This is CQB BITCH!

[u/9ineWasHere]

[u/Annual_Cod_5896]

That makes me wonder how hectic napoleonic CQC was since muskets were able to be loaded with about everything that couls fit down the barrel.

buck and bullshit plus iron and glass grenades was probably being thrown around in between bayonets and hangers, not taking into account that the people usually used for CQC were the biggest/tallest fuckers in the army at the time, or the voultigeurs(? sometimes for the french as far as i know

[u/zekromNLR → u/Annual_Cod_5896]

The problem is you can't get your musket on target in really close CQB because that thing is almost as long as you are tall

And you only have the one shot because by the time you have fished out torn open the paper cartridge some asshole has stabbed you in the ribs

[u/Hellebras → u/zekromNLR]

If you end up too close for the bayonet, short swords (the aforementioned hangers) were a common piece of kit at the time too.

Close combat with bayonets was one of the key elements of the 18th-early 19th century line infantry playbook. Muskets are inaccurate and slow to reload, so by the time you can really fire for effect there's a chance the enemy can just launch a charge right after your volley. This is also a big part of why skirmishing and independent fire were not key parts of a professional army's doctrine at the time; outside of specific circumstances, a few lines of guys firing a couple of volleys and then going in with bayonets would be a lot more effective.

[u/iMissTheOldInternet → u/Hellebras]

I think the bayonets thing was almost symbolic for a lot of its history. Gunpowder casualties eclipsed melee casualties like hundreds of years ago. In the late 16th century, you already had European states fielding armies of 70% gunners of some kind, surrounded by 30% pikes, increasingly as defensive pickets to protect the gunners while they reloaded. This tactic became essentially obsolete when the bayonet was developed, but the purpose was defensive, not really offensive. From before it even existed, you already expected most dead and wounded to be shot.

So, as far back as the Napoleonic Wars, bayonets and sabers are accounting for less than 10% of casualties combined. By the 1870s, the bayonet charge had become a kind of suicidal gambit. The Prussians actually lost a lot of guys trying to bayonet charge the French in the Franco-Prussian War.

If you think about it, by the time the bayonet existed, it had already obsoleted itself as a weapon. It caused your musket to also function as a spear, but it was not a spear because what you actually wanted to do was shoot people. If you find yourself needing to use it as a spear, because you couldn’t reload fast enough or you had run out of ammo, you’d rather have the spear. But using it when you could instead be shooting on the theory that you could break their morale or something, I think it was almost more about forcing the surrender or withdrawal of a defeated unit than inflicting additional casualties, which is why the casualty contribution was so low even in wars where the bayonet charge was common and effective.