Funny you saying about keeping the puncture wound open, In the early 60s, as a butcher in London I accidentally stabbed myself in the upper leg. The knife blade went to the hilt of a 6-inch boning knife. St Mary's Hospital just sewed the cut across the top. I went back to work the next day and 2 days later was off for a week because it bled all through my leg muscle. A couple of years before that I got a big poultry needle in my shin just like an arrow, right in. (THE LADS WERE FOOLING ABOUT). Middlesex Hospital just put 2 stitches in a cross across the hole. I woke up in the morning with my bed half-soaked in blood. Seems in hindsight after seeing this video that 2 of London's leading hospitals didn't know as much about puncture wounds as 17/18 century army surgeons. :)))
Idk why the people think medics were terrible back then. The fact that technology was inferior is true, but not skill. Only medics from back then would be able to save a prince from an arrow to the head. (Henry V)
I once stabbed myself in the hand with a Bowie knife, I was being dumb and stabbing the top of a soda can, when some one bumped the picnic table I was at, thunk, right into the meat between the thumb and index... NEARLY HITTING AN ARTERY... My mom freaks saying we need to get me to a hospital... My uncle a Field Medic... "NOPE! What are they gonna do, stitch him up and send him home. WHY... IT NEEDS TO DRAIN, NOT BE CLOSED UNTIL IT DECIDES TO HEAL ON ITS OWN." He cleaned me up, bandaged it and told me, BE CAREFUL WITH IT... ITS GONNA HURT YOU MESS AROUND WITH THAT HAND... He wasn't kidding. We were camping, that night I rolled over to get comfortable and right over the top of that hand... OMFG THE PAIN... I snapped awake screaming but with jaw locked shut because I didn't want to wake the entire camp ground up. MAN that pain plagued me for the next few days. Feeling that ripping in the hand also locked itself tight for a while in my head to where I just needed on thing to touch that spot and I would slip into a mild form of shock. Sweating, feeling dizzy, wanting to vomit... Every time fighting the sensations I was going through because the injury was MOSTLY HEALED... That was probably the worst Puncture would I have had yet. And I am glad my uncle taught me everything he knows about field medicine... Well almost everything... There will always be that case you weren't taught about that you need to deal with... Like a roofing nail in the foot... LOL
I think perhaps part of the myth comes from the fact that part of the 1949 Geneva Conventions does ban the use of a bayonet with a serrated edge. So the idea of "banning a bayonet for the type of wound caused" does exist, just not for triangular blades.
Possible. Although the mythology of the "banning of the triangular bayonet for the untreatable wounds the bayonet caused", makes a more exciting story for the reasons for the triangular shape. The reason for the triangular shape was to create a strong & rigid blade that was lightweight with a minimal amount of material.
@@JYFMuseums Great info and video, thanks! Has the triangular bayonet been replaced due to metallurgical reasons? It seems logical that if you could produce a straight blade that possessed the necessary strength for the job intended, it would probably be cheaper and lighter than a triangular one. I wonder, as well, if examinations of the actual use of bayonets in battle led to the conclusion that the extra strength created by the triangular shape wasn't actually needed for the job it performed. Can you shed any light on either hypothesis? Thanks in advance!
@michaelccozens No, the triangular bayonet was not replaced for metallurgical reasons. It had a long service life and in addition to reasons already mentioned, another reason for the triangular shape was to get through many layers of woolen clothing. The length, shape, strength and socket made the musket an effective and very wieldable pole arm. What began the change was the advent of effective military rifles. These military rifles were significantly shorter than muskets and to make up for that difference in length sword bayonets were developed. These sword bayonets could serve as a secondary weapon and when necessary could be fixed to the rifle and wielded as a bayonet nearing the reach of a musket and bayonet. Think of the British Baker Rifle and its sword bayonet. The US M1841 & US1855 rifles and British P1858 rifle. As the 19th century neared the end, muzzle loading, percussion firearms fell out of favor and technology brought about metallic cartridges, breech loading, and bolt actions. Sword bayonets found use with these new shorter modern military rifles - like the British SMLE rifles, and US M1903 and M1917 and their bayonets. But the newer rifles with longer effective ranges were reducing bayonet encounters and moving forward through the 20th century sword bayonets became knife length bayonets. This is just meant to be a very brief summary on a very long history.
The fact it kills better is just a bonus? Nah. It was probably done for BOTH reasons. Its an instrument of war and death, not a vanity peice. Triangular shaped knives are still used in some militaries today, even though they be banned by certain countries/states. Furthermore, back in the old days when our steels were not as strong or good at holding an edge, you had 3 edges with which to use to kill (Or more practically, parry) It was practical then. Not so much anymore but we dont need to make stuff up or deny what they actually, factually do. Swords of the midevil times were elegant killing instruments as well as looking beautiful but it took about 2,000 years of development to reach that point as well as hundreds of years of warfare. And TLDR; a triangular wound will not heal properly if at all, to this day. If stabbed by a triangular blade in the middle of a hospital in NYC, youd still have an 80% chance of death assuming mortal wound.
@@shupichii9647 and you just watched a video that talk about it yet still come out and say urban legend every wounds can be deadly like a few decade ago the US army was still giving M9 to there soldier wish is way more deadly than that
"Where is the wisdom we have lost with knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost with information?" In an era of proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, you are doing an important job of keeping history alive AND accurate. If you're faithful in the little things, you'll presumably be faithful in the big things - from treating puncture wounds made by triangular bayonets to the reason governments are instituted among men. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, chris. It was mostly a compilation of things said by people smarter than me, but at least I can recognize the smart ones. @@chriscookesuffolk
Have my like. My opinions about algebra are wildly different and I generally don't like people ranting over math. But you gotta admit when people have a fine sense of humor, so this deserves my like.
@@bernhardbrodowsky3261 Thanks I went on thru 4th semester calculus at the university (with all A's), but that Jr. High algebra business still rubs me wrong.
There are very few knives that are illegal in the UK to have in your possession in your home. The illegality comes when you take them out of your home without a specific reason.
@@jordanjay1479 Just for some context, in the last year there are numbers for (2022) there were 1.1 murders per 100K people in the UK. In the US that number was 6.3 murders per 100K
@@WhichDoctor1 so? What do you want to say? In Italy its less than 1 per 100k, and there are plenty of guns. Same for Bosnia.. And guess what. In Palaestrina its less than 1, that doesnt count the murder and random killing by the israeli forces for decades. So these numbers say nothig.
Infection was a much bigger problem with musket balls for sure. Because they travelled so fast they often carried fragments of clothing into the wounds. Clothing that was often unwashed, muddy, or covered in other people's blood. And those clothing fragments were very hard to fully remove. Stabbing wounds on the other hand tended to cut the clothing instead, and so wounds were comparatively cleaner.
This is one of the more sillier myths because whilst the wound caused by a triangular bayonet might be gnarly it pales when compared to those caused by swords and sabres.
War in general is terrifying, but I think just standing there in a line while you and the enemy fire at eachother had to be total different animal of fear.
Especially since you knew that if you were wounded you'd be in a whole world of pain for lack of good painkillers and then probably die for lack of antibiotics.
Bellowing troopers charging at bayonet points are even scarier; no shields, no armors, you get horribly gutted. It took a formidable discipline to not just turn your back and run.
I like the surgeon’s description of treating the wound. It reminds me of how Henry V took an arrow to the face and how his surgeon treated the wound in the same manner (plus using honey to prevent infection). thehistorysquad has a great video on the surgery. 😁 😁
I was at a range one day with a curio relic SKS and was told it was against the rules to have the bayonet on the rifle. Someone else told me if I removed the bayonet, the SKS would no longer be a curio relic, which had some legal implications at the time. I never removed it.
Just my hypothesis: Many weapons had this shape to penetrate armor. With no armor to pierce and being used less and less, the bayonet had to change its form and pull double duty as a knife.
One thing about bayonets I don't see mentioned much is, if you shoot empty and your enemy tries to take your rifle, a bayonet can discourage that a lot.
Sure. Though an infantryman armed with a bayonet fixed to their musket is most likely facing a man, also armed with a bayonet fixed to a musket. Pay attention to your fencing with a bayonet drills.
But in WWI trenches, they found a good broad-headed shavel was far more effective than a bayonet; the latter is used for stabbing, whereas a good thrust from the former could decapitate a man.
I'm not familiar with this myth. But the three bladed broadhead arrow became popular in bowhunting about 40 years ago because it creates a wound that bleeds more, causing a faster more humane kill.
I should add that if the myth is that the wound is "unethical", inhumane, or illegal,well that'd be wrong. Killing by rapid blood loss induces quiçker unconsciousness and less pain. Always the goal of the humane seeker.
We all like stories, and we'd want a great story to give us a reason for the triangular shape of the 18th century bayonet. That the shape was to create a strong & rigid blade that was lightweight with a minimal amount of material just isnt as exciting.
With how many people are positively blown apart by shrapnel, do they go onto the battlefield and make sure that the bits that hit you aren't triangular? Or that they have nice clean edges that can be fixed by surgery?
If all armies had a perfect logistics systems, then soldiers would never run out of ammo. But they do, for various reasons. You can get cut of from your supplies, you can lack fire discipline and shoot off all your rounds in a few minutes, etc. This is where and when the bayonet comes into its own. The bayonet practice also teaches controlled aggression. And modern bayonets can be used for general utility knife purposes too. The old British WW1-WW2 combat helmet was a great weapon for CQB, if you lost or damaged your rifle.
Tim Cook (CWM curator and notable author on the CEF) has recently argued that the importance of the bayonet in the First World War has been underestimated by historians and was a very common weapon in trench fighting. Shovels, clubs etc were popular and widely used, but the bayonet was likely the dominant weapon for at least a plurality of soldiers.
So, it's not like the movies where you get shot, grab the wound, fall down and say some epic last words while your buddy holds your hand and the battle rages on and nobody kicks you or your buddy on the head or shoots you in the back? 😂
considering the mass infantry/cav charges, I don't think that any opponent had the time to doubletap you, when you go down because there is another enemy on him in seconds. at the same time, no buddy has the opportunity to hold your hand for the same reasons
If they were worried about causing undue suffering the first thing they would have banned is field artillery. Accounts from the time describing artillery and it's effects, especially grapeshot are not pleasant to read, and there are a few artifacts like the cuirass of François-Antoine Fauveau, who was struck in the chest by a cannon ball at Waterloo, that can give you a glimpse of what that might have looked like.
The technique was called "colored cross". For an attack, infantry was to be proceeded by an artillery bombardment often combining high explosive shells and gas shells. Those enemy positions to be directly attacked by infantry, would be hit with gas like phosgene, diphosgene, or diphenylchlorarsine. Vomiting or tearing agents, asphyxiant agents, or agents that made wearing gas masks difficult and that easily dissipated. Those enemy positions, that were not being assaulted, positions that enemy counterattacks could be made from, or sectors that enemy reinforcements had to pass through were hit with mustard gas -- a persistent heavier than air vesicant or blistering agent. Mustard Gas contaminated an area and required neutralization. So no, not necessarily a direct need for a bayonet where mustard gas was concerned. The indication is that an attack is not being made in that area. On the other hand, bayonets and other improvised melee weapons were handy for those areas being assaulted. Oh but, we are traveling far afield from our 18th century topic.
Always consider pulling the trigger, a surgeon may need a bit more work to stitch up a triangular bayonet sound than a regular wound of similar length Consider how a musketball would affect you compared to a bayonet, almost a completely efficient energy transfer since it's made of a soft lead, a surgeon probably would have a harder time stitching up a gunshot wound, it pancakes and if you are unlucky enough to have it go through then the exit would be a bout double or more the size of the entrance
It was length. The shape allowed for longer bayonets. Slower reloading meant a more prominent bayonet was more important. The faster reloading became, the less your gun also needed to function as a melee weapon.
Many Myths about Military arms exist. The switch to a blade-style bayonet is more likely to have been conducted as modern production methods increased allowing for the blade style to be made cheaper and with a better quality level.
The Belgium model M1965 FN/FAL bayonet that was still in use with some NATO nations when I joined the army in the late 90s has basically the same cross-section as the old trefoil bayonets, China still issues spike bayonet with a 4-sided cross-section that if the theory was sound would be even harder still to treat. I think they hit the nail on the head, most modern bayonets are intended to be field knives that have the secondary function of being attached to your rifle. We had the M9 bayonet when I was in but I'd opted for the older M7 Vietnam-era model I bought 2nd hand when I deployed to Iraq. I cleared houses with it mounted but as an emergency expedient and psychological buff, I never came anywhere near using it other than opening MREs and cutting 550 cord. The m7 is still a very useful knife. the M9... Not so much.
Smallswords were used until the 1890s i think. Also triangular. I remember a military leader from back around the 1850 (iirc) talking about how the french were willing to use methods and tactics the english were not and if they did, surely the war would go better. So maybe not a ban but a standard for some? Another consideration is forged vs mass produced / stamped. Maybe the triangular ones got banned in budget.
As a side note, the Finns really didn't want to get bayonetted by the Russians in WW2. Because of the crossection of their bayonets. (Source: finnish WW2 veterans, including but not only, my father) They were basically a thin spike with three flanges. That made wounds that were very hard to FIND not to close. The 3 flanges vs triangular may very well be what people are confused about on top of confusing the ban for serrated blades (not specifically bayonets) in the Geneva conventions.
Ever seen the enfield sword bayonette. That blade is so wide at the back. There's no recovering from that wound. It was so wide it was designed to dispatch a horse without snapping if the horse moved while during the process.
WW 1, Germans had saw backed bayonet as did a few others in Europe , called pioneer bayonet . Was for cutting wood , but the saw teeth would make a nastier wound as it was withdrawn. Many of those had the teeth ground off , was not healthy to be taken prisoner with one in your possession .
One of the reasons that modern armies use differently shaped bayonets is probably due to a modern bayonet having more uses than just stabbing people. The bayonets used in WW2 were basically just large combat knifes attached to the muzzle.
The virgin modern USA: * Keeps armor that isn't even any good out of civilian hands. * Nooooo! You can't have that weapon! It would make you equal with soldiers! * Afraid to give civilians a triangular spear head. * The 🖕BI watches closely incase someone can defend themself. The chad old USA: *Civilians had swivel guns pucket guns orgin guns. * The cuirass of the 1720s went out of style but the founding fathers knew it would return when economically possible. * Specifically said "Arms" . Knives and swords are covered. * Allowed civilians better than military grade. * Even sold better than military grade to the native americans because they believed the second amendment should apply to ALL humans.
As least as far as I can tell from the video, the following 1853 pattern Enfield bayonet had a more pronounced triangular shape. My guess is the American Springfield used in the civil war was a very similar since the musket was very similar to the British 1853 pattern Enfield.
Yes, the British P1853 and US M1861 rifle muskets are going to have rather similar function. But, the US military arms made at Springfield and Harpers Ferry are essentially descended from French muskets. The first US musket, the M1795 was an American copy of the French Charleville Model 1763/66 provided by the French government to the Continental Army during the Revolution. The stylings and lines of that musket can be seen throughout the various models of US muskets that follow. In many ways the US army of the 19th century was a copy of the French army, down to the US army's bayonet manual, "McClellan Bayonet Exercise", was taken from the French manual. www.unionvolunteers.com/uv/FILES/INFTACT/Union%20Volunteers%20-%20McClellans%20Bayonet%20Exercise.pdf
I have passed down to my son a mussel loader with a triamge bayonet made in Grermany, one of my great greath uncle's took it from a dead conferate. it was made in 1839.
Triangular bayonets are not banned. However, bayonets with a serrated edge are. Another tidbit, flamethrowers and napalm and Willy Pete are still legal, too.
This was a bit disappointing. You said you would "dissect where the origin of that myth comes from" 1:50, and all we get is 'I saw a thing where a lawyer didn't find anything'. 3:42. Second hand, unreferenced inability to find something is pretty weak proof for something not existing. If you actually want to chase down the origin, I'll give you a head start. While on a grade seven class trip in the mid 1980s I visited a historical site in Southern Ontario. The university student who was conducting the infirmary portion of the tour told us that triangular bayonets had been abandoned after the Geneva Convention for causing injuries that were unnecessarily difficult to treat. So, this rumour was at least active in that time and place
the only bayonet blade banned is the serrated blade bayonet is not to be used on civilians other than that there is no mention of blades at all pretty much, the same myth is now going around about the Jagdcommando spiral fluted dagger thing that has not even been adopted by any military service anyway
A civil war doc describes that most of his patients from bayonette wounds were back in the fight 4 days later. WWI and II bayonettes had dips or channels to permit air into the cavity so they wouldn't get stuck. now they have saws and wire cutting blades. hell if the germans couldn't get shotguns banned why would a bayonette be off the table.
It is just as easy or hard to pull a bayonet out as it is to push it in. The grooves/channels serve two other purposes - to lighten and strengthen the blade. The "let air in/not get stuck" is a myth.
Correct. The grooves or channels are what a smith will know as fullers or fullering, made with a set of top and bottom fullers used by the smiths to move the iron along, while also making the blade lightweight and strong. Nothing to do with being a blood groove, or keeping the blade from getting stuck, or moving air and everything to do with the construction of a blade that is strong with a reduced volume of iron. A triangular or cruciform blade that is fullered, is as strong, with much less material used than a simple equilateral triangle shaped blade without fullering.
They were not practical since others could be used as a knife too ! Plus it was put as someone mentioned before it was agreed to not use them because they were unnecessary!
There was no agreement or convention to ban triangular bayonets, and they were extremely necessary to the tactical deployment of infantry in the 18th and 19th centuries. We should be careful too, about imposing our modern design criteria on historical design. The earliest bayonets were plug bayonets, simply daggers with a tapered handle that could be fitted into the muzzle of the musket. While the musket could be used as a polearm the plug bayonet prevented the function as a firearm. By the end of the 17th century with the development of the socketed bayonet and triangular blade, there was now a bayonet that slipped over the muzzle of the musket. It allowed the function as both a polearm and firearm and had a shape to the blade that offered strength, pierced through clothing and with minimal materials used in manufacturing. That the triangular bayonet could not be used as a knife was not an important consideration. In camp the bayonet could function as a candle holder, a skewer, or an improvised pot hook. On the march it could function as an improvised digging or entrenching tool. The bayonet that functions as a knife is a design choice of the 20th century.
But they only served 1 purpose that it's self makes it an unnecessary tool that you are carrying for 1 purpose when you can carry 1 that can do the same thing plus cut things and they could be a little more difficult to fix ! These factors have been proven that was why it was included on the convention
Neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Hague Conventions addressed the use of triangular bayonet. The relevant articles of the Hague Conventions are Article 22 and Article 23 -- Regulations: Art. 22 Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. Regulations: Art. 23 Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited (a) To employ poison or poisoned arms; (b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; (c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (d) To declare that no quarter will be given; (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; (f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag or military ensigns and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention; (g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
@@derictripp9245 Tell me you didn't actually watch the video without telling me you didn't actually watch the video... They were used for multiple CENTURIES and slowly faded from use as technology moved on. There's nothing anywhere about any concern over the nature of the wound. ANY deep puncture wound is more than a little difficult to fix, regardless of the shape of the weapon. It was never included in any convention. And a combat weapon doesn't have to have multiple purposes to be necessary. It's for killing people on a battlefield, it doesn't need to have another purpose. Even after sword-bayonets and knife-bayonets become the norm, they're still only serving that one purpose. They're not utility knives, they're for killing.
They faded out when they found more practical versions of if that were used in more then just 1 way ! And yes I did watch it but you clearly just needed a reason to be a douch
Yeah but you can't shoot the gun, it's too dangerous. The bullets are so powerful that all the oxygen gets burned up creating a vacuum around the shooter which causes the chest to explosively decompress and the lungs get ejected out of the body, just like Biden said. One bullet can shoot the lungs out your back. Corn Pop saw it happen to a guy once too! The so-called "bayonet" on the SKS is for planting the rifle in the ground over the grave of the shooter if they didn't exhale before shooting the gun. This is all made up science by firearms expert David Hogg that proves how dangerous guns are. People like you with SKS are a danger to society! The disease this man suffers from is known as S-hoot to K-ill S-yndrome and these red-flag MAGA crazies want to make it so the guv'ment has to follow the constitution and honor our rights!! Sickos like this are a threat to marxis...commun...I mean dumbocracy 😂
There's a microtech knife called the Jagdkommando (named after an Austrian special forces unit) that is a solid titanium twisting triangle edged knife. It's cool but honestly not very practical for anything, even stabbing compared to many other designs. However in the hype around it and the knockoffs, a lot of people parrot the idea that it's banned from military use by the geneva convention lol.
The bayonet featured in the video is a reproduction of a British bayonet. Bayonets of the 18th century are triangular, some even with flat blades, not necessarily equilateral triangles as shown by these bayonets in the collections of our friends at Colonial Williamsburg -- emuseum.history.org/objects/104851/dutch-longshanked-bayonet-with-repairs emuseum.history.org/objects/110025/dutch-longshanked-socket-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/97754/dutch-flatbladed-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/70011/dutch-flatbladed-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/99432/british-knifebladed-sea-service-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/98280/butt-trap-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/105730/french-officers-fusil-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/108648/french-m1771-infantry-musket-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/108531/french-m1774-infantry-musket-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/92457/french-model-1777-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/80846/m1763-bayonet-with-new-hampshire-battalion-markings emuseum.history.org/objects/99341/us-marked-american-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/83744/american-fusil-or-fowler-bayonet emuseum.history.org/objects/97004/point-of-fork-arsenal-type-bayonet
I think the biggest fallacy about bayonets is that they didn't cause many wounds. I think the answer to that argument is that it didn't cause many non fatal wounds, and this in an age when abdominal wounds were normally considered fatal anyways. Most bayonet victims never made it to the doctors, they just dumped in graves.
I genuinely wonder where and when this myth first came about. Because the myth that "Triangular bayonets were banned because they couldn't be treated" seems so barmy that to me it feels like something that a singular person somewhere stated with wholy unearned confidence and it just took off. Like, did this start within the last few years on the internet or has this thing been kicking around for decades? And where did it originate from?
We wish we could definitively answer the origins of this myth. It does pre-date the internet and some of our staff can recall that it was a popular interpretive story back in the 1980s at American Revolution and American Civil War historic sites. If anything, the advent of the internet has gone along way to dispel the myth. It is much easier to seek out and find various primary sources.
my take is that the usage died because bayonets after that could be used as daggers and knives, so were versatile and useful to soldiers for more than stabbing someone…if you’re going to carry a weapon, at least make it a useful weapon!
I'm sure there's something to be said about axes and wood splitting... Area cross section¿ Basically if you were to take two axe heads to make a a perfect x and try to split a log, you'd have to put in way more energy than just using a standard axe head. I'm poorly explaining it but eh lol
triangular bayonets were used long after the days of ball and powder. in more modern times, I could get why it might be banned, like post 2nd world war, but no earlier.
An interesting question. It is not until the mid-19th century that state level diplomatic conferences began to take place on the conduct of warfare such as the Hague Conventions.
@@JYFMuseums Yes, the first person I heard of was Henri Dunant, a Swiss dude that is credited with setting up the Red Cross following the horror of a battle where he saw no one assist the majority of the wounded. Got to love English schooling.
People who claim that shaped Bayonets are illegal. Have never paid attention to the shape of a bayonett. On a russian Moison Nagant rifle. Which happens to be in the shape of an x when you look at the front.
The argument that since it causes suffering and therefore should be banned from being used in war is just stupid. It just causes pain, suffering and death to the enemy combatant that is struck by it. Isn't that the whole point of war?... To cause pain and suffering to the enemy combatants in order to force them and the powers that control them to turn back and leave? Sure i can understand some weapons being banned, like the use of certain gases or biological warfare, but these are banned not because they cause suffering and death to the enemy combatants but because they cause that same suffering and death to non combatants as well as causing damage to the environment where they are deployed, being it damages to large scale number of fauna and flora that may have a negative impact on the lives on non combatants. Causing radiological catatrophes if we're talking about nuclear weapons. In case of some incendiary weapons there's the danger of creating large scale uncontrollable fires that, again, will cause negative consequences toward non combatants. I also understand the ban on certain kinds of targets, like civilian infrastructure. My point is, war is war death and suffering will always exist as a result of war, whether we're warring with sticks and stones, swords and arrows or rifles and artillery. Conventions that ban certain kinds of actions whether it is forbidding the usage of a certain weapon and/or targeting a certain place in order to reduce the suffering and death on non combatants is perfectly understandable. But banning something that only causes the suffering and death of the enemy combatant(s) is just stupid. And whether or not a weapon in this category is banned, it will still be used simply because an army will not abdicate of something that will give them an advantage over their enemy. Regardless of what army or military group, being it the US or some third world country, "banned" weapons and tactics will be used and employed. The only way for an army to stop using such a weapon is by finding a weapon that is much better and turns the "banned" weapon obsolete. No matter how many conventions are made, or how many countries sign them, banned weapons will always be employed by both sides in order to secure their advantages over the others. Such is the way of war.
Bayonet wounds were actually rather rare, invariably one side or the other gave way before bodies of troops could actually close, either retreating or running away. John Keagan's brillant work "The Face of Battle" goes into this in detail. Most wounds were ballistic, either musketry or artillery, the sabre wound generally occurred when a body of troops were broken and running in disorder.
Either Oman or Napier stated there was an incident where a French and British unit ran out of ammunition. Rather than close with the bayonet, they threw rocks at each other,
We’re going to push back a little by asking, what exactly is meant by “rather rare” and how would one quantify rare? With the nature of warfare by the 18th and 19th centuries, it is obvious that shot and shell would be the cause of the majority of battlefield injuries. But, for the rarity of bayonet injuries, is this an aggregate number of bayonet injuries over the whole of several conflicts or is it achieved by making one conflict representative? And what records are being consulted to come to this conclusion? There were not always uniform or standardized systems for collecting such data, and the development for some systems are only relatively recent. It would clearly seem that in an engagement such as Great Bridge in 1775, where the combatants did not close with each other, there was not an opportunity to use the bayonet and there would be no bayonet injuries. On the other hand, with an engagement such as the storming of Redoubts 9 & 10 during the Siege of Yorktown, the fight by its very nature would see significantly higher use of the bayonet.
"Invariably one side or the other gave way before (they) could close"... Wow, bold claim. "Invariably". *The Napoleonic wars has entered the chat.* It definitely happened. I also notice you cite injuries - how were the dead treated in those statistics? Hand to hand combat with blades weapons has significantly fewer injured people after it and far more dead people, and I'm pretty certain they were just counted as "the dead" not "dead by a bayonet stab through the belly", whereas injured people would be more specifically recorded due to requirements for treatment.
In a war anything is permitted even if a piece of paper says it is not 🤷🏻♂️. In a war it is a matter of survival and anything that could delete the enemy quicker is going to be used the legality and assortment of events is going to be done later by whoever wins the war 🤷🏻♂️
Only in wars of total annihilation is everything permitted. But not all wars have to be about that, and there are many who would like to punish you severely should you make it about that. Therefore, paying attention to what is on that paper may be necessary to enjoy peace among your neighbors after it's over regardless of whether you won or lost.
I love your videos and having watched many, I wonder why the cuirasses are allowed to rust. This isn’t a passive aggressive indictment just a curious question. I’m speaking about the one that are often seen hanging on a wall in the background.
Do you have a particular video and timestamp in mind? Our armors will have various finishes. Some are burnished and these will need to be cleaned and burnished regularly to prevent corrosion, others are painted black to prevent corrosion. Many other sets of our armor are browned. A browned finish was achieved through a controlled surface oxidation and this browned finish prevented corrosion. What you may have noticed are browned set of armor.
The reason triangular bayonets were 'banned' by Geneva Convention accords is because the blades do not have a 'blood groove', and the belief (and forensic wound experience) was that this would cause massive rupturing of flesh upon withdrawal from the one bayonetted. But the Chicoms, the NVA, and N. Koreans used triangular bayonets on their AKs (they hadn't signed onto the Geneva Convention). I personally saw some of these triangular bayonet equipped AKs in Nam.
Triangular bayonets were not banned by Geneva Convention accords though... They weren't ever banned by anything which is the point of the 3 Minute MYTH video. And also they're not "blood grooves" anyway. They're called fullers, they make the blade stronger while keeping it light. They have nothing to do with blood and don't affect the wound. You don't leave your blade in your opponent long enough to need a "blood groove" either. You stab it in and immediately twist and yank it back out. What role could grooves possibly play in that?
Sure. It didnt stop them there in their tracks. If captured, they would cut the fingers off after trearing the nails off; castration wasnt unheared of... In short, they couldnt stop you then but if captured; youd wish you were dead. They wouldnt just kill you. Theyd make YOU pay for the deaths of their friends and death would be your release. Certain War Crimes are frowned upon by the combatants. If you wont follow the rules- neither will they.
What rules are you talking about though? During the 18th century every bayonet carried by an infantryman was of this type. Nobody was crying about them, and they never got banned in any conventions or accords in later centuries. They faded from use as technology moved on. There's a lot of nasty stuff that has inspired soldiers to deal out unofficial justice on the battlefield, but triangular bayonets aren't one of them.
Yes, the shape and construction of the triangular bayonets with their very small points against a small surface area, allowed good penetration through many layers of woolen clothing.
Napalm, flame throwers, shot guns, 50 cal, etc… just stab me! A ten pound lump of hot artillery shell is not that easy to stitch up either. I own a French ww1 cruciform bayonet that goes though chain mail, plate steel, modern Kevlar etc..war sucks!
My understanding was the Pope banned the use. However the cheap steel used at the time made mass production of these more reliable than a 2 sided sword style which was expensive to make strong. I have never found a Papal bull on the subject.
There was/is no ban on triangular bayonets. It's all a story. On production, steel was not cheap and the ability to manufacture modern steel in Europe only dates to 1740. The triangular and cruciform shapes of bladed weapons reflected the want to have strong, very lightweight and rigid blades made from much less material (less material, lower costs) for effective piercing with a thrust, rather than mass for cutting. The triangular shape of bayonets and cruciform or colichemarde shape of smallsword blades were popular and fashionable in the 18th century because they were small, light, and easy to carry.
Your answer is a little unsatisfying. If there’s nothing in the “literature”, where did this myth originate? What was the first source which stated this? Also, you say why the triangular bayonet was replaced. Maybe talk about bladed bayonets and why they replaced triangular bayonets. Deadlier? Easier to make? More versatile?
Yeah I cringe any time I hear this touted like "Triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, lolz I'm so edgy and smert!" I hate this because it is skin...skin's main function is to provide a barrier to the outside elements such as debris, germs, viruses, fungus, and pretty much anything bad. Like the inclusion of a wound that leads in three different directions was too much for an organ whose literal job it is to fix damage to itself! Like, serrated wounds have a harder time healing, true, but a triangular wound isn't that complicated. You think animals haven't made just as bad, if not, worse wounds that we still heal from anyway?!? FFS!
Funny you saying about keeping the puncture wound open, In the early 60s, as a butcher in London I accidentally stabbed myself in the upper leg. The knife blade went to the hilt of a 6-inch boning knife. St Mary's Hospital just sewed the cut across the top. I went back to work the next day and 2 days later was off for a week because it bled all through my leg muscle. A couple of years before that I got a big poultry needle in my shin just like an arrow, right in. (THE LADS WERE FOOLING ABOUT). Middlesex Hospital just put 2 stitches in a cross across the hole. I woke up in the morning with my bed half-soaked in blood. Seems in hindsight after seeing this video that 2 of London's leading hospitals didn't know as much about puncture wounds as 17/18 century army surgeons. :)))
Idk why the people think medics were terrible back then. The fact that technology was inferior is true, but not skill. Only medics from back then would be able to save a prince from an arrow to the head. (Henry V)
@@pantherausf.d6914 " The fact that technology was inferior is true, but not skill." This is by far my new favorite saying, thank you very much!
I once stabbed myself in the hand with a Bowie knife, I was being dumb and stabbing the top of a soda can, when some one bumped the picnic table I was at, thunk, right into the meat between the thumb and index... NEARLY HITTING AN ARTERY... My mom freaks saying we need to get me to a hospital... My uncle a Field Medic... "NOPE! What are they gonna do, stitch him up and send him home. WHY... IT NEEDS TO DRAIN, NOT BE CLOSED UNTIL IT DECIDES TO HEAL ON ITS OWN." He cleaned me up, bandaged it and told me, BE CAREFUL WITH IT... ITS GONNA HURT YOU MESS AROUND WITH THAT HAND... He wasn't kidding. We were camping, that night I rolled over to get comfortable and right over the top of that hand... OMFG THE PAIN... I snapped awake screaming but with jaw locked shut because I didn't want to wake the entire camp ground up. MAN that pain plagued me for the next few days. Feeling that ripping in the hand also locked itself tight for a while in my head to where I just needed on thing to touch that spot and I would slip into a mild form of shock. Sweating, feeling dizzy, wanting to vomit... Every time fighting the sensations I was going through because the injury was MOSTLY HEALED... That was probably the worst Puncture would I have had yet. And I am glad my uncle taught me everything he knows about field medicine... Well almost everything... There will always be that case you weren't taught about that you need to deal with... Like a roofing nail in the foot... LOL
I'm sorry but I can't stop laughing after reading "Middlesex Hospital" out loud.
Putting "THE LADS WERE FOOLING ABOUT" after talking about getting stabbed in the shin is hilarious
I think perhaps part of the myth comes from the fact that part of the 1949 Geneva Conventions does ban the use of a bayonet with a serrated edge. So the idea of "banning a bayonet for the type of wound caused" does exist, just not for triangular blades.
Possible. Although the mythology of the "banning of the triangular bayonet for the untreatable wounds the bayonet caused", makes a more exciting story for the reasons for the triangular shape. The reason for the triangular shape was to create a strong & rigid blade that was lightweight with a minimal amount of material.
@@JYFMuseums Great info and video, thanks! Has the triangular bayonet been replaced due to metallurgical reasons? It seems logical that if you could produce a straight blade that possessed the necessary strength for the job intended, it would probably be cheaper and lighter than a triangular one. I wonder, as well, if examinations of the actual use of bayonets in battle led to the conclusion that the extra strength created by the triangular shape wasn't actually needed for the job it performed. Can you shed any light on either hypothesis? Thanks in advance!
@michaelccozens No, the triangular bayonet was not replaced for metallurgical reasons. It had a long service life and in addition to reasons already mentioned, another reason for the triangular shape was to get through many layers of woolen clothing.
The length, shape, strength and socket made the musket an effective and very wieldable pole arm. What began the change was the advent of effective military rifles. These military rifles were significantly shorter than muskets and to make up for that difference in length sword bayonets were developed. These sword bayonets could serve as a secondary weapon and when necessary could be fixed to the rifle and wielded as a bayonet nearing the reach of a musket and bayonet. Think of the British Baker Rifle and its sword bayonet. The US M1841 & US1855 rifles and British P1858 rifle.
As the 19th century neared the end, muzzle loading, percussion firearms fell out of favor and technology brought about metallic cartridges, breech loading, and bolt actions. Sword bayonets found use with these new shorter modern military rifles - like the British SMLE rifles, and US M1903 and M1917 and their bayonets. But the newer rifles with longer effective ranges were reducing bayonet encounters and moving forward through the 20th century sword bayonets became knife length bayonets. This is just meant to be a very brief summary on a very long history.
Have you not seen modern bayonets ?
The serrated edge on bayonets was intended to turn them into saws, not to cause "terrible" wounds.
I'm guessing the whole point behind triangular bayonets in the first place was they were less likely to break.
YES!
Plus they look awful big and pointy.
The fact it kills better is just a bonus?
Nah. It was probably done for BOTH reasons.
Its an instrument of war and death, not a vanity peice.
Triangular shaped knives are still used in some militaries today, even though they be banned by certain countries/states.
Furthermore, back in the old days when our steels were not as strong or good at holding an edge, you had 3 edges with which to use to kill (Or more practically, parry)
It was practical then. Not so much anymore but we dont need to make stuff up or deny what they actually, factually do.
Swords of the midevil times were elegant killing instruments as well as looking beautiful but it took about 2,000 years of development to reach that point as well as hundreds of years of warfare.
And TLDR; a triangular wound will not heal properly if at all, to this day. If stabbed by a triangular blade in the middle of a hospital in NYC, youd still have an 80% chance of death assuming mortal wound.
@@shupichii9647 Soooo, you actually watched the video. Right?
@@shupichii9647 and you just watched a video that talk about it yet still come out and say urban legend every wounds can be deadly like a few decade ago the US army was still giving M9 to there soldier wish is way more deadly than that
"Where is the wisdom we have lost with knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost with information?"
In an era of proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, you are doing an important job of keeping history alive AND accurate. If you're faithful in the little things, you'll presumably be faithful in the big things - from treating puncture wounds made by triangular bayonets to the reason governments are instituted among men. Keep up the good work!
Thank you!
Jolly well said Sir.
Thank you, chris. It was mostly a compilation of things said by people smarter than me, but at least I can recognize the smart ones. @@chriscookesuffolk
If "unnecessary suffering" was a legal standard, I could have safely skipped Junior High algebra.
Find the square of a quadratic equation.
Most of everything after elementary school.
Have my like.
My opinions about algebra are wildly different and I generally don't like people ranting over math. But you gotta admit when people have a fine sense of humor, so this deserves my like.
@@bernhardbrodowsky3261 Thanks
I went on thru 4th semester calculus at the university (with all A's), but that Jr. High algebra business still rubs me wrong.
Well in the UK a lot of knife like objects are banned not because they are more dangerous but because they look scary.
Sounds like there's a market for stab proof vests in your country 🤑 lol
AR's are banned for the same reason.
There are very few knives that are illegal in the UK to have in your possession in your home. The illegality comes when you take them out of your home without a specific reason.
@@jordanjay1479 Just for some context, in the last year there are numbers for (2022) there were 1.1 murders per 100K people in the UK. In the US that number was 6.3 murders per 100K
@@WhichDoctor1 so? What do you want to say? In Italy its less than 1 per 100k, and there are plenty of guns. Same for Bosnia.. And guess what. In Palaestrina its less than 1, that doesnt count the murder and random killing by the israeli forces for decades.
So these numbers say nothig.
We were taught (British Army) that it was illegal to clean your bayonet with Brasso (Brass cleaning fluid) as it was poisonous.
The bayonet manual explicitly states the fuller is a “blood groove” to aid extraction despite this not being true
I would imagine that infection was a bigger worry if you survived the wounding. Interesting video.
Yes. As with many injuries, the infection would be a big concern.
Infection was a much bigger problem with musket balls for sure. Because they travelled so fast they often carried fragments of clothing into the wounds. Clothing that was often unwashed, muddy, or covered in other people's blood. And those clothing fragments were very hard to fully remove. Stabbing wounds on the other hand tended to cut the clothing instead, and so wounds were comparatively cleaner.
"NO BAYONETS!"
"Ok ill bludgeon you then"
This is one of the more sillier myths because whilst the wound caused by a triangular bayonet might be gnarly it pales when compared to those caused by swords and sabres.
or a cannon ball
War in general is terrifying, but I think just standing there in a line while you and the enemy fire at eachother had to be total different animal of fear.
Especially since you knew that if you were wounded you'd be in a whole world of pain for lack of good painkillers and then probably die for lack of antibiotics.
Bellowing troopers charging at bayonet points are even scarier; no shields, no armors, you get horribly gutted. It took a formidable discipline to not just turn your back and run.
I like the surgeon’s description of treating the wound. It reminds me of how Henry V took an arrow to the face and how his surgeon treated the wound in the same manner (plus using honey to prevent infection). thehistorysquad has a great video on the surgery.
😁
😁
I own a 1950’s Chinese SKS with an attached folding triangle shaped bayonet. They produced millions like that and exported them all over the world.
I was looking for this comment.
They are made of very tough steel, and separated from the rifle, are fun to throw and stick in a target.
I was at a range one day with a curio relic SKS and was told it was against the rules to have the bayonet on the rifle. Someone else told me if I removed the bayonet, the SKS would no longer be a curio relic, which had some legal implications at the time. I never removed it.
Ya, that was my thought also, saw a lot of them in Viet Nam
@@alularussell778 yes sir the VC and NVA used them extensively during the war.. Thank you for your service, my grandfather is also Vietnam veteran.
Thank you. This is one of those myths thar just won't die. Even when you stab it with a triangular bayonet of truth!
Thanks!
The triangular bayonet might very well simply be an echo of one of the common small sword forms of the time, which often had a triangular blade.
Yes!
Just my hypothesis: Many weapons had this shape to penetrate armor. With no armor to pierce and being used less and less, the bayonet had to change its form and pull double duty as a knife.
One thing about bayonets I don't see mentioned much is, if you shoot empty and your enemy tries to take your rifle, a bayonet can discourage that a lot.
Sure. Though an infantryman armed with a bayonet fixed to their musket is most likely facing a man, also armed with a bayonet fixed to a musket. Pay attention to your fencing with a bayonet drills.
But in WWI trenches, they found a good broad-headed shavel was far more effective than a bayonet; the latter is used for stabbing, whereas a good thrust from the former could decapitate a man.
I'm not familiar with this myth. But the three bladed broadhead arrow became popular in bowhunting about 40 years ago because it creates a wound that bleeds more, causing a faster more humane kill.
I should add that if the myth is that the wound is "unethical", inhumane, or illegal,well that'd be wrong. Killing by rapid blood loss induces quiçker unconsciousness and less pain. Always the goal of the humane seeker.
We all like stories, and we'd want a great story to give us a reason for the triangular shape of the 18th century bayonet. That the shape was to create a strong & rigid blade that was lightweight with a minimal amount of material just isnt as exciting.
With how many people are positively blown apart by shrapnel, do they go onto the battlefield and make sure that the bits that hit you aren't triangular? Or that they have nice clean edges that can be fixed by surgery?
Better yet, if the triangular point on the end of a .80 caliber musket causes undue suffering, what do they think the actual gun is going to do?
Were did you get that screwdriver?
Militaries found that the bayonet while scary was rarely used. So they switched to the knife bayonet which was utilitarian.
bingo…a stabbing blade that was also a cutting blade that was useful for camp life
Exactly right. It is also why bayonets in general went from 18 or 20 inches to 4 to 6 inches.
If all armies had a perfect logistics systems, then soldiers would never run out of ammo. But they do, for various reasons. You can get cut of from your supplies, you can lack fire discipline and shoot off all your rounds in a few minutes, etc. This is where and when the bayonet comes into its own. The bayonet practice also teaches controlled aggression. And modern bayonets can be used for general utility knife purposes too.
The old British WW1-WW2 combat helmet was a great weapon for CQB, if you lost or damaged your rifle.
Tim Cook (CWM curator and notable author on the CEF) has recently argued that the importance of the bayonet in the First World War has been underestimated by historians and was a very common weapon in trench fighting. Shovels, clubs etc were popular and widely used, but the bayonet was likely the dominant weapon for at least a plurality of soldiers.
@@iaintalkshistory3800 By the First World War the switch had been made to the knife bayonet.
Officer: hey bro howcome we arent using those triangular bayonets
Doctor: hurt to much
Officer: wtf
Early Marine Raiders were issued modified French surplus triangular bayonets as knives for sentry removal in WW2.
So, it's not like the movies where you get shot, grab the wound, fall down and say some epic last words while your buddy holds your hand and the battle rages on and nobody kicks you or your buddy on the head or shoots you in the back? 😂
considering the mass infantry/cav charges, I don't think that any opponent had the time to doubletap you, when you go down because there is another enemy on him in seconds. at the same time, no buddy has the opportunity to hold your hand for the same reasons
@@calronkeltaran493
No bro hugs and fist bumps while you're dying?
Not cool.
That's why I'm a male feminist.
We should send women to fight.
0:00 - 0:15
😆 *Excellent intro!*
If they were worried about causing undue suffering the first thing they would have banned is field artillery. Accounts from the time describing artillery and it's effects, especially grapeshot are not pleasant to read, and there are a few artifacts like the cuirass of François-Antoine Fauveau, who was struck in the chest by a cannon ball at Waterloo, that can give you a glimpse of what that might have looked like.
Who needs a bayonet when you have Mustard Gas?
The technique was called "colored cross". For an attack, infantry was to be proceeded by an artillery bombardment often combining high explosive shells and gas shells. Those enemy positions to be directly attacked by infantry, would be hit with gas like phosgene, diphosgene, or diphenylchlorarsine. Vomiting or tearing agents, asphyxiant agents, or agents that made wearing gas masks difficult and that easily dissipated. Those enemy positions, that were not being assaulted, positions that enemy counterattacks could be made from, or sectors that enemy reinforcements had to pass through were hit with mustard gas -- a persistent heavier than air vesicant or blistering agent. Mustard Gas contaminated an area and required neutralization.
So no, not necessarily a direct need for a bayonet where mustard gas was concerned. The indication is that an attack is not being made in that area. On the other hand, bayonets and other improvised melee weapons were handy for those areas being assaulted. Oh but, we are traveling far afield from our 18th century topic.
Always consider pulling the trigger, a surgeon may need a bit more work to stitch up a triangular bayonet sound than a regular wound of similar length
Consider how a musketball would affect you compared to a bayonet, almost a completely efficient energy transfer since it's made of a soft lead, a surgeon probably would have a harder time stitching up a gunshot wound, it pancakes and if you are unlucky enough to have it go through then the exit would be a bout double or more the size of the entrance
It was length. The shape allowed for longer bayonets. Slower reloading meant a more prominent bayonet was more important. The faster reloading became, the less your gun also needed to function as a melee weapon.
And yet, the smallsword continued to be used.
Many Myths about Military arms exist. The switch to a blade-style bayonet is more likely to have been conducted as modern production methods increased allowing for the blade style to be made cheaper and with a better quality level.
Well explained! Thanks!
You're welcome!
A interesting video , Thank you pard ! 🤠⚔👍👍
Thanks! 👍
"Hey, stop needling me with your damn toothpick"!!!
The Belgium model M1965 FN/FAL bayonet that was still in use with some NATO nations when I joined the army in the late 90s has basically the same cross-section as the old trefoil bayonets, China still issues spike bayonet with a 4-sided cross-section that if the theory was sound would be even harder still to treat. I think they hit the nail on the head, most modern bayonets are intended to be field knives that have the secondary function of being attached to your rifle. We had the M9 bayonet when I was in but I'd opted for the older M7 Vietnam-era model I bought 2nd hand when I deployed to Iraq. I cleared houses with it mounted but as an emergency expedient and psychological buff, I never came anywhere near using it other than opening MREs and cutting 550 cord. The m7 is still a very useful knife. the M9... Not so much.
Smallswords were used until the 1890s i think. Also triangular.
I remember a military leader from back around the 1850 (iirc) talking about how the french were willing to use methods and tactics the english were not and if they did, surely the war would go better.
So maybe not a ban but a standard for some?
Another consideration is forged vs mass produced / stamped. Maybe the triangular ones got banned in budget.
If you twist after the stab with any regular blade, it also becomes an open puncture wound.
As a side note, the Finns really didn't want to get bayonetted by the Russians in WW2. Because of the crossection of their bayonets. (Source: finnish WW2 veterans, including but not only, my father) They were basically a thin spike with three flanges. That made wounds that were very hard to FIND not to close. The 3 flanges vs triangular may very well be what people are confused about on top of confusing the ban for serrated blades (not specifically bayonets) in the Geneva conventions.
Ever seen the enfield sword bayonette. That blade is so wide at the back. There's no recovering from that wound. It was so wide it was designed to dispatch a horse without snapping if the horse moved while during the process.
WW 1, Germans had saw backed bayonet as did a few others in Europe , called pioneer bayonet . Was for cutting wood , but the saw teeth would make a nastier wound as it was withdrawn.
Many of those had the teeth ground off , was not healthy to be taken prisoner with one in your possession .
Other than the all knowing internet, the only place I've read this was in a mid-20th century novel (possibly "Slaughterhouse Five"?).
I wish sources where required when making wild claimes. Thanks for the cool video.
You're welcome. We agree sources are a must, and we'd also add not only the source but how does one come to their interpretation of a source.
@@JYFMuseums absolutely I'm in a history class about the American revolution/ civil war and its crazy how facts can be twisted
One of the reasons that modern armies use differently shaped bayonets is probably due to a modern bayonet having more uses than just stabbing people. The bayonets used in WW2 were basically just large combat knifes attached to the muzzle.
The virgin modern USA:
* Keeps armor that isn't even any good out of civilian hands.
* Nooooo! You can't have that weapon! It would make you equal with soldiers!
* Afraid to give civilians a triangular spear head.
* The 🖕BI watches closely incase someone can defend themself.
The chad old USA:
*Civilians had swivel guns pucket guns orgin guns.
* The cuirass of the 1720s went out of style but the founding fathers knew it would return when economically possible.
* Specifically said "Arms" . Knives and swords are covered.
* Allowed civilians better than military grade.
* Even sold better than military grade to the native americans because they believed the second amendment should apply to ALL humans.
Arms also covers tanks, planes, artillery, nukes.
Literally every weapon the military has.
I own level 4 plates so you're just kinda lying. Yeah some states have cuck laws but you don't know what you're talking about
I think also it's just more expensive to forge that kind of blade
The OSS and SOE agents during WW2 had what's known as the Devil's dart, usually in the form of a sleeve dagger.
As least as far as I can tell from the video, the following 1853 pattern Enfield bayonet had a more pronounced triangular shape. My guess is the American Springfield used in the civil war was a very similar since the musket was very similar to the British 1853 pattern Enfield.
Yes, the British P1853 and US M1861 rifle muskets are going to have rather similar function. But, the US military arms made at Springfield and Harpers Ferry are essentially descended from French muskets. The first US musket, the M1795 was an American copy of the French Charleville Model 1763/66 provided by the French government to the Continental Army during the Revolution. The stylings and lines of that musket can be seen throughout the various models of US muskets that follow. In many ways the US army of the 19th century was a copy of the French army, down to the US army's bayonet manual, "McClellan Bayonet Exercise", was taken from the French manual.
www.unionvolunteers.com/uv/FILES/INFTACT/Union%20Volunteers%20-%20McClellans%20Bayonet%20Exercise.pdf
Good stuff.
Thank you for the work it took to post this.
Thanks. We're glad you enjoyed it!
I would imagine the ends of the bayonets like most others would be dirty and contamination would occur causing severe infection.
Unless you have a spike bayonet, all Bayonets are triangle, even knife/sword bayonets, just with them the the angles are much steeper.
Thank you!
You're welcome!
I have passed down to my son a mussel loader with a triamge bayonet made in Grermany, one of my great greath uncle's took it from a dead conferate. it was made in 1839.
Triangular bayonets are not banned. However, bayonets with a serrated edge are.
Another tidbit, flamethrowers and napalm and Willy Pete are still legal, too.
This was a bit disappointing. You said you would "dissect where the origin of that myth comes from" 1:50, and all we get is 'I saw a thing where a lawyer didn't find anything'. 3:42. Second hand, unreferenced inability to find something is pretty weak proof for something not existing. If you actually want to chase down the origin, I'll give you a head start. While on a grade seven class trip in the mid 1980s I visited a historical site in Southern Ontario. The university student who was conducting the infirmary portion of the tour told us that triangular bayonets had been abandoned after the Geneva Convention for causing injuries that were unnecessarily difficult to treat. So, this rumour was at least active in that time and place
But bullets that tumble and ricochet around inside the body like the M-16 or AK-47 are easier to treat?
The AK-47 used in Angola has Triangular bayonet. So do the SKS examples I have seen. Just saying
the only bayonet blade banned is the serrated blade bayonet is not to be used on civilians other than that there is no mention of blades at all pretty much, the same myth is now going around about the Jagdcommando spiral fluted dagger thing that has not even been adopted by any military service anyway
Here I was, thinking the whole point of a weapon was to kill your enemy.
A civil war doc describes that most of his patients from bayonette wounds were back in the fight 4 days later. WWI and II bayonettes had dips or channels to permit air into the cavity so they wouldn't get stuck. now they have saws and wire cutting blades. hell if the germans couldn't get shotguns banned why would a bayonette be off the table.
It is just as easy or hard to pull a bayonet out as it is to push it in. The grooves/channels serve two other purposes - to lighten and strengthen the blade. The "let air in/not get stuck" is a myth.
@@haydenwayne637 righto
Correct. The grooves or channels are what a smith will know as fullers or fullering, made with a set of top and bottom fullers used by the smiths to move the iron along, while also making the blade lightweight and strong. Nothing to do with being a blood groove, or keeping the blade from getting stuck, or moving air and everything to do with the construction of a blade that is strong with a reduced volume of iron. A triangular or cruciform blade that is fullered, is as strong, with much less material used than a simple equilateral triangle shaped blade without fullering.
Maybe its a Regional thing or you need to be widely read, but I have never heard of triangular bayonets being banned.
They were not practical since others could be used as a knife too ! Plus it was put as someone mentioned before it was agreed to not use them because they were unnecessary!
There was no agreement or convention to ban triangular bayonets, and they were extremely necessary to the tactical deployment of infantry in the 18th and 19th centuries. We should be careful too, about imposing our modern design criteria on historical design. The earliest bayonets were plug bayonets, simply daggers with a tapered handle that could be fitted into the muzzle of the musket. While the musket could be used as a polearm the plug bayonet prevented the function as a firearm. By the end of the 17th century with the development of the socketed bayonet and triangular blade, there was now a bayonet that slipped over the muzzle of the musket. It allowed the function as both a polearm and firearm and had a shape to the blade that offered strength, pierced through clothing and with minimal materials used in manufacturing.
That the triangular bayonet could not be used as a knife was not an important consideration. In camp the bayonet could function as a candle holder, a skewer, or an improvised pot hook. On the march it could function as an improvised digging or entrenching tool. The bayonet that functions as a knife is a design choice of the 20th century.
But they only served 1 purpose that it's self makes it an unnecessary tool that you are carrying for 1 purpose when you can carry 1 that can do the same thing plus cut things and they could be a little more difficult to fix ! These factors have been proven that was why it was included on the convention
Neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Hague Conventions addressed the use of triangular bayonet. The relevant articles of the Hague Conventions are Article 22 and Article 23 --
Regulations: Art. 22
Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Regulations: Art. 23
Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited
(a) To employ poison or poisoned arms;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag or military ensigns and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
@@derictripp9245 Tell me you didn't actually watch the video without telling me you didn't actually watch the video... They were used for multiple CENTURIES and slowly faded from use as technology moved on. There's nothing anywhere about any concern over the nature of the wound. ANY deep puncture wound is more than a little difficult to fix, regardless of the shape of the weapon. It was never included in any convention. And a combat weapon doesn't have to have multiple purposes to be necessary. It's for killing people on a battlefield, it doesn't need to have another purpose. Even after sword-bayonets and knife-bayonets become the norm, they're still only serving that one purpose. They're not utility knives, they're for killing.
They faded out when they found more practical versions of if that were used in more then just 1 way ! And yes I did watch it but you clearly just needed a reason to be a douch
The Chinese SKS still had triangular bayonets well into the 1960s.
Yeah but you can't shoot the gun, it's too dangerous.
The bullets are so powerful that all the oxygen gets burned up creating a vacuum around the shooter which causes the chest to explosively decompress and the lungs get ejected out of the body, just like Biden said.
One bullet can shoot the lungs out your back.
Corn Pop saw it happen to a guy once too!
The so-called "bayonet" on the SKS is for planting the rifle in the ground over the grave of the shooter if they didn't exhale before shooting the gun.
This is all made up science by firearms expert David Hogg that proves how dangerous guns are.
People like you with SKS are a danger to society!
The disease this man suffers from is known as
S-hoot to
K-ill
S-yndrome
and these red-flag MAGA crazies want to make it so the guv'ment has to follow the constitution and honor our rights!!
Sickos like this are a threat to marxis...commun...I mean dumbocracy 😂
Subscribed.
Thanks!
There's a microtech knife called the Jagdkommando (named after an Austrian special forces unit) that is a solid titanium twisting triangle edged knife. It's cool but honestly not very practical for anything, even stabbing compared to many other designs. However in the hype around it and the knockoffs, a lot of people parrot the idea that it's banned from military use by the geneva convention lol.
They had bayonets that were equilateral triangle bayonets. That one in the video is almost just a standard modern bayonet.
The bayonet featured in the video is a reproduction of a British bayonet. Bayonets of the 18th century are triangular, some even with flat blades, not necessarily equilateral triangles as shown by these bayonets in the collections of our friends at Colonial Williamsburg --
emuseum.history.org/objects/104851/dutch-longshanked-bayonet-with-repairs
emuseum.history.org/objects/110025/dutch-longshanked-socket-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/97754/dutch-flatbladed-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/70011/dutch-flatbladed-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/99432/british-knifebladed-sea-service-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/98280/butt-trap-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/105730/french-officers-fusil-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/108648/french-m1771-infantry-musket-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/108531/french-m1774-infantry-musket-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/92457/french-model-1777-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/80846/m1763-bayonet-with-new-hampshire-battalion-markings
emuseum.history.org/objects/99341/us-marked-american-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/83744/american-fusil-or-fowler-bayonet
emuseum.history.org/objects/97004/point-of-fork-arsenal-type-bayonet
I think the biggest fallacy about bayonets is that they didn't cause many wounds. I think the answer to that argument is that it didn't cause many non fatal wounds, and this in an age when abdominal wounds were normally considered fatal anyways. Most bayonet victims never made it to the doctors, they just dumped in graves.
An example of the concept of survivor bias.
I genuinely wonder where and when this myth first came about. Because the myth that "Triangular bayonets were banned because they couldn't be treated" seems so barmy that to me it feels like something that a singular person somewhere stated with wholy unearned confidence and it just took off.
Like, did this start within the last few years on the internet or has this thing been kicking around for decades? And where did it originate from?
We wish we could definitively answer the origins of this myth. It does pre-date the internet and some of our staff can recall that it was a popular interpretive story back in the 1980s at American Revolution and American Civil War historic sites. If anything, the advent of the internet has gone along way to dispel the myth. It is much easier to seek out and find various primary sources.
@@JYFMuseums Darn. Guess it's one of those things that'll just remain a mystery. :(
Who knows, maybe one day a brave graduate student will trace & track it for their public history masters.
Stop, Stop you're killing me ? 🙏✌️
my take is that the usage died because bayonets after that could be used as daggers and knives, so were versatile and useful to soldiers for more than stabbing someone…if you’re going to carry a weapon, at least make it a useful weapon!
I'm sure there's something to be said about axes and wood splitting... Area cross section¿ Basically if you were to take two axe heads to make a a perfect x and try to split a log, you'd have to put in way more energy than just using a standard axe head.
I'm poorly explaining it but eh lol
The i own a musket for home defense copypasta probably helped the myth spread.
triangular bayonets were used long after the days of ball and powder. in more modern times, I could get why it might be banned, like post 2nd world war, but no earlier.
Just out of curiosity, who would have had the respect to dictate what could and could not be used as a weapon and have that directive obeyed?
An interesting question. It is not until the mid-19th century that state level diplomatic conferences began to take place on the conduct of warfare such as the Hague Conventions.
@@JYFMuseums Yes, the first person I heard of was Henri Dunant, a Swiss dude that is credited with setting up the Red Cross following the horror of a battle where he saw no one assist the majority of the wounded. Got to love English schooling.
i own a musket for home defense since thats what the founding fathers Intended
That's a shanksnet innit?
If the military was concerned about soldiers health or safety, we would be fighting wars with waterguns.
"No" *inserts bayonet into other man* whos going to stop you?
Check out the bayonet on a Mosin Negant.
People who claim that shaped Bayonets are illegal. Have never paid attention to the shape of a bayonett. On a russian Moison Nagant rifle. Which happens to be in the shape of an x when you look at the front.
In modern warfare, if you're close enough to use your bayonet it means your drone base is overrun....
The argument that since it causes suffering and therefore should be banned from being used in war is just stupid. It just causes pain, suffering and death to the enemy combatant that is struck by it. Isn't that the whole point of war?... To cause pain and suffering to the enemy combatants in order to force them and the powers that control them to turn back and leave?
Sure i can understand some weapons being banned, like the use of certain gases or biological warfare, but these are banned not because they cause suffering and death to the enemy combatants but because they cause that same suffering and death to non combatants as well as causing damage to the environment where they are deployed, being it damages to large scale number of fauna and flora that may have a negative impact on the lives on non combatants. Causing radiological catatrophes if we're talking about nuclear weapons. In case of some incendiary weapons there's the danger of creating large scale uncontrollable fires that, again, will cause negative consequences toward non combatants. I also understand the ban on certain kinds of targets, like civilian infrastructure.
My point is, war is war death and suffering will always exist as a result of war, whether we're warring with sticks and stones, swords and arrows or rifles and artillery. Conventions that ban certain kinds of actions whether it is forbidding the usage of a certain weapon and/or targeting a certain place in order to reduce the suffering and death on non combatants is perfectly understandable. But banning something that only causes the suffering and death of the enemy combatant(s) is just stupid. And whether or not a weapon in this category is banned, it will still be used simply because an army will not abdicate of something that will give them an advantage over their enemy. Regardless of what army or military group, being it the US or some third world country, "banned" weapons and tactics will be used and employed. The only way for an army to stop using such a weapon is by finding a weapon that is much better and turns the "banned" weapon obsolete.
No matter how many conventions are made, or how many countries sign them, banned weapons will always be employed by both sides in order to secure their advantages over the others. Such is the way of war.
Bayonet wounds were actually rather rare, invariably one side or the other gave way before bodies of troops could actually close, either retreating or running away. John Keagan's brillant work "The Face of Battle" goes into this in detail. Most wounds were ballistic, either musketry or artillery, the sabre wound generally occurred when a body of troops were broken and running in disorder.
Either Oman or Napier stated there was an incident where a French and British unit ran out of ammunition. Rather than close with the bayonet, they threw rocks at each other,
We’re going to push back a little by asking, what exactly is meant by “rather rare” and how would one quantify rare? With the nature of warfare by the 18th and 19th centuries, it is obvious that shot and shell would be the cause of the majority of battlefield injuries. But, for the rarity of bayonet injuries, is this an aggregate number of bayonet injuries over the whole of several conflicts or is it achieved by making one conflict representative? And what records are being consulted to come to this conclusion? There were not always uniform or standardized systems for collecting such data, and the development for some systems are only relatively recent. It would clearly seem that in an engagement such as Great Bridge in 1775, where the combatants did not close with each other, there was not an opportunity to use the bayonet and there would be no bayonet injuries. On the other hand, with an engagement such as the storming of Redoubts 9 & 10 during the Siege of Yorktown, the fight by its very nature would see significantly higher use of the bayonet.
@@JYFMuseums Rare - ALMOST NEVER HAPPENED IS HOW RARE
"Almost never" is not borne out in the historic record.
"Invariably one side or the other gave way before (they) could close"... Wow, bold claim. "Invariably". *The Napoleonic wars has entered the chat.*
It definitely happened. I also notice you cite injuries - how were the dead treated in those statistics? Hand to hand combat with blades weapons has significantly fewer injured people after it and far more dead people, and I'm pretty certain they were just counted as "the dead" not "dead by a bayonet stab through the belly", whereas injured people would be more specifically recorded due to requirements for treatment.
As opposed to being run through with a regular bayonet which is, you know, fine.....doesn't hurt at all.
watch up to and pause at 0:13 and you have a meme lol
When you ask for taxation with representation
In a war anything is permitted even if a piece of paper says it is not 🤷🏻♂️. In a war it is a matter of survival and anything that could delete the enemy quicker is going to be used the legality and assortment of events is going to be done later by whoever wins the war 🤷🏻♂️
Only in wars of total annihilation is everything permitted. But not all wars have to be about that, and there are many who would like to punish you severely should you make it about that. Therefore, paying attention to what is on that paper may be necessary to enjoy peace among your neighbors after it's over regardless of whether you won or lost.
Nuremberg suggests otherwise.
im boutta create hexagonal bayonets and hexagons are made out of 6 triangles
I love your videos and having watched many, I wonder why the cuirasses are allowed to rust. This isn’t a passive aggressive indictment just a curious question. I’m speaking about the one that are often seen hanging on a wall in the background.
Do you have a particular video and timestamp in mind? Our armors will have various finishes. Some are burnished and these will need to be cleaned and burnished regularly to prevent corrosion, others are painted black to prevent corrosion. Many other sets of our armor are browned. A browned finish was achieved through a controlled surface oxidation and this browned finish prevented corrosion. What you may have noticed are browned set of armor.
@@JYFMuseums That’s it, what I’m seeing must be browning. Thank you for the quick reply!
Brutal
Yes it is.
The biggest myth busted is how you don’t stitch up a puncture wound
Probably would’ve made for a better title aswell
cool
The reason triangular bayonets were 'banned' by Geneva Convention accords is because the blades do not have a 'blood groove', and the belief (and forensic wound experience) was that this would cause massive rupturing of flesh upon withdrawal from the one bayonetted.
But the Chicoms, the NVA, and N. Koreans used triangular bayonets on their AKs (they hadn't signed onto the Geneva Convention). I personally saw some of these triangular bayonet equipped AKs in Nam.
Triangular bayonets were not banned by Geneva Convention accords though... They weren't ever banned by anything which is the point of the 3 Minute MYTH video. And also they're not "blood grooves" anyway. They're called fullers, they make the blade stronger while keeping it light. They have nothing to do with blood and don't affect the wound. You don't leave your blade in your opponent long enough to need a "blood groove" either. You stab it in and immediately twist and yank it back out. What role could grooves possibly play in that?
Sure. It didnt stop them there in their tracks.
If captured, they would cut the fingers off after trearing the nails off; castration wasnt unheared of...
In short, they couldnt stop you then but if captured; youd wish you were dead. They wouldnt just kill you. Theyd make YOU pay for the deaths of their friends and death would be your release.
Certain War Crimes are frowned upon by the combatants.
If you wont follow the rules- neither will they.
What rules are you talking about though? During the 18th century every bayonet carried by an infantryman was of this type. Nobody was crying about them, and they never got banned in any conventions or accords in later centuries. They faded from use as technology moved on. There's a lot of nasty stuff that has inspired soldiers to deal out unofficial justice on the battlefield, but triangular bayonets aren't one of them.
Only if they were legal because that's what the founding fathers wanted
Weapon banned because it was too good at killing? Yeah, that checks out......
Except it wasn't banned... which is the point of the video. Dispelling a MYTH
I heard that the triangular bayonet was used so that it could more easily penetrate the thick uniform worn by soldiers.
Yes, the shape and construction of the triangular bayonets with their very small points against a small surface area, allowed good penetration through many layers of woolen clothing.
I heard the Japanese used them in WWII.
They used triangular bayonet during american civil war
Napalm, flame throwers, shot guns, 50 cal, etc… just stab me! A ten pound lump of hot artillery shell is not that easy to stitch up either. I own a French ww1 cruciform bayonet that goes though chain mail, plate steel, modern Kevlar etc..war sucks!
My understanding was the Pope banned the use. However the cheap steel used at the time made mass production of these more reliable than a 2 sided sword style which was expensive to make strong. I have never found a Papal bull on the subject.
There was/is no ban on triangular bayonets. It's all a story.
On production, steel was not cheap and the ability to manufacture modern steel in Europe only dates to 1740. The triangular and cruciform shapes of bladed weapons reflected the want to have strong, very lightweight and rigid blades made from much less material (less material, lower costs) for effective piercing with a thrust, rather than mass for cutting. The triangular shape of bayonets and cruciform or colichemarde shape of smallsword blades were popular and fashionable in the 18th century because they were small, light, and easy to carry.
The Pope never said anything about bayonets. And why would the Protestant countries care what he had to say?
There is an awful lot of Papal bull...
Your answer is a little unsatisfying. If there’s nothing in the “literature”, where did this myth originate? What was the first source which stated this? Also, you say why the triangular bayonet was replaced. Maybe talk about bladed bayonets and why they replaced triangular bayonets. Deadlier? Easier to make? More versatile?
More versatile, you could use them for something besides tent pegs
Wasn't that the idea of a bayonet, to kill the enemy???
Yeah I cringe any time I hear this touted like "Triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, lolz I'm so edgy and smert!" I hate this because it is skin...skin's main function is to provide a barrier to the outside elements such as debris, germs, viruses, fungus, and pretty much anything bad. Like the inclusion of a wound that leads in three different directions was too much for an organ whose literal job it is to fix damage to itself! Like, serrated wounds have a harder time healing, true, but a triangular wound isn't that complicated. You think animals haven't made just as bad, if not, worse wounds that we still heal from anyway?!? FFS!