G'day Wayne,

I think that is a bit harsh. The argument about cut or thrust has been going on for centuries. I think if you want to skewer someone from horseback you won't find a better sword than the 1908.

Cheers,
Bryce

true, but skewering them in a charge like a short lance makes it rather difficult to keep your sword w/o breaking your wrist. Thrusts are more likely to kill, and slices to incapacitate with horrible wounds. You are also less likely to drop the sword as you slide by. Also better for cutting down fleeing troops.

From a practical logistical assessment, It's preferable to give them a horrible wound and tie up scarce resources like doctors, nurses, medicines, food, etc. Kill and all it takes is a short time pushing them in a hole. I tend to agree with the Indians ( and the poles).

I was trained as an Epee fencer to purely thrust at university, and probably would prefer a 1908 in a real duel, but not from horseback or a melee. It is a marginally better cutter than Patton's version tho, if you bother to sharpen it.

For 17th Lancer fans, the Death or Glory Boys! Quite possibly from the Crimea era.

A 17th Lancers sabretache believed of Crimean War period.
A black sabretache can be seen in the Caton-Woodville painting of the charge (1895) but the device is unclear, presumably the skull and bones though.

In research I did some years ago, I found that these sabretaches were for carrying orders and other documents, ironically much as was the order for the charge possibly carried (though Nolan was not with 17th Lancers). These were abolished c.1881. The type carried prior to the Crimea are believed to have been of fabric rather than japanned leather, and had the motto 'death of glory'.