Curve a sword; accentuate cutting at the cost of reach. Shift the balance further back; improve point control at the cost of chopping power. It all goes back to one of the biggest lessons I've learned from this channel. There are few (if any) free lunches in sword design. To gain in one area one must usually sacrifice at least somewhat in another. Whether that sacrifice is worthwhile or not depends on, well, context!
I remember reading a historical account where Spanish troops in the Philippines would often have their sabres with complex guard get snagged by the bushes and branches while trekking in the jungle.
I have heard this too. I live near a bamboo grove & in the summer getting into the new growth is not easy; it's much like a jungle. I generally carry swords nor wear them to go cut but even so shorter swords & less complex hilts are noticeable easier to carry into the dense growth. Like Matt says it's context. In the Philippines shorter swords with simple hilts we're easier to carry in their environment & could double as jungle knives/machete. European side swords & sabers are long, the hilts definitely snag & are not really great as machete. But in the open battlefields of Europe longer swords with complex hilts do have an advantage over shorter simple hilted swords. It's definitely interesting to see how environment effects weapon design as it's a less talked about reason.
@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 That level of intricate guard was a technological leap. More likely they didn’t have the sword smiths that knew how to make them.
Completely agree with you here, Matt. I'm comfortable fighting with my messer against nearly any type of sword. Just participated in a stout blade tournament this past weekend where I swept my pool that were using claymores (basket hilted) and sideswords/arming swords. Not once during that tournament was I hit in the hand despite only having a cross guard and nagel.
Given that a complex hilt allows one to use more aggressive, hands-forward guards compared to medieval swords where the hands are usually retracted, doesn't a complex hilt in fact protect more than just the wrist, as your head and legs also get less exposed?
That's kind of complex to answer, because while the medieval guard positions are often (not always - longpoint etc) retracted, as soon as you start to attack or defend, the weapon comes to the front in a similar position to something like a rapier or sabre.
2 года назад+5
@@scholagladiatoria But then you loose the time you need to set your blade that way, isn't that counter-productive with the idea to be quicker? Or am I completely wrong?
In those eras without a large handguard, you could be wearing a gauntlet and armor instead. Handguards dont provide the best protection when you have full armor, they are merely a compromise for a world that doesnt wear armor on the daily for various reasons yet expects to be sword fighting.
Only if it gets in the way of an attack. The area is fairly small. Another point is what the person is wearing, no reason for a basket hilt if in full plate armour with gauntlets. For that a simple metal disk as with a rondel dagger is a better option. Chain mail would also reduce the need for this. Sabre and basket hilts only really seem to get started as armour vanishes due to guns?
Yes, it does, assuming unarmored combat. George Silver's guardant fight is a great example of this. It wouldn't work so well with a simple cross guard.
I'm still convinced this was another thing that was to do with the wielder's preference. Personally I have a ring hilted bastard sword and a swept hilt sidesword, I like being able to block and strike properly with the hilt (I'm not a fan of the murder stroke) but prefer being able to use a handshake grip so I'm not a lover of complete guards. Also wandering around with them is so much easier, even my scottish cousins that use the claymore with the complete guard don't really wear them
In self teaching myself swords in the early 90s (90-95) I started with a diagram of French stick fighting & adapted it to swords. I discovered the European manuals in around 1999 or 2000 so that added much to what I was doing. But early on I learned to not rely on a guard for protection but to see it as a backup insurance. In stick fighting, generally, you have no guardb so even a medieval cross guard is a jump in protection. One must be very mindful of hand position how to attack & defend without getting ones hand hit. One thing I learned early on was parry with the upper forte away from your hand! When applied to swords with simple guards this means if the opponents blade slides down you have a moment to position the guard to intercept it. Complex hilts allow one to party closer to the guard, have better leverage & be safer in a bind; especisllybwhen fighting in a bind. With simpler hilts a brief bind or quick parry can help keep your hand(s) moving & away from danger. Obviously there are exceptions such as in longsword when fighting in a bind but having a simple cross guard. These are my finds and certainly could be debated, but in a nutshell less hand protection necessitates parrying further up the blade & keeping the sword moving freely. More guard allows parrying closer to the hilt, allows more bind work safely & allows one to hold forward guards more stagnantly.
do single knuckle bow guards have roughly the same weight in general as crossguards? since the back quillon tends to be around half as long as a cross guard and that mass is instead distributed in the bow. I think another thing to mention is simply how the weight is distributed in addition to total weight difference.
I think some folk, think everything is a competition. But like life itself it’s subjective. Loving your channel and if I was healthier. After watching your weapons fighting tuition camp. I would be there. Would like to see more of the sparring. Especially between yourself and other’s as proficient . This is how history should be taught at comprehensive school. Much easier for young minds to enjoy and remember. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.
I think that part of that comes from games, first tabletop RPGs like D&D then later video games where for game mechanics, everything is quantified and rated against each other.So you get sword A is better than sword B because of X.
@@Oooo-bi7bi That it probably not the sole (or necessarily primary) reason, although it is definitely a contributing factor. Modern economics and logistics also place quite a lot of emphasis on marginal comparisons.
@@NevisYsbryd I’m just interested in human behaviour. Studied a tiny bit of marketing as part of my qualifications for work. Remember them saying it’s about needs and wants. The trade I learnt as a kid is butchery. With something that resembles a knife I can break down a whole beast. It’s quicker and easier if I use a proper boning knife but I can and have done the same with a penknife in the field. It’s because of my training and the amount of times I’ve done it. So I can relate this to other subjects. Bought myself a decent guitar for the first time a few years ago. It’s easier to keep in tune and nice to play. But I know a professional guitarist can make any guitar sound good. So forgive my waffling but I’m thinking are sword manufacturers or people themselves creating this scale of quality. I do it myself. I have top of the range if I can afford it but pretty sure I could get away with the basic model
It would be interesting to see how does the increased popularity of more ‘complete’ hilt effect the way people design swords as a whole. For example, would swordsmith at the time when complex hilt is the norm deliberate make blade lighter so that the whole sword (blade + hilt) won’t get too heavy?
I would say that's almost certainly true, given that military sabres of the 18-19th centuries were usually no heavier than sideswords of the middle ages. Often they were significantly lighter, even though they had more hand protection. I'd say bladesmiths got off easy in design choices though, since improvements in metallurgy gave them more advanced design options.
Well, depends. Highland broadswords used with shields could get heavy. Stocatta has one which basically has an 7 inch point of balance and weights flipping 3 pounds. When you have a good shield, sword nimbleness doesn’t as much cus your shield is your main defense.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 That would be a fairly good cutter. Though I suppose the value of the basket hilt would drop significantly if you primarily fight with shield.
Hi Matt, I believe a shell, cup or sabre hilt may not be so much important in defence as it is in riposte, it allows you to stay on your opponent's blade and thrust in opposition This may be more relevant for rapiers and smallswords for this very reason.
@@killerkraut9179 well, the risk you run with a simple cross is that the side of your hand and thumb is more prone to cuts as the opposing blade slides down yours on to your guard. Do not underestimate the effect a cut on your hand makes to your ability to use your hand. Then again, I have two main swords that I use (I have both a sharp and blunt training version of each): one's a M1902 saber with a different guard (which I use more in the Spanish saber style of Jaime Merelo), and the other is essentially a type XVI Arming sword blade with finger rings and a connecting ring (used prodominantly in a mix of Destreza Verdadera (Thibault and Rada) and Destreza Vulgar (Godinho, Meyer). I use the arming sword against rapier, "Side Sword", and sword+buckler; and I don't see any real problems. There was only one time that a spatulated tip, narrow bladed rapier blade happened to slip through the ring and get me in the hand, but that's it; and I doubt I will ever see that happen again in my time fencing. The connecting ring (or a nagel) provided enough side of hand protection that as you wind, your thumb/ hand is protected; without the hilt being obtrusive or overly heavy. It's all about angles, and shifting the grip to keep your hand safe (ish).
11:00- somewhat reminiscent of adding armor to fighter aircraft; it can help in certain ways, but on the other hand a fighter predominantly defends itself by maneuvering. The armor is there for when maneuver fails, and too much makes the plane heavy and sluggish.
7:50 Just a small correction. Adding more mass to the sword increases its inertia, and its rotational inertia (meaning it is less nimble), regardless if it is added behind or in front of the center of rotation. Adding mass behind the center rotation does counteract the torque put on the sword by gravity though, which is a different mechanism.
Interestingly enough, large hand guards by that logic don't actually aid in counteracting torque since they tend to be put in front of the center of rotation which in sword terms would be the place where your hand rotates the sword and actually adds more torque due to the extra mass of the guard adding to the gravitational force.
@@JZBai Yes. I don't see anything wrong with that statement. If you have an armingsword and just add rings to the crossguard, I think that logic makes sense. If you are comparing how an armingsword behaves compared to a rapier, then that logic wouldn't apply because the mass of those swords are distributed completely different.
In addition, there is the economics of protection. Figure, in battle a knightly longsword was held by someone wearing armour bought with his own funds in an economy designed to filter the wealth up to him. What the hilt lacks in protection, the gauntlets will forgive in an emergency. They could skimp a bit on the hand protection because the hands themselves were armoured. Cavalry sabres and even Highlander full baskets were supplied by the state (or, were designed to state requirements). The state did not want to pay for everyone's gauntlets, plus it's really hard to manipulate a musket or wheel lock in anything more than gloves. So the sword needs to respond to the financial and physical needs of the state that provides and the soldier who wields. The guard ends up covering the middle ground between "my hand needs protecting" and "the Treasury's not paying that!" To quote the drill sergeant in Old Man's War, "There has never been a military in the entire history of the human race that has gone to war equipped with more than the least that it needs to fight its enemy. War is expensive. It costs money and it costs lives and no civilization has an infinite amount of either. So when you fight, you conserve. You use and equip only as much as you have to, never more." And don't get me started on how the metallurgy and manufacturing alters the guard! Stronger steels and the advent of specialised factories usually meant you could do more with less....
Interesting point. Although the basket hilt definitely develops before standard issue swords, later on when swords were standardized your point certainly applies. Thanks for sharing the idea
thanks for sharing that brother, everyone concentrates so much on the "exciting" bits and we forget that it all happened in a social and economic context.
I think you are pretty much on the money here. I had a number of weapons teachers. They all told me that the hand was the primary target, since, it can be hit without putting your body in range of their weapon and a couple of good strikes makes the opponents weapon unusable. I agree that a fully armoured hand did not require an elaborate guard, where as a completely unprotected hand was a liability. I also agree with your reasoning that a custom made gauntlet was very expensive, where as a standardised basket was a bargain in comparison
@@chroma6947 the blade is definitely important, but so to is protection. If one needed no protection on the battlefield shields & armor would never have been used. When shields were no longer carried and less & less armor worn ... Well hands are vulnerable & if hit there immediately disabling. A sword with less hand protection was often paired with a shield, buckler or used in armor. With no protective gear the sword begins to be used more for direct defense which puts ones hand in more exposed positions. A more developed guard is a very good thing when doing so.
Very similar points to the discussion of shield vs buckler, the latter being much more convenient to carry and arguably able to defend a much larger area due to being lighter, more mobile and able to be held out at arm’s length. Back when I was training regularly in the Bolognese style there was a repeated line about a buckler being the world’s largest shield, it just came in in instalments.
The lack of worn hand protection (gauntlets etc) in later periods probably explains the greater emphasis on hand protection. Also fashion, when the blade is away 99.9% of the time how do you show your craftsmanship as a swordsmith and how do you show your wealth as a customer 🤔
i think when i thrust and penetrate with my stiff sword, and when i defend myself from getting penetrated, i prefer to have more protection, but sometimes i go risky
When I was younger & had played with fewer swords I did feel a basket hilt, particularly a certain type of German basket hilt, was the best single-handed sword possibly. Then I posted & cut with some basket hilts... While i certainly feel confident & my hand well protected in a basket hilt they tend to also feel a bit restrictive. They tend to feel nimble, yet oddly sluggish due to the weight. I'll still say they are the best for hand protection, but I think I'd rather fight with a good side sword. There is no overall best sword. Just what works best for someone in a given context.
One small point I think you missed: that medieval arming sword was designed to be used with a shield and with armour and you have previously shown how well the shield protects the sword hand. Whereas the later swords are designed to be used on their own with no shield and some or no armour. You also have also demonstrated that you fight in a different way: with a shield you are (more or less) square on but with a basket-hilted sword you are either on horse or (more or less) side on, minimising your profile. You briefly touched on antiquity: was casting a bronze basket hilted sword beyond the ability of the time?
@@QuentinStephens From some very quick research Early mitten like ones (no separate fingers) in the 12th century. The more advanced style with separate fingers in the gauntlet, around the early to mid 14th century.
Great vid as usual - I'm convinced by your argument...the point that won it for me was "swords defend you with the blade, not the hilt" - I'd never given it enough thought and was a confirmed basket hilt advocate but now I'm a convert!
Another aspect is being able to draw the sword quickly. It's primarily a sidearm, after all. Civilian self-defense swords tend to have very open and often minimalistic hilts. Shashka, katana or even a smallsword are easier to draw in a hurry than a full basket-hilt. Similarly, complex hilts on your sidearm may not help, when you have to ditch the pike or a lance and quickly grab something more suited for crowded melee. And indeed, the labor and skill required to make a basket hilt is not trivial. A modern bladesmith said in a video, that he expects that more or less every blacksmith back then could forge a blade. A bit better, slightly worse, but a serviceable blade nonetheless. While creating even a fairly simple hilt was not tivial. If it involved lots of small forge-welds, it was even more difficult. They didn't have MIG welders back then. Only a fire, which couldn't be applied precisely to the spot you needed hot, and then you had to hammer the pieces together. Not trivial, without distorting the whole structure. It could be done, obviously, but it wasn't easy.
Rapiers & so-called sideswords were civilian self-defense swords, yet they often had elaborate hilts. Some rapiers had absurdly long blades too. This definitely made drawing swiftly a challenge. With practice, it's possible to rapidly deploy even long rapier with an intricate hilt.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 The way Silver describes the influence of rapiers, it looks like they were more of a dueling weapon. It worked more like a deterrent, than a weapon of choice in case you were jumped by a ruffian in a dark alley. Of course, in case of that, usually you'd have a dagger, which was much quicker to deploy. Anyway, cultural influences sometimes trumped pure practicality. Otherwise it's hard to explain why an army would adopt a weapon optimized for quick drawing, like the Russians did with shashka. The sheath construction alone makes it a questionable choice, because water can drip into the scabbard, which is a big deal. Yet they done it, which means that not every choice people make is always optimal for the purpose. The general trend seems to be clear nonetheless.
@@bakters Silver still recommended a basket-hilted sword with a 37-40in blade, & ridiculed the claim that such a full hilt made the sword too hard to draw swiftly. Lots of 16th/17th-century fencers favored complex hilts & long blades. Gérard Thibault included techniques for how to rapidly deploy a rapier with a blade a few inches longer than Silver's, in the context of a street argument. He did consider rapiers with blades longer than his favored length too difficult to quick draw. Nick Thomas has a video of deploying a long rapier under pressure with surprising speed. All things being equal, a shorter blade will always draw faster, but a practiced wielder can draw a long blade with a complex hilt fast enough in most cases.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 It looks like you rather support my argument than weaken it with all those examples. Apparently, plenty of people considered complex hilts and long blades to be a hindrance when the weapon needed to be deployed quickly. If you look how shashka is drawn, a knuckle bow or even a cross-guard would slow the movement down. You can do it one handed from under the cloak. Really fast. A good guy will deliver the cut before the rapier is fully out of the scabbard.
Another consideration that doesn't often get mentioned. You only need protection when your hand would be hit. So awareness that you hand could be hit and Skills to reduce or eliminate the possiblity make a protective hilt less necessary necessary. However we engage in risk benefit and so if add greater protection we instinctively take greater risk, thereby increasing the likelihood of the event happening and when what protections are in place fail, that can be seen as a justification or example of why protection or more protection is needed. There's plenty of research in a range of fields showing this in other activities where risk is a factor. Secondary, reducing the consequences in kne area may increase dangers/consequences elsewhere, especially when combined with potential increase in risk taking and other factors you mentioned.
The basket hilt and such like were also seldom used with any hand armour (as far as I know), whereas in earlier centuries the cross hilt style were frequently used in association with some form of armoured gauntlet..
more hand protection is also going to mean you fumble more often drawing the sword and you lose some flexibility in grip positions. depending on the style of basket you might even have trouble using it with your other hand.
Of course not, some (defensive) techniques can be literally impossible to perform, as you explained in the Swiss sabre episode iirc (not to mention failing to draw the sword because it caught on the clothes, as these horrible mid XVIII century disk guard swords love to do), and the shift in balance resulting from the larger guard literally robs the blade of inertia making beats difficult and risky (idk, is this why XIX century masters preferred static parries but I suspect it has a lot to do with the weight)
Another great video Matt, but I feel you missed out on another reason for choosing a particular type of hilt and that is gloves and gauntlets. For instance a classical cross hilted medieval sword would most like be worn with mail or plated gauntlets of some description, where as a later basket hilt or half basket would be wielded with bare hands or light leather gloves.
Apologies if I missed it, but I think another consideration is how the weapon was intended to be used. Full hand protection makes little sense for a two-handed sword, one where a second hand may or may not be employed depending on the intended strike/parry, one used in a way in which grips shift a fair amount, or even one used in a manner that uses a lot of wrist movement in all three dimensions etc.etc. They also probably make little sense for a weapon intended as a backup, which needs to be drawn quickly while under serious stress and pressure e.g. Opponent has grabbed your polearm, and you have a quarter of a second to get a point/edge in under their arm while you abandon your primary weapon.
Quite a few British swords no longer have their leather guard liners. They tend to rust the guard and get stained by the rust and in time are discarded. However liners allow guards to be decorated with perforations. Cavalry swords were worn on the saddle depending, so you could have a larger guard. I am a believer in retaining my thumbs or you won’t be holding anything!
This discussion couples well with your hand injury video. It seems likely that more hand protection was useful in 1 on 1 duels or civilian unarmored defense situations where the person was wearing less body armor on the rest of their body regardless of the time period. The fight context that a particular sword was likely used in also has a huge impact on how useful the more complex/heavy guards are. To reference your hand injury video line of reasoning, in unarmored duels or self defense versus bandits and other situations where sniping the hands was more likely, having something close to a buckler on your sword hand becomes much more appealing than it would if you were in full plate harness where hand attacks were mitigated by gauntlets/vambraces. In later periods, when sabers become more common, it was also coupled with an increasing lack of full body armor due largely to the increased use of firearms, so even in skirmish and dense melee fighting, the general lack of armor (particularly on arms and hands) would have offset the negative effects of added weight to the sword somewhat and increased active defense capacity.
This idea of active defense is absolutely a core fundamental of Chinese swordsmanship, and exactly why you don't see large hand guards on Chinese weapons, despite them existing on training weapons going all the way back to the Han dynasty. Chinese sword defense is almost always active parrys, not passive blocks.
@meatandmeat They are historical, but much more modern, mostly 19th century from what I have seen. One half of the Z forms kind of a half knuckle bow, the top half of the Z is allegedly for catching and manipulating the opponents blade. I have studied some 19th century dadao and even then that type of guard seemed rare, most had a very small cross guard, more of a hand stop. The Chinese did have full hand protection and knuckle bows on swords going all the way back to the Roman era, so the idea wasn't lost on them, it's just extremely interesting that it was only for training. To me it signifies that that during repetitive training they wanted to minimize hand injury, but in a life or death fight they preferred the quickness of the blade over the hand protection. No point having pristine hands if you are dead.
Just want to point out too, (and this goes hand in hand with what you're saying), that hand guard size, may largely have to do with the fighting style of the sword. If you look all around the world: swords that emphasize slashing, over stabbing: all tend to have smaller hand guards. Japanese Katanas, Chinese Daos, Indian Talwars, the Egyptian Kopesh, Arabian Scimitars, Western Cavalry Sabers... etc., all those have smaller hand guards. The style of those kinds of weapons is to slash the blade back and forth and so the momentum of the blade itself has a guard effect in that it deflects other weapons as you swing it, and hence a smaller hand guard is fine. Even the Chinese Jian, which is a straight sword, has a small hand guard and the Jian is meant to be used with a constantly spinning, fluid slashing fighting style that deflects oncoming blades. However, if you have a sword that is meant more as a jabbing, thrusting weapon, the way many European swords are: it makes sense to have a larger hand guard, as you are extending your hand and forearm way out in front of you to make stabbing thrusts. Your hand is going to be more vulnerable, more often and so you'll want to protect your hand more as a result.
Hand guards that cover the hand are an advantage in LRP, eliminates rakes across the knuckles which count in most rules/systems as a full blow for damage.
There are photographs of highland officers in the field up to and including WW1 where the basket hilt has been replaced with a cross guard on active service.
@@Dynogone link to photo of Gordon Highlander officers i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/2a/5e/7e2a5ed8bff5fb0e753b028d9dafbf45.jpg i.pinimg.com/originals/de/a4/65/dea4652dc237fa3f62afad82d0c30ed3.jpg
I feel like hand protection also follows a law of diminishing returns. Going from a simple cross and adding a knucklebow I find really increases the hand protection, but between a shell hilt and a cup hilt, I don't feel much difference. Especially if you consider that hand protection also dissuades your opponent from attacking your hand. A hand protected by two side bars is as little a tempting target as one protected by a full swept hilt.
Even though I done martial arts and I don't really have any experience in sword fighting other then a brief period of foil fencing so I don't think I'm the best person to give an informed answer on this but I tend to like the idea of fairly large guards and I tend to be a sucker guards even though I know that having fairly large or big guards are far from being the end all be all or everything.
In a similar way, is it useful to use different material for say any sword from steel into aluminium, or titanium, or any other lighter material (then steel)? Have they been used before 1900? The main idea is to have a very nimble sword/quick sword which still does decent damage to unprotected areas. I assume steal plated armour would resist it any day (but maybe I'm wrong) I did some quick google search and at least today aluminium swords exist, but maybe only decorative or in roleplay, unsure.
Allow me to come back to these considerations and emphasize that on a battlefield the sword is indeed most of the time only a side weapon. The main weapon then being rather a pole weapon, the fighter will therefore seek above all protection for his hands in the context of the use of it, which will probably lead him to wear protection directly on his hand, like an armored glove (I leave aside the shield option). In this context, where he must already manage the weight of a metal glove, adding weight to his sword without adding any advantage (since his hand is already protected) turns out to be rather an annoyance. This probably explains why for a long time the cross guard was preferred. Moreover, the semi-basket hilt or basket hilt began to become really popular at the time when firearms became predominant on the battlefield, but the use of these did not go well with wearing armored gloves, these quickly disappeared from military equipment and this may partly explain the fact that the semi-basket hilt or basket hilt has become an interesting option in the event of close combat. Oh, sorry I saw only after writing this comment that many had already mentioned this idea ;)
Does this context suggest that a stronger person may defend longer with a basket hilt and a not so strong person may up survival rate by using a lighter minimalist weighted or even 2 handed sword?
Doesn't a sabre type hilt allow a lighter pommel weight so there might be additional weight, but maybe less than that 15-20%, and maybe more like 8-12%
That's a tricky one to answer. Early basket hilted swords have pommels - they are essentially a medieval one-handed sword with a basket attached. Later sabres often don't need a pommel, but that's partly because they are overall lighter weapons, with lighter blades. But even then, some sabres do still have a form of pommel.
While the issue of how to avoid/prevent opening a vulnerability to the hand is obviously crucial, I think asking about the "defense" role of a feature gets us into a conceptualization where one pictures offense and defense as separate things one does or doesn't do, while my (admittedly far less than Matt's) experience and training has been that they are seamless and completely intertwined. Every thing I've learned suggests that how one probes, feints, and seeks openings, is happening simultaneously as one responds to the range, movement, and threats presented. It feels very very similar (absent getting my ears rung) to playing music live with others. This hugely oversimplified comparison is intended for people who have not handled or sparred with hand to hand weapons. Dancing too has some striking parallels to this sort of encounter, though the contexts seem diametrically opposed in intent.
I'm seeing the question from a completely different perspective. Different swords are wielded with different styles of motion, and to a great extent, the size of the hand guard reflects the vulnerability of the hand. This is most clearly illustrated in the development of the rapier, where early cut-and-thrust weapons had relatively simple guards, but as the weapons began to be used in a more standardized, guard-forward, thrust-dominant way, the hand became more of a static target and needed more protection. You can look at swords from other lands to see this clearly-- Middle Eastern and eastern European swordsmen tend to have swords with small guards that are swung very broadly so that the hand is always in motion and less vulnerable. On the other side of the spectrum, the German Schlaeger is used in a way that the hand is always in one place and always vulnerable (even if not a target according the the rules), and that has a guard the size of a watermelon (a small one, anyway).
Hello. Thank you very much for your channel. I always though that more minimalistic early swords were accompanied with another type of hand guard - the gauntlet. This kind of protection will never stop any hard blow on your fingers, but it will save your hand from quick and light hits that may potentially cut the finger off and finish any fight with that. So when the armor weight and all around amount of it started to go down, any smart person would still want to have his fingers protected. And the half-basket hilt is something that is sufficient enough, whilst full basket is redundant. Yes, it is better protection, but it is more weigh and less comfort, less skill, like you perfectly said. So, the point I am going to is: yes, your thoughts are correct, but only if we compare half-baskets and full-baskets. Taking simple cross guard as example for comparison is a mistake due to is accompanied with another form of finger protection - gauntlet. If it is not, user is at risk of get a short quick hit to the hand and loose his finger.
Note about the mass: A crossguarded sword usually has more mass in the pommel then a baskethilted one. This means the might even have the same weight but the point ob balance of the crossguarded one would be lower.
Some very good points made. It would be cool to see video games; and even series' and movies, to the extent that they can; (which feature melee-combat) paying a bit more attention to the defensive aspects of various weapons. Whereas they all too often focus purely on the offensive aspects. Because really; with the exception of maybe a few particularly reckless and bloodthirsty individuals; most people would be far more interested in surviving a fight, than in the slaying of an opponent. I know I certainly would be! :)
I think it depends on your swordsmanship style... the transition to thrusting swords and the abandonment of shields/bucklers/capes/parrying daggers (as well as the practices of rapier/smallsword/modern fencing dueling practices - not battlefield combat) increased the need for larger and more elaborate hand guards. You can also see the evolution continuing in hilt design as the fencing blades switched to the "pinch"/pistol grips for sport fencing. European swords starting adding those knuckle bows, side bars, etc. as metallurgy advanced and as a demonstration of the swordmaker's art. The same protective bits you see on the larger zweihanders, etc. may have been more useful against spears and pikes than other swords. And yes, the metal gauntlet performed a similar protective function but faded away as soldiers and officers stopped wearing full body armor. If you look at non-European swords, many of them have rudimentary or practically non-existent hand guards as body movement and non-thrusting blade styles didn't emphasize them in combat (i.e., the sword designed as a primary weapon rather than an adjunct to firearms on the battlefield) and they were less cumbersome to wear as well. For example, the Chinese jian straight sword (tai chi sword) - used into the 20th century, has a fairly rudimentary cross or small cup guard. Chinese swordsmanship allows strikes to the hand and the arms without any kind of Marquis de Queensberry-style prohibitions in fighting, and likewise for the Japanese katana and wakizashi or the shashka of the Russian Cossacks. Similar principles apply to knives. Some people like a large guard on the knife to protect the hand and to prevent it slipping on the edge, others prefer little or no guard. Some users of Ka-Bar knives cut the back part of the guard off as it interfered with its use in some cutting tasks and the Ek commando knife has a relatively small guard.
Captain Context rides again. 😉 And even more than context, simply: Trade-offs, personal preference--and educated guesswork on the part of each person on which trade-offs (*if* differences even prove relevant in an actual fight) end up counting. Educated guesses that still, in any given situation, might still prove to be wrong. (Hey, in blackjack you definitely should stand on a 20 against a dealer's 13. Still doesn't mean they can't draw an 8.
The best type of flying horse is a crossbred unicorn and pegasus. It is known by different names depending on the historical context, but mainly under the title "pegacorn". It is the ultimate in bling rides with at least 157.3 times the street cred of any sportscar. It is a contentious matter, but many argue that it is an even more impressive method of transport than a haunted pirate ship. My own personal feelings are that a haunted pirate ship is better for impressing male friends, but the horned and winged pegacorn is a huge hit with the ladies.
The hand is the part of the body that is usually closest to the opponent during a fight, though. It's obviously a good place to prioritise for additional protection. If you get hit in the hand and drop your sword, then the blade can't defend any other part of you anyway. It's not really surprising that more complex hilt designs became so popular.
Hence, very complex-hilted "zweihanders" aren't really a thing (although if anyone has any exceptions, I'd love a link) I am aware that some had a couple of large side-rings...
@@lunacorvus3585 No not really. You will have to research it yourself. A long time ago before there was the internet or cellphones I dabbled in Japanese Kenjustu for a few years. I had two instructors, who were better than Matt Easton. You can believe that if you want or not, I do not care. It was from these instructors that I first learned about this. Later on, when I studied at the university, I do remember reading it in a couple of books, so it must be well documented. Think of the Samurai. Think of Bushido. In feudal Japan the individual was not important and the life of the individual samurai was not as important as his loyalty to his lord and his honor. Dedication and commitment to technique were important. It was far more important to kill the enemy or the person that you were dueling and to save the lord or your honor (respectively) than it was to worry about a few fingers or a hand. Connections to this life were not important. Honor, dedication, loyalty and commitment were. This of course was the IDEAL and a great many people did not live up to it. I am not saying that it is worthy to live up to or not, I am just saying that there were people who lived by this codex in feudal Japan (for that matter in other places as well) and there were people, who did not live up to it. To be clear, I am not saying that they ran out there willy-nilly with their hands and fingers exposed on purpose, so that they could be chopped off! It was not a preferred tactic. Don't misunderstand me. That would just be stupid! But it was an attitude and I am pretty certain there are still techniques to this day that are taught along these lines. You ought to be able to find them. All I am saying is, that to achieve their goals, under certain situational circumstances, they were prepared to sacrifice. In a given situation, it was better for them to sacrifice their fingers or their hand in order to kill their enemy. These men had that presence of mind to make a split second choice and not think twice about themselves. There are still people, who live like this today. They live by a warrior codex that they are committed to. I am not saying it is good or bad or more or less honorable or worthy. It just is a thing that is. You can scoff at that or doubt it if you want. I do not care. There are techniques that teach this sort of thing and books that document it, but you will have to find them yourself. I am not that interested in it.
@@KlausBeckEwerhardy Your problem is wanting to fight in the first place. The goal is to be committed to your attack and to kill your enemy for your honor and your lord. Your fingers do not matter. Don't mind your beard when your head is about to be taken. If you live and are missing a few fingers, it is better than being dead. If you have the opportunity to kill the enemy and save your honor and your lord, would you miss that opportunity, because of your fingers? Then you are not a warrior. If you live, your wife and children can feed you cookies. If you are dead, even fingers will not help you.
Hand-guards serve a purpose that very few talk about: they offer a means to use your hands when getting back up from a fall! A decent guard lets you do 'push-ups' while holding the weapon. Getting back up quickly keeps you fighting.
The sort of hilt that swords were made with can be correlated quite well with how highly, during a particular period of history, the fingers and knuckles were valued. During the Viking era, for example, the Vikings did not highly value fingers as they had plentiful slaves which had all the fingers they needed.
If you are wearing a meaty set of gauntlets, do you need a huge basket hand guard? Or is just enough to deflect the sword away (like a flat piece of metal as a hand guard). I think the bigger hand guards came around because gauntlets stopped being worn. Be them leather or metal hand coverings. So in place they moved to a bigger hand guard. A result of guns existing possibly? You need free uncovered hands to shoot the gun or hold the horse reins. So because of this the guards of the hands moved from hand coverings (gauntlets and heave gloves) to the hand guard of the sword.
That title makes me think of another subject you might consider covering: Effects of hand size and pommel size in swords, compensating in combat for small or weak hands, etc. Combat while one hand is immobilized/missing. Seriously.
I'd be interested in this: I am right-handed but I smashed my elbow in a motorcycle accident some years ago and now don't have the full range of motion: I'd be curious if there is a style of sword or style of sword-fighting that would best suit me.
I've always been surprised that more swords don't have forward facing blade traps incorporated into the guards. It would give a huge leverage advantage and control the opponents weapon. A full basket could be stamped and pierced 18ga sheetmetal. A 3 bar would be .25"+- weighing about the same or possibly more. A pierced stamped and hardened 18ga guard would have minimal weight and maximum protection allowing for more pommel weight to perfect the balance. I do agree that the Sabre Guard is a great balance of protection and encumbrance.
As a hiker I very much agree about comfort. Many military and fantasy weapons that people describe as "the best" would be absolutely miserable to take on a 3 day hike in the mountains. A lighter, less cumbersome weapon is going to be so much better to wear while gathering wood for a fire or making your way through brush.
As a general rule, I think we too often forget that the vast, vast majority of a sword's life is spent either propped up somewhere, in storage, or worn in a scabbard. Even adding a few hundred grams can make a noticeable difference when it's on your hip. And if you don't expect the sword to be used that much, why optimize it for fighting at the expense of all else?
Fascinating topic. Does the historical literature indicate that injuries to the swordsman's hand or fingers were very common? One imagines that such issues would reveal themselves even in practice sessions of the era, and would affect hilt design. (?)
Isn't more hand protection also shifting the strong of the blade towards the hilt, encouraging the wielder to parry and deflect "later" (closer to their bodies)? Note that i have zero experience with swords, just wondering.
It's certainly easier to wear a flat 2D style hilt, like a 1796 LC sabre. You can walk normally swinging your arms by your side, move your arms from your side to reach forward, carry other objects easily etc. Even simple side rings are slightly annoying to wear as they can get hooked on things. For a sidearm that gets carried alot but possibly never used I'd go for something simple. , If i had a basket hilt I'd be more tempted to leave it at home.
Are a falcate and a kopis the same thing or related? I remember when you talked about if you could carry swords in modern times what would it be and I would go for kopis. Especially because I can see that knuckle guard becoming an efficient knuckle duster of sorts and it looks to have the chopping power of a machete but with the advantage of reach despite being a fairly short sword from my limited understanding. I'm very new to your channel. Do you do many swords from antiquity? Things like the sickle swords or even early bronze age weapons?
Not sure how to feel about that point on weight. Like, arming swords often have massive pommels and not even a simple knucklebow. I guess maybe there's an issue with older swords where the blades had to be extra heavy because of bad metallurgy, so pommels had to be bigger but it was much more important to keep crossguards light? Whereas as blades got lighter pommels could be smaller and guards could get larger.
I'm curious if there was any type of leather type hand protection? My handle broke recently on my katana and I wrapped it in leather and folded it down and realized that it could be a form of hand protection and still be very easy to move freely
From a katana perspective? Hard armour was used by Samurai. When learning to use the katana I was taught to aim at the thumb joint (where it meets the hand). At that joint there was a gap to allow flexibility. Many techniques taught in kendo and iado don't really make sense unless the relationship to armour is understood, even then, I suppose the techniques would change over time in response to armour changes.
It feels to me as if the size and proportion of hand guards are inverse to the use of shields and armor. As far as I know, carrying a sword alone into a martial environment is exceedingly rare, and well nigh limited to large weapons with nearly the reach of a spear and while wearing seriously robust armors. TBH it is an intuitive idea, I have only the timeline of correspondence between simple disk, cross bar, or D guard, and the levels of bodily protection worn/carried. Also, I've come to this idea almost entirely based on how those trends appear from late bronze onwards in Europe, but I think parallels can be seen in Chinese and Indian weapons history as well. Matt, if you happen to read this, please weigh in, I'd love to know your thoughts on it.
Additionally, it seems like moving mass from the blade to the hilt might harm your defense farther because it's easier for your opponents to beat your blade out of the way
Joh mat question does this also apply to protection in general? Like with armor, how maby having slightly less armor allows you to move quicker or gives you a bigger range of motion and there for allows you to maby defend yourself better? I like to hear your opionins on purposefully choosing against what attacks you defend your self against and what attacks you armor yourself for instead of instantly going for full plate tournamant armor since that offers the most protection?
Pretty sure all of those questions are answered by your opponents. So, what is the minimum armour I can wear that will still protect me from the weapons my enemies are using. So, for example, being nimble wont stop an arrow. Generally in war and sporting competition, there is one best way of doing things and everybody pretty much does that. If somebody comes up with a new and better technology, then everybody changes.
@@Reginaldesq There was no uniform level of armour though. Sure there are things that everybody wore like helemets, but not everybody wore leg armour some did wear no leg armour at all, while other wore full plate or full mail legs. Then some wore brigendines which are less though then breastplates even when they had money for breastplates. Then not everybody wore gauntlets some diden't even wear gloves. Arms where often not armoured aswell or people opted to just where a gambeson with jackchains on them or a mail shirt instead of full plate arms. Even among knights there where differences in the amount of armor they choose to wear. For example helemets without vizors or face protection, upper leg protection or not. It's simply not as simple as you say it was.
@@joeyvanhaperen7715 I dont know enough about what different troops wore in different locations over different time periods to say what they wore exactly. That said there is almost always a best set up based on the enemies weapons. People may have chosen to wear less than the best either because of funds, ego, comfort or some unknown reason. edit: For example. You have to advance in formation to the enemy front line. You see they have hundreds of archers. Do you wear armour capable of stopping the arrows? Or wear less because you like to be agile?
@@Reginaldesq I personaly would wear enough to keep it from killing me. Sow a big ass closed helemet and a cuiras, but most people diden't have multiple armors. If they diden't have big ass closed helmet, but a open faced one and diden't have a cuiras, but a brigendine then that's what they would wear. Armor wasn't adepted to the treat, but adepted to what the individuele had or choose to buy. In my case I would wear: a sallatte with a mail and gambeson coif underneat, a gambeson with jackchains and ellebow pieces, fingenerd gauntlets with padded leather gloves, a cuiras, mail skirt, knee pieces with leg wrappings underneat and boots with shin plates over them no matter the situation. That's what I have that's what I wear, but I made the choose to buy that, cause full plate would be extreemly heavy and cumbersum especily since I'm not the biggest guy around. Sow bassicly I made the choose to defend my arms and legs more then to armour them up, and my body and head I choose to armor up more then I would defend them.
@@joeyvanhaperen7715 Well in that case you would just wear the best you have. I think though, you might be focussing on a particular time period or a particular place. So, in general aristocracy forces like the Greeks, or some medieval knights supplied their own stuff, so, yes what they could afford but professional armies like the Romans were much more likely to have standardised equipment. Even amongst aristocracy (self funded forces) there was often a minimum standard of kit they had to have.
That's why I think I like a lot of different country and period weapons. Because taking myself my favorite weapon might not be ideal for someone else. We all have our preferences
I feel like there is still somethings missing here, like the ease of acces. A full basket hilte makes it notibly harder to quickly draw the sword. Another intresting point it the fighting system for the sword, some of the saber guards just do not work that well when using a cross guard sword and vice versa yuou wouldn't pommel a basket hilted sword. Hight differences, like being on top of a hource also make a reasonable difference.
This video reminded me of another question I've been wondering about. In historical and fantasy fiction, it's a pretty common trope that when talking about a particularly good quality sword to describe it as "well-balanced". What would this actually mean (and the converse, what would "poorly balanced" mean)? Given that (as discussed in thus video) different balance points have different advantages and disadvantages, is this even a meaningful description? Or is it down to personal taste/fighting style? I presume at least it would depend on the sword type (e.g. an arming sword that balanced like a rapier would be poor, and vice versa). Or would it be more about balance in other dimensions, e.g. in a badly-made sword where the blade is asymmetric or has inconsistent thickness, thereby adding a bit of sideways torque?
It’s meaningful as applied to a type of sword, style used, and user preference. So using rapier as an example, generally it would need to have a range of balance traits to be ‘well balanced’. Meaning it won’t be balanced like a migration era sword (for example). Within a general range a specific point of balance might be preferred. Say closer to the guard may be preferred by a particular swordsman with a quick and evasive style. A stronger fencer with a style that uses more blade on blade contact and binds might prefer a point of balance farther away from the guard and giving more blade presence and not need as much tip agility. But a rapier, being a thrusting sword, will NOT handle like an executioner’s sword and be described as “well balanced”. For sure a sword can be off kilter, with peculiar or just bad handling characteristics like you describe as well, but that’s a more general issue. You have a good start thinking it comes down to the sword type, and personal taste/fighting style/physical characteristics of the user. Though all within generally accepted range given the type of sword and the context/use.
@scholagladiatoria and anyone else Question/hypothesis: having the sword be lighter and therefore quicker, it makes it easier to defend - *but* is that not still contingent upon the person using the sword being well trained to use it? So is it possible then that people would go for a bigger hilt (of any of the versions) for protection if they perhaps weren't super proficient in using the weapon? So that they might not be technically capable of benefiting from the lighter weight and would go for greater physical protection to make up for that fact? Because one could assume that not everyone who wore a sword (for protection or potentially just to look cool - because I'm sure there were people back then, much like people today - not with swords but in other ways, who could have worn swords as a matter of prestige or to show off wealth and who might not be trained all that well to fight with them.) In which case again they might want the most "protection" (in their minds) and thus choose to go with a hilt that covers their hand more. Having said that - if these bigger hilts were more common in later centuries could it be that this was the case because fewer people who wore swords were as trained to use them as in the past or ended up using them less often and therefore had less experience and thus would go for a bigger hilt for the reason I mentioned above? I have no idea if any of this is reasonable or makes sense, but it seems like it might be logical to me - and so I put this to people who are more knowledgeable (please respond and fill me in if you have an idea about it).
Would the protagonists not have used 'hand protection' in the form of some kind of armoured or heavy duty gloves or gauntlets? instead of relying on the protection being on the swords themselves? Great content as per usual. Thanks Matt.
Are you really adding much mass for the minimal basket hilts? I notice that they have proportionately smaller pommels, if any. It's hard to judge how much metal is in a solid lump versus a thin basket.
I know you uploaded a video regarding the mordhau, your opinions on that technique as well as why but what if we kept the sword in it's scabbard and use the mordhau technique like that? So when faced against an armored opponent, instead of drawing your sword, you secure a strap, belt or something over the crossguard and use mordhau like that with the scabbard as the shaft?
For what it's worth.... I might have to respectfully disagree with some of this, for once, but the reasons are nuanced. My background is mainly sidesword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, and recreated dark ages sword and shield. My daughter does longsword. I can certainly see the advantages of her longer, but not caged guard, sparring. I do like to keep my fingers unharmed, I must admit, and it's advantageous dealing with prickers on the property, an ongoing battle. The advantages and disadvantages are hard to weigh.
Point 4. Speed/Ease of access. The more complex/complete the handguard, the more deliberate you have to be in grasping the hilt; therefore the slower you'll be in getting the blade "in play".
Well, I have a preference for sabers and cutlasses. Of course, with no experience even in HEMA I am going by looks and they do have a lot of hand protection. I guess I have to include my love of Shashka's and of course the Yataghan has always been a favorite. Three bar hilts are just beautiful to me. Athletes have a saying speed kills, they also say the best defense is a good offence, so it could hold true in fighting as well because sports are a way to channel aggression and get exercise and discipline needed for combat.
I do believe that there is a sweet spot for hand protection. That depends on hand armor. But overall, I believe that a symmetrical saberguard is best, or something similar to a hindoo hilt. If I am wearing only gloves or nothing at all. But a sword I had to wear, would be a simple grip similar to a tsuba with a knuckleguard.
i feel it's a matter of way of thinking, speed vs armour we can see that on body armour even tanks more armour mean better protection but also more weight leas weigh means being faster and less chance of getting hit in the first place. so I guess is a matter of what kind of fight is expected to be
Install Mech Arena for Free 🤖 IOS/ANDROID: clcr.me/scholagladiatoria_June and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
Curve a sword; accentuate cutting at the cost of reach. Shift the balance further back; improve point control at the cost of chopping power.
It all goes back to one of the biggest lessons I've learned from this channel. There are few (if any) free lunches in sword design. To gain in one area one must usually sacrifice at least somewhat in another. Whether that sacrifice is worthwhile or not depends on, well, context!
I remember reading a historical account where Spanish troops in the Philippines would often have their sabres with complex guard get snagged by the bushes and branches while trekking in the jungle.
I have heard this too. I live near a bamboo grove & in the summer getting into the new growth is not easy; it's much like a jungle.
I generally carry swords nor wear them to go cut but even so shorter swords & less complex hilts are noticeable easier to carry into the dense growth.
Like Matt says it's context. In the Philippines shorter swords with simple hilts we're easier to carry in their environment & could double as jungle knives/machete.
European side swords & sabers are long, the hilts definitely snag & are not really great as machete.
But in the open battlefields of Europe longer swords with complex hilts do have an advantage over shorter simple hilted swords.
It's definitely interesting to see how environment effects weapon design as it's a less talked about reason.
Well that is a VERY specific case.
@@jon2067 Context!
@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 That level of intricate guard was a technological leap. More likely they didn’t have the sword smiths that knew how to make them.
Maybe. But, they still used them to great effect.
It's always great to hear your opinions on size and use of protection.
Got to consider it when thrusting for deep penetration.
🤨
Gotta use protection! You can't just be thrusting in there all willy-nilly!
@@jaredbaker7230 I ASSURE you, my willy is NOT nilly and never has been!
Completely agree with you here, Matt. I'm comfortable fighting with my messer against nearly any type of sword. Just participated in a stout blade tournament this past weekend where I swept my pool that were using claymores (basket hilted) and sideswords/arming swords. Not once during that tournament was I hit in the hand despite only having a cross guard and nagel.
Great example!
As a fan of the messer I’m happy to hear it!
I'm assuming you are a left handed swordsman, does that make a difference as well?
@@peterwolf4230 it means they target my hands more, because it's even closer than a right handed person's would be.
Given that a complex hilt allows one to use more aggressive, hands-forward guards compared to medieval swords where the hands are usually retracted, doesn't a complex hilt in fact protect more than just the wrist, as your head and legs also get less exposed?
That's kind of complex to answer, because while the medieval guard positions are often (not always - longpoint etc) retracted, as soon as you start to attack or defend, the weapon comes to the front in a similar position to something like a rapier or sabre.
@@scholagladiatoria But then you loose the time you need to set your blade that way, isn't that counter-productive with the idea to be quicker? Or am I completely wrong?
In those eras without a large handguard, you could be wearing a gauntlet and armor instead. Handguards dont provide the best protection when you have full armor, they are merely a compromise for a world that doesnt wear armor on the daily for various reasons yet expects to be sword fighting.
Only if it gets in the way of an attack. The area is fairly small.
Another point is what the person is wearing, no reason for a basket hilt if in full plate armour with gauntlets. For that a simple metal disk as with a rondel dagger is a better option. Chain mail would also reduce the need for this.
Sabre and basket hilts only really seem to get started as armour vanishes due to guns?
Yes, it does, assuming unarmored combat. George Silver's guardant fight is a great example of this. It wouldn't work so well with a simple cross guard.
I'm still convinced this was another thing that was to do with the wielder's preference.
Personally I have a ring hilted bastard sword and a swept hilt sidesword, I like being able to block and strike properly with the hilt (I'm not a fan of the murder stroke) but prefer being able to use a handshake grip so I'm not a lover of complete guards.
Also wandering around with them is so much easier, even my scottish cousins that use the claymore with the complete guard don't really wear them
I read the title out loud then immediately yelled "CONTEXT!" I blame Matt Easton for making me think objectively about everything...
In self teaching myself swords in the early 90s (90-95) I started with a diagram of French stick fighting & adapted it to swords.
I discovered the European manuals in around 1999 or 2000 so that added much to what I was doing.
But early on I learned to not rely on a guard for protection but to see it as a backup insurance. In stick fighting, generally, you have no guardb so even a medieval cross guard is a jump in protection. One must be very mindful of hand position how to attack & defend without getting ones hand hit.
One thing I learned early on was parry with the upper forte away from your hand! When applied to swords with simple guards this means if the opponents blade slides down you have a moment to position the guard to intercept it. Complex hilts allow one to party closer to the guard, have better leverage & be safer in a bind; especisllybwhen fighting in a bind. With simpler hilts a brief bind or quick parry can help keep your hand(s) moving & away from danger. Obviously there are exceptions such as in longsword when fighting in a bind but having a simple cross guard.
These are my finds and certainly could be debated, but in a nutshell less hand protection necessitates parrying further up the blade & keeping the sword moving freely.
More guard allows parrying closer to the hilt, allows more bind work safely & allows one to hold forward guards more stagnantly.
do single knuckle bow guards have roughly the same weight in general as crossguards? since the back quillon tends to be around half as long as a cross guard and that mass is instead distributed in the bow. I think another thing to mention is simply how the weight is distributed in addition to total weight difference.
I think some folk, think everything is a competition. But like life itself it’s subjective. Loving your channel and if I was healthier. After watching your weapons fighting tuition camp. I would be there. Would like to see more of the sparring. Especially between yourself and other’s as proficient . This is how history should be taught at comprehensive school. Much easier for young minds to enjoy and remember. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.
I think that part of that comes from games, first tabletop RPGs like D&D then later video games where for game mechanics, everything is quantified and rated against each other.So you get sword A is better than sword B because of X.
@@Riceball01 thank you so much Riceball. Not being a gamer I would never have known that innocent reason. You have restored my faith in humanity.
@@Oooo-bi7bi That it probably not the sole (or necessarily primary) reason, although it is definitely a contributing factor. Modern economics and logistics also place quite a lot of emphasis on marginal comparisons.
@@NevisYsbryd I’m just interested in human behaviour. Studied a tiny bit of marketing as part of my qualifications for work. Remember them saying it’s about needs and wants. The trade I learnt as a kid is butchery. With something that resembles a knife I can break down a whole beast. It’s quicker and easier if I use a proper boning knife but I can and have done the same with a penknife in the field. It’s because of my training and the amount of times I’ve done it. So I can relate this to other subjects. Bought myself a decent guitar for the first time a few years ago. It’s easier to keep in tune and nice to play. But I know a professional guitarist can make any guitar sound good. So forgive my waffling but I’m thinking are sword manufacturers or people themselves creating this scale of quality. I do it myself. I have top of the range if I can afford it but pretty sure I could get away with the basic model
It would be interesting to see how does the increased popularity of more ‘complete’ hilt effect the way people design swords as a whole. For example, would swordsmith at the time when complex hilt is the norm deliberate make blade lighter so that the whole sword (blade + hilt) won’t get too heavy?
I would say that's almost certainly true, given that military sabres of the 18-19th centuries were usually no heavier than sideswords of the middle ages. Often they were significantly lighter, even though they had more hand protection.
I'd say bladesmiths got off easy in design choices though, since improvements in metallurgy gave them more advanced design options.
Well, depends. Highland broadswords used with shields could get heavy. Stocatta has one which basically has an 7 inch point of balance and weights flipping 3 pounds. When you have a good shield, sword nimbleness doesn’t as much cus your shield is your main defense.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 That would be a fairly good cutter. Though I suppose the value of the basket hilt would drop significantly if you primarily fight with shield.
@@lunacorvus3585 Yeah, but it's prob a targe which isn't that big
@@lunacorvus3585 Yeah, though it is good bit of steel to pulverize someone with in extremely close combat.
Hi Matt, I believe a shell, cup or sabre hilt may not be so much important in defence as it is in riposte, it allows you to stay on your opponent's blade and thrust in opposition This may be more relevant for rapiers and smallswords for this very reason.
But in Lichtenauer winden winding (winding), sword binding Exist . but maybe its more difficult with just a cross !
@@killerkraut9179 well, the risk you run with a simple cross is that the side of your hand and thumb is more prone to cuts as the opposing blade slides down yours on to your guard. Do not underestimate the effect a cut on your hand makes to your ability to use your hand.
Then again, I have two main swords that I use (I have both a sharp and blunt training version of each): one's a M1902 saber with a different guard (which I use more in the Spanish saber style of Jaime Merelo), and the other is essentially a type XVI Arming sword blade with finger rings and a connecting ring (used prodominantly in a mix of Destreza Verdadera (Thibault and Rada) and Destreza Vulgar (Godinho, Meyer). I use the arming sword against rapier, "Side Sword", and sword+buckler; and I don't see any real problems. There was only one time that a spatulated tip, narrow bladed rapier blade happened to slip through the ring and get me in the hand, but that's it; and I doubt I will ever see that happen again in my time fencing.
The connecting ring (or a nagel) provided enough side of hand protection that as you wind, your thumb/ hand is protected; without the hilt being obtrusive or overly heavy. It's all about angles, and shifting the grip to keep your hand safe (ish).
11:00- somewhat reminiscent of adding armor to fighter aircraft; it can help in certain ways, but on the other hand a fighter predominantly defends itself by maneuvering. The armor is there for when maneuver fails, and too much makes the plane heavy and sluggish.
7:50 Just a small correction. Adding more mass to the sword increases its inertia, and its rotational inertia (meaning it is less nimble), regardless if it is added behind or in front of the center of rotation. Adding mass behind the center rotation does counteract the torque put on the sword by gravity though, which is a different mechanism.
Interestingly enough, large hand guards by that logic don't actually aid in counteracting torque since they tend to be put in front of the center of rotation which in sword terms would be the place where your hand rotates the sword and actually adds more torque due to the extra mass of the guard adding to the gravitational force.
@@JZBai Yes. I don't see anything wrong with that statement.
If you have an armingsword and just add rings to the crossguard, I think that logic makes sense.
If you are comparing how an armingsword behaves compared to a rapier, then that logic wouldn't apply because the mass of those swords are distributed completely different.
In addition, there is the economics of protection. Figure, in battle a knightly longsword was held by someone wearing armour bought with his own funds in an economy designed to filter the wealth up to him. What the hilt lacks in protection, the gauntlets will forgive in an emergency. They could skimp a bit on the hand protection because the hands themselves were armoured.
Cavalry sabres and even Highlander full baskets were supplied by the state (or, were designed to state requirements). The state did not want to pay for everyone's gauntlets, plus it's really hard to manipulate a musket or wheel lock in anything more than gloves. So the sword needs to respond to the financial and physical needs of the state that provides and the soldier who wields.
The guard ends up covering the middle ground between "my hand needs protecting" and "the Treasury's not paying that!" To quote the drill sergeant in Old Man's War, "There has never been a military in the entire history of the human race that has gone to war equipped with more than the least that it needs to fight its enemy. War is expensive. It costs money and it costs lives and no civilization has an infinite amount of either. So when you fight, you conserve. You use and equip only as much as you have to, never more."
And don't get me started on how the metallurgy and manufacturing alters the guard! Stronger steels and the advent of specialised factories usually meant you could do more with less....
Interesting point. Although the basket hilt definitely develops before standard issue swords, later on when swords were standardized your point certainly applies.
Thanks for sharing the idea
thanks for sharing that brother, everyone concentrates so much on the "exciting" bits and we forget that it all happened in a social and economic context.
I think you are pretty much on the money here. I had a number of weapons teachers. They all told me that the hand was the primary target, since, it can be hit without putting your body in range of their weapon and a couple of good strikes makes the opponents weapon unusable. I agree that a fully armoured hand did not require an elaborate guard, where as a completely unprotected hand was a liability. I also agree with your reasoning that a custom made gauntlet was very expensive, where as a standardised basket was a bargain in comparison
In a battlefield the blade is what counts. Who gives a f99k what is around the hand
@@chroma6947 the blade is definitely important, but so to is protection.
If one needed no protection on the battlefield shields & armor would never have been used.
When shields were no longer carried and less & less armor worn ... Well hands are vulnerable & if hit there immediately disabling.
A sword with less hand protection was often paired with a shield, buckler or used in armor. With no protective gear the sword begins to be used more for direct defense which puts ones hand in more exposed positions. A more developed guard is a very good thing when doing so.
Very similar points to the discussion of shield vs buckler, the latter being much more convenient to carry and arguably able to defend a much larger area due to being lighter, more mobile and able to be held out at arm’s length. Back when I was training regularly in the Bolognese style there was a repeated line about a buckler being the world’s largest shield, it just came in in instalments.
The lack of worn hand protection (gauntlets etc) in later periods probably explains the greater emphasis on hand protection. Also fashion, when the blade is away 99.9% of the time how do you show your craftsmanship as a swordsmith and how do you show your wealth as a customer 🤔
i think when i thrust and penetrate with my stiff sword, and when i defend myself from getting penetrated, i prefer to have more protection, but sometimes i go risky
When I was younger & had played with fewer swords I did feel a basket hilt, particularly a certain type of German basket hilt, was the best single-handed sword possibly. Then I posted & cut with some basket hilts...
While i certainly feel confident & my hand well protected in a basket hilt they tend to also feel a bit restrictive. They tend to feel nimble, yet oddly sluggish due to the weight.
I'll still say they are the best for hand protection, but I think I'd rather fight with a good side sword.
There is no overall best sword. Just what works best for someone in a given context.
One small point I think you missed: that medieval arming sword was designed to be used with a shield and with armour and you have previously shown how well the shield protects the sword hand. Whereas the later swords are designed to be used on their own with no shield and some or no armour. You also have also demonstrated that you fight in a different way: with a shield you are (more or less) square on but with a basket-hilted sword you are either on horse or (more or less) side on, minimising your profile.
You briefly touched on antiquity: was casting a bronze basket hilted sword beyond the ability of the time?
He also didn't talk about medieval gauntlets.
@@the8thark When did metal-armoured gauntlets come in?
@@QuentinStephens
From some very quick research
Early mitten like ones (no separate fingers) in the 12th century. The more advanced style with separate fingers in the gauntlet, around the early to mid 14th century.
I forgotten how charming you can be Mr. Easton. Thank you
Great vid as usual - I'm convinced by your argument...the point that won it for me was "swords defend you with the blade, not the hilt" - I'd never given it enough thought and was a confirmed basket hilt advocate but now I'm a convert!
Another aspect is being able to draw the sword quickly. It's primarily a sidearm, after all. Civilian self-defense swords tend to have very open and often minimalistic hilts. Shashka, katana or even a smallsword are easier to draw in a hurry than a full basket-hilt.
Similarly, complex hilts on your sidearm may not help, when you have to ditch the pike or a lance and quickly grab something more suited for crowded melee.
And indeed, the labor and skill required to make a basket hilt is not trivial. A modern bladesmith said in a video, that he expects that more or less every blacksmith back then could forge a blade. A bit better, slightly worse, but a serviceable blade nonetheless. While creating even a fairly simple hilt was not tivial. If it involved lots of small forge-welds, it was even more difficult. They didn't have MIG welders back then. Only a fire, which couldn't be applied precisely to the spot you needed hot, and then you had to hammer the pieces together.
Not trivial, without distorting the whole structure. It could be done, obviously, but it wasn't easy.
Rapiers & so-called sideswords were civilian self-defense swords, yet they often had elaborate hilts. Some rapiers had absurdly long blades too. This definitely made drawing swiftly a challenge. With practice, it's possible to rapidly deploy even long rapier with an intricate hilt.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 The way Silver describes the influence of rapiers, it looks like they were more of a dueling weapon. It worked more like a deterrent, than a weapon of choice in case you were jumped by a ruffian in a dark alley. Of course, in case of that, usually you'd have a dagger, which was much quicker to deploy.
Anyway, cultural influences sometimes trumped pure practicality. Otherwise it's hard to explain why an army would adopt a weapon optimized for quick drawing, like the Russians did with shashka. The sheath construction alone makes it a questionable choice, because water can drip into the scabbard, which is a big deal.
Yet they done it, which means that not every choice people make is always optimal for the purpose. The general trend seems to be clear nonetheless.
@@bakters Silver still recommended a basket-hilted sword with a 37-40in blade, & ridiculed the claim that such a full hilt made the sword too hard to draw swiftly. Lots of 16th/17th-century fencers favored complex hilts & long blades. Gérard Thibault included techniques for how to rapidly deploy a rapier with a blade a few inches longer than Silver's, in the context of a street argument. He did consider rapiers with blades longer than his favored length too difficult to quick draw. Nick Thomas has a video of deploying a long rapier under pressure with surprising speed. All things being equal, a shorter blade will always draw faster, but a practiced wielder can draw a long blade with a complex hilt fast enough in most cases.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 It looks like you rather support my argument than weaken it with all those examples. Apparently, plenty of people considered complex hilts and long blades to be a hindrance when the weapon needed to be deployed quickly.
If you look how shashka is drawn, a knuckle bow or even a cross-guard would slow the movement down. You can do it one handed from under the cloak. Really fast. A good guy will deliver the cut before the rapier is fully out of the scabbard.
Another consideration that doesn't often get mentioned. You only need protection when your hand would be hit. So awareness that you hand could be hit and Skills to reduce or eliminate the possiblity make a protective hilt less necessary necessary. However we engage in risk benefit and so if add greater protection we instinctively take greater risk, thereby increasing the likelihood of the event happening and when what protections are in place fail, that can be seen as a justification or example of why protection or more protection is needed. There's plenty of research in a range of fields showing this in other activities where risk is a factor. Secondary, reducing the consequences in kne area may increase dangers/consequences elsewhere, especially when combined with potential increase in risk taking and other factors you mentioned.
The basket hilt and such like were also seldom used with any hand armour (as far as I know), whereas in earlier centuries the cross hilt style were frequently used in association with some form of armoured gauntlet..
more hand protection is also going to mean you fumble more often drawing the sword and you lose some flexibility in grip positions. depending on the style of basket you might even have trouble using it with your other hand.
Of course not, some (defensive) techniques can be literally impossible to perform, as you explained in the Swiss sabre episode iirc (not to mention failing to draw the sword because it caught on the clothes, as these horrible mid XVIII century disk guard swords love to do), and the shift in balance resulting from the larger guard literally robs the blade of inertia making beats difficult and risky (idk, is this why XIX century masters preferred static parries but I suspect it has a lot to do with the weight)
Another great video Matt, but I feel you missed out on another reason for choosing a particular type of hilt and that is gloves and gauntlets. For instance a classical cross hilted medieval sword would most like be worn with mail or plated gauntlets of some description, where as a later basket hilt or half basket would be wielded with bare hands or light leather gloves.
A basket hilt is also more prone to a slower draw from the scabbard because you have to get your hand into the basket to grip the handle.
Apologies if I missed it, but I think another consideration is how the weapon was intended to be used. Full hand protection makes little sense for a two-handed sword, one where a second hand may or may not be employed depending on the intended strike/parry, one used in a way in which grips shift a fair amount, or even one used in a manner that uses a lot of wrist movement in all three dimensions etc.etc. They also probably make little sense for a weapon intended as a backup, which needs to be drawn quickly while under serious stress and pressure e.g. Opponent has grabbed your polearm, and you have a quarter of a second to get a point/edge in under their arm while you abandon your primary weapon.
Quite a few British swords no longer have their leather guard liners. They tend to rust the guard and get stained by the rust and in time are discarded. However liners allow guards to be decorated with perforations. Cavalry swords were worn on the saddle depending, so you could have a larger guard. I am a believer in retaining my thumbs or you won’t be holding anything!
This discussion couples well with your hand injury video. It seems likely that more hand protection was useful in 1 on 1 duels or civilian unarmored defense situations where the person was wearing less body armor on the rest of their body regardless of the time period. The fight context that a particular sword was likely used in also has a huge impact on how useful the more complex/heavy guards are. To reference your hand injury video line of reasoning, in unarmored duels or self defense versus bandits and other situations where sniping the hands was more likely, having something close to a buckler on your sword hand becomes much more appealing than it would if you were in full plate harness where hand attacks were mitigated by gauntlets/vambraces.
In later periods, when sabers become more common, it was also coupled with an increasing lack of full body armor due largely to the increased use of firearms, so even in skirmish and dense melee fighting, the general lack of armor (particularly on arms and hands) would have offset the negative effects of added weight to the sword somewhat and increased active defense capacity.
This idea of active defense is absolutely a core fundamental of Chinese swordsmanship, and exactly why you don't see large hand guards on Chinese weapons, despite them existing on training weapons going all the way back to the Han dynasty. Chinese sword defense is almost always active parrys, not passive blocks.
@meatandmeat They are historical, but much more modern, mostly 19th century from what I have seen. One half of the Z forms kind of a half knuckle bow, the top half of the Z is allegedly for catching and manipulating the opponents blade. I have studied some 19th century dadao and even then that type of guard seemed rare, most had a very small cross guard, more of a hand stop.
The Chinese did have full hand protection and knuckle bows on swords going all the way back to the Roman era, so the idea wasn't lost on them, it's just extremely interesting that it was only for training. To me it signifies that that during repetitive training they wanted to minimize hand injury, but in a life or death fight they preferred the quickness of the blade over the hand protection. No point having pristine hands if you are dead.
Just want to point out too, (and this goes hand in hand with what you're saying), that hand guard size, may largely have to do with the fighting style of the sword. If you look all around the world: swords that emphasize slashing, over stabbing: all tend to have smaller hand guards. Japanese Katanas, Chinese Daos, Indian Talwars, the Egyptian Kopesh, Arabian Scimitars, Western Cavalry Sabers... etc., all those have smaller hand guards. The style of those kinds of weapons is to slash the blade back and forth and so the momentum of the blade itself has a guard effect in that it deflects other weapons as you swing it, and hence a smaller hand guard is fine. Even the Chinese Jian, which is a straight sword, has a small hand guard and the Jian is meant to be used with a constantly spinning, fluid slashing fighting style that deflects oncoming blades. However, if you have a sword that is meant more as a jabbing, thrusting weapon, the way many European swords are: it makes sense to have a larger hand guard, as you are extending your hand and forearm way out in front of you to make stabbing thrusts. Your hand is going to be more vulnerable, more often and so you'll want to protect your hand more as a result.
Hand guards that cover the hand are an advantage in LRP, eliminates rakes across the knuckles which count in most rules/systems as a full blow for damage.
A good comparison could be the 1828 Pattern Highland Broadsword where you can swap the basket out with the crossguard
There are photographs of highland officers in the field up to and including WW1 where the basket hilt has been replaced with a cross guard on active service.
@@neilmorrison7356 Indeed, i wouldn't really want a full basket hanging by my side either
@@Dynogone link to photo of Gordon Highlander officers
i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/2a/5e/7e2a5ed8bff5fb0e753b028d9dafbf45.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/de/a4/65/dea4652dc237fa3f62afad82d0c30ed3.jpg
An interesting perspective. Convenience of carry must be a major element with any sidearm as for many persons, it's very much a last ditch weapon.
60 seconds and perfectly summed up the entire internet.
I feel like hand protection also follows a law of diminishing returns. Going from a simple cross and adding a knucklebow I find really increases the hand protection, but between a shell hilt and a cup hilt, I don't feel much difference.
Especially if you consider that hand protection also dissuades your opponent from attacking your hand. A hand protected by two side bars is as little a tempting target as one protected by a full swept hilt.
Good distinctions.
I would noted taht what else you might wear on your hand might be important.
Even though I done martial arts and I don't really have any experience in sword fighting other then a brief period of foil fencing so I don't think I'm the best person to give an informed answer on this but I tend to like the idea of fairly large guards and I tend to be a sucker guards even though I know that having fairly large or big guards are far from being the end all be all or everything.
Thanks, this will help me with an idea. Question, what would happen if you put high power magnets (mozaic pattern) to the front of a basket.
In a similar way, is it useful to use different material for say any sword from steel into aluminium, or titanium, or any other lighter material (then steel)? Have they been used before 1900? The main idea is to have a very nimble sword/quick sword which still does decent damage to unprotected areas. I assume steal plated armour would resist it any day (but maybe I'm wrong)
I did some quick google search and at least today aluminium swords exist, but maybe only decorative or in roleplay, unsure.
Allow me to come back to these considerations and emphasize that on a battlefield the sword is indeed most of the time only a side weapon.
The main weapon then being rather a pole weapon, the fighter will therefore seek above all protection for his hands in the context of the use of it, which will probably lead him to wear protection directly on his hand, like an armored glove (I leave aside the shield option). In this context, where he must already manage the weight of a metal glove, adding weight to his sword without adding any advantage (since his hand is already protected) turns out to be rather an annoyance. This probably explains why for a long time the cross guard was preferred. Moreover, the semi-basket hilt or basket hilt began to become really popular at the time when firearms became predominant on the battlefield, but the use of these did not go well with wearing armored gloves, these quickly disappeared from military equipment and this may partly explain the fact that the semi-basket hilt or basket hilt has become an interesting option in the event of close combat.
Oh, sorry I saw only after writing this comment that many had already mentioned this idea ;)
Does this context suggest that a stronger person may defend longer with a basket hilt and a not so strong person may up survival rate by using a lighter minimalist weighted or even 2 handed sword?
Doesn't a sabre type hilt allow a lighter pommel weight so there might be additional weight, but maybe less than that 15-20%, and maybe more like 8-12%
That's a tricky one to answer. Early basket hilted swords have pommels - they are essentially a medieval one-handed sword with a basket attached. Later sabres often don't need a pommel, but that's partly because they are overall lighter weapons, with lighter blades. But even then, some sabres do still have a form of pommel.
While the issue of how to avoid/prevent opening a vulnerability to the hand is obviously crucial, I think asking about the "defense" role of a feature gets us into a conceptualization where one pictures offense and defense as separate things one does or doesn't do, while my (admittedly far less than Matt's) experience and training has been that they are seamless and completely intertwined. Every thing I've learned suggests that how one probes, feints, and seeks openings, is happening simultaneously as one responds to the range, movement, and threats presented. It feels very very similar (absent getting my ears rung) to playing music live with others. This hugely oversimplified comparison is intended for people who have not handled or sparred with hand to hand weapons. Dancing too has some striking parallels to this sort of encounter, though the contexts seem diametrically opposed in intent.
I'm seeing the question from a completely different perspective. Different swords are wielded with different styles of motion, and to a great extent, the size of the hand guard reflects the vulnerability of the hand. This is most clearly illustrated in the development of the rapier, where early cut-and-thrust weapons had relatively simple guards, but as the weapons began to be used in a more standardized, guard-forward, thrust-dominant way, the hand became more of a static target and needed more protection. You can look at swords from other lands to see this clearly-- Middle Eastern and eastern European swordsmen tend to have swords with small guards that are swung very broadly so that the hand is always in motion and less vulnerable. On the other side of the spectrum, the German Schlaeger is used in a way that the hand is always in one place and always vulnerable (even if not a target according the the rules), and that has a guard the size of a watermelon (a small one, anyway).
Hello. Thank you very much for your channel.
I always though that more minimalistic early swords were accompanied with another type of hand guard - the gauntlet. This kind of protection will never stop any hard blow on your fingers, but it will save your hand from quick and light hits that may potentially cut the finger off and finish any fight with that.
So when the armor weight and all around amount of it started to go down, any smart person would still want to have his fingers protected.
And the half-basket hilt is something that is sufficient enough, whilst full basket is redundant. Yes, it is better protection, but it is more weigh and less comfort, less skill, like you perfectly said.
So, the point I am going to is: yes, your thoughts are correct, but only if we compare half-baskets and full-baskets. Taking simple cross guard as example for comparison is a mistake due to is accompanied with another form of finger protection - gauntlet. If it is not, user is at risk of get a short quick hit to the hand and loose his finger.
Also, if you're wearing plated glove what would be the point of basket hilt? It would only get in the way....
Note about the mass: A crossguarded sword usually has more mass in the pommel then a baskethilted one. This means the might even have the same weight but the point ob balance of the crossguarded one would be lower.
Some very good points made. It would be cool to see video games; and even series' and movies, to the extent that they can; (which feature melee-combat) paying a bit more attention to the defensive aspects of various weapons. Whereas they all too often focus purely on the offensive aspects. Because really; with the exception of maybe a few particularly reckless and bloodthirsty individuals; most people would be far more interested in surviving a fight, than in the slaying of an opponent. I know I certainly would be! :)
I think it depends on your swordsmanship style... the transition to thrusting swords and the abandonment of shields/bucklers/capes/parrying daggers (as well as the practices of rapier/smallsword/modern fencing dueling practices - not battlefield combat) increased the need for larger and more elaborate hand guards. You can also see the evolution continuing in hilt design as the fencing blades switched to the "pinch"/pistol grips for sport fencing.
European swords starting adding those knuckle bows, side bars, etc. as metallurgy advanced and as a demonstration of the swordmaker's art. The same protective bits you see on the larger zweihanders, etc. may have been more useful against spears and pikes than other swords. And yes, the metal gauntlet performed a similar protective function but faded away as soldiers and officers stopped wearing full body armor.
If you look at non-European swords, many of them have rudimentary or practically non-existent hand guards as body movement and non-thrusting blade styles didn't emphasize them in combat (i.e., the sword designed as a primary weapon rather than an adjunct to firearms on the battlefield) and they were less cumbersome to wear as well.
For example, the Chinese jian straight sword (tai chi sword) - used into the 20th century, has a fairly rudimentary cross or small cup guard. Chinese swordsmanship allows strikes to the hand and the arms without any kind of Marquis de Queensberry-style prohibitions in fighting, and likewise for the Japanese katana and wakizashi or the shashka of the Russian Cossacks.
Similar principles apply to knives. Some people like a large guard on the knife to protect the hand and to prevent it slipping on the edge, others prefer little or no guard. Some users of Ka-Bar knives cut the back part of the guard off as it interfered with its use in some cutting tasks and the Ek commando knife has a relatively small guard.
Captain Context rides again. 😉 And even more than context, simply: Trade-offs, personal preference--and educated guesswork on the part of each person on which trade-offs (*if* differences even prove relevant in an actual fight) end up counting.
Educated guesses that still, in any given situation, might still prove to be wrong. (Hey, in blackjack you definitely should stand on a 20 against a dealer's 13. Still doesn't mean they can't draw an 8.
I love the hand hard on that first cavalry saber you showed.
The best type of flying horse is a crossbred unicorn and pegasus. It is known by different names depending on the historical context, but mainly under the title "pegacorn". It is the ultimate in bling rides with at least 157.3 times the street cred of any sportscar. It is a contentious matter, but many argue that it is an even more impressive method of transport than a haunted pirate ship. My own personal feelings are that a haunted pirate ship is better for impressing male friends, but the horned and winged pegacorn is a huge hit with the ladies.
The hand is the part of the body that is usually closest to the opponent during a fight, though. It's obviously a good place to prioritise for additional protection. If you get hit in the hand and drop your sword, then the blade can't defend any other part of you anyway. It's not really surprising that more complex hilt designs became so popular.
Is there such a thing as a full basket hilt with a prominent crossguard? Like an even more enclosed swept hilt.
Hence, very complex-hilted "zweihanders" aren't really a thing (although if anyone has any exceptions, I'd love a link) I am aware that some had a couple of large side-rings...
As my second katana-teacher uses to say: 'No fingers - no cookies.' And the katana has not too much hand protection 😉
Yes, but to most Katana teachers your fingers are superfluous as long as you have killed your foe.
@@manfredconnor3194 To fight with any sword your fingers are essential.
@@manfredconnor3194 That’s a fairly unreasonable and suicidal mentality. Any source to backup such claim?
@@lunacorvus3585
No not really. You will have to research it yourself.
A long time ago before there was the internet or cellphones I dabbled in Japanese Kenjustu for a few years. I had two instructors, who were better than Matt Easton. You can believe that if you want or not, I do not care. It was from these instructors that I first learned about this. Later on, when I studied at the university, I do remember reading it in a couple of books, so it must be well documented.
Think of the Samurai. Think of Bushido. In feudal Japan the individual was not important and the life of the individual samurai was not as important as his loyalty to his lord and his honor.
Dedication and commitment to technique were important. It was far more important to kill the enemy or the person that you were dueling and to save the lord or your honor (respectively) than it was to worry about a few fingers or a hand. Connections to this life were not important. Honor, dedication, loyalty and commitment were.
This of course was the IDEAL and a great many people did not live up to it. I am not saying that it is worthy to live up to or not, I am just saying that there were people who lived by this codex in feudal Japan (for that matter in other places as well) and there were people, who did not live up to it.
To be clear, I am not saying that they ran out there willy-nilly with their hands and fingers exposed on purpose, so that they could be chopped off! It was not a preferred tactic. Don't misunderstand me. That would just be stupid! But it was an attitude and I am pretty certain there are still techniques to this day that are taught along these lines. You ought to be able to find them.
All I am saying is, that to achieve their goals, under certain situational circumstances, they were prepared to sacrifice. In a given situation, it was better for them to sacrifice their fingers or their hand in order to kill their enemy. These men had that presence of mind to make a split second choice and not think twice about themselves. There are still people, who live like this today. They live by a warrior codex that they are committed to. I am not saying it is good or bad or more or less honorable or worthy. It just is a thing that is. You can scoff at that or doubt it if you want. I do not care.
There are techniques that teach this sort of thing and books that document it, but you will have to find them yourself. I am not that interested in it.
@@KlausBeckEwerhardy
Your problem is wanting to fight in the first place. The goal is to be committed to your attack and to kill your enemy for your honor and your lord. Your fingers do not matter. Don't mind your beard when your head is about to be taken. If you live and are missing a few fingers, it is better than being dead. If you have the opportunity to kill the enemy and save your honor and your lord, would you miss that opportunity, because of your fingers? Then you are not a warrior.
If you live, your wife and children can feed you cookies. If you are dead, even fingers will not help you.
Hand-guards serve a purpose that very few talk about: they offer a means to use your hands when getting back up from a fall!
A decent guard lets you do 'push-ups' while holding the weapon.
Getting back up quickly keeps you fighting.
The sort of hilt that swords were made with can be correlated quite well with how highly, during a particular period of history, the fingers and knuckles were valued. During the Viking era, for example, the Vikings did not highly value fingers as they had plentiful slaves which had all the fingers they needed.
Cross guard and small(ish) side rings or nagel(s) - probably the best protection/mass ratio. Light and small knuckle bow as add on - depends.
If you are wearing a meaty set of gauntlets, do you need a huge basket hand guard? Or is just enough to deflect the sword away (like a flat piece of metal as a hand guard).
I think the bigger hand guards came around because gauntlets stopped being worn. Be them leather or metal hand coverings. So in place they moved to a bigger hand guard.
A result of guns existing possibly? You need free uncovered hands to shoot the gun or hold the horse reins. So because of this the guards of the hands moved from hand coverings (gauntlets and heave gloves) to the hand guard of the sword.
That title makes me think of another subject you might consider covering: Effects of hand size and pommel size in swords, compensating in combat for small or weak hands, etc. Combat while one hand is immobilized/missing. Seriously.
I'd be interested in this: I am right-handed but I smashed my elbow in a motorcycle accident some years ago and now don't have the full range of motion: I'd be curious if there is a style of sword or style of sword-fighting that would best suit me.
I've always been surprised that more swords don't have forward facing blade traps incorporated into the guards. It would give a huge leverage advantage and control the opponents weapon. A full basket could be stamped and pierced 18ga sheetmetal. A 3 bar would be .25"+- weighing about the same or possibly more. A pierced stamped and hardened 18ga guard would have minimal weight and maximum protection allowing for more pommel weight to perfect the balance. I do agree that the Sabre Guard is a great balance of protection and encumbrance.
What's the blazon for your arms?
As a hiker I very much agree about comfort. Many military and fantasy weapons that people describe as "the best" would be absolutely miserable to take on a 3 day hike in the mountains. A lighter, less cumbersome weapon is going to be so much better to wear while gathering wood for a fire or making your way through brush.
As a general rule, I think we too often forget that the vast, vast majority of a sword's life is spent either propped up somewhere, in storage, or worn in a scabbard. Even adding a few hundred grams can make a noticeable difference when it's on your hip. And if you don't expect the sword to be used that much, why optimize it for fighting at the expense of all else?
Well you do generally want it to do its job. Fighting is certainly a primary concern, but not the only one.
Fascinating topic. Does the historical literature indicate that injuries to the swordsman's hand or fingers were very common? One imagines that such issues would reveal themselves even in practice sessions of the era, and would affect hilt design. (?)
That parang is awesome looking! Looks like something out of a game or fantasy movie. I love the handle design and the wicked curved blade.
Isn't more hand protection also shifting the strong of the blade towards the hilt, encouraging the wielder to parry and deflect "later" (closer to their bodies)? Note that i have zero experience with swords, just wondering.
Jian swordsmanship emphasizes parrying closer to the tip and away from the hands. Some schools encourage intercepting the strike instead of binding.
It's certainly easier to wear a flat 2D style hilt, like a 1796 LC sabre. You can walk normally swinging your arms by your side, move your arms from your side to reach forward, carry other objects easily etc. Even simple side rings are slightly annoying to wear as they can get hooked on things. For a sidearm that gets carried alot but possibly never used I'd go for something simple. , If i had a basket hilt I'd be more tempted to leave it at home.
Are a falcate and a kopis the same thing or related? I remember when you talked about if you could carry swords in modern times what would it be and I would go for kopis. Especially because I can see that knuckle guard becoming an efficient knuckle duster of sorts and it looks to have the chopping power of a machete but with the advantage of reach despite being a fairly short sword from my limited understanding. I'm very new to your channel. Do you do many swords from antiquity? Things like the sickle swords or even early bronze age weapons?
Not sure how to feel about that point on weight. Like, arming swords often have massive pommels and not even a simple knucklebow. I guess maybe there's an issue with older swords where the blades had to be extra heavy because of bad metallurgy, so pommels had to be bigger but it was much more important to keep crossguards light? Whereas as blades got lighter pommels could be smaller and guards could get larger.
I'm curious if there was any type of leather type hand protection? My handle broke recently on my katana and I wrapped it in leather and folded it down and realized that it could be a form of hand protection and still be very easy to move freely
From a katana perspective? Hard armour was used by Samurai. When learning to use the katana I was taught to aim at the thumb joint (where it meets the hand). At that joint there was a gap to allow flexibility. Many techniques taught in kendo and iado don't really make sense unless the relationship to armour is understood, even then, I suppose the techniques would change over time in response to armour changes.
It feels to me as if the size and proportion of hand guards are inverse to the use of shields and armor. As far as I know, carrying a sword alone into a martial environment is exceedingly rare, and well nigh limited to large weapons with nearly the reach of a spear and while wearing seriously robust armors. TBH it is an intuitive idea, I have only the timeline of correspondence between simple disk, cross bar, or D guard, and the levels of bodily protection worn/carried. Also, I've come to this idea almost entirely based on how those trends appear from late bronze onwards in Europe, but I think parallels can be seen in Chinese and Indian weapons history as well. Matt, if you happen to read this, please weigh in, I'd love to know your thoughts on it.
Wow Matt you've really been putting out some awesome videos of late!
Additionally, it seems like moving mass from the blade to the hilt might harm your defense farther because it's easier for your opponents to beat your blade out of the way
so, basket hilted foil would not be a good design choice?
Totally off topic, but I like that type XV. I like that type XV a lot!
Joh mat question does this also apply to protection in general? Like with armor, how maby having slightly less armor allows you to move quicker or gives you a bigger range of motion and there for allows you to maby defend yourself better? I like to hear your opionins on purposefully choosing against what attacks you defend your self against and what attacks you armor yourself for instead of instantly going for full plate tournamant armor since that offers the most protection?
Pretty sure all of those questions are answered by your opponents. So, what is the minimum armour I can wear that will still protect me from the weapons my enemies are using. So, for example, being nimble wont stop an arrow. Generally in war and sporting competition, there is one best way of doing things and everybody pretty much does that. If somebody comes up with a new and better technology, then everybody changes.
@@Reginaldesq There was no uniform level of armour though. Sure there are things that everybody wore like helemets, but not everybody wore leg armour some did wear no leg armour at all, while other wore full plate or full mail legs. Then some wore brigendines which are less though then breastplates even when they had money for breastplates. Then not everybody wore gauntlets some diden't even wear gloves. Arms where often not armoured aswell or people opted to just where a gambeson with jackchains on them or a mail shirt instead of full plate arms. Even among knights there where differences in the amount of armor they choose to wear. For example helemets without vizors or face protection, upper leg protection or not. It's simply not as simple as you say it was.
@@joeyvanhaperen7715 I dont know enough about what different troops wore in different locations over different time periods to say what they wore exactly. That said there is almost always a best set up based on the enemies weapons. People may have chosen to wear less than the best either because of funds, ego, comfort or some unknown reason.
edit: For example. You have to advance in formation to the enemy front line. You see they have hundreds of archers. Do you wear armour capable of stopping the arrows? Or wear less because you like to be agile?
@@Reginaldesq I personaly would wear enough to keep it from killing me. Sow a big ass closed helemet and a cuiras, but most people diden't have multiple armors. If they diden't have big ass closed helmet, but a open faced one and diden't have a cuiras, but a brigendine then that's what they would wear. Armor wasn't adepted to the treat, but adepted to what the individuele had or choose to buy. In my case I would wear: a sallatte with a mail and gambeson coif underneat, a gambeson with jackchains and ellebow pieces, fingenerd gauntlets with padded leather gloves, a cuiras, mail skirt, knee pieces with leg wrappings underneat and boots with shin plates over them no matter the situation. That's what I have that's what I wear, but I made the choose to buy that, cause full plate would be extreemly heavy and cumbersum especily since I'm not the biggest guy around. Sow bassicly I made the choose to defend my arms and legs more then to armour them up, and my body and head I choose to armor up more then I would defend them.
@@joeyvanhaperen7715 Well in that case you would just wear the best you have. I think though, you might be focussing on a particular time period or a particular place. So, in general aristocracy forces like the Greeks, or some medieval knights supplied their own stuff, so, yes what they could afford but professional armies like the Romans were much more likely to have standardised equipment. Even amongst aristocracy (self funded forces) there was often a minimum standard of kit they had to have.
Funnily enough, you posted this right after I purchased a 1917 US Naval cutlass with a half-basket in place of a regulation three bar guard :)
That's why I think I like a lot of different country and period weapons. Because taking myself my favorite weapon might not be ideal for someone else. We all have our preferences
I feel like there is still somethings missing here, like the ease of acces. A full basket hilte makes it notibly harder to quickly draw the sword.
Another intresting point it the fighting system for the sword, some of the saber guards just do not work that well when using a cross guard sword and vice versa yuou wouldn't pommel a basket hilted sword.
Hight differences, like being on top of a hource also make a reasonable difference.
This video reminded me of another question I've been wondering about.
In historical and fantasy fiction, it's a pretty common trope that when talking about a particularly good quality sword to describe it as "well-balanced".
What would this actually mean (and the converse, what would "poorly balanced" mean)?
Given that (as discussed in thus video) different balance points have different advantages and disadvantages, is this even a meaningful description?
Or is it down to personal taste/fighting style?
I presume at least it would depend on the sword type (e.g. an arming sword that balanced like a rapier would be poor, and vice versa).
Or would it be more about balance in other dimensions, e.g. in a badly-made sword where the blade is asymmetric or has inconsistent thickness, thereby adding a bit of sideways torque?
It’s meaningful as applied to a type of sword, style used, and user preference. So using rapier as an example, generally it would need to have a range of balance traits to be ‘well balanced’. Meaning it won’t be balanced like a migration era sword (for example). Within a general range a specific point of balance might be preferred. Say closer to the guard may be preferred by a particular swordsman with a quick and evasive style. A stronger fencer with a style that uses more blade on blade contact and binds might prefer a point of balance farther away from the guard and giving more blade presence and not need as much tip agility. But a rapier, being a thrusting sword, will NOT handle like an executioner’s sword and be described as “well balanced”.
For sure a sword can be off kilter, with peculiar or just bad handling characteristics like you describe as well, but that’s a more general issue. You have a good start thinking it comes down to the sword type, and personal taste/fighting style/physical characteristics of the user. Though all within generally accepted range given the type of sword and the context/use.
4:12 that sword is like a scaled down 1796 Cavalry sabre
@scholagladiatoria and anyone else Question/hypothesis: having the sword be lighter and therefore quicker, it makes it easier to defend - *but* is that not still contingent upon the person using the sword being well trained to use it? So is it possible then that people would go for a bigger hilt (of any of the versions) for protection if they perhaps weren't super proficient in using the weapon? So that they might not be technically capable of benefiting from the lighter weight and would go for greater physical protection to make up for that fact? Because one could assume that not everyone who wore a sword (for protection or potentially just to look cool - because I'm sure there were people back then, much like people today - not with swords but in other ways, who could have worn swords as a matter of prestige or to show off wealth and who might not be trained all that well to fight with them.) In which case again they might want the most "protection" (in their minds) and thus choose to go with a hilt that covers their hand more.
Having said that - if these bigger hilts were more common in later centuries could it be that this was the case because fewer people who wore swords were as trained to use them as in the past or ended up using them less often and therefore had less experience and thus would go for a bigger hilt for the reason I mentioned above?
I have no idea if any of this is reasonable or makes sense, but it seems like it might be logical to me - and so I put this to people who are more knowledgeable (please respond and fill me in if you have an idea about it).
Thank you for the video. I will go to sleep confident in the knowledge that you will always be Matt Easton.
Would the protagonists not have used 'hand protection' in the form of some kind of armoured or heavy duty gloves or gauntlets? instead of relying on the protection being on the swords themselves?
Great content as per usual. Thanks Matt.
Are you really adding much mass for the minimal basket hilts? I notice that they have proportionately smaller pommels, if any. It's hard to judge how much metal is in a solid lump versus a thin basket.
OK but best sword discussion channel ever. Scholagladiatoria!!!
I know you uploaded a video regarding the mordhau, your opinions on that technique as well as why but what if we kept the sword in it's scabbard and use the mordhau technique like that? So when faced against an armored opponent, instead of drawing your sword, you secure a strap, belt or something over the crossguard and use mordhau like that with the scabbard as the shaft?
For what it's worth.... I might have to respectfully disagree with some of this, for once, but the reasons are nuanced.
My background is mainly sidesword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, and recreated dark ages sword and shield. My daughter does longsword.
I can certainly see the advantages of her longer, but not caged guard, sparring. I do like to keep my fingers unharmed, I must admit, and it's advantageous dealing with prickers on the property, an ongoing battle. The advantages and disadvantages are hard to weigh.
Point 4. Speed/Ease of access. The more complex/complete the handguard, the more deliberate you have to be in grasping the hilt; therefore the slower you'll be in getting the blade "in play".
Well, I have a preference for sabers and cutlasses. Of course, with no experience even in HEMA I am going by looks and they do have a lot of hand protection. I guess I have to include my love of Shashka's and of course the Yataghan has always been a favorite. Three bar hilts are just beautiful to me. Athletes have a saying speed kills, they also say the best defense is a good offence, so it could hold true in fighting as well because sports are a way to channel aggression and get exercise and discipline needed for combat.
Bigger hand guards less hand mobility & more weight too. It's always a sacrifice for something else. Always.
I do believe that there is a sweet spot for hand protection. That depends on hand armor. But overall, I believe that a symmetrical saberguard is best, or something similar to a hindoo hilt. If I am wearing only gloves or nothing at all.
But a sword I had to wear, would be a simple grip similar to a tsuba with a knuckleguard.
i feel it's a matter of way of thinking, speed vs armour
we can see that on body armour even tanks
more armour mean better protection but also more weight
leas weigh means being faster and less chance of getting hit in the first place.
so I guess is a matter of what kind of fight is expected to be