Would English line infantry be able to take out a medieval melee charge?

Would English line infantry be able to take out a medieval melee charge?

Muskets seem so hilariously inaccurate that the only thing making them viable for war was that everyone else was using them.

Attached: 9781855326040B4_big.jpg (900x598, 93K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift
youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_(Battle_of_Balaclava)
napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm#infantrycombatbayonets
youtube.com/watch?v=6Fu4LivPsOc
youtube.com/watch?v=qw62NV0bUTg
youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon)
youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
youtube.com/watch?v=I5QQs4rURGM
youtube.com/watch?v=Umi_HUoLdl0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>The quick and bloody battle on Culloden Moor was over in less than an hour, when after an unsuccessful Highland charge against the government lines, the Jacobites were routed and driven from the field.
Best example we have.
>so hilariously inaccurate
Not against a mass of men in close formation.

The real problem might be that they will charge faster than you can shoot them... but an attacker will then take such casualties and be exhausted from the charge that another regiment in the back can drive them away with fire. You also need to form up in a rather deep formation, which means you're vulnerable to cannon fire.

>charge faster than you can shoot them
Given bayonets are a thing... yeah, that can hold on. It's gonna be messy, but definitely not impossible.

>bayonets
Yes, that changes the equation quite a bit. I'd guess you could defeat bayonets with heavy armor and/or long polearms, easily, but that will again require expense, training etc. Against light melee infantry, those bayonet armed musketeers have a certain melee power that further tilts the balance in favour of them.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift
Easily

Attached: 1520483284748.jpg (604x453, 72K)

>Breech loaders
>Fortifications
Yeah no shit.

Most likely. Muskets are not as inaccurate as you think. But, even in the age of rifles cavalry could (in very lucky circumstances) charge infantry and succeed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mars-la-Tour#Von_Bredow's_"Death_Ride"

Attached: Bredows charge.jpg (1300x1016, 326K)

youtube.com/watch?v=-pUhraVG7Ow
Judging from this historical video, line infantry seemed to be almost completely cosmetic and useless against dedicated sword infantry. This is one of the reasons the New World rebelled so effectively against the Old, because of their less aesthetic but more utalitarian battle tactics.

>Would English line infantry be able to take out a medieval melee charge?

Yes

>Muskets seem so hilariously inaccurate

Except they were not at 50 yards and were effective in volley at 100 yards. Mixed buck and ball loads were also utilized. Muskets were extremely effective weapons and a standard British two line or french three line would shred a medieval charge. One example that springs to mind is the battle of colloden

*Obliterates your formation with cannons*

I'm assuming you mean cavalry? In which case yes, especially if square is formed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_(Battle_of_Balaclava)

These were rifled muskets but still similar to the weaponry you're referring to (same reload rate). With literally zero tactics the Scots repelled Russian cavalry with ease.

Why "English"?
You know that they were far from the best European infantry in the era of line warfare, right?
That all these memes about them being "elite" you heard in American movies and video games only stem from the fact Americans compare them to their ragtag revolutionary militias, right?
British line infantry was garbage compared to Prussia, Austrian or French ones

Btw, if you want to know how 18th century European line infantry would have fared against a medieval-tier army, there are plenty of exemples in Napoleon's Egypt and Syria Campaign (Battle of the Pyramids, Abukir, Mount Tabor, Heliopolis...)

Attached: battle of pyramids.jpg (891x898, 166K)

>a few carts pushed over
>fortifications
oh i remember being low IQ ;)

muskets are inaccurate and long range, the bayonets can be quite dangerous and there's always riflemen too

if you have a hundred muskets up against fifty heavy cavalry units, the heavy cav would be shot to shit before attempting to come close

source? I play Mount and Blade: Warband Napoleonic Wars

>Muskets seem so hilariously inaccurate that the only thing making them viable for war was that everyone else was using them.

Bullshit
During his invasion of Egypt, Napoleon wrecked tons of Turkish cavalry charges with infantry square + musket volleys

That's British line infantry though

Thank toTurks, we have plenty of exemples of how musket line infantry performed against "medieval" armies

And, although Russian and French armies were of better quality than British one in the 18th century, I think it's still pretty safe to assume that even Brits could have defeated the Turks if they had tried

Attached: tks.png (1604x839, 703K)

Cavalry would run shop over infantry out of formation. On paper they seem better in every way, but the problem lies in the fact that a horse cannot be convinced to charge into a wall of bayonets. Therefore cavalry could really only be practical in a situation where the enemy was disorganized or fleeing

Musket fire was "innacurate" because most musket armed formations were engaging other musket armed formations, and would thus fire at maximum range. (or sometimes even beyond that if you don't have well trained troops).

When you attempted to have bayonet charges against a force that was ready and willing to deliver a volley at close range

> In 1755 two companies of Prussian grenadiers fired at a target 10 paces broad and 10 feet high. At 300 paces they scored approx. 12.5 % hits and at 150 paces 46 %.

> In 1813 at Gohrde, 66 French infantrymen fired at 60-80 paces at Germans hiting 27 Hannoverians and Bremen-Verden (40 % hits). In this case the count is only for one volley at close range.

napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm#infantrycombatbayonets

Remember, re-load times were pretty long in line warfare, and the trick of getting a bayonet charge to work was to do so when the bulk of the enemy where you were rushing had been distracted by exchanges of fire and were in the middle of re-loading or otherwise distracted. A medieval force armed with pure melee weapons doesn't have that option, and they're going to be fired at in point blank range and torn to shreds.

Cav are actually much more effective in MTB:NW than in reality because you can charge cav into infantry formations. In real life a horse, even one trained to charge, will always turn to avoid a bayonet to the face or chest

There is a reason firearms took over warfare
By the time the charge has reached the line 70% of the men chargibg have died and will get stabbed or shot further

>Would English line infantry be able to take out a medieval melee charge?

Only if they have time to actually fire their muskets. If by some subterfuge the medieval soldiers manage to close the gap the line infantry will get shredded by the dedicated melee unit. This is true even today.

Of course the odds of a bunch of armored lunatics with axes and big knives successfully getting the drop on a ranged unit in the field are slim to none, but that's life.

>If by some subterfuge the medieval soldiers manage to close the gap the line infantry will get shredded by the dedicated melee unit
18th/19th century European infantry was quite good at meleee combat with bayonets actually

>a bunch of armored lunatics with axes and big knives
Of course if that's what you think medieval infantry was mostly composed of, like the big normie fed with memes you are, I understand your dumb opinion better...

>>

>18th/19th century European infantry was quite good at melee combat actually

Maybe they were, but you have to understand that a proper unit of medieval line infantry that the average person might think of would consist of either foot knights or standard foot men at arms, whose armor could be varied.

Most people would think of a knight/man at arms from the 14th, 15th, or 16th centuries.

We can assume they will be armed with a bascinet or sallet helm, that they will have a cuirass/bringandine (possibly with a plackart), that they will be wearing mail and gambeson, and that they will have greaves.

Unfortunately, no matter how good you are with a bayonet, unless you are trained in the fine intricacies of medieval fencing, you aren't taking down a well armored tin man.

>Of course if that's what you think medieval infantry was mostly composed of, like the big normie fed with memes you are, I understand your dumb opinions better

While his statement is wrong, you don't have to be such an asshat about it.

Attached: stop.jpg (167x178, 14K)

>Of course if that's what you think medieval infantry was mostly composed of, like the big normie fed with memes you are, I understand your dumb opinion better...
Oh dear user it seems I have offended your autism by not using hyper accurate terminology to describe medieval infantry and instead used broad descriptive terms for the sake of color!
Well I don't care.

Support your claim that a dedicated, at a minimum semi-armored melee unit won't perform better in melee than an entirely unarmored unit that predominantly specializes in ranged combat.

Yes, they conquered the world by shooting down primitives doing melee charges.

>Most people would think of a knight/man at arms from the 14th, 15th, or 16th centuries.
I don't even mean plate armored walking stereotypes. It could be an early medieval soldier armored only with a helmet and a shield wielding a sword, he's still going to have a combat advantage over an unarmored line infantryman with a bayonet.

>It could be an early medieval soldier armored only with a helmet and a shield wielding a sword

For earlier medieval soldiers (we're talking 9th-13th centuries) they would still have full chainmail (properly referred to as "mail") hauberks, on top of their shields and nasal helmets.

You also have to remember that - especially in the 16th and 17th centuries - plate became thick as fuck, and begin being made to be able to stop and deflect bullets.

If heavy knights/cuirassiers from those centuries ran down a line of Napoleonic infantry, I would place my money on them.

Muskets being horrifically inaccurate is a History Channel meme. To be sure they weren't hunting grade, but they were basically handheld artillery meant for use in volley fire.

In the situation your describing, let's say 3 ranks of redcoats hold their line until the medieval melee is within 10 meters before opening fire. Each rank drops to the knee after firing, and the behind rank fires while the forward reloads, with the third rank firing off the shoulders of the 2nd if need be.

The medieval attackers would be completely decimated, and routing troops would still easily within shot range for several volleys thereafter.

In the case of the British, they get a lot of flak over silly field formations and general incompetence due to the damaging effects of a law that allowed laymen to purchase their way into Officer positions and rise the ranks by jacking off their superiors; a lot of Brit generals were retards but their tactics and equipment were modern and sound.

Napoleon's cavalry at Waterloo was defeated by English square formations of guns. Late Renaissance armor and cuirassiers were able to defeat early low-pressure handcannons, but firearms rapidly developed in the 17th and 18th centuries.

A solid steel spike bayonet with a good 6-8lbs of weight behind it being stabbed into your stomach cavity could probably beat 14th, 15th century medieval armor. Renaissance stuff is where you'd start seeing problems. Also don't discount that the gun itself can be used as an effective club. Also don't discount the psychological effect of seeing unarmored ponces in bright frilly clothes shooting fuck fire out of sticks at you. Even for later medieval soldiers who've seen cannons or maybe even arquebusiers, volley fire from muskets at near point-blank range would be terrifying.

>A solid steel spike bayonet with a good 6-8lbs of weight behind it being stabbed into your stomach cavity could probably beat 14th, 15th century medieval armor

stop being a meme please

youtube.com/watch?v=6Fu4LivPsOc

youtube.com/watch?v=qw62NV0bUTg

youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

Now imagine that protection, but also having a mail hauberk/haubergeon and a padded arming doublet under that.

Even the swordsmen of the time couldn't do jack shit against plate armor, and so several SCHOOLS of fencing techniques as well as hundreds of new weapons were developed to deal with it.

Please, don't comment on things you are so clearly uneducated about.

>Also don't discount the psychological effect of seeing unarmored ponces in bright frilly clothes shooting fuck fire out of sticks at you

By the 14th and 15th centuries, guns were becoming relatively popular in warfare.

It would be terrifying - absolutely - but it wouldn't be point blank, because at that rate they'd already be dead.

And I would put it past knights and men at arms to break after one volley.

I'll take your word on that one, arquebuses can hardly be compared to the firearms of the Napoleonic era.

Some random hick in his backyard LARPing isn't really a good source. Fencing techniques of the time were mainly taught for duels, on the battlefield you'd get past armor by using heavier weapons. We do know that small stabbing daggers like Rondells could get past armor if you found a chink.

The guns being used in the 14th and 15th century were weak enough that heavy padding and cuirasses were enough to stop them, they were weak, low-pressure and nowhere near as significantly loud as muskets were at the height of their era and also not used in anywhere near the same number. At their peak, muskets would be fielded by an army consisting of infantry of double the numbers of a 14th or 15th century force, not counting cavalry or artillery either.
You seem to think that medieval soldiers were incredible hardasses but they were mostly untrained, unprofessional conscripts and it wasn't until the structured, disciplined militaries of the 17th centuries and onwards that armies bucked the trend of routing at the drop of the hat. Hell, if your medieval/renaissance force was condotierri or mercenaries they'd be even more likely to bail.

Watching some neato repro videos that aren't even Skallagrim tier doesn't make you an overnight expert, user.

t. literal retard that doesn't even know that every brit Line Soldier had 40 bullets, an Austrian had 8, a Prussian 20 a French 30, go eat some kebab Klaus

And before you propose that we consider Knights vs Muskets for the sake of OP's question, reminder that the best Knights of their time, the French Knights of the 100 Years War, were pants-on-head retarded when it came to blindly charging against fortified projectile weapon ranks.

Why do people push the muskets are hilariously inaccurate meme?

The weapons themselves werent inaccurate as portrayed in popular media. I believe up to 80-90 yards was the standard to hit a man sized target in the Grand Army.

The things that made them inaccurate in pitched combat was the battlefield conditions and the stress suffered by the men. A French officer wrote a study on why guns were ineffective at longer ranges in the aftermath of the franco prussian war and they were using breechloading rifles. Likewise you see a bigly drop in accuracy in combat even in modern times.

>they were weak, low-pressure and nowhere near as significantly loud as muskets
A loud boom is still a loud boom user, it doesn't matter if one boom is a few decibels louder after a certain point.
>

You also have the problem that most line battle infantry units weren't trained or disciplined to the standard of closing to actually effective range and then firing. They often started shooting well beyond their effective range, because hey, the other side is shooting at us, stop advancing, start shooting now!

Marksmanship standards Europe over tended to focus on 100m and closer, but actual engagement ranges in a lot of battles were usually double that.

>I believe up to 80-90 yards was the standard to hit a man sized target in the Grand Army.
Try shooting a slug from a shotgun, without a rifled choke. Hitting a person at 80 yards is completely unbelievable.

>Random hick in his backyard LARPing

did you even watch the other fucking videos

And no, that's not some random hick in his backyard LARPing, that's a man with a polearm stabbing a cuirass.

Basically exactly the sort of situation which you were referring to (a 6-8lb piece of metal being stuck into a cuirass.)

Furthermore, you're wrong about calling most medieval forces unstructured or undisciplined.

While it is true that you'd find the best forces out of a city watch or a garrison (people who were actually trained and combat-ready before the war,) discounting all levies as "shit" is a very, very inaccurate view of historical warfare.

Organization was done on a feudal level with each lord controlling his own military while answering to the marshal or king in charge of the campaign, which is actually rather similar to the sort of organization we have today, so don't even come at me with that bullshit.

"Routing at the drop of a hat", is retarded.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. Please stop.

Also, it's funny that you mention that these videos aren't even Skallagrim tier, because one comes from an actual armory and the other one is a literal Skallagrim video of him working with a smith to forge a plate of armor.

>The medieval soldiers that provided their own weapons were conscripts
>The literally conscripted Napoleonic infantry that relied on the state for their armament were not
lol

Not to even fucking mention that for the sake of our argument, we're talking about a medieval force of men against a single regiment/detachment of men from the Napoleonic era, not army vs army.

Christ almighty.

Also, why did you mention rondels... as if they were some kind of a knife?

Rondels were the tiny circular disks that would cover one's armpit (before and during the time when pauldrons became more popular.)

>The medieval soldiers that provided their own weapons were conscripts
I don't think you know what a conscript or levied troop is user. Hoplites in ancient Greece provided all their own equipment; they were still conscripted.

The man in that video is very loosely thrusting a questionable repro polearm against a questionable repro cuirass tied to a post. Not a good recreation what musket infantry were literally trained to do. Also, the weight behind a bayonet thrust being centralized closer to the actual point and no spread out over a long polearm would generate more force.

And I don't categorize medieval soldiers as 'shit', it's a statement of fact that they were not professionals or even practically trained by a vast majority. That doesn't make them bad at killing things, it makes them undisciplined which gives them a huge disadvantage at marching straight into enemy infantry fire and melee even assuming their armor did hold up (which under repeated fire and a pitched melee battle, it wouldn't).

Feudal lords didn't maintain standing armies for the most part, they maintained garrisons that may or may not be lumped in with levied troops when ordered. They also maintained a personal retinue of actual competent soldiers as guards and personal troops, but unless the Lord went to war himself, those stayed with him. You're arguing that trained policemen are comparable to trained Army infantry in a pitched battle, and that's just ridiculous.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger
Rondels were a common form of short thrusting knife that would become a mainstay of medieval fencing/duels

I knew that they had knives with which they finished their opponents hanging at their waists, but I never knew they were also called rondels.

Neato.

You probably would see them called Roundels or just daggers, they're pretty elementary

Once again, we're comparing a small medieval force to a small Napoleonic detachment.

I never fucking argued that they wouldn't get shot to shit.

But there is absolutely no way that they would lose in a melee battle. I'm sorry.

Oh, and the knife you're thinking of for finishing dropped armored enemies is probably the Misericorde, a much smaller weapon not used by lower class men or in duels, it went out of style when Chivalry fell apart. Its of a similar construction/typology
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon)

If you didn't want to ransom someone, typically you'd stab them using that sort of knife, yes.

OP states a 'medieval charge', not a contextless melee slapfight you dense fuck.

It was also specified that we're not talking about two armies, we're talking about a small force and a detachment.

We're throwing around hypotheticals.

I'm asking you to get on my same train of thought here - that while firearms took hold in Europe for a reason (they were objectively better than anything before), in a melee battle, a medieval force would always win.

Jesus.

A context less medieval charge that occurs at a range precluding more than a single volley will inevitably become a "context less medieval slapfight".

Even a single volley at close range is likely to inflict somewhere between 10-30% casualties. That will almost certainly break any medieval force.

user
Let's think for a second
How do you get an entire medieval infantry force within melee range of an opposing infantry force?
That's right sweety, they have to fucking walk there. They aren't magically teleported in for the sake of your argument.
And while they're walking in full armor, they're being decimated, literally, by volley fire.

They'll get approximately one volley off, which will cause, as the user above you stated, approximately 10-30% casualties.

It could break them, it could not. For the sake of argument, let's say it doesn't.

What Napoleonic conscript could match this?

youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo

Or this?

youtube.com/watch?v=I5QQs4rURGM

Or this?

youtube.com/watch?v=Umi_HUoLdl0

Medieval fencing isn't just swinging your sword around, you know.

Also, don't come at me with some bullshit like "Oh it's HEMA, HEMA isn't real."

It's the closest we have in modern days.

As the user who wrote , I am not the guy you're responding to in .

And taking that many losses WILL break any medeival force. It's not all that common for a losing army to take 30% casualties, and that's after an entire hours long battle, breaking and running, and having a bunch of your guys chased down and killed as they flee.

One volley, boom, and somewhere hovering a fifth of your force is down? They'll be running for the hills so hard you'll never find them again.

The fact that you're lumping together 14th and 15th century armor alone shows that you have no clue what the fuck you're on about.

Medieval fencing was real, but it wasn't for battlefield use. Most of the manuals of arms we have today were explicitly for dueling use, or self-protection in later eras, and even if you had a liberal interpretation of battlefield tactics in the middle ages the point stands that most soldiers wouldn't even be trained in HEMA techniques. Hell, they wouldn't even be using those weapons.

I also strongly disagree with your one volley claim. At this point you just sound like a HEMA fanboy sperging out and not considering the real historical context of the hypothetical situation. HEMA is cool as shit and I love high medieval, romanticized combat too but it's anachronistic in 99% of situations.

Also, one volley? You having a fucking laugh mate? Sure they weren't pulling a Mad Minute but Napoleonic infantry could fire more than one volley in the time it'd take heavily armored soldiers to cross an open field.

This is such a stupid premise. Line infantry were better fed and better trained than virtually any medieval army, they also have bayonets so it's not like they can't fight in close quarters. Also, what do you think said line infantry fought against, during its colonial wars of expansion? Oh that's right, medieval melee armies. Guess who won?

A lot of important advancements were made between the 14th and 15th centuries for sure, but for the purpose of our argument, not enough were made to make a difference vs guns.

I literally didn't say anything in that post that compares 14th and 15th century armor, user. Reading comprehension.

You keep on saying heavily armored as if it'd actually impede your speed.

As a person who's actually worn a harness, I can tell you it only really begins to hamper you when you try to jump.

And once again, I really am not coming from the premise that the colonial force would lose in an actual battle.

I'm coming from the premise that in a melee, a medieval force would win.

Stop getting my hypothetical situation confused with your own, please.

>How do you get an entire medieval infantry force within melee range of an opposing infantry force?
Strategic artifice.
Knowledge of terrain.
Unanticipated weather phenomenon.
Staggering incompetence compounded by blind fortune.
Writer's fucking fiat.

Zulu natives and other tribal cucks do not equal a European medieval army, and as I said, I'm speaking from the position that they would win should the fight be entirely relegated to melee.

And, sorry, but bayonets won't do shit against a harness of plate armor.

It takes significant amounts of specialized training in order to defeat a person in a plate harness, knowing how to get them to open the weakest points in their armor and how to exploit these weak points.

A bayonet simply won't do, I'm sorry.

>You keep on saying heavily armored as if it'd actually impede your speed.
user we have multiple historical records of armored medieval soldiers having difficulty on the march, especially if in bad terrain or overexerted. Do I need to bring the 100 Years War up again? I'm not a revisionist retard who will tell you that knights can't get up if knocked down or any of that shit, but heavy armor is hot, often uncomfortable and exhausting to wear, especially if its not custom-made to fit some rich elite noble.

And you're admitting that you're moving goalposts to fit your narrative, so I'm done responding.

>a defensive perimeter was constructed out of mealie bags. This perimeter incorporated the storehouse, the hospital, and a stout stone kraal. The buildings were fortified, with loopholes (firing holes) knocked through the external walls and the external doors barricaded with furniture.
>The British wall was too high for the Zulus to scale, so they resorted to crouching under the wall, trying to get hold of the defenders' Martini–Henry rifles, slashing at British soldiers with assegais or firing their weapons through the wall.
>oh i remember being low IQ
I bet you do user.

Or you just hit them upside the fucking head till they pass out
Which is actually how that happened most of the time, based on archaeological finds of medieval battlefields. Because fencing out in the mud isn't much fun when the other guy's got a pollaxe.

This isn't moving goalposts, I've agreed that given the hypothetical statement you've presented, the Napoleonic infantry would win. Guns beat swords/armor.

But in the situation that I originally brought up - just a straight up melee - I'm simply claiming that the more skilled and specialized fighting force would win.

Why is there even an argument about this?

Also, you can't possibly imply that a knight would wear his harness while on the march. They put it on directly before a battle.

Usually the murder strike (hitting them upside the fucking head till they pass out) was used as a stunning move to then finish them off, such as by stabbing them in the armpit, but you're right.

Knights have that luxury, common soldiers don't. But this is part of you moving the goalpost, suddenly it's not an infantry medieval force but a force of heavily armored cavalry who we'll just say didn't bring their horses this time.

Ottoman armies arguably stopped being medieval earlier than european ones user. Those turkish forces would be mostly musketry of poor quality.

>Even a single volley at close range is likely to inflict somewhere between 10-30% casualties. That will almost certainly break any medieval force.

That assumes the volley occurs long enough before melee is entered that the melee force has time to become aware of it's own casualties.

With a sword, yes, a mordenhau (? i think is the term) was a strike with the pommel to faze an opponent before taking them down.
But with the primary weapon of the battlefield, usually a spear or maybe polearm with some heft (or even a mace or hammer, a common sidearm used in favor of swords), just smashing a cunt in the head was the favored option.

A common soldier probably wouldn't even be able to afford a harness that couldn't be put on himself, but even if he did, he'd still put it on directly before battle.

Maybe he wouldn't have two or three servants dedicated to doing it, but he could get some form of help if he absolutely needed it.

NO ONE kept their armor on at all times.

You'll see it when the funny men in frilly coats suddenly light the world on fire and every third man next to you hits the ground.

Even if they aren't, you're suddenly seeing huge holes appear in your formation just as you make contact, with the enemy musketeers immediately spilling into the holes now created. How many seconds do you think they'll keep ranks before running?

Mordhau. Close enough, lol.

Also, knights weren't always mounted. That's a downright myth. Many knights fought on foot - or would you like to call them men-at-arms? That's not always the right word for dismounted knights, but whatever.

>common soldier couldn't afford plate
Right, they'd usually be wearing mail and padding if they could afford it. Now, guess how well a bayonet does against cheap mail and padding?

Exactly the example I was going to suggest.
Volley fire.1st row shoots,kneels to reload.2nd row fires,kneels to reload,3rd row stands,fires,kneels and so on until it’s time for the first row to stand and fire again

Attached: F410A420-E420-4612-9BD9-647D76FB00DA.jpg (1536x2048, 197K)

>Mamluks.
>Ottoman.
18th Century Turks weren't "Medieval" armies. In fact their "medieval" army was probably better.

By the 1700s, the old professional army was long gone and the bulk of the Turkish army consisted of irregular cunts raised in the Millets with shite discipline. They fought in the same line infantry tactics as Europeans did. But while Europeans had drill, the Ottoman infantry had super inconsistent training, with the Janissaries being the only ones possessing any sort of drill. Imagine if those militiamen than fight in Syria Today was made the formal army of that country? That was the state of the Ottoman Military: an army staffed almost entirely by ad-hoc units and local militia forces thrown together in an emergency or a campaign. It was utterly irregular.

They were good at skirmishing and raiding however.

The Ottomans would only achieve modernization in the 1780s first under the Nizam-I-Djedid reforms under French military advisors hired by Selim III as France was desperate for any allies following the Revolution. The second reform came with the disbandment of the Janissaries in the 1820s.

Attached: Ottomans.jpg (540x800, 87K)

>How many seconds do you think they'll keep ranks before running?
How many seconds does it take to close the distance? If a single volley of fire was all it took to break up a charge then bayonet charges would never have occurred.

Knights by the true definition of the term were almost always mounted, 'knights' to mean heavily-armored inviduals with no aristocratic claim such as started emerging in Europe towards the end of the 100 years war are better called men-at-arms, and those men fought most often on foot. But they also weren't the bulk of medieval armies, unless you had a lot of money for mercenaries.

Bayonet charges were never, to my knowledge, successfully attempted against a force well arrayed and with a shot loaded and ready to fire. You softened them up with artillery, with flanking maneuvers, with skirmishing, and you timed your rush so that it would occur when the enemy were reloading. (Or better yet, when they were marching or deploying or otherwise not ready). A medieval infantry force isn't going to have the capability to force a line infantry force to discharge at extreme range and be reloading in time for a charge. The two situations are not comparable.

If you look further up enough, you'd realize that I'm speaking in regards to 14th/15th century plate harnesses.

Poetic language is not a substitute for an argument. Fifty men don't stop on a dime even if 16 drop dead.

Bayonet charges occurred between two disciplined armies trained for it, if you look at colonial engagements then usually the foreign force breaks after volleys even if they'd do better for themselves in a melee. Undisciplined people who haven't been trained around firearms cannot easily be made to charge them headlong.

>baseless assertion with no historical evidence backing it up is valid because

Who's to say that all knights with aristocratic claim would fight on foot?

There are many cases in which they might, and it's even been documented that many rich knights would fight on foot, and often without sabatons (hence the distinction), because it's easier to fight on foot without them.

Plate became cheaper than mail eventually after the black death and invention of the trip hammer, so your average common soldier would most likely be wearing jack or brigandine rather than mail in the later Medieval period.

>Bayonet charges were never, to my knowledge, successfully attempted against a force well arrayed and with a shot loaded and ready to fire.
>You softened them up with artillery, with flanking maneuvers, with skirmishing, and you timed your rush so that it would occur when the enemy were reloading.
All of which requires your force to endure casualties from enemy fire without immediately breaking.

And many rich kings and knights had dumb bullshit made up about them to further their own glory. Hell if you go by the art and artistry of the age, every single soldier on a battlefield would be kitted out in full nobleman's gear.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far.

You have to understand that a lot - if not most - of what we know about medieval life and warfare comes from artistry and iconography.

None of which would be likely to create 10% casualties overall, nevermind quite probably more than that in the span of about 6 seconds.

>Knights by the true definition of the term were almost always mounted,
Wrong.
English knights preferred to fight on foot.

There's nothing baseless about physics.
A charging mob of people requires adequate space to stop, if that space is not present they will not stop.

>Some random hick in his backyard LARPing
Thrand is a degreed weapons historian you stupid fucking mongoloid. The shop he gets his shit from makes all it's stuff with traditional tools, methods and materials. Made literally the same exact way it was back in the day.

>first post has an actual example of what happens when a bunch of guys with swords charge at other guys armed with muskets and bayonets
>retards continue arguing with each other

Never change Veeky Forums...