Liz Gabay wrote:
> Could he be talking about maiming the horse by cutting the tendons in
> legs to cripple it? Or other maiming of the animal?
Cet's reply to his charioteer in the next paragraph makes it clear that
the point here is that Conall had the opportunity to destroy the
horses, but chose not to. Rather, he left behind a sign of his
forebearance or magnanimity or whatever. This may be analogous, across
cultures, to the Plains Indian practice of "coup": deliberately
approaching and touching an enemy in battle without trying to harm him.