Talk:Harquebusier

The pic shows only a breastplate, not a breast-and-back plate, which would accord with the lower cost of armor. Buff coat to stop saber slashes, helmet to stop cuts to the head, cuts to the leg difficult with the horse in the way (buff coat doubtless helped). Theblindsage (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

However, the photo shows both breast and backplate, which was the more frequently worn combination for the fully developed harquebusier of c. 1625-1690. The illustration is from an early 17th century manual, illustrating a very early harquebusier - the archaic features include a morion helmet and a matchlock firearm. Urselius (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"The term harquebusier"

I'm trying to write a standard first sentence that would begin "A harquebusier was" but it keeps getting reverted. The topic is "harquebusier" not "The term harquebusier". Bhny (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The world does not always fit in witth Wikipedia usages. Here you have a type of cavalry which was common to western, northern and central Europe known by different names in different regions. Urselius (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything has different names in different countries. I'm not sure how this is unique to this topic. Bhny (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The real subject of the article is "the most common form of cavalryman found throughout Western Europe during the early and mid 17th century", but that does not make a useful title. Harquebusier is probably the best term we have, but even in England such cavalry were more often called, simply, "Horse" - also a problem as a title for obvious reasons. Harquebusier was more of a technical term, and even this usage has problems, as the type of cavalryman changed over time and in the later period they often didn't have the carbine (harquebus) which gave them their name in the first place.

Harquebusier is therefore a useful term to hang "the most common form of cavalryman found throughout Western Europe during the early and mid 17th century" on, but it isn't a hard-and-fast definition and cannot be used as such without some qualification - which the use of "term" supplies. Urselius (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I made an attempt at a new lead paragraph. But anyway saying something is the term for the meaning is just redundant. "Term" isn't adding a qualification. The qualification can come after- <word> is <meaning> with <qualification>.