Were bayonets historically used on matchlocks?

[trettie]

Once you do look it up it will blow your mind , blew mine put it that way . The full musket might have needed its rest but the Calivers being lighter didn't . . All matchlocks sort of affect those intrigued by them such as me & Pukka . Its the' new way backwards' and they come in infinite variety its a slippery slope but I enjoy scrambling on it .
Regards Rudyard

While the training materials of the early 17th century usually depict muskets used with rests, they really aren’t “needed” in many situations. At Jamestown, while we know they had rests, there isn’t much evidence they were used. They make sense for open field battles where you form up a line of battle and might then hold it for some time. If you’re on the move through close terrain, they aren’t as practical.

Before bayonets they did carry swords, but not necessarily rapiers. George Silver recommended a stouter war sword, which makes sense if you’re engaging at close quarters. Musketeers were among the least trained on the field, and most probably had little to no training with swords.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Trettie,
Our problem nowadays, is we tend to think "musket" and take it to mean the same thing, but a true musket needed a rest, weighing well over 20 pounds. We see light short ones used now with a rest, but as Rudyard says, no rest required for the lighter versians like the calivers.
Of course, muskets became lighter to the end of the 17thC , so no rest required for them either.

Rudyard,
Not forgotten about you ow'd lad, just been up to my eyes in farm stuff.

 

[trettie]

Trettie,
Our problem nowadays, is we tend to think "musket" and take it to mean the same thing, but a true musket needed a rest, weighing well over 20 pounds. We see light short ones used now with a rest, but as Rudyard says, no rest required for the lighter versians like the calivers.
Of course, muskets became lighter to the end of the 17thC , so no rest required for them either.

Rudyard,
Not forgotten about you ow'd lad, just been up to my eyes in farm stuff.

Most matchlock muskets (12-10 bore) I’m familiar with (barring wall guns) weigh in between 10 and 15 pounds, with a few as much as 18. My own 12 bore weighs just 10 pounds. I don’t think 20 pounds was common. Do you have examples?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

And even before this there were lighter or shorter firearms (e.g. calivers and arquebuses) that could be fired from the shoulder without a rest.

Ah but remember, shorter would = dead when using a bayonet against a pike, or even a rapier user.

The bayonet gives certain advantages...,
It is inexpensive whether it's a plug or a socket bayonet,
It takes far less training, than a rapier & dagger
It works in the rain, and when a silent attack is used (such as night), when the match might not stay lit or powder dry
It's always "loaded"

For those advantages to apply there are some disadvantage that must be overcome...,
It must be mounted on a long enough weapon (and light enough) to have a chance of defending against a pike or a rapier or halberd,
It must be used in a tight formation
The privates must have training and discipline enough to maintain that tight formation, especially when enemy cavalry is near

The first bayonets, seem to be more of a cavalry deterrent, when pikemen are not present in large numbers, rather than what they evolved into, the main weapon of the charge.

LD

 

[Timuni]

Ah but remember, shorter would = dead when using a bayonet against a pike, or even a rapier user.

Surely matchlocks of the later 17th century, like the examples I posted in the thread below, would have been sufficiently long for bayonet use, no? By this period (ca. 1690) rests for muskets were not as commonly seen due to a progressive lightening of firearms over the century. In fact matchlocks of this sort were already being used in more "modern" line/volley formations, rather than pike and shot, during battles like Sedgemoor in 1685.

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...atter-day-european-western-matchlocks.132168/

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Surely matchlocks of the later 17th century, like the examples I posted in the thread below, would have been sufficiently long for bayonet use, no? By this period (ca. 1690) rests for muskets were not as commonly seen due to a progressive lightening of firearms over the century. In fact matchlocks of this sort were already being used in more "modern" line/volley formations, rather than pike and shot, during battles like Sedgemoor in 1685.

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...atter-day-european-western-matchlocks.132168/

Actually the last twenty five years or more of the 17th century, really saw a rather rapid changeover to a flint system of some sort in most European armies, except perhaps the Italians. So Yes by then the metalurgy was such that both long enough and light enough was a viable combination.

Maryland for example notes flint fired muskets and bayonets in colony armory inventories by that time.

LD

 

[Timuni]

Actually the last twenty five years or more of the 17th century, really saw a rather rapid changeover to a flint system of some sort in most European armies, except perhaps the Italians. So Yes by then the metalurgy was such that both long enough and light enough was a viable combination.

Maryland for example notes flint fired muskets and bayonets in colony armory inventories by that time.

LD

Yes, flint and bayonet .... but what I'm asking about here is matchlock and bayonet. Matchlocks were still in frontline service among various European armies and/or militias up to the first decade of the 18th century, so I'm wondering if there's any historical record of them being equipped with bayonets before they were completely phased out by flintlocks.

 

[tenngun]

Most matchlock muskets (12-10 bore) I’m familiar with (barring wall guns) weigh in between 10 and 15 pounds, with a few as much as 18. My own 12 bore weighs just 10 pounds. I don’t think 20 pounds was common. Do you have examples?

Very first was more or less light artillery and a two man gun and used on the flanks. It ran during the 1565 - 81 a 9-6 bore and had 45- 55” barrel. And could ‘spoyles horse or man thirty score off ’ at two hundred to two hundred twenty yards.
Sir Roger Williams, 1590
Just while looking across this found a reference to Leonardo da Vinci recommended paper or linen cartridges about 1500

 

[toot]

a plug bayonet certainly is a whole lot better than a stone / rock!

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Tim,

When the musket term was first used by the Spanish, it was a kind of 'secret weapon', and needed a forked rest.
Believe Geo. Boothroyd quoted original texts, that these heavy guns weighed up to 23 pounds. Tennguns quote is true of these heavy muskets.
A latter day 10 bore need weigh no more than a Brown Bess.

Believe Greener (1910) has a similar weight for the early true musket.
Blokes were strong back then, and no rest would be packed around if not needed.

Best,
R.

 

[Timuni]

Tim,

When the musket term was first used by the Spanish, it was a kind of 'secret weapon', and needed a forked rest.
Believe Geo. Boothroyd quoted original texts, that these heavy guns weighed up to 23 pounds. Tennguns quote is true of these heavy muskets.
A latter day 10 bore need weigh no more than a Brown Bess.

Believe Greener (1910) has a similar weight for the early true musket.
Blokes were strong back then, and no rest would be packed around if not needed.

Best,
R.

I believe the weight of these full-sized early muskets was one factor which meant that a significant portion of "shot" in armies were still carrying calivers and arquebuses up to the 1600s. Keith Roberts in his book 'Matchlock Musketeer 1588-1688' gives an example of two English companies raised for service in Ireland in 1596, one of which included 50 calivermen and only 20 musketeers, and the other including 30 musketeers but 40 calivermen. Both companies also included 24 pikemen each, so they were the bayonets of the companies in this case.

 

[BritJoe]

The origin of the plug bayonet is a bit obscure but as the first reference in military use is thought to date from 1647 (Jacques Francois de Chastenet memoir 1690) it seems likely they were used with matchlocks. There is also evidence that socket bayonets were used with matchlocks in France in the 1690's. In 1696 Pierre Giffart published L' art Militaire Francois which contains numerous prints detailing each step of drill for the matchlock, spontoon, pike and flag.

"Plate LV
From the prior posture the soldier fixes the bayonet to the barrel of the musket, turning it until it stops. The bayonet remains in place until the soldier is ordered to remove it."

Also of interest in his book are the illustrations of the grenadier showing their matchlocks fitted with slings allowing them to sling the gun to throw a grenade or draw sword. It seems likely that this practice later led to the adoption of the distinctive grenadier cap suggesting that other units with brimmed hats did not use slings - note in Giffart all wear wide hats..

Luckily for us Giffart has been republished as Musketeering and is available in paper or digitally from a certain online book and everything else seller.

 

[TobJohn]

I am a little late to this, but the Osprey book “Matchlock Musketeer: 1588-1688” shows English musketeers with plug bayonets in the 1680ish period. They use the matchlocks that have the more rounded locks and modern looking stocks.

The YouTube channel “cap and ball” also has a short video on making a plug bayonet for a matchlock. There isn’t currently a full historical video on it, but he generally knows his stuff.

 

[TobJohn]

Wikipedia claims that the first concrete evidence of the plug bayonet is a Chinese manuscript from 1606:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet#/media/File:子母鳥銃.png
This is not particularly relevant to European muskets, because there is almost certainly no influence on each other, but still an interesting factoid.