The Google-friendly History Question Thread.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The fact that after you fire you have to turn your back to your enemy? Who is presumably also armed with projectile weapons.

The fact that you're probably facing a line of musketeers with only one of your men firing at a time. Not good for assaulting a troop of prepared men.

It makes sense from a logistical viewpoint, you'll only have half as many horses and men to feed after the battle. Less supplies to lug around the place.

If you were attacking a clot of surprised and confused men it might work, for a while. The fact that it didn't get used for long has something to say about it's effectiveness, IMHO.

[Don't Panic]

The fact that after you fire you have to turn your back to your enemy? Who is presumably also armed with projectile weapons.

The fact that you're probably facing a line of musketeers with only one of your men firing at a time. Not good for assaulting a troop of prepared men.

It makes sense from a logistical viewpoint, you'll only have half as many horses and men to feed after the battle. Less supplies to lug around the place.

If you were attacking a clot of surprised and confused men it might work, for a while. The fact that it didn't get used for long has something to say about it's effectiveness, IMHO.

Cavalry was destined to fade into the annals of history once guns became part of the TO&E for armies.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The fact that after you fire you have to turn your back to your enemy? Who is presumably also armed with projectile weapons.

The fact that you're probably facing a line of musketeers with only one of your men firing at a time. Not good for assaulting a troop of prepared men.

It makes sense from a logistical viewpoint, you'll only have half as many horses and men to feed after the battle. Less supplies to lug around the place.

If you were attacking a clot of surprised and confused men it might work, for a while. The fact that it didn't get used for long has something to say about it's effectiveness, IMHO.

Cavalry was destined to fade into the annals of history once guns became part of the TO&E for armies.

Yep, that's why they had it right up to WWII.

[Don't Panic]

The fact that you're probably facing a line of musketeers with only one of your men firing at a time. Not good for assaulting a troop of prepared men.

It makes sense from a logistical viewpoint, you'll only have half as many horses and men to feed after the battle. Less supplies to lug around the place.

If you were attacking a clot of surprised and confused men it might work, for a while. The fact that it didn't get used for long has something to say about it's effectiveness, IMHO.

Cavalry was destined to fade into the annals of history once guns became part of the TO&E for armies.

Yep, that's why they had it right up to WWII.

Would you ride a horse up to a line of men carrying rifles?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Would you ride a horse up to a line of men carrying rifles?

Would you walk when you could ride?

[Don't Panic]

Would you ride a horse up to a line of men carrying rifles?

Would you walk when you could ride?

I'm Irish, why approach the enemy from the front when you can sneak up on him from behind. :twisted:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Would you ride a horse up to a line of men carrying rifles?

Would you walk when you could ride?

I'm Irish, why approach the enemy from the front when you can sneak up on him from behind. :twisted:

You can run away faster on a horse than you can on foot.

[klr]

Would you ride a horse up to a line of men carrying rifles?

Would you walk when you could ride?

I'm Irish, why approach the enemy from the front when you can sneak up on him from behind. :twisted:

Or just wait 750 years and tire him out ...

When are going to get another question? :hum:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actual quote for semi-official history:

The cafe wits maintained that [blank] was not 'a weapon, but an article of faith', . . .

What was that weapon?

[klr]

Actual quote for semi-official history:

The cafe wits maintained that [blank] was not 'a weapon, but an article of faith', . . .

What was that weapon?

The Atomic Bomb?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actual quote for semi-official history:

The cafe wits maintained that [blank] was not 'a weapon, but an article of faith', . . .

What was that weapon?

The Kirpan - or Sikh holy dagger?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's two "noes" so far.

[Don't Panic]

SDI? or star wars, or missile defense, whatever you want to call it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The holy hand-grenade?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not SDI and not a rabbit killer.