Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVII

[Mabn]

Why were bayonets so short? If I was on a battlefield and faced the possibility that either I would have to charge an enemy unit with a bayonet or an enemy unit would charge me with bayonets, I'd feel a lot less motivated to try to run away of I knew my pointy bit was a couple feet longer than their pointy bits. Was sticking something like a rapier blade (maybe with a bit of a cross-guard half a foot from the tip so no one ran up it) to the end of a musket just not possible? Would the added weight or length make the musket inoperable?

[Kiero]

And Kiero --

Yes, I agree, but the original post was about using cavalry to take out small isolated units. I was merely arguing that I wouldn't be surprised if that came up historically. There's obviously lots of factors, but I have trouble imagining that if even a small unit was found isolated, that an aggressive commander wouldn't see that as an opportunity for his nearby cavalry. Of course, the cavalry could be withheld for a variety of reasons: adherence to some general battle plan, not being in the correct position to take advantage of the situation, keeping enemy cavalry at bay, etc., etc.

I do agree with Kiero, that if the plan was to throw squadrons of cavalry repeatedly at small isolated units, that could wear down the cavalry and prevent them from performing useful service on a larger scale.

Agreed - and I'm talking about the theoretical highest tactical utility - the reality on the ground is a different thing. "Aggressive commander" is virtually the epitome of the average cavalry commander of the era, even if they were lacking in other qualities, they'd have no hesitation on charging at things that looked vulnerable. Even to the exasperation of the general commanding the whole battle, they'd gladly charge at anything, no matter the impact on the fatigue levels of their troopers. They'd much rather smash a few company-sized bodies of infantry now, than wait for the possibility of routing an entire battalion at the pivotal moment later.

Why were bayonets so short? If I was on a battlefield and faced the possibility that either I would have to charge an enemy unit with a bayonet or an enemy unit would charge me with bayonets, I'd feel a lot less motivated to try to run away of I knew my pointy bit was a couple feet longer than their pointy bits. Was sticking something like a rapier blade (maybe with a bit of a cross-guard half a foot from the tip so no one ran up it) to the end of a musket just not possible? Would the added weight or length make the musket inoperable?

The standard British socket bayonet of the Napoleonic era was 17", added to the end of a Brown Bess musket which was 58" long, though given the socket and bend, the overall length wasn't 75" but a little less.

I'd suggest that was the maximum practical length that would still give a viable weapon - don't forget a musket is hardly as handy as a spear shaft, being both much heavier and balanced wrongly for melee combat. There was the further requirement that it be viable not just in formation, but individually as well. A rapier-length bayonet is going to give something clumsy in one-on-one fighting.

The purpose of a bayonet is to make a musket into a spear, not a pike.

[The Jack]

Plus all the other little things like:
Small things are easier to carry. Theyre also cheaper to make and maintain, and are less likely to break.
Short blades are less likely to cause accidents in a formation. They are likely easier to take off and on and to stow.
maybe a little more modern but i'd imagine a bayonet would make the gun less ergonomical in tight spaces and if you were hiding for any reason the longer bayonete could be a bit of a problem.

[Brother Oni]

Further to Kiero and the Jack's points, for muzzle loaded weapons, a shorter bayonet also gives you more time to realise you've left your bayonet on before you accidentally stab yourself in the face when reloading.

You don't need a crossguard as the muzzle of the weapon will function the same (even with plug bayonets).

ECW era muskets were ~55" long with plug bayonets of ~1ft overall length, making them ~67" minus attachment. They weren't very good and reversing the musket and smacking the enemy with the stock instead was an accepted practice (not least because fitting the bayonet made the musket inoperable).

During the Napoleonic era, long sword bayonets were in fashion, especially for riflemen who had shorter weapons than their musket carrying comrades so they were issued with bigger bayonets so they weren't a potential weak spot when required to form up in line (a 24" sword bayonet on a ~45" Baker rifle puts them on par with the ~75" Brown Bess with bayonet figure given by Kiero).

This carried on to about WW1 when trench warfare found that bayonets were more a hindrance than a help, so the bayonet length dropped or wasn't fitted. For reference, the British Army experimented with issuing its officers a Roman style gladius of ~24" length and they were also found to be too big for trench warfare.

With regard to modern weapons, the L85 with bayonet fitted is ~110 cm while the M4 with bayonet is ~93 cm which is 44" and 36" respectively - note that while the L85/M4 are the same approximate length (78.5cm and 75.6cm) and the L3A1 bayonet is slightly longer than the M7 bayonet (35cm and 29.8cm) the bayonets attach very differently, giving the L85 a greater range:

Spoiler: L85 with L3A1

Show

Spoiler: M4 with M7

Show

[Pauly]

Why were bayonets so short? If I was on a battlefield and faced the possibility that either I would have to charge an enemy unit with a bayonet or an enemy unit would charge me with bayonets, I'd feel a lot less motivated to try to run away of I knew my pointy bit was a couple feet longer than their pointy bits. Was sticking something like a rapier blade (maybe with a bit of a cross-guard half a foot from the tip so no one ran up it) to the end of a musket just not possible? Would the added weight or length make the musket inoperable?

Let’s go down the rabbit hole.

1) Horses aren’t stupid.
In environments where the soldier has a good chance of needing to defend himself from cavalry (i.e. from the end of Pike and Shot through to magazine breechloaders) long bayonets discouraged horses from getting too close to an infantry formation. Whatever the rider may want the horse is not going to plunge into a fence of big stabby things.

2) Carrying the bloody thing.
99% of the time a soldier is not using his gun and 99% of the time when he’s shooting he doesn’t need a bayonet. If there’s no compelling reason for a big bayonet soldiers will prefer a smaller more convenient one.

3) where you”re fighting matters.
Experience in WWI was that in enclosed spaces a long bayonet is a disadvantage.

4) who you”re fighting matters.
By the time of the 1745 Jacobite rebellion bayonet drill in the British army was lax because most fighting iin Europe was solved by shooting not melee.Fighting Scots Highlanders who were regularly able to close to melee range led to a revamp of bayonet drill leading to Culloden. By the time breechloaders then magazine rifles came about actually getting to melee became garder and harder.

5) most of the time the bayonet is a psychological weapon.
By the Napoleonic wars doctors had figured out that even in casualties from “melee” actions very few casualties were actually caused by the bayonet. One sides willingness to close on the enemy usually caused the enemy to break and run before any actual melee. In the American Civil War it was common for lines of soldiers to stop at ranges of 10 yards and exchange volleys rather than close in with the bayonet.

6) hanging an 18” steel blade on the end of a rifle affects marksmanship.
I’ve read several diaries of soldiers from WWI and WWII where bayonets would be attached in anticipation of melee, but if melee did not arrive quickly the soldiers would remove bayonets so as to improve their shooting.

[Mike_G]

Let’s go down the rabbit hole.

6) hanging an 18” steel blade on the end of a rifle affects marksmanship.
I’ve read several diaries of soldiers from WWI and WWII where bayonets would be attached in anticipation of melee, but if melee did not arrive quickly the soldiers would remove bayonets so as to improve their shooting.

This is very important but often overlooked. A bayonet on the end of the barrel makes it much heavier, since it's more mass at the end of a long lever, and it changes the harmonics of the barrel when fired. Not a huge deal when you're taking about a smoothbore Brown Bess which isn't a tack driver on a good day, but is a big deal with a rifle at long range. A rapier length bayonet would make the weapon stupidly long and awkward and very nose heavy, and wouldn't scare horses any more than the 18" one.

[Kiero]

This is very important but often overlooked. A bayonet on the end of the barrel makes it much heavier, since it's more mass at the end of a long lever, and it changes the harmonics of the barrel when fired. Not a huge deal when you're taking about a smoothbore Brown Bess which isn't a tack driver on a good day, but is a big deal with a rifle at long range. A rapier length bayonet would make the weapon stupidly long and awkward and very nose heavy, and wouldn't scare horses any more than the 18" one.

Just as an addendum, the whole point of the socket bayonet was to allow the musket to still be fired even while the bayonet was attached. Yes, it made the weapon less accurate, and yes, it meant the man using it might skin his knuckles on the blade every time he loaded it, but he had a distinct advantage over the other guy who had a plug bayonet.

Also worth noting that they tended to be more like a spike than an actual knife blade, with a sharp point but no real cutting edge. Sword-bayonets were obviously different (interesting that they were often cut down to knife-size by troops).

[rs2excelsior]

Also worth noting that they tended to be more like a spike than an actual knife blade, with a sharp point but no real cutting edge. Sword-bayonets were obviously different (interesting that they were often cut down to knife-size by troops).

Agreed, socket bayonets really don't have much effect on loading. I have personally loaded muskets with socket bayonets attached and never even come close to hurting my hand. In the heat of combat it's possible, of course, but you'd basically have to bring your hand down on the point, and usually when your hand is that high above the muzzle the rammer is angled away anyhow. The loading position puts the bayonet to the left of the muzzle, while you load from the right.

[fusilier]

Why were bayonets so short? If I was on a battlefield and faced the possibility that either I would have to charge an enemy unit with a bayonet or an enemy unit would charge me with bayonets, I'd feel a lot less motivated to try to run away of I knew my pointy bit was a couple feet longer than their pointy bits. Was sticking something like a rapier blade (maybe with a bit of a cross-guard half a foot from the tip so no one ran up it) to the end of a musket just not possible? Would the added weight or length make the musket inoperable?

These questions have already been answered, but I remember reading that the French in the mid-19th century, had a carbine with a "lance-bayonet" for some mounted troops. I think it was a small number of guards of the Emperor, but I can't dig up the source at the moment. Although this appears to be an example of one (link to an auction house):
https://www.cowanauctions.com/lot/mo...bayonet-170896

Certainly it wasn't very common.

During WW1, American soldiers complained that their standard rifle was shorter than the Germans' rifles they faced, and that put them at a disadvantage in bayonet combat. The response was to provide them with advanced bayonet training.

The other thing concerning bayonets, is the claim that the rifle is less accurate with the bayonet attached. Some rifles designed in the 19th century were supposed to have the bayonet attached at all times (only removed when stored or transported). Examples include the M1862 Dreyse Needle Rifle, but also the M1891 Mosin-Nagant. In the case of the Mosin-Nagant, the sights were "zeroed" with the bayonet on. Removing the bayonet would mess up the sights. So the rifle was less "accurate" with the bayonet removed! My belief is that a bayonet doesn't make the rifle less (or more) accurate, but that it does affect "how" it shoots, and therefore affects how the sights should be adjusted. [Of course, adjusting sights in combat is not practical, so it comes down to tactical doctrine as to whether or not the rifle should be zeroed with the bayonet attached or removed]

[fusilier]

Agreed, socket bayonets really don't have much effect on loading. I have personally loaded muskets with socket bayonets attached and never even come close to hurting my hand. In the heat of combat it's possible, of course, but you'd basically have to bring your hand down on the point, and usually when your hand is that high above the muzzle the rammer is angled away anyhow. The loading position puts the bayonet to the left of the muzzle, while you load from the right.

I've had the same experience. I've never understood the argument that a bayonet affects loading, at least not a socket bayonet.

[gkathellar]

On the individual combat end of things, I’ve not practiced bayonet, but I’ve seen it practiced, and it uses the same kind of circular traps and wrapping motions that mid-length spear does, which I am a bit familiar with.

Outside of formation fighting, one of the things about spear-on-spear is that longer isn’t necessarily better. Reach provides an initial advantage but also requires a more distant opponent to keep the point of the weapon in line. When an opponent gets too close for a thrust, a spear-fighter can only swing, shorten the haft (which causes its own problems), or step back, and against a shorter spear in particular the geometry is unfavorable for a swing. A very long spear is also just awkward to smack somebody with - thrusting an eight foot pole is easy enough, but using it to wind around an opponent’s weapon and dent the side of their skull is more difficult.

[rrgg]

Repeatedly cutting out and destroying little bodies of infantry (assuming you can even isolate them) doesn't sound like a particularly effective tactic to me. Sounds more like a recipe for blown horses and cavalry too tired to fight. Contrast that to a successfully executed charge, which might send hundreds of infantry running for the shelter of another block of infantry or cover. Panic could spread inexplicably, turning into a cascade effect, a good example (and yes it's effectively an anecdote with many situational factors making it possible) was the cavalry charge at Garcia Hernandez.

That's an extreme example, but in the Napoleonic context at least, it was repeatedly the case that worn-down infantry was broken by cavalry charge, often after being engaged by infantry or fired on by artillery. The only shooting cavalry did was generally at other cavalry, trying to drive others off important points or forging ahead for their infantry. I do acknowledge you're mostly talking about a century or more earlier, where different conditions prevailed.

Yeah, it makes a bit more sense in situations where the infantry can't easily be just ridden down, for instance if they're protected by a dense square of pikes. Then you can send skirmish cavalry to harrass them and potentially cause enough damage or confusion that the heavier cavalry has an opportunity to charge home. If nothing else the presence of nearby cavalry at least meant that the musketeers couldn't spread out to skirmish and had to remain very close to their pikemen at all times, reducing their overall firepower and leaving them more vulnerable to artillery and other musketeers. Curiously during the pike and shot era you seem to see a lot more experimenting with close coordination between cavalry and infantry, for instance deploying squadrons of horsemen in the gaps inbetween pike squares where they could keep firing while also watching for opportunities and keeping the enemy on their toes.



Pistols and carbines seem to have been also considered more useful when attacking infantry who are behind some obstacle such as a ditch, hedge or sharpened stakes. Though it tends to be much harder to break an inanimate object's morale.

Indeed, it's a difficult one to definitively classify, especially when comparing different eras, and I recognise I'm often referring to the period at the end of the evolution you're describing. My own reading is mostly in antiquity, and light cavalry is generally unarmoured men (who might have shields and possibly helmets) on unarmoured horses (or ponies), equipped with missile weapons and generally focusing on skirmishing; medium is armoured men on unarmoured horses, able to stay in melee as well as skirmish; and heavy is well-armoured men on big, barded horses, equipped to close and fight it out up close; as a broad classification.

Quality of horse adds another facet entirely, again in the Napoleonic context, the British often had better horses than the French, and fed them on corn, not just grass. Unfortunately, the French were often better cavalrymen, so the two things would tend to cancel each other out.

One argument i've heard goes that as the wars dragged on, especially after the russia campaign, France was starting to suffer a serious shortage of good horses and that this may have been part of the reason that the french cavalry performed so poorly at Waterloo.

It does seem that sword and pistol cavalry who fought in very dense, squadron formations were considered able to worry less about the quality/price of their horse overall. There was also napoleon's quote where he claims something along the lines of 1 mamluk could defeat 2 french horsemen, but that 500 french horsemen could defeat 1000 mamluks, i.e. when large numbers of horsemen are fighting, individual skill becomes much less important than learning good discipline, cooperation, and tactics.

It might also have to do with just how well you do utilize your most talented troops. John Cruso's manual, for example, repeatedly stresses that when fighting other cavalry, whether you have harquebusiers, cuirassers, or lancers, you should always keep 10 or so of your "best mounted" troops in reserve with a good officer. The idea apparently being that if the main body of horse gets routed then the fastest enemy horsemen will pursue, at which point your best mounted troops can intercept them and try to either punish them for breaking ranks to pursue or scare them off and then hopefully manage to escape without taking any losses themselves.

[The Jack]

Did samurai really not often wear their armoured masks during warfare? It seems like a massive waste of craftsmanship and leaves a huge opening. I understand european knights often took faceplates off with circumstances, but most of what i have read of sam says it was more often off, which seems extremely counter intuitive.

[fusilier]

Yeah, it makes a bit more sense in situations where the infantry can't easily be just ridden down, for instance if they're protected by a dense square of pikes. Then you can send skirmish cavalry to harrass them and potentially cause enough damage or confusion that the heavier cavalry has an opportunity to charge home. If nothing else the presence of nearby cavalry at least meant that the musketeers couldn't spread out to skirmish and had to remain very close to their pikemen at all times, reducing their overall firepower and leaving them more vulnerable to artillery and other musketeers. Curiously during the pike and shot era you seem to see a lot more experimenting with close coordination between cavalry and infantry, for instance deploying squadrons of horsemen in the gaps inbetween pike squares where they could keep firing while also watching for opportunities and keeping the enemy on their toes.

At Pavia, Giovanni di Medici's skirmishers fought effectively against French heavy cavalry. When charged by the cavalry, they would move to the sides, then fire on the flanks of the now disorganized cavalry unit. In fact during that period, the description of skirmishers in action would indicate that they fought close in, and were not averse to hand-to-hand. I suspect light cavalry would have been more effective when dealing with skirmishers like that.

It varied throughout history, although I believe those elite skirmishers in the first half of the 16th century were probably the exception.

[rrgg]

And Kiero --

Yes, I agree, but the original post was about using cavalry to take out small isolated units. I was merely arguing that I wouldn't be surprised if that came up historically. There's obviously lots of factors, but I have trouble imagining that if even a small unit was found isolated, that an aggressive commander wouldn't see that as an opportunity for his nearby cavalry. Of course, the cavalry could be withheld for a variety of reasons: adherence to some general battle plan, not being in the correct position to take advantage of the situation, keeping enemy cavalry at bay, etc., etc.

I do agree with Kiero, that if the plan was to throw squadrons of cavalry repeatedly at small isolated units, that could wear down the cavalry and prevent them from performing useful service on a larger scale.

Assuming you have far more cavalry than the enemy ten most the horses becoming tired likely isn't too great of a concern, since if it gets to that point the army can always withdraw mostly intact and rest if it needs to. On the other hand if some of the enemy infantry gets too tired to fight, then unless they have fresh support very nearby they're likely to just be cut down or captured. I suspect that this is one of the main reasons that cavalry during the medieval and early modern era seem to have been so often eager to charge even in situations where they were clearly at a disadvantage. The line of thinking may have been something like "sure they have a line of polearms/difficult terrain protecting them, but if we do get lucky and break through or find an opening then we've defeated most of their army, and if not we can always just retreat and try something different."

At the very least the ability to concentrate their strength quickly where the enemy is weak was a major advantage of cavalry at the strategic level. Even if the horse have to dismount and overrun the infantry's position on foot there often isn't much the enemy can do if outnumbered 3 to 1.

Why were bayonets so short? If I was on a battlefield and faced the possibility that either I would have to charge an enemy unit with a bayonet or an enemy unit would charge me with bayonets, I'd feel a lot less motivated to try to run away of I knew my pointy bit was a couple feet longer than their pointy bits. Was sticking something like a rapier blade (maybe with a bit of a cross-guard half a foot from the tip so no one ran up it) to the end of a musket just not possible? Would the added weight or length make the musket inoperable?

I assume that the length was mainly just for convenience. Even before the bayonet was introduced in the 17th century there were many musketeers starting to dislike carrying a whole three-foot sword everywhere they went. They typically had to use it very rarely, it was extra weight, it might get caught on other solders or things like brush when moving too quickly, and could sometimes get in the way when trying to load the musket really quickly.


Regarding the discussion about bayonets and horses, rather than the horses simply being afraid of sharp points by sight, I've sometimes read it described as the horses going forward until they start to feel the sharp pike points prick their skin, which immediately gets their attention and makes them try to stop or turn around much like when they feel the prick of the rider's spurs.

I suspect not all horses where the same though, some might turn away early, some might just go until they feel pain, and some indeed might have been capable of plowing through as if they can't feel anything.

[rrgg]

I've had the same experience. I've never understood the argument that a bayonet affects loading, at least not a socket bayonet.

Conversely, Cristopher Duffy's book mentions complaints about the infantryman's sword getting in the way during drills.

[fusilier]

Assuming you have far more cavalry than the enemy ten most the horses becoming tired likely isn't too great of a concern, since if it gets to that point the army can always withdraw mostly intact and rest if it needs to. On the other hand if some of the enemy infantry gets too tired to fight, then unless they have fresh support very nearby they're likely to just be cut down or captured. I suspect that this is one of the main reasons that cavalry during the medieval and early modern era seem to have been so often eager to charge even in situations where they were clearly at a disadvantage. The line of thinking may have been something like "sure they have a line of polearms/difficult terrain protecting them, but if we do get lucky and break through or find an opening then we've defeated most of their army, and if not we can always just retreat and try something different."

At the very least the ability to concentrate their strength quickly where the enemy is weak was a major advantage of cavalry at the strategic level. Even if the horse have to dismount and overrun the infantry's position on foot there often isn't much the enemy can do if outnumbered 3 to 1.

Yeah, I had thought to put in a caveat -- if your army has a lot of cavalry, then it's not quite so much of an issue of reserving it for the right moment. So an army of the 16th century, with a high proportion of cavalry, might use its cavalry differently than a mostly infantry army of the early 19th century.

[fusilier]

Why were bayonets so short? If I was on a battlefield and faced the possibility that either I would have to charge an enemy unit with a bayonet or an enemy unit would charge me with bayonets, I'd feel a lot less motivated to try to run away of I knew my pointy bit was a couple feet longer than their pointy bits. Was sticking something like a rapier blade (maybe with a bit of a cross-guard half a foot from the tip so no one ran up it) to the end of a musket just not possible? Would the added weight or length make the musket inoperable?

Here are images, of the sabre-lance bayonet attached. You can see that the rifle is short, but the bayonet is probably about the size of rapier. I offer no comment upon it's efficacy, but will point out that it is definitely a rarity.

[The Jack]

What a cool stupid thing. I approve.

[Martin Greywolf]

Did samurai really not often wear their armoured masks during warfare? It seems like a massive waste of craftsmanship and leaves a huge opening. I understand european knights often took faceplates off with circumstances, but most of what i have read of sam says it was more often off, which seems extremely counter intuitive.

Samurai faceplates generally aren't meant to withstand heavy melee damage, or much damage of any sort. Sure, they help a little for glancing hits, but a direct arrow strike, or worse, a direct lance? It won't do much.

European visors are a lot sturdier, and what's more important, sloped so that they defelct strikes to the side, so leaving them on as a defense is more effective.

Add to that that armor isn't your only defence - seeing something coming thanks to peripheral vision is also a factor, more so if you manuever a lot (early samurai were horse archers, shock cavalry in Japan became heavily used only during Sengoku Jidai). If you also are a field commander, good vision is absolutely essential, so this is where even Europeans took the visors off.

Here are images, of the sabre-lance bayonet attached. You can see that the rifle is short, but the bayonet is probably about the size of rapier. I offer no comment upon it's efficacy, but will point out that it is definitely a rarity.

I'd say the rifle length is the deciding factor here - if you look at those pictures, the bayonet makes the carabine have the same reach with bayonet on as a musket would have.

[Kiero]

I'd say the rifle length is the deciding factor here - if you look at those pictures, the bayonet makes the carabine have the same reach with bayonet on as a musket would have.

That's exactly why sword-bayonets for riflemen were longer than the socketed bayonets those with muskets had. Because the rifle was shorter than the musket.

[LudicSavant]

Did some quick looking about on this. Found this little discussion here:

Bayonet Reach Controversy and Reversal in Opinion

[Vinyadan]

Looking at the bayonet practice image from Wikipedia, it looks like it would make for a fun sport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayone..._-_Fechten.jpg

[The Jack]

Samurai faceplates generally aren't meant to withstand heavy melee damage, or much damage of any sort. Sure, they help a little for glancing hits, but a direct arrow strike, or worse, a direct lance? It won't do much.

European visors are a lot sturdier, and what's more important, sloped so that they defelct strikes to the side, so leaving them on as a defense is more effective.

Add to that that armor isn't your only defence - seeing something coming thanks to peripheral vision is also a factor, more so if you manuever a lot (early samurai were horse archers, shock cavalry in Japan became heavily used only during Sengoku Jidai). If you also are a field commander, good vision is absolutely essential, so this is where even Europeans took the visors off.
.

It's still steel, no? and it's full of angles. That should be enough for most arrows and cuts and maybe a jab. The only problems are that the angles aren't always good and the eyes/mouth are more open than european counterparts, but I don't see what you mean by saying the europeans had an advantage in that their armour was sloped. Plus when you fight, you're always going to be moving your face away from blades when you can and turning dangerous hits into glancing blows.
I don't expect much to survive a direct lance.


Also, Horse archer era japan isn't what I'm interested in, and the sengoku era is conversely the most interesting era they have. Honestly, the Boshin war would be better reference than the genpei war or mongol invasion, but sengoku japan is my Jam. (also O-yoroi is an abomination)

[gkathellar]

Did some quick looking about on this. Found this little discussion here:

Bayonet Reach Controversy and Reversal in Opinion

Just at a glance, this really has the aspect of various armies having a pissing contest. “Our bayonets are the longest!” “Crap, they have some long bayonets, we’d better get even longer bayonets!” “Our guns are short, so we need even longer bayonets just so the other guys won’t laugh at us!”

[rs2excelsior]

One thing to consider, too, with the discussion about the reach of the bayonet is the psychological factor. The bayonet was primarily a terror weapon--generally few bayonet charges in the musket era resulted in melee, one side or the other would usually break before contact was made (I'm basing this mostly on my knowledge of the American Civil War--I would expect similar to be true of most European/American wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, but I could be wrong here). During the ACW, troops with a modicum of bayonet drill were far more likely to either stand in the face of a bayonet charge or press an attack with the bayonet home, not because they were far more skilled with the weapon, but because they thought they were more skilled than their opponents. That psychological edge was sometimes enough to make the difference between you breaking first or the enemy. The reach thing might also have similar roots--if you have the longer weapon + bayonet, and know that you do, you might be that much more likely to actually push the attack, even though the real advantage you have is minor (or actually a disadvantage, as people have pointed out about long rifles and bayonets in the trenches of WWI). Also regarding WWI trench combat, there was a trend toward shorter rifles as the war went on, since the longer ones were more unwieldy (the German Mauser 98k being a shortened version of the Mauser 98 they went into the war with, for example).

[Kiero]

One thing to consider, too, with the discussion about the reach of the bayonet is the psychological factor. The bayonet was primarily a terror weapon--generally few bayonet charges in the musket era resulted in melee, one side or the other would usually break before contact was made (I'm basing this mostly on my knowledge of the American Civil War--I would expect similar to be true of most European/American wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, but I could be wrong here). During the ACW, troops with a modicum of bayonet drill were far more likely to either stand in the face of a bayonet charge or press an attack with the bayonet home, not because they were far more skilled with the weapon, but because they thought they were more skilled than their opponents. That psychological edge was sometimes enough to make the difference between you breaking first or the enemy. The reach thing might also have similar roots--if you have the longer weapon + bayonet, and know that you do, you might be that much more likely to actually push the attack, even though the real advantage you have is minor (or actually a disadvantage, as people have pointed out about long rifles and bayonets in the trenches of WWI). Also regarding WWI trench combat, there was a trend toward shorter rifles as the war went on, since the longer ones were more unwieldy (the German Mauser 98k being a shortened version of the Mauser 98 they went into the war with, for example).

While still rare, there were a number of notable examples of infantry melee combat happening in European wars of the 19th century. Often where infantry had either run out of ammunition, or where dug-in infantry were driven out by grenadiers or others.

[Gnoman]

It's still steel, no? and it's full of angles. That should be enough for most arrows and cuts and maybe a jab. The only problems are that the angles aren't always good and the eyes/mouth are more open than european counterparts, but I don't see what you mean by saying the europeans had an advantage in that their armour was sloped. Plus when you fight, you're always going to be moving your face away from blades when you can and turning dangerous hits into glancing blows.
I don't expect much to survive a direct lance.

Smooth slopes cause hits to glance away. Irregular shapes that from valleys (such as the intersection of your nose and cheek, for example] often cause those same hits to land perfectly for maximum penetration.

[rs2excelsior]

While still rare, there were a number of notable examples of infantry melee combat happening in European wars of the 19th century. Often where infantry had either run out of ammunition, or where dug-in infantry were driven out by grenadiers or others.

Oh, of course. There were definitely instances where both sides refused to back down and melee ensued, just that it was an exception rather than the rule. In general, either the defenders decided they had better places to be, or the attackers decided they'd rather take cover and shoot.

[Neknoh]

It's still steel, no? and it's full of angles. That should be enough for most arrows and cuts and maybe a jab. The only problems are that the angles aren't always good and the eyes/mouth are more open than european counterparts, but I don't see what you mean by saying the europeans had an advantage in that their armour was sloped. Plus when you fight, you're always going to be moving your face away from blades when you can and turning dangerous hits into glancing blows.
I don't expect much to survive a direct lance.


Also, Horse archer era japan isn't what I'm interested in, and the sengoku era is conversely the most interesting era they have. Honestly, the Boshin war would be better reference than the genpei war or mongol invasion, but sengoku japan is my Jam. (also O-yoroi is an abomination)

You are not going to move your face away from blows when you fight, as that would move your face away from the enemy entirely and likely result in your death.

The bonus of the sloped helmets was not so much for a rare sword-blow, in fact, you tended not to swing randomly at somebody with his visor down, no matter how much the IMCF/BOTN fighters want you to think that.

The sloped visors of every european helmet that covered the face from the 13th century onwards are all there to guard against two primary things: Arrows and lances. Flat armour, especially flat armour with holes in it (such as a visor or face-covering plate) runs a risk of having an arrow gain purchase and penatrate. In fact, descriptions from battles contemporary with Agincourt describe the french knights bowing their heads as if into heavy wind, because they were afraid of the arrows gaining purchase in their eye-slits, breath-holes and eyes. Coupled with this is also the fact that you did not volley-fire with longbows or crossbows when you were shooting at knights, you fired straight on and you fired as fast as you could, all ten thousand of you. Riding or walking toward the English battle-line at agincourt (through that knee-deep mud filled with dead or dying horses, drowning knights and men-at-arms and the screams of those who'd fallen off and broken something or fallen beneath their horse) would be like walking into a hailstorm of arrows that slammed against every piece of your armour and tried to "bite" wherever they could. Arrow physics work so that as the tip hits, the rest of the arrow compresses behind it and keeps pushing, meaning if the arrow "sticks" somewhere, it will assert extra pressure to try to get through whatever it is it stuck to.

Likewise, the lance is what drove european armour development as hard as it did, it caused a shift from mail to food-plate sized pieces of metal tied to your chest underneath (or between layers of) your mail during the late 12th century, because people still got run through by enemy long spears (lances or light lances in modern terminology) through: thick tunic, mail, gambeson and mail again. This evolved into the armoured surcotte, which turned into the coat of plates, however, the flat coat of plates could still have a lance slip in between the lungplates, so the lungplates covering the chest became larger, solid pieces as bloomery iron became more available and the arms-race hurried on (the arrette de lance is a ring sat behind your hand, fixed to the lance that allows a lance to stick in your armpit as it slams into your target, preventing it from slipping back and losing power).

However, even through the somewhat flat, solid breastplates, people died, because the forces of the lance attacks were now so great that you could shock the heart to stop beating from the impact (think of getting the steering wheel of your car into your chest in a car-crash, even with a plate between you, you won't come out all right), and so the era of the breastplate was born. The previously short metal plate with bands of metal underneath it forming a front defense was now replaced with a more elongated, domed piece of metal, covering your entire ribcage, ending above the navel, where movement was still important, so the bands or hoops of metal were preserved. All of this was still covered. Eventually, the breastplate piece became a standalone piece that grew to get an uncovered fauld, as seen on the Pistoia Silver Altar Piece from ca. 1370, the rest is history.

At the same time as the breastplate came about however, the lance rest (or arrette de cuirass) was also invented, a hook or small arm that protrudes from the right side of your breastplate, used to lock the lance in even firmer place, allowing it to move your body instead of try to slide under your arm as you hit. And instead of needing to lean your shoulder forward and try to drive the lance through, now you could plant both feet in your spurrs and just "take" the hit, because the solid piece of steel connecting the lance to your entire torso would do the driving, since you were stuck to your horse in your tall saddle and horse was the one moving. You "only" needed to aim it and then be the guide of all of the horse's momentum and forward power as it was transfered into the lance.

The Lance Rest also allowed for the nastiest weapon a rider could carry, the Heavy Lance, much thicker and heavier than the previous long spear, this is the true lance that we think of when hear the word. Often made of pine or ash, weighing several kilograms and tipped with a square or triangular spearhead designed only to punch holes in armour. This is what drove the evolution of hardened springsteel or the heavy flutingon German armour. The only other weapon in the entire middle age to rennaiscance era that would come to drive armour development as much as this would be the early musket of the 1500's, where armourers started to proof their armour for shot at different ranged and powder loads. The only thing more deadly to armour than the Heavy Lance only started coming around some 150 years after the invention of the Heavy Lance itself, and even then took another 50-100 years to replace it. And even so, riders still carried long spears (see the winged hussars for info on the last armoured knights of Europe).

Visors, greathelms, bascinets, armets, sallets, frogmouth helms and even the tournament Stechhelm all evolved to withstand the lance and the bow, not the swordblow. In fact, a lot of fighters prefered going without a visor once melee was joined and lances had been thrown away and arrows stopped coming your way, it allows you to breathe, allows you to see better and allows you to not die from a lack of vision.