What if the bayonet was invented earlier?

[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.

 

[Elfwine]

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

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

 

[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 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.