Swords vs Bayonets

[fsn]

Some Ottoman regular infantry in the Crimea (& Caucasus) were issued with both bayonet and a short sword. There appears to be little or no logic in which units were so armed.

Certainly by my period of interest (i.e.1813) short swords in European armies were issued only to elite companies. One wonder is if was expected that they would engage in some specific tasks. Perhaps in trenches in sieges? I don't think Ottoman infantry carried bayonets - preferring pistols, daggers and swords.

I can't help with examples other than Culloden but a book you might find interesting in this context is 'The Myth of the Jacobite Clans – The Jacobite Army in 1745' by Murray Pittock, Edinburgh University Press, 1995.

A well argued point as always. The 1745 is not a period I've studied, but my reading is supported by what you write.

Don't all our Wellington armies have a few kilted highlanders.
Don't the Napoleon rivals have Hussars, when Dragoons or Chasseurs a Cheval were far more numerous.

No.    I have Highlanders where they appear in the OOB, but I actively eschew Hussars in favour of other forms of light cavalry. Prefer a good dragoon myself.

The sword was more expensive than the humble spear ( which is what an unloaded rifle with bayonet attached  effectively is). So if a sword was more effective in close combat why go to expense of purchasing a weapon that is inferior?

I think I agree. From Achilles to Agincourt, the sword was usually a secondary weapon to a spear or something similar. I remember reading that a Hoplite would prefer to fight with a broken spear than a sword. (This may say quite a but about early Greek swords.) 

IMHO - if you have well trained ranked up troops you gonna pick the bayonet for the reach and the fact you can still shoot. Sword only useful in disorderly melee or cavalry engagement.

I tend to agree, to a point. It's the bit where a body of muskets come sinto contact woth a body of swords that I am interested in. Granted any charging swordsmen are going to take casualties from musketry - but no more than any other charging infantry (perhaps less if the Scottish targe is carried.)

 

[Big Insect]

I don't think Ottoman infantry carried bayonets - preferring pistols, daggers and swords.

The Ottoman army reforms ahead of the Crimean War (& Balkan invasion by Russia) saw the 'new' regular army issued with bayonets as standard. Earlier, during the Napoleonic Wars I agree - swords and daggers would have been common.
Even later the more 'irregular' Balkan units were still stuffing their waist-sashes with a fist full of assorted daggers and pistols, which probably reflected a more 'skirmish' approach to warfare and suited the terrain they were mainly fighting in. They also dont appear to have used the bayonet, although the Greeks in Russian service were issued with bayonets, alongside their daggers and swords.

[John Cook]

Always bear in mind that contemporary accounts will over-emphasize the unusual, while often ignoring what's considered ordinary.

That is a very important point to remember when looking at any primary source.

[steve_holmes_11]

Revisiting this a few months on.

I suddenly recalled how new the Bayonet was during the Jacobite wars.
Some accounts of Culloden credit the redcoat's success to a recently developed bayonet drill.

Above we've examined some of the myths: 
Every rebel wasn't a highland chief in full regalia with basket hilted broadsword, targe and dagger.
Many rebels were lowlanders who fought predominantly with muskets...


I'm left with the impression of one of the classic black powder match-ups.
The linear army relying on firepower meets the impetuous army who may shoot a volley, but rely on a dash to contact to quickly sweep the enemy away.

The pattern repeats and repeats.
Regular armies rely on their musket drill and it's all good until one army works out how to conduct a fast attack.
It might be Gustavus' Swedes, The highland rebels, The revolutionary french, the early civil war confederates or the Prussians in 1870.

With the exception of 1870, the guys in line lose out early on, then adapt and develop countermeasures.

1870 sees standard issue of Breechloaders, which adjust the dynamics for attacker and defender - but that's way beyond the scope of Sword Vs Bayonet.

[Big Insect]

Good observations Steve - and I agree with you on all of them.

The introduction of rifled muskets alongside bayonets also changes things in relation to the bayonet and sword question.
Early on rifled muskets don't change infantry drill or even tactics at all, but what it does appear to do is give confidence to the troops in the line, as they have the time to deliver at least one additional volley before an enemy contacts them (or is halted).
We see this with the 'Thin Red Line' at Balaclava during the Crimean War, when the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders (armed with both bayonet and claymore incidentally), aided by a small force of 100 walking wounded, 40 detached Guards, and supported by a substantial force of Turkish infantrymen, chose to receive charging Russian cavalry in Line rather than form square, and defeat the cavalry charge head on.
Had the cavalry actually managed to weather the storm of rifle shot and charged home, maybe this might have all ended differently, but we see the decline of the infantry square from about this era onwards.

Whether the 93rd felt even more confident, having their Claymores as well as the bayonet, is probably a question we'll never know the answer to.

Mark

[Matt J]

I think the 93rd were confident in the fact that the Russian cavalry were pants...

[Big Insect]

I think the 93rd were confident in the fact that the Russian cavalry were pants...

Absolutely (seriously pants!).

But we a similar situation with (not that great) Danish Line infantry v Austrian Cavalry in the First Schleswig War (1848–1852) - rifled muskets being used in a line formation to take-on charging cavalry, rather than the infantry forming into a defensive square.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

By 1870, formed cavalry never successfully contacted formed infantry.
But moments like Vron or Von Bredlow's Death Ride skewed opinion that cavalry were still a worthwhile battle force, a myth that continued until late WWI when cavalry was meant to sweep through the gaps in the trenches.
Hence the reliance on lancers as they were felt to have better reach.

[Gwydion]

Reliance on the lance? Late WWI?
They were carrying rifles, not carbines, short Lee Enfields like the infantry, and were trained in musketry as well as any infantry regiment.
They weren't expected to conduct frontal charges, they were supposed to be a mobile force to exploit a broken demoralised enemy running from the infantry and artillery (and tanks), much as they had always been in many cases.

The return of fluid war in 1918 as Op Michael failed and the Germans cracked, allowed cavalry to be used again.

The Canadian Cavalry Brigade at Le Cateau on 9 October advanced eight miles on a three-mile front and took over 400 prisoners and 100 machine guns, along with several pieces of enemy artillery.

The 5th Dragoon Guards disposed of over 700 Germans when the cavalry attacked them disembarking from a troop train at Harbonniers on 8 August 1918.

Not perhaps attacking formed secure infantry, but then that hadn't worked as well over the preceding couple of centuries as we sometimes like to think. Normally there were other circumstances involved in successful cavalry attacks.
You'll be telling me they were lions led by donkeys next! (Donkey wallopers perhaps )