Why Did Armies Disregard Melee Combat?

Here's what I'm wondering...

Firearms were invented, and at some point they became the primary weapon for armies around the world.

Suddenly, the need for armor disappeared, along with the need for a decent close range butchering weapon.

But they knew the crappy guns they had weren't enough to get them through battle, and the only reason they could was because the other side was equally stupid, so vis a vis they were matched.

The guns took a long time to reload and it was a pain in the ass process. So how many shots did you take in a battle? One? Two? Three if you're lucky? After that, everyone abandons their guns and it just became a massive hand to hand brawl. Most of the combat would be this way, the musket vollies would be like an introductory formality.

Why would nobody roll in there with full body armor and a sword and shield? They could butcher the other side! Cavalry carry a dinky little tiny sabre? Why downgrade from the knights from before?

Would a musket bullet even penetrate decent body armor that was available at the time?

You wouldn't even need guns yet. Rather than "trading" fire you could just charge them and be done with it. But if you had a musket, you could have it ready to fire its one shot and then drop it and charge. Pick it back up after your victory.

Like the Samurais. They had a crossbow locked and loaded. It was just for a one time free shot to kill one during an ambush before they charged in with a sword.

 

The problem is that you can't carry a sword and a musket at the same time. yes, one on one the sword is more effective. En masse, the musket is more effective. Also, have you heard of the bayonet? It was invented for the reason you mention.

The cavalry did have sabers for a reason.

 

Early gun warfare, guns were very slow and not particularly powerful- but that changed.

By the time of the Revolutionary War or so, muskets were relatively fast loading and they had introduced bayonets. Infantry facing cavalry would just form a square, which horses would not charge into, and fire into the cavalry. The infantry would volley fire- the muskets not being particularly accurate, but the shot could penetrate any armor- armor became a heavy liability- actually if you read about the Battle of Agincourt you can get a feel about how armor got heavier and heavier and the issues with that.

I don't claim to be an expert on it- I have just read a little, but to get a great feel of how the battles might have been- I recommend the Sharpe's series by Bernard Cornwell- exciting adventurous battles during the Napoleonic wars.

 

Melee combat was not abandoned over night. In many armies the majority of forces were still armed with cutting weapons - and the gun people skirmished around the edges of the formation. Melee weapons have still not gone away. Most soldiers have a knife, and especially in the US soldiers are trained to do some pretty nasty stuff with their trenching tools.

And lets not forget the history of the bayonet

 

Of course I've heard of the bayonet.. But I'm comparing it to having a decent close range weapon. You can carry both weapons at the same time actually. This is what the Samurais did with their crossbow. You just can't use them at the same time. Use a strap. Once you're done firing the gun you abandon it.

 

Cost was the main factor, armour was very costly and could be breached by cannon or musket fire, it's not just one thing hitting you it's a volly from 100 plus well trained soliders, so speed was vital. Different countries cavalry used different weapons. Also the French and allies had matchlock muskets at battle of blenheim where as the British and allies had flintlock, this made a difference. Also armour didn't just go right away it was phased out over time, by the 1700's is was pointless and not effective.

 

Actually from what I have read, a rifle- or musket- with a 10 inch piece of sharp steel at the end was a damn effective weapon.

Infantry who abandoned their weapons at a minimum were going to get the hell beaten out of them by their sargeants, if not killed when battle moved.

 

Bayonets work better for mass combat. Think of them as pikes. Yes, one on one they aren't that effective. In groups they are.

 

Let me suggest another reason- guns are easy to train peasants with.

For some period of time there were superior weapons than guns, but it was far easier to train a peasant to train a gun than to say support a Samurai- who trained his entire life.

For much of history there were the trained warriers who had the steel armor and weapons supported by untrained militias with little more than spears. The militia generally just helped create routes.

But take that militia and train them how to be half way decent with a musket and they can take down relatively easily the knight or samurai who has trained his entire life. There were lots more peasants than knights or samurai.

 

Nice replies people..

Didn't anybody ever try to exploit the discontinuation of armor use?

I would think a large group of longbows could do serious damage against an enemy group who are wearing no armor at all. Arrows can be fired fast and you could have volley after volley cut them down long before they moved into accurate musket range. Which as far as I know, the musket's accuracy drops rather exponentially with range increase.

 

The issue with longbows- and something I didn't realize for a long time- is that they really require a life time of use to develope not only the skill, but the broad band of muscle across the torso necessary to really use a powerful longbow well.

England(I think actually started in Wales) had 'yeoman' which were as i recall essentially free holders- i.e. above peasants- who trained in the longbow- which is very unusual because in general the gentry didn't like to have non-gentry training weapons that can kill them.

But bows in general? Sure- some of the best examples would be in the Americas. Bow using troops could use bows to great affect against unarmored troops. But short bows I do not believe had the range of muskets.

 

The U.S. Marines still train with bayonets, but in terms of a melee charge...that hasn't been done by the U.S. since about 1951.

In my years in the service the only use I had for a cutting edge weapon was to cut a seatbelt or something along those lines..but I know the Marines still train with them...and train in close quarters combat scenarios. Knives are part of the compact weapons they are trained on. They are probably the last of the pure warrior in the military...able to use their bodies as weapons when the bullets run out.

 

I think the cross bow is a great weapon it's light and uses bolts instead of arrows, but it is slower to load. The long bow is less great for military use because of the skill needed to use it, if mastered you would be the most valued person in the English army, but both these weapons were over come by armour. I would have some Saxon Long axe men, they were the strongest most skilled soliders, more so than the long bow men, but they were just about done away with when the Normans look over. Also Talhoffer is as must, none of this Asian stuff. Really thought the Romans had it right short sword with light armour is the best weapon.

 

Armour and cutting weapons didn't vanish over night.

Muskets were weapons for the lowly conscripts. They required almost no training compared to the years of training and drilling for Knights and the like. Muskets were basically the spear/pikemen of old, which is even more true when you realise, especially with early bayonets which were of the plug type, with a bayonet attached it was was a spear/pike. Remember though that swords were pretty rare in ancient and medieval combat. Most soldiers used spears.

Armour changed. Full plate armour and the like vanished and instead armour shrunk to just protecting the vital organs leaving the arms and legs free.

Even fortifications changed. Castle didn't vanish overnight either, instead their walls shrunk in height and were given sloped armour, like that which was put on tanks in the 20th century.

 

The arme blanche ("cold steel") persisted into the Mexican War. The US Regulars were expert with the bayonet and terrified the Mexicans.

By the Civil War the bayonet was still around but a weapon that could get off a couple of crushing Minie balls a minute made the bayonet hard to use. Hood's Texans used them in the assault, but they were very unusual. Medical records show that bayonet wounds accounted for 8% of casualties in the Civil War.


BTW, prior to 1870, "cold steel" has very rare because real steel was very expensive. Edged weapons (beyond those carried by specialists or very rich soldiers) was generally wrought iron. Even the legendary samurai's katana was wrought iron, not steel as we know it today. Steel contains less than 0.8% (by weight) carbon. The Bessemer process, going into mass use in the 1870s changed that fact.

 

And yet the ancient Roman soldiers carried the steel Gladius.

 

Many good posts. Thing is we have gone back to a protective armour, but it is geared towards the weapons of today. I would also add that most grunts will also care a handgun and a good fighting knife as backup, I know that I did. The melee is simple not fesable in todays combat scenerios, not if the world were to ever crumble weapns such as swords, spears, knives and bows would come back into vouge, it the learning curve for most that would be an issue at first. Funny thing though, people think of the old style warefare as being so brutal but more people die in a modern battle than they did in the ancient times, we have become far more efficient at killing our fellow humans, does that make you feel proud. Maybe we would be better of if we did go back to the old methods, plus it would also require that our leaders lead from the front, sure would cut down on wars.

 

And don't forget the pike either! It played a very important role initially after musketry was invented.

 

Depending on where I was would I want different weapons. English longbow men were some of the best troops in the medieval ages. They relied on their bows not just to serve them in battle, but also partially to bring them some supper home. Not to mention there were many rewards of war. Well trained English longbow men brought down an army of french knights, thus proving the longbows general superiority to armor. The other good troops I would probably pick are highlanders. The reason being they were fast and could often outmatch armor fairly well with their clamors, pikes, and terrain. If I had to choose someplace other than England, or I had different enemies than European armies, such as an Arab army, I would probably pick Swiss Pikemen or Knights Hospitaller. The swiss pikemen because they were great defensive units and once again were not always wearing armor and could use the lighter load to carry the long pikes and move faster ect.

The Knights Hospitaller simply because they were good sea men, and were skilled in their armor. They were also just plain awesome in many ways.

I would say that generally armor loses, but I must say their were those who were skilled in it.

Wow, this post seems to have degenerated into being much more a tale of my favorite Medeival European troops than a real conflict between armored or un armored. Ah well...

 

One of my family members was in the first crusade and he got to Jerusalem.

I would say like you it depends where your fighting, Saxon Long Axe men wouldn't be much good it in wood, but give them space and they would be awesome. We saw on the crusades the Muslim troops were not match for the European troops, so Europe had better trained troops. The Mongals did defeat European armies, but they weren't aswell trained with the Long bow, it would have been good English long bow vs Mongal horse archers.

 

Everyone with European descent has family members in the Crusades, probably the same family member you had.

 

Maybe, but they don't know they did. They also don't know who that person was and what he did in his or her as a whole or in the crusade.

 

That must be why the Europeans won each battle and eventually the Crusades......lol...

 

That must be why there were more crusades than Star Wars sequels

 

The Crusaders did a great job of taking Constantinople though.