Interesting thread. I just found it, and some questions came to my my head when I read it completely . To begin with, I understood that long straight one-edged swords were used by the cavaly not because some theoretical reasons/preferences over the subject "thrust vs. slash-cut", but because they were designed to penetrate-perforate the cuirasses-protections (since cuirasses were not the only body protection) used by other heavy cavalry corps at the time, and also to make effective cuts but, am I wrong? That need would be also the reason for the appearance of more pointed and rigid (by diamond-shaping the blade) medieval swords, associated with the development of the full plate armour, according with Oakeshott. Sometimes, those long and straight cavalry blades would replace gradually the lances used also by this corps, though the lances did not dissapeared completely. That would explain also the geometry of the hatchet point, since it permits the use of the thicker back of the blade to reinforce the point and give more rigidity to the thrust against body defensive protection, especially in the case of non diamond or non rhombic shaped blades (under this practical light, I feel necessary to re-evaluate the Spanish cavalry sword form this period), isnīt it?
And it is also the reason why some heavy cavalry corps in oriental Europe used a long estoc carried on the saddle as a permanent complement of the curved sabres suspended routinely from their belts or, am I wrong? This last fact, of alternative but consecutive uses, would put the "thrust vs. slash-cut" dicussion on a serious metaphysical contradiction (and on a practical dilemma, for that matter: "what do I do now, perforate him...or slash him...what do I pull?") if the subject is not considered under the more practical terms of purposes related with body armour (even horse armour, in the case of oriental European cavalry fighting against the Turkish), than with wound-effectiveness. Because wound effectiveness also does not explains the fact that frequently, at the same time and in the same army, cavalry troops used a curved sabre, meanwhile infantry troops used a straight sword. Unless a slash from a horseback in more dangerous than a thrust, or a thrust on foot more dangerous than on horseback. Though the curved sabres does not impede thrusts, and straight swords does not impede slashing cuts, and I recall one cavalry very old excersice of thrusting rings suspended from a fixed points (did I see to many Hollywood movies?). And worst yet, that does not explains the fact that some cavalry corps used straight swords, meanwhile other corps in the same army used curved sabres....I feel confussed....
I always thought that the problem of wound effectivenes was seriously considered in the design of sword blades, but I believed it was not the only one, and that the adoption of specific geometries obeyed to more complex and less....theoretical reasons, but I can be mistaken.
I donīt know for sure if this ideas are wrong, so please illuminate me, as I understand that the gradual dissapearance of those long and heavy straight swords is related with the dissapearance of all body protection in the cavalry corps, though not in a linear form, since traditions or preferences related with the tastes of those who decide over the official models (and, as we have seen, they are not always versed on the needs of the field), or the latter irrelevancy in the use of the edged weapons in combat, but for the bayonets, explains the survival of straight swords on the late 19th Centrury-early 20th Century cavalry corps, and the progressively lesser curvature of the sabres. Am I too simplistic or misinformed?
Thank you for your attention.
Regards
Gonzalo