|
While I could be misremembering something I read a decade ago, I want to say that around the Napoleonic wars, the English (or someone who was in a coliltion with them at the time?) had assigned a whole cadre of officers/doctors to figure out why the French cavalry seemed more deadly than their own. So, a near-official commission, but hush-hush unofficial for morale you know) gathered a whole bunch of first-hand reports of enemy cavalry attacks and also engagements by their own mounted troops. The final report noted that while their own force's cavalry (mainly armed with curved swords and trained to cut and slash with them) did indeed cause a great deal of bloody and grevious-looking wounds, the French cavalry (mostly using straight, thrusting blades) caused more casualties and inflicted higher proportion of fatal wounds. I wonder if the "curved is better for horseback" thing is a traditional/training thing or a workaround-design for dealing with less reliable metallurgy? Maybe a comboination of the two?
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
GolfHole posted:curved swords require significantly better metallurgy than hard point swords (which break easy) Oh, word? Neat to know. Roumba fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 23:55
|
|