"Bayonet Charges: How often did they Connect Again? " Topic

Well, now that the four page was nuked and no one can respond on the first thread, is this something we want to continue?

We have just had one example with one eyewitness. There are more eyewitnesses.

link

I have a totally novel theory……..

One side always broke first and then was slaughtered by its pursuers…unless in enclosed spaces (FiBuAs)

Not sure this idea has ever been expressed before, but, if not, it now becomes Flood's Law of Bayonet Conflict.

OK I know this is a radical idea, but it might be worth discussing…..maybe?

Would further discussion sway any opinions? Probably not. I could spend time putting up any number of quotes from the Zhmodikov's, Mikaberidze, et al, but if you're convinced that one side just ran away and that's that…then that's what you believe. Back to painting…

Would further discussion sway any opinions? Probably not.

It might. But what we were looking for was something quite specific (because I think there is broad agreement that in certain circumstances bayonet fighting occurred quite often):

two formed units/sub-units fighting
not broken down into small groups by terrain
not effectively a slaughter (one side doing the large majority of the bayonetting)
not on a unit which was retreating/routing (i.e. backs turned)
unequivocal (because the concept is contested; best would be eyewitnesses from both sides agreeing this is what happened)

I don't think that anyone has any particular prejudice one way or the other, except that a number of very respected authorities are doubtful. But these authorities were obviously unaware of every incident.

Well, if it was me…and my mates around me had fled……I know here I would be found next.

Weeell, I was in the conversation because

1.there was the opinion that in never happened in open terrain with both sides 'making contact', which means some actual fighting by more than a few individuals. and

2. The question was 'how often' and we were getting 'rare', which wasn't particularly helpful if the question is 'how many.' I think the 1 in 100 quote was just hyperbole for 'rare'. Saying that you or I wouldn't stay around really doesn't address the question at hand.

We all agreed that bayonet/close fighting did occur in rough terrain and BUAs and that actual fighting between two opposing units in the open was definitely in the minority when bayonet charges were made.

We were working on the first question above. I had provided my first eyewitness of an actual fight between British and French columns and we were just getting methodical, with criteria and everything.

We were working on the first question above. I had provided my first eyewitness of an actual fight between British and French columns and we were just getting methodical, with criteria and everything…

Yes, I do remember. Wallace at Bussaco and all that. I don't think either myself or Major Snort were convinced by the account in itself, partly because of the way the account is written and partly because it isn't explicit about the key things we would wish to know. Did Major S post something from another eye witness which seemed to imply that no contact happened? I forget.

Back in the late 80s a wargamer here in New Zealand by the name of Digby Green built on the test mechanics in the old WRG rules and came up with a method of representing this on the table top that actually worked.

He called it Being Outfaced. A formed unit that advanced upon the enemy either broke it with the resoluteness of it's attack (charge if you like) or was outfaced. This usually meant retiring shaken or ending up standing and engaging in a firefight – depending on the outcome of a test. Unsupported attacks rarely worked, you had to coordinate your guns and have cavalry lurking about. There was no infantry melee in the open between formed units. I will dig out the rules (when I get back home at the end of the week) if you want to have a look – I have a hard copy around somewhere that I can either transcribe or scan.

Yes, I do remember. Wallace at Bussaco and all that. I don't think either myself or Major Snort were convinced by the account in itself, partly because of the way the account is written and partly because it isn't explicit about the key things we would wish to know. Did Major S post something from another eye witness which seemed to imply that no contact happened? I forget.

Whirlwind:

Well, I know that you and Major S were convinced by the account, but that wasn't an expectation from one account.

The question at hand was whether that account did indeed describe a fight rather than one side breaking before contact, not whether anyone was convinced by it. It might be inaccurate, but that was a question after further witnesses were presented.

Major S mentioned two accounts that contradicted Grattan's, but neither were eyewitnesses, which was one of the criteria he wanted.

Hmmm. That was "I know that you and Major S were NOT convinced by that single account, but…"

Things are still jinky.

The question at hand was whether that account did indeed describe a fight rather than one side breaking before contact, not whether anyone was convinced by it.

Yes, I mean that: the account itself wasn't clear that the formed bodies of troops made contact, I wasn't speaking to the overall believability of the concept

Whirlwind:
Exactly what has to be said to be considered contact/a fight?

What wasn't said:

That one side stopped
That one side ran away without contact
Even though that is exactly how Grattan describes other bayonet charges by the 88th.

What was said:
That Wallace expected his soldiers to use the bayonet
That the French came on through the volley fire with no indication of stopping.
That the two sides were mixed together
That there was confusion and noise during this time.
That Wallace was fighting in the midst of this Mix
That one side was 'broken down' and then ran

Grattan may be blowing smoke up everyone's pantleg or have a swiss cheese memory, but I fail to see how Grattan's account isn't clear or that there was no contact by the two sides as whole units.

There are other eyewitnesses.

Simple: for me, a large number of individuals in two opposing units or subunits fought each other with the bayonet.

Simple: for me, a large number of individuals in two opposing units or subunits fought each other with the bayonet.

So the witnesses have to say exactly that? Nothing else?

Because I think that is the fundamental issue. And because it is a contested area – not by me necessarily, but by the eminent authors quoted previously – I think that a couple of clear, unequivocal examples would be very helpful. YMMV of course

Whirlwind:

The majority of the Eminent authors mentioned aren't saying it never happened, but that it was either rare or they never saw it happen.

The question for the thread is how often did bayonet charges 'connect'. I would imagine that any such fight, however brief would include bayonets if it was a bayonet charge.

I seriously doubt that any eyewitness is going to say "400 of us and 500 of them fought with bayonets for 6 minutes and 92 of the enemy and 17 of us were casualties of bayonet thrusts before the enemy retreated."

The results are far simpler to see--and describe--when nobody contacts 20 yards from your lines and then runs than making such clean statements from a fight where everyone is 'mixed together.'

You will have general statements of a fight, personal statements of bayonet duels because that is what an eyewitness will see in a general fight.

Grattan called the contact between the 88th and the French column a "brief, but intense fight." How 'unequivocal' does a statement have to be? That is not something said by any eyewitness including Grattan when one side ran without contact.

Again, I'll provide another eyewitness tomorrow. We will see if we can build at least one unequivocal example.

I suspect that the closely connected fronts of both sides did not contact together at all of one time. Some parts, by virtue of the angle of approach or enthusiasm would come into contact first. At these points, there would be either one side running away or a few minutes or seconds of stabbing before one side ran. The neighbors of the runners would take the hint (also being concerned about being outnumbered and having to fight to their front, flank and rear) and join the advance to the rear- thereby unzipping the entire unit. So the actual crossing of bayonets or near crossing of bayonets would be limited to a mere section or Zug. Hard to be at that point, hard to see, hard to record.

Reminds me of a joke about basic training, where the DI is suggesting during bayonet training, that the recruit keep one round in the rifle to fire and free the bayonet from an enemy's body. The recruit responds: "IF I have one round left, there is NOT going to be any bayonet fighting!". Most soldiers probably considered bayonet fighting above their pay grade.

1968billsfan;

I am sure it was possible depending on circumstances.

However, what you and I 'suspect' is just that: guessing about events in a different world two hundred years ago. Then, all any soldier had was one round left.

We are attempting to discover what the actual participants did, experienced and reported.

McLaddie,
Granted, but there does not seem to be much first-hand information available from the accounts that have come down to us. I expect that the type of people who wrote well enough and from a high enough social status to have their writings come down to us, were the type who were more likely to be staff people away from the actual point of contact. I suspect that the people who were involved in several bayonet encounters might be dead before writing or quiet about their experiences. (In our era most veterans who saw bad action do not talk much about it). So we are left with trying to tease out what happened from the nature of the accounts that have or have not come down to us.

Billsfan:

Well, consider this in light of what you posted:

United Service Magazine, 1830 Part 2, 84, 4.
"Recollections of a Subaltern, page 421

link

The account can also be found along side Grattan's in Bussaco by Lt. Col. Chambers 1901
link

Compare this account from another 88th officer to Grattan's [I made notes where there are discrepancies.]

From the cloud of sharpshooters which crowned the heights immediately in front of the 88th Regiment, Col. Wallace thought himself menaced by a dense body, and was in the act of telling his men the mode of attack he intended to adopt, when Capt. Dunne, who had been sent by the colonel to see what was going on on his right, (for there was a heavy fog), returned with information that some hundred of the enemy's troops occupied a cluster of rocks close beside him, and that a column was moving over the open space between the 3rd and 5th Divisions, and as these rocks formed a pivot for their operations, the colonel formed the intention of changing his front, storming the rocks and attacking the column.

At this time the 45th were engaged with numbers out of proportion, but they gallantly maintained their ground.
The 5th, 74th and 83rd were likewise attacked, but the 88th from the nature of their situation came in contact with the full body of the enemy, and while opposed t three times their number in front were assailed on their left by a couple of hundred riflemen stationed on the rocks.

Col. Wallace changed his front, but had scarcely reached the rocks, when a fire, as destructive as it was animated, assailed him. The moment was a critical one, but he never lost his presence of mind. He ordered his two front companies [actually 3] to attack the rocks, while he pressed forward with the remainder of his regiment against the main body.

The 8th Portuguese were close on the enemy and opened a well-directed fire, while the 45th were performing prodigies of valour. [Note—All the 88th did not consider it well-directed. Grattan says the 8th fired into the rear of the 88th]
At this moment the 88th came up to the assistance of their comrades and the three regiments pressed one—a terrific contest took place. The French fought well, but they had no chance with our men when we grappled close with them; they were overthrown,</1> leaving half their column in the heather, with which the hill was covered.

Does 'grappling' and a 'terrific contest' sound like no contact was made? This aligns with Grattan's 'intense fight.'

Picton says he led the 8th Portuguese left wing against the French on the left of the 88th while the right wing aided the 88th/45th ‘s attack. This can explain both the confusion of where the 8th was and when.

The most part of what the writer of this sketch writes now came under his own immediate observation, but happening to be in the brigade of the 3rd Division, which so distinguished itself on that day, he cannot forbear paying his tribute of praise to the memory of Major Smith of the 45th, who fell at the head of the regiments, leading it one on of those sanguinary attacks of which the writer has given faint outline, nor to the intrepidity of Col. Alexander Wallace, who directed and executed the combined attack make by his corps.

Mounted on a grey charger, this officer led on the 88th to a most determined charge with the bayonet, but the noise of the enemy's bullets and the cheering of our soldiers so terrified the animal that he would not advance with the regiment; but the Colonel dismounted and fought on foot at the head of his men amidst the hottest of the fire."

Would evidance relating to the frequency with which cavalry units crossed swords be considered a red herring?

Would evidance relating to the frequency with which cavalry units crossed swords be considered a red herring?

I think it would. The best you could do is by showing contact with cavalry swords would be to assume it could happen with infantry bayonets…

Here, we are trying to get beyond assumptions, inference and what 'seems logical to us' and get to eyewitness accounts of it happening.

Bill,

The series of "Reminiscences of a Subaltern" which appeared in the United Service Journal was written by Grattan himself (if you doubt this, check out the rest of the series, and indeed large chunks of this particular passage, which are mostly identical word for word with Grattan's Adventures with the Connaught Rangers), so you are quoting a different account by the same person and the differences in the accounts, which are quite significant, are the result of Grattan changing his story.

Unfortunately the relevant comments on this incident from the previous thread have been lost, but this latest passage doesn't change anything in my opinion.

The series of "Reminiscences of a Subaltern" which appeared in the United Service Journal was written by Grattan himself (if you doubt this, check out the rest of the series, and indeed large chunks of this particular passage, which are mostly identical word for word with Grattan's Adventures with the Connaught Rangers), so you are quoting a different account by the same person and the differences in the accounts, which are quite significant, are the result of Grattan changing his story.

Major:
Well, first, Campbell in his book quotes both side by side, one identified as Grattan and the other not. So, Campbell was unaware of that little detail?

Second, It wouldn't be surprising that large chunks of descriptions of the same event would sound the same.

Third, if 'large chunks' are identical to others, then we can assume that other accounts in the United Service Magazine were actually written by Napier because they turn up in his books without reference? It wasn't all that uncommon for military writers of the period to do just that. That is also something you would know.

Forth, if indeed it is true that Grattan wrote both [any evidence beyond the similarity in accounts? I certainly won't discount the possibility], then it is interesting and noteworthy how things were "corrected" and changed from his US magazine accounts to his two volume work, as well as what wasn't changed after being 'vetted' by the readers, including his fellow officers from the 88th. [Remember their thanks for his work] And if you've read the United Service Magazine, you know that readers weren't shy about correcting authors.

And no, I didn't expect those two [or one] to change your opinion. We're just getting started with the question.

But I still don't know what the target is. What do eyewitnesses have to say to convince you that contact was made and how many?

It is easy to clearly describe events that didn't happen, one side stopping and running away. It become much more complex for eyewitnesses to describe what is happening when there is actually units 'mixed together', how many actual fought and who didn't down the line, how long the melee lasted and what was involved.

Interesting it was foggy during this battle, perhaps increasing the chance of melee?k

Interesting it was foggy during this battle, perhaps increasing the chance of melee?

Certainly possible. On the other hand it could have increased the possibility of folks cut and running. Surprise and the increased opportunity to 'disappear.'

Major:

What are you looking for as convincing eyewitness evidence?

The general view is that the following occurred in most or all cases [using an example you provided]

Or perhaps it was similar to what happened at Barossa when The 87th regiment charged the French 8th Regiment? Lord Gough who commanded the 87th left a good account. What is surprising here is the length of time that the one-sided slaughter lasted for:

The French waited until we came within 25 paces of them, before they broke, and as they were in column when they did, they could not get away. It was therefore a scene of most dreadful carnage. I will own to you my weakness. As of course I was in front of the regiment, therefore in the middle of them, I could not, confused and flying as they were, cut down an one, although I might have had twenty, they seemed so confounded and so frightened. They made, while we were amongst them (about a quarter of an hour), little or no opposition.

Now, the one thing missing from this account is any report of "fighting", only the fleeing in front and the British chasing them with little or no opposition.

If Grattan reports troops all mixed together and 'brief, but intense fighting', wouldn't that strike one as quite different from above?

Again, the second issue is the difference in experiences between the above quote and a melee for the participants. The first perceives little danger while the other is in a fight for their lives.

Note the stark differences between Grattan's description of the Bussaco bayonet charge and the one carried out at Salamanca by Wallace's brigade, the latter very much in keeping with the above quote.

In a fight, things are far more confusing and time-dilated. Here is George Napier's account of the 52nd Charge at Bussaco:

My company met the head of the French column, and immediately calling to my men to form column of sections in order to give more force to our rush, we dashed forward; and as was by this movement in front of my men a yard or two, a French soldier made a plunge at me with his bayonet, and at the same time his musket going off I received the contents just under my hip and fell. At the same instant the French fired upon my front section, consisting of about nine men in the front rank, all of whom fell, four of them dead, the rest wounded, so that most probably by my being a little advanced in front my like was saved. as the men killed were exactly those nearest me. Poor Colonel Barclay also received a severe wound. I got upon my legs immediately again and pursued the enemy down the hill, for by this time they had been completely repulsed, and were running away as fast as their legs could carry them.

William and his Captain Lloyd, who were to my right, seeing that the French were still in column and in great confusion from the unexpected suddenness of the charge and the shout which accompanied it, had wheeled up their companies by the left, and thus flanked the French Column and poured a well-directed fire right into them. Major Arbuthnott, who was on my left, did the same with the remaining companies of the 52nd, so that the enemy was beset on both flanks of his column, and, as you may suppose, the slaughter was great. We kept firing and bayoneting till we reached the bottom, and the enemy passed the brook and fell back upon their main body…All this was done in a very short time--that is not above twenty minutes from the charge till the French were driven from the top to the bottom of the mountain like a parcel of sheep.

No, I am not offering this as an example of contact, but something else: The confusion and lack of narrative/time coherence… and what eyewitnesses see in close contact with the enemy.

Note that Napier is wounded, but "immediately" resumes the charge, pursuing the now beaten French [How that is done is not mentioned--he didn't see it.] However, once the charge had commenced according to Napier, THEN the British moved to the French column's flanks and fired into them.

But if the column is still there, how is Napier pursuing anyone, and if the column is not running away, but still there in place long enough for the British to move onto the column's flanks and do 'great slaughter?' I would think that either Napier wasn't 'immediately up' and pursuing fleeing Frenchmen at all, or Napier and his regiment was in danger of being shot by his own men. But he states the column only fled after being vollied in the flank.

The distance between the position of the 52nd and Sula, where the French ended their retreat/rout is about 500 yards. Even assuming a slow 1 minute per 100 yards,[Down hill running like sheep] that is only 5 minutes of that twenty minutes Napier speaks of.

The most logical resolution of Napier's account is that the time between the 52nd's Charge and Napier's "immediate" recovery and pursuit is far longer than Napier suggests, particularly when the column was still there--not running--to be fired at before it broke and fled.

And more telling, he doesn't see what happened when the second line of men did meet the French over the nine men shot down. They broke the French between the time he fell wounded and rose to pursue.

He could have missed a brief melee of bayonets crossing for all we and he know.

So, what is the description of a melee that would be 'beyond a reasonable doubt?'

When eyewitnesses say there is "intense fighting" however, brief, does that count? IF not, what other evidence [words from the eyewitnesses] do you need to be convinced?

Here is a suggestion. As most agree that bayonets were used in confined spaces, BUAs and such. What is said by eyewitnesses to convince you of that? IF the same words and descriptions are used for a bayonet charge in the open, would that suffice?

Bill,

Regarding Grattan, it is certain that he wrote the "Reminiscences of a Subaltern". When I said that large sections of this series are the same word for word with "Adventures With The Connaught Rangers", I mean EXACTLY the same. As I wrote, check them for yourself in you are in any doubt.

You need to look back at my first post on the original thread:

There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that when one party broke and ran from a bayonet charge, some soldiers would be overtaken and bayoneted, and some brave individuals in the retreating party may have even stood and fenced with bayonets, but there is very little to suggest that two opposing bodies of formed troops ever fought bayonet to bayonet as seen in wargame melees.

The Grattan quotes do not show the two sides engaged in a melee with soldiers thrusting and counter thrusting with the bayonet. By making assumptions, it could be interpreted that way, but that is not what the passages actually say.

"A terrific contest took place". Yes, it certainly did, but we have Charles Napier telling us that the 88th fired terrific volleys of musketry into the French at 60 paces, causing significant losses before the charge. We also have Grattan talking about charging through the smoke flame and bullets, and also stating that the large amount of French casualties were caused because "Wallace [their colonel] never slackened his fire while a Frenchman was within reach."
There is no mention of a terrific bayonet fight. "Grappled close" sounds more like a figure of speech to me and is not evidence of bayonet fighting, or are we to take this literally and believe from this phrase that the two sides wrestled each other?

Bill,

Regarding the charge of the Light Division at Busaco that is described by Napier in your post above, A Lieutenant Booth wrote a letter just after the battle which fills in the details. This can be found in the Historical Records of the Forty-Third Regiment:

In the part of the line occupied by the Light Division and about 200 yards immediately to its front two columns of the enemy — supposed about 5000 each — were met by the two left-hand companies of the 43rd, and the right two of the 52nd. The front of their columns alone — chiefly composed of officers — stood the charge; the rest took to their heels, throwing away their arms, pouches, &c. Our men did not stand to take prisoners; what were taken were those left in our rear in the hurry of pressing forward in the charge. The flanks of the 43rd and 52nd in their charge met only the enemy's skirmishers who had by superior numbers driven in the 95th Rifles but a few seconds before the charge of the division. These poor fellows were all glad enough to give themselves up as prisoners, our men not being allowed to fire a shot at them. The advanced part of the charging line—the four companies first mentioned— after throwing themselves into the midst of the enemy's retreating columns, killing, wounding, and in short felling to the ground lots of them, were with great difficulty halted, and then commenced from the flanks of the whole division the most destructive flanking fire that I believe was ever Witnessed. Not a tenth part of their whole force would have escaped had not the four companies, by precipitating themselves too far in front of the general line, exposed themselves to the fire of their comrades, and thus prevented more than 300 firelocks on each flank of the division from being brought into action.

The Grattan quotes do not show the two sides engaged in a melee with soldiers thrusting and counter thrusting with the bayonet. By making assumptions, it could be interpreted that way, but that is not what the passages actually say.

Major:

So, what you think Grattan is describing as a 'fierce fight' is actually "some brave individuals in the retreating party may have even stood and fenced with bayonets."

Really?

Regarding Grattan, it is certain that he wrote the "Reminiscences of a Subaltern". When I said that large sections of this series are the same word for word with "Adventures With The Connaught Rangers", I mean EXACTLY the same. As I wrote, check them for yourself in you are in any doubt.

Major: I don't dispute with the 'word for word' sections, but the what about the larger portion that isn't and often disagrees with Grattan's later account?

The basic issue is there are a number of other accounts that do exactly the same thing: take large sections of narratives from the U.S. Magazine and place them word for word in their own works… and memories. Napier did this any number of times without reference to those he basically quoted presenting them as his memories. It was not all that uncommon during the time. Remember that all these officers were often discussing the events with each other repeatedly, so felt far more comfortable repeating others descriptions…. that and the fact that plagiarism was not as big a concern for writers when so many of them remained anonymous like our subaltern.

Do any other authors state that Grattan was the Subaltern mentioned? As I said, Campbell presents them as two different authors, actually noting errors in the Subaltern's account but not Grattan's. Surely, Campbell must have seen the similarities if he places them side-by-side not only in the text but also in appendix.

The front of their columns alone — chiefly composed of officers — stood the charge; the rest took to their heels, throwing away their arms, pouches, &c.

Major:

So, from the second account, I guess I need to ask what do you think means "stood the charge"? Another example of some individuals fencing with bayonets????

Bill,

I think that it a good example of what George Fitzclarence wrote about bayonet fighting in the Peninsula:

The French would ever expose themselves to fire at the smallest distances as long as ourselves, but a hurra and a rush with the bayonet caused their instant flight. With the exception of a few desperate men at the rear of a flying column, or from accidental circumstances, scarce any bayonet wounds were exchanged during the whole war….Indeed our bayonets might as well have been made of pasteboard, from their temper being so seldom tried, for the dread of them alone was sufficient to disperse a forming column

It's the action of a few desperate men at the rear of a flying column…in my opinion.

Going back to Grattan, you have to check out the whole series that he wrote in the United Service Journal. I am not talking about an odd paragraph that is exactly the same, but entire episodes in the series. Why he changed the wording of his account of Busaco, I cannot say, but I think that the version that appeared in Adventures with the Connaught Rangers is his amended version.

Major:

…but a hurra and a rush with the bayonet caused their instant flight. With the exception of a few desperate men at the rear of a flying column, or from accidental circumstances

The front of their columns alone — chiefly composed of officers — stood the charge; the rest took to their heels, throwing away their arms, pouches, &c.

Major:
I'm an not asking for your opinion of what constituted 'most' encounters. You keep repeating that.

I'm asking again. What needs to be said by eyewitnesses to lead you to believe contact and a fight took place with more than a 'few individuals'?

If the 'front of the column' facing Napier 'stood the charge', what does that mean to you considering Napier's experience with that front [and lack of officers]?

The front of the column could mean one rank, three or several deep. Napier obviously saw little more than ten men across the front, all taken down by the French volley.

IF an 'instant flight' is not reported by the participants, but instead an 'intense fight' and 'breaking down' of the French BEFORE a flight, can that be considered something more than 'no contact' or 'a few individuals'?

What would convince you that two sides more than a 'few individuals' made contact and fought each other?

I have quoted the full text version of Grattan's account below (see the link here: to follow online, the specific bit begins on p.33)

Lord Wellington was no longer to be seen, and Wallace and his regiment, standing alone without orders, had to act for themselves. The Colonel sent his captain of Grenadiers (Dunne) to the right, where the rocks were highest, to ascertain how matters stood, for he did not wish, at his own peril, to quit the ground he had been ordered to occupy without some strong reason for so doing. All this time the brigade of Lightburne, as also the 88th, were standing at ordered arms.
In a few moments Dunne returned almost breathless ; he said the rocks were filling fast with Frenchmen, that a heavy column was coming up the hill beyond the rocks, and that the four companies of the 45th were about to be attacked. Wallace asked if he thought half the 88th would be able to do the business. " You will want every man," was the reply.

Wallace, with a steady but cheerful countenance, turned
to his men, and looking them full in the face, said, " Now,
Connaught Rangers, mind what you are going to do ; pay
attention to what I have so often told you, and when I bring you face to face with those French rascals, drive them down the hill — don't give the false touch, but push home to the muzzle! do we assume from his tone this is meant absolutely literally? I have nothing more to say, and if I had it would be of no use, for in a minit or two there'll be such an infernal noise about your ears that you won't be able to hear yourselves."

This address went home to the hearts of us all, but there was no cheering ; a steady but determined calm had taken the place of any lighter feeling, and it seemed as if the men had made up their minds to go to their work unruffled and not too much excited.

Wallace then threw the battalion from line into column, right in front, and moved on our side of the rocky point at a quick pace ; on reaching the rocks, he soon found it manifest that Dunne's report was not exaggerated ; a number of Frenchmen were in possession of this cluster, and so soon as we approached within range we were made to appreciate the effects of their fire, for our column was raked from front to rear The regiment suffers here from musketry . The moment was critical, but Wallace, without being in the least taken aback, filed out the Grenadiers and the first battalion-company, commanded by Captains Dunne and Dansey, and ordered them to storm the rocks, while he took the fifth battalion-company, commanded by Captain Gates, also out of the column, and ordered that officer to attack the rocks at the opposite side to that assailed by Dunne and Dansey. This done, Wallace placed himself at the head of the remainder of the 88th, and pressed on to meet the French column.

At this moment the four companies of the 45th, commanded by Major Gwynne, a little to the left of the 88th, and in front of that regiment, commenced their fire, but it in no way arrested the advance of the French column, as it, with much order and regularity, mounted the hill, which at this point is rather flat. But here, again, another awkward circumstance occurred. A battalion of the 8th Portuguese Infantry, under Colonel Douglas, posted on a rising ground on our right, and a little in our rear, in place of advancing with us, opened a distant and ill-directed fire, and one which would exactly cross the path of the 88th, as that corps was moving onward to meet the French column, which consisted of three splendid regiments, viz. the 2nd Light Infantry, the 36th, and the 70th of the line. Wallace, seeing the loss and confusion that would infallibly ensue, sent Lieutenant John Fitzpatrick, an officer of tried gallantry, with orders to point out to this regiment the error into which it had fallen ; but Fitzpatrick had only time to take off his hat,and call out " Vamos commarades^ when he received two bullets — one from the Portuguese, which passed through his back, and the other in his left leg from the French, which broke the bone, and caused a severe fracture; yet this regiment continued to fire away, regardless of the consequences, and a battalion of militia, which was immediately in rear of the 8th Portuguese, took to their heels the moment the first volley was discharged by their own countrymen !

Wallace threw himself from his horse, and placing himself at the head of the 45th and 88th, with Gwynne of the 45th on the one side of him, and Captain Set on of the 88th on the other, ran forward at a charging pace into the midst of the terrible flame in his front. All was now confusion and uproar, smoke, fire and bullets, officers and soldiers, French drummers and French drums knocked down in every direction ; British, French, and Portuguese mixed together ; while in the midst of all was to be seen Wallace, ighting — like his ancestor of old — at the head of his devoted followers, and calling out to his soldiers to " press forward ! '' At no point in this account is it certain that at the point of contact the French were more or less formed – indeed, the account refers to the "fire and bullets", not the bayonet Never was defeat more complete, and it was a proud moment for Wallace and Gwynne when they saw their gallant comrades breaking down and trampling under their feet do we think "breaking down and trampling under their feet" necessarily means "fought with bayonet"? Or could he equally mean "utterly defeated"? this splendid division composed of some of the best troops the world could boast of. The leading regiment, the 36th, one of Napoleon's favourite battalions, was nearly destroyed ; upwards of two hundred soldiers and their old colonel, covered with orders, lay dead in a small space, and the face of the hill was strewed with dead and wounded, which showed evident marks of the rapid execution done at this point ; for Wallace never slackened his fire (my emphasis) while a Frenchman was within his reach. He followed them down the edge of the hill, and then he formed his men in line, waiting for any orders he might receive, or for any fresh body that might attack him. Our gallant companions, the 45th, had an equal share in the glory of this short but murderous fight — they suffered severely; and the 88th lost nine officers and one hundred and thirty-five men.

@McLaddie: I have added my comments in emphasis to show why I do not think this particular episode is unequivocal evidence of the clash of two formed bodies of troops with the bayonet

I'm asking again: What needs to be said by eyewitnesses to lead you to believe contact and a fight took place with more than a 'few individuals'?

For myself, as I mentioned before, the eyewitnesses need to say it explicitly.

Whirlwind:

First, than the narrative as written, that is, in the order given.

Bayonet charge is indicated by Wallace's instructions

No volley by the British is noted before charging.

The French and British were mixed together and yes there was firing, just as there was with Napier's account of both bayonet use and fire given previously. Obviously there would be some musket fire between 'individuals' in most all close contact.

The encounter is described as his comrades 'breaking down and trampling', not that the French simply ran before contact.

At no point in this account is it certain that at the point of contact the French were more or less formed – indeed, the account refers to the "fire and bullets", not the bayonet Never was defeat more complete, and it was a proud moment for Wallace and Gwynne when they saw their gallant comrades breaking down and trampling under their feet do we think "breaking down and trampling under their feet" necessarily means "fought with bayonet"? Or could he equally mean "utterly defeated"? this splendid division composed of some of the best troops the world could boast of. The leading regiment, the 36th, one of Napoleon's favourite battalions, was nearly destroyed ; upwards of two hundred soldiers and their old colonel, covered with orders, lay dead in a small space, and the face of the hill was strewed with dead and wounded, which showed evident marks of the rapid execution done at this point ;

Whirlwind, look at what is said complete. At no point does it say the British were more or less formed at the point of contact: It does say the British charged and the French delivered

into the midst of the terrible flame in his front. All was now confusion and uproar, smoke, fire and bullets, officers and soldiers, French drummers and French drums knocked down in every direction ; British, French, and Portuguese mixed together ; while in the midst of all was to be seen Wallace, fighting — like his ancestor of old —

So, were the British 'formed' in the confusion, with the two opposing sides 'mixed together'??? IF it was all fire and bullets, how was Wallace, an officer fighting in the midst of this, if 'formed' firing was all that was going on?

In fact Grattan calls it a 'short but murderous fight' and gives 88th casualties as evidence as well as the large number of French dead in a small area--apart from the entire hill strewn with dead from the chase. I am sure the British fired at the French as they ran if they never slackened their fire. That fire is NOT mentioned before contact even though the French fire is.

So, considering what is mentioned--and what is not, it is very different in content and progression from the 'typical' accounts that have been given. Given the description, I don't think it is at all reasonable to push the narrative into the template of British fire and the French run before contact because Grattan doesn't use the 'right' words. That is not the narrative.

The question is not whether Grattan's account alone convinces you, but rather what is he describing, yes or no?

For myself, as I mentioned before, the eyewitnesses need to say it explicitly.

They need to say 'what' explicitly? What constitutes 'unequivocal' and why would you think contemporaries would state it your way as opposed to Grattan's? Some how they have to use the word 'bayonet' explicitly in just the right terms. As I have noted, I am looking for the descriptions of close combat--fighting--which I think Grattan describes. To insist that both sides have to fight with only bayonet for some undetermined length of time is completely unrealistic in a close combat situation.

And as I said, this is only the first example.

I think we have to have some concept of what we can expect in a close, hand-to-hand fight. If we use ancient and medieval combat with hand weapons as a measure, we have:

1. Brief, intense encounters. Scholars tend to agree that ancient engagements lasted no more than 10-15 minutes with one side breaking or both sides taking a 'breather'. It was this pause that allowed the Roman legions to exchange lines. That is why there are rounds in boxing and most hand-to-hand competitions.

2. The fight caused the most casualties once one side broke. Then it was a slaughter because those running away weren't defending themselves anymore.

3. It was chaotic, with individuals fighting individuals, even when shields were locked together. One person would 'target' one person at a time. That is how the combat was experienced. A warrior's concentration was very narrow. So that is what is going to be recorded.

Now, those conditions are very different from one side breaking before contact. You see #2 occurring afterward, but not #1 or a description of #3.

And… If we believe that fighting with bayonets happened in BUA, sieges and rough terrain, what do memoirs say that is different? Do they mention bayonets, no firing etc.?

I messed up the link in my post: here it is link

@McLaddie,

On re-reading my post and your comments, I wish to change…nothing. I don't agree with your interpretation, or rather that your interpretation is obviously correct.

They need to say 'what' explicitly? What constitutes 'unequivocal' and why would you think contemporaries would state it your way as opposed to Grattan's? Some how they have to use the word 'bayonet' explicitly in just the right terms. As I have noted, I am looking for the descriptions of close combat--fighting--which I think Grattan describes. To insist that both sides have to fight with only bayonet for some undetermined length of time is completely unrealistic in a close combat situation.

I think when discussing if bayonet charges ended up with large-scale bayonet fighting, then some mention of numbers of men fighting with bayonets would be handy, yes. You seem to think that this is a lot to ask: I disagree. In his description of the incident, Grattan mentions plenty of people shot – he even mentions Frenchmen killed in falls! – but the large-scale bayonet casulaties are absent.

It appears we have very different understandings of the concept of unequivocal.

I think when discussing if bayonet charges ended up with large-scale bayonet fighting, then some mention of numbers of men fighting with bayonets would be handy, yes.

Well, I see the question in two parts:

1. There is "fighting", close combat, not musket fire.

2. whether there is 'large scale' bayonet fighting. This is the difficult one. First, because of the nature of close-in fighting, how will anyone know how large number of other soldiers were fighting? How was Wallace 'fighting?' With a Musket? Then how 'large-scale' was the firing if "Wallace never slackened his fire", let alone when all was "confusion and uproar, smoke, fire and bullets…"

In other words, there is no mention of 'how many' were involved in the firing. Why have a criteria for bayonet fighting that you seem to assume for musket firing?

You seem to think that this is a lot to ask: I disagree. In his description of the incident, Grattan mentions plenty of people shot – he even mentions Frenchmen killed in falls! – but the large-scale bayonet casualties are absent.

Actually, Grattan doesn't mention anyone shot that I can see in the account. He counts the dead, not the weapons that caused the casualties, either shot or steel.

It is not whether you ask a lot or not, or what I think for that matter. It is whether it was the style to describe things the way you want it. I don't know if military men would, regardless.

But no matter. I wanted to know what you thought was 'unequivocal', so I appreciate the clarification. At least I now have a target.

For instance, the bayonet attack of the Portuguese 19th Regiment on the 32nd Legere at Bussaco. Then Lt. Colonel William McBean commanding the 19th Portuguese reported:

'The enemy had just commenced to advance, but seeing us pass through the pickets returned to his position [on the road], where he attempted to maintain himself, bu the 19th continued to move on, gave him a volley and charged, when the lines became mixed; the result was soon decided, the enemy being driven with considerable loss in killed and wounded to the bottom of the ravine." He goes on to state:

Robert Southey, in his 1830s history quotes McBean further:

Some of the Portugese charging a superior force [it was actually 532 vs 432 Frenchmen] got so wedged in among the French that they had not room to use their bayonets. They turned up the butt ends of their muskets and plied them with with such vigour, that they promptly cleared the way."

Of course, that wouldn't count, because they didn't use the bayonet and it was 'just some' of them. Correct?

So moving on.

In other words, there is no mention of 'how many' were involved in the firing. Why have a criteria for bayonet fighting that you seem to assume for musket firing?

Because tons of unequivocal primary sources mention lots of people – whole units – firing and no authority has ever disputed the battalion volley.

Actually, Grattan doesn't mention anyone shot that I can see in the account. He counts the dead, not the weapons that caused the casualties, either shot or steel.

See pages 34 and 41. To be fair, there is a reference to someone killing a Frenchman with a halberd…

the lines became mixed

The trouble with all such mixing is that it isn't clear, in isolation, if that implies a "fight" or what we identified previously as a "slaughter".

"Some of the Portuugese charging a superior force [it was actually 532 vs 432 Frenchmen] got so wedged in among the French that they had not room to use their bayonets. They turned up the butt ends of their muskets and plied them with with such vigour, that they promptly cleared the way."

Of course, that wouldn't count, because they didn't use the bayonet and it was 'just some' of them. Correct?

So moving on.

Well obviously. That could be five guys.

Look, I'm not interested in this becoming a battle. If you feel that you are being asked to uphold an unreasonable standard, you don't owe me anything. I'm just asking if any two sides in the Napoleonic Wars managed to get the majority of a single infantry sub-unit (because I can't think of a meaningful smaller formed group) to fight each other with the bayonet at the same time.

Just to be a gadfly,,,,, I wonder if we might actually look at information from the American Civil war for more information. If we look mainly at the times where open field battles were the norm, and ignore those where fighting was only done from hasty entrenchments, or skirmishing & serious fortifications, we get something that is almost the same as napoloenics. The rate of fire of the flintlock and the precussion cap weapons were about the same and the normal range of engagement (~ 68 yards) was similar and did not penalize the smoothbore. The rifled musket was much more effective behond 150-200 yards, but that was not the usual engagement distance. Casey's Infantry Tactics was not greatly different than napoleonic practices either.

In the ACW, the great majority of soldiers were literate and wrote a lot, so physical record abound. They wrote in English and published. The percussion cap was more reliable for igniting a shot, so I suspect that there would have been more reloading and shooting in a close combat than the flintlock. Therefore the rate of bayonet fighting would be lower than napoleonic but still set a lower bound on the expectation.

See pages 34 and 41. To be fair, there is a reference to someone killing a Frenchman with a halberd…

That was the fighting in the rocks, not Wallace's charge.

Whirlwind:

I don't see this as a battle. What I am interested in is the same as you: An unequivocal example of a bayonet fight. That requires some effort, some methodology, not simply throwing out some examples and then saying they do or don't convince. Grattan's account was for that purpose: What convinces?

What I am tired of is the throwing out of examples, with the number of examples being the final word with what amounts to some off the cuff analysis, criteria changing with each example.

So, no I am not feeling I am being asked to meet some unreasonable standard and no, I don't owe you anything.

All I am attempting to do is methodically address both your and Major Snort's question. Part of the methodology is to come to some clear understanding of what is that unequivocal target. So I am pushing for that.

See the following examples.

Billfan:

The ACW may well be a different kettle of fish guts. That would take a separate 'study'.

Whirlwind and Major Snort:

Here are two accounts, both unacceptable by the criteria mentioned--I think. The first involves small numbers and the second is an attack on a redoubt [which is called a fort]. My question for you two is this:

Are these accounts of bayonet fighting and if so, what in the description is convincing or unequivocal?

This was written by an anonymous officer of the 29th about Roliça in an account published in the book "The Most Noble Marquis of Wellington" in 1812.

"I commanded the right centre company, the fifth from the right; each scrambled u the best way they could; and on gaining the summit, I found several officers, and abot 60 privates of the 29th, who were in front of me; onl one of my own company reached the top with me, the rest following fast… Upon advancing, we were immediately attacked by a French platoon of ninety men, whom we repeatedly repulsed; these were, however, joined by another of the same number, who charged us with the bayonet, with whom we sustained the unequal conflict; but our little band being now considerably advanced in front, and reduced to 25, Major Wray, Captain Ford and myself, and our brave companions, were under the painful necessity of surrendering. Even this, however, did not satisfy the sanguinary enemy, who seemed bent on bayoneting us all. After many narrow escapes, General Brennier at last came up, and with difficulty put an end to the carnage, and to the distressing scene around the dead and dying. I have oftener than once engaged with French troops, and my former opinion still remains unchanged; upon anything like equal terms, they have no chance with the British bayonet; so it would have been the case now."

This one has no actual description of the fighting. It is implied.

Captain Cooke of the 43rd describing the attack on Signal Redoubt above Sare in 1813:

In a few minutes we reached the summit of the small mountain by a green slope (not unlike a large breach) within twenty yards of the walls of the first fort. The soldiers and officers gasped for breath: many of the former, from the weight of their knapsacks and accoutrements, staggered and fell, and, before they could recover their limbs, were pierced with bullets to rise no more; the officers led on in a group and carried the fist fort.

The second was then attacked hand-to-hand, the French using their bayonets and butt ends of their pieces; one of our officers gallantly jumped into the second fort, and a French soldier thrust a bayonet through his neck handkerchief, transfixed him to the wall, and then fired his piece which blew away the officer's collar who jumped up unhurt. Another officer, while clambering up the wall, received a most tremendous blow on the fingers with the butt-end of a firelock, which made him glad to drop his hold; and were so hard pressed, that one or two of the officers seized the dead soldiers' firelocks and fought with them.

As the enemy rushed out of the second fort, a little athletic man with red hair eagerly followed a French officer; the Frenchman parried two of his thrusts, but finding his men giving way, he turned suddenly round and made off, and the soldier, fearing his prey might escape, hurled his firelock at him; the bayonet flew through the back of his body and he fell heavily on his face with the weight of the musket and the bayonet still sticking in him….

The forts being now carried, I seized the hand of an officer to congratulate him on his escape; the next instant he was down with a horrible wound, and a ball grazed my left cheek. Thus, in ten minutes, six companies assaulted a tremendous post, and carried three forts at the point of the bayonet. It was one of the best contested fights I ever saw; but ten officers were killed and wounded, and nearly one hundred men.

Note that only three individuals are described as fighting with the bayonet or rifle butt, five mentioned at all, and that even then, like the account with Napier at Bussaco, the bayonet was used as well as musket fire and the butt of the weapon.

The other is the duration of the fight…and it is called a fight: ten minutes to carry two redoubts, so the fighting with 100 casualties out of six companies [same number of companies and casualties as the 88th attack]

Convincing and unequivocal, why or why not?

What I am tired of is the throwing out of examples, with the number of examples being the final word with what amounts to some off the cuff analysis, criteria changing with each example.

The criteria have not changed with each example.

Okay:

Account from anonymous of the 29th: It isn't clear that there was any bayonet fighting at all in that account. The only strong implication (not certain, but strong implication) is that the French bayoneted some of the 29th who were trying to surrender. But there is no mention of the mechanism for the initial repulses of the French, or how the British sustained the casualties before they tried to surrender.

Account of Captain Cooke of the 43rd: Suggestive but not equivocal, as it isn't explicit about how much hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting actually happened.

You mention 'fights' – does that imply to you hand-to-hand combat? By itself, it doesn't to me. Is this a difference in our understanding of the word?

The criteria have not changed with each example.

Actually, they have. Each example brought up new as well as previous criteria.

And I was speaking of the general process on the TMP pages too.

Okay:

Account from anonymous of the 29th: It isn't clear that there was any bayonet fighting at all in that account. The only strong implication (not certain, but strong implication) is that the French bayoneted some of the 29th who were trying to surrender. But there is no mention of the mechanism for the initial repulses of the French, or how the British sustained the casualties before they tried to surrender.

Okay. It's implied by the ending comment: "I have oftener than once engaged with French troops, and my former opinion still remains unchanged; upon anything like equal terms, they have no chance with the British bayonet; so it would have been the case now."

No matter. It isn't stated specifically that bayonets were used.

Account of Captain Cooke of the 43rd: Suggestive but not equivocal, as it isn't explicit about how much hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting actually happened.

So, even though Cooke says it was all six companies "…then attacked hand-to-hand, the French using their bayonets and butt ends of their pieces;…" ?

I hope you see the problems with finding unequivocal narratives even when the participants themselves call the fight 'hand-to-hand'… They see what they see and it isn't the entire engagement as though fought below them in some amphitheatre. The memorialists aren't particularly interested in answering our particular questions 'unequivocally' two hundred years later.

You mention 'fights' – does that imply to you hand-to-hand combat? By itself, it doesn't to me. Is this a difference in our understanding of the word?

Maybe. I was simply noting that the word was used at this point.

IF in the wide variety of examples the word fight by itself isn't used with a 'fire-fight' or when one side simply runs, then it might be significant when it is used. I notice that in the examples that the Major provided it wasn't used.

No worries. The hunt goes on.

Alright. One set of observations before we go again:

All close combat/ bayonet charge narratives we've seen from eyewitnesses have several things in common, closely relating to ancient hand-to-hand combat:

1. They all ended with one side running away.
2. The 'slaughter' occurred after one side ran.
3. Eyewitnesses only saw a small portion of the action,
usually relating the actions of no more than four
comrades in arms.
4. There was no question about when the enemy ran in the
process [That is, it was a clear-cut event without any
statements of doubt about whether the enemy did or
didn't ALL run away.]
5. The event, whatever the actions described was said to
be brief in duration.

The major issue I see with eyewitnesses is that while it would be clear to anyone standing in a line stretching more than 100 yards when the other side stopped 20 or more paces from the line and then turning and running, If contact were made somewhere along the line before the eyewitness' location, they wouldn't see it. If the eyewitness was engaged in a melee, they wouldn't see what was happening anywhere outside their little bubble of mayhem until the enemy routed.

I think this would help explain why there are conflicting reports from eyewitnesses at Maida whether actual contact and bayonet fighting occurred. Each eyewitness was at different points in the line. Some points along the line contacted and fought, and some didn't.

So when they describe the fighting as hand-to-hand, they can only describe their immediate area, it always being a brief event.