When was the sword put out of use?

[pennywiz]

When was the sword put out of use?

Got rid o mine when the blud started a rustin her. Fixin ta get a nuther one.

 

[LGodamus]

I doubt even a navy seal or commando would use a knife unless absolutly necessary. My long time neighbor was a seal and he always said that if they had to use their weapons on a mission, they had already failed.

I know for sure that the army rangers still learn to fight with a knife and bayonet..... that is what the pugil stick training is for, learning to fight with the blade at the end of your rifle.

 

[mmadsen]

What time frame was the gun a more preferable weapon then melee weapons?

In the American Revolutionary War, colonial irregular troops were terrified by British "cold steel"; bayonets were at least seen as effective. By the American Civil War, edged weapons (e.g., bayonet, cavalry saber) were responsible for negligible casualties.

 

[mmadsen]

From A la bayonet, or, "hot blood and cold steel":

The bayonet does not rate highly as a cause of wounds and death in comparison to other battlefield weapons. Napoleon’s own surgeon-general claimed that "for every bayonet-wound he treated there were a hundred caused by small arms or artillery fire." (22) One source gives sabre and bayonet wound statistics as 15-20 per cent before 1850 and only 4-6 per cent after 1860. (23) Similarly Puysegar is recorded as stating that one should "just go to the hospital and … see how few men have been wounded by cold steel as opposed to firearms." (24) And Duffy quotes Corvisier as giving bayonet wound statistics as only 2.4 per cent. (25) Statistics from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 give two and a half percent as the overall casualty rate for spears, swords and bayonets. (26)

 

[Olive]

I know that lance units were still in use during WWI as my great grandfather was an officer in a German one. Also, while swords weren't issued as weapons during WW2, I think bayonets were, and melee weapons in the form of shovels were definitely used during the Siege of Stalingrad.

Edit: I can't believe I forgot this, given what my thesis is about. While not swords, Indian soldiers during the First World War, inparticular the Gurkhas, were equiped with kukris. There are numerous reports of these troops using these knives in battle, occasionally in preference to their rifles.

However, it's important to note that these stories may be completely untrue! While the gurkhas are still equiped and trained with these to this day, the use of the kukri takes on a particular symbolic role in media reports of the period, and the Indian troops as a whole, but particularly the gurkhas were subject to a huge amount of romanticisation in the press and by military officers themselves.

 

[Olive]

Statistics from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 give two and a half percent as the overall casualty rate for spears, swords and bayonets. (26)

It's worth noting that this war was primarily a naval campaign... Also the dates are 1904-5.

 

[Steverooo]

The period you're looking for, in real world history, is probably somewhere in the 1300-1400s. Warriors would probably recognize guns, but the peasants might not... but they'd remember them, once they heard them go off!

The sword has never actually gone out of use, just become far less common. The Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines all still issue sabers, although, as noted by several, it is usually with dress uniforms (yet they ARE functional). Machetes saw a great deal of use as weapons by US soldiers in Nam, as well.

The US officially issued shortswords to artillerymen in the Civil War (in case they were overrun), but they were considered archaic, even at the time.

 

[diaglo]

the U.S. navy still has the sword as a part of the dress uniform, likewisee the marines.

so do the rest of the Uniformed Services.

even the USPHS has a sword.

 

[Aaron2]

When you could expect a soldier/guardsman to have a sword or other non gun, rather then a gun or only have a gun as a second option.

As I said earlier, it would be pointless for a guard to walk around with a matchlock as it would take him too long to get it ready. A guard would at least have to have a flintlock so the earliest would be the 1600s. There is a painting from 1645 called The Deliverance of St Peter by David Teniers. Though its a biblical scene, it was common at the time for biblical painting to use contemporary weapons and clothes. In this painting St Peter's guards are hanging out and wear daggers and have spears handy but their pistols are hanging on the wall well out of reach. It would be the 1700s before guards would rely primarily on their guns; this is outside the range of D&D tech.

http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1zoom.asp?dep=11&zoom=0&full=1&mark=1&item=64.65.5

 

[Farganger]

This is arguable. It takes a lot of training to use [a knife] effectively, more than most militaries have the time for unless they have a good idea that these soldiers will get in a knife fight.

This is an interesting statement. I don't think it does take much training to use a knife "effectively". With some very basic instruction and practice in striking *through* a target rather than *at* it -- avoding the sort of pricking wounds seen in many knife fights -- and weapon retention, a person can become quite effective at disabling or killing an unarmed or similarly armed opponent.

(If you mean it would take a lot of training to teach someone enough about knife-fighting to reliably overcome an opponent that is significantly more skilled in unarmed combat or knife-fighting or armed with a more effective weapon like a bayonet on the end of a rifle, I would agree. And I agree that most militaries don't feel time is well-spent in training soldiers up to the level of proficiency that would involve.)