Plug bayonet.

What's the reasoning of using those?
>inb4 bayonet duh
Bear with me for a second.
This is how it was used:
Soldiers were plugging them in their muzzles and then a corporal or sargeant was hammering down those bayonets into the muzzle with a brass hammer so they don't fall off when stabbing an enemy.
In other words - you needed helluva lot of time to actually prepare your unit - and they were losing the ability to shoot till the end of the battle basically, because this shit for obvious reasons.
The only scenario I can think of, when it had its usage was a battle in heavy rain when shooting was impossible anyway because it was very hard to keep your gunpowder dry.

Thoughts?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We were still trying to figure out how bayonets should work and sticking them in the hole on the end made sense.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They didn't have the sergeant take an hour to tap 100 bayonets in, for starters.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      According to reenactors, yes - sargeant or corporal was hammering down those bayonets into muzzles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well then your reenactors are doing their own thing for safety or some shit. Read historical drill manuals.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >historical drill manuals
          Couldn't find anything that would reffer to plug bayonets.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well satan, I think that more often then not bayonet charges were a spur of the moment thing that would be decided by a commanding officer to break enemy lines. Its a lot more likely that they would've quickly shoved them down the end and try their best to prevent them from falling out. I've heard anecdotes in books and videos that the bayonets falling out and being unable to fire were the primary problems with plug bayonets which is why they eventually went to the socket design later.
        Fwiw bayonet charges were usually more psychological impactful than actually doing damage to/killing enemy troops. Seeing a big mass of dudes running at you is more likely to make you want to break rank and only really well trained troops would hold their ground and fire when the attackers were in close range. At least that's how things seemed to operate in napoleanic era

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Fwiw bayonet charges were usually more psychological impactful than actually doing damage to/killing enemy troops. Seeing a big mass of dudes running at you is more likely to make you want to break rank and only really well trained troops would hold their ground and fire when the attackers were in close range. At least that's how things seemed to operate in napoleanic era

          That's the point - what was the context of plug bayonet? I know how they were used in later centuries, but were musketeers with plug bayonets really charging?

          How often they were issued to soldiers anyway? Or some soldiers just were buying them by themselves...

          NGL, this topic started to fascinate me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I realized around halfway through that post that pikemen existed and were still being used at the time.
            maybe they were used more to supplement less pikemen when they had to charge but weren't used that often. Tbf i wonder how often charges happened to begin with, they kinda require specific circumstances

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How often they were issued to soldiers anyway?
            They became part of the issued equipment around 1669/1670 by every western european army as then standardised designs were introduced. Earlier types existed but those were more private hunting knifes inserted into the barrel.

            https://i.imgur.com/e72GYlP.png

            >Sadly I couldn't find the diagrams but think of a classical square formation but with alternating ranks of either shot or pikes.
            did you mean this diagram?

            No that is just a standard pike & shot formation on a large scale. The diagram I mean goes into detail who a square could be composed - with individual letters for each type of soldier on a much smaller scale.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Defense. A plug bayonet gives the musketeer a fallback weapon when the battle degrades to hand to hand fighting. fixing bayonets gives you something to hopefully repel the charge with.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >According to reenactors, yes
        it took an hour according to them, or is that something you made up or misunderstood?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was basically the first type of bayonet around. Of course it was silly and some countries like Sweden didn't even bother with it and kept swords/pikes for close combat until ring bayonets were invented.
    >What's the reasoning of using those?
    You can see the enemy is preparing a charge. He's either going to be plugging as well or he's running at you. So while your pikemen take the charge the ranks behind them plug bayonets and move into close combat.
    >losing the ability to shoot till the end of the battle basically
    If the battle has gotten to the point that people are stabbing each other you won't be shooting much anyway. Either your commander or the enemy has initiated a charge which was the make or break moment in most cases.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >He's either going to be plugging as well or he's running at you. So while your pikemen take the charge the ranks behind them plug bayonets and move into close combat.

      That's the point - if I have pikemen screen, I want my musketeers to keep shooting.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >if I have pikemen screen, I want my musketeers to keep shooting
        Through your own pikemen? Frickin' brutal, my guy.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          we have reserves

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They can always should between their pikemen tho'. If Alatriste movie is anything close to truth, those pike squares weren't static, musketeers were actively fighting with their muskets firing at opponents even when pikemen were charged by enemy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            True, the pike and shot formations were rather dynamic but there are a few issues:
            1) Musketeers take up space - the same as pikemen. And with too many musketeers and too few pikemen a formation will loose the stopping advantage of the pike. The same is true for the reverse case, as now the pike block can't return fire en masse suitable to carry a firefight. This is the reason why pikemen and shot were usually detached from each other and were only "combined" when the musketeers were threatend with melee (usually from cavalry).
            2) In the chaos of a melee it is difficult to give fire - especially when firing from behind your pikemen. What is portrayed in the Alatriste movie is essentially just a few men taking lucky pot shots.
            3) And as armies increased their respective ratios of shot it became necesarry to give the musketeers something to defend themselves from; ideally when in formation and ideally also against cavalry. Before bayonets (and even when plug bayonets & early socket bayonets were around) this could be achieved by giving them musket rests combined with spears, such as pic rel (which is a linstock but you get the ide).
            4) There were formations of integrated musketeers and pikemen. Sadly I couldn't find the diagrams but think of a classical square formation but with alternating ranks of either shot or pikes. The downside of those formations of course was that they couldn't withstand a dedicated shooting or melee attack and that they were difficult to form up - especially ad hoc on the battlefield.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Sadly I couldn't find the diagrams but think of a classical square formation but with alternating ranks of either shot or pikes.
              did you mean this diagram?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >by giving them musket rests combined with spears
              Still couldn't find a good picture but here are some of these spear arranged into a cheval de frise. This was especially commonly used by the Austrians in the earlier Austro-Ottoman Wars. Now the musketeer had a polearm and a musket rest, which together with other ones could be assembled into an anti-cavalry obstacle.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Some of them may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Of course it was silly and some countries like Sweden didn't even bother with it and kept swords/pikes for close combat until ring bayonets were invented.
      >didn't even bother with it
      >posts picture of Sweden soldier with plug bayonet
      No. Sweden just had it all. Some soldiers had pikes (continuation of Pike and shot). As for musketeers they run unique combination of plug bayonets and swords. In melee their musketeers were supposed to held musket in left hand like short spear and sword in the right and fence dual wielding. Kung fu style.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are the early versions of something often subpar

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cause they were morons. If they were smart, they would have realized it was way more convenient to put it under the gun not in it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. If I lived back then I would have just used an AR. Damn, history times people sure were moronic, huh?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My best guess is you volly at 200m and if the enemy charge you you have 20 seconds to whack it in assuming they are olympians and more like 40 seconds if they aren't.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a lot cheaper than manufacturing special bayonet and an attachment system on the gun, also keep in mind that before industrial chemistry black powder was always in short supply. It wouldn't be unthinkable to run out during a battle.

    Also, maybe some soldiers would be tempted to lose or shoot all their powder so they could retreat and stay alive, knowing they'll become spearmen if they do this might change their mind.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Soldiers were plugging them in their muzzles and then a corporal or sargeant was hammering down those bayonets into the muzzle with a brass hammer so they don't fall off when stabbing an enemy.
    This is the first I'm hearing of that, although it's not like I've ever paid much attention to plug bayonets. In my experience fitting tools into/onto poles, giving something a good twist then hitting the handle on the ground while pushing the socket down will join anything well enough.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/da8gBWK.png

      As others have pointed out: it was quite literally the first iteration of a bayonet. And plug bayonets didn't even replace pikes - pikes were used well into the 1690s and even 1720s for a few states. In conjunction with socket bayonets.
      >then a corporal or sargeant was hammering down those bayonets into the muzzle with a brass hammer
      First time I'm hearing this. I've read that they were hard to remove once mounted but not that it was an issue mounting them.

      >And it took them another to mount dagger to the side of the barrel.
      Plug bayonets in europe came about in the 1650s. Socket bayonets in the late 1680s. And by the late 1690s or early 1710s plug bayonets were largely replaced.
      >pic rel
      Dutch socket bayonet from the 1710s

      .A53d5hVSwjOA54-eLGyD4t

      This guy talks about it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you the one who asked for a source in the comments?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nice. Cool to see that he answered so quickly. Perhaps he gives and update in a few days.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This guy talks about it.
        ask the homosexual for the sauce

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Peoples stupidity.
    No really.
    It took people century to come up with an idea to plug dagger into musket barrel.
    And it took them another to mount dagger to the side of the barrel.
    We take progress for granted but forget that people lived without things for thousands years and doesn't bother to invent them. People, especially ancient and medieval people were stupid, like really stupid.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How would you hand forge a mounting system strong enough to take a bayonet charge.
      Also the Bessemer process doesn't exist until 1856 so you are using potmetal.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So your plan is to make every musket as expensive as a high carbon sword?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Late medieval swords mass produced costed about month salary of the soldier.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Really? How were they getting carbon into them fast enough to make that viable?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >How would you hand forge a mounting system strong enough to take a bayonet charge.
        Like pic rel
        >Also the Bessemer process doesn't exist until 1856 so you are using potmetal.
        Fining hearts and puddling furnaces were used long before the bessemer process to produce malleable iron from cast iron

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          do you not see how complicated that shit is?
          im sure an artisan could do it but that needs the outside of a barrel to be uniform, the inside of the hole to be uniform. every gun would be even more expensive and labor intensive cause youed need more handfitting and matched parts, vs well we sorta know the boresize just make the handle that size.

          hell russians still werent capable of this with the mosin a century ago

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, where do you think 17th and 18th cetury armies got their muskets from?
            It was all done by hand by various craftsmen
            Video related

            ?feature=shared

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              NTA. OP here. Thanks for the video, I love it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It took people century to come up with an idea to plug dagger into musket barrel.
      Because guns were heavy, unreliable and nobody expected musketeers to fight. That's what pikemen were for. Guns were an auxiliary to assist pikemen for the longest time. Once technology progressed enough so that pikes became an auxiliary to guns people quickly came up with the idea of the bayonet.
      >And it took them another to mount dagger to the side of the barrel.
      Plug bayonets appeared in the 1670s and by 1690s countries were adopting socket bayonets.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Because guns were heavy
        Actually 16th century arquebuses tend to be somewhat smaller caliber and weight than Brown Bess.

        >and nobody expected musketeers to fight
        This is why all of them had swords, uwu.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As others have pointed out: it was quite literally the first iteration of a bayonet. And plug bayonets didn't even replace pikes - pikes were used well into the 1690s and even 1720s for a few states. In conjunction with socket bayonets.
      >then a corporal or sargeant was hammering down those bayonets into the muzzle with a brass hammer
      First time I'm hearing this. I've read that they were hard to remove once mounted but not that it was an issue mounting them.

      >And it took them another to mount dagger to the side of the barrel.
      Plug bayonets in europe came about in the 1650s. Socket bayonets in the late 1680s. And by the late 1690s or early 1710s plug bayonets were largely replaced.
      >pic rel
      Dutch socket bayonet from the 1710s

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > People, especially ancient and medieval people were stupid, like really stupid.
      And yet mills employed complex machinery, and the water meadow system was a fantastically complicated system for irrigating fields and maximising yields by simulating how river deltas flood and deposit silt.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >People, especially ancient and medieval people were stupid, like really stupid.
      >ZOMG MEDIEVAL PEOPLE DIDNT EVEN HAVE IPHONES WHAT A BUNCH OF REFARDS
      Holy fricking midwit, go back to r*ddit you fricking homosexual.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Go google Minie and Nessler ball, midwit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The society we live in transformed from the most healthy and prosperous in human history to a global suicidal hellscape nightmare in less than a century.
      Don't throw stones from your glass anthill, modernoid.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based William Manchester.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Holy frick people actually fell for your shit b8

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You've got to understand just how bad forging and machining were at the time. A plug bayonet is pretty much guaranteed to fit, whereas the socket bayonet

      https://i.imgur.com/da8gBWK.png

      As others have pointed out: it was quite literally the first iteration of a bayonet. And plug bayonets didn't even replace pikes - pikes were used well into the 1690s and even 1720s for a few states. In conjunction with socket bayonets.
      >then a corporal or sargeant was hammering down those bayonets into the muzzle with a brass hammer
      First time I'm hearing this. I've read that they were hard to remove once mounted but not that it was an issue mounting them.

      >And it took them another to mount dagger to the side of the barrel.
      Plug bayonets in europe came about in the 1650s. Socket bayonets in the late 1680s. And by the late 1690s or early 1710s plug bayonets were largely replaced.
      >pic rel
      Dutch socket bayonet from the 1710s

      is showing pretty much has to be matched to your rifle, since your rifle might not be quite the same size as the next guys, and you don't want it to be loose.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People weren't stupid, there just wasn't any incentive or infrastructure for ingenuity. Today if you have a great idea you can patent it and seek investors to give you the funding to make it a reality. If you were a medieval inventor, good fricking luck with any of that. You'd have to go around begging lords for patronage and even then the risk/profit ratio is not going to be great.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and while this idiot is convinced medieval people were stupid, people 500 years along from us will think he's a fricking moron for using an AR/AK/9mm/.45 when it was so obvious to just use a quantum flux splargnaffler attached to a volumetric dong-shuffler to make a perfectly reasonable antimatter blaster.

      Or something.

      Medieval people were not stupid. In terms of intellect, they were little different from you, I, or a person from the neolithic.
      What they didnt have was the additional 500 years of using the things to work out a better solution.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Having interacted with people from what might as well be a premodern world, I think it's fair to say that modern people possess better intuition for technical things than people hundreds of years ago did. Because we are so immersed in a technological world from our formative years, we can make leaps of logic that would take many lifetimes of trial and error, especially at preindustrial rates of production, to arrive at.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        While you answered obvious bait, I do think a lot of simple innovations using existing technology take a long time to make but then seem pretty obvious in hindsight. Think of how long it took to arrive at the modern can opener design, from the advent of modern-style canned foods to a can opener that wasn't a huge pain in the ass to use took decades even though they had all the technology to make modern ones back then.

        I bet in the future we'll look back on a lot of tech that gets invented after today and wonder why we didn't think of it decades earlier. I bet once we get AI more involved in engineering there will be many moments like that, the computer will spit out ideas and designs that will seem super obvious in retrospect.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >nd then a corporal or sargeant was hammering down those bayonets into the muzzle with a brass hammer
    This sounds like bullshit, the highland charge was in this time period and was often repelled by bayonets and nothing I've read indicates that the Scottish politely waited the tens of minutes it would take for an officer to hammer in everybody's bayonet before charging. The highland charge did occasionally catch musketeers in the act of putting in their bayonets, the Battle of Killiecrankie for example, but they're always explicitly explained as the result of inexperience and surprise, not because they had to wait for someone else to hammer in the bayonet.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Technology just progresses in weird ways. Look at early automatic firearms, most everything is wonderfully complex and has a hundred moving parts even though a blowback pistol can be made by a guy in a shed. Romans didn't have the wheelbarrow, the greeks used the steam engine as a toy, the inca didn't use the wheel.
    Sometimes stuff obvious in hindsight just wasn't apparent at the time.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >shoot volley
    >takes 2 minutes to reload
    >within that 2 minute period the enemy decides to Charge
    thats why. you won't be reloading because you dont have the time, so just stick the sword on the end of your barrel. better than nothing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >takes 2 minutes to reload
      the average redcoat was drilled to fire 3 rounds a minute. they could reload a lot faster than 2 minutes

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think you just jumped ahead by like one to two centuries there, slow your roll.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Plug bayonets were a late 17th century innovation, by which time matchlocks had largely been phased out for professional troops, so you'd still be expecting 2 shots a minute at least from well drilled men.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      2-4 shots per minute was expected of regulars. A 2 minute reload time would be more typical of light field artillery.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think you just jumped ahead by like one to two centuries there, slow your roll.

      The rate of fire of a matchlock musket isn't that different than that of a flintlock musket.
      Not that this matters greatly as there are several factors that limit the applicable rate of fire on a battlefield, be that weather, limiting the exependature of ammunition or preventing the overheating of the gunbarrel.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was something only a segment of a organized group of men did to defend fixed positions, or indoors probably with great premeditation. It needed to be more sturdy especially when during the golden age of piracy when hostiles where running around with melee weapons and single shot boarding pistols and chaos

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because socket bayonets weren’t invented yet and it’s easier than carrying a sword or other melee weapon.

    are you completely moronic and/or so historically illiterate that you’re u don’t realize technology progresses over time?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not what I was asking for though. You missed my point entirely.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        NtA but aren't your questions already answered by this thread?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Generally yes, but people are still providing interesting tidbits.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would assume that fastening the bayonet beneath the gun would require some reinforced support beneath the gun (so the bayonet doesn't *give* when impacting). Until such slightly specialized addons were standardized, a plug bayonet probably made more sense from a reliability perspective.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based William Manchester.

      I didn't ask why they invented plug bayonets or why they didn't instantly figure out a socket bayonet. What I was asking for was THE CONTEXT of such solution - in other words in what circumstations they were used, if they were popular weapon and if the theory met with reality.

      >This guy talks about it.
      ask the homosexual for the sauce

      I literally did. Read the thread and comments.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I guess it went something like this
    >have a bunch of guns in service
    >nonstandard bore size, sights, and length
    >someone says we should attach blades to the end of them so we can have more shooters in the army instead of pikemen
    >shit. that is a good idea
    >ok let's do it
    >have to retrofit 10,000 muskets to take bayonets
    >ownership is not centralized just like production wasn't
    >some are in state armories, others belong to feudal lords, others to private citizens and militias
    >none of them were made in anticipation of sticking a blade on the end of them and many incidentally have features that complicate this
    >frick it, they all have a hole in the end, don't they
    >plug bayonets
    >people catch on to the usefulness of bayonets over time and start manufacturing/modifying their guns to accept ring/socket bayonets because of their inherent advantages over plugs

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here a drawing of those spears/musket rests. Left side, forefront.
    Still once socket bayonets became more widespread in the late 1690s and early 1700s those polearms went the way of the dinosaur.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Interestingly there were folding spike/spear bayonets as early as the 1660s. Pic rel is a musket with such a folding bayonet, which is dated to 1666.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder how fast plug bayonets handles were ruined by being put in and out and it had to be replaced by a new handle.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most of the museum pieces I could find are in good condition (well they are museum pieces duh) but I don't think that the action of inserting the handle into the barrel was all too taxing on the wood.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Try to put a stick into a pipe and you'll see what happens to wood. It would have to be a very hard wood. Not sure if such wood exist. Maybe oak wood, I don't know.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I work with wooden scaffolding with iron fittings regularly and while the wood is dinged up, the wooden poles are not broken.
          >It would have to be a very hard wood
          Various hardwoods were used - ash being the preffered one in Europe.
          >pic rel
          A plug bayonet with more obvious signs of wear and tear.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks anon. Now I'm feeling like experimenting.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You don't know shit about wood and are gay

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >possibly
            >u gay

            https://i.imgur.com/UVrY47F.jpeg

            I work with wooden scaffolding with iron fittings regularly and while the wood is dinged up, the wooden poles are not broken.
            >It would have to be a very hard wood
            Various hardwoods were used - ash being the preffered one in Europe.
            >pic rel
            A plug bayonet with more obvious signs of wear and tear.

            Were they used as daggers too after they became standard issue? Were they issued instead of short swords?

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I always hate the "You now can't shoot 100 rounds in this battle!" theory. People do not understand how fouled black powder weapons got. You would think you can shoot 30-50 rounds in a battle. But reality is that your gun would foul up within 3 shots if lucky.

    Just like Archery in medieval times. Even the Archers ran out of arrows and had to equip melee weapons to join in the fight.

    To give you an idea on how fouled early black powder weapons got. The ability to use a .22 caliber rifle reliably wasn't even allowed until the adoption of the 5.56

    Simply because the barrel would be so fouled up it becomes impossible to clean. So .30 caliber became universally common. For ease of cleaning.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OK the next question is, did these things get stuck in the man you just poked or would they reliably stay in the barrel upon...extraction?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      With a reasonably tight fit they would be very secure. Early ring bayonets were notorious for falling off and were unfavorably contrasted with plug bayonets for it by observers at the time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah...
      Jokes off, that was one of the issues. Either you put the thing to lightly into the barrel and risk losing it within an opponent or you do it to harshly and have to struggle to get it out.
      Early socket bayonets also had the tendency to get stuck but not as much as the plug bayonets and by the 1750s (iirc) the locking ring was invented, which mitigated this issue entirely.

      >possibly
      >u gay

      [...]
      Were they used as daggers too after they became standard issue? Were they issued instead of short swords?

      Plug bayonets evolved from hunting knifes and were certainly used as knifes but they didn't replace sideswords/hangers/etc.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks, anon.
        I assume they were issued to musketeers. But, to be honest, I'd give them to dragoons... I've read they were in fact given to dragoons. Any info about that?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing specifically that I know. But which dragoons you face the same problem as with musketeers - how to make them more viable in melee. And the solution was bayonets.
          Keep in mind that dragoons weren't really expected to engage horse or foot with cold steel - at least not in the 17th and early 18th century.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Keep in mind that dragoons weren't really expected to engage horse or foot with cold steel

            Not sure about western dragoons, but in Poland (of which dragoons formed up to 50% of the army at some point) their role was to support cavalry they were attached to. So - building earth forts for instance to have some solid back (and where to put light artillery).

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Western dragoons were also used as mobile fire support for infant and cavalry - even as mobile sappers depending on the army/unit.
              But generally not really as melee cavalry or infantry.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My point is, they rarely had pikemen support (being a mobile infantry). Having plug bayonets sounds sensible to me.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but even musketeers with plug bayonets had pikemen to fall back to.
                Generally dragoons did more shooting and scooting.
                But ultimately carrying another knife (or bayonet in this case) isn't going to break a dragoons back or horse so it makes sense that they had them.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    obviously to launch the bayonet
    same reason chainsaw rockets exist

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *