When did the Gun 'replace' the Sword.

[Cmwissy]

Sorry Escapist for bringing this to you. I cant seem to find a straight up answer anywhere else.

Hopefully the title supplies the question. Basically, when did the firearm replace swords/axes/pikes/etc in both civilian and military use.

From my snooping I've found that bayonet charges and cavalry swords replaced the basics in the 1700's, and the revolver was cheap/practical enough (Compared to flintlocks) to be used by civilians in the 1800's.

So Escapees, anyone with a history head who can help me with this? Curiosity has gotten the better of me.

EDIT: Just found this little quote.

One of the first truly modern-style handguns, the Colt revolvers became known as "The Great Equalizer", because they could be loaded and fired by anyone, whereas most previous guns had required sufficient strength and dexterity. In theory, anyone who had a modern-style revolver was equal to anyone else, regardless of their relative physical abilities. This term has since come to be used for firearms in general, as awkward weapons like muzzle-loaded muskets became a thing of the past.

 

[Wadders]

Not really a set time for this. It happened at different times in different places in the world.

In the western world, I'd guess around the early/ mid 1600's maybe, with Matchlock muskets being easy to make and fire. Sure Pikes and swords were still used buy cavalry and some infantry but by then they were being phased out.

Swords were still used by cavalry up until the invention of the tank around WW1 though I think so I guess you could say that was when swords were finally totally replaced.

Not 100% sure about all that though, so call me out if I'm wrong

 

[kickyourass]

I'd say around the time that quote was talking about. When guns like the Colt Revolver and Winchester Rifle came around it was no longer practice to use a melee weapon like a sword as your primary weapon like you would with flint lock weapons.

 

[unoleian]

Really, close combat continued up through the 1800s. Rank and fire practices were good only in the short term, to thin numbers, but before long, as ranks closed, melee would erupt among the masses. Even after the invention of the first repeater rifles, melee was still a common fall-back tactic, as it was a complex process to reload the guns. But, repeater rifles were probably the first step in the decline of melee.

You could say that World War I was probably when melee combat dropped off the radar entirely. The advent of mechanization and machine guns really did a lot to change the face of war. Losses were horrible at the start of that war, as ranks marched proudly into walls of bullets. As tactics adapted to trench warfare and foxholing, you could say that guns had truly replaced melee for good.

ed- I guess, if you want an exercise in pedantry, guns replaced swords and axes rather early on in their advent, as a rifle is a multi-purpose tool. The weapon itself is a wickedly effective club, especially early models which could weigh upwards of 20+ pounds. Factor in bayonets, and the gun itself was a very effective killing machine, even without ammunition.

 

[dragonslayer32]

it all depends on who you are talking about. the japanese were using swords during WW2.

 

[Worgen]

it all depends on who you are talking about. the japanese were using swords during WW2.

not effectively, I mean we did have some films that said to shoot the ones with swords first but aside from killing prisoners and Chinese I dont think the sword was really ever used to get any kills in combat, at least Ive never heard of it used that way, maybe when the japanese invaded china they got a few sword kills

 

[Gralian]

Really, close combat continued up through the 1800s. Rank and fire practices were good only in the short term, to thin numbers, but before long, as ranks closed, melee would erupt among the masses.

You could say that World War I was probably when melee combat dropped off the radar entirely. The advent of mechanization and machine guns really did a lot to change the face of war. Losses were horrible at the start of that war, as ranks marched proudly into walls of bullets. As tactics adapted to trench warfare and foxholing, you could say that guns had truly replaced melee for good.

As this guy said, World War 1 is probably the most accurate period at which melee combat was no longer an option. At the start of the war 'traditional' British officers made a huge blunder when they commanded cavalry units to charge towards a trench, only to be mowed down by an emplaced machine gun. At that point the old talent was sacked and they got some new blood in - melee was out of the question. However, some generals still carried swords (though this was for ceremonial purposes) and soldiers had bayonettes attached to their rifles for when they charge into the enemy trenches or the opposite occurs.

Muskets and the like were of course used in warfare before this, where two armies would meet on a hill and poitely exchange shots until one or both of them drew blades and charged into the fray, or one side pulled back. Don't know the specific date that they started to fight battles with guns though. My guess would be around the colonial era.(?)

 

[Cmwissy]

no matter how skilled someone is with a sword, i can stand ten feet away and kill him with a single bullet.

Unless you're using a black powder muzzle-loader of any sort, then you can do nothing in bad weather or just misfire into your face.

And that's on good days

 

[unoleian]

Muskets and the like were of course used in warfare before this, where two armies would meet on a hill and poitely exchange shots until one or both of them drew blades and charged into the fray, or one side pulled back. Don't know the specific date that they started to fight battles with guns though. My guess would be around the colonial era.(?)

Depends on what you define as a gun. If we're talking strictly rifles and handguns, then the late 1600s is a good timeframe to choose for guns becoming a common factor in battle. If you want to count cannons and bombards, though, those can be traced clear back to the medieval era. They were incredibly expensive, and used only for siege tactics, but the use of ammunition in warfare has a long, bloody history.

 

[dragonslayer32]

it all depends on who you are talking about. the japanese were using swords during WW2.

not effectively, I mean we did have some films that said to shoot the ones with swords first but aside from killing prisoners and Chinese I dont think the sword was really ever used to get any kills in combat, at least Ive never heard of it used that way, maybe when the japanese invaded china they got a few sword kills

yes, most were just cerimonial but some were used in close combat instead of bayonets. they even done a test on the show mythbusters and it was said that a Japanese katana cut through a hot American machine gun. shame, twas a load of bull; still, it proved that they used them

 

[HerrBobo]

I believe the earliest record of "firearms" was in China in the early 10 Century. Of course theses were not what we would call "guns" there were really just a tube that you rammed full of black powder and metal.

Firearms first show up in Europe around the 1400s. It was then, over 100s of years, a gradual development, with armour and hand weapons slowly declining. For a while there were interesting "mixed units" of musket men with pike men in their ranks to protect from a cavalry charge.

It was around the 14-15 Centuries that firearms really began to earn their place on the field. Don't get me wrong, like others have said, mêlée was still very important. It was at this time though that battlefield tactics were based more and more around the firearms. This of course is a bit of a generalisation. It did not all happen at once and the rates of firearm use and development varied from Nation to Nation.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Cmwissy]

Depends on what you define as a gun. If we're talking strictly rifles and handguns, then the late 1600s is a good timeframe to choose for guns becoming a common factor in battle. If you want to count cannons and bombards, though, those can be traced clear back to the medieval era. They were incredibly expensive, and used only for siege tactics, but the use of ammunition in warfare has a long, bloody history.

Us Europeans were using firearms as early as the 16th century, all though they were pretty useless matchlock muskets and were used for intimidation/suppression.

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

knife's have never been replaced Ex:bayonets,combat knives also for whoever said swords ended in WW1 they actually ended in WW2 with japanese using them in trench fighting as i recall

 

[Aur0ra145]

Answer. Whenever this happened.

 

[Sky Captanio]

As far as I know they gradually got replaced over about 50 years between mid to late 1700s.

 

[Canid117]

When the guys who bought and trained armies realized it was cheaper and easier to train 50,000 men with rifles than it was to train 2000 for ten years with swords. Guns take less training, are cheaper, work better in most situations, and are scary as hell. As soon as they could be produced in mass quantities (late 1600's and the early 1700's) people said "Fuck using swords. I'm gonna get me an assload of riflemen and shoot all the swordsmen before they get close enough to kill any of my soldiers."

I say they aren't!

If I go to war, I'll bring a fucking crossbow!

And the guy with the assault rifle will shoot you from out of your crossbows reliable range with ten times as many bullets as your one little itty bitty bolt.

 

[HTID Raver]

in the 1740s pikes and all other close range weapons for infantry became obsolete in the eurpopean and western world, aisan countrys continued there use until the late 1800s

officers still carried them and calvary kept using swords and lances up to the late 1800 early 1900s.

bayonets replaced infantry swords and the such, we still have and USE them today.

 

[Brandon237]

it all depends on who you are talking about. the japanese were using swords during WW2.

not effectively, I mean we did have some films that said to shoot the ones with swords first but aside from killing prisoners and Chinese I dont think the sword was really ever used to get any kills in combat, at least Ive never heard of it used that way, maybe when the japanese invaded china they got a few sword kills

In very close quarters combat that you would get in the tropical areas in the pacific, a sword could be deadly. Close quarters as in you don't know who is on the other side of the tree three feet away.

The gun was used over the sword once it became effective. The old guns from the early colonial era were not the greatest, but they became useful enough that it was better troops had them. It also happened at different times around the world, and it was gradual, like development. Of course when a regiment kinda swapped out that would probably be a big step in the gun direction.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

not effectively, I mean we did have some films that said to shoot the ones with swords first

That's because officers carried swords, it was a good way to work out the more valuable targets.