Reply To: What’s the difference between British heavy and light cavalry

[invisible officer]

Sure, such a rule is fuss. Even the French cuirassier armor made little or no difference in mounted sword fighting in real world.

There is no “super sword for all” in history.

The heavy straight sword was the ideal weapon for a strong man. Hack and slash. John Shaw, kia at Waterloo, was a boxing Champion. It is said that he fought 10 French horse and disabled 5. His heavy sword broke then and he used his helmet as club until cut down.

The sabre style light sword is possibly a better choice for a smaller man, But my “she” prefers the heavy over the light. She would make a small Hussar.

And I, with 183 cm? I would use the officer 1796 heavy Dress sword. With a superb Runkel blade. Straight, ideal for a fast thrust (in a cuirassiers armpit or face) but also to disable an arm in a slash. I have some of these, even a small one for an ensign.

Second choice would be the original Austrian Pallasch. Better material quality than the British 1796 copy and better ballanced. Not one of my 3 OR heavies reach my Austrian one.

That’s also the problem with modern copies. Even those that look very much like the real thing have not the same handling.

In that time heavy and light was still valid. The hight of a horse says not all about agility. Light choose swift ones, heavies still used big and strong ones.

To call French Chasseurs a cheval especially bad is just wrong. All French cavalry post 1813 lacked good horses. To replace the losses many got young ones, not strong enough for campaign. The Chasseurs are as good or bad as the hussars.
Just remember. There was no guard hussar regiment but the old elite Chasseurs a cheval.