| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Peter G. wrote: | @Xavier
Sorry--but thats lame..
If you post statements you should not be angry when somebody asks them-thats what a discussion is for.
|
Calling people lame is not acceptable behavior either and isn't likely to make him more willing to post...
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
|
Peter G.
Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sorry Chad-i didn´t knew thats offensive in english-in german it isnt.
In german it just means sort of weak-if you like i´ll change it
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter G. wrote: | sorry Chad-i didn´t knew thats offensive in english-in german it isnt.
In german it just means sort of weak-if you like i´ll change it |
Calling someone weak is not cool either.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter G.
Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
mail otw-i don´t want to discuss linguistics in open forum
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter G. wrote: | | mail otw-i don´t want to discuss linguistics in open forum |
Since you shouldn't be debating Moderator actions anyway, this is a wise course of action. The bottom line is that you shouldn't speak down to anyone--calling them weak, regardless of language, is disrespectful. You also shouldn't debate Moderator actions or take it upon yourself to tell others how to act. That's our job.
We'll have no more discussion of this here. If you have any more questions, please read our rules and then contact a Moderator; we'll be happy to discuss it with you.
Thank you.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Back on track, sabres in the age of blackpowder would be at least as usefull as knifes and pistols in WWI or II.
You might not need them often, but nice to have never the less.
Maybe not for the brunt of fighting, but when skirmishing, on sentry, and so on.
Because, one on one, a swordsman has a definite advantage over a bayoneted (empty) musket; a 1,5 m spear againts the single sword is in trouble; the musket even more so.
As for removing the hanger as punishment, it has been noted that during WWII non-combat US troops protestet so strongly against having their bayonets taken away that the measure was halted, even if these troops where not even issued rifles.
Basically, a soldier without some kind of blade feels naked, no matter what other weapons he's using.
That alone is plenty enough reason to retain them.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
|
Xavier B
Location: France Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In spite of not enough respect towards my person whom mister Peter G shows, I will answer mildly and calmly a last time to his post. This will be my last post.
| Quote: | Peter G."
There were weapons given for bravery prior the creation of the legion d´honneur. Besides briquets also muskets were given to rank and file.
For officers either sabers or pistols were given, if i find the time i´ll post a pic of a pair made by Boutet-given by Napoleon himself
I'm not speaking about gift for bravery but about special briquet with the inscription "Grenadier" on the blade. Those weapons were effective sword given to every grenadier.
Inscribing "grenadier" on a hanger doesn´t make it a good weapon just like inscribing "Superman" on a t-shirt doesn´t make my fly.
Apart from the marking the hangers weren´t different from standart. |
I do not remember having said that briquet made with the inscription "grenadier" were of superior quality. Please read carrefully my posts. I just said that they were "special editions" for grenadiers and that those "special editions" were very expensive todays. No more.
| Quote: | Have you any reference for this?? I strongly doubt that briquets were used for combat on a regular base
The récits of the battles of Aspern, Valutina, Krasnoie, etc...
Could you pls post e quote were the use of the hangers as real fighting weapon is described? Just because they were carried in battle doesn´mean anybody was really fighting with it.
There is a lot of exemples of using of baïonette in battle, often against cavalry in carré d'infanterie. This was not the principal weapon on the battlefield, but not a decorative weapon too. In fact, it depends of the battle (and battlefields).
Repelling cavallry in a square is not hand-to-hand fighting with bayonet/briquet-thats not what we are talking about. |
I won't give more details, just read more carrefully the recits of the Campagne d'Egypte and the battle of Austerlitz for exemple and you will find some exemples of bayonet fighting in square formation or not, and sometimes sword fighting. And there is other examples of this, even if it's not the usual way of fighting of the napoleonic armies.
You asked me for my sources. I can give them to you. Of course, if you don't speak french, they won't help you anymore:
Les batailles de Napoléon- Laurent Joffrin
Dictionnaire des batailles de Napoléon- Alain Pigeard
Les aides de camp de Napoléon et des maréchaux sous le Premier Empire (1804-1815)- Vincent Rolin
Soldats et uniformes du 1er Empire- Histoire et collections
Grandes batailles de napoleon- Taillandier
Napoléon en 1812 : Mémoires historiques et militaires sur la campagne de Russie- Roman Soltyk
There is also pictures showing french infantry soldiers fighting hand to hand with bayonet and briquet. I can't make a scan of these pictures on my books but you can see them on the french manuscrits of the BNF (Bibliothèque Nationale Française). They are drawing from the Napoleonic Era, showing numerous battles and the authenticity is agreed by the national organism called BNF. If even that is not enought to prove the occasional using of bayonet/briquet or even a more massive using in particular situations, I don't know what we can do for you.
You are speaking about historical accuracy, but your reading is not accurate and your decorum is "weak". If you are a pretended specialist, you should share and not look of top at what does not correspond to you.
I won't post anymore on this topic. Sorry for the desagreement and thanks to the myArmoury team for their good job.
Have a good day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter G.
Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Xavier
Like i posted above it was not my intention to attack you in person and it was not my intention to be offensive-if it did outcome that way i´m sorry.
Considering the list of books-if you could tell where i find the quotes we are looking for i´ll try and get the book on amazon.fr-thanks to 10years on a bilingual french-german school my french is good enough to unterstand any of it.
If you want to post the quotes yourself and don´t want to translate-feel free to send them in french-i can help translating them.
Back to the topic we are talking about-nobody ever denied the use of bayonets in squares when repelling cavalry-thats what they are good for.
What i doubt-and i didn´t see anything to change that-is that either briquets or bayonets were used on a regular base in hand-to-hand fighting or that french grenadiers were famous because they did so.
Managed to check some books, some quotes found in "the art of warfare in the age on Napoleon" by Gunther E. Rothenberg(highly recommended):
"After studying the casualities suffered by units in a nr of hand to hand combats, Surgeon General Larray found only 5! bayonetwounds and concluded that the effect of the weapon was primarily psychological"
"formed regiments charging with the bayonet NEVER meet and struggle hand to hand and foot to foot; and this is for the best possible reason, that one side turns and runs away as soon as the other comes close enough to do mischief" George G. Guthrie, Wellingtons senior medical officer
Bayonet encounters are "very rare in modern warfare, as a rule one of the corps is demoralized to begin with by the firing and draws back before the enemy is near enough to cross muzzles" General Lejeune
About bayonetfights:
"I never saw such a thing on a regular field of battle" General Henri Jemini "Art of war"
Considering the combat value of the briquet
"In 1809 Napoleon tried to get the grenadiers(sic!) and voltigeurs(skirmishers) to carry pioneer tools instead of briquets" John R.Esling "swords around a Throne"
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One can note that the histroical quotes all include a "field battle" clause. Which would indicated that unformed infantry would liable to at least occationally use their bayonetts.
Such instances could be smaller units bumping into each other, defense of fortifications or in built up areas.
Rather than weapons of battle, bayonets and sidearms are weapons of self defense. You might not use them a lot, but HAVING them can make a great psychological difference.
Troops carry bayonets and often privately purchased combat knifes to this very day for these reasons
As such the hangers can hardly be classified as useless.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter G.
Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Elling
I never said they were useless-i just said they weren´t used in fights on a regular base.
Several armies discarded the hangers in middle of the war-not only in the prussian army but in the french at well.
From ~1809 very few center companies did have them and, as posted above, Napoleon himself-who strongly advocatet the use of the bayonet tried to force the grenadiers(the elite companies!) to exchange the briquets with pike and shovels.
I don´t ask your knowledge about fighting with swords/pikes-i collect swords, i don´t use them-and i don´t doubt they may have been useful if they would have been used-but military doctrine and historic records speak against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | One can note that the histroical quotes all include a "field battle" clause. Which would indicated that unformed infantry would liable to at least occationally use their bayonetts.
Such instances could be smaller units bumping into each other, defense of fortifications or in built up areas. |
Well, yes. Most accounts of actual hand-to-hand bayonet fights (as opposed to bayonet charges that end without hand-to-hand contact) involve light infantry in woods and fortified villages. Haven't heard of any of them using their swords, though--except for their officers, who in any case frequently had neither the long arms (i.e. muskets or rifles) issued to common soldiers nor the bayonets associated with them.
I'm still curious about soldiers who had bayonets but nevertheless chose to fight with swords because, honestly, I've never read any primary sources that can back the statement up--note that I'm talking about actual eyewitness accounts, not modern theoretical extrapolations like what you've been advancing so far. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter but the two are very different things. As in many other subjects, though, I'd be all too happy if somebody more knowledgeable than me can prove me wrong on this count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xavier B wrote: | This was juste a "general" example. Not an affirmation. And I've never said that the French were using archaic fighting, please don't read what I've never wrote. At least, French armies were very efficient during the Italian Wars. But they were using Gendarmes. And Gendarmes were the last resort of chivalry during the renaissance, were armies used to use more modern units.
With this, they were also using "modern" infantry, principaly mercenaries as Italian, Scots and German Landsknechts (the fost famous was the Black Legion, destroyed at Pavia). For the swiss Reislaufers, you have to wait the end of the battle of Marignan to see them really incorporated in the François 1er' army.
I don't really see why you have made an special answer for this. |
The problem is that you're trying to illustrate your thesis that the French army often retained outdated tactics and equipment throughout its history with an example actually showing that it didn't. The French was most definitely not the only army that retained the lance-armed, fully armored horseman on an armored horse as an important arm of decision for much of the 16th century; the Holy Roman Empire did so, too, especially for the wars on its eastern frontiers where these descendants of medieval men-at-arms still had a truly decisive shock value against the lighter Turkish heavy cavalry. And there is no evidence that the French significantly delayed their adoption of newer forms of cavalry like the reiter, the cuirassier, and the arquebusier, as such men appeared in their armies at approximately the same time they did in other European armies as well. Their gendarmes, too, readily made a concession to modernity by carrying a pistol in the saddle for use in emergencies.
So, the example runs entirely contrary to your idea and would tend to disprove rather than prove it. You would have done better by taking a different example, such as the retention of the pike by the French well into the 1710s or 1720s--and even in this respect they were no more than a decade or two behind the most progressive trendsetters of their time. To put this into perspective, having their ordinary infantrymen fight with swords during the Napoleonic period would have been at least one and a half centuries out of date!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic