What if the bayonet was invented earlier?

[tallwingedgoat]

The bayonet was a transformative weapon from the 1700s on. But this required no technological breakthrough. What if armies just started putting pointy ends on matchlocks back in the 16th century?

The pike formations would disappear earlier. Firearms replace cold weapons sooner, and infantry manuervers become more fluid.

[mowque]

The bayonet was a transformative weapon from the 1700s on. But this required no technological breakthrough.

Actually it did take many years to develop a bayonet that could be used while still being able to fire.

[tallwingedgoat]

Actually it did take many years to develop a bayonet that could be used while still being able to fire.

Yes, but it's easy to do. What if it's done much earlier?

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

The bayonet was a transformative weapon from the 1700s on. But this required no technological breakthrough. What if armies just started putting pointy ends on matchlocks back in the 16th century?

The pike formations would disappear earlier. Firearms replace cold weapons sooner, and infantry manuervers become more fluid.

the first Bayonets were Plug types, supposed started when French irregulars ran out of ammo and powder and jammed their Knives into the Gun barrels.

the Technological breakthrough for the Bayonet was developing one that could fit over the gunbarrel.

get someone to realize that early on, and that's a start.

[cra0422]

The bayonet came about due to advancements in firearms. With the matchlock firearms taking time to fire, pikemen were needed to provide defensive protection while said weapons were reloaded and prepared. With the development of the flintlock musket (which was faster and safer than the matchlock) the bayonet was developed and the role of the pikemen disappeared

[tallwingedgoat]

the first Bayonets were Plug types, supposed started when French irregulars ran out of ammo and powder and jammed their Knives into the Gun barrels.

the Technological breakthrough for the Bayonet was developing one that could fit over the gunbarrel.

get someone to realize that early on, and that's a start.

Yes, I'm well aware of the history. But you don't need any gradual technological evolution. People have been making matchlock combo weapons for a long time. Usually it's in the form of a musket and axe. It's a simple matter to put a spear point on a barrel that's offset from the bore.

Though the socket bayonet was invented in the late 1600s, the Prussian army under Frederick the Great prefered permanently fixed bayonets, which any village blacksmith can fix to a barrel.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Yes, I'm well aware of the history. But you don't need any gradual technological evolution. People have been making matchlock combo weapons for a long time. Usually it's in the form of a musket and axe. It's a simple matter to put a spear point on a barrel that's offset from the bore.

Though the socket bayonet was invented in the late 1600s, the Prussian army under Frederick the Great prefered permanently fixed bayonets, which any village blacksmith can fix to a barrel.

and yet no one made one until after the Plug Bayonet proved to be inefficient.

the Axe-pistol does have a disadvantage against the Pike or Bayonet, wouldn't it?
the Pike or Bayonet have a better reach, and don't require much space to used.

as for Permanently fixed bayonets, that has it's own trouble.
bayonet gets damaged, the whole weapon has to go in to be repaired.
a plug or ring Bayonet breaks, it's easy to replace, and it doesn't mean sending the gun in to fix.

[MNP]

Though the socket bayonet was invented in the late 1600s, the Prussian army under Frederick the Great prefered permanently fixed bayonets, which any village blacksmith can fix to a barrel.Doesn't that make it even harder to aim properly since the weight of the barrel is so awkward? I mean shooting in front of you, not actually aiming beyond 50 yards.

[Sachyriel]

In this thread we will talk about reinventing the pointy stick.

The stick itself contains a mechanism for firing high-velocity pieces of metal, but it is of no consequence, the real deal here is the pointy part.

I think that perhaps the bayonet could have been invented a different way: Put a bayonet on a crossbow.

A crossbow comes before a gun, historically speaking and if there is a tradition of pointy sticks on a device that shoots different pointy sticks then when a gun is made someone will ask "Hey, where's the pointy stick?". Then the gunmakers add a socket for knives as a standard.

I do not know who invented the crossbow, and why they did not think to add a pointy stick, but it would be a plausible addition to a TL, no ASBs required.

[Elfwine]

Trying to imagine wielding a crossbow with a bayonet - er, pointy stick.

:confused:

[Sachyriel]

Trying to imagine wielding a crossbow with a bayonet - er, pointy stick.

:confused:

It is placed as not to interfere with the firing of any bolts, underneath the body probably, rather than on top as to not interfere with aiming; removable like todays bayonets its probably a straight knife. Like bayonets on guns, the pointy part is probably used when you are out of ammo, in the crosssbows case this means out of bolts.

[tallwingedgoat]

as for Permanently fixed bayonets, that has it's own trouble.
bayonet gets damaged, the whole weapon has to go in to be repaired.
a plug or ring Bayonet breaks, it's easy to replace, and it doesn't mean sending the gun in to fix.

If it was good enough for the Prussian army, it's good enough.

Doesn't that make it even harder to aim properly since the weight of the barrel is so awkward? I mean shooting in front of you, not actually aiming beyond 50 yards.

The concept of aiming muskets was not invented until much later. Muskets were area weapons. Soldiers were only supposed to point it in the direction of the enemy formation, close their eyes and shoot.


I think that perhaps the bayonet could have been invented a different way: Put a bayonet on a crossbow.

Crossbows were different. They had a stirup upfront for the foot.

[MNP]

The concept of aiming muskets was not invented until much later. Muskets were area weapons. Soldiers were only supposed to point it in the direction of the enemy formation, close their eyes and shoot.

Crossbows were different. They had a stirup upfront for the foot.

That's what I mean. Wouldn't it drag the musket so it pointed at the ground to a troublesome extent? That's why I said "aim" meant pointing it in front of you not at anything just not at the ground.

As for Crossbows you also have non-stirrup crossbows, windlass (which did and didn't have stirrups) and the crank ones that you turn clockwise via gears. I do think it would be unlikely to put a bayonet on a crossbow though. Even the fastest firing ones you don't have the time to stab with it.

[Sachyriel]

That's what I mean. Wouldn't it drag the musket so it pointed at the ground to a troublesome extent? That's why I said "aim" meant pointing it in front of you not at anything just not at the ground.

As for Crossbows you also have non-stirrup crossbows, windlass (which did and didn't have stirrups) and the crank ones that you turn clockwise via gears. I do think it would be unlikely to put a bayonet on a crossbow though. Even the fastest firing ones you don't have the time to stab with it.

Unless you're out of ammo and don't have time to draw your other blade.

[Elfwine]

Still leaves the question of how you wield the crossbow+Bayonet.

Attachment is one thing, use is another.

[Sachyriel]

Still leaves the question of how you wield the crossbow+Bayonet.

Attachment is one thing, use is another.

Stabbing motion I believe, thought a good slice can be effective as well. There maybe more drag on the frame of the crossbow but if the blade is sharp the air resistance is negligible.

I can be wrong, but I think crossbow bayonets would increase the likelyhood of bayonets on guns.

[archaeogeek]

If it was good enough for the Prussian army, it's good enough.



The concept of aiming muskets was not invented until much later. Muskets were area weapons. Soldiers were only supposed to point it in the direction of the enemy formation, close their eyes and shoot.


That's a stupid myth. The concept of aiming muskets was present from the very start and the earliest musket drills called for shot training at 200 yards. Not aiming is the best way to get your volley to fire above the heads of the enemy.
It's just that it became harder to aim accurately as drills asked for faster shot.

[Elfwine]

Stabbing motion I believe, thought a good slice can be effective as well. There maybe more drag on the frame of the crossbow but if the blade is sharp the air resistance is negligible.

I can be wrong, but I think crossbow bayonets would increase the likelyhood of bayonets on guns.

So you would hold a crossbow like you hold a gun to stab?

Somehow that seems awkward.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

If it was good enough for the Prussian army, it's good enough.


and yet it was not widely adopted by the Other military forces of the time......

[RGB]

and yet it was not widely adopted by the Other military forces of the time......

And considering that the Prussians weren't really all that good at the actual bayonet fights... :cool:

/beats Fermor's drum.

[MNP]

That's a stupid myth. The concept of aiming muskets was present from the very start and the earliest musket drills called for shot training at 200 yards. Not aiming is the best way to get your volley to fire above the heads of the enemy.
It's just that it became harder to aim accurately as drills asked for faster shot.The Japanese for instance really focused on aiming and they got pretty good for the arquebus prior to the Tokugowa Shogunate.

[Minchandre]

Crossbows were different. They had a stirup upfront for the foot.

Not to mention the prod (the bow-y part) makes it a much more awkward stabbing weapon than the musket, which is effectively a long straight stick.

[Sachyriel]

So you would hold a crossbow like you hold a gun to stab?

Somehow that seems awkward.

You push the pointy part forward, not awkward.

[Elfwine]

You push the pointy part forward, not awkward.

Its still a matter of holding the d--- thing. Am I really being dense on this?

[Sachyriel]

Its still a matter of holding the d--- thing. Am I really being dense on this?

Every pic of a crossbow I look at seems to indicate you can shove it into another mans chest or at least wave it so it slices their neck.

[MNP]

Every pic of a crossbow I look at seems to indicate you can shove it into another mans chest or at least wave it so it slices their neck.It's a HELL of a lot easier and more reliable to do it with a sword. It's also faster because the of the weight being concentrated at the end (the bow part+end of stock+pointy end). And making the point of the xbow long enough to stand up to cavalry would severely retard its use as a portable crossbow. How much do you know about early modern crossbows?

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Every pic of a crossbow I look at seems to indicate you can shove it into another mans chest or at least wave it so it slices their neck.

if they've gotten that close, you're doing something wrong with those Crossbows...

[Sachyriel]

It's a HELL of a lot easier and more reliable to do it with a sword. It's also faster because the of the weight being concentrated at the end (the bow part+end of stock+pointy end). And making the point of the xbow long enough to stand up to cavalry would severely retard its use as a portable crossbow. How much do you know about early modern crossbows?

I am no expert on early crossbows but I did not claim its effectiveness against cavalry; I merely stipulated a bayonet could be attached to a crossbow to make a tradition of attached knives to projectile weapons so that later gun-makers attach bayonets out of tradition.

if they've gotten that close, you're doing something wrong with those Crossbows...

Being out of ammo is a problem, yes, but having a bayonet might help you survive to get more ammo.

[tallwingedgoat]

As for Crossbows you also have non-stirrup crossbows, windlass (which did and didn't have stirrups) and the crank ones that you turn clockwise via gears. I do think it would be unlikely to put a bayonet on a crossbow though. Even the fastest firing ones you don't have the time to stab with it.

It doesn't matter, crossbows are loaded with "muzzle" in the ground, you can't have a mounted bayonet and use it as a crossbow at the same time. Finally it just wont have the reach that a long musket would have. I'm not saying it's not doable, just that it's of limited utility compared with a back up sword. OTOH, a musket whether matchlock or flintlock could take a bayonet and be used as a handy spear.

and yet it was not widely adopted by the Other military forces of the time......

What's your point? Are you suggesting the Prussian bayonet would have been inferior to having no bayonet at all?

[MNP]

It doesn't matter, crossbows are loaded with "muzzle" in the ground, you can't have a mounted bayonet and use it as a crossbow at the same time. Finally it just wont have the reach that a long musket would have. I'm not saying it's not doable, just that it's of limited utility compared with a back up sword. OTOH, a musket whether matchlock or flintlock could take a bayonet and be used as a handy spear. I agree with you about its utility (or lack thereof compared to a sword) but you can very well load them from horseback (i.e. ride to battle then dismount). In fact the description in the Taybugha (http://www.amazon.com/Saracen-Archery-English-Exposition-Mameluke/dp/0900470046) book is probably the European method of loading from horseback. I also think you can load the crank ones without have to brace them against the ground. But I agree, it's pretty unlikely as a matter of utility and you'd probably use the ground to brace them or point them close to the ground.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Being out of ammo is a problem, yes, but having a bayonet might help you survive to get more ammo.

I think once you run out of Crossbow Ammo, it is time to switch to close range combat, or hope your back up is coming.

What's your point? Are you suggesting the Prussian bayonet would have been inferior to having no bayonet at all?

No, I am suggesting that there is a Reason that the Permanently fixed bayonet died off while the socket and Ring Bayonets prospered.

the permanent Bayonet upsets the balance of a Firearm,making it harder for the gunners to aim.

a detachable Bayonet can also double as a Close range weapon, in the event the rifle is dropped, Damaged, or otherwise compromised as a weapon.

With the Permanently fixed bayonet, losing the gun means you lost both your Melee and main weapon. Yes, you can carry another melee weapon to use, but that is extra weight.

My point, in essence, is that a Detachable Bayonet has much more Uses than a permanently attached one.

[tallwingedgoat]

No, I am suggesting that there is a Reason that the Permanently fixed bayonet died off while the socket and Ring Bayonets prospered.

Are you dense? No one is arguing the socket bayonet is inferior to the permanent bayonet. The choice is not between the two bayonets but between bayonet and pike.

The topic is WI the bayonet was invented much earlier. Since the permanent bayonet was simple to make and did its job, I propose that it could have been invented earlier without going through the OTL route of bayonet development.

[Elfwine]

The question then is how? There's a reason things developed the way they did, and its not that people wanted to have a bayonet that would impede the ability to fire for some reason that can be eliminated with a wand of cure stupidity.

I don't know enough on the history to know what it was, so I can't offer a way to change that.

[Sachyriel]

I think once you run out of Crossbow Ammo, it is time to switch to close range combat, or hope your back up is coming.

Well, if you're out of ammo but your opponent is two or three steps away there might not be time to draw your sword, a bayonet makes sense.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Are you dense? No one is arguing the socket bayonet is inferior to the permanent bayonet. The choice is not between the two bayonets but between bayonet and pike.

The topic is WI the bayonet was invented much earlier. Since the permanent bayonet was simple to make and did its job, I propose that it could have been invented earlier without going through the OTL route of bayonet development.

if the Permanent Bayonet is so simple, as you claim, then why didn't anyone think of it sooner than Fredrick?

the first bayonets were plugs, because that what they were inspired by.

unless you change that "Proto Bayonet", to something like People making Musket-pikes or somesuch, I don't see why the permanently fixed bayonet is the next logical step in Bayonet technology.

Well, if you're out of ammo but your opponent is two or three steps away there might not be time to draw your sword, a bayonet makes sense.

like I said earlier, if you've got a Crossbow and they're that close, you're doing something wrong.

although Another question is how strong the Crossbow is, and how much damage would ramming it into someone do to it....

[Elfwine]

Well, if you're out of ammo but your opponent is two or three steps away there might not be time to draw your sword, a bayonet makes sense.

If you're in that situation and haven't drawn it already, the word "idiot" comes to mind.

And speaking of pointy sticks (and cavalry, which is the big problem): Spears. Even easier than swords.

[tallwingedgoat]

The question then is how? There's a reason things developed the way they did, and its not that people wanted to have a bayonet that would impede the ability to fire for some reason that can be eliminated with a wand of cure stupidity.

I don't know enough on the history to know what it was, so I can't offer a way to change that.

The bayonet would not impede the ability to fire, unless it's that fool plug type. IMO the reason it was not invented earlier was because people were used to the idea of pikes protecting musketmen, much as they protected crossbowmen in earlier times. It took time for people to realize replacing the pikemen with bayonet armed musket men would simultanously double the firepower and pointy things, and eliminate the need to coordinate the awkward movements of two types of soliders in the same formation.

Men of war are naturally conservative. They stake their lives on proven concepts until something new is thoroughly proven. They're not idiots for not inventing bayonets earlier, but it doesn't take a genius to invent an earlier bayonet either.

[RGB]

To put it plainly, bayonets did not actually make sense until one could get saturation fire; not good but infrequent shooting like with a 17th c. arquebousse, but mass shooting that would overwhelm the lighter cavalry of the day (remember, the reitar killed the lancer by then!). The bayonet as a tool of last resort would make sense then, and help minimize casualties by gunfire by getting right into the fighting. Otherwise the bayonet was a really really poor pike substitute - behold the Swedes employing pike effectively against their bayonet-wielding opponents, and behold the rainy campaign on 1813 where even light cavalry on occasion hacked apart formed squares with bayonets (remember how badly the odds are stacked against the horse), because the rain turned the muskets into simple spears.

I would be very surprised if, say, Cossacks could break a pike square, yet they managed to chop through Napoleon's Young Guard.

[ScorchedLight]

Why not making a sturdier stock with dome spikes at the rear end? You run out of bullera, you use it as a club!

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Why not making a sturdier stock with dome spikes at the rear end? You run out of bullera, you use it as a club!

you mean on the bottom of the Stock, by the Butt?

I think it's easier to thrust than to swing.

[tallwingedgoat]

if the Permanent Bayonet is so simple, as you claim, then why didn't anyone think of it sooner than Fredrick?

Fredrick didn't invent it. He just preferred it, likely because it was simpler.

Your argument is full of Post hoc fallacies. The fact that plug bayonets came earlier than permanent bayonet doesn't mean the independent invention of the permanent bayonet could not happen without the plug bayonet.

[Elfwine]

The bayonet would not impede the ability to fire, unless it's that fool plug type. IMO the reason it was not invented earlier was because people were used to the idea of pikes protecting musketmen, much as they protected crossbowmen in earlier times. It took time for people to realize replacing the pikemen with bayonet armed musket men would simultanously double the firepower and pointy things, and eliminate the need to coordinate the awkward movements of two types of soliders in the same formation.

Men of war are naturally conservative. They stake their lives on proven concepts until something new is thoroughly proven. They're not idiots for not inventing bayonets earlier, but it doesn't take a genius to invent an earlier bayonet either.

As I said, no one deliberately developed the plug bayonet with the intent of blocking fire.

It doesn't take a genius to invent it, fine - but then why did it take so long to be invented?

You'd need a reason to prefer the bayonet to pike-and-shot, which worked well, and if you want bayonets revolutionizing warfare earlier you need a faster development of the kind that doesn't block fire.

[tallwingedgoat]

To put it plainly, bayonets did not actually make sense until one could get saturation fire; not good but infrequent shooting like with a 17th c. arquebousse, but mass shooting that would overwhelm the lighter cavalry of the day (remember, the reitar killed the lancer by then!). The bayonet as a tool of last resort would make sense then, and help minimize casualties by gunfire by getting right into the fighting. Otherwise the bayonet was a really really poor pike substitute - behold the Swedes employing pike effectively against their bayonet-wielding opponents, and behold the rainy campaign on 1813 where even light cavalry on occasion hacked apart formed squares with bayonets (remember how badly the odds are stacked against the horse), because the rain turned the muskets into simple spears.

I would be very surprised if, say, Cossacks could break a pike square, yet they managed to chop through Napoleon's Young Guard.

But saturation fire was made possible by the bayonet! If you had a hundred men and half of them used pikes, then you only had 50 muskets to fire at the cavalry and 50 pikes to receive the charge. But if you had 100 bayonet equipped muskets you double the fire power and have 100 bayonets to receive the charge.

The combination of more flying lead and more pointy sticks was generally superior even though pikes, one on one were better than bayonets.

[tallwingedgoat]

As I said, no one deliberately developed the plug bayonet with the intent of blocking fire.

It doesn't take a genius to invent it, fine - but then why did it take so long to be invented?

Probably the same reason the Mayans didn't use the wheel or the Europeans didn't invent the moldboard plow, or the Greeks didn't invent zero. Lots of simple things were not invented for no reason other than it wasn't.

[Hapsburg]

It doesn't take a genius to invent it, fine - but then why did it take so long to be invented?

Because dumb motherfuckers are dumb? And in that day and age, "dumb motherfucker" counts for a lot of the population. :D

[Elfwine]

Because dumb motherfuckers are dumb? And in that day and age, "dumb motherfucker" counts for a lot of the population. :D

That didn't change in the 18th century, though. :p

[Derek Pullem]

But saturation fire was made possible by the bayonet! If you had a hundred men and half of them used pikes, then you only had 50 muskets to fire at the cavalry and 50 pikes to receive the charge. But if you had 100 bayonet equipped muskets you double the fire power and have 100 bayonets to receive the charge.

The combination of more flying lead and more pointy sticks was generally superior even though pikes, one on one were better than bayonets.

You say that 100 muskets are better than 50 muskets and 50 pikes. But that really depends upon the rate of fire of the musket doesn't it. Matchlock= slow and unreliable, Flintlock faster and a chance of firing when wet.

It's no co-incidence that the bayonet became popular as the matchlock was phased out.

So really your whole question is wrong - the question should be "What if a reliable flintlock musket was introduced earlier?"

[tallwingedgoat]

You say that 100 muskets are better than 50 muskets and 50 pikes. But that really depends upon the rate of fire of the musket doesn't it. Matchlock= slow and unreliable, Flintlock faster and a chance of firing when wet.

It's no co-incidence that the bayonet became popular as the matchlock was phased out.

So really your whole question is wrong - the question should be "What if a reliable flintlock musket was introduced earlier?"

Not at all. A slower firing matchlock (not really that much slower) benefit even more from having a bayonet as backup. While matchlock with bayonet wont be quite as effective as flintlock with bayonet, it would still be preferable to matchlock without bayonet. Even if slower firing matchlocks mean your force must still include some pikemen, would your musketmen ditch their bayonets if they were issued? Having more pointy things always help, you lose nothing having them.

[Derek Pullem]

Not at all. A slower firing matchlock (not really that much slower) benefit even more from having a bayonet as backup. While matchlock with bayonet wont be quite as effective as flintlock with bayonet, it would still be preferable to matchlock without bayonet. Even if part of your force are pikemen, it makes no sense to ditch your bayonets if they were issued to you. Having more pointy things always help, you lose nothing having them.

Matchlocks rate of fire 1-2 rounds per minute.

Flintlock 3-4 rounds per minute. Broadly speaking flintlock muskets increased the weight of fire by 50-100%

If you are protected by a pikeman then actually, a sword and a musket is a much better combination (or if you're Polish musket and an axe which was devastating) as the musket is a poor pike - trying to poke someone carying a long stick with a short stick is a bad idea. As the Romans legions proved (and to some extent the Spanish tercios), get a swordsman inside a pike formation and its game over.

[Geekhis Khan]

It doesn't take a genius to invent it, fine - but then why did it take so long to be invented?

What I call the "Sandwich-Cut Pickle Phenomenon". People have put pickle chips on sandwiches for a long, long time before someone figured out you could cut them lengthwise so they don't fall out of the sanwich at first bite. Why didn't someone think of such an in hindsight obvious idea sooner? ;)

Same with the wheelbarrow or the bayonet...in hindsight "duh".

[RGB]

But saturation fire was made possible by the bayonet! If you had a hundred men and half of them used pikes, then you only had 50 muskets to fire at the cavalry and 50 pikes to receive the charge. But if you had 100 bayonet equipped muskets you double the fire power and have 100 bayonets to receive the charge.

The combination of more flying lead and more pointy sticks was generally superior even though pikes, one on one were better than bayonets.

That is true, with a faster-firing musket. Nonetheless, late pike-and-shot ratios are more like 4:1 or more in terms of musket to pike so it's not as big of a change as one might think. Why pike and shot and not swordsmen to defend the shot? Because cavalry tramples swordsmen into the ground, and with the mass light cavalry of the musket age that's just always a possibility.

Interestingly, the plug-in bayonet, although available in Poland and Russia for a longish time, never really displaced the Bardiche, although attempts at making pike corps were more appreciated. The later detachable bayonet was a success, though a large part of its adoption was by royal fiat.

There were still attempts at including short pikes for the Russian guard in the 18th c. and of course the Polish Rebels - kosniary - used reversed scythes to surprising effect against Russian regulars with bayonets. That tells me that the bayonet really did have limitations and people were aware of it. On the other hand, the French conquered most of West Africa with the bayonet in the mid-to-late 19th c. and the locals couldn't stand up to them. Seems bizzare, but there it is.

[Don Lardo]

A slower firing matchlock (not really that much slower) benefit even more from having a bayonet as backup.


First sailing ship rams and now this...

For those who might be interested, here's a nice little firearms blog entry (http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/shooting-matchlock-musket-long-pictures-and-videos) discussing matchlocks, firing procedures, and other actual facts. There's even a video for the Too Long, Didn't Read crowd.

Matchlock firing drills involved two dozen steps or more as the musketeers loaded and primed their weapons while also juggling a lit length of slow match so they didn't also touch off the gunpowder they carried by accident. A soldier carrying a flintlock on the other hand could reload in under ten steps because he didn't have to worry about a mishandled match setting off his ammunition supply. Flintlocks could also carry more ammo because they didn't need to keep their immediate reloads in little wooden bottles.

The blogger states he thinks he could load as fast as 15-20 seconds, but that a minute would be much safer especially in battle.

I'll also point out the undeniable balance issues with the matchlock and the use of the musket rest. When you read the blog, you'll understand that the rest was first used because the matchlock was heavy but quickly evolved a more important role as a slow match holder.

The lit slow match is the musketeers' most dangerous piece of equipment, so the musket rest was quickly used as a holder for it so the musketeer could use both hands to load and prime the weapon. Once the gun was ready, the musketeer would place in on the rest, attach the slow match to the serpentine, and touch the piece off.

When the matchlock finally became light enough, the rest was done away with but the flintlock and other weapons were already in development by then.

Could the bayonet have been developed earlier? Sure. Was there a pressing need for it? No.

Necessity is the mother of invention and no one saw the necessity as quickly as we would have liked them to.

[thrashing_mad]

Actually bayonets introduced earlier would be pretty useless. 16th century was a time when heavy cavalry was historically heaviest (full plate armors, barded warhorses). Puny bayonets would not be alternative for pike wall. Same for 17th century, to lesser extent. Bayonets became useful only when firearms became more powerful, which made cavalry less armoured, which in turn made pikemen unnecessary.

[Bergil]

Don't forget about fire lances. First firearms ever known to be used, and they had spearpoints. As the primary weapon. Meaning that the idea of guns that were also spears existed then died out for some reason. The question is, was this just a mistake, or proof that bayonets don't work well without guns of a certain level of sophistication, as some people have suggested?

[thrashing_mad]

Don't forget about fire lances. First firearms ever known to be used, and they had spearpoints. As the primary weapon. Meaning that the idea of guns that were also spears existed then died out for some reason. The question is, was this just a mistake, or proof that bayonets don't work well without guns of a certain level of sophistication, as some people have suggested?

AFAIK fire lances had extremely low range, and were used mostly in sieges in medieval Far East. Bayonet is not some great invention that people forgotten, it just would not work/make no sense massively earlier than it appeared OTL.

[Don Lardo]

AFAIK fire lances had extremely low range, and were used mostly in sieges in medieval Far East.


They weren't routinely reloaded either.

Bayonet is not some great invention that people forgotten, it just would not work/make no sense massively earlier than it appeared OTL.

Exactly. They could appear a scant few earlier perhaps, but not much earlier as the need wasn't there and/or wasn't yet perceived.

[tallwingedgoat]

Actually bayonets introduced earlier would be pretty useless. 16th century was a time when heavy cavalry was historically heaviest (full plate armors, barded warhorses). Puny bayonets would not be alternative for pike wall. Same for 17th century, to lesser extent. Bayonets became useful only when firearms became more powerful, which made cavalry less armoured, which in turn made pikemen unnecessary.

Do you know what musketmen used as backup weapons when armor was still commonly worn? They used the musket butt as a club, and also carried a rapier. I submit that a bayonet would have been at least as effective as a rapier and therefore plate armor is not an explanation for the lack of bayonets.

Someone made an astute comment that matchlocks tended to be bulkier than later flintlocks. While this is generally true, there are two problems with this. One being that many early matchlocks were quite handy. Second, when the early plug bayonet came out, they were used on rather bulky early flintlocks.

There is an assumption by some posters that because something wasn't invented earlier, it proves there was no need for it. I can't disagree with that notion more, and there are countless examples of that being patently false.

[Don Lardo]

... many early matchlocks were quite handy.


Which, of course, is why all early drill manuals have musketeers using firing rests.

There is an assumption by some posters that because something wasn't invented earlier, it proves there was no need for it.No. No one is suggesting there was no need.

What is being suggested is that there was no perceived or pressing need to trigger the necessary conceptual leap plus quite a few technological and technique hurdles that needed to be overcome also. It's a subtle difference but an important one.

Putting it another way, you're wondering why there wasn't a "revolution" and we're explaining why "evolution" occurs much more often.

Pikes kept cavalry off infantry formations and allowed infantry formations to attack other infantry formations while matchlocks initially filled the historically small missile weapon role. As the many benefits of firearms became more and more appreciated, the ratio between pike and shot steadily tipped in favor of muskets until formations appeared with shot-to-pike ratios of 4:1 or greater. It was only then that the conceptual leap of turning all firearms into polearms via bayonets was made.

I can't disagree with that notion more...Seeing as you didn't quite understand the actual notion being suggested, your disagreement with it is moot.


(I just removed an emoticon I did not intend to be part of my post. I had wanted to use a colon between shot and pike in the phrase shot-to-pike ratios but the colon combined with the letter p to produce an emoticon. Please accept my apologies for the inadvertent use of that symbol.)

[RGB]

Which, of course, is why all early drill manuals have musketeers using firing rests.

Or berdishes. Which is another solution.

[tallwingedgoat]

Putting it another way, you're wondering why there wasn't a "revolution" and we're explaining why "evolution" occurs much more often.

...

Seeing as you didn't quite understand the actual notion being suggested, your disagreement with it is moot.


I'm afraid you are the one who has misunderstood the question of my post, which is "what if the bayonet was invented earlier", not "why wasn't it invented earlier" - a separate subject of which I am not particularly interested. This misunderstanding has been an unnecessary distraction.

[Don Lardo]

I'm afraid you are the one who has misunderstood the subject of my post, which is "what if the bayonet was invented earlier", not "why wasn't it invented earlier" - a separate subject of which I am not particularly interested. The focus on the latter has been an unnecessary distraction.


Quite to the contrary. Understanding why something happened is the best way of determining how it might have happened differently.

We've explained how the concept needed to "evolve". With the historical process now understood, you can choose to either speed up that "evolution" or impose a "revolution" instead.

Which will it be? An earlier transition to flintlocks resulting in a less finicky gun which can handle a bayonet more readily? A "genius" receiving the "inspiration" to invent the bayonet earlier? Or something else entirely? The choice is yours to make.

[thrashing_mad]

Do you know what musketmen used as backup weapons when armor was still commonly worn? They used the musket butt as a club, and also carried a rapier. I submit that a bayonet would have been at least as effective as a rapier and therefore plate armor is not an explanation for the lack of bayonets.

It is, though not directly. Heavy cavalry of that time couldn`t be countered by arquebus/musket armed infantry, thus there were pikemen which could not be replaced by infantry with bayonets. You would have a point, if infantry with firearms was widespread/decisive formation on the battlefield. It was not until late 17th century, when guns became more effective and widespread. Cavalry was still decisive formation, and until it was armoured, which made pikemen necessary, bayonets were not needed. Hand weapon or musket butt was enough, because musketeers weren`t supposed to fight in close combat - cavalry and pikemen were there to do the job.

[Elfwine]

Backing for the following is the research done by more educated posters than myself:

I think the best way to make an earlier bayonet is to have a faster development of the flintlock.

There are other possible arguments, but this is the one I find most convincing - flintlocks mean that having the musket as standard infantry equipment is a good idea, and that means that the issue of blocking the fire of the gun when the bayonet is attached becomes a major impediment, and being able to make improvised polearms so as to drop the pikes and use even more muskets is desirable. There's no reason not to develop it then, as opposed to it being something that won't be that big a deal anyway.

You could have some inspired invention, but it would likely languish for a while if the circumstances it was invented in didn't make it worth the cost and trouble.

[tallwingedgoat]

Quite to the contrary. Understanding why something happened is the best way of determining how it might have happened differently.

We've explained how the concept needed to "evolve". With the historical process now understood, you can choose to either speed up that "evolution" or impose a "revolution" instead.

Which will it be? An earlier transition to flintlocks resulting in a less finicky gun which can handle a bayonet more readily? A "genius" receiving the "inspiration" to invent the bayonet earlier? Or something else entirely? The choice is yours to make.

Maybe you should just admit you misunderstood the subject of my thread and move on. You are welcome to start another thread for your area of interest. On this one we will stay on topic. I have drawn my conculsions, that bayonets need not "evolve" from flintlocks, and that bayonet equipped matchlocks would be revolutionary.

[Elfwine]

Apparently, to Tallwingedgoat, the bayonet being invented earlier is like deciding to research Economics earlier in Civilization II.

Or worse, since at least that acknowledges the fact certain things lead up to it happening and that you'd need to address that to construct an alternate outcome.

Why would someone develop bayonets for something so heavy and cumbersome as a matchlock? No one would say "Hey why don't we stick knives on these things to make them even heavier and more unwieldy".

[RGB]

I have drawn my conculsions, that bayonets need not "evolve" from flintlocks, and that bayonet equipped matchlocks would be revolutionary.

I contend your conclusions need more support. Bayonet-equipped matchlocks would certainly prove to be underwhelming weapons against people equipped with proper melee tools and most of all cavalry. They would still cost a fair amount of cash to produce and still add to the total weight of the soldier's equipment. They would not be enough to create the rate of fire that would make cavalry useless against formed infantry by reducing the pike. That's exactly what everyone has been talking about.

Some genius will discover them, people will say "neat", someone might even try them, then they will be found wanting and forgotten for a century or so until people invent flintlocks and gun squares.

[tallwingedgoat]

It is, though not directly. Heavy cavalry of that time couldn`t be countered by arquebus/musket armed infantry, thus there were pikemen which could not be replaced by infantry with bayonets. You would have a point, if infantry with firearms was widespread/decisive formation on the battlefield. It was not until late 17th century, when guns became more effective and widespread. Cavalry was still decisive formation, and until it was armoured, which made pikemen necessary, bayonets were not needed. Hand weapon or musket butt was enough, because musketeers weren`t supposed to fight in close combat - cavalry and pikemen were there to do the job.

As I've said, even if that were true and pikemen are still required to defend against cavalry, the pike and shot formation still benefit from bayonets on the muskets. It is after all more effective than drawing the rapier. In any case having all your musketmen armed with long bayonets can not help but reduce the need for pikes.

Your answer seems to be that pikes would remain in use, albeit in lesser porportion should the bayonet and matchlock combo become standard. That seems to me a reasonable possibility.

[tallwingedgoat]

Apparently, to Tallwingedgoat, the bayonet being invented earlier is like deciding to research Economics earlier in Civilization II.

Or worse, since at least that acknowledges the fact certain things lead up to it happening and that you'd need to address that to construct an alternate outcome.

Why would someone develop bayonets for something so heavy and cumbersome as a matchlock? No one would say "Hey why don't we stick knives on these things to make them even heavier and more unwieldy".

Apparently according to Elfwine, the sandwich couldn't possibly be invented earlier. Because what use would earlier people have for meat between two slices of bread? Had it been invented earlier it would be forgotten because people were doing just fine without it. :rolleyes:

[Elfwine]

As I've said, even if that were true and pikemen are still required to defend against cavalry, the pike and shot formation still benefit from bayonets on the muskets. It is after all more effective than drawing the rapier. In any case having all your musketmen armed with long bayonets can not help but reduce the need for pikes.

Your answer seems to be that pikes would remain in use, albeit in lesser porportion should the bayonet and matchlock combo become standard. That seems to me a reasonable possibility.

Speaking for myself here, apologies to thrashing mad.
Other than the tiny obstacle that bayonet-equipped matchlocks aren't very effective, I suppose it could work like that. They don't reduce the need for pikes because pikes are much, much, much better vs. cavalry. The rapier is also more effective at its task than the clumsy weapon of a bayonet+matchlock as a melee weapon.

Apparently according to Elfwine, the sandwich couldn't possibly be invented earlier. Because what use would earlier people have for meat between two slices of bread? Had it been invented earlier it would be forgotten because people were doing just fine without it. :rolleyes:

Not even remotely the same thing. I'm all for the use of metaphor in argument, but this is a bad metaphor for the argument.

As RGB explained, there's a problem with just saying "Hey let's have bayonets" in the matchlock era. Unless you address the reasons it didn't happen, which is beyond not having a genius having some Eureka! moment, you won't meaningfully change things.

The socket bayonet may not need the existence of earlier bayonets, but bayonet-armed guns have to be an improvement to be used to any great extent.

[tallwingedgoat]

Not even remotely the same thing. I'm all for the use of metaphor in argument, but this is a bad metaphor for the argument.

As RGB explained, there's a problem with just saying "Hey let's have bayonets" in the matchlock era. Unless you address the reasons it didn't happen, which is beyond not having a genius having some Eureka! moment, you won't meaningfully change things.

The socket bayonet may not need the existence of earlier bayonets, but bayonet-armed guns have to be an improvement to be used to any great extent.

The metaphor is perfectly adapt since the proposition of this thread is not "what if bayonets suddently became widespread earlier?" It is, once again "what if bayonet was invented earlier". What would be the implications and effects?

Now it's fair to say that it may not catch on for various technical reasons (of which none proposed so far seems convincing), but to say that it couldn't catch on simply because it wasn't invented earlier or that there were (inferior) alternatives is tantamount to saying the sandwich couldn't catch on if invented earlier because people had other things to eat.

Your claim that matchlock and bayonet would be inferior to rapier needs further proof than your saying so. Have you examined many matchlocks? How is it inferior? Was the matchlock too heavy? Then why did the plug bayonet and early heavy flintlock combo catch on? Though some matchlocks were heavy, there were also light and handy matchlocks. If the bayonet was invented, it seems logical matchlock makers would gravitate toward the lighter variety than to simply abandon the bayonet.

[RGB]

Then why did the plug bayonet and early heavy flintlock combo catch on? Though some matchlocks were heavy, there were also light and handy matchlocks. If the bayonet was invented, it seems logical matchlock makers would gravitate toward the lighter variety than to simply abandon the bayonet.

More accurately, the bayonet in its various forms coextisted with other white arms in infantry for over a century, before finally becoming universal.

Its earlier appearance would likely mean a longer period of coexistance rather than an earlier revolution. And notably, infantry units were still carrying all-purpose blades even in the bayonet age as backup arms.

If as TM says you go back to the 16th c. I doubt the bayonet would take off at all in any big way - and the rapier thing becomes misleading, smallswords being much less widely used than hacking side-blades that never disappeared from the kit anyway.

The only real question is, if, in the mid-17th c. the socket bayonet is invented, instead of the plug being used first, will the impact be revolutionary? I can't really answer that, without knowing what kind of gun it's attached to and what kind of wars are being fought, but longer coexistance, once again, seems more likely than abandonment of pre-bayonet tactics. Certainly you could theoretically see armies like the Dutch and the Swedes adapting them early, to maximise the increasing firepower and still retain some melee protection. But historical Sweden used pike far longer than most other countries, whether for reasons of pecuniary want or tactical considerations. Either way, it's a bit of a strike against the bayonet as the sole weapon much earlier than historically.

[Elfwine]

The metaphor is perfectly adapt since the proposition of this thread is not "what if bayonets suddently became widespread earlier?" It is, once again "what if bayonet was invented earlier". What would be the implications and effects?

Now it's fair to say that it may not catch on for various technical reasons (of which none proposed so far seems convincing), but to say that it couldn't catch on simply because it wasn't invented earlier or that there were (inferior) alternatives is tantamount to saying the sandwich couldn't catch on if invented earlier because people had other things to eat.

No, its not. There is no reason for it to be invented earlier with any impact large enough to notice unless and until the problems you are determined to ignore are addressed.

So except for the ubergeeky who think *insert name *here** inventing the bayonet in *insert year* is cool, the bayonet being invented earlier has no real impact. And speaking as someone who is on the fifth step for a twelve step program for that, that's really, really minor.

The sandwich doesn't take any developments of slabs o' meat - instead of getting your hands greasy, you put your slab of meat between two pieces of bread. The bayonet not being anything other than a flash in the pan does require a change to existing weapons, tactics, and so on. And there's no reason it will inspire them on its own. Now if matchlock + bayonet was somehow superior, then maybe people would act accordingly. But it isn't - its less effective vs. cavalry and more awkward and unwieldy in general than the other "white weapons".


Your claim that matchlock and bayonet would be inferior to rapier needs further proof that your saying so. How is it inferior? Was the matchlock too heavy? Then why did the plug bayonet and early heavy flintlock combo catch on?Because the flintlock isn't as heavy and unwieldy as the matchlock?


Though some matchlocks were heavy, there were also light and handy matchlocks. If the bayonet was invented, it seems logical matchlock makers would gravitate toward the lighter variety than to simply abandon the bayonet.It seems logical only if you think the bayonet is going to somehow make up for the fact the pike does the job it is supposed to do better in the first place. And the matchlock does not produce sufficient, effective firepower to justify relying on firepower - so we go back to you ignoring what everyone else has been saying.

Meanwhile, the light and handy matchlocks aren't the ones used by standard infantry - i.e., the ones which are going to be using the bayonet.

No one deliberately used the heavy form just to frustrate bayonet lovers.

[Don Lardo]

Maybe you should just admit you misunderstood the subject of my thread and move on.


You need to admit that, much like your earlier ideas regarding sailing ships with rams, your knowledge of this topic is somewhat lacking.

On this one we will stay on topic.

All of us responding to your increasingly desperate attempts to ignore this idea's central question are staying on topic. You're fixated on bayonets being developed earlier because you're either failing to realize or deliberately ignoring the point that bayonets must be successfully utilized in order for them to stick around. (Puns intended.)

We're actually looking at what would have to change for bayonets to be adopted earlier while you're mindlessly ISOTing bayonets where they don't belong and can't be used.

I have drawn my conculsions...

And, like your "conclusions" regarding sailing ships with rams, they are ill informed.

... that bayonets need not "evolve" from flintlocks...

No one is suggesting that flintlocks are necessary. A less cumbersome firearm which can be more easily used as a poleam is necessary. A flintlock is a less cumbersome firearm that a matchlock, but it's not the only firearm less cumbersome than a matchlock.

... and that bayonet equipped matchlocks would be revolutionary.

You've been told this before and provided links which explain it too. Bayonets on the vast majority OTL matchlocks would be useless because those weapons are ill suited for bayonet use.

You just don't stick a large knife on the end of a gun and hope it's frightfulness keeps people away from you. You have to stick a large knife on the end of gun and then successfully disembowel a man or horse with that knife for the idea to be adopted.

The idea isn't enough, the idea has to be shown to be useful too. Until you have a firearm with which a bayonet can be used, the idea alone won't be enough.

[abas]

Why would someone develop bayonets for something so heavy and cumbersome as a matchlock? No one would say "Hey why don't we stick knives on these things to make them even heavier and more unwieldy". Unwieldness of matchlock musket had nothing to do with the type of lock. Flintlock muskets became lighter because there were less concern with heavy armour which was already fading out.

As I've said, even if that were true and pikemen are still required to defend against cavalry, the pike and shot formation still benefit from bayonets on the muskets. It is after all more effective than drawing the rapier. In any case having all your musketmen armed with long bayonets can not help but reduce the need for pikes.

Your answer seems to be that pikes would remain in use, albeit in lesser porportion should the bayonet and matchlock combo become standard. That seems to me a reasonable possibility. You must to consider that before shift from pikes to bayonets the pikes were much shorter than in 16th century, extending in front of the first rank not much than musket with bayonet was able to reach. Also infantry and most of cavalry was unarmoured, in opposite to 16th century.

[Elfwine]

Unwieldness of matchlock musket had nothing to do with the type of lock. Flintlock muskets became lighter because there were less concern with heavy armour which was already fading out.

Whether or not it has anything to do with the type of lock, the existing matchlocks that we're supposed to make bayonets for are heavy and unwieldy - and I am not sure how much heavy armor (which has been fading out since there were firearms) requires something so heavy as to require a firing rest.

[Byzer Bob]

Somehow someone invents the matchlock bayonet and for example lets have the Royalists adopt this new invention whilst Parliament stick with the orthodox Pike and Muskateer system... or the other way around

First battle:-
The cannon fire and the cavalry faff about on the wings, the infantry come together a cloud of smoke envelopes the ranks of the infantry, as the light breeze blows the smoke away the pike armed infantry stolidly advance and impale the bayonet armed muskateers from 16 to 18 feet away :eek: trudging forward over the corpses of muskateers who can reach out 5 feet (maybe 6) with their spear points

Lets even say the Royalist cav are triumphant they wheel to charge the rebels and are meet..... yes with a row of pointy sticks

In fact even a medieval army would make mincemeat out such an army, for example I have been in a Wars of the Roses group for 20+ years and fight with a spear or English brown bill and it would be no contest, the spear/bill is a fast weapon with reach a matchlock is heavy and cumbersome. You haven't got the firepower to keep the opposing infantry away and your close in weapon is next to useless in close combat