j aurais plutot traduit par " the big boys"

Big bro

Big 'Uns to smash some humies

Les terrible CCTV? I am not a language professor, but it seems plausible that my interpretation is the correct one. Cheers from Norway ✌😊

le gros mfers because when frenchies popped them out during the Napoleonic Wars...... probably not good for the other side.

You learn a lot teaching. Even if it's just clarifying what you already know and lining it up to make sense, telling someone else is a powerful tool.

a dangerously rare trait it would seem nowadays.

Apparently the curaisser sword is called "la latte de cuirassier". Or on other words, "a slat sword". Not classified as sabre. I found that nomenclature interesting.

@@josephvisnovsky1462 It's rather a nickname than an official name. In the French army, it was classified as a sabre, the difference being a "latte" is a straight sabre, which remained basically the same till the end of WW1. When you have one in your hands, you immediately understand it's a terrifying weapon. But what our historian didn't mention, is the fact that even with a curved sabre, used by the light cavalry in France, the men were trained to use it also as a thrust weapon. When charging, the sabre was hold high with a straight arm, and with one particularity : the flat back was oriented downwards, and the cutting edge upwards, in a way to ensure the upper part of the blade and the tip were nearly parallel with the ground, with the objective to aim the throat and the chest of the opponent and to penetrate it pointing downwards, ensuring a mostly certain fatal wound in that case too.

Как может нормальный человек быть фанатиком войн ? Это может быть лишь в том случае если он никогда не воевал.

I share your kink ! I advise you to get a hold on a unit of cuirassiers in the old-school Mount&Blade : Napoleonic wars if you have not already spent several years on it. The "Commander battles" gamemode is basically Total War on the ground level, with you commanding a small unit. Absolutely delightful.

I personally prefer the Polish Lancers, the Imperial Chasseurs a Cheval and Grenadiers a Cheval but Cuirassiers come damn close

@@zekramnordran9526 but they are the best heavy cav of the game tho . A good charge and you break every unit around

strange that they didnt use spears instead?

@@HA-gu1qk Lances, and Lancers were a thing at the time

in Paris on Les Invalides !

Absolutely terrifying indeed, but the cuirass you saw wasn't a cuirassier's, but a carabinier's cuirass, in steel covered with a brass foil and decorated with a breast ornament. But cuirassier or carabinier, facing a cannonball, the cuirass was totally useless...

Yeah. Those are stories of successes gained "against all odds", where the opposite result should have been expected.

Actually it's not that uncommon, it's fairly common to do it, in most case to better glorify yourself. Quite the common practice in ancient Roma for example.

@@chronic6428 Indeed. After all, what point is there in writing that the enemy you defeated was pathetic? Far better to say they were incredible warriors, which further boosts how great you are since you beat them.

It also made perfect sense. French cavalry had a vaunted reputation for a long time, and the British have long been known to achieve victory or avoid total disaster in ridiculous circumstances such as the battle of Fontenoy. In that battle, the British made almost every single classic and unforgivable mistake, and still somehow managed to withdraw under fire and not get wiped out completely

...

They also used sabers and a few swords in the American civil war. 1861-1865.

Me owning a greatsword..., heh.

I knew I'd find at least one "big sword" joke.

They're french. I think they're compensating

They made it useless for infantry, it's largely correct

Napoleon era cuirass couldn't block musketfire unless it was at extreme range, it was largely used since the cuirassiers where primarily close ranged fighters (the sword he's talking about was considered his primary weapon) and armor could still block swords/bayonets/and occasionally pistols.

In addition, keep in mind that until smokeless powder, brass cased cartridges, and pointed bullets, the velocity of round ball ammunition fell off rapidly.

@@rugerredhawk9065 There are many preserved Napoleonic curiasses that show dents from musket balls that didn't penetrate. any of those shots would have most likely been mortal, had the man not worn a curiass.

On the other hand, never underestimate a Frenchman's desire to look good, even, and perhaps especially, when going into battle.

Thank for admiring and appreciating our French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte

@@christophermichaelclarence6003 You are welcome, Christoph! Only an imbecile could not admire the greatness of Napoleon. Most people think of him as a military genius but he was more than that. He ruled France with wisdom and generosity and made her the most powerful nation in Europe. Had not been for the hateful English ruling class who started and financed all the wars against him he would have died on the throne. ¡Vive l'Empereur!

Ew imagine supported a huge piece of trash like napoleon. Thats like thinking putin or stalin were good men.

All the french cavalry had some degree of protection. The dragoons also had helmets, and the the cavalry generally wore rolled blankets across the chest, as a measure of protection.

He said that because even the light cavalry, with their curved sabres, were trained to use them as a thrust weapon as well, in a terrifying way (flat side of the blade downwards, cutting edge upwards, with the upper part of the blade and the tip parallel to the ground, hold with a straight and rigid arm, the objective being to aim the throat or the upper part of the chest of the opponent). With a result, a most certain fatal wound each time...

I recommend you to read the memoirs of the Baron de Marbot, a cavalry officer of the napoleonic army. They are very well known and very entertaining, and deal with cavalry combats in several instances.

Plenty of French Napoleonic soldiers’ accounts have been translated. They’re not at all hard to find.

Yep. There is something fascinating about this kind of specialist mood.

I'm not sure phalanx is the right term as cavalry of that period (and all cavalry in cavalry on cavalry engagements) generally fought in relatively lose formations to avoid collisions. Btw there is a polish source from the period regarding defeating the feared russian imperial guard cuirassiers - the idea was to drive the point in the top part of the breastplate and allow the geometry to do its job leading the point or the edge straight into the throat area of the opponent. Definitely not easy because russian cuirassiers were modelled after french ones (and therefore had long ass swords giving them the first strike advantage but this simple method was reportedly very effective as proven by the early stages of November insurrection (the in the napoleonic period all polish cavalry I'm aware of used lances)

@@Sk0lzky A heavy cavalry squadron engaged the enemy in two lines, boot to boot. The charge itself would be over a relatively short distance to maintain cohesion. Collisions were rare as one side often gave way before contact.

@@lc1138 I’d like to see Matt bring a 9ft lance onto the show. Similar idea about reach/shock as heavy cavalry at a reduced cost, but essentially light cavalry that could perform those roles (recce, piquet, etc.) .

There's an analogy to be made between heavy horse cav and modern tanks -- both intended to break the enemy line, and then the light cav or dragoons/mechanized infantry riding behind mop up at closer range. The Brits had lancers for the heavy cav role at the time, that's why the sword is so long, it was intended to replace the lance, and the Brits still call their tank battalions "Lancers", in keeping with the tank analogy.

It's not that old, well within modern history. Plenty things that are more fragile are still around.

French cuirassiers also had an enormous battlefield morale factor, as you said they were core of the "charge in the back of a retreating unit" thing, when French troops saw them in action that meant that the Generals,Marshalls,or Napoleon himself considered that it was time to use the advantage and go for total victory, it was a huge boost in confidence and fighting spirit, on the other hand when you were fighting against the French that meant sudden shock and awe that you were loosing and probably should drop your weapon and run for your life while you still can. In that way i'm sure the expense of caring for a cuirassier unit was well worth the investment, they essentially were special forces.They not only had a physical impact on the battlefield but also a big psy op effect on it, they could turn an orderly retreat into a catastrophic debacle by their mere presence.

Try to see the beginning of the movie " Colonel Chabert". There is a spectacular cuirassiers charge against the Russians.

Nowaydays, our French Calvary don't longer use "Cuirassiers" which is sad.😔 Now it's British Cavalry that actual wear it

And a thrusting test too !

I believe the proper sound would be SCHING...steel scabbards!

It sounds like 2 pans being struck en masse

Cette scene est magique.

A thrust during a charge or pass would look and affect much like a cut because the blade would pass in through and out in... unpredictable ways very quickly and violently.

The cuirassier sabre wasn't intended to cut anything, and anyway, it's very hard to cut anything with a straight blade. The cuirassiers were a "shock cavalry" used in a heavy and terrifying mass intended to break the ennemy lines. I guess the guys who were seeing a regiment of cuirassiers charging and shouting at them may more than probably feel a lot of fear, in particular when you know how heavy was a fully equipped cuirassier (already among the tallest and strongest men of the French army) on his horse, the biggest of all French cavalry...

@@laurentdevaux5617 The horses of the Selles Français, a fairly enormous horse weighing at least 500kg plus the 80kg man with weapons and luggage, i.e. almost 600kg launched at full speed and preceded by a huge sword, all lined up in a charging line... Yes, there was something to do in his pants.😥😥

@@laurentdevaux5617 "and anyway, it's very hard to cut anything with a straight blade." This is possibly the most frustrating misconception in arms & armor armchair discussion

@@colbyboucher6391 Are you sure it's a misconception ? Seems you never had a cuirassier sabre in hand (I have one). I won't change my point of view, this terrible weapon wasn't intended to cut anything, it wasn't made for that, a curved sword is much better for that kind of job. Matt Easton said it very clearly, the cuirassier sword was a thrusting weapon, a sort of giant skewer. It was made to be held straight and pierce. Some straight blades may be good at cutting, but not this one, rather difficult to handle in another way, in particular because of its length and its weight

I have an old airfix cuirassier in my stash and just had to open the box to see if the sword was accurate... :)

A cuirassier sword dating from the Napoleonic era isn't that rare (at least in France) and doesn't cost a fortune. You can get one for less than 1 000 euros (one of my friend bought one in an auction for 600 euros), hilt and blade all from the good model, the problem being a lot of them had their tip modified starting 1816. Find a non-modified isn't that easy now, but it's still possible.

Like Laurent said, the swords can still be found for reasonable prices on places like eBay. First Empire helmets and cuirasses are extremely rare though.

I think that's why Matt mentions "on a good day"?

I too understood that they were proof against pistols. One reason for pistols falling out of favour for cavalry offensive use.

To be precise, (and therefore correct), An XIII was the 13th year of the Republic, not the Revolution... The Revolutionary calendar started, retroactively and theoretically, on 22 Septembre, 1792 (day the Republic was established; the Revolution having already started since 1789). Therefore, year XIII of the Revolutionary calendar started on 23 September, 1804 and ended on 22 September, 1805.

@@frontenac5083 Thanks for the clarification, I was being a bit unspeciific in what I said my main point being it wasn't to do with a Napoleonic created system of dating.

Wouldn't you need big sturdy lances (like the ones used by medieval knights) to do the job of a shock cavalry ? If I remember corectly those just didn't exist anymore and the lances were smaller and usually used by light cavalry

@@blitzhill9533 You do remember correctly about the dimensions and use of 18th/19thC lances, but you they'd only need to be big and sturdy to punch through armor (or unhorse a jousting opponent). A lighter lance goes through a uniform coat just fine and - perhaps more importantly - makes it visibly clear that it will do so before your bayonet or sabre has any chance of touching the rider or horse (unlike the subject of this article).

That was my initial thinking. This is less of a big sword and more of a small lance. Presumably to make them far more mobile and maneuverable. It would seem that the cutting edge is primarily there as a backup to increase the versatility. It may also be somewhat vestigial, depending on the exact evolution that the sword and tactics followed.

If you sharpen the edge it would certainly cut to the bone! Perhaps not as efficiently as a 1796 or 1822...but obviously better than a lance.

@@Master...deBater But it wouldn't and couldn't - as Matt clearly explains in the video. He doesn't say that the cuirassiers were too lazy or stupid to sharpen their swords; dullness is inherent in the blades' geometry. From the opening scene, you can see that the grind from the outside ridge of the fuller (1/4" thick or so) to the "edge" is less than half the width of the handguard bars (which are about 3/8"). That's shallower than 45 degrees - like trying to "cut to the bone" with half a pair of scissors. And again, lancers not only could, but did carry backup sabres that gave them options once someone made it past the point.

Chad underfed Kalmyk Mongols vs virgin 6ft tall French Old Guard

Ça devait être fun!

Thanks!

It's the good old "he must be cheating" copium lmao

@@Sk0lzky Pretty much. Reminds me of the Arabs who after their defeat in the 1967 Six Day War, complained that American planes must be supporting the Israelis cause they couldn't accept that the Jews alone had decisively defeated them.

He did that video a year ago - it's titled "Why didn't all CAVALRY use LANCES?"

@@mrhamneggs5295 oh amazing! I'll watch that later, thanks.

By the late 16th century, improvement in armor technology and the introduction of the wheellock pistol had rendered the lance obsolete in western Europe. Do note that most heavy cavalry and pikemen of this period were still clad in plate armor. Given that the lance had absolutely no chance against the shot-proof, heavier plate of the period, while the pistols had some chance, its easy to see why western European cavalry ditched their long poles for the wheellock. The sword was however retained as an all-around useful backup weapon. In eastern Europe plate armor were not so widespread, so lances were a lot more useful and hence quite prevalent. However, as the size of armies in western Europe continued to grow and firearm technology continued to advance, armor were increasingly discarded. By mid 17th century pikemen rarely wore it, while the cavalry were reduced to helmets and breastplates. By the 18th century very few soldiers wore any armor at all. In this environment cold steel became much more useful, and the sword replaced the pistol as the horseman's primary weapon. Many famous military commanders of the era like the Duke of Marlborough and Charles of Sweden forbade their troopers from firing at all during the charge. In this environment of no armor, one would expect the lance to be sooner or later reintroduced. Military conservatism being what it is, however, it took awhile for this to happen in western Europe, the catalyst coming from the east. It finally happened in the early 19th century, when the Poles showed Napoleon how useful their long poles were. After the Napoleonic Wars most European armies again sported regiments of lancers, and the German Army in particular armed all their front rank troopers with it in the 1870's. Ironic given that by that date cavalry charges had became increasingly obsolete.

Not so much punch as resistance to bending with the weight of a horse behind it.

@@thekaxmax yeah, i was finding it hard to put in to words what I meant. Just, a better thrusting capability over all with the huge speed/weight of the horse compared to a lighter sword

It's mainly to do with policy, etiquette, uniformity and general top-down inability to think outside the box. They weren't peasants, they were quite well off and personally if you're a soldier in a war most logical people would supplement themselves out of their own pocket with just about anything they could get away with. If I were in the cavalry I'd carry 2 swords and as many pistols as I could within the realms of practicality. Cost is a bitch yeah but being dead is worse and being crippled for the rest of your life is worse still. They weren't idiots, I cannot fathom a reason that they wouldn't carry additional things outside of their specifications if they were allowed to do so.

I was reading an account of Indian lancers racing into a tribal fort about the end of the 19th century wheeling around amongst them dealt with all of them despite them all having firearms. Well trained, motivated and practiced lancers can wield the lightweight lance about and use both ends even in a confined space. Learning to use a heavy cavalry sword at point is taught more easily and suited better to hastily trained wartime conscripts than the lance which needs practiced professionals to make best use of it. I imagine that in a melee the shown Curassier sword would be swung about like a crowbar to keep the unpleasant gentlemen as far away as possible rather than trying to poke a hole in them.

More nimble, and much more efficient and lethal. As our historian said, a wound inflicted by a cuirassier's sword was most often fatal, which wasn't the case with a lance

Cuirassiers were ubiquitous in most European armies since the late 16th century. They replaced the lance-armed men-at-arms as the primary heavy cavalry of the period, being armed with pistols instead. Originally they were armored almost as completely as the earlier knights/men-at-arms, with the only difference being their lack of lower leg armor, to compensate for their much heavier, now bulletproof breastplate. Over time though they lightened their armor, so that by the mid 17th century cuirassiers only wore a breast-and-back plate and a helmet, and were generally referred simply as 'Horse'. Their armor protection continued to be reduced over time; Seydlitz's cuirassiers only had a front plate and wore no helmet. By the late 18th century they rarely wore any armor at all. Napoleon certainly made waves when he decided to reintroduce the cuirass and helmet in 1802.

Yea, good point, thank you for the reply, some of what you said I didn’t know. I have also heard that the wearing of only a front armor plate was to reduce weight and save the horse’s energy, though that had mixed results, and Cuirassiers with only a front plate were at a disadvantage against more well protected foes. Thoughts?

@@usauk3605 Yes, wearing just the front plate was the normal practice in the 18th century, when cost and weight saving seemed to be of paramount importance. It should be noted that these 18th century front plates were really meant to be bulletproof, and were in consequence quite heavy indeed. Those issued to Frederick the Great's troopers could weight as much as 20 lbs! When Napoleon reintroduced the cuirass, bulletproof-ness seemed to be of secondary consideration to him. French cuirasses of the period were indeed noted to be of dubious value against musket balls, and in fact they were proof tested with just one shot from an unspecified long range. They were also a lot lighter, weighing just 15 lbs for the front AND back plate combined. Supposedly the French practice of armoring both the front and back were considered superior to the Austrians', who only wore the front plate. This was observed in one particular engagement when the French and Austrian cuirassiers repeatedly clashed, with each side pursuing, rallying and counterattacking several times. Since the Austrian heavies had completely exposed backs the French were able to easily stab them from behind while the former was fleeing, but the reverse wasnt true. In consequence the Austrian suffered far heavier casualties than the French. At any rate when the other European nations reintroduced the cuirass during and after the Napoleonic Wars, they followed the French practice.

A cannon ball has a little more momentum than a musket ball LOL.

Merci.