A Small Statistical Analysis of the Bayonet in the Korean War

I have always been a little bewildered by the use of the bayonet. Medical statistics might show us that they were almost never used; however, these naturally suffer from survivorship bias, especially in bayonet engagements, where, as Captain Soloviev put it, there are only living victors and dead vanquished; and while we do read of counts of dead killed by the bayonet in after-action reports, this too does not show us the full picture, as we might say these single events are extreme outliers. To prove my point I think, "A Comparative study of World War casualties from gas and other weapons" (1928) puts the number of AEF casualties in the First World War caused by the bayonet at but 235; but only 4 died from their wounds. Lewis Millett's fateful charge, which killed some twenty with the bayonet, caused five times the bayonet deaths in a single day, than what we might suppose (taking those aid station statistics at face value) the US Army in WWI suffered in 19 months.

(WIP) "Great cutting curtilaces" - The Heavy Falchion of the Man at Arms

This will be short post on a kind of odd, shortish sword; in English, these were termed curtilace (or curtalaxe) (although by no means was this exclusively applied to them, as it is essentially a synonym for fauchion), at least by the late 16th century, probably from the French coutelas and the Italian cortelacio.

Is Halfswording Actually Required for Armored Fencing?

Well, obviously no, but of course, something that is seen as needing to be "the default" as to how you must fight is necessarily seen as being almost required. And common knowledge says one must utilize the shortened sword as "the default" when in armor (and/or facing an armored opponent)! But is that actually true?

The Axe of the 14th Century Man at Arms

Anyone who has read Froissart has noted the quite frequent accounts of axes in the hands of men at arms. This is not just limited to Froissart, and many works that cover the second half of the 14th century will note just how common axes are used; and to be frank, this is quite strange. While you will find accounts of axes being used both prior and after this period, when compared to the status, frequency, and their use in this period, a stark difference can plainly be seen; and of these three, I will mostly focus on the last.

Omdurman and the Knightly Charge

The Battle of Omdurman is particularly famed for a cavalry charge recorded by Winston Churchill (who was an officer who partook in the said charge). I have seen Churchill's recollection referred to frequently, yet only recently did I sit down to read it. It is quite enlightening, and confirms many of my suspicions. It is quite a famous account, and many of my conclusions are not at all hard to get to, but committing things to writing is good to form one's argument and knowledge, and I have seen opinions espoused that are contradicted by this account, so I will analyze it regardless, specifically to the end of understanding the Medieval and Early Modern cavalry charge better. You may read the full account of the battle here.

"They all hold swords, being expert in war" - The Sword in Combat

It is a common belief that swords were useless in war, or hardly used at all (or only used when the situation was not ideal). And these are not strawmen! I have personally seen all of these things (and more) said! Even the some of the most generous claims are still quite harsh and backhanded ("only good for duels", "great civilian weapon", etc.). But the fact of the matter is, the sword was a weapon of war, carried for centuries, sometimes in areas where they didn't have refined metallurgy either! So how could that be if swords were useless against armor and defeated entirely by reach? I have gathered up quite the collection for this one over the years, so enjoy!