An interesting video on bayonets

[KillerMongoose]

I found this video today about bayonets, it's by Matt Easton, who, if you know anything about him, is highly knowledgeable about weapons from all over the world and his word is highly respected and valuable among historians and authors. In fact he wrote an intro for the book "Swordsmen of the British Empire" by D.A. Kinsley. In this video Easton talks about bayonets and reality versus fiction. It's worth watching as are all of Easton's videos and in fact I highly recommend that anyone looking to learn more about weapons and armor and their uses and applications check his videos out because they're usually short and to the point with no nonsense and it's all based on facts and real accounts from different periods and not his own personal opinions.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nc7UNFN3bM[/youtube]

[Rupert]

I fink a bayonet was pretty shit back in the day. Personally if rather beat someone with the end of the gun like a rifle.

[Locust]

Cool video thank you for sharing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Duuring]

Meh. He's kinda pointing out the obvious in my opinion.

At least he's doesn't bring forward the fact that there were very few bayonet-wounds in hospitals and then say, like so many others, that this proves melees didn't happen. While it's true that few men ended up in hospital with bayonet-wounds, but that was mostly because bayonet wounds were either too insignificant to get you in a hospital, or lethal on the spot. We must remember that between being wounded, and getting in a hospital (and thus being recorded), often lied several hours, if not days - Time enough to bleed to death.

By far the least lethal thing in a battle was the cavalry sabre.

[KillerMongoose]

Its obvious to us Duuring but as he points out, many people mistake the bayonet for being some super weapon. Also, Mr. Easton did actually make a video discussing the issues when looking at wound records and such and the problem with judging the number of wounded based on hospital records. And about the cavalry saber, least lethal is a weird way to put it. I would say least predictable. Because you can hack a man's arm off with it but he might survive yet if you split him from head to brow, clearly he's dead. If you thrust him through the shoulder or leg, he'll probably survive but if you thrust him through the chest he's dead in seconds.

[Duuring]

You are waaaaaaay overestimating the cavalry sabre. It's incredibly difficult to hack of a arm with a cavalry sabre. The things were blunt as hell, and the way the sabre was used never gave you the perfect angle to cut of arms. Let alone split from head to brow 

Sabres made cuts and hacks, which left men terribly wounded, but not quite death. Same goes with lances - While lethal, again many men survived (multiple) lancestabs. An important factor is that in a cavalry charge the 'victim' can not quite be 'finished off'. If he survives the first cut and hits the ground, he's safe - It's not like the cavalry is going to dismount and check the wounded. Infantry fights were much more brutal (and shorter).

[Olafson]

But isn't the actual target trying to get as many enemy soldiers out of combat as possible? Even if you survive a Sword thrust, you most likely won't fight anymore, and that is the whole point, isn't it?

[Duuring]

Depends on what you think is the proper definition of 'anymore'. The soldier may be unable to fight for the rest of the battle, or even never recover and be dumped into a garrison company if he's lucky, but once again by far the greatest deal of people recovered and returned to their regiments.

[Killington]

I propose a new weapon to appeal to both the bayonet and sword advocates. I understand that it has already become a popular weapon among the Rejeistan stormtroopers of Australia.

Holy Weapon

[close]

[George385]

Depends on what you think is the proper definition of 'anymore'. The soldier may be unable to fight for the rest of the battle, or even never recover and be dumped into a garrison company if he's lucky, but once again by far the greatest deal of people recovered and returned to their regiments.

just ask the hussar. he always knows. 

[Archduke Sven]

Depends on what you think is the proper definition of 'anymore'. The soldier may be unable to fight for the rest of the battle, or even never recover and be dumped into a garrison company if he's lucky, but once again by far the greatest deal of people recovered and returned to their regiments.

Any evidence of how many rejoined their regiments after a battle after suffering a wound that made them go to the hospital?

[Duuring]

In my research of Dutch soldiers during the Waterloo campaign, many, if not nearly all soldiers who had recorded wounds (thus whose wounds were considered seriously enough to write down) returned to service. The amount of men discharged or died in hospital was surprisingly low, and even if they weren't good for active service, they'd just be sent to the depot and thus stayed on the regimental list.

One hussar in the sixth regiment suffered no less then ten lance-wounds and a sabrecut, yet still returned and fulfilled his entire service, being discharged in 1821.

These are all advantages of 1. Having won and 2. being a soldier in the late napoleonics, where medical services were (relatively) at their best.

[Mr_hankie_elite]

I propose a new weapon to appeal to both the bayonet and sword advocates. I understand that it has already become a popular weapon among the Rejeistan stormtroopers of Australia.

Holy Weapon

[close]

thats like a man with a little pecker tryin to make it bigger by adding stuffing. SHAMEFUR!