Greetings again Col.
Anyway, I have a question about weapon esoterica that has been bugging me, and hopefully I can draw on your historical expertise.
The question has to do specifically with Horseman's weapons vs Footman's weapons (maces, flails, etc).
Now, my understanding has been that Horseman's weapons were typically smaller/lighter than the footman's weapon of the type, the reasons being that generally only one hand was free (the other hand gripping the reins/shield/etc.) and greater control was necessary in order to avoid cracking one's mount on the head.
This seems to be corroborated by your damage listings for the weapons in 1st Ed. D&D
I recently read (can't remember where) that horseman's weapons needed to be longer, that a greater reach was required since they were striking from atop horseback. Although I don't remember the site, I remember it being reputable.
And both positions sound reasonable, which creates a bit of a tension in terms of developing weapons useful for attacking from horseback.
Any light you can shed on this? Would certainly be appreciated.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
