Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Age of Enlighthenment usually refers to the time period that began JUST AFTER the 30-years war ended towards the French Revolution (or maybe a bit beyond to Napoleonics Wars), usually symbolized by many of ways
- Baroque architecture (I've made a thread about it)
- Tricorne hat replaces Morrion helmet
- Introduction of Bayonets
- Armored troops became less common

But
1. Did Bayonets really replaced pikes by then? Is France the first nation to supply musket troops with bayonets and disband pikemen formations?
2. Give me the name of the military unit that still wears body armor (metal cuirass) and steel helmets. both Infantry and Cavalry units.

How about doing research for your classes yourself?

But that would be hard.

 Kanluwen wrote:
How about doing research for your classes yourself?

I did!
all I see is that, by 18th century
1. by then Musket troops wears no armor at all. not even helmets
2. Pikemen also tossed out armor and helmets, before simply being disbanded.
3. Only cavs still wear armors, the Cuirassiers.

no specific reason why? except that muskets can now pierce bodyarmor

The main reason would be that armor is expensive and at this point it isn't cost effective to equip the large standing armies that are appearing at this time with it, especially when the armor is only marginially effective. Guns were expensive enough as it was, plus the need for a constant supply of powder and shot.

Armies were much larger at this time than they had been previously so earlier it was a little cheaper to equip everyone with some sort of armor. And even then, it was more effective against the weapons that were around at the time so there was some benifit.

Cavelry were valuable enough to give armor to as they were still mostly melee orientated and a well made curiass could still stop a bullet.


I think the only standing army that currently wears steel body armor is the Pope's Swiss Guard. No cavelry there I believe.

Pikes were obsolete by very early 1700s the Spanish war of Succession was basically the first war to feature almost no pikemen at all, by that time the Ring Bayonet and solid lines/columns of Line Infantry with Muskets. Cavalry was also in decline from this point, although it was still useful, it was a constant let down in many conflicts however most continental commanders were very rigid and clung to them for centuries to come. Into the 1700s officers would often wear breastplates and Cuirassiers would always have a breast plate capable of stopping a musket ball. Armour was pretty much reserved for Cavalry.

I believe the Swedes and Russians still had pikemen in the Great Northern War 1700-1721 but obviously this is before your period.

Around the time in question armies became much bigger, into the hundreds of thousands, national armies were born no longer the gentlemanly army of the King.

Skirmishers and Riflemen also became a staple part of armies around your time of interest.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mostly the reason that pikes went out was that muskets were no cheaper to produce for a whole army.

By 1700 all Western European armies were all uniformed with Muskets and tricornes replaced helmets, later around your period Shakos started to replace hats.

Despite being unarmoured, an infantryman's uniform could often deflect a ball from a far out range. At the battle of Blenheim a particular Colonel in the British Ranks took 3 musket shots into him and each bounced off, his troops accused him of wearing a breast plate and being a coward at which he tore off his shirt revealing he had no armour, i believe he was then shot....

I think the only standing army that currently wears steel body armor is the Pope's Swiss Guard. No cavelry there I believe.

Curiassers in most european armies still wear steel armour in their formal dress. As do some dragoon units, who are technically both cavalry and infantry.

Well I didn't think that counted. I was under the impression he meant on active duty

If that counts, the US marine corps still uses Sabres as a standard issue weapon.

The swiss guards only wear the steel armour when on guard or parade, same as Cuirassuers and dragoons. When they are on active combat duty they wear the same thing as most soldiers/bodygaurds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I think the English and Scottish Warders or Borders or some such also wear steel armour as well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well I didn't think that counted. I was under the impression he meant on active duty

If that counts, the US marine corps still uses Sabres as a standard issue weapon.

Same style of blade since 1859 for the curious.



The Marine Officer's Mameluke sword has been in service without much chance since 1826 roughly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well I didn't think that counted. I was under the impression he meant on active duty

Exactly,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kamakazepanda wrote:
Pikes were obsolete by very early 1700s the Spanish war of Succession was basically the first war to feature almost no pikemen at all, by that time the Ring Bayonet and solid lines/columns of Line Infantry with Muskets.

so it means ring bayonet affixed to muzzle end of a fusil serves functions of both ranged weapons and an effective melee weapons and thus, long reaches of pikes became irrelevant at this point. correct?

By 1700 all Western European armies were all uniformed with Muskets and tricornes replaced helmets, later around your period Shakos started to replace hats.

Despite being unarmoured, an infantryman's uniform could often deflect a ball from a far out range. At the battle of Blenheim a particular Colonel in the British Ranks took 3 musket shots into him and each bounced off, his troops accused him of wearing a breast plate and being a coward at which he tore off his shirt revealing he had no armour, i believe he was then shot....

is this report real? an ability of three-tier coats uniforms to deflect musket balls should be contributed to the smoothbore musketball velocity at its actual opration range (and the lack of accuracy), Line inf. uniform being bulletproof is not quite convincing me, givem that the musket is large-bore firearms (.50 is considered too small, .69 (which it was french standard calibre) is just a norm) and the size of standard paper cartridges (lenghts of fifty cal BMG, diameter of 12 gauge shotgun) this is unlikely!

I've seen a wet woollen blanket stop a 9mm round from a submachine gun at 100yds.

I see no reason to doubt that a musket ball at range could be stopped by uniform, remember although the ball is of a large caliber, it's got low velocity.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well I didn't think that counted. I was under the impression he meant on active duty

If that counts, the US marine corps still uses Sabres as a standard issue weapon.

Same style of blade since 1859 for the curious.



The Marine Officer's Mameluke sword has been in service without much chance since 1826 roughly.

The US Marine swords (the Mameluke Sword for Officers and the NCO sword for NCO's) are strictly for ceremonial use only, though. The sure don't go charging into the fray with them anymore.

The US Marine swords (the Mameluke Sword for Officers and the NCO sword for NCO's) are strictly for ceremonial use only, though. The sure don't go charging into the fray with them anymore.

Unlike the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill Second Paragraph under WWII section.

In fairness he had a longbow as well...

So what you're saying is he's even cooler than was previously assumed?

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well I didn't think that counted. I was under the impression he meant on active duty

Exactly,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kamakazepanda wrote:
Pikes were obsolete by very early 1700s the Spanish war of Succession was basically the first war to feature almost no pikemen at all, by that time the Ring Bayonet and solid lines/columns of Line Infantry with Muskets.

so it means ring bayonet affixed to muzzle end of a fusil serves functions of both ranged weapons and an effective melee weapons and thus, long reaches of pikes became irrelevant at this point. correct?

Yes, and in fact the entire purpose of Pikemen had been to protect Musket troops from cavelry.

This was because at the time Muskets were quite heavy.

The Bayonet was possably developed as originally a hunting weapon, but it isn't known for sure, and someone had the bright idea that it would be a good addition to warfare.

Now that musket troops could defend themselves against cavelry, pikes were obsolete. You could now give all your pikemen a musket and they could do the same job as before, but also shoot back.

purplefood wrote:In fairness he had a longbow as well...

And bagpipes.

In addition to other ceremonial units mentioned the Household Cavalry has steel cuirass and helmet as part of their ceremonial kit.



As for body armour being totally obsolete, true for a window of about two hundred years, though heavy body armour was used for siege troops as special equipment. Helmets regained popularity since the 1880's and were comonplace in the 20th century and body armour is now standard kit for most modern western armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now one further exception. The British still used halberds (usually Partisan, Spetum or Pollaxe) in musket formations in the Napoleonic era, they were given to sergeants. The +1S was a secondary consideration, the primary use was for ruiot control and for creating a horizontal barrier from the rear ranks of a British line which was normally a lot thinner than a continental line, two men rather than four, and thus had to be bolstered to retain good morale. The standard ratio was one halberd armed sergeant per eight men, the halberd would be long enough to act as a backstop for the 4x2 formation including the sergeant pressed against their backs if needs be. So technically you could have up to one hundred 'halberdiers' in an British line infantry battalion, though it was not seen as such.

^
1. 1880? Isn't Pith helmet (including Prussian picklehaulbe) being introduced a bit earlier? and Pith helmet for line inf. was (i think) made of either hardened leather or multilayer of hard clothes rather than steel?
2.so in the same block of 120 line infantrymen (1 company), there can be as many as12-16 sarges armed with halberds? did he also has pistol too?
if the reason is not just for morale boost then those polearms are intended to use in actual melee combat as well as bayonet fusil?
by Victorian era, pikes and halberds for sarges had been finally disappeared altogether, by then what are the sarge wargear in battle meow?

I'm sure if a melee ensued they would use the Halberds, but that was almost certaintly a secondary course of action.

By the time pikes and halberds had been phased out Officers were just armed with Swords and Pistols. Varying from country to country of course. Some sort of axe would also not have been uncommon, especially in eastern europe IIRC. The pistol in particular was a symbol of rank for a long time. Even as late as WW1, the basic infantryman didn't have a pistol. Just a rifle.