"French carabiniers at Wagram were in bearskins, right?" Topic

Maybe we have got all this the wrong way round. Since the cuirassiers were issued with carbines (in 1812?) they were in fact carabiniers and from that point on there were no cuirassiers in the French army. Discuss.

SJ: Perhaps you do.

What I find interesting is that you aren't asking WHY carabiniers had muskets up until 1809, but in 1811/12, cuirassiers were then issued carbines and the carabiniers were switched to carbines and cuirasses with the change of uniform.

But as the names mean nothing significant, the difference and then change of weapons don't either. A lot of bother for no reason, right? Heavy cavalry is only and always a generic heavy cavalry.

Heavy cavalry is only and always a generic heavy cavalry.

I'm surprised you think that McLaddie. Do you really just lump them all together? Don't you draw any distinction between horse grenadiers, heavy dragoons, Gardes du Corps, cuirassiers with front plates, cuirassiers with front and back plates, cuirassiers with no cuirasses, caribiniers with and without cuirass? I've always thought the differences were quite significant.

"Maybe we have got all this the wrong way round. Since the cuirassiers were issued with carbines (in 1812?) they were in fact carabiniers and from that point on there were no cuirassiers in the French army. Discuss."

This is the funniest comment I've ever read on here.

I'm surprised you think that McLaddie.

SJ:
I can imagine. I don't believe that. The last two sentences are what you and others like Old Glory *seem* to be saying in response to my suggestion that maybe the Carabiniers where used in 'un-cuirassier-like' ways.

Gardes du Corps, cuirassiers with front plates, cuirassiers with front and back plates, cuirassiers with no cuirasses, caribiniers with and without cuirass? I've always thought the differences were quite significant.

Significant differences? I didn't get that impression from your comments. How are they significant beyond appearances?
[I certainly do think they were significant because they were significant enough for military men of the period to spend time and money on the differences for what seem to be fairly-apparent reasons.

I'm surprised you think that McLaddie.

SJ:
I can imagine. I don't believe that. The last two sentences are what you and others like Old Glory *seem* to be saying in response to my suggestion that maybe the Carabiniers where used in 'un-cuirassier-like' ways.

My apologies McLaddie, I thought you were stating your opinion and in fact you were telling me mine. Schoolboy error on my part.

Tragically, I was once used in an 'un-cuirassier-like' way. But I don't like to talk about it and I would rather draw a veil over the whole sorry affair. Truth to tell I was dressed as a carabinier at the time so some might say I had it coming.

Tragically, I was once used in an 'un-cuirassier-like' way but I would rather draw a veil over the whole sorry affair. Truth to tell I was dressed as a carabinier at the time so some might say I had it coming.

It happens.

Tragically, I was once used in an 'un-cuirassier-like' way. But I don't like to talk about it and I would rather draw a veil over the whole sorry affair. Truth to tell I was dressed as a carabinier at the time so some might say I had it coming.

It must have been a dark and strange night when you stumbled into the Hussar encampment.

It must have been a dark and strange night when you stumbled into the Hussar encampment.

Indeed it was. Stormy too. I saw things that night no man should see. Were I so inclined I could a tale unfold whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres, thy knotted and combined locks to part and each particular hair to stand on end, like quills upon the fretful porpentine.

But as I said, I don't like to talk about it.

This is the funniest exchange I've seen on here since the summit of bricoles.