Tango01 | 26 Nov 2021 10:04 p.m. PST |
….Napoleonic Era? Through reading several books about the Napoleonic era … one of the topics that caught my attention was to know about the hand-to-hand combat carried out by so many thousands of men setting their bayonets … I did not think that there were too many Narratives with details about that face-to-face encounters … it seemed that most of them ended quickly with the flight of one of the opposing units … but watching this interesting video of the battle of Popioly in 1809 it would seem This was how they fought and died seeing the enemy's face at close range…. YouTube link
What do you think? Armand |
BillyNM | 27 Nov 2021 12:37 a.m. PST |
|
setsuko | 27 Nov 2021 1:56 a.m. PST |
My impression, as very much not a historian but from reading a bunch of books on the Napoleonic Wars, is that hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets was uncommon unless the defenders were defending an obstacle or inside towns and villages. Bayonet attacks were more common, but the typical case was not afaik that both sides connected, more often either the attacker flinched or the defenders retreated before that. More often than that, an attack would end up with a firefight before the two lines met, sometimes even if the distance was very close. I've read accounts of soldiers feverishly reloading their muskets when just a handful of meters between each other, instead of getting into hand-to-hand combat. Edit: nice inspirational movie, perfect as I'm just getting started on painting Poles for 1809. :) |
Artilleryman | 27 Nov 2021 4:18 a.m. PST |
The film is 'Ashes' by Andrzej Wajda. It includes the siege of Zaragoza and the retreat from Moscow. Very much worth a look. |
Green Tiger | 27 Nov 2021 4:25 a.m. PST |
The bayonet and its effects are undersold in the historiography – there are many, many, contemporary accounts of bayonet fights – one side didn't just always run away. |
von Winterfeldt | 27 Nov 2021 4:44 a.m. PST |
it would depend on occasion, usually one side would give way or both sides would start a fire fight. Bayonet wounds were a minority on a battle field, hence it was a weapon of morale. Bayonet fights are oversold in cinemagraphy. |
Brechtel198 | 27 Nov 2021 5:28 a.m. PST |
Bayonet wounds might well be a 'minority' or if a soldier was stabbed in the chest or belly the wound was undoubtedly fatal and he would not make it to the aid station. It was then a 'minority' in the field hospital. Chest wounds in particular were fatal because a triangular bayonet causes a sucking chest wound which was beyond the medical knowledge of the time to treat effectively or at all. That's why triangular bayonets were later 'outlawed' by the Geneva conventions. They are still used by some armies, unfortunately. |
14Bore | 27 Nov 2021 5:37 a.m. PST |
Would like to see whole movie. But have doubts bayonet warfare was like that. |
Mike the Analyst | 27 Nov 2021 8:50 a.m. PST |
link Some interesting analysis |
Tortorella | 27 Nov 2021 9:00 a.m. PST |
Great find Mike, very interesting. Thanks for this. Bullets, as expected did the most damage. Leg wounds were the most common amongst the body parts data. I guess aiming low was drilled into everyone. Or arms got tired holding a musket. |
Cerdic | 27 Nov 2021 9:05 a.m. PST |
Green Tiger – could you point me in the direction of these contemporary sources? From the many contemporary diaries, letters, memoirs, etc that I have read it would seem that, unless defending some form of fortification, one side or the other ran before bayonet contact. Granted, a lot of writing can be a bit vague. Phrases along the lines of 'we put them to flight' or the favourite of the British 'we put them to the right about' don't describe exactly what happened. But the context often seems to imply that the enemy ran away before any actual bayonet fighting took place. So I would be very interested to read any accounts that feature different behaviour on an open battlefield. Cheers! |
14Bore | 27 Nov 2021 9:57 a.m. PST |
Tortorella or a 75 cal ball tends to drop like a rock |
Tortorella | 27 Nov 2021 11:24 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 27 Nov 2021 3:15 p.m. PST |
|
14Bore | 27 Nov 2021 5:22 p.m. PST |
|
Andy ONeill | 28 Nov 2021 6:52 a.m. PST |
General Jomini on bayonet fighting: "I have seen melees of infantry in defiles and in villages, where the heads of columns came in actual collision and thrust each other with the bayonet; but I never saw such a thing on a regular field of battle." |
Brechtel198 | 28 Nov 2021 9:00 a.m. PST |
I would highly recommend taking anything by Jomini with a very large salt pill. Jomini was a staff officer, and not a very good one. He failed as a chief of staff at the corps level and as a military governor twice. Further, he was a deserter and a renegade. In short, his character was lacking. He was one of those people who wore a uniform for years and never became a soldier. |
arthur1815 | 28 Nov 2021 9:19 a.m. PST |
Why should the fact that Jomini left the service of Napoleon and joined the Russians automatically render his observations on the occurrence of bayonet fighting invalid? Even 'a deserter and a renegade' and a 'not very good' staff officer (your words, Brechtel198, not mine) may still be a trustworthy witness to matters not pertaining to his political allegiance or military skill, about which he has no reason to lie. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Nov 2021 9:50 a.m. PST |
Of course he had a 'reason' to lie-his character was greatly flawed and his 'histories' were many times inaccurate. Additionally, he never led troops in combat and was not a colonel as he referred to himself. He was an adjutant commandant, the staff equivalent to colonel. Colonel would refer to a field officer who commanded troops. Staff officers do not command. John Elting wrote an excellent article in 1964 on Jomini, the gist of which is in his The Superstrategists, pages 148-161. 'Never really a soldier, a failure as a staff officer, frequently a careless or dishonest historian…' '…The English representative at Schwarzenberg's headquarters considered Jomini an unnecessary nuisance; one of his Russian 'students' pungently defined him as 'not fit to serve in war.' 'Jomini, Chief of Staff to [Ney] has deserted…He is not worth much as a soldier; however, as a writer, he has gotten hold of some sound ideas on war.'-Napoleon. |
von Winterfeldt | 28 Nov 2021 10:38 a.m. PST |
Indeed, John Elting translated the memoires of Blaze, who desterted the French Army, still good memoires, though a lot of camp fire stories, but some very worthwhile observation, I agree with arthur1815 |
Major Snort | 28 Nov 2021 2:31 p.m. PST |
Arthur 1815 wrote: Why should the fact that Jomini left the service of Napoleon and joined the Russians automatically render his observations on the occurrence of bayonet fighting invalid? It doesn't make his observations invalid. There are so many primary sources that say exactly the same thing about bayonet fighting that he was undoubtedly correct. Unfortunately, whenever Jomini (and others whom he considers to be deserters) is mentioned, Kiley seems to feel duty bound to discredit anything he wrote. This appears to be unwise in this case, as even a basic knowledge of Napoleonic warfare indicates that Jomini was right about this. |
42flanker | 28 Nov 2021 4:54 p.m. PST |
There certainly seems to have been a bit of a scrimmage involving the 45th and 88th on Picton's front at Busacco |
Brechtel198 | 28 Nov 2021 5:24 p.m. PST |
If you read Col Elting's translation of Blaze's memoirs, you'll find that it was he who found out about Blaze's desertion. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Nov 2021 5:27 p.m. PST |
…even a basic knowledge of Napoleonic warfare indicates that Jomini was right about this. Jomini was probably correct in his observations from time to time. However, he never commanded troops in combat nor was he ever involved in close combat. The fact is that he falsified or just made up too many of his facts, making his writings unreliable when it comes to either factual material or his 'role' in any action. He belongs in the same pile as Bourrienne, Marmont, and others who are not credible as source material. And using him as a source is undoubtedly unwise. |
Major Bloodnok | 29 Nov 2021 7:45 a.m. PST |
I've just finished reading Digby Smith's book on Leipzig. Lots of bayonet fighting, mostly in taking the surrounding towns and in Leipzig as well. There were also a couple if fights, before the Armistice where it rained so badly that the muskets wouldn't fire, but they went at it with the "musket butt and bayonet" regardless. As a side note if Jomini can't be trusted in anything he writes because he puffed himself up, what does that do to Napoleon's writings? |
Brechtel198 | 29 Nov 2021 8:27 a.m. PST |
Do you mean Napoleon's Correspondence? I don't think so… |
Brechtel198 | 29 Nov 2021 8:38 a.m. PST |
Do you mean Napoleon's Correspondence? I don't think so… And this falls under the topic that it's only wrong if Napoleon does it… I would not, and I do not, use Jomini in any of my research because he is an unreliable witness, even if he did witness an event. Sources should be evaluated and judged and also checked by cross referencing other material. Jomini was a very minor 'player' during the period and he claims credit for events in which he did not take part or that he had no input for. He did much more than merely 'puff himself up.' For example, he later claimed that as a civilian adc, he actually functioned as Ney's chief of staff in 1805. He also claimed in 1812 at the Berezina that he had found the ford across the river and guided the Grande Armee home, which is absolute nonsense. Jomini's virulent hatred for Berthier caused him to attempt to blacken Berthier's reputation which reduces Jomini to a gossip-monger. |
arthur1815 | 30 Nov 2021 3:40 a.m. PST |
Brechtel198 wrote: "'Jomini, Chief of Staff to [Ney] has deserted…He is not worth much as a soldier; however, as a writer, he has gotten hold of some sound ideas on war.'- Napoleon." Perhaps his comment on bayonet fighting was one of those 'sound ideas on war'? |
Brechtel198 | 30 Nov 2021 5:14 a.m. PST |
I doubt it. The question should be 'did Jomini ever witness a bayonet fight?' He certainly never participated in one… Napoleon, on the other hand, suffered his first wound at Toulon leading an infantry assault. He was stabbed in the thigh by either a bayonet or a spontoon. |
Murvihill | 30 Nov 2021 7:25 a.m. PST |
Have you ever witnessed a bayonet fight? At least Jomini had the opportunity to converse with those who had. |
Brechtel198 | 30 Nov 2021 10:10 a.m. PST |
Nope. I didn't live during the Napoleonic period. What I do know is that when the Marine infantry units crossed the line of departure into Kuwait when we invaded in 1991, they had fixed bayonets. What does that tell you? Regarding Jomini 'conversing' with anyone, he was too arrogant to listen to anyone, especially anyone with more knowledge and experience than he had. |
14Bore | 30 Nov 2021 2:49 p.m. PST |
All in all bayonet fighting couldn't be much different than in the ACW |
Tango01 | 30 Nov 2021 3:57 p.m. PST |
It Wasn't….? Interesting sentence….
Armand
Armand |
42flanker | 30 Nov 2021 4:09 p.m. PST |
Surely by then bayonets had longer range and greater stopping power? |
arthur1815 | 01 Dec 2021 9:05 a.m. PST |
Brechtel198, you wrote: "Regarding Jomini 'conversing' with anyone, he was too arrogant to listen to anyone, especially anyone with more knowledge and experience than he had." If any of us were to make such a sweeping statement about Buonaparte, unsupported by evidence, you would, quite rightly, take us to task, yet you here you seem to offering your unsubstantiated opinion of Jomini as if it were fact and expect us to accept it without question! |
Brechtel198 | 01 Dec 2021 6:22 p.m. PST |
It isn't a 'sweeping statement' but an accurate one. The 'opinion' on Jomini is taken from the material in the already given source material. For further, more detailed information on Jomini, see 'Jomini, Disciple of Napoleon?' by John Elting contained in Military Affairs,Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring, 1964), pages 17-26. I would suggest that if anyone would like to read excellent military 'theorist' material, choose Clausewitz who was a combat infantryman. And he doesn't 'remember with advantages' as Jomini did. Nor did he fail as a corps chief of staff or a military governor. I can support the material I post, as I did here. And it is just a little more than historic fact, but a character assessment of Jomini, an assessment that he has failed miserably. |
Cerdic | 02 Dec 2021 4:35 a.m. PST |
Fair enough. What does Clausewitz have to say about bayonet fighting? |
Brechtel198 | 02 Dec 2021 4:42 a.m. PST |
I have no idea. And what does it matter in the long run? The point I was making is that Clausewitz is a much more honest writer and his experience level, and he was a competent corps chief of staff, is much more than Jomini's and he had the stronger character. By the way, has anyone read either The Superstrategists or the essay on Jomini that have been listed? |
Major Snort | 02 Dec 2021 3:27 p.m. PST |
It's obvious that Kiley's main focus here is to discredit Jomini and he has no interest in debating the actual subject. The dismissive response to Cerdic's question is a good example of why it is pointless to engage in any discussion here. For Cerdic's benefit, although I suppose he may already know, this is what Clauzewitz wrote on the subject: "As the destruction in hand to hand combat is inevitable, the smallest superiority either through advantages or in courage is decisive, and the party at a disadvantage, or inferior in courage, tries to escape the danger by flight. This occurs so regularly, so commonly, and so soon in all hand to hand fights in which several are engaged, that the destructive effects properly belonging to this kind of fight are very much diminished thereby, and its principal effect consists rather in driving the enemy off the field than destroying him." |
Tango01 | 02 Dec 2021 10:18 p.m. PST |
|
BillyNM | 03 Dec 2021 2:03 a.m. PST |
There was a much better video of reenacters at Austerlitz. It was taken with a bodycam worn by a Russian reenactor (at least he was reenacting a Russian) with a French unit advancing in line towards them. The French were formed up elbow to elbow as they should be and in several ranks creating a really solid appearance. In the final stages just before impact (well bayonet fencing as it's only a play-fight) it looked truly intimidating and one can see why you wouldn't want to stand and fight it out if you thought the other siide was prepared to. I wish I could find that video again – if anyone out there knows it a link would be appreciated. |
ScottWashburn | 03 Dec 2021 6:42 a.m. PST |
Reading Terry Crowdy's wonderful book "Incomparable, Napoleon's 9th Light infantry Regiment". During the fight at Durnstein in November, 1805, the 9th got into close contact with Russian troops during a night action. The 9th suffered 19 killed and 58 wounded. Of the wounded, 11 had bayonet or (infantry) saber wounds. Undoubtedly some of the dead were also due to bayonets, although there is no record of how many. |
Major Snort | 03 Dec 2021 7:49 a.m. PST |
The subject of bayonet fighting was debated at length in the United Services Journal in the 1830s. John Mitchell, who had seen much action in the Napoleonic Wars, opened the debate. He claimed that, apart from anything else, the bayonet was a very difficult weapon to wield effectively and this went some way to explain the lack of casualties caused. Mitchell wrote:
The bayonet may, in full truth, be termed the grand mystifier of modern tactics. We here appeal publicly to the most experienced officers of the army, to those who fought, as many really did, in Egypt, the Peninsula, and at Waterloo, and ask, whether any one of them ever beheld a bayonet contest? Did they ever, in field or breach, on plain or rampart, behold men thrust, and counter-thrust at each other with their bayonets? That in some scrambling attack of works, or some hasty flight out of works or villages, a soldier may perhaps have been killed or wounded with the bayonet is possible: but to suppose that soldiers ever rushed into close combat armed only with bayonets, is an absurdity, it never happened, and never can happen…the bayonet shines in virgin brightness, hailed as the victor of every field, and yet undimmed by the blood of fighting men Several other veteran officers contributed to the debate, with several recalling occasions where large numbers of casualties had been caused by the bayonet. However all of these were the result of enemy forces trapped or caught while running away. Only two examples were put forward showing troops fighting bayonet to bayonet. One of these examples was described by George Tovey of the 20th Regiment, whose company encountered the head of a French column at close quarters at the Battle of Roncesvalles. Both sides were taken by surprise, but the British infantry immediately charged. Although this was declared as a bayonet fight, Tovey does not describe any bayonet fencing between the two parties. The British charged in, and the French turned and ran, but were so surprised and so close that several were bayoneted on the spot before they could get away. The other was the battle of Maida, where an officer who wrote under the name "Steel" claimed that a few files of the opposing lines briefly fought with the bayonet, or rather that several French soldiers were bayoneted while still in line, but the French immediately turned tail and ran. This claim is contradicted in several other accounts of the same action which say that the bayonets of the two sides did not cross. Many French infantry were, however, bayoneted during the pursuit. Surgeon George Guthrie's summary is one of many similar views on the subject: A great delusion is cherished in Great Britain on the subject of the bayonet – a sort of monomania very gratifying to the national vanity, but not quite in accordance with matter of fact. Opposing regiments, when formed in line, and charging with fixed bayonets, never meet and struggle hand to hand or foot to foot, and this for the very best possible reason, that one side turns round and runs away as soon as the other comes close enough to do mischief; doubtless considering that discretion is the better part of valor. Small parties of men may have personal conflicts after an affair has been decided, or in the subsequent scuffle if they cannot get away fast enough….Wounds from bayonets were not less rare in the Peninsular War; It may be that all those bayonetted were killed, yet their bodies were seldom found. |
42flanker | 03 Dec 2021 10:01 a.m. PST |
As the C19th century wore on, British journalists and other authors seemed to take an atavistic pleasure in recording how troops advanced on the enemy "at bayonet point" but rarely describing what happened as and when they might have arrived on their objective. |
Oliver Schmidt | 03 Dec 2021 10:20 a.m. PST |
Barthold von Quistorp, a Prussian officer (too young to take part in the Napoleonic wars, but he spoke with a lot of veterans), wrote: If a battle report says: the enemy was repulsed (literally: "thrown") with the bayonet, usually this has to be understood as: He was threatened with the bayonet, and he prefered to avoid this thread. More by him here (in German only, sorry): demi-brigade.org/quistorp.htm I think this gives a quite good idea of a typical bayonet attack (starting at ca. 4:00): YouTube link (Some fool has exchanged right and left in this video, still good.) |
Tango01 | 03 Dec 2021 3:32 p.m. PST |
|
42flanker | 03 Dec 2021 5:38 p.m. PST |
Did the Bondarchuk clip stop just before one side or the other opened fire? |
dibble | 04 Dec 2021 9:38 p.m. PST |
I posted this back in 2016: From Jonathan Crook's The Very Thing. The Memoirs of Drummer Richard Bentinck, Royal Welch Fusiliers 1807-1823. ISBN 978-184832-598-2 Page 104: Chapter Eight: Vitoria, the Pyrenees and Saururen Quote: Bentinck, our ancient veteran, added considerably to his experience of battle sights in these engagements near Pampeluna. 'We had a sharp engagement outside the town and they stood very hard and they came to the charge of the bayonet. The charge of the Welch Fusileers was needed several times and though they killed many, they had many killed too.' The bayonet, as is well known, leaves more dead than wounded (unlike the bullet), for the breast of the combatant is the part chiefly aimed at and at arm's lengh, is too near to the aim. The French rushed to meet them in one charge, with such strength and fury as to break through their line. His Drummers uniform once more failed to protect Bentinck from hostile weapons and having before let in upon him both bomb shell and bullet, completed the round with a taste of steel. A black looking Frenchman who had skewered a Fusileer as he burst through their line, and jerked him off his bayonet dead, next lunged the weapon at Bentinck, but recieved at that moment a blow on the skull from the butt end of a musket, he fell senseless his bayonet passing through Bentinck's thigh instead of his body. 'When we came to the prisoners there was great rejoicing and shaking of hand for they was the same number on the buttons as us. They were also the 23rd regiment' Disliking much to have 4d per day taken from his pay for being in hospital, Bentinck limped by the side of his comrades all day, with his shoe full of blood, and both trousers and stocking glued to his leg so fast with it that he had to soften them with water to get them off when evening came. He then went to the doctor and got some plaster and bandages on the wound, and as they rested for some days after this, it soon healed. These occurrences show that units that were assailed by a bayonet charge did not always break. Paul :) |
Major Snort | 05 Dec 2021 2:35 a.m. PST |
That account, which seems mostly to be the words of Jonathan Crook and not the actual participant, only appears to show that one French soldier bayoneted anyone. Does the rest of the passage describe the scene in more detail? Many veterans recalled that they had seen individuals fighting with the bayonet. The thing the vast majority of soldiers did not see was two formed units thrusting and counterthrusting in a bayonet fencing match. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Dec 2021 5:31 a.m. PST |
I don't believe that an infantry melee that devolves into a bayonet fight could be termed 'a bayonet fencing match.' That type of fighting would be characterized as 'eye-gouging, throat slitting brawls,' especially in the fighting around colors and eagles. That definitely isn't a 'fending match.' |