|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 4, 2018 16:44:33 GMT
By bayonets, I mean when they're fixed on the end of a rifle and a full-size rifle; not a short M-4 carbine or bullpup, even though those and even some submachine guns take bayonets. By spear, I mean something from six to eight feet, more or less, but not a throwing javelin nor a pike nor a horseman's lance. But included are the sort of pole arms carried by some NCOs and officers of infantry in the late 18th and early 19th century, like partisans and spontoons and even halberds.
So, what do you think. Who would have had the advantage? A nine-pound musket or rifle (presumably empty) with a foot-long pig sticker on the end or a foot-long spearhead on a six-foot ash pole? Historically, encounters like that would have realistically taken place beginning with the invention of the bayonet up through the Napoleonic Wars and later in colonial conflicts.
Given that in those wars, the combatants might be professional soldiers, yet with little battle experience, at least in hand-to-hand combat. Some, in colonial wars, might be "natives" with more actual experience in killing with a spear, if not in battle. The spear has a little more reach, the musket and rifle with bayonet has more weight. Chances are, for what it's worth, there are probably a lot more instances of bayonet fighting rather than spear versus bayonet fighting.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Nov 4, 2018 17:06:18 GMT
Some warriors carried multiple spears. In that case the warrior had the advantage as his surplus spears could be thrown.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 4, 2018 17:13:14 GMT
I assume that the "specialized" lighter and longer spear has the advantage in a melee.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 4, 2018 17:55:55 GMT
All the world's a stage and most of us are merely spear carriers in the drama of life.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 4, 2018 20:57:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 4, 2018 21:38:54 GMT
Thanks for the interesting links, although it doesn't follow that the spear is necessarily longer. But the longer it is, the better it is. Some short (say, five feet) spears were used, along with shields, against soldiers armed with rifles and bayonets. But generally speaking, there were other differences in those combats that made the outcomes what they were. Consider also that bayonet technique differed quite radically in different periods, although that may not enter into this discussion. In all cases, though, in which these two weapons were employed against one another, it was in battles with large numbers of men involved and not one-on-one duels. One could start out by saying "if all other things were equal," but they rarely are.
One of the old-fashioned techniques for using a musket with bayonet, which would be something maybe just about six feet, was to hold the musket roughly at the point of balance, about five or ten inches in front of the trigger guard, and to push forward with the other hand placed on the butt plate. As a technique, it greatly resembles the way pikes were handled. But that would have been very old-fashioned in the 19th century.
|
|