Fencing lore?

[typoink]

There's a couple bits of fencing lore I've heard repeated lately, and I was just wondering if anybody could verify / debunk either of them.

One, I've heard that the waist-and-up target area of sabre is some sort of homage it's cavarly origins, as that's the only area a mounted swordsman could strike a footman. This seems...wrong to me, as modern sabre is, I believe, directly descended from dueling sabres. Not to mention that foot-to-foot combat is inherently different from horse-to-foot in plenty of other ways...

Two, I've heard that the traditional off-arm-hooked-up en garde stance comes from fencers traditionally having to hold lanterns while they fought. This seems really wrong to me as that seems like a really dumb way to hold a lantern while dueling...

[wflaschka]

About the sabre/horse thing, this book has a good discussion: Secret History of the Sword. (Overall, I felt the book was eh.)

In fact, you can read what the author says about low sabre cuts it in the online excerpt: excerpt. Load the page, and then click "next page" once for the actual book-text to start.

There are about 7 pages of free bliss on the topic of low hits in sabre. My message here has to be the best reply to a post evar! Go me.

The author notes that leg cuts were not uncommon, but then analyses the risk-reward. Low cuts leave your whole torso open, and your head will be cleaved asunder. Also, during a charge, your blade could become buried in an enemy's horse, and then pulled out of your hand as the horses crossed, leading to a high s**t out of luck factor when you met your next enemy.

I forget why modern rules exclude leg cuts. I'm betting it's something similar to Right of Way... the rules encourage a "best practice" approach to fighting survivable encounters. Right of Way is a human convention, but it translates to high survivability in real life, ergo it's used in rules to promote good fencing. Probably something similar for low sabre targets.

About the cocked arm thing: I can only guess at its derivation. First, the arm held a shield. Then a cloak or a knife. Then, it helped keep the torso in profile for old-style en garde positions. Then it just seemed good for balance. Now, we don't worry about it too much. The lantern theory is new and interesting to me. Member SLIDAR will probably have some good facts about this.

[PisteOff]

I'm skeptical about the lantern thing. Most of what I've read indicates that duels were planned ahead 12-48 hours and would likely have been planned during the daylight hours.

As if facing someone with a weapon wasn't bad enough, having to hold some metal box with fire and flammable liquid in it behind the head would be a bit much. A duelist's secondary could hold the lamp just as easy. (my 2 cents)

==PisteOff==

[Sildar]

Originally posted by typoink
There's a couple bits of fencing lore I've heard repeated lately, and I was just wondering if anybody could verify / debunk either of them.

One, I've heard that the waist-and-up target area of sabre is some sort of homage it's cavarly origins, as that's the only area a mounted swordsman could strike a footman. This seems...wrong to me, as modern sabre is, I believe, directly descended from dueling sabres. Not to mention that foot-to-foot combat is inherently different from horse-to-foot in plenty of other ways...

I am in complete agreement with wflaschka; Amberger gives this myth the best treatment I've seen so far. As to why the below-the-belt shot is illegal now, there is strong implication that this was simply a courtesy observed for practice and competition (apparently the groin was target in intercollegiate fencing for quite a while however) though nothing would have prevented one from attacking low in a fight with sharps. Personally, this is a departure from realistic swordfighting that I support, especially considering that the old practice sabres of the early 20th century weren't that much lighter than the real dueling sabres and I'd prefer not to get a rising molinello to the groin...

Also, remember that dueling sabres and military sabres were quite different weapons.

Two, I've heard that the traditional off-arm-hooked-up en garde stance comes from fencers traditionally having to hold lanterns while they fought. This seems really wrong to me as that seems like a really dumb way to hold a lantern while dueling...

I've heard this rumor as well, but I've never seen anything to support this theory. The earliest treatise I know that has the left hand up behind the head was Agrippa in 1553, and though I haven't read it in the Italian personally, I have been told by people that have read it that his reason for keeping the hand up is the same reason given by every other fencing master who advocates a similar guard for the next 400 years: to aid with body mechanics in the guard and during the lunge and recovery. I've never seen an illustration of anyone holding a lantern in their off hand in this guard. There is a section in Dominico Angelo's smallsword book on defending one's self against an assailant who uses a "dark lanthorn" in his left hand, but he strongly implies that the practice is dishonorable and unlawful. And though several positions for the sword and lantern fencer are illustrated, in none of them is the lantern held in anything like an ordinary guard.

wflaschka--Thanks for the endorsement!

[earlie]

Intersting what the English members of this forum will make of the word lore!! They think law is pronounced lore. Like they say the lore of trhe land, I sore it , draw a droring

[Catlady]

What I heard on sabre target had to do with cavalry origins too, but it was what was likely to be most disabling to a mounted opponent. A hit to the leg isn't disabling because you're both sitting on a horse. Your legs don't really keep you on the horse. This makes sense to me with my limited experience as an equestrian. I heard this explanation from my original coach whose wife competes in equestrian events--she's not national champion calibre, yet at least, but she is pretty good apparently. Also, doing substantial damage to the horse would be hard.

Just one more thing I have to point out re mounted combat v. foot soldiers (and to counter the reputation of dressage as whimpy) is that your horse is also a weapon. Many dressage components have to do with using the horse''s teeth and hooves as weapons (horse kicks out at foot soldier, hits him somewhere vital, one less foot soldier to worry about) and moving around in a crowd (the various side stepping maneuvers).

Okay, I'm done now really.

[Jupiter]

It probably was sort of a gentlemans agreement, that they wouldn't demasculate each other, men can live without anything else but....the lantern thing, could be if duels were fought at night, the people watching carried lanterns for the duelists. The way duels were fought in the old days must have been unbeliveable, sort of like watching a knife fight with gangs, it was serious business, not kidding around.

Thanks again for another entertaining evening.

[D'Artagnan1673]

It would be perfectly obvious to anyone who has seen the 1973 Three Musketeers where D'Artagnan (myself) fights the Comte de Rochefort in pitch black with lanters in their off hand. But seriously, to repeat what everyone else has said, all I've ever heard is that the off hand was used to fasciliate balance.

I must disagree to an extent about how a shot to the leg would be useless in fighting a mounted soldier. In all my experience on horesback (1 time ) I observed that I held myself in the saddle by using the muscles in my legs. A muscle ripping cut to the leg could put a mounted solider extremely off balance. Making riding difficult, and fighting even more. Perhaps a more experienced rider than myself would not find this as great a hinderance as I would.

[Inquartata]

There are drawings in old ( and I mean like 15th century ) fencing manuals which depict the off hand in the familiar classical position for foil...but holding things like daggers and second swords.

As to the sabre target, Amberger makes a very strong case that the linkage to cavalry combat is very recent, ie 20th century. So it is probably something of an old wives' tale. OTOH, common sense would tell you that if you're fighting another man with sabres and you are both on horseback, striking at your opponent's leg is pretty foolish---what target do you open by taking your blade so low? The other fellow will probably survive even the nastiest would to the thigh or calf, perhaps even to amputation. But will you survive decapitation so easily?

So there are really two issues here: (a) Did cavalrymen likely eschew deliberately attacking each others' lower extremities and horses for practical or philosophical reasons, and (b) is this really the source of the modern sabre target? I would answer "Quite possibly" to the first, and side with Amberger and say "Probably not" to the second...

[Sildar]

Originally posted by Inquartata

So there are really two issues here: (a) Did cavalrymen likely eschew deliberately attacking each others' lower extremities and horses for practical or philosophical reasons, and (b) is this really the source of the modern sabre target? I would answer "Quite possibly" to the first, and side with Amberger and say "Probably not" to the second...

I've never heard of any prohibition on killing horses in real combat; in fact, the horse was a popular target, since by injuring (or even simply frightening) the horse you effectively neutralize the rider as well. Since at least the 16th century various Masters explicitly describe special guards for use from horseback which are expressly described as guards for defending the horse's head. Cutting the reins was another popular strategy. Also, several late medieval jousting treatises advised that in tournaments you have to hit the rider to score points, while in combat you should aim for the horse.

Aside from this, fencing on foot and fencing from horseback are and always have been recognized as two different activities. The dueling sabres of the late 19th century were specialized weapons for dueling on foot, and they had nothing to do with horses at all. The sport of stick-fencing from horseback endured into the late 19th century, and it had its own rules, equipment and techniques which were distinct from the dueling sabre.

Let me say it again as clearly as possible:
The type of fencing which was the ancestor of the modern sport was a system of dueling sabre taught to be used on foot. The cavalry sabre was a different weapon. Sport sabre and dueling sabre have nothing to do with horses. These two topics should not meet in the same sentence.

Tirade over.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Sildar
I've never heard of any prohibition on killing horses in real combat; in fact, the horse was a popular target, since by injuring (or even simply frightening) the horse you effectively neutralize the rider as well.

Prohibition? As in official stricture? Perhaps not. But consider:

(a) Shortages of good cavalry mounts, and even of poor ones, were the rule. The letters and journals left us by the cavalrymen and officers of the Napoleonic period, for example, are full of complaints and sad comments on this. Official records also reflect the difficulties of getting good mounts, and of keeping them in good condition, and in supplying the squadrons adequately.

(b) A cavalryman without a horse was merely a ( gulp! ) infantryman. And a poor one at that---no musket, no bayonet, no proper marching boots, etc...and no training for it.

(c) These conditions applied to all sides equally.

(d) We may expect that there was at least some remnant of the former international feeling of in-group solidarity amongst the chivalry of Europe ( a knight was a member of the knighthood before he was an Englishman, a Burgundian, an Italian, etc ). A feeling of fraternity, that is to say, amongst the "gentlemen" of the cavalry.

Together with the feeling a horseman tends to have for his animals, I can imagine that these factors may indeed have led to a sort of tacit, informal mutual agreement not to kill each others' horses and thus leave each other earthbound churls...

Since at least the 16th century various Masters explicitly describe special guards for use from horseback which are expressly described as guards for defending the horse's head.

Two counterarguments here: First, the fact that a handfull of "masters" and writers advocated a given practice and taught them on the parade ground is no guarantee that the practice was ever widely accepted or adopted by the rank and file of the soldiery on the field of battle, and second, very seldom indeed are any of those horse-protecting guards ever specifically identified as intended for use against other cavalrymen---they could just as easily have been designed for use against infantry swords and bayonets ( any fellow knows that those sloggers are low base brutes without honor who would actually try to kill a horse, wot? ).

[Sildar]

As Mr. Amberger quite correctly points out, when modern people try to create a reasonable explanation of history without reference to contemporary historical accounts, we are often mistaken. Simply because something sounds logical now doesn't in any way prove that it did happen. Therefore any assertion of a particular historical reality must be accompanied by evidence. Though we cannot absolutely prove any particular practice did not happen, a wealth of contradictory evidence and a lack of supporting evidence make a very strong case that the stated assertion in all likelihood did not take place, or if it did it was a rare exception rather than the rule.

For example, I could easily construct a dozen arguments for the killing of horses based on speculation and my own imagination, but that gets us no closer to the truth of the matter. Therefore I will present evidence.

Originally posted by Inquartata

Two counterarguments here: First, the fact that a handfull of "masters" and writers advocated a given practice and taught them on the parade ground is no guarantee that the practice was ever widely accepted or adopted by the rank and file of the soldiery on the field of battle, and second, very seldom indeed are any of those horse-protecting guards ever specifically identified as intended for use against other cavalrymen---they could just as easily have been designed for use against infantry swords and bayonets ( any fellow knows that those sloggers are low base brutes without honor who would actually try to kill a horse, wot? ).

Fiore de Liberi clearly explains, in illustrations of two mounted knights, that more than one of his attacks are meant to kill the opponent's horse.

Professor Sydney Anglo lists all of the renaissance books he could find which give technical advice for mounted combat:

16th century:
Pietro Monte, speaking specifically about fighting from horseback, advocates attacking the opponent's horse, especially if he has a better mount than you, "for when we kill the horse, it matters little that it is greater than ours." And as Professor Anglo summarizes Monte's advice on mounted combat, "it is always easy to kill an opponent's horse, and especially so in lance combats when only fools waste time trying to hit their man." Pietro Monte was esteemed by many in Europe as one of the best Masters in the world in his lifetime, so what he said was taken seriously.

Quixada de Reayo, also speaking about fighting from horseback, says to kill the enemy's horse first, then fight the rider after. As he explains later (in war) "anything is permissible which is to the disadvantage of your opponent."

Federico Ghisliero, in a section which clearly illustrates two mounted swordsmen facing each other, advises guards for defending the horse's head from cuts. In his section on jousting, he advises a number of strategies for hitting the rider in tourneys, but says quite unambiguously that in a real fight with a sharp lance you should aim at the opponent's horse.

17th century:
Giorgio Basta, who wrote exclusively about battlefield cavalry techniques, said, as a rule, a cavarlyman should aim for the left shoulder of the enemy's horse, whether you use a sword or a lance. (This book saw two printings in Italy, one in Spain, and one in France, so he can hardly be dismissed an eccentric whose advice was ignored by everyone)

Wallhausen's illustrations repeatedly portray mounted knights killing one another's horses with swords, lances and muskets.

Pierre de la Noue, speaking of one on one duels on horseback, said that one of the most dangerous attacks from another mounted opponent is their cut to the horse's nose, since you are certain to lose if the opponent succeeds in that attack.

And Amberger lists the following examples from later popular cavalry books:

Sir William Hope advises that the cavalryman assume a guard that defends his horse, then recommends a plain stroke either at your adversary
or his horse.

18th century:

Henry Angelo, in his section on advice for cavalrymen, lists guards for defending one's horse, then advises striking your opponent's horse: "..cut at the hocks, if necessary," and later "prevent him from closing...by striking his horse's head..."

And in 1812, Craig's cavalry manual contains drills in which one is advised to cut at the horse's head.

Wayne's comments on cavalry in 1849 also include advice that a rider should "give a swinging cut at the horse, to ham-string him if possible."

In short, all of these works advise a mounted cavalryman to attack the opponent's horse in a life-and-death fight, and none advise sparing the enemy's horse for possible future use. This clearly suggests that attacking a horse was typical, not something done "very seldom."

If you know of any pre-20th century account of mounted fencing exercise in which cavalry soldiers are told not to kill the enemy horses, or that mention any code of honor that prohibits killing horses in actual combat, please cite your source. Otherwise, let this flimsy unfounded myth die. In any case, it should be clear to everyone that horses were not normally aforded any special mercy from other men of the cavalry.

[KC]

From my knowledge of the equestrian sports, I ride and have judged a competition or two. Anyway, not only will your legs keep in in the saddle, they are what can also steer the horse... Yep the raines are used most offten but a properly trained horse can move, stop, turn, step, charge, and even jump all to the riders leg pressures. Which you can imagine in a battle would be quite helpful seeing how you don't have to really pay much attention to holding the reins to guide the horse. So a leg shot could very much disable a mounted warrior.

That being said, and keep in mind that I am not familiar with the time period of my next point, the saddles of the medieval mounted warriors were made very differently than what you see today. They were made from wood and covered with leather with not much padding, they had very tall fronts and backs and in my rear's opinion were not too comfortable, (I have ridden in a repoduction) This would allow the ridder more stability in the saddle without the use of his legs. Its has also been recorded that many a rider would be strapped into his saddle to prevent him from becoming dismounted. Which speaking form experience if you saddle slides this could leave you in a very bad position. Fortunately for me I wasn't strapped in gravity took effect. Ouch!

I hope this muddies the water even more!

[CarlKnoch]

I had heard that one of the major reasons that the saber target area was waist up was due to the horse, but not for honor.

The horse was an expensive war machine that could be used by anyone who could ride. It was better to kill the other soldier without hurting the horse so you could take the horse for your own use. Spoils of war kind of thing. Nothing to do with where it's best to hit someone, or not hitting the horse as it was dishonorable, just a good financial decision.

[Inquartata]

Well, as I've said, Mr. Amberger has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the MODERN sabre fencing target was not born of cavalry sabre conventions or the idea of both combatants being mounted. He and I have debated this a bit over the net and there seems to be zero mention of cavalry sabre as the basis of the modern target area until about halfway through the 20th century. But his other thesis, that concern for the horses, an informal gentlemanly "code", or a practical reluctance to open ones upper body and head by striking at a leg or horse are equally mythical seems to me to be founded on much less solid ground. ( Perhaps it's even in danger of "sinking into a swamp". )

Originally posted by Sildar
As Mr. Amberger quite correctly points out, when modern people try to create a reasonable explanation of history without reference to contemporary historical accounts, we are often mistaken. Simply because something sounds logical now doesn't in any way prove that it did happen.

Very true...but by the same token, simply because something sounds Iillogical now doesn't in any way prove that it DIDN'T happen "way back when".

Therefore any assertion of a particular historical reality must be accompanied by evidence.

First off, let me make the obligatory academic genuflection toward the idea that primary evidence is always to be preferred when discussing historical conundra. But second, let me say too that such evidence is not any sort of sine qua non. Many things and many practices, including some we would probably scarce credit given our modern sensibilities and educations, have existed and been done without any physical evidence or reliable first-hand accounts remaining to us to "prove" them....and many things have been "proven" by evidence which never were. They're called hoaxes.

There's a saying that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Albeit it's an even shakier argument for presence, almost everything we know of the physical world and yes, of history was mostly speculation ( or "flimsy unfounded myth" if you prefer ) until the first evidence was unearthed. And as far as written accounts go, well...the Bible is a very useful historical document, but it does not go far to prove that the world is only a few thousand years old, to take just one example.

a wealth of contradictory evidence and a lack of supporting evidence make a very strong case that the stated assertion in all likelihood did not take place, or if it did it was a rare exception rather than the rule.

In all candour a closer examination of a lot of that evidence looks a bit threadbare to me. Much of it cannot be shown to prove a thesis as broad as that advanced. For instance, the large number of paintings and drawings depicting cavalrymen with their sabres in positions which seem designed to protect the horse, bridle, thigh, etc may indeed prove SOMETHING, but perhaps not what some think they do. ( They may, as I have said, show nothing more than guards designed to guard against attacks by infantry bayoneys or spears. ) Or they may really prove nothing: they may be examples of artists showing subjects in dramatic poses which never really were used on a battlefield, for instance.

Let me turn this argument around: where are the depictions of these supposed guards actually being USED to stop an opponent's sabre cut at horse or legs? In fact, where is even a single depiction of a mounted cavalryman sabreing a horse or thrusting point into thigh? Where are the accounts of men being struck thus? We have stories aplenty of men being killed or wounded by cuts or thrust to the upper body and head, but where are the anecdotes showing us that "Captain X lost his sabre, having thrust it into a cossack's horse and having it pulled from his grip by the beasts career"? I can think of no recorded mention of a horse being deliberately targeted by a cavalryman's sabre. Does this mean that it never did happen? That the claim that it might must be relegated to the category of "unfounded myth"? By no means, I think. And no more does the lack of negative evidence ( "show us proof that it was never done" ) of the obverse mean that THAT never happened. Yes?

Fiore de Liberi clearly explains, in illustrations of two mounted knights, that more than one of his attacks are meant to kill the opponent's horse.

The Flos Duellatorium dates to what, the early 15th century? The chivalry period, not the cavalry one. Not exactly apples and oranges, perhaps, but close.

Moreover, it concerns itself in the main with single combats, not the mass melees of the battlefield.

Professor Sydney Anglo lists all of the renaissance books he could find which give technical advice for mounted combat:

Again, operative word: "renaissance". Not the period under discussion...

16th century:
Pietro Monte, speaking specifically about fighting from horseback, advocates attacking the opponent's horse, especially if he has a better mount than you, "for when we kill the horse, it matters little that it is greater than ours." And as Professor Anglo summarizes Monte's advice on mounted combat, "it is always easy to kill an opponent's horse, and especially so in lance combats when only fools waste time trying to hit their man." Pietro Monte was esteemed by many in Europe as one of the best Masters in the world in his lifetime, so what he said was taken seriously.

The objection as to time period still applies. But in addition, there is also still the objection as to the causal chain. That is, Monte taught technique X; does it follow inexorably that all, most or even many men at arms actually APPLIED technique X? I do not believe that it does....

Quixada de Reayo, also speaking about fighting from horseback, says to kill the enemy's horse first, then fight the rider after. As he explains later (in war) "anything is permissible which is to the disadvantage of your opponent."

Same objections.

Federico Ghisliero, in a section which clearly illustrates two mounted swordsmen facing each other, advises guards for defending the horse's head from cuts.

This is better. But, what is the period? And is it specific advice for war, or just the tournament or duel, with its different codes of conduct and ethos?

In his section on jousting, he advises a number of strategies for hitting the rider in tourneys, but says quite unambiguously that in a real fight with a sharp lance you should aim at the opponent's horse.

A real fight in war, or tournoi? Also note, lances are not sabres.

17th century:
Giorgio Basta, who wrote exclusively about battlefield cavalry techniques, said, as a rule, a cavarlyman should aim for the left shoulder of the enemy's horse, whether you use a sword or a lance.

Better, better...

(This book saw two printings in Italy, one in Spain, and one in France, so he can hardly be dismissed an eccentric whose advice was ignored by everyone)

Eh...that it was widely printed or read does not prove that it was widely APPLIED...or even applied at all.

Wallhausen's illustrations repeatedly portray mounted knights killing one another's horses with swords, lances and muskets.

Operative word: "knights". ( Also see the discussion above about artistic presentations. )

The time periods are crucial. The knightly era was one of very small armies; the cavalry one of immense armies. Thus the problem of obtaining a sufficiency of proper mounts was greatly exacerbated by the advent of mass armies. ( There were perhaps 25,000 horse at Agincourt, and only about a thousand of those were ridden into the fray; at Borodino there were some 28,000 cavalry on the French side alone! ) And the Napoleonic battlefield was much more destructive of horses than was the medieval one, what with cannonades and mass musketry. This is just the sort of situation likely to create a chronic shortage of mounts, and to lead to an informal ethos of refraining from further depleting the supplies...

Pierre de la Noue, speaking of one on one duels on horseback, said that one of the most dangerous attacks from another mounted opponent is their cut to the horse's nose, since you are certain to lose if the opponent succeeds in that attack.

Duels again...when being made into a groundpounder for a lengthy period of time was scarcely a concern...

And Amberger lists the following examples from later popular cavalry books:

Sir William Hope advises that the cavalryman assume a guard that defends his horse, then recommends a plain stroke either at your adversary
or his horse.

Sildar, my friend, were you ever in the military?

If so, did you never note the many aspects of life in which there were two parallel methods: the regulation way and the way it was actually done?

This sort of divergence between theory and practice is not of course confined to military life. But there I think one can find the clearest examples of it. There is the way they tell you to do things in Basic Training, the way it is in the regs, and there is the "field expedient".

Even if it could be shown that every single master at arms and sergeant-major advised, or even mandated, that horses be routinely attacked, and that guards against it were commonly taught, it does not follow that their instructions were not ignored in the heat of battle...or that a group consciousness among the rank and file did not cause it to be set aside in favor of another ethos. ( Duelling was universally condemned by the military authorities and officialdom during the period in question, for instance. The prohibitions were almost universally ignored, however, and duels were commonplace. )

Henry Angelo, in his section on advice for cavalrymen, lists guards for defending one's horse, then advises striking your opponent's horse: "..cut at the hocks, if necessary," and later "prevent him from closing...by striking his horse's head..."

Angelos are indeed one of the few sources which specifically label the guards depicted as designed to defend the lower body and horse. One wonders, though, whether Angelo was speaking from military experience or theory...and there still remains the fact that a print labelled "thigh protect" does not mention exactly WHAT it was to defend against...or WHO...

In fact---put yourself on horseback sometime, and see what gymnastics you must go through in order to cut at another horses' hocks with a sabre. Then ask yourself what your opponent is apt to be doing to your undefended head, arm or body while you are so engaged...

And in 1812, Craig's cavalry manual contains drills in which one is advised to cut at the horse's head.

Best of all so far. But still, it does not establish a causal chain between the drillmaster's or author's advice and its application by the majority or even a large minority of "rankers" in combat.

Wayne's comments on cavalry in 1849 also include advice that a rider should "give a swinging cut at the horse, to ham-string him if possible."

See above...

none advise sparing the enemy's horse for possible future use.

I can think of at least one instance in which a troop of cavalry attacked another for no other reason than to capture their horses for the use of the victors. And this was a battlefield commentary on an act done, not the advice of an author for a theoretical application. One suspects that captured horses would be of little use if they were all cut up at the hocks, hamstrung, and variously wounded...

This clearly suggests that attacking a horse was typical, not something done "very seldom."

As far as I can tell it clearly suggests only that it was ADVISED. As for being done very seldom, I ask again: where are the battlefield accounts of this sort of advice being followed? Where are the cavalrymen talking about cutting horses and thighs? Where are the paintings of cavalrymen in combat striking thus low? If we are only to accept evidence of a thing being done ( NOT merely taught or recommended ), then where is that evidence?

If you know of any pre-20th century account of mounted fencing exercise in which cavalry soldiers are told not to kill the enemy horses, or that mention any code of honor that prohibits killing horses in actual combat, please cite your source.

Sort of like asking me where are the military manuals and orders approving of and recommending duelling, and then saying that the paucity of same demonstrates that clearly duelliong must not have taken place?

And as to codes, I have been arguing all along that if such existed they must perforce have been informal and unofficial, sort of tacit agreements based on need and expedience. And to the extent that these may have been born of exigent circumstances about which the High Commands may have neither known nor cared, quite possibly in contravention of orders and SOPs promulgated by administrators and drillmasters, probably unlikely to have been bruited about in manuals or official documents...

But I am getting carried away with my argument, as is my wont. Let me restate.

I do not assert the existence of such codes or such sorts of conduct. I do not even assert as uinontrovertible fact that horses and legs were not commonly attacked with the sabre when cavalry clashed. I only assert that the arguments advanced by Amberger to the effect that they MUST have done are not sufficiently strong to prove the case....or to establish the overwhelming probability that no such codes or agreements can have existed. The weight of the evidence presented is, to me, simply unconvincing. In other words, "You may be right; and certainly I would not go so far as to say that you are wrong; but still..."

[Sildar]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Well, as I've said, Mr. Amberger has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the MODERN sabre fencing target was not born of cavalry sabre conventions or the idea of both combatants being mounted. He and I have debated this a bit over the net and there seems to be zero mention of cavalry sabre as the basis of the modern target area until about halfway through the 20th century. But his other thesis, that concern for the horses, an informal gentlemanly "code", or a practical reluctance to open ones upper body and head by striking at a leg or horse are equally mythical seems to me to be founded on much less solid ground. ( Perhaps it's even in danger of "sinking into a swamp". )

There is no evidence to suggest that there was any general taboo against killing horses. There is much evidence to suggest that it was in fact taught, practiced and advocated in a number of places by several people. The fact that no one can say where exactly the anti-horse killing story came from suggests that this is a purely modern rationalization used to explain sport sabre target.

Sort of like asking me where are the military manuals and orders approving of and recommending duelling, and then saying that the paucity of same demonstrates that clearly duelliong must not have taken place?

In fact it is nothing like asking you that. We both know perfectly well that there are countless documents and accounts of duelling among military officers; this is very well documented, as is the existence of dueling culture in Europe from the Dark ages through the early 20th century. If it were not well documented, I might be inclined to question whether it had happened, particularly if this tale seems to have suddenly become part of an "everyone knows" body of lore of the last fifty years or so.

My dictionary defines "myth" as a traditional story serving to explain some phenomenon, custom, etc, and/or a fictitious story. The taboo against killing horses certainly fits the first definition, and there is no evidence to suggest that it does not fit the second.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Sildar
There is no evidence to suggest that there was any general taboo against killing horses. There is much evidence to suggest that it was in fact taught, practiced and advocated in a number of places by several people.

Statisticians will invariably tell you that no generalization from less than about 30 data points can be valid. I doubt that anyone has come up with anywhere near that many instances of experts advocating horse-killing, so "several people" just doesn't...um...cut it. ( Sorry. ) And a number of the experts who DO advocate it do not say that they have actually done it themselves or seen anywone else do it. In fact, I find the paucity, verging on nonexistence, of battlefield accounts, letters, diaries, etc. mentioning such attacks against horses rather telling. I mean, one might expect at least one or two offhand mentions of such if it was in fact such a common tactic, no?

The fact that no one can say where exactly the anti-horse killing story came from suggests that this is a purely modern rationalization used to explain sport sabre target.

The fact that the ur-source of a particular tale or account cannot be pinpointed suggests that it was invented out of whole cloth? This is rather a stringent requirement, don't you think, given that for most of human history the lions share of events were never recorded, or was recorded long after the fact, or was recorded but lost, or...

Also, let us not assume that a rationalization must perforce be wrong, simply because it is the purely noetic result of human logic and not the archaeologist's trowel.