it's a DEFENSIVE action not a CHARGE, sorry but between a defensive action and a bayonet charge the difference is quite striking.
It's interesting to ask _"Why didn't the bayonet see widespread use earlier?"_ It's after all a fairly simple idea, recorded as early as the start of the 15th Century in Europe (and even earlier in China). The explanation, IMO, is that without firearms that can take the wind out of a charge with shot alone, turning the firearm into a poor spear (muskets with bayonets are too heavy and unwieldy to be a great melee weapon) will not help the formation survive. Muskets had to reach a level of efficiency were they could devastate cavalry pre-impact in order for the additional close-ranged power provided by the bayonet to matter.
Before bayonets became standard, soldiers equipped with firearms both in Europe & East Asia might still engage in close combat. They used swords or their pieces as bludgeons. Martín de Eguiluz's 1595 military treatises covers how arquebusiers could charge other arquebusiers with sword in hand. He recommended retaining the arquebus in the left hand to parry with while using the sword in the right hand. This approach is presumably less effective against cavalry, but a decent method for fighting hand to hand.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Not sure if this was the case in Europe. But northern Chinese soldiers used to perfer the handcannon to a musket. Because it's a mace in melee. In addition, Chinese musketeers mostly either used a retractable balde on their gun butt, a short sword, or a long sword in melee. The plug sword wasn't widely adopted amongst musketeers too. The hand cannon version was more popular, so it's a mace with a pointy end in melee.
Yes, an American company charged an entrenched Chinese unit that was at the top of a hill in early february 1951, in Korea. Fun fact: they were actually following "the example" of the French bayonet charges at the battle of Wonju, in Korea, in early January 1951 against the North Korean troops (as the French battalion of NATO run out of ammunitions and had to fend off these attacks only with their bayonets), among fierce combats. US general Ridgway was impressed and encouraged US troops to use their bayonets too, in battle as well.
@@brokenbridge6316 This probably worked because the north koreans were relying on masses of conscripts who probably werent well trained or fed, china for instance sent huge masses of "volunteers" to help the north. So morale was probably not great.
I was recently reading about the Scot Grey's heavy cavalry charge at Waterloo. One of them mentioned how the infantry's bayonets were useless against them, that they couldn't reach far enough to do any damage to the cavalry, who just cut them down. This was when the infantry wasn't in formation nor a square. It made me wonder if the bayonet was ever really conceived as an anti-cavalry weapon.
As thus this is why the bayonet is triangular, being a very strong shape and not much of a chance of bending and breaking like a straight blade might. This triangular bayonet could withstand horses or even mounted troops running into them. Also for the period the term musket was used for a military arm, what defined this is the addition of a lug for a bayonet, that made the flintlock a musket. (Edit: Also the whole impossible to stitch up thing is bogus, the reason of the shape is what I have written above this)
It is not really significant most of the time. It takes more skill and effort to stitch such wounds, but they can be stitched and most surgeons would have the skills. The bigger issue is bayonet wounds to the chest tend to kill quickly, long before a surgeon was likely able to even try, and wounds to the belly usually went horrifically septic, so it didn't matter if one's wound was stitched or not. @@Nukefandango
7:37 We were still training with bayonets when I joined the U.S. Army, if you asked me whether I'd rather have the bayonet in hand to hand combat, a knife or a branch ... I think I'd rather have the bayonet, thank you very much.
@@madkoala2130 The idea nowadays is that you can also shoot someone who is right in front of you. The M4 was a serious accuracy downgrade from the M16A2 as well, but in terms of actual operations, the reality is that the rifle is mostly used either as a defensive or close range weapon in combat. It's there either to defend the machine guns or go where the machine guns are too cumbersome. If everyone could carry a machine gun, then everyone would. I always carried my ka-bar with me anyhow.
@@centurion2275 I really don't get what is the main benefit of this kind of training. Hardening? increasing confidence? Otherwise, I don't see much point.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 There's two different cushions on the stick with different colors. One represents the bayonet, one the butt of the rifle. If the training is supervised correctly, the idea is to practice bayonet fighting. And while it's mostly just looked at as an aggression building exercise, with the bayonet aspect often ignored, the real secret is that it's just morale boosting. Soldiers get a break from often dreary training to do something fun. That said, it is annoying when you immediately stab the other guy in the face but the match gets called on wild flailing points.
When observing the american civil war, British warmakers were shocked to find that neither side really utilised the bayonet to its potential. rather thy stood in line shooting at teach other for ages, rather than unloading 2 salvos and then bayonet charging - which almost always resulted in the enemy fleeing from the bayonet charge because no one want to get bayonetted!
somehow it`s weirdly fascinating, when thinking about line formations and warfare, the image of being shot while in rank seems less terrifying than closing with the enemy and having that dirty, foot long shank being rammed into your stomach.
They were obviously wrong about that though, as the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars showed just a couple years later. Both of those wars were characterized by firepower and entrenchment, not bayonet charges.
@@mjxw They were correct for the time period that the ACW was taking place, albeit not the geography and other circumstances. The most common rifle on the Union side, the Springfield Model 1861 only fired 2-3 shots on average, which wasn't all too different from most smoothbore muskets. Its optimal range also couldn't be relied upon, because the rough terrain and forests in which several major battles took place hindered the vision of the soldiers, so in many ways, they were used like overglorified smoothbores. In contrast, the country in Europe was much more flat and open, with less forestry hindering the vision of the soldiers. The Dreyse and Chassepot rifles also fired at a rate some 3-4x faster than the Springfield. One must also take into account that smoothbores were still quite prevalent in the earlier half of the ACW, as well. The problem was not that technology in the ACW prevented bayonet charges. It was more so due to other issues, such as the terrain mentioned above. In addition, mass conscription in such a short time meant that the soldiers were largely inexperienced until later in the war. The British regulars, in comparison, were very well drilled and tended to prefer a few closer range volleys before closing in with the bayonet. Union and Confederate generals seldom issued bayonet charges because they understood the condition of their troops and the terrain they were fighting in.
@@doritofeesh unless you take into account the fact that at the time the brits really had glorified smoothbores too, the only real differrence was that the brits failed to understand anything beyond highly drilled soldiers since they never had the misfortune of facing a foe of equal size in the era. This was mentioned by you, thought i will add context if you will
@@aronmarkovits5396 Yeah, that was a rather reoccurring issue with the British military on land. They had high quality soldiers during the War of the Austrian Succession and post-Peninsular War. Though, most of their commanders tended to fight colonial wars rather than engage on the mainland. It was less so that they had the chance to face a foe of equal size. It was more so that they rarely had the chance to face a foe alone in a major conflict involving tens of thousands of men. Though, this is inherently an issue of strategic resources; Britain simply didn't have the manpower to fight in such large-scale wars without being part of some alliance or another (and this would be remedied later down the line by foreign auxiliaries, namely from India). As great as their navy was, I think that they only really produced two truly incredible field generals in military history prior to the 20th century, those being Marlborough and Wellington. As shown in the WAS, AWI, War of 1812, and the 1st Anglo-Maratha War, though... not a lot of their commanders outside these two knew how to make optimal usage of the British soldiery. In contrast, we see those like the French and Austrians having produced more capable military leaders on land, who are able to make better use of their troops, even if their quality is more average or mixed.
I think the demoralizing effect of the bayonett and the charge are largely due to the infantry having less and less if any armour at all besides their clothes available to them that made them safer when in melee.
pistols don't have the same stopping power, it's not uncommon for soldiers to keep charging with pistol wounds, but a bayonet stops them dead in their track.
At least knives and bayonets come with a handle you can hold. I can vouch for the fact that Glock at least doesn't think anyone (who's not a midget with tiny Barby hands) needs to be able to hold their officer sidearms. If they're past rifle length, you've already got bigger problems and it's probably easier to try and kick them off you rather than reaching for a sidearm.
@@nvelsen1975 I don't get what you try to say because my gloves are in XL so i don't exactely have small hands, i have been instructed on the P80 (the original Glock pistol) in our military and i have enough knives and a cavalry sabre of the 1860's at home to say: The biggest/beefiest grip of these is on the pistol. So i don't get how you think knives have bigger handles than a Glock pistol... Or are you trying to say your officers get one of the subcompact ones (the ones with the extra short grip for better concealment): 26,27,28,29,30,33,36,39,43 ?
@@nirfz I don't know which sub-type we were issued, just that my fingers can reach it around it too far, so when you clench, you push against your own grip. Cramps up pretty fast too. XL latex gloves fit me mostly, but they stretch a bit. My fingers are just very long. But there's no onsets or anything to enlarge the grip. A cop who uses the Walther P5 advised me to make something like that. He had rubber bands around his; also big hands, long fingers. So I inquired whether that existed, or I could make it. Intendance responded with a polite FU. 😆
@@nvelsen1975 😂 See we had many things we would want to modify, and as long as we were inside the base that was not allowed with a polite... as you mentioined. As soon as we were out in the field: minor "adjustments" or "tuning measures" were often made to make things work "better" for the individual. (althought the pistol grip was never an issue with us.) And then there was the "what is not visible is not a problem" rule: like extra warm underwear for extra cold termperatures, or things packed that were inside a compartment. (as long as it didn't interfere with the use of actual issued items)
Virgin 17th century gunner "let me put a dagger in my musket barrel, making it a useless gun and a mediocre spear" vs chad Streltsy "my arquebus leg is an axe".
@@ravanpee1325Nope. A column was attacked by a mob of unarmed and unruly civilians in Iraq. So instead of gunning them all down, the Brits fixed bayonets and stood firm. After a brief melee, a handful of fatalities on the Iraqis and no casualties on the British side, the mob dispersed.
One thing was not mentioned in this video about the origins of bayonet: "Pierre Borel wrote in 1655 that a kind of long-knife called a bayonette was made in Bayonne but does not give any further description." H. Blackmore, Hunting Weapons, p. 50 Citation are from wikipedia but I remember reading about this when I was younger and tried to find it after I saw it was not mentioned in the video.
I wonder why Bayonets didn't arise as soon as muskets did. They already had the idea of "stick with a pointy end", was there a reason that it took so long for the point end to go on the gun?
Early muskets were heavy and wonky. They were also not good enough to reliably discourage infantry or cavalry from charging at them. And since the formation of mixed muskets and pikemen proved reliable enough, they didn’t bother to make their guns worse by fixing knives in the front for a not so great melee weapon.
Guns were really expensive. Bayonet fighting can and has bent barrels (even on modern weapons with really high grade steel) which you really don’t want on an already very expensive piece of equipment. After the realization that it rarely came to actually stabbing anyone with the bayonet, that became less of a big deal - and as firearms became universally adopted it was no longer the specialist weapon akin to a modern $10k sniper rifle, it was just the generic issue fighting weapon and there were lots of spares.
Am I the only one who wonders how warfare in say 1715 was different to 1750 and again compared to 1800? We tend to just say ‘18th century warfare’ but that whole period was long, what changed were made from the great northern war to the seven years war for example? the uniforms, like formations and surface level appearance looks very similar, but I would like to know the tactical developments. Other than adding more light infantry and mobile artillery between seven years war and Napoleonic wars I don’t know what else really changed in 1700 to 1800 period
You can try to find manuals for soldier training of said periods, from some armies at some point in time those actually are scanned documents sometimes available online. (i found one for the austrohungarian army by chance once because i searched for something that was covered in the document, but i have no idea were as this is years ago)
What's even more interesting is how in those 100 years warfare didn't change much. In fact, it didn't change essentially since like 16-17 century. That's like 200 years. If you compare napoleonic wars to 20th century which is even less time, the difference is MASSIVE. We had so much progress in the last 200 years it's insane.
My father (1st RCR, served in Sicily, Italy and Holland) told me of a couple instances where the order "fix bayonets" was given, and the sound was enough to convince entrenched Germans to retreat.
One thing I've often wondered is how the hell did soldiers in early modern armies avoid going deaf? Imagine crouching, with both your hands holding a pike, and then someone fires a musket right next to your ear. I guess they could have worn earmuffs or stuffed cotton into their ears, but then how could they listen to commands from their officers?
I still don’t have an explanation for this, must be that the musket lines weren’t so loud but artillery definitely was and they did suffer hearing damage
@squidmanfedsfeds5301 From what I've heard, muskets were even louder than modern guns, which themselves are much louder than what they appear to be in movies. But I'll admit I'm not an expert in this area. Maybe SandRomanhistory could do a video on it?
Yeah, they did run into that issue. That's why a lot of troops rely on the sound of musket fire instead of relying on officers to give orders, which can lead to problems 'cause sometimes soldiers shoot off earlier than they should if their buddies fire out of fear instead of waiting for orders.
They didn't. Some did try and stuff cloth in their ears, but it didn't have much effect. Artillerymen were notoriously deaf. Even a modern handgun - which is quieter than old black powder rifles - is over 150 db. For reference, over 120db causes hearing damage and 70db over prolonged periods causes damage. They'd have major ringing of the ears after a battle. My mother was a doctor in the VA system and those WWII, Korean, and Vietnam combat vets all have hearing damage. Let's just say that John Wick would be pretty easy to sneak up on by the last movie.
One of the reasons for the staggering amount of casualties during the US Civil War is the fact that bayonets were rarely used or relied upon, as weapons increased their cadence of fire. Instead of dispersing upon being charged, both sides would just shoot at each other for hours on end.
Lots of courage, but very little skill and discipline in the civil war. European armies considered both sides to be completely amateurish, sending masses of men to fight without even training them to shoot for instance.
The main problem was that the same Napoleonic (or even pre-Napoleonic) tactic was used in the age of rifled musket. While a smooth bore musket is useless beyond 60 yards, rifled muskets of 1860s were accurate enough up to 200 yards. Which mean that the defenders could open fire more early, pounding the attackers with volley after volley as they approach the enemy. By the time the attacker reach the bayonet distance, they weren't left many of them. Just look at the Picket charge, at Gettysburg.
@@CipiRipi-in7df You are very stupid... The musket was effective at a distance of over 200 yards. Losses during the Civil War were the same, or even less, than in the Napoleonic Wars. Many regiments preferred the old muskets because they could fire ball and buckshot.
I'm not actually entirely sure that bayonets increased an army's shock value. I think it was more about increasing firepower without loosing too much shock value, and maybe about increasing versatility. For example, the Swedish Carolean army of the first two decades of the 1700s used bayonets, at least for their grenadiers, but due to ther incredibly high doctrinal emphasis on the charge they still retained the pike in their regular line regiments. After all, having even just a few 4 meter long pikes is going to be a decided advantage in a melee, especially if the enemy has nothing longer than a musket.
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](/img/n.gif)
Theres nothing scarier than hearing "FIX, BAYONETS" from the other side of a paintball arena
What do they tape on those, foam nerf knives?
Permanent markers
Nah. That ain't got shit on "RAMMING SPEED!" from a pilot.
PS:
Slava Ukraine
Nice display pic. :)
aaaaand we’re calling this race a victory for the republican challenger. now that’s real terror. cuz they’re really killing us by encouraging our addiction to fossil fuels as if the climate crisis isn’t happening right now.
''You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them'' - Metternich
You cant eat them, napoleon figured this out himself in russia
I think that was Metternich
It was Metternich, he was talking about how one could repress revolutionaries successfully but that means one can never take a break in that act, you can't sit on the bayonet.
@@chungkwok6131 I also remember it as a Metternich quote but when I checked it was attributed to Napoleon, still I am not 100% sure.
@@gent9358 Oh, ok then.
The psychological argument makes sense. It's easier to disregard a musket ball that you'll never see but the man charging at you with a blade on a pole is very, very evident.
would you rather have a long pointy stick or a long pointy boomstick
Your point will stick with me for long
Yes
The lack of bayonet wounds in field hospitals is indeed for the reason you stated 'the weaker side fled' but there's also another reason..
There were typically no survivors to treat.
I think a number of the studies also looked at corpse wounds
I don’t think there were field hospitals back then. Officers could hope for medical assistance (if they had servants and money at hand), but lower ranks were unlikely to receive any treatment
@@chelyukha Field hospitals absolutely did exist, the sources on that point are overwhelming, armies have always had some sort of hospital. However before the rise of modern medicine in the mid 19th century they just weren't particularly effective due to the risk of infection. There were only a few types of operations they could carry out that were actually effective such as amputations and occasionally cleaning wounds and extracting bullets.
Bayonet wounds weren't necessarily any more deadly than any other melee weapon, a hit anywhere other than the chest or head had pretty good chances of survival.
@@hedgehog3180 wounds to the stomach (penetrating wounds into the abdominal cavity), both bayonet and shot, were very often fatal
Modern armies use bayonets to increase the moral of their troops because in training they have been prepared to stab the enemy in close combat if needed, so staying at a distance and shooting becomes less terrifying by comparison.
For example - one of most respected Russian military commanders, general-fieldmarshal Suvorov teach his officers and soldiers to rely mostly on bayonets charges, his famous qoute -“a bullet is a fool, a bayonet is a good fellow”.
This is why russian always have a high causality.
@@joecanteen7428 By using most effective tactics (by the video)? This is some high-grade copium you have here.
@@Chikanuk My point still stand.
@@joecanteen7428 What point? You have no data and no logic. Even in video its best tactic of the time period, russians use it, but "hurrrdurr this is why lossess" Which lossess, snowflake? Suvorov lossess, who defeat french armies on several ocasssions with much lesser lossess, or later French invasion, where in general russian = french lossess (untill retreat where french army crumble)?
You have no point, only wishful racist stereotypes.
Isn't Suvorov considered as the best military commander in Russian history? Dude never lost a single pitched battle during his career.
It’s very interesting that something which was common in human warfare for 1000s of years, close range melee fighting almost completely ceased to happen when not necessary anymore. It shows you need a lot of drill and force to get humans to do something which is very much against basic survival instinct
To be fair it probably has more to do with the fact that:
If you were being bayonet charged it was because the enemy officer had deemed that you had been shot and artilleried enough to be on the brink of collapse. The charge was the method to make you rout.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 One of the old website have a lot of document collection from officer during linear warfare era, Why line infantry is inefficient even in 100 yard range officer note that a lot of soldier are not shoot to kill.
I love that you mentioned the moment the "rubber meets the road" of these formations; a charge by the attackers, like a thrown punch, a volley from the defenders, like a block or jab, and then counter-charge when they falter, like a riposte. Such battles between entire formations were much more complex than we typically see depicted; though the tactics were at a larger scale, they were no less present than in the modern era. I also like that you cited sources that identified the slaughter of battle as being when one side breaks. It always amazes me to hear of accounts between formations where total casualties don't even reach triple-digits until one made to flee, then the numbers ballooned into the thousands.
Short answer
Pike & shoot= half piking half shooting
Bayonet= everybody piking & shooting
I love those last bits of footage in the video. You really start to see how much of a last resort the Bayonet has become simply from its size. Its incredible to see long rifles with basically mini swords attached to them, to carbines with knives attached to them in a span of about 100 years. In some countries, an even shorter amount of time.
Fun fact, in Iraq, the bayonet found some use as a policing tool, as civillians were not particularly afraid of American troops pointing weapons at them to dissuade them from approaching, but putting a bayonet on the end of their rifle was much more effective at keeping civillians at a distance.
that’s not a very fun fact
American imperialist baby murderers, i hope those hero veterans get nightmares and ptsd while waking up in a cold Chad sweat next to Stacy
That sounds a bit backwards, usually pointing a gun at someone is such an insane level of escalation that it's a terrible idea when policing and bayonets provide a helpful middle ground where you aren't literally threatening to kill someone. I'm guessing that it's not that civilians weren't scared at having a gun pointed towards them but that they had become so used to it happening (because the US army in Iraq would just randomly threaten people all the time for no reason) that they had called the bluff and knew that the soldiers weren't actually gonna fire. As stated the bayonet actually carried a credible threat since you can use it to just poke someone without murdering or maiming them.
@@olivere5497sounds like you have some inner demons to work out. Best of luck.
@@yoinksp8972 heheh
Heh
Heheheh.
It is often said how terrifying and brutal bayonet fighting was, yet the same thing is not applied to medieval melee anywhere near as much.
I think the biggest reason is the complete lack of armor soldiers of the gun era had. Even a padded jack and some chainmail would at least provide some reassurance. When you're just wearing clothes... yeah, a bayonet fight sounds awful.
Dude its not about armor or smt like this but the shape of tringular bayonette - a wound from this thing couldnt be treated and most soldiers were dying, thats the reason it was so fearfull and soldiers run from them. In medieval fight you could tread your sword or spear injury and live to fight another day.
@@adamek1503 The wound of a triangular bayonette being uniquely untreatable is a myth. Further if you had armor you would still have more protection from such a wound, and therefore still would be a factor to consider.
@adamek1503 Most medieval weapons would leave wounds much worse than a bayonet. The pike part of a halberd was triangular, so the same as a bayonet. A spearhead was probably larger then a bayonet, so the wound was most likely worse then bayonet. Warpick triangular and larger, a warhammer would leave you with a massive open wound that is impossible to stich as it's a giant gaping hole of thorn flesh.
I've heard of the medieval battles akin to a forest of razor blades so armour made sense then. But both the bayonett and the musket could just punch through the mail and leather armour, so it just became an incumbersom weight as infantry walked toward the enemy line to try to break it. As Major Sharpe said, the point of a battle is to see who's infantry line can get to the others first. The enemy line fled because they know the battle is lost if they ever get to bayonet range.
@@ToudaHell As far as I am aware, armor was dropped because it was too ineffectual against musket fire to justify its cost. However I see no reason that armor wouldn't have helped in the bayonet charge. Even mail would decrease the effectiveness of the bayonet, but I am pretty sure mail was phased out for plate based armors by this time anyway.
Take a look back through any point in history and you'll find that the one defining trait of the "elite infantry" of their day is their greater willingness to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat.
Melee weapons are just the first and final form of achieving that.
"Using the bayonet on the enemy" usually meant one side or the other broke and ran before they got stuck with them.
Not even remotely, usually they would clash for a couple minutes, sometimes for a few, and then one side, usually the one getting charged would break, but bayonet fighting was very common, running before fighting wasn't unless you were already losing the battle severely, where there is occasions of both infantry or cavalry refusing to take orders as they saw the battle lost.
The rise of marksman actually was the real reason bayonet charges became relatively less common, and so to became bayonet combat, but as seen in the Carlist Wars, the Carlist commonly low on ammunition employed them to devastating use.
Infantry would even commonly stand against cavalry charges, and usually they were entirely routed upon being hit, not because they started to run, but because they were overthrown by the charge, and then they started to run in the chaos, many to be cut down on the spot and the rest pursued.
A former British soldier who I used to work with once told me that if you ever hear the command to fix your bayonet, you know things are about to get a bit nasty. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000’s
I told my drill sergeants during bayonet training when I was in Army basic training in the late 1960s that I really wasn't too keen on having to fight other soldiers with a bayonet, that shooting them at a distance was more my style.
I remember hearing a story about how a British observer of the American Civil War was horrified that when one side would bayonet charge, the other would often either hold rank or counter charge into them, instead of just using it as a mostly psychological weapon
The American Civil War was really kind of hard to compare with contemporary european warfare. Armies were both way more shy about the bayonett (which in turn led to equally horrifying bloodbaths as formations would just stand in line and shoot each others to pieces in extended gunfights, when a bajonett charge could have decided the whole issue a lot faster and with *less* death toll on both sides), and then in turn would sometimes be suicidally stubborn when it did come to a bayonett action.
The main culprit of this is that leadership on both sides was just very limited - ACW armies were led by mostly green amateur officers with little formal training or education (with the comparatively few pre-war professional officers mostly kicked upwards to high-level positions as the Union and Confederate armies ballooned in size), while the larger, standing european armies had vast reserve systems in place to ensure that they had well-trained officers all the way down.
@magni5648 well yeah. The civil war split our officer corps almost down the middle. We lost a lot of officers to the south, and didn't have the time to replace them with experienced commanders, so instead we filled roles with rich kids. Like Robert Shaw.
@@danvondrasekIt's not just the split, it's that the pre-war US Army was just *tiny* before both sides started splitting. There just wasn't nearly enough fully-trained officers for armies the size either side mobilised, and no way in hell was the existing academy system going to be able to provide such a number.
@@magni5648 .. about being shy of using the bayonet charge and just staying in line and fire at each other, remember that it's the time of RIFLED muskets. Which were deadly accurate at at least 200 yards. So yes, a bayonet charge would have decided the whole issue a lot faster. The charging side would be wiped out or badly crippled even before reaching the enemy line. Picket charge was the textbook example of this outcome. Or the battle of Fredericksburg.
It was deemed more effective to shoot at each other until one side reach the breaking point and flee.
@@CipiRipi-in7dfRifled muskets didn't push out engagement ranges as much as you'd think. Between rather low marksmanship standards amongst most line infantry and blackpowder fumes quickly reducing sight lines, line infantry engagements in the era of the Civil War tended to take place at ranges quite similar to those of napoleonic times.
Pickett's Charge was a case of a nigh perfect situation to make a bajonett charge falter. Long distance, up an incline, multiple obstacles, insufficient artillery preparation etc. on top of the shortcomings of the Civil War armies. (And much the same goes for Fredericksburg.) And yet Pickett's Charge still came pretty damn close anyway.
To put this quite simply: If you replaced Longstreets three divisions with prussian regulars, the Union line would have been broken through, just from better coordination, low-level leadership and drill.
Or if you want an ur-example of this whole tendency of trying to shoot it out instead of going for a quick and less bloody bajonett action, look no farther than the Sunken Road at Antietam. The Union troops at several points decided to keep trading fire with the Confederates in the road at ranges under 100 yards instead of pressing in, and the result was an indecisive mutual slaughter.
The last known bayonette charge by a modern army was by British soldiers at the Battle of Danny Boy in the second Iraq war. It was apparently a very, very, very messy affair.
Especially considering we use bullpups.... Our rifles aren't long to begin with and our handles are in the middle of the weapon.
Another (relatively) recent example, would be the British paratroopers in the Falklands war. The Argentinian body armour was too thick to penetrate, so the Paras had to bayonet the Argentinians in the face. Also a very messy affair.
It honestly surprises me how it took so long for the ring bayonet to be invented. Contless conflicts during pike and shot but nobody thought of simply attaching a spear to a gun. Similarly also cavalry stirrups.
Stirrups weren't necessary for a long time. there was the 'celtic saddle', a series of wooden fastenings that held you in the saddle via your thighs. Originally, stirrups advented in china as a riding aid for the elderly.
You would be surprised how often things like that happen. Sometimes an improvement is so simple it can go unnoticed for centuries or even millennia.
The impact of a Thrust on the weapon can be devastating for accuracy and overall function. You need good rifles, good steel etc.
If I remember correctly, the issue is that the ring bayonet has complications with production. The actual blade of the bayonet needs to be connected to the barrel by a thin piece of metal, which may be hard to properly produce so that it doesn't break under wear and tear. If it's hard to produce then it's expensive to produce, and as thus would not be kitted out to all soldiers when there's an alternative in the pike.
EDIT: Do further research, however.
@@stephenkenney8290
Reminds me of the production of Lawrence of Arabia. Peter O'Toole had a rough time adjusting to riding his saddle atop the camels, and his discomfort led him to take a piece of neoprene and stick it on his saddle. The Arab extras saw this and started sticking similar cushions on their own saddles (supposedly cutting up anything on the set that could be used as such).
O'Toole then was dubbed with an Arabic nickname that translated to "The Father of the Sponge."
I think a great topic for another video would be "How the Grenadiers (haven't) lost their grenades", basically a history about the use of grenades in warfare from the 1500s to the Cold War.
Yeah. Otherwise we'll end up thinking grenade = funny hat.
I heard from a video on "forgotten weapons" that bayonets are still useful to have, when guarding prisoners, because it will make them less inclined to try to take the weapon away from the guards
chances are you are watching a video that no one proof checked or fact checked to find out if it was real. Instead of find out you believe him? Bayonets are still useful, period...no need to explain, if you don't get it, you should probably stay in school
@@ravinraven6913 uhhh, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today...but anyways, don't worry, I am a researcher, so I am still in school
Bayonets remain a useful weapon even in the 21st century.
While obviously horses are not usually a factor, and Mass wave charges are no longer usually viable, having a melee weapon with range beyond a simple knife is still very useful.
A great example is the US Marines in 2005, during the urban fighting in Fallujah. Having a blade on your gun when entering compact areas can be very useful.
Bayonets are also useful for policing since they provide a middle ground between pointing a loaded gun at someone and just making a general threatening gesture. The only threatening gesture you can make with a gun is to point it at someone and that's basically threatening to kill them which is usually an unnecessary level of escalation and counterproductive since in policing operations you want to de-escalate tensions. A bayonet gives you a clear middle point where you can just sorta wave it in the direction of someone to tell them to leave. It's a lot more similar to a police baton in the level of implied violence and you can even use a bayonet while doing minimum damage by just sorta poking someone without putting much force into it.
Also knives in general are just a useful tool to have so why not also stick it on your gun.
The perfect mix of sling, spear and club
Worth noting, the introduction of the flintlock musket itself helped make the universal use of the bayonet possible. Before the flintlock, muskets were either matchlocks (with its obvious disadvantages to using it as a bayonet platform), or wheellocks (expensive, and sometimes fragile).
The hardy, relatively inexpensive flintlock was both tough enough to be used as a close combat weapon, and accessible enough for it to become “easy” to give everyone a firearm.
Can you explain why matchlocks are bad at being a bayonet platform ? Are they more fragile ?
@@KaizerKlash111Matchlocks rely on a slow match (basically a small length of rope that's been infused with flammable substances-most commonly potassium nitrate, known as saltpetre) to ignite the powder in the pan.
You would light the match before entering combat, and it would (hopefully) stay lit for the duration of fighting.
It would be quite dangerous to try and perform the classic techniques seen in bayonet fighting, or using it as a pike to repel cavalry.
Other than the unreliable nature of the match itself, matchlocks were fairly hardy weapons, with little to go wrong.
@@jeffreytam7684 Ok, I understand, thanks for the reply
@@KaizerKlash111 You're welcome!
7:20 This is actually depicting a scene from the Battle of Großbeeren (1813), with Saxons (left) fighting Prussians (right).
One soldier and weapon we don't here much about is the grenadier and whatever grenades they use.
The image you used to represent a bayonet charge during WW2 is actually a painting representing the last battalion-sized bayonet charge by the 65th Infantry "The Borinqueneers" a Puertorrican Regiment of the U.S. Army during the Korean War. Honor et Fidelitas
Notice that too!
Every thing I think of the Brown Bess I think of the quote from the show Turn. “Don’t think of it was a gun but as a spear that shoots”
Weird how a simple piece of metal seems to have been responsible for the radical changes in warfare and army composition, but by making an unit of musketeers self reliant in melee, most of the uses of renaissance infantry could just be absorbed by them, like the square formation of musketeers protected against all but the heaviest charges
8:36 dude is doing an insurance scam. Pretending that the cannon ran him over
Jajajaja
In the Bundeswehr they taught us anti-assault shooting. If you run the risk of being overrun by the enemy in close combat, you should have a full magazine in your rifle and the folding spade open and ready to hand. Funny time.
Horses are fairly intelligent animals that have a well developed instinct for self-preservation. In my experience, they will not run into a barrier of spikey objects (thorns, barbed wire fences, pointy-looking fence posts, etc.) unless they can't avoid them for some reason. Many horses are risk averse and won't even attempt to jump over such barriers even if they're typically capable of clearing similar sized barriers that lack points and barbs. When faced with barriers like this, horses will simply refuse to move forward, and if pressed to do so, they will sometimes try to throw their riders.
not a single horse on this planet that are trained like the old war horses of Europe.
I get that you think this, but theres dozens of accounts of them doing just that. Again. These horses are heavily trained.
Actually that's why they were replaced by tanks. Humans are arguably less smart and definitely have much worse sense of self-presevation, especially those with military training.
Now, seriously, training horses for war seems to be an art. You can't ride just any horse in a cavalry charge but you may be able to ride a well trained cavalry horse (or even mules, which apparently medieval bishops favored as mounts for symbolic reasons). Said that most cavalry charges were just feints, they had to stop, pull back regroup, try again at some weaker point, etc.
They say that with modern weapons the chances of actually needing your bayonet are very very slim. But if you do need your bayonet, you REALLY fucking need it.
Because it is from Bayonne and everything Basque is oh-soooo-coooool!
Kalitatea!
My personal belief is that the Bayonette (and flintlock) is the most important invention in political science. This is because it fundamentally changes how armies are recruited and who is suitable as a soldier. In the period before linear warfare, pike and shot, it was complex and difficult to be a soldier. The pike square with supporting fire was a complex and difficult organization to run. The regular soldier was a professional, often called mercenary, who worked for whoever needed soldiers. It required an exising company with novice and experienced soldiers. It took about 10 years of campaigning to become truly experience and all those 10 years needed to be with the same company. This means that soldiers were a class within society. This is why Maximilian makes them all nobles. It was also a class of limited size. To become a soldier meant competing for a position as a trainee among the various companies and rulers competed for the ability hire these companies at war and often had strong relations e.g. the valvois and the swiss and the hapsburgs and the swabians .
Whent the bayonette and linear warfare is introduced it fundamentally changs the economics of making an army. You no longer need 10 year veterans. It is of course good to have them but you don't need them. You can grab a peasant from a field beat him into submission and teach him basic drill in about a month and voila you have an army. Guns were relatively cheap as was powder and shot. At this point armies are no longer making their own, since that is a skill, they are being issued with ammunition and uniforms and boots and everything.
This moves power from the lower nobility which made up soldiers during the later pike and shot into the hands of the upper nobility which could organize large groups of peasants into large armies. This is the fundamental basis for absolutism, royal or parliamentarian. This fundamental change changed the politics of states and the ability of states to wage war. States that reformed early prospered, like sweden, and states that didn't reform at all disappeared, like poland. This is the core fact that defines the long 18th century and why it was different from the 17th before it in such a significant way.
I give you the humble bayonette.
I think you got it backwards. Pikemen were in fact extremely cheap and easy to train up to an acceptable standard. The change from mercenaries to conscript and professional standing armies has more to do with changing socio-economics than equipment changes. States got wealthier and more centralised, and hence able to wield the money and manpower that standing armies of conscripts and volunteer professionals require.
@@magni5648 but the musketment zweihander doppeltsoldner etc etc and the entire system of coordination and experience was expensive. Recruties started as pikemen. This is one of the reasons why pike and shot era armies were often 2/3 cavalry.
@@gudmundursteinarNot really, especially as it was rapidly simplified down to just pikes and muskets, as well as changing gradually from pike squares to linear tactics. Lest we forget, the switch from mercenaries to professional and conscript-based armies PREDATES the abandonement of the pike in favour of the bajonett.
The bajonett didn't simplify training by much at all, it just increased equipment standardisation and firepower further for the already prevalent linear formations at the time.
@@magni5648 It was 'simplified' from swords, pikes and muskets to just pikes and muskets... however a late pike and shot era block had at least 9 separate functional units doing different things at the same time all of which were mutually supporting. This was much much much more complex and much much much more difficult to organize than a simple triple line of men with bayonettes and flintlocks.
Mercenaries were professionals, that's the point. Linear warfare removed much of the need for professional and experienced soldiers in favor of a few experienced officers with large blocks of often green men.
@@gudmundursteinarAnd yet training for the soldiers remained extremely simple and quick. It's OFFICERS where you needed sophisticated training to make that work.
And yes, linear tactics further simplified things and were good for green leadership, too. And also PREDATE THE BAJONETT. So again, you got it backwards: It was political and socio-economic change that drove the change in battlefield tactics and technology in this case, not the other way around.
Finally, my favorite era!
The Carolinians had started before this issuing all gunners with swords and employed the charge shock tactic as their primary method of war, typically firing only 1-3 times in total before charging. It was more inconvenient and they still retained pikes without bayonets but still, that is the general offensive bayonet tactics predated the bayonet.
Fun fact : the last "official" bayonnette charge in french military history occured around the mid 90's, during the Yugoslavia's war. It was conducted by an French officer named Lecointre. Lecointre continued his military career to the point, if I am not outdated, where he became Général en chef des armées de France, under Emmanuel Macron. This story is still remembered, and many of my relatives and friends who were or are in the french army know it. Other fun fact : Lecointre took the place, as Général en chef, of Pierre de Villiers, when de Villiers retired (and after quite a hard argument with Emmanuel Macron). Pierre de Villiers is the brother of Philippe de Villiers, who is the creator of the Puy du Fou park. ;)
Actually the most recent bayonet charge was in October 2011 when the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment led a bayonet charge against Taliban fighter in the Helmond Province, Afghanistan. Before that in May 2004, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlander bayonet charged a force of 100 insurgent near Al Amara, Iraq which killed 28 insurgents in a 5 hour fierce hand to hand combat sustaining only 3 British wounded.
@@ionfreak83 Thanks for this information, it's very impressive. I will change the original post, then ! =)
@@ionfreak83 Nope The Watch conducted an assault and subsequent bayonet charge in Helmand, the last Scottish bayonet charge
Wasn't there a baynet charge in Ukraine against a Russian trench?
It's messed up to think that until around the Vietnam War, we as humans have been fighting with what are essentially spears.
A rifle with a bayonet is just a spear that shoots, until it doesn't
And when it stops shooting, it becomes a normal spear 💉
@@incognito9292 eh, that's kind of a stretch, but sure.
@@danvondraseknukes are just giant flying spears with explosion
somehow it`s weirdly fascinating, when thinking about line formations and warfare, the image of being shot while in rank seems less terrifying than closing with the enemy and having that foot long shank being rammed into your stomach.
People can tolerate a lot of horror if its inflicted slowly and with a low chance of it hitting specifically them.
The fact that you really try to pronounce french names and words with a french accent really is an appreciated gesture 👍
It Sounds a bit, that the man behind this channel is Swiss German. They mostly can also speak french.
Isn't he from Belgium? He may be Flemish but he should still be familiar with French language.
"the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap" Alexander suvorov
My first technology research in Empire total war, is the bayonet.
I own a musket for home defense because that is what the Founding Fathers intended!
Ah bayonets, carrying on man’s age old tradition of fighting with pointy sticks.
P.S Love the Napoleonic animations!
Every weapon will inevitably evolve into a pointy stick
@@lolasdm6959 Inevitably
Bayonette was extremely useful not just in WWI but also in WWII. The Greeks casually attacked with bayonet-mounted rifles the Italian positions in the Greek-Italian War (part of WWII) in 1940-41. They would do the same against the Germans trying to invade the Fortresses (a thick line of defense in the Greek Bulgarian border) in 1941. Bayonets were used as peer my knowledge up to the Vietnam war but as some US veterans here claim, they were using them in the Afganistan War when clearing encampments. And it makes total sense.
Famously used in the Falklands too
US marines are still trained and equipped with bayonets
I remember listening to Dan Carlin claim Bayonets were never actually used in fighting and had to stop listening to his stuff after that
M1 Carbines also had bayonets too for US forces, The M4 adopter was put into use in 1945 but there were instances where paratroopers in Europe used them when it was first adopted in 1942.
Gotta love a new video drop after a stressful evening
Before introduction of bayonnets roughly 2/3 of musketeer regiment were pikemen.
"In 2004, a group of British troops running low on ammunition, launched a bayonet charge against a group of Mahdi Army militiamen."
The aspect of bayonet charges causing routes and rarely resulting in heavy melee combat is depicted pretty well in napoleon total war.
Really? I find the use of bayonet charges in that game almost exclusively results is a bloody slugfest leaving both units half strength or less and take up to two minutes to resolve...
@@kyleheinsagreed
@@kyleheinsthey dont last too long
@CataciousAmogusevic the vast majority of real bayonet charges involved little to no contact between the engaged units, in ntw they almost exclusive clash physically, and it generally takes over 30 seconds for one to break.
@thegloryofromeiseternal which mods? I've only used basic darthmod so I'm not super familiar with the variations available.
The bayonet was also a key weapon in the American Revolution. In an interesting twist of fate, the Americans turned the bayonet which they used to fear on the British after they were trained and disciplined by Baron von Steuben. The Americans won several battles such as Stony Point in New York in 1779, and during the capture of Redoubt 10 during the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 with the bayonet
There were also psychological factors in determining whether a bayonet fight would take place. One bit of open ground was as good as another, so there was little incentive for a unit charged with the bayonet to stay put and make a Braveheart-style fight (boy does that movie have a lot to answer for). In built-up areas, however, as much as the possibility of two sides coming together unexpectedly, was the desirability of the holding the location. In the case of a contested village or earthwork, for example, the attackers had somethng to gain by driving the attack home, and the defenders had a somethng to keep that was worth staying put and fighting for, much more so than an empty stetch of field, so the result was often a close quarter fight that would have been very unlikely to happen in the open. More than one Napoleonic general commanted that he had never seen two sides crossing bayonets in open ground. No doubt he would be amused to see how often in happens in movies in television today...
It's probably also that if you get into bayonet range with someone accidentally you can't flee anymore and your best chance is to fight but if they charge you on an open field you still got plenty of time to flee. From the point of the individual making the calculation fleeing is obviously the best idea in an open field if it looks like the other side will charge home, however when making that calculation they of course aren't thinking about the greater battlefield and how fleeing impacts their entire force. Also another thing that generally holds true is that if you're the first to flee your chances of survival are always the best, so if a soldier thinks his unit might flee his own incentive to flee becomes much higher.
Really well-told story of bayonets' role on the battlefield
tbf, most fighting IN GENERAL is a game of chicken. Death or capture to the last usually doesnt happen if a side has somewhere to retreat too.
Never underestimate the unrelenting power of a pointed stick
I think it was the battle of Fallujah.. Marine rifle company was running low on ammo in a intense engagement. The company commander ordered “fix bayonets!!”.. the opposition saw this.. thought about it.. and then decided to disengage and pull back.. they wanted no part of it. Lol
It's the British infantry I belive.
If only it had actually happened, since the chances of an insurgent refusing the chance to drop 30 guys in seconds are slim to none. There's a similar myth surrounding Lewis Millet supposedly winning charges, while the reality is he was a senile old boomer who got his guys killed.
Look at the Ukraine war and closerange trench warfare: Nobody's using bayonets. And there's footage out there of guys shooting eachother with barrels touching chests,
Sure, cool story bro.
@@nvelsen1975Fixed Bayonets, not so much. But Shovels, knives, and bayonets held on the hand, oh yes. Absolutely there's a LOT of that going on. Mostly because fixed bayonets are nearly unusable in a narrow and confined trench.
@Mygg_Jeager that's a gimmick, even though Shovels, trench knives, trench maces were used to bludgeon the enemy, you can still see some stabbing with bayonets in the trenches in world War 1.
the swedish caroleans were an interesting step in between the pike and shot combination and the bayonet musketeers as they used pikes to defend against cavalry but used rapiers as the melee weapon when they charged.
The Swedish caroleans were a hybrid formation of pike and muskets, the pikemen were at the front of formation during melee combat. They used both weapons against cav and inf.
Would love a video on the evolution of body armor!
Informative AND entertaining. Incredible documentary, keep up the great work!
Lindybeige law: armies will always use pointy sticks
Not anymore.
@LuisAldamiz yes, since some armies still have bayonets that can be attached to the end of the gun
@@Dudefrom8Carson - They still don't use them almost ever. They are much more likely to shoot at point blank these days bc weapons are automatic, there's no need to use pointy sticks when you can shoot many bullets in that same precious time.
What a wonderful topic! I've been struggling to nail down exactly when Bayonets started overtaking Pikes--Early 18th Century is at least another step closer
pikes were much better up until they figured out they didn't need to plug the muzzle with the bayonet, they could attach it to the outside! It seems like basic info, if I plug the muzzle I can't fire or reload my weapons. But it took a genius to figure out how to have a bayonet and be able to fire still
Bayonet use in Europe: "Just a prank bro. Got you running! Hahaha!"
Bayonet use in the Pacific: "I'mma use this as it is intended to be used. Tenno heika, Banzai!"
Realistically any army that had bayonets probably stabbed people
No it's iterally the same use, to scare your enemy into abandoning a position.
For me, it would be interesting to know more about how the combat formations inherited from the 30 Years' War were adapted in Europe, after the incipient adoption of bayonets by all the powers of the time, which would be between the 1670's. until the year 1703 (which is when the pikes were completely abandoned); I know of interesting cases such as that of the French in their military ordinances in 1680, when it was indicated that there should be three groups of pikes (the largest in the middle and two smaller ones close to the flanks) along the rectangular formation of each Battalion (approximately 700 men), while the rest were musketeers and grenadiers (practically 80%), so that when making defensive squares against cavalry, they could have time to cover the muskets, who would support them with the bayonet attached ( gaining the density that the pikes could no longer offer due to their small number). The case of the Spanish at that same time in 1680 (where the Tercios had already been reduced to a size similar to that of battalions of approximately 400 soldiers), they simplified by having all the pikemen in the middle of each rectangular formation, while musketeers with bayonets on each flank (60% of the unit); I would like to know what it was like in the other kingdoms. Here I put a diagram of what the two cases that I know of looked like, being the pikemen (P) and the muskets (s):
French (700 soldiers):
sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss
sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss
sssPsssssPPPsssssPsss
Spanish (400 soldiers):
ssssssPPPPPssssss
ssssssPPPPPssssss
ssssssPPPPPssssss
bayonets today are apparantly used mostly to dissuade POW's from trying anything whilst being escorted away
people might deign to try and grab a gunbarrel and wrestle a guard for the weapon but when the danger is not just getting shot but also stabbed as well as being certain of cutting yourself in the struggle for sure just isn't appealing
That is one way to interpret the lack of talk of bayonet wounds, the other is that such wounds were fatal. Rather like the incorrect assumptions some garnered from planes that came back damaged during WWII.
Or the sudden rise of soldiers reported with head wounds after the introduction of helmets into the army.
Survivors bias is a hell of a thing.
but yes, I can easily imagine bayonets leaving nasty, large and heavily bleeding wounds that even today would be dangerous, and likely fatal given the available medicine at the time.
@@moshonn9318 "likely fatal given the available medicine at the time"
We didnt even really evacuate soldiers from the battle field until the USA Civil War. Most people who were stabbed simply bled out on the battle field with zero medical treatment whatsoever.
Battalion surgeons existed but your chances of ever seeing one during a battle were basically zero.
Bayonets are still useful in modern times. Studies have shown that captured POWs are less likely to charge at a soldier who has a bayonet
The changes in weapons and tactics described are both ~gradual~. Lots of pikes and few muskets becoming lots of muskets and few pikes, then all muskets. PLUS the improvements in firepower. Even if firepower hadn't changed, employing 1810 tactics in 1650 would or could have had devastating effects on ~both~ sides - the lack of pikes, or the slow rate of charge versus cavalry.
What's better than Pike and Musket? Transforming your Musket into a shoting Pike. Whole Story short i guess.😅
Great video as always, SandRhoman. Just to let you know that in English, if someone has the title 'sir', then they are referred to by their first name. Hence Sir John Stuart would be Sir John, not Sir Stuart. On the other hand, if he were Lord John Stuart, it would be Lord Stuart. Hope this helps!
Vauban again ? This guy and his genius brain keep showing up.
Amazing video. Thank you.
My father, born 1938, asked as young man veterans from wwl what they feared most. They told him, assaults had been fearfull, you see Like in long gone days an angry enemy charging you.
But pike didn' t dissapear in early 18th century. In case of pure pallace units , pikes existed in french royal guards until 1789. In case of lowtrained and bad equipped militias / Landsturm of many small HRE states, pikes and matchlock muskets had been used long into 18th century. During , Freedom wars' many prussian Landwehr units had few muskets, so many soldiers started the war with pikes or axes , until they could capture french muskets or got ones from Russia or Brittain. Also in 1813 württembergian King created four Landregimenter/ rural regiments, only half of usual size and only armed with halfpikes. A Police and guardforce only. During US civil war, thousands of pikes had been produced in Confederate states, there are interessting Videos, but the purpose is not exactly known. And during 19th century europe, many Rebel forces or semiofficical citizens units had been armed with warscytes.
During WWII the Japanese used local volunteer militia armed with bamboo spears as they didn't trust them enough to hand them real guns.
Pikes and other melee weapons kept being used by more civilian units because they're great for peacekeeping and hard to overthrow a government with. Its the same reason why riot police (generally) don't carry fire arms but instead use shields and batons, their job isn't actually to win a fight it's to intimidate and de-escalate. Like with a melee weapon it is easy to threaten someone with the pointy bit but you also can't cause mass slaughter and you can't accidentally kill someone because you loose your nerves, all things you want in a police force that's meant to not escalate the situation. Soldiers losing their nerves or accidentally firing guns have started at least a few revolutions and several revolts.
@@hedgehog3180 : I am german, Brittas boyfriend. When Napoleonic Era was over, HRE with more than 300 states no more existed, new German Federation consisted of about fourty states. So after centuries, real policeforces could be established. In larger states, there was mostly a communal Police in Towns , which had been capitals of countries, districts, provinces or whole state. Also villages or ,rural towns' sometimes had a Communal Police, when rich. In villages and small ,rural towns' there had been state payed Gendarmerie/ Landjäger, basicly soldiers doing policework In case of unrest also the Citizens Militias had been up to 1848/49 mobilized as Support force for Army and Police. This militias had been a Mix of lowtrained and bad equipped militias, target shooters societies ( Schützenverein) and tradition keeping organisations. During 1848/49 Revolution attempt, additional militia units had been formed, often only armed with warscytes. In many Museums of my homeregion, former Kingdom Württemberg, you still see this warscytes. After 1849, at least in my state, those still existing militias are only tradition Keepers in historical uniforms. They appear at traditional Events, their band is playing, they do a short march and Drill Show and fire a salvo of blanks. But in addition to this militias, town Police and rural Gendarmerie also relicts of medieval Police still have existed. At first the Communal Nightwatchmen. In württembergian capital Stuttgart they had been replaced by , Nightpolicemen' in 1862, but in Weilheim/ Teck there was a Nightwatchman up to 1931! Well, there was a change of weapons. From 1923 to 1931, last nightwatchman was armed with a pistol in .32 Acp,but before, short polearms had been common, in Museums you see mostly worn down halberds or Spears with broad Tip. Then there was the Amtsdiener/ Büttel/ towncrier. This men wore a Kind of uniform, often an old worn down Uniform of any Kind, this and their short Saber or Baton gave them some authority as auxillary policeman. In 1945 in US occupation Zone this Amtsdiener lost their Status as auxillary policemen, but in rural Germany of those days an uniformed Person still had authority. In my Village the , towncrier ' was in 1955 replaced by a Kind of weekly official newspaper, but my girlfriend Britta told me , that in her small hessian homevillage still in early 1970s a towncrier was in service, a wwll Veteran, who had lost a Leg. Then there had been Field guards, in french ,gardes champetres ', whos Task it was, to protect the farmers fields from harvest thiefs. Bavarian field guards seem to have had some firearms for a short time after wwll, but according to my father, württembergian fieldguards had only canes and dogs. In my Village, last fieldguard ended his Work in 1979.
The last bayonet charge I heard about happened during the Battle of Sarajevo where French soldiers led by their captain charged onto a bridge and pushed over Serbian soldiers, killing quite a few of them.
It was almost the 21st century.
20 Brritish soldiers charged with bayonets in the gulf war and routed a bunch of Iraqi soldiers.
@@lolasdm6959 What battle, under what circumstances?
I'm curious to know the answer.
Thanks in advance.
@@olivierpuyou3621 google bayonet charge iraq war
Battle of Danny Boy
@@olivierpuyou3621 you need not have a battle for charges to happen and since it was 2 sections tops i doubt it was any major force on force action. But charges happen from time to time, even in ukraine today, tough mostly as a last resort
@@lolasdm6959 Ok, I saw Danny Boy's battle, but it's a DEFENSIVE action not a CHARGE, sorry but between a defensive action and a bayonet charge the difference is quite striking.
It's interesting to ask _"Why didn't the bayonet see widespread use earlier?"_ It's after all a fairly simple idea, recorded as early as the start of the 15th Century in Europe (and even earlier in China). The explanation, IMO, is that without firearms that can take the wind out of a charge with shot alone, turning the firearm into a poor spear (muskets with bayonets are too heavy and unwieldy to be a great melee weapon) will not help the formation survive. Muskets had to reach a level of efficiency were they could devastate cavalry pre-impact in order for the additional close-ranged power provided by the bayonet to matter.
Before bayonets became standard, soldiers equipped with firearms both in Europe & East Asia might still engage in close combat. They used swords or their pieces as bludgeons. Martín de Eguiluz's 1595 military treatises covers how arquebusiers could charge other arquebusiers with sword in hand. He recommended retaining the arquebus in the left hand to parry with while using the sword in the right hand. This approach is presumably less effective against cavalry, but a decent method for fighting hand to hand.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Not sure if this was the case in Europe. But northern Chinese soldiers used to perfer the handcannon to a musket. Because it's a mace in melee. In addition, Chinese musketeers mostly either used a retractable balde on their gun butt, a short sword, or a long sword in melee.
The plug sword wasn't widely adopted amongst musketeers too. The hand cannon version was more popular, so it's a mace with a pointy end in melee.
I remember hearing of a bayonet charge during the Korean War where an American unit utterly destroyed a unit of Chinese. It was an incredible story.
Yes, an American company charged an entrenched Chinese unit that was at the top of a hill in early february 1951, in Korea.
Fun fact: they were actually following "the example" of the French bayonet charges at the battle of Wonju, in Korea, in early January 1951 against the North Korean troops (as the French battalion of NATO run out of ammunitions and had to fend off these attacks only with their bayonets), among fierce combats. US general Ridgway was impressed and encouraged US troops to use their bayonets too, in battle as well.
@@krips22---I see. Thanks for telling me.
@@brokenbridge6316 This probably worked because the north koreans were relying on masses of conscripts who probably werent well trained or fed, china for instance sent huge masses of "volunteers" to help the north.
So morale was probably not great.
@@Justowner---Well yeah that probably helped.
It is the 41st Millennia...and the Commissar just cried "Fix Bayonets!!!"
You don't need to know Kriegs gender nor age. You only need to know they are ready to mount bayonet all the time
I was recently reading about the Scot Grey's heavy cavalry charge at Waterloo. One of them mentioned how the infantry's bayonets were useless against them, that they couldn't reach far enough to do any damage to the cavalry, who just cut them down. This was when the infantry wasn't in formation nor a square. It made me wonder if the bayonet was ever really conceived as an anti-cavalry weapon.
As thus this is why the bayonet is triangular, being a very strong shape and not much of a chance of bending and breaking like a straight blade might. This triangular bayonet could withstand horses or even mounted troops running into them.
Also for the period the term musket was used for a military arm, what defined this is the addition of a lug for a bayonet, that made the flintlock a musket.
(Edit: Also the whole impossible to stitch up thing is bogus, the reason of the shape is what I have written above this)
As a bonus, triangular stab wounds are nearly impossible to stitch shut 😮
@@tedk.6420is that actually true? I've heard that but refuse to google it.
It is not really significant most of the time. It takes more skill and effort to stitch such wounds, but they can be stitched and most surgeons would have the skills.
The bigger issue is bayonet wounds to the chest tend to kill quickly, long before a surgeon was likely able to even try, and wounds to the belly usually went horrifically septic, so it didn't matter if one's wound was stitched or not.
@@Nukefandango
@@tedk.6420 No, simply no
@@tedk.6420 thats a myth. people are impaled by all sorts of irregular objects in real life: and they all can be stiched.
7:37 We were still training with bayonets when I joined the U.S. Army, if you asked me whether I'd rather have the bayonet in hand to hand combat, a knife or a branch ... I think I'd rather have the bayonet, thank you very much.
Unfortunately, new SiG rifle has no bayonet lug😥.
@@madkoala2130 The idea nowadays is that you can also shoot someone who is right in front of you. The M4 was a serious accuracy downgrade from the M16A2 as well, but in terms of actual operations, the reality is that the rifle is mostly used either as a defensive or close range weapon in combat. It's there either to defend the machine guns or go where the machine guns are too cumbersome. If everyone could carry a machine gun, then everyone would. I always carried my ka-bar with me anyhow.
We definitely don't do that now, sadly. We did some pugils but no technique was taught, it was just an excuse for drill sgt to wallop on us.
@@centurion2275 I really don't get what is the main benefit of this kind of training. Hardening? increasing confidence? Otherwise, I don't see much point.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 There's two different cushions on the stick with different colors. One represents the bayonet, one the butt of the rifle. If the training is supervised correctly, the idea is to practice bayonet fighting. And while it's mostly just looked at as an aggression building exercise, with the bayonet aspect often ignored, the real secret is that it's just morale boosting. Soldiers get a break from often dreary training to do something fun. That said, it is annoying when you immediately stab the other guy in the face but the match gets called on wild flailing points.
When observing the american civil war, British warmakers were shocked to find that neither side really utilised the bayonet to its potential. rather thy stood in line shooting at teach other for ages, rather than unloading 2 salvos and then bayonet charging - which almost always resulted in the enemy fleeing from the bayonet charge because no one want to get bayonetted!
somehow it`s weirdly fascinating, when thinking about line formations and warfare, the image of being shot while in rank seems less terrifying than closing with the enemy and having that dirty, foot long shank being rammed into your stomach.
They were obviously wrong about that though, as the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian Wars showed just a couple years later. Both of those wars were characterized by firepower and entrenchment, not bayonet charges.
@@mjxw They were correct for the time period that the ACW was taking place, albeit not the geography and other circumstances. The most common rifle on the Union side, the Springfield Model 1861 only fired 2-3 shots on average, which wasn't all too different from most smoothbore muskets. Its optimal range also couldn't be relied upon, because the rough terrain and forests in which several major battles took place hindered the vision of the soldiers, so in many ways, they were used like overglorified smoothbores.
In contrast, the country in Europe was much more flat and open, with less forestry hindering the vision of the soldiers. The Dreyse and Chassepot rifles also fired at a rate some 3-4x faster than the Springfield. One must also take into account that smoothbores were still quite prevalent in the earlier half of the ACW, as well. The problem was not that technology in the ACW prevented bayonet charges.
It was more so due to other issues, such as the terrain mentioned above. In addition, mass conscription in such a short time meant that the soldiers were largely inexperienced until later in the war. The British regulars, in comparison, were very well drilled and tended to prefer a few closer range volleys before closing in with the bayonet. Union and Confederate generals seldom issued bayonet charges because they understood the condition of their troops and the terrain they were fighting in.
@@doritofeesh unless you take into account the fact that at the time the brits really had glorified smoothbores too, the only real differrence was that the brits failed to understand anything beyond highly drilled soldiers since they never had the misfortune of facing a foe of equal size in the era. This was mentioned by you, thought i will add context if you will
@@aronmarkovits5396 Yeah, that was a rather reoccurring issue with the British military on land. They had high quality soldiers during the War of the Austrian Succession and post-Peninsular War. Though, most of their commanders tended to fight colonial wars rather than engage on the mainland. It was less so that they had the chance to face a foe of equal size. It was more so that they rarely had the chance to face a foe alone in a major conflict involving tens of thousands of men. Though, this is inherently an issue of strategic resources; Britain simply didn't have the manpower to fight in such large-scale wars without being part of some alliance or another (and this would be remedied later down the line by foreign auxiliaries, namely from India).
As great as their navy was, I think that they only really produced two truly incredible field generals in military history prior to the 20th century, those being Marlborough and Wellington. As shown in the WAS, AWI, War of 1812, and the 1st Anglo-Maratha War, though... not a lot of their commanders outside these two knew how to make optimal usage of the British soldiery. In contrast, we see those like the French and Austrians having produced more capable military leaders on land, who are able to make better use of their troops, even if their quality is more average or mixed.
I think the demoralizing effect of the bayonett and the charge are largely due to the infantry having less and less if any armour at all besides their clothes available to them that made them safer when in melee.
And no shields. Lots of pre-modern people went into battle with a melee weapon and little-to-no-armour, very few did so without shields.
Having more rapid firing guns did alleviate that fear eventually
The bayonet has been used as recently as 2004. A British unit used bayonets in Iraq in 2004 as I recall.
i think the latest bayonet charge was in 2008 in afghanistan
@@poggywoggy1999 I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
pistols don't have the same stopping power, it's not uncommon for soldiers to keep charging with pistol wounds, but a bayonet stops them dead in their track.
At least knives and bayonets come with a handle you can hold. I can vouch for the fact that Glock at least doesn't think anyone (who's not a midget with tiny Barby hands) needs to be able to hold their officer sidearms.
If they're past rifle length, you've already got bigger problems and it's probably easier to try and kick them off you rather than reaching for a sidearm.
@@nvelsen1975 I don't get what you try to say because my gloves are in XL so i don't exactely have small hands, i have been instructed on the P80 (the original Glock pistol) in our military and i have enough knives and a cavalry sabre of the 1860's at home to say: The biggest/beefiest grip of these is on the pistol. So i don't get how you think knives have bigger handles than a Glock pistol... Or are you trying to say your officers get one of the subcompact ones (the ones with the extra short grip for better concealment): 26,27,28,29,30,33,36,39,43 ?
@@nirfz
I don't know which sub-type we were issued, just that my fingers can reach it around it too far, so when you clench, you push against your own grip. Cramps up pretty fast too.
XL latex gloves fit me mostly, but they stretch a bit. My fingers are just very long. But there's no onsets or anything to enlarge the grip.
A cop who uses the Walther P5 advised me to make something like that. He had rubber bands around his; also big hands, long fingers.
So I inquired whether that existed, or I could make it. Intendance responded with a polite FU. 😆
@@nvelsen1975 😂 See we had many things we would want to modify, and as long as we were inside the base that was not allowed with a polite... as you mentioined. As soon as we were out in the field: minor "adjustments" or "tuning measures" were often made to make things work "better" for the individual. (althought the pistol grip was never an issue with us.)
And then there was the "what is not visible is not a problem" rule: like extra warm underwear for extra cold termperatures, or things packed that were inside a compartment. (as long as it didn't interfere with the use of actual issued items)
I love your animations, but I also love this style. Great work
Virgin 17th century gunner "let me put a dagger in my musket barrel, making it a useless gun and a mediocre spear" vs chad Streltsy "my arquebus leg is an axe".
Bardiche-Musket goes brrrrrrr....
LMFAO
Great topic, excited to see
The most recent bayonet charge was by a British unit in Afghanistan.
Tell me more, please
Urban myth
@@ravanpee1325Nope. A column was attacked by a mob of unarmed and unruly civilians in Iraq.
So instead of gunning them all down, the Brits fixed bayonets and stood firm. After a brief melee, a handful of fatalities on the Iraqis and no casualties on the British side, the mob dispersed.
Wonderful historical coverage video about bayonet and amounted on rifles...
Thanks for you I've strong wish to play empire total war...
One thing was not mentioned in this video about the origins of bayonet: "Pierre Borel wrote in 1655 that a kind of long-knife called a bayonette was made in Bayonne but does not give any further description." H. Blackmore, Hunting Weapons, p. 50
Citation are from wikipedia but I remember reading about this when I was younger and tried to find it after I saw it was not mentioned in the video.
I wonder why Bayonets didn't arise as soon as muskets did.
They already had the idea of "stick with a pointy end", was there a reason that it took so long for the point end to go on the gun?
Early muskets were heavy and wonky. They were also not good enough to reliably discourage infantry or cavalry from charging at them. And since the formation of mixed muskets and pikemen proved reliable enough, they didn’t bother to make their guns worse by fixing knives in the front for a not so great melee weapon.
@@akshaykumarjha9136 thank you
Guns were really expensive. Bayonet fighting can and has bent barrels (even on modern weapons with really high grade steel) which you really don’t want on an already very expensive piece of equipment.
After the realization that it rarely came to actually stabbing anyone with the bayonet, that became less of a big deal - and as firearms became universally adopted it was no longer the specialist weapon akin to a modern $10k sniper rifle, it was just the generic issue fighting weapon and there were lots of spares.
@@DiotimaMantinea-gc1uw thank you
@@redaethel4619 thank you
Am I the only one who wonders how warfare in say 1715 was different to 1750 and again compared to 1800? We tend to just say ‘18th century warfare’ but that whole period was long, what changed were made from the great northern war to the seven years war for example? the uniforms, like formations and surface level appearance looks very similar, but I would like to know the tactical developments. Other than adding more light infantry and mobile artillery between seven years war and Napoleonic wars I don’t know what else really changed in 1700 to 1800 period
You can try to find manuals for soldier training of said periods, from some armies at some point in time those actually are scanned documents sometimes available online. (i found one for the austrohungarian army by chance once because i searched for something that was covered in the document, but i have no idea were as this is years ago)
What's even more interesting is how in those 100 years warfare didn't change much. In fact, it didn't change essentially since like 16-17 century. That's like 200 years. If you compare napoleonic wars to 20th century which is even less time, the difference is MASSIVE. We had so much progress in the last 200 years it's insane.
@@ivvan497the thing is it changed about the same, but mostly in mentalities and not in used things
@nirfz you can try Frederick the Great's On The Art of War, a manual he wrote for his generals and lieutenants to read
@@v4enthusiast541 Good suggestion!
Even thought i am not the one particularly looking for the information, like the og commenter.
Generalisimo Suvorov: The bullet is an idiot, the bayonet is smart.
Перевод не правильный, но я все равно тебе лайк поставил)
@@Какой-тоКактусWhat would be a better translation?
“Would just use pikes and muskets” like my ancestors perfecting the Gewalthaufen, the predominant Europe war tactic from 1350-1650 was no big deal.
My father (1st RCR, served in Sicily, Italy and Holland) told me of a couple instances where the order "fix bayonets" was given, and the sound was enough to convince entrenched Germans to retreat.
16th century=1500's. 17th century=1600's
@@randomuser-xc2wr You need a little bit to change your clocks from reversey time to forward time
One thing I've often wondered is how the hell did soldiers in early modern armies avoid going deaf? Imagine crouching, with both your hands holding a pike, and then someone fires a musket right next to your ear. I guess they could have worn earmuffs or stuffed cotton into their ears, but then how could they listen to commands from their officers?
I still don’t have an explanation for this, must be that the musket lines weren’t so loud but artillery definitely was and they did suffer hearing damage
@squidmanfedsfeds5301 From what I've heard, muskets were even louder than modern guns, which themselves are much louder than what they appear to be in movies. But I'll admit I'm not an expert in this area. Maybe SandRomanhistory could do a video on it?
Yeah, they did run into that issue. That's why a lot of troops rely on the sound of musket fire instead of relying on officers to give orders, which can lead to problems 'cause sometimes soldiers shoot off earlier than they should if their buddies fire out of fear instead of waiting for orders.
They didn't. Some did try and stuff cloth in their ears, but it didn't have much effect.
Artillerymen were notoriously deaf. Even a modern handgun - which is quieter than old black powder rifles - is over 150 db. For reference, over 120db causes hearing damage and 70db over prolonged periods causes damage. They'd have major ringing of the ears after a battle.
My mother was a doctor in the VA system and those WWII, Korean, and Vietnam combat vets all have hearing damage.
Let's just say that John Wick would be pretty easy to sneak up on by the last movie.
Mostly visual order beside sound order colonel or leutenant usualy carrying sabre or flag for this purpose
One of the reasons for the staggering amount of casualties during the US Civil War is the fact that bayonets were rarely used or relied upon, as weapons increased their cadence of fire. Instead of dispersing upon being charged, both sides would just shoot at each other for hours on end.
Lots of courage, but very little skill and discipline in the civil war. European armies considered both sides to be completely amateurish, sending masses of men to fight without even training them to shoot for instance.
@@wnchstrman I feel like what you said and what I said are two unrelated ideas.
The main problem was that the same Napoleonic (or even pre-Napoleonic) tactic was used in the age of rifled musket. While a smooth bore musket is useless beyond 60 yards, rifled muskets of 1860s were accurate enough up to 200 yards. Which mean that the defenders could open fire more early, pounding the attackers with volley after volley as they approach the enemy. By the time the attacker reach the bayonet distance, they weren't left many of them. Just look at the Picket charge, at Gettysburg.
@@CipiRipi-in7df You are very stupid... The musket was effective at a distance of over 200 yards. Losses during the Civil War were the same, or even less, than in the Napoleonic Wars. Many regiments preferred the old muskets because they could fire ball and buckshot.
I'm not actually entirely sure that bayonets increased an army's shock value. I think it was more about increasing firepower without loosing too much shock value, and maybe about increasing versatility.
For example, the Swedish Carolean army of the first two decades of the 1700s used bayonets, at least for their grenadiers, but due to ther incredibly high doctrinal emphasis on the charge they still retained the pike in their regular line regiments.
After all, having even just a few 4 meter long pikes is going to be a decided advantage in a melee, especially if the enemy has nothing longer than a musket.