Date: Fri 14 Apr 2000 - 03:30:28 EEST

>Now this is really strange. I happen to own a cavalry sabre (scimitar),
>and I believe it packs a wallop when used from horseback, but which is
>also way too long and heavy to be a practical infantry sword (I'm 185cm
>tall, so the original users in 1700 vere propably shorter).

Hmm, problem solved, you are arguing about two very different time periods in
the weapons history. A scimitar of the tenth century was nothing like one of
the 1700s except in basic form. Also, the scimitar/sabre you are discussion
was used against lightly armoured opponents, perhaps with a cuirass at most.
The earlier weapons were a reaction to the Cataphract, the Clibinari and the
knight. Heavy tip for cutting and penetration yet a short swing to avoid
problems in melee.

>On the other hand I've sparred with light infantry scimitars which are a joy
to wield
>and fight with. I suppose our wievs on swordfighting go entirely crossvice.
I've fenced with sabres of all ilks and I find they are very quick weapons,
but again, fairly useless against an armoured man. You need weight on the
swing and the blade to penetrate. The scimitar used by heavy infantry would
have to be like that or else it would be defeated by most armour.

The Imperial scimitar if probably a light weapon for most functions, being of
Pentan origin. However, the heavy infantry Tarnils forces would use a heavy
scimitar in battle.

Martin Laurie


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:17:13 EEST