@@scholagladiatoria Indeed, I carry a Spyderco Urban everyday that has a purposefully designed finger choil, and lacks a sharpening choil. The index finger sits a millimeter away from the edge, but the grip on the handle means it's almost impossible for the hand to slip and for the index finger to be cut when thrusting. However, it also doesn't have a 🍄 on the other end of it. 😁
I could see those 'nooks'/finger placements being pretty handy to free the blade after a thrust, as well, in that use you'd be pulling away from where the sharp parts are anyway.
@@scholagladiatoriaThank you Matt! I think you’re reasoning in this video seems like it is the most likely explanation. I appreciate & enjoy your videos, they’re always fun & interesting! Thanks again Matt. Best wishes to you and your family. ✌️
@@scholagladiatoriaThere are images from that time where you can see how a thrust was delivered with such a sword. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to them. The grip is completely straight.
I also imagine the hammer grip also made thrusting upward (like under a shield) better. I think any treatment of a sword from that period that doesn’t seek to place it in a system with the shield is silly.
Something you might find interesting is that we can see in depictions of neo assyrian sword (many of which had mushroom pommels) there is a lot of variations in the grip they use even in the same relief, holding by the pommel, chocking the guard, ice pick grip etc... so we can see a lot of variations in that Not bronze age or European but still insightful
There is a channel called neo assyrian props and costumes who made a few videos on this topic Check him out I'm sure you'll find him interesting in general
Personally, I've trained with 13th century sword & shield, sometimes in formation. Obviously this experience is biased, because we actually didn't want to skewer each other. From I've understood, infantry vs infantry, both tightly packed was even more prominent in bronze age (and their swords were shorter). Anyway let's go. I feel like fingering the guard is not a strategy I'd use with a shield. Fights are messy, your shield get sometimes banged into your head or your hand. I wouldn't expose my finger to being pinched real strong between my guard and my shield when I'm receiving or administering and formation charge (no running, just fast pace with friends tightly packed together). That kind of pinching can easily break the finger, and this disarm / prevent you from continuing the fight properly. I already felt that risk when I was in infantry charges, while we were doing it with swords held point straight up until after impact to avoid skewering each others for realz. Limits of reconstitution, in the end we're all 21st century people with no wish of sending each other in the emergency. In the same way, I could imagine that notch being a way to index the shield with the weapon for the charge. That way your shield is supported by both your arms, which helps tremendously : after impact, you tend to end up all crumpled, that's hardly avoidable because your friends behind are tightly packed, heavy and pushing, and the receiving ends tries it's best to resist. After initial impact, if one side has managed to crumple the other real tight and keep some space between their shields and body, they have a demented advantage for what's next. Also, you need that right end support at impact as much as you can, because taking your own shield in the face can seriously hinder your vision or stun quite a lot. I don't know about the ending take on the move inspired from tulwar. As you said, the bronze age sword is way more thrust-centric and the fighting distances are already quite reduced. Using draw cuts surely would have its' use in situations like the ones I've described above, but otherwise, it reduces even further the reach.
I find these discussions of the dynamics, ergonomics, physics, geometry of motion to be particularly interesting. These discussions also point to the importance of "experimental archaeology" and refraining from projecting views when wanting to understanding the fundamental issues of any weaponry - how is it deployed and employed and used to be effective. Great discussion. Thank you. Cheers!
face on, the cuts you were making in slow motion, showed very little on the mushroom smooth pommel to catch or snag on the opponents gear at close quarters. Very interesting and informative.
From the moment I saw that pommel to the end of the video I waited in vain for the obvious; that pommel is ideally shaped for a push with the palm of the hand! Not the sword hand, but the other hand to give a two-handed grip to assist with a fuller penetration,and also to help to free the blade out of the body of your opponent. Bronze being softer than steel, would get blunt sooner, so a thrust would get increasingly harder. Same for withdrawing the blade trapped in your opponent's body: a two-handed grip would put less bending stress on the blade as the pull could be better aligned along the axis of the blade. Your points about conjecture and individual's usage variations are sound. As for hand size, it's probably best to check skeletal remains and the handles of other items (how thick is this handle and how long is the space used for gripping? )Keep up the good work -your enthusiasm is very effective!!
Pushing with the palm of the 2nd hand would add power to a thrust. But the advantages of having a shield in the 2nd hand would usually outweigh 2-handed swording. There might be specific grappling situations where the shield was abandoned, and 2-handed use would be helpful. But such close-grappling situations seem secondary when designing a pommel for a "long-sword". For close-fighting, a Medieval Rondel Dagger had a flat pommels so that the 2nd hand could add thrust. But those soldiers usually didn't rely on shields in the 2nd hand, wearing full-plate armor.
Would LOVE a more dedicated video on the pros and cons of that hammer grip, and stiff wrist cuts. Ive been very interested in that specifically in regards to the tulwar
I agree, especially about the material strength. In civilian contexts, reach is very important, but on the battlefield spears are for reach. This short, reinforced sword is for when the enemy shields are pressing against your shield. In the context of the press, not only does it help with slashing alignment, but a hammer grip is important for retaining the weapon. Probably works great for pommel strikes to opponents heads when then try to shove your shield as well.
Disk-shaped pommels on Bronze Age swords encouraging a hammer grip and draw cuts makes sense for the reason you describe Matt, i.e. limitations of the material and thrusting around shields. However, another potential reason for that design choice may be that the majority of rank and file Bronze Age warriors likely didn’t wear much metal armor as such things were probably largely restricted to elite warriors. Therefore, draw cuts would be an effective way wounding lightly armored foes.
This was my thought as well. If most of the people you are fighting just have thick cloth (felt tunics, fleece cloaks and such) as armor wide slashes make a lot of sense, and they are easier to get right if the hand is locked in a 90 degree hammer grip.
The drawing across cuts would be better for cutting through cloth armor. Chopping cuts take more force to cut through that and a blade tends to bounce off of them. This is seeing medieval and renascence blades trying to cut linen gambles, but similar armor to this type has been worn since the Bronze Age. You also just have thick clothing in northern climates or in winter in even slightly northern climates that a sword could have to deal with, so a chop might not do much compared to a slice with the sword with a bronze blade since you couldn't go to town without risking bending the blade, as was pointed out in the video. This fragility might explain why the mace and axe were still so popular as weapons of war, especially since they could deal with armor, like the bone and even metal forms that appeared in the middle and late Bronze Age. Boar tusk strips don't protect your head when a bronze axe head is smashed into it. Still need a shield to protect yourself from that danger, even with armor.
I would add an additional disclaimer that your theory only applies to commonly adopted pommel shapes. There have always been people who make a one-off or small batch design that wasn't good enough to be widely adopted by the general public. I fully agree with your assessment that certain pommel designs were intended to force the user to hold it and use it in a specific manner.
Good talk! I find broad pommels also provide good leverage against the palm heel for raising the sword. Might also make for a good wrap around false edge cut when you're in close. What would really be interesting is to get some steel simulators and some shields and have at it. See what comes out on top.
The blade durability was what I was thinking about before you got there at the end. Draw Cut will have a lot less blade impact than a chop. TBH it also tends to give a much deeper wound, too, so I think you make a great point, as per usual. I winced at the finger over on that notched blade... even with a better shoulder, the blade is narrow enough that the impact shock on the inside of that finger would still be wickedly uncomfortable.
i think it is shaped like that to stop the blade flying out your hand when you are going balls out in a battle. It keeps the sword from being pulled out of your hand.
I'm not an expert, but I do have some thoughts. The notch on the one blade reminds me of a decorative element on a short fantasy wall hanger I once owned. The blade had a similar notch just above the guard which had multicolored beaded and braided cordage wrapped around the unsharpened section from the guard up to the bottom of the edge. The cordage formed a "cap" of sorts to the scabbard, which would be the only practical value I could see. The cordage did not protrude past the guard, but may also have served to block or absorb any bodily fluids from running down the blade to the user's hand. As for the mushroom pommel, is it possible that design would have a secondary function for the back rows of a formation? Those soldiers would be walking over downed enemies during an advance, and those enemies may well need to be dispatched. A reverse grip on the sword would allow a quick downward thrust while not needing to stoop or bend, thereby allowing the shield to provide overhead cover, and the mushroom pommel would provide a wide surface to pull against to retrieve the blade from the corpse, would it not?
Let’s talk about the midrib on the Limehouse blade too. Not all the mushroom hilted bronze swords have a midrib. The Naue shape, which was more widespread than the Limehouse, has a similar outline and no midrib IIRC. At first I thought the midrib was to make it better for thrusting, but this isn’t a great thrusting design due to the pommel. Now I’m wondering if the midrib is to reinforce it so that you can parry with the flat of the blade without bending it. Skallagtim did test out a Naue, and it tended to bend after cutting a bunch of times, which could be corrected by flipping the sword over and cutting with the other edge to unbend it (he was hewing wood as a test). So maybe the Limehouse was designed as a sword that could effectively parry and be used without a shield?
I was wondering about this grip on a double edged sword. Your final point about bronze edges being easy to blunt makes sense of that. You can fight twice as long before retreating to the pit-stop.
Very interesting. I do have a question, could not the hammer grip be used for an under hand thrust from the hip? I have noticed that some Bronze Age shields have a ‘base fiddle’ pattern with circular cutouts at their edges half way down the shield on either side. Would not an underhand grip with a mushroom cap hilt be perfect for such a shield usage (whether right or left handed) as the hip thrust would pass through the cutouts of the shield?
I agree with your comments, and only add that in addition to the stress along the length of the blade (looking at shock fractures from impact and the like), one might also consider edge damage. Egyptian pyramid builders appear to have kept a staff on site solely for resharpening bronze tools because bronze edges don't stay sharp like iron-based ones do. A chopping motion seems to me to be more likely to produce nicks and divots in the edge (especially against armor, shields and other harder than bronze objects) than slicing motions.
Excellent video! In musing on this also consider bronze age armor. In many cultures the shield was the main or only protection for line troopers other than a helmet. Armor for line troopers might be (nearly) non-existent as with Sumerians and Egyptians. It could be thick textiles. It could be partial armor, as with the early Romans, who wore a partial metal chest/pectoral protector but nothing on the arms and shoulders. In these cases a slice would make a longer cut, increasing the trauma and chances of causing bleeding. There would be no need for the additional torque involved in flexing the wrist to create greater impact if striking textile or bare flesh. I'm curious what experts would think about this point.
I think the reasoning of the durability of the material to probably be one of the larger contributing factors. I would also think that the dramatic central rib points in the direction of either thrusting or slashing as they tend to put less lateral stress than chopping and those would seem to be more suited to the geometry that is found in a lot of bronze swords.
This is fascinating. Slightly off-topic but this had me wondering about a different sword, one you know well: the 14th century arming sword from Royal Armoury collection (Windlass). I own it and it's beautiful. When cutting with it and handling it, I did notice that the pommel (for those who dont know it: big knob of a pommel, like a big cube with rounded off edges) digs into my hand and when I forget to put on goves before, it can be uncomfortable or even hurt if used too long. So seeing this video, Im wondering: could that too have had a hammer grip in mind? Or is it more a case of "just wear gloves"?
I'd say the Pylos Combat Agate pretty definitively supports using a hammer grip for thrusting with a bronze age sword, and thrusting over a shield down into a man's subclavian arteries no less. Now granted, the Pylos Combat Agate is a sample size of one and how exactly the original sculptor managed in the first place to accurately cut the anatomical features of three people and their equipment down to their cloth weaves into a stone only 3.4 centimeters across with a Mohs hardness of 7 is an entirely different topic, but how many other period depictions do we have of bronze age combat with a sword where the individual fingers and muscles groups are rendered?
I was saying you should put the thumb on the flat of the blade between the "quillons" where there is a specific place for it since the early Bronze Age down through to the end of the Bronze Age.
All rational points, agreed. I think the pommel would not impede attempts to stab over the top of or underneath a shield. I also think the pommel with more surface area against the hand would add strength to pulling the sword back in cuts with resistance in close quarters (not much swing momentum), or against attempted disarms. It would of course be nice if we knew a lot more about battles at the time, dense or loose formations., how much combat was individual, etc.
I wonder if those big bulbous hilts may also have been used because you are fighting spears and polearm more than swords - a useful comfortable grip to put your other palm onto - holding it a bit more like the common two handed pistol grip... That would I suspect help you resist and bat away the polearm swung or thrust at you with better grip on your sword, and doesn't to my imagination and bottle prop feel like it would overly restrict the movement you want to make. At least when defending against the spear aimed anywhere above your waist - which is where all the spear and pole arm coming at you would be when the opponent is behind their shield wall... Love to see it tested or get my hands on a replica to try it myself. Don't think its going to be the only reason by any stretch, I imagine having a good cross guard/pommel to bludgeon with could also be a reason to choose a more bulbous pommel - there are times you just want a weighty stick not a cutting tool and if you have gloves so the blade isn't too dangerous to hold... Also seems quite possible to me that big bulbous hilt is preferred for a reverse grip not with the expectation of it being in the front of the fighting - mostly used to put some real force behind a thrust be much easier to get through any resistance and armour on the opponent on the ground, backed against something if you can drop your body weight onto the back of the blade comfortably. All that said clearly a grip that you can only really hold a limited number of ways, and hammer grip is the one that would fit naturally in the hand - wouldn't be shaped that way if doing so made it really awkward to hold and use in your supposed default grip. So unless their hands are much much different to ours today, which as far as I'm aware all the bones that survive say isn't the case at all... So while they doubtless would hold it in other ways sometimes its ergonomic design is clearly all about hammer grip.
Super interesting to see how the second bronze sword has the blade suddenly becoming thinner about two thirds towards the tip; that's a feature some Chinese swords from around 300 BC have as well, but which I haven't seen on more modern non-thrusting swords.
Would these swords have also been used for everyday tasks, such as camp building or food preparation? In that case I’d want to choke up on the blade, wrapping a finger above the guard cutting towards myself for more control.
A question on the blunt portion of the Carp's Tongue, right above the grip: Do we actually know that the reconstruction is complete? It feels like a convenient place for some kind of hand guard made from organic material. Now, admittedly, there is no trace of riveting or the like, but it still could be glued, strapped or intricately woven leather or so...
Very interesting topic. I see your point about the mushroom pommel. For sure there were multiple styles around at the time, like in all others times. Depending on the social structure of the time, it's possible for some people to go around all day everyday with a sword but, for obvious reasons, not a shield; this could/should push for something like modern machete fighting styles to be developped.
More Bronze Age content, please, Matt. Just a thought, but the mushroom pommel would make it easier to apply the force of a second hand when finishing off a foe if you reverse the sword (like a rondel dagger).
Large mushroom or sphere pommels is what was found on some of those Aegean "rapier" swords and those don't even have blade shoulders to facilitate placing fingers over the handguard. They will force hammer grip, or it's going to be a very awkward wield.
Look at Mycenean and Hittite swords. Many bronze age swords were rapiers made mainly for thrusting which you couldn't do efficiently with that large pommel.
To argue in favour of more handshaky grips with thumb on the flat or finger over, some types of swords don't have the spine running all the way down to the grip, and some have at the base of the blade a blunt but serrated ricasso which would provide more grip to the finger and limit the risk of sliding up the blade. But the hammer grip seems like a very reasonable option for most cases.
Antennae Swords seem like they would've had less emphasis on the hammer grip since they didn't have the mushroom pommel usually. Elamite Bronze Sword has a prominent handle. Persia back then had a thrusting sword with a more onion like pommel.
I am sure that the notches in front of the guard on a sword without a pommel are made on purpose. If a strap with a loop is tied to these notches and a hand is threaded through the loop, this system does not need a round pommel to hold the sword during slashing strokes.
So, what if it's hand protection? I know from experience a pommel can save your hand if you come in for an attack and the rival shield bashes to meet your blade early on. Maybe they kept getting their hands smashed form the bottom, and added a "shield" on the bottom, then slowly over time, realized it was cumbersome, and removed unnecessary parts.
according to archeological finds in our region, the wearer of bronce sword were not smaller than people today, cause they were of the wealthier class without the "hunger-marks" that bones of "normal" people often show
Matt, it would be very interesting if you would make a video about the sword of Goujian, from the Chinese Bronze Age. It's blade is razor sharp, and it also has a disk pommel! It's considered a predecessor of the later Jian, that has a very different hilt and pommel shape. Maybe because Bronze Age swords were mainly slicing and chopping swords, used on conjunction with shields, as opposed to the later steel Jian? It would be nice to hear your opinion
Would it be possible to use a broad pommelled bronze sword like the one in the vid two handed like you would a rondel dagger, with your main hand holding the blade reverse grip and the palm of your off hand cupping the pommel? And if so, would there be any advantage or would it be too much force for the blade to absorb?
What about thumbing the blade like a messer?? I’ve noticed many seem to have a thumb notch for it! That still uses the pommel to brace the bottom of your hand fully, so isn’t “working around it” per se. Curious your thoughts! While I still very much agree hammer grip was likely used a lot, I wonder if zwerch-coptering with one of these wouldn’t do well
Is the hammerfist grip usually associated with using a shield? Is it plausible to suggest that using a sword in a hammerfist grip implies use of a shield?
i would love to see a video where you talk about the hammer grip slicing style of sword swinging. not that i don't think that type of fighting is bad, but fundamentally reach is very important with fighting with a sword... unless its not as important as i think it is practically.
The shroom pommel reminds me a lot of rondel daggers, too. Given the shorter length of the blade relative to other swords and the probable use in finishing off wounded opponents, could that pommel have served a similar purpose to a rondel, for pushing against? Your second sword's "finger grooves" are also most likely sharpening choils, I think, to make the edge easier to hone. Lots of modern knives have them.
The idea of wooden pommels invites an additional question. If they were apparently just as happy to make the pommel out of wood as bronze, it suggests that weight wasn't a major factor in why the pommels were the shape and size they were, which all the more encourages the idea that they were the shape they were for the geometry of it- to advantage a specific grip.
The notches on the sword without a pommel look like additional stops to catch the opponent's blade while it's gliding towards the hand, making the guard slightly more efficient. While I'm at it, I'd like to know why these guards were so small. It would have been so simple to add a bit of metal to offer better protection. Were hand wounds so infrequent?
I think Matt's addressed the small guards before with respect to the gladius, and it would be relevant to migration era and early viking era swords too. IIRC he said that when the sword is used with a medium-to-large shield, the shield is your defense and also a larger guard risks catching on the edge of the shield, so all you need is a hand stop.
The way these are cast might be significant. The way the bronze settles in the mold means that one end will be weaker, and if you make a very complicated grip and hilt assembly, you need to pour the bronze in a way that makes the blade less strong. That’s also the reason I’ve heard for the hilts on bronze swords becoming simpler over time. Some of the earliest ones had a fully shaped grip and guard, whereas the later ones just have a rectangular tang and the majority of the hilt assembly being of wood. Plus the fact these were used together with shields.
Hi, Matt. I love your work. In this video you used the word theory when I believe you should have said hypothesis. A theory is an explanation that has been verified and is falsifiable. A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. You are so specific and careful in your narrative for all videos that I had to make this suggestion. Cheers!
So what is the advantage to the mushroom pommel? I imagine (maybe wrongly) that there is a reason it helps you that is more than "it forces you to hammer grip." E.g. it might protect your hand when doing those slices (the pommel was noticeably visible in the demo of those suggesting your hand could be vulnerable otherwise), and it would provide a strong support so your hand can't easily slide off, like a rondel dagger. Any other possibilities?
I very much agree with your analysis. And you can still stab / thrust with a hammer fist grip (a la the glades?). Especially with a shield. All be it, close combat stabbing / thrusting. Seems to me, at least.
I've seen a Chinese bronze dagger on some video, and the edge was definitely pinned, like you do on a scythe. Scythe blades are not good for chopping, but they do cut (slice) really well. If you are correct, that all would make a lot of sense. A super sharp but fragile edge, good for devastating thrusts and surface level long slices. A pinned edge "bites" extremely well, so those slices could cause a lot of damage without a lot of stress put on the edge. BTW - I pin scythes for people. How many years? Hard to tell. I mean, I kinda know how this type of edge behaves. Oh, some blacksmiths err on the side of a robust edge. Yes, it's pinned, technically speaking, but barely. I doubt Achilles had this type of edge on his swords.
Does disk pommel prevent disarming? If one were committed to a hammer grip (for the reasons Matt mentioned), it seems like a disk pommel might make it harder for an opponent to grab or otherwise dislodge one's weapon given the additional wrist support. Is that the rationale for such pommels?
There was a December 2020 article (Journal of Archeological Method and Theory Authors: Raphael Hermann, Andrea Dolfini, Rachel J. Crellin, and Quanyu Wang) that featured Neil Burge's swords and historical martial arts practitioners. In it, they discussed as many as five hand grips (including the one with the finger up near the edge, though this appears to be with swords not using the mushroom pummel). It was noted by the practitioners that bronze swords had a habit of 'sticking' (their words, not mine) to one another which, taking into account similar weapons damage between the Neil Burge swords and the historical blades, suggested that blade locking might have been more common with bronze swords as a tactic compared to iron/steel swords. What are your thoughts on this?
I have two questions, one why does it seem there so much more surviving armor from 1550’s versus the entire period of 1300-1490s for Europe? Secondly I came across a interesting Estoc that is basically a poleaxe with the blade as the haft very thin, but the handguard is the beak, but still has a ring guard. Any references aside from Gladitoria you are aware of for such a thing?
So I have seen somewhere, I don't remember offhand, evidence of boiled leather hand protection incorporated in swords- like a bell or somesuch. It's generally lost to time, but that cutout on the one blade would be a good place to attach such a thing. No way to know, but it occurred to me as a possibility.
I have no experience in sword-fighting: ancient, medieval or modern. But just from a design perspective, I find it have to imagine that something was shaped in a specific way _just to coax someone into a specific position._ Is there some other advantage of that kind of pommel?
You've tied yourself in a bit of a knot there by drawing parallels with more modern steel swords with a similar pommel , and then pointing out that the material may require a different style of use from a steel sword. That said, I think you're right - the BA sword is made for a drawing cut, and the only point I'd add is that more recent swords with pommels that require that same style of use, have evolved from the BA sword...
I feel that a lot of people coming from this after studying later period martial arts don't understand that they didn't know that there were better ways to do things. It was good enough to have a sword at all, they didn't need thousands of hours of training to be effective because they were mostly up against part time warriors who also didn't have thousands of hours of training. it is like looking at football games from the 50s where world class at the time teams were worse than the local high school team is now.
It might be worth considering that the swords were a secondary weapon to the spear in this period so there may not have been a distinct training/fighting style for swords. They may simply have used the sword like they used a spear as that is what they mainly trained with and would have been most comfortable with. So held somewhat low and thrusting from below?
My first idea was that the pommel forces hammer grip and less movement to prevent wrist injuries.I also thought that 90 degree chop is more destructive to weapon than 45 slicing.
Something I would like to hear considered is the material the sword is made of. Bronze at its very best is not particularly elastic. It can't bend much and recover. How does that affect using a sword of bronze?
"That means my hand is slightly bigger and EVERYTHING else is slightly bigger"... you're bragging way too much, Matt. 😂 Just kidding. Very nice content as always. I learned a lot.
14:42 As someone who hasnt gotten to study sword firsthand… That looks like it will deliver a lot of power into stabs, but if it slips from your hand, you would cut your hand and potentially even your radial artery if your gripstrength cant withstand the impact.
Also this comes (not coincidentally?) days after Roland Warzecha published an article about his handshake grip for a specific bronze sword that (he claims) fits well into the palm of his hand. Maybe you could address that directly? (unless there's some sword community beef I'm not aware of? ;))
Regarding the purpose of the shape of the guard, it should be noted that the small guard is clearly an actual guard. If it wasn't meant to stop enemy weapons at all, it would not be made of bronze.
Sorry if repeating anyone else's thoughts but it occurs to me the Bronze Age design and use of swords was down to just not being terribly good at either at that stage. These people didn't have centuries of manufacturing and fencing techniques to draw upon. Given that the primary weapon of the era was the spear, a sword was likely considered an emergency backup weapon only used at very close quarters. With that in mind, a hammer gripped bronze sword would have the benefits already outlined by Matt plus, to my mind, that pommel would've been an extremely uncomfortable thing to have rammed into one's face.
I'm only 5 mins in, so I apologize if this answered later on in the vid, but how likely is it that mushroom pomneled swords (Western variety) were more for decorum and thus weren't meant to be used in battle? Are there any archeological examples of gladius without the accentuated pummel?
I've just realized this isn't necessarily a weapons channel, rather more history of workplace safety and industrial design with a particular focus
On modern knives the "nook" weather big enough for a finger or not is often used to facilitate sharpening the blade all the way down.
Yes it's similar with Indian swords - I suspect that something similar was going on with these bronze swords.
@@scholagladiatoria Indeed, I carry a Spyderco Urban everyday that has a purposefully designed finger choil, and lacks a sharpening choil. The index finger sits a millimeter away from the edge, but the grip on the handle means it's almost impossible for the hand to slip and for the index finger to be cut when thrusting. However, it also doesn't have a 🍄 on the other end of it. 😁
I could see those 'nooks'/finger placements being pretty handy to free the blade after a thrust, as well, in that use you'd be pulling away from where the sharp parts are anyway.
@@scholagladiatoriaThank you Matt! I think you’re reasoning in this video seems like it is the most likely explanation. I appreciate & enjoy your videos, they’re always fun & interesting! Thanks again Matt. Best wishes to you and your family. ✌️
@@scholagladiatoriaThere are images from that time where you can see how a thrust was delivered with such a sword. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to them. The grip is completely straight.
I also imagine the hammer grip also made thrusting upward (like under a shield) better. I think any treatment of a sword from that period that doesn’t seek to place it in a system with the shield is silly.
Agreed!
Also, the grip seems like it would be effective in an overhand, downward thrust over the users shield. And maybe the opponents shield.
Yea, like a gladius. And it's not just up, the same holds true for "haymaker" thrust around the sides or over top of the shields-
@@vde1846 yeah! I agree! I just didn’t want my comment to be too long lol
It's so they could 'pummel' their opponent! 😁
Can't argue with that.
Thanks for once again being Matt Easton.
Something you might find interesting is that we can see in depictions of neo assyrian sword (many of which had mushroom pommels) there is a lot of variations in the grip they use even in the same relief, holding by the pommel, chocking the guard, ice pick grip etc... so we can see a lot of variations in that
Not bronze age or European but still insightful
There is a channel called neo assyrian props and costumes who made a few videos on this topic
Check him out I'm sure you'll find him interesting in general
Ah yes, an appendix video that is longer than the video that it refers to, classic Matt!! 🤣
Yes! I've been obsessed with those these past few weeks. Can you do a video on Gaulish swords and Celtic swords from the early Iron Age ?
I would absolutely love to see a video on Celtic swords!
I'd love to see this! The proto-celtic hallstadt and carps tongue would be a good transition topic on this
I think he would love the iron scabbards they tended to use.
I believe that I recently saw a video on that from the channel history hit, if that helps you.
@@hjorturerlend Yes ! I'm very intrigued by the pros and cons of those scabbards. I also love how artistic they were with iron in general.
Personally, I've trained with 13th century sword & shield, sometimes in formation. Obviously this experience is biased, because we actually didn't want to skewer each other. From I've understood, infantry vs infantry, both tightly packed was even more prominent in bronze age (and their swords were shorter).
Anyway let's go.
I feel like fingering the guard is not a strategy I'd use with a shield. Fights are messy, your shield get sometimes banged into your head or your hand. I wouldn't expose my finger to being pinched real strong between my guard and my shield when I'm receiving or administering and formation charge (no running, just fast pace with friends tightly packed together). That kind of pinching can easily break the finger, and this disarm / prevent you from continuing the fight properly.
I already felt that risk when I was in infantry charges, while we were doing it with swords held point straight up until after impact to avoid skewering each others for realz. Limits of reconstitution, in the end we're all 21st century people with no wish of sending each other in the emergency.
In the same way, I could imagine that notch being a way to index the shield with the weapon for the charge. That way your shield is supported by both your arms, which helps tremendously : after impact, you tend to end up all crumpled, that's hardly avoidable because your friends behind are tightly packed, heavy and pushing, and the receiving ends tries it's best to resist. After initial impact, if one side has managed to crumple the other real tight and keep some space between their shields and body, they have a demented advantage for what's next.
Also, you need that right end support at impact as much as you can, because taking your own shield in the face can seriously hinder your vision or stun quite a lot.
I don't know about the ending take on the move inspired from tulwar. As you said, the bronze age sword is way more thrust-centric and the fighting distances are already quite reduced. Using draw cuts surely would have its' use in situations like the ones I've described above, but otherwise, it reduces even further the reach.
I find these discussions of the dynamics, ergonomics, physics, geometry of motion to be particularly interesting. These discussions also point to the importance of "experimental archaeology" and refraining from projecting views when wanting to understanding the fundamental issues of any weaponry - how is it deployed and employed and used to be effective. Great discussion. Thank you. Cheers!
face on, the cuts you were making in slow motion, showed very little on the mushroom smooth pommel to catch or snag on the opponents gear at close quarters. Very interesting and informative.
From the moment I saw that pommel to the end of the video I waited in vain for the obvious; that pommel is ideally shaped for a push with the palm of the hand!
Not the sword hand, but the other hand to give a two-handed grip to assist with a fuller penetration,and also to help to free the blade out of the body of your opponent. Bronze being softer than steel, would get blunt sooner, so a thrust would get increasingly harder.
Same for withdrawing the blade trapped in your opponent's body: a two-handed grip would put less bending stress on the blade as the pull could be better aligned along the axis of the blade. Your points about conjecture and individual's usage variations are sound. As for hand size, it's probably best to check skeletal remains and the handles of other items (how thick is this handle and how long is the space used for gripping?
)Keep up the good work -your enthusiasm is very effective!!
Pushing with the palm of the 2nd hand would add power to a thrust. But the advantages of having a shield in the 2nd hand would usually outweigh 2-handed swording. There might be specific grappling situations where the shield was abandoned, and 2-handed use would be helpful. But such close-grappling situations seem secondary when designing a pommel for a "long-sword". For close-fighting, a Medieval Rondel Dagger had a flat pommels so that the 2nd hand could add thrust. But those soldiers usually didn't rely on shields in the 2nd hand, wearing full-plate armor.
Would LOVE a more dedicated video on the pros and cons of that hammer grip, and stiff wrist cuts.
Ive been very interested in that specifically in regards to the tulwar
Chaotic Evil grip:
Grab the bronze sword by the pommel with the handle sticking between your fingers and use it like the world's largest push dagger.
Touché.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought of it 😅
I tried it with my Limehouse sword. The problem is that the pommel is only pegged on, so it would probably break on contact.
Great video. I'm always here for the pre-medieval content. 👍
I agree, especially about the material strength. In civilian contexts, reach is very important, but on the battlefield spears are for reach. This short, reinforced sword is for when the enemy shields are pressing against your shield. In the context of the press, not only does it help with slashing alignment, but a hammer grip is important for retaining the weapon. Probably works great for pommel strikes to opponents heads when then try to shove your shield as well.
Disk-shaped pommels on Bronze Age swords encouraging a hammer grip and draw cuts makes sense for the reason you describe Matt, i.e. limitations of the material and thrusting around shields. However, another potential reason for that design choice may be that the majority of rank and file Bronze Age warriors likely didn’t wear much metal armor as such things were probably largely restricted to elite warriors. Therefore, draw cuts would be an effective way wounding lightly armored foes.
This was my thought as well. If most of the people you are fighting just have thick cloth (felt tunics, fleece cloaks and such) as armor wide slashes make a lot of sense, and they are easier to get right if the hand is locked in a 90 degree hammer grip.
Wow, the perfect video for me! I’ve been concerned recently wether or not I’ve been gripping my european bronze age sword correctly! What a lifesaver!
The drawing across cuts would be better for cutting through cloth armor. Chopping cuts take more force to cut through that and a blade tends to bounce off of them. This is seeing medieval and renascence blades trying to cut linen gambles, but similar armor to this type has been worn since the Bronze Age. You also just have thick clothing in northern climates or in winter in even slightly northern climates that a sword could have to deal with, so a chop might not do much compared to a slice with the sword with a bronze blade since you couldn't go to town without risking bending the blade, as was pointed out in the video.
This fragility might explain why the mace and axe were still so popular as weapons of war, especially since they could deal with armor, like the bone and even metal forms that appeared in the middle and late Bronze Age. Boar tusk strips don't protect your head when a bronze axe head is smashed into it. Still need a shield to protect yourself from that danger, even with armor.
I would add an additional disclaimer that your theory only applies to commonly adopted pommel shapes. There have always been people who make a one-off or small batch design that wasn't good enough to be widely adopted by the general public. I fully agree with your assessment that certain pommel designs were intended to force the user to hold it and use it in a specific manner.
So interesting! As always... Thx Mr Schola-Easton.
Good talk! I find broad pommels also provide good leverage against the palm heel for raising the sword. Might also make for a good wrap around false edge cut when you're in close. What would really be interesting is to get some steel simulators and some shields and have at it. See what comes out on top.
The blade durability was what I was thinking about before you got there at the end. Draw Cut will have a lot less blade impact than a chop. TBH it also tends to give a much deeper wound, too, so I think you make a great point, as per usual. I winced at the finger over on that notched blade... even with a better shoulder, the blade is narrow enough that the impact shock on the inside of that finger would still be wickedly uncomfortable.
this is really fun and interesting video.
Another 'brief' video by Matt to go over just a few points.
12:39 "Everything else is slightly bigger"( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
except the hair👩🏻🦲
Haha! This is why I watch Eastman. It is Monty-Pythonesque.
"He vould have an enormous Schweinstücker..."
- 'Young Frankenstein' ;-)
i think it is shaped like that to stop the blade flying out your hand when you are going balls out in a battle. It keeps the sword from being pulled out of your hand.
imagine you place the handle in your palm. then let your fingers curl around the handle to form a grip
Poppycock
Agreed, but the final grip position is always going to be related to the size of the hand.
Tell that to Steven Segaul
Sir, I absolutely will not.
@@BygoneUser1 yes, you WILL
Sir, your videos would be thirty seconds long if not for tangents. That is why we love you. LOL!
I'm not an expert, but I do have some thoughts. The notch on the one blade reminds me of a decorative element on a short fantasy wall hanger I once owned. The blade had a similar notch just above the guard which had multicolored beaded and braided cordage wrapped around the unsharpened section from the guard up to the bottom of the edge. The cordage formed a "cap" of sorts to the scabbard, which would be the only practical value I could see. The cordage did not protrude past the guard, but may also have served to block or absorb any bodily fluids from running down the blade to the user's hand. As for the mushroom pommel, is it possible that design would have a secondary function for the back rows of a formation? Those soldiers would be walking over downed enemies during an advance, and those enemies may well need to be dispatched. A reverse grip on the sword would allow a quick downward thrust while not needing to stoop or bend, thereby allowing the shield to provide overhead cover, and the mushroom pommel would provide a wide surface to pull against to retrieve the blade from the corpse, would it not?
Let’s talk about the midrib on the Limehouse blade too. Not all the mushroom hilted bronze swords have a midrib. The Naue shape, which was more widespread than the Limehouse, has a similar outline and no midrib IIRC. At first I thought the midrib was to make it better for thrusting, but this isn’t a great thrusting design due to the pommel. Now I’m wondering if the midrib is to reinforce it so that you can parry with the flat of the blade without bending it. Skallagtim did test out a Naue, and it tended to bend after cutting a bunch of times, which could be corrected by flipping the sword over and cutting with the other edge to unbend it (he was hewing wood as a test). So maybe the Limehouse was designed as a sword that could effectively parry and be used without a shield?
I was wondering about this grip on a double edged sword. Your final point about bronze edges being easy to blunt makes sense of that. You can fight twice as long before retreating to the pit-stop.
Interesting video.
For me the point about curved thrusts is the most convincing.
In shield fighting that is absolutely a thing.
Very interesting. I do have a question, could not the hammer grip be used for an under hand thrust from the hip? I have noticed that some Bronze Age shields have a ‘base fiddle’ pattern with circular cutouts at their edges half way down the shield on either side. Would not an underhand grip with a mushroom cap hilt be perfect for such a shield usage (whether right or left handed) as the hip thrust would pass through the cutouts of the shield?
People that wanna work around sword features tend to forget that those swords weren't used to cut down water bottles back then.
I agree with your comments, and only add that in addition to the stress along the length of the blade (looking at shock fractures from impact and the like), one might also consider edge damage. Egyptian pyramid builders appear to have kept a staff on site solely for resharpening bronze tools because bronze edges don't stay sharp like iron-based ones do. A chopping motion seems to me to be more likely to produce nicks and divots in the edge (especially against armor, shields and other harder than bronze objects) than slicing motions.
Excellent video! In musing on this also consider bronze age armor. In many cultures the shield was the main or only protection for line troopers other than a helmet. Armor for line troopers might be (nearly) non-existent as with Sumerians and Egyptians. It could be thick textiles. It could be partial armor, as with the early Romans, who wore a partial metal chest/pectoral protector but nothing on the arms and shoulders. In these cases a slice would make a longer cut, increasing the trauma and chances of causing bleeding. There would be no need for the additional torque involved in flexing the wrist to create greater impact if striking textile or bare flesh. I'm curious what experts would think about this point.
First thought about such pommel was - grip can be more relaxed while hand is making centrifugal moves thus can do it faster with less fatigue.
I think the reasoning of the durability of the material to probably be one of the larger contributing factors. I would also think that the dramatic central rib points in the direction of either thrusting or slashing as they tend to put less lateral stress than chopping and those would seem to be more suited to the geometry that is found in a lot of bronze swords.
This is fascinating. Slightly off-topic but this had me wondering about a different sword, one you know well: the 14th century arming sword from Royal Armoury collection (Windlass). I own it and it's beautiful. When cutting with it and handling it, I did notice that the pommel (for those who dont know it: big knob of a pommel, like a big cube with rounded off edges) digs into my hand and when I forget to put on goves before, it can be uncomfortable or even hurt if used too long. So seeing this video, Im wondering: could that too have had a hammer grip in mind? Or is it more a case of "just wear gloves"?
That weird 'finger out' handshake grip looks like a good way to lose that finger.
I'd say the Pylos Combat Agate pretty definitively supports using a hammer grip for thrusting with a bronze age sword, and thrusting over a shield down into a man's subclavian arteries no less. Now granted, the Pylos Combat Agate is a sample size of one and how exactly the original sculptor managed in the first place to accurately cut the anatomical features of three people and their equipment down to their cloth weaves into a stone only 3.4 centimeters across with a Mohs hardness of 7 is an entirely different topic, but how many other period depictions do we have of bronze age combat with a sword where the individual fingers and muscles groups are rendered?
I was saying you should put the thumb on the flat of the blade between the "quillons" where there is a specific place for it since the early Bronze Age down through to the end of the Bronze Age.
Thanks for the video ⚔️
All rational points, agreed. I think the pommel would not impede attempts to stab over the top of or underneath a shield. I also think the pommel with more surface area against the hand would add strength to pulling the sword back in cuts with resistance in close quarters (not much swing momentum), or against attempted disarms. It would of course be nice if we knew a lot more about battles at the time, dense or loose formations., how much combat was individual, etc.
I wonder if those big bulbous hilts may also have been used because you are fighting spears and polearm more than swords - a useful comfortable grip to put your other palm onto - holding it a bit more like the common two handed pistol grip... That would I suspect help you resist and bat away the polearm swung or thrust at you with better grip on your sword, and doesn't to my imagination and bottle prop feel like it would overly restrict the movement you want to make. At least when defending against the spear aimed anywhere above your waist - which is where all the spear and pole arm coming at you would be when the opponent is behind their shield wall... Love to see it tested or get my hands on a replica to try it myself. Don't think its going to be the only reason by any stretch, I imagine having a good cross guard/pommel to bludgeon with could also be a reason to choose a more bulbous pommel - there are times you just want a weighty stick not a cutting tool and if you have gloves so the blade isn't too dangerous to hold... Also seems quite possible to me that big bulbous hilt is preferred for a reverse grip not with the expectation of it being in the front of the fighting - mostly used to put some real force behind a thrust be much easier to get through any resistance and armour on the opponent on the ground, backed against something if you can drop your body weight onto the back of the blade comfortably.
All that said clearly a grip that you can only really hold a limited number of ways, and hammer grip is the one that would fit naturally in the hand - wouldn't be shaped that way if doing so made it really awkward to hold and use in your supposed default grip. So unless their hands are much much different to ours today, which as far as I'm aware all the bones that survive say isn't the case at all... So while they doubtless would hold it in other ways sometimes its ergonomic design is clearly all about hammer grip.
Super interesting to see how the second bronze sword has the blade suddenly becoming thinner about two thirds towards the tip; that's a feature some Chinese swords from around 300 BC have as well, but which I haven't seen on more modern non-thrusting swords.
Hammerfist makes sense. I would love to see you field test the weapon on a torso dummy, melons, or the like.
Those are some cool replicas!
Would these swords have also been used for everyday tasks, such as camp building or food preparation? In that case I’d want to choke up on the blade, wrapping a finger above the guard cutting towards myself for more control.
A question on the blunt portion of the Carp's Tongue, right above the grip: Do we actually know that the reconstruction is complete? It feels like a convenient place for some kind of hand guard made from organic material. Now, admittedly, there is no trace of riveting or the like, but it still could be glued, strapped or intricately woven leather or so...
Very interesting topic.
I see your point about the mushroom pommel. For sure there were multiple styles around at the time, like in all others times.
Depending on the social structure of the time, it's possible for some people to go around all day everyday with a sword but, for obvious reasons, not a shield; this could/should push for something like modern machete fighting styles to be developped.
More Bronze Age content, please, Matt.
Just a thought, but the mushroom pommel would make it easier to apply the force of a second hand when finishing off a foe if you reverse the sword (like a rondel dagger).
Large mushroom or sphere pommels is what was found on some of those Aegean "rapier" swords and those don't even have blade shoulders to facilitate placing fingers over the handguard. They will force hammer grip, or it's going to be a very awkward wield.
Look at Mycenean and Hittite swords. Many bronze age swords were rapiers made mainly for thrusting which you couldn't do efficiently with that large pommel.
Also, does any of the points made here (particularly regarding the cutting angles and methods) apply to curved bronze blades like the kopesh?
Definitely want to see the Dervish videos! I didn't know those survived
Same here
To argue in favour of more handshaky grips with thumb on the flat or finger over, some types of swords don't have the spine running all the way down to the grip, and some have at the base of the blade a blunt but serrated ricasso which would provide more grip to the finger and limit the risk of sliding up the blade.
But the hammer grip seems like a very reasonable option for most cases.
Antennae Swords seem like they would've had less emphasis on the hammer grip since they didn't have the mushroom pommel usually. Elamite Bronze Sword has a prominent handle. Persia back then had a thrusting sword with a more onion like pommel.
I am sure that the notches in front of the guard on a sword without a pommel are made on purpose. If a strap with a loop is tied to these notches and a hand is threaded through the loop, this system does not need a round pommel to hold the sword during slashing strokes.
So, what if it's hand protection? I know from experience a pommel can save your hand if you come in for an attack and the rival shield bashes to meet your blade early on. Maybe they kept getting their hands smashed form the bottom, and added a "shield" on the bottom, then slowly over time, realized it was cumbersome, and removed unnecessary parts.
any wear and tear on the base of the thumb can also force a different hand grip, arthritis can be a factor
according to archeological finds in our region, the wearer of bronce sword were not smaller than people today, cause they were of the wealthier class without the "hunger-marks" that bones of "normal" people often show
Matt, it would be very interesting if you would make a video about the sword of Goujian, from the Chinese Bronze Age. It's blade is razor sharp, and it also has a disk pommel! It's considered a predecessor of the later Jian, that has a very different hilt and pommel shape. Maybe because Bronze Age swords were mainly slicing and chopping swords, used on conjunction with shields, as opposed to the later steel Jian? It would be nice to hear your opinion
I think body mechanics and protecting the wrist from fractures is a good reason for this style of pommel. Cheers. :)
Would it be possible to use a broad pommelled bronze sword like the one in the vid two handed like you would a rondel dagger, with your main hand holding the blade reverse grip and the palm of your off hand cupping the pommel? And if so, would there be any advantage or would it be too much force for the blade to absorb?
What about thumbing the blade like a messer?? I’ve noticed many seem to have a thumb notch for it! That still uses the pommel to brace the bottom of your hand fully, so isn’t “working around it” per se. Curious your thoughts! While I still very much agree hammer grip was likely used a lot, I wonder if zwerch-coptering with one of these wouldn’t do well
Is the hammerfist grip usually associated with using a shield? Is it plausible to suggest that using a sword in a hammerfist grip implies use of a shield?
i would love to see a video where you talk about the hammer grip slicing style of sword swinging. not that i don't think that type of fighting is bad, but fundamentally reach is very important with fighting with a sword... unless its not as important as i think it is practically.
The shroom pommel reminds me a lot of rondel daggers, too. Given the shorter length of the blade relative to other swords and the probable use in finishing off wounded opponents, could that pommel have served a similar purpose to a rondel, for pushing against? Your second sword's "finger grooves" are also most likely sharpening choils, I think, to make the edge easier to hone. Lots of modern knives have them.
The idea of wooden pommels invites an additional question. If they were apparently just as happy to make the pommel out of wood as bronze, it suggests that weight wasn't a major factor in why the pommels were the shape and size they were, which all the more encourages the idea that they were the shape they were for the geometry of it- to advantage a specific grip.
The notches on the sword without a pommel look like additional stops to catch the opponent's blade while it's gliding towards the hand, making the guard slightly more efficient. While I'm at it, I'd like to know why these guards were so small. It would have been so simple to add a bit of metal to offer better protection. Were hand wounds so infrequent?
I think Matt's addressed the small guards before with respect to the gladius, and it would be relevant to migration era and early viking era swords too. IIRC he said that when the sword is used with a medium-to-large shield, the shield is your defense and also a larger guard risks catching on the edge of the shield, so all you need is a hand stop.
The way these are cast might be significant. The way the bronze settles in the mold means that one end will be weaker, and if you make a very complicated grip and hilt assembly, you need to pour the bronze in a way that makes the blade less strong. That’s also the reason I’ve heard for the hilts on bronze swords becoming simpler over time. Some of the earliest ones had a fully shaped grip and guard, whereas the later ones just have a rectangular tang and the majority of the hilt assembly being of wood. Plus the fact these were used together with shields.
How? Pointy end forward, I hope. The replica looks great. Would look great on you with a linothorax and hoplon.
Hi, Matt. I love your work. In this video you used the word theory when I believe you should have said hypothesis. A theory is an explanation that has been verified and is falsifiable. A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. You are so specific and careful in your narrative for all videos that I had to make this suggestion. Cheers!
So what is the advantage to the mushroom pommel? I imagine (maybe wrongly) that there is a reason it helps you that is more than "it forces you to hammer grip." E.g. it might protect your hand when doing those slices (the pommel was noticeably visible in the demo of those suggesting your hand could be vulnerable otherwise), and it would provide a strong support so your hand can't easily slide off, like a rondel dagger. Any other possibilities?
I very much agree with your analysis. And you can still stab / thrust with a hammer fist grip (a la the glades?). Especially with a shield. All be it, close combat stabbing / thrusting. Seems to me, at least.
I've seen a Chinese bronze dagger on some video, and the edge was definitely pinned, like you do on a scythe. Scythe blades are not good for chopping, but they do cut (slice) really well.
If you are correct, that all would make a lot of sense. A super sharp but fragile edge, good for devastating thrusts and surface level long slices. A pinned edge "bites" extremely well, so those slices could cause a lot of damage without a lot of stress put on the edge.
BTW - I pin scythes for people. How many years? Hard to tell. I mean, I kinda know how this type of edge behaves. Oh, some blacksmiths err on the side of a robust edge. Yes, it's pinned, technically speaking, but barely. I doubt Achilles had this type of edge on his swords.
Does disk pommel prevent disarming? If one were committed to a hammer grip (for the reasons Matt mentioned), it seems like a disk pommel might make it harder for an opponent to grab or otherwise dislodge one's weapon given the additional wrist support. Is that the rationale for such pommels?
There was a December 2020 article (Journal of Archeological Method and Theory Authors: Raphael Hermann,
Andrea Dolfini, Rachel J. Crellin, and Quanyu Wang) that featured Neil Burge's swords and historical martial arts practitioners. In it, they discussed as many as five hand grips (including the one with the finger up near the edge, though this appears to be with swords not using the mushroom pummel). It was noted by the practitioners that bronze swords had a habit of 'sticking' (their words, not mine) to one another which, taking into account similar weapons damage between the Neil Burge swords and the historical blades, suggested that blade locking might have been more common with bronze swords as a tactic compared to iron/steel swords. What are your thoughts on this?
I have two questions, one why does it seem there so much more surviving armor from 1550’s versus the entire period of 1300-1490s for Europe? Secondly I came across a interesting Estoc that is basically a poleaxe with the blade as the haft very thin, but the handguard is the beak, but still has a ring guard. Any references aside from Gladitoria you are aware of for such a thing?
Is this a reupload, or why did the title switch from "How to hold..." to "How not to grip..."?
Why would they sharpen both sides of the blade? Is it easier to make it if it's symmetrical?
So I have seen somewhere, I don't remember offhand, evidence of boiled leather hand protection incorporated in swords- like a bell or somesuch. It's generally lost to time, but that cutout on the one blade would be a good place to attach such a thing. No way to know, but it occurred to me as a possibility.
How does it compare the pommel of the gladius, which I thought was meant for stabbing/thrusting? or is that a different kind of thrusting vibe
I have no experience in sword-fighting: ancient, medieval or modern. But just from a design perspective, I find it have to imagine that something was shaped in a specific way _just to coax someone into a specific position._
Is there some other advantage of that kind of pommel?
You've tied yourself in a bit of a knot there by drawing parallels with more modern steel swords with a similar pommel , and then pointing out that the material may require a different style of use from a steel sword. That said, I think you're right - the BA sword is made for a drawing cut, and the only point I'd add is that more recent swords with pommels that require that same style of use, have evolved from the BA sword...
I feel that a lot of people coming from this after studying later period martial arts don't understand that they didn't know that there were better ways to do things. It was good enough to have a sword at all, they didn't need thousands of hours of training to be effective because they were mostly up against part time warriors who also didn't have thousands of hours of training. it is like looking at football games from the 50s where world class at the time teams were worse than the local high school team is now.
Might that shape be about retaining grip if the softer bronze gets stuck on another blade or edge of a shield?
It might be worth considering that the swords were a secondary weapon to the spear in this period so there may not have been a distinct training/fighting style for swords. They may simply have used the sword like they used a spear as that is what they mainly trained with and would have been most comfortable with. So held somewhat low and thrusting from below?
Slice is more energy efficient as it preserves the energy rather than stopping in a chop.
My first idea was that the pommel forces hammer grip and less movement to prevent wrist injuries.I also thought that 90 degree chop is more destructive to weapon than 45 slicing.
Is this a covert response to a recent facebook post by Roland Warzecha on the grip of bronze Age swords?
Something I would like to hear considered is the material the sword is made of. Bronze at its very best is not particularly elastic. It can't bend much and recover. How does that affect using a sword of bronze?
"That means my hand is slightly bigger and EVERYTHING else is slightly bigger"... you're bragging way too much, Matt. 😂 Just kidding. Very nice content as always. I learned a lot.
14:42 As someone who hasnt gotten to study sword firsthand… That looks like it will deliver a lot of power into stabs, but if it slips from your hand, you would cut your hand and potentially even your radial artery if your gripstrength cant withstand the impact.
Also this comes (not coincidentally?) days after Roland Warzecha published an article about his handshake grip for a specific bronze sword that (he claims) fits well into the palm of his hand. Maybe you could address that directly? (unless there's some sword community beef I'm not aware of? ;))
A secondary benefit, not main, might be its better pommel (round) for smashing than flat pommel.
Do a vid on how you think a bronze antenna swords were gripped.
Regarding the purpose of the shape of the guard, it should be noted that the small guard is clearly an actual guard. If it wasn't meant to stop enemy weapons at all, it would not be made of bronze.
Sorry if repeating anyone else's thoughts but it occurs to me the Bronze Age design and use of swords was down to just not being terribly good at either at that stage. These people didn't have centuries of manufacturing and fencing techniques to draw upon.
Given that the primary weapon of the era was the spear, a sword was likely considered an emergency backup weapon only used at very close quarters.
With that in mind, a hammer gripped bronze sword would have the benefits already outlined by Matt plus, to my mind, that pommel would've been an extremely uncomfortable thing to have rammed into one's face.
I'm only 5 mins in, so I apologize if this answered later on in the vid, but how likely is it that mushroom pomneled swords (Western variety) were more for decorum and thus weren't meant to be used in battle? Are there any archeological examples of gladius without the accentuated pummel?