Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
But you're quite correct in that these cavalrymen's tactical doctrines did not demand them to do a lot of fighting on horseback. When mounted they charged, when dismounted they fired. |
I guess that by thinking first and last as a rider I am unneccairily preoccupied with practicality in the saddle.
This thread makes me realise this agaín. When I was reading a late 19th century USC manual on equipment and management that made me realise it too. The two procedures described for holding the horses when near the site of fighting were very informative. This obviously does nót exclude mounted engagement but was enlighting nonetheless.
Thus my conclusion during the course of the thread was that 2. was the minor of priorities.
I have read a text which does not state the source(s) that describes the 'escopeta' - a short barrel of large caliber with a bellmouth - was carried oblong the pommel in a chamois sheeth - funda de ante (or -terciopelo-).
In a site about 'texas origins' there is mention of spanish cavalry being outfitted with a short bellmouthed 'escopeta' as a kind of early short carbine that was supposedly carried in hand (on thy).
I guess I need to subdivide 1. into
1a. travelling at ease through safe territory
b. travelling 'half cocked' through possible enemy territory
Peter