I don't deny it, I only said that define something like a cavalry corp as 'the best of its time' is pointless; then we can all agree that they were quite cool looking and efficent, but, anyway, I don't understand how that make you feel better, as you don't have any personal merit on that. Starting from June I will be happy to read the books you suggested, as it's a subject that I've only read in Osprey books. To finish my post, I'm not a "Leftist", but I try to be quite open, as you also may try to be, instead of taking as a personal insult an opinion about a cavalry unit existed four/three hundred years ago. I mainly think from a constructivist point of view, and as I work on nationalist myth and the application of historiography as a political discourse, I really find this interesting. So I don't think is something bad, it's something interesting that you are free to think, but I don't fully approve. Concerning 'facts', I wrote a small post scriptum in a previous post of mine. Talking about facts, and truth, it was something in fashon for methodic and positivistic historiography in the end of the XIX century, not nowadays. See you on the battlefield!