When was the sword put out of use?

[cyr the mighty]

Firearms were being used in Europe during the Hundred Year's War. The English used them against the French early in the war. Look up the Battle of Crecy and you will find examples.

 

[Planesdragon]

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

The invention of the Flintlock (circa 1600) made the firearm "better" than the archaic weapons it has come to replaced. Before then firearms certainly existed and were even used, but they weren't cheap enough to displace the lance, pike, or longbow, which piror to the flintlock were the dominant weapons. (The crossbow, while powerful, was always too slow-loading to effectively beat the longbow, despite its greater power and simpler operation.)

While we're doting on historical notes, it's worthwhile to remember that not since the pre-Roman conflicts, the sword hasn't been the primary weapon. of any European soldier. A polearm, bow, or lance has always come first... although the sword is an excellent secondary weapon.

 

[Ian Sturrock]

I certainly cant imagine anyone in the US army using a knife or bayonette in combat, unless you ran out of all of your ammo, and then only if you had no way to run away.

Apparently the British troops made some use of bayonets in the Falklands war. I read in a memoir that there were a few occasions when a soldier would empty a clip just as he made close contact with the enemy, and rather than reload would find it quicker to just keep going with the bayonet. Of course, this would only occur when it was necessary to take the fight to close quarters -- I think it typically happened when attacking Argentinian trenches, though it's a while since I read the book.

 

[silentspace]

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.)

You can say the same thing about guns. It doesn't take much training to use a gun effectively. Or swords. I'm not an expert in guns, knives or swords, but I know that all are high-skill activities, where the person with more practice and a higher skill level will generally come out on top. Much like in sports.

Modern militaries teach personal combat, both unarmed and with their weapons (knives/bayonets, rifle butts). That being said, they spend much more time teaching and practicing 'modern' combat, whether that is hand-held firearms for infantry, or the use of specialty equipment (tanks, planes, boats, etc). So in the end, a pilot is a much better flyer than he is a knife fighter. This makes sense, since a high skill level in piloting is much more effective to the modern military than a high skill level in knife fighting.

 

[Dogbrain]

During the English Civil War, complaints were made by officers that men would not put their swords to their intended uses. Instead, swords were much more likely used to clear brush, chop wood, or dig holes than for combat. So, I'd say that the writing was on the wall for swords before that point.

The last use of massed sword in infantry in British service was in the middle of the 18th century. Highland infantry charged emplaced French positions on the Plains of Abraham (in Quebec). It was a turkey shoot for the French until British regulars gave them serious fire support.

The US Cavalry might have been issued swords, but during the US Civil War, their primary weapon was the repeating carbine (aka "That damned Yankee gun that can be loaded once on Sunday and used the rest of the week."). Likewise, except for scouting purposes and a couple of freak encounters, the primary use of cavalry during the US Civil War was actually not as cavalry at all. They were either scouts or mounted infantry. In a sense, they were the first use of "mechanized" infantry.

 

[Ferret]

Ok new an more 'Personal' phrasing.

You live in a house in scotland you are rich enough to buy either a sword or a gun for protection etc. When is the latest you would opt sword rather then gun?

I did some researching before this and I found 1650(ish), I came here to make sure.

 

[Wilphe]

If it was me, 1850s would be about the cut off date.

Then you can have a reliable cased revolver which is likely to work, and which you can use again almost immediatly and then easily reload. With a single shot pistol you'd better be able to make that one shot count and you'll have real problems when dealing with more than one attacker versus a sword.

However, there are various weapon restriction laws at the time - but if you are just talking home defence...

You could also try looking at when the sword stopped being an article of male dress - which would be a few decades earlier (depending on the culture and surrondings).

 

[Vigilance]

The gun reduces the sword to a ceremonial role immediately in every culture throughout history.

Looking at the two cultures which elevated the art of the sword above all others (Europe and Japan):

In Japan we find Samurai commanding units of musket-wielding soldiers (they called the art Hojutsu- art of the musket). Occasionally the samurai commanders would duel each other in single combat with their swords. However the musket was the primary weapon within a decade of its introduction.

In Europe we find an almost identical process- the sword is reduced to a dueling weapon, only in this case these duels are in the street or court over honor rather than the battlefield.

However in every culture the sword lives on as an object os mystique. Soldiers in today's military have swords, and learn how to use them (some more than others and almost always for ceremonial uses). But they don't even bother to carry them in combat.

Chuck

 

[Ian Sturrock]

You live in a house in scotland you are rich enough to buy either a sword or a gun for protection etc. When is the latest you would opt sword rather then gun?

I did some researching before this and I found 1650(ish), I came here to make sure.

Well, the Scots did continue to favour swords sometime after that point. At the Battle of Killiecrankie (1689), for example, there were still a few of the original claymores (i.e. two-handed swords) fielded, and several of the Scottish nobility still wore full plate armour. Eye-witness accounts attest to the bloody work done by the claymores once the Scots closed with the unarmoured English soldiers.

I don't know as much about the 18th century Scottish rebellions in 1715, 1719 and 1745, but I believe the sword still played a significant part in the Scottish armoury of that era. They did lose though.

 

[Krieg]

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).

Well, looking up at the crossed NCO & Mameluke swords above my desk...I'm forced to to say that since virtually all of the swords you will see being worn by U.S. Military personnel in uniform have blunt edges and are made of stainless steel, they in no way qualify as "functional".