Picture of a 17th Lancer in 1829 wearing a 1796 LCS

[Bryce]

They were sadly forced to take the fairly useless 1908s

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

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Bryce

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.