German8ter

A friend and I are in a debate. While playing a favorite game of ours (Civilization V), I complain that the musket unit should be stronger than the long swordsmen unit (They have the same strength in game). He thinks it's historically accurate but I say nay! I've been learning more about 17th & 18th century warfare and know that the long sword was pretty obsolete by then but I don't know a whole lot about 15th & 16th century warfare.

So my question is, what made medieval warfare equipment obsolete? I know the pike went out after the socket bayonet was invented but what else was there? The long sword, heavy armor, crossbows, longbow?

boreas

maybe the early muskets were vulnerable to fast moving sword wielding units. ideal they would like to fight at range, take this advantage away from the muskets and they are very vulnerable. even in later stages of gunpowder and projectile weapon development a swift sword cavalry action could cause chaos in enemy ranks.

overall though i would agree gunpowder made medieval warfair obsolete with it's seismic shift in tactic and strategy that would eventually follow.

Kevinmeath

Ideally a soldier with a bayonet didn't fight on his own but with comrades forming a 'hedge' of bayonets, all this 'one on one who is best' is all very interesting but is not how a battle was fought.

Swordsmen like bowmen also took a great deal of time to train.

boreas

the early bayonet was placed directly into the barrel of the musket and thus prevented the weapon from been fired in such close quarter combat.
bayonet was a weapon of last resort ultimately, ideally you would take down your enemy's from range or at least thin there ranks sufficiently.

i disagree with kevinmeath on this one, there was many battles musket vs sword or spear. and the question i do not believe relates to a one on one engagement.

Kevinmeath

Fair enough but the bayonet was not designed as an individual weapon it replaced the need for a pike, formations of gunmen needed pikemen to protect them from cavalry, putting a knife into the barrel created a short pike.

It was not designed to fight one on one but as part of a formation.

boreas

true enough.

Whyte

Highland charge worked still in the 18th century. Swords and bucklers versus muskets. Bayonet was influential in giving the musketeers something to fight back with, and bayonet drill has been cited as one of the reasons Culloden was a defeat for the highlanders.

Bayonet charged worked in the Little Round Top in Gettysburg. You could claim that as spears versus muskets.

I think Mahdists in Sudan and the Zulus in South Africa in 19th century would qualify as 'medieval' in armament. However, by that time the weapons technology was already giving a huge advantage to the riflemen, and the medievalists needed huge manpower advantage. So the parity, at the very least, was clearly lost.

I think the death knell was already the rifled muskets, let alone breechloading rifles. Bolt loaders were already beyond the pale and the machine gun finished the job for good. Grapeshot artillery must have been horrendous for melee infantry, too.

DreamWeaver

When warfare stops being about being up close and personal, when victory is no longer based on two armies intermingling smashing the life out of each other, when engagements can be settled at range. Then the warfare that had been practised by man since the ancient world onwards comes to an end.

German8ter

The socket bayonet rendered the shot and pike formation obsolete in the early 18th century. In response to Dream Weaver I don't mean melee combat being obsolete entirely but more of when Medieval weaponry and equipment became obsolete or secondary weapons.

Was there a single innovation in musketry that caused heavy knight armor to be taken off the field or were most of the medieval style weaponry gradually faded out through smaller innovations like the socket bayonet or flintlocks?

DreamWeaver

Does the same not hold true? I think it does.