Is there a reason as to why it took so long for flintlocks to replace pikes?

Just a question.Given how flintlocks have been invented in 1610,is there a reason as to why most armies only phased out pike and shot in favor of flintlock and bayonets in the late 17th to early 18th century?
 
The lack of an effective bayonet. Pikes were used to protect the shooters from cavalry. With the development of an effective bayonet, the musket could double as a pike

They tried everything. First it was the plug bayonet. It fit in the muzzle but that meant you couldn't fire it anymore

Then there was the ring bayonet. It sort of worked but had the nasty habit of breaking off

Finally they came upon the socket bayonet. By fitting in a socket on the barrel, the bayonet was strong and stable. It could also be designed to allow the musket to be fired.

And then the pikes became obsolete
 
Last edited:
The lack of an effective bayonet. Pikes were used to protect the shooters from cavalry. With the development of an effective bayonet, the musket could double as a pike
Would this be an explanation why melee troops were never really phased out in India and East Asia?
 
Would this be an explanation why melee troops were never really phased out in India and East Asia?
They werent in Europe until the late 18th century either. A extremely common tactic was the Bayonet Charge. Basically, soliders would fire off a few rounds while marching towards the enemy, then as a formation charge the enemy with bayonets fixed.

Muskets did not obsolete melee troops. They became the new melee combatant.

Even then, they still saw bayonet charges in the 19th century.
 
Top