Quote Originally Posted by Watchman
To be honest musketeers with bayonets often got slaughtered in melee too. Or rather, wet their pants and ran away before a enemy advancing with determination had even gotten to bayonet- or sword-range. Actual bayonet fights were actually comparatively rare from what I understand, but when they happened tended to be hair-raisingly bloody for both sides (not in the least because of the volleys of musketry delivered at short range beforehand).

Those long thin lines that were adopted to maximize the firepower were apparently a tad psychologically brittle by what I've read.
This reminds me of something I saw on some Battlefield Detectives tv show, where historian buffs try to look for evidence of battles that occurred and look for reasons why the end result was what it was. One episode they looked at a battle between the English and Scots. I don't recall that much, so no doubt you lot would know more about it, but the English had muskets of some sort and bayonets. The Scots apparently relied upon their swords and shields and numbers. The guns of the English should have meant victory, but they got slaughtered. Apparently the English had to shoot uphill I think and only managed to fire 1 or 2 volleys before desperately trying to attach their bayonets, when the Scots came crashing down upon them, easily killing and routing them. Bah! At least Mel Gibson didn't take part in that battle.