The can opener was invented almost a century after the can. The corkscrew wasn't invented until the end of the 18th century. Putting the cap at the bottom of the mustard bottle was like 5 years ago. The most elegant ideas seem obvious after the fact, but can take a while before someone thinks of it.
I generally agree, but the corkscrew example doesn't really hold up . . . glass bottles with cork stoppers were only invented in the mid 17th century, and by the end of the 17th century people had started repurposing "gun worms" as corkscrews and patenting improvements. Though glass bottles for wine existed and were sometimes used earlier, they were generally stopped with oiled rags, or wax.
The civilian sword is a bulky weapon on account of the basket and could get in the way if you were using a proper primary weapon like a spear or halberd. The sword is a side arm, as you say, and for the warrior, a sword is a secondary weapon that needs to stay out of the way. The ability of the cross guard to lay flat against the body is a good quality for a side arm in battle. The bulk of the basket hilt is fine for the sword as primary weapon. Another thing is that the cross guard is more versatile than the basket. I would guess. The cross guard allows more ways to grip the sword and is probably better at half-swording. What do you think? Awesome video as always! Thanks.
I was about to say the same, for example leaf blades had wider bases (probably) so they can be carried without them rattling, soldiers have been constantly obsessed with ease of carry for equipment, trench knives weren't easy to carry and use in most situations so they weren't very popular.
They were soldiers and firearms were basically still muzzle loaded. That meant.......your sword, or bayonet would most likely see use in every battle. It wan't the primary weapon but sure as heck was a well used, almost mandatory secondary.
I suspect that one of the factors that drove the change in Italian fencing from emphasis on the cut, as in the Bolognese style, to more point centric, as per Giganti, Capo Ferro & Fabris, was the urban environment. It is very difficult to perform the sweeping cuts of the early styes in a tight space such as a covered alleyway or crowded market place. To simulate the narrow streets of european cities my fencing group will set up a fight (one on one or two on two) in a narrow hall way. In this situation we can use only the point & half cuts from the wrist/elbow as laid out by the early 17th century masters. This means keeping the sword in an extended guard position with the point always threatening your opponent(s). The extra reach and complex hilt of a rapier is a big advantage in this scenario.
What other word can be use in so many contexts and yet make perfect sense? It's also what a lot of people discussing details of anything tend to miss out. The bigger picture is hard to see when you have your eyes on the individual strokes.
scholagladiatoria I think this is one of my favorite of your videos yet. Funny how one seemingly simple sword feature veers into everything from the sword itself, to usage changes to cultural significance and social customs.
This was an awesome video, Matt, thanks. I love these longer videos, you always strike me as a man who needs a little bit of time to fully get your point across.
great video makes a lot of sense especially when you consider that these gentlemen who would be carrying a sword or wanted to distinguish themselves from each other by having you know custom-made swords that they would tailor-made to their needs
I know you have talked about context is everything, i'm am impressed how much it crosses over into modern self defense even if the primary weapon is the handgun.
I There's one thing i like about Matt, it's just simply his way of thinking, his paradigm... He doesn't seem to be invested in any particular idea or understanding about the weapons, techniques and history that he studies, he simply just seek to understand and learn... Also the old saying applies here: "The wisest of men is not he who knows for certain when he is right, it's he who knows when he certainly is wrong" Thanks for sparking my interest in HEMA Matt :)
I think you're right with the invention argument. As equipment evolved you can see how people tended to play around with ideas until someone hits on a very good one and then its popularity becomes universal. A similar thing happened with the bayonet. The idea of a musketeer having his own defense was played around with for a long time with Swedish feathers, using various pole weapons as rests etc until someone hit upon the bayonet and then it's use became so universal the pike gradually disappeared. Hindsight is a difficult thing to overcome.
I wish you would use scripts for these videos. These videos are amazing and I learn a lot, but you tend to wonder around your point a lot. Hopefully with the attention they are getting, it will justify the time it would take to sketch out a draft of your thoughts. Either way, I'll keep watching because there is so much great stuff in these. Don't look now, but you are becoming the face of arms history for the common person on the internet! ;)
I think it also has something to do with the fact that even in the late medieval period when there were lots of swords, most of them were old and passed down. Those were cheap, poor qualtiy blades and I imagine it to be quite possible that they would break beyond salvaging if you adapted the hilt (that is presuming you even had the idea), which in turn would explain sword & buckler being a common combination, because there was no other hand protection.
I wonder if the development of better steel and casting and forging techniques were also a factor. I've done some limited smithing in a coal forge and working in three dimensions as on a basket hilt is much more complicated than a straight guard, and may even require special tools. On casting we have some similar challenges; such a hilt would require the lost wax method I would think. I wonder when such innovations came about in smithing generally.
That's what I was thinking too, but you would think if that was the case then more swords would at least have a knuckle bone, because that wouldn't be very hard to forge
I definitley agree with the military v. civilian usage. Although shields and basket hilts were obviously used in combination later, you can see how a person at the time would find something like that redundant or potentally getting in the way of using their sword together with their large shield. I also think there's something to the strong desire to keep the sword symmetrical so it could be flipped around as needed for various reasons. Maybe a holdover from the days before they had better quality materials that could reliably hold a good edge? Once you've added the knuckle bow you really can't go back to that. On both points, note that the messer had a side nagel before the finger rings came about. That's both a weapon that A. saw lots of civilian day to day carry, and B. was not symmetrical, so no reason to worry about retaining the ability to turn it around and use the other side. I do agree that there is kind of a tipping point - when you have enough hand protection you can use totally different guards and gain a real advantage. Before then marginally adding hand protection bit by bit would help less as it couldn't really change how you used it very much. Sort of explains why the simple cross was the standard for so long, then a rapid evolution to much more complete protection.
I am rewatching this after a long time, and new ideas came to my mind. First thing I suggest is getting hold of the theory of diffusion of innovations (hopefully not just the diggest version you often find online). Not just for this topic, but helps to understand historical events too (why this or that wasn't adopted until bleh happened/meh period). One thing I think was an issue, more so back then, is that you see many European swords being double edged and people seemed to have liked it. When you have more comprehensive guards, you may have a double edged blade, but you pretty much lose your ability to simply flip the sides and turn the false edge into the front facing edge. There were probably plenty of practical reasons for that (I could speculate on some but I dont wan to be that long), such as logistics (a sword that is sharpened on both edges can last twice as much in the battlefield without need of repair). If you're using that theory, until the need/interest in this trait in swords decrease, the standard crossguard has the relative advantages for the army as a whole (and also to many individuals) and the compatibility. When the advantage/interest in that ability decreases or disappears, those traits become weaker while the relative advantage of more complex hand protections remains the same, thus looking more appealing in this new scenario.
1/ it's more expensive 2/ it take more space 3/ on a double edge blade you loose the use of one edge 4/ it's impractical for two hands use 5/ it's heavier
+Uryendel 6/ If you can afford a complex hilt you can probably afford some sort of gauntlets.7/ If you're using a cutting sword and a large shield your hand isn't exposed defensively and armouring other parts of your body is a higher priority
+Uryendel I think it's mostly because, in battle, they didn't aim for hands, but for necks, joints and faces. In that situation, you don't have time for 'fencing' as we know it because while you're fencing, one side may be killing your squad mates. Swords were also a back up weapon for when everything else fails and not a primary weapon. The basket hilt was just never in demand for military use.
One thing I would add is that more complicated hilts could interfere with halfswording. As you noted, intricate hilts became common in the 1600s, when plate armor wasn't used anymore (due to firearms).
Watching you move a little during the video, and thinking about times I used rapiers and basket hilts vs times I've used Chinese swords and long swords, I wonder if there might be a point to the change in your mobility. The sword schools may have expected you to have maximum mobility, and a developed hilt would just get in the way. Once the sword moved into the hands of those who practice a few hours a month instead of a few hours a day, 10% more protection goes further than 10% more mobility. But I didn't think of that until I was watching you move, so it may be more perception than reality on my part.
I wonder if part of the reason was also because medieval swords were more often double edged while later on swords became more single edged or relied more on thrusting and so didn't need the false edge as much. If you want to be able to spin your sword around and keep fighting with a keen edge it is kind of hard to do that if you have a complex or basket hilt.
Very good video Matt. I do think you were a bit quick with the gauntlet suggestion though. First, because while gauntlets don't protect well against heavy weapons of war, neither do basket hilts (save the most sturdy). A solid strike from a halberd would crush many knucklebows or basket hilts. While they might add more protection, it isn't staggeringly more than a gauntlet. Second, while many soldiers didn't have gauntlets (like the archers you mention) they also weren't the economic force driving sword design. The innovators in sword design were designing for armored men at arms, not peasant archers, because the money was in the men at arms. This would help explain why there aren't specialized unarmored swords until the nobility started giving up on armor. Overall though, your points are very good. I certainly don't think that gauntlets explain it all, but I think a better case can be made that they played a role. In all, it was probably a mix of all points you cover: shield use, armor (and the weapons needed for armored fighting), change in warfare and society, and the time for innovation to take place.
Some Kopis and Falcata had knuckle bows. Boarding swords often had complex hilts as early as the 13th century, although they tended to be gauntlet swords like a katar not conventional basket hilts.
I'd love to see a video comparing and contrasting the backsword vs the saber. Strengths, weaknesses and similarities. Why you prefer the saber to the backsword and so on. 👍 Thanks!
That basket-hilted backsword makes me smile like DoomGuy getting a new gun! If it had a katana's hamon pattern on its edge (looks and hardening) and a slightly different basket, I'd consider it a perfect weapon. Certainly, that pattern of sword is my choice, katana being 2nd. I love my nylon sparring sword from HEMA shop, thanks for the recommendation. I'm very pleased you say the basket-hilted technology came about largely for civilian self-defense (a topic near and dear to my heart). That's probably why I love this sword design so much, it perfectly fits my philosophy of use.
ever noticed that talhoffer shows bare hands in ARMOURED swordwork (1467 edition) and gauntlets in the armoured pollaxe (1459 edition). fingered gauntlets work fine with pollaxes. we also see gauntlets in mounted swordfighting, on horseback the sword is a little less secondary and taking a full on strike on your arm is depicted (gauntlets are usefull) on the point of armoured HEMA: there is very few people who own good reproduction armour to really trust to a pollaxe strike, and full impact fighting is done outside of BOTN, in particular in australia, but also the netherlands for instance, but it is a little select group due to armour requirements.
Probably has to do with versatility aswell. On a battlefield where multiple soldiers are fighting multiple opponents you don't want a big handguard that hinders the way you can grab and use the sword. You want to be able to grab it with both hands, twist it around and lead with the other edge, use the hilt for blunt or crossguard for piercing damage etc.
A great video. Really well thought out and well explained. Allow me to paraphrase half of the video which you laid out here. Technological progress is a long and slow march. The thing to remember (keep in mind, I am no expert and I am simply trying to reach a conclusion through common sense and logical deduction), is that back then, the sword was technology. Like with all technology, what we see is a slow and steady build on the knowledge that has been previously accumulated. Much like with computers. When the first computers came along, they were large, bulky, cumbersome and slow. However, as time went on, they slowly became sleeker, less cumbersome, faster etc. etc. The Basket hilt was not developed back then simply because it was still going through it's technological development. If the gun had never arrived, then it is possible that swords today would be even more developed better suit the world it found itself in.....And now I am rambling. Sorry. Anyway, great video, as always. I am really gaining a lot of interest in this subject over the past few weeks and you are the best source of information in this regard in my opinion (no offense to Lloyd or Skalagrim. I like them as well). I have one question, however. I can't figure it out. Why didn't they continue to use shields in one on one sword duels even after plate armor had practically died out? If I were a civilian back then and I was going to have a sword duel, I would think you'd want to bring a shield or buckler, regardless of the hilt of your sword. so why not continue to use a shield at least in one on one civilian duels? I know they sometimes used daggers in their off hand, which makes me wonder even more because a shield surely would have been more useful, right?
The "became popular" and the "social civilian everyday" was a theory i started thinking about and the reason i found your video. the gauntlet thing was new to me, and the buckler/shield probably holds some legitimacy. I can not remember where but i have seen paintings from around 1100-1200 with some unusual swords with cages on them, wich supports the "popularity" theory due to the fact that they certainly was not fairly popular at the time. If i can find them, i will link them. (or if some one ells know of them please link them)
Matt, some things you missed that I'd like to hear your opinion on are the possible technological and economical factors. From a technological standpoint, perhaps there were advances in metallurgy and smithing techniques that allowed the thinner bars of a more advanced hilt to reliable in a combat context? I imagine that 11th and 12th century metalwork would have required putting a lot more mass into the guard than 16th or 17th century smithing. As far as economics, I can see two possible influences- the first being the price of steel, the second being the growing availability of second hand weapons. Focusing on the second point, do you think that as the used sword market grew, smiths were forced to innovate and make newer, more advanced weapons just to keep sales and prices up so that they made a decent wage?
Looking at this from the context of firearms, it makes a lot of sense to me. I spent years as a soldier, and the rifle I carried had little extra on it. It was the rifle it's self, a sight that was mounted, and a IR laser for night time use. I look at civilian versions of the same rifle, and they have a lot of extra stuff on them that is apparently required. Part of this comes down to that as a soldier, every ounce counts, I don't want more weight while walking for long distance, I don't care if it is only a few ounces of extra, because extra ounces add up to extra pounds, and extra pounds get heavy very quickly. Also I look at the techniques used by people, and there is a lot more flashy stuff that is used civilian side. Part of this comes down to conditions, as a soldier I expect to fight when tired, thirsty, either over heating in the desert or hating my life trying to avoid frostbite, while wearing armour and carrying supplies (eg my rations). Part of it comes down to people on the civilian side putting more effort into things looking good, which I imagine would be even more predominant in a society of people trying to be gentlemanly, so I can imagine that style would be a consideration in form, which would adjust the requirements of the sword (don't hold it behind you like that, that looks defensively cowardly, must be forward, engaging and brave looking).
gotta agree here with Matt. I am in no way a medieval martial expert, but from a logical standpoint it does make sense that with the rise of civilian use of swords the guards on hilt started to play a bigger role in their usage.
Some excellent points, particularly about the context of civilian fighting putting more emphasis on attacking the hands. I wonder if there is a bit of hindsight bias going on in our attitudes as well though. That is, many of the most useful inventions seem obvious once they happen, but before the idea gets out, its just not thought of. Like what happened when Apple released the first iPhone, and suddenly it seemed the obvious way to design a smartphone that, for some reason, nobody really thought of before.
Also something you did mention, partly due to the fact maybe people didn't think on the issue enough, possibly due to soldiers and such having bettter training with weapons and having other things to worry about in combat due to training themselves not to put their hands in vulnerable positions. Even large groups tend to invent things one at a time.
Interesting video Matt. It also explains why weapons like warhammers and maces didn't develop complex handles in the same way swords developed complex hilts as they were battlefield weapons. I know some maces and hammers had rondels attached to them, but it does seem that these hand protectives didn't develop much further than that.
I'd think it was metal quality - significant additional weight, but the material wasn't strong enough to make extra hand protection feasible. This could be a reason why such guards did not develop until the 15th/16th century as metallurgy techniques improved.
Matt could it also be to the introduction of firearms in bigger number on the battle field which results in less plate armour been worn. Which in turn changed the style of swords been carried. I.e. single edged swords for cutting/slashing rather then the big traditional medieval double edged swords used to punch through armour plate and chain mail? Hence allowed for more intricate and complex enclosed hilts?
Thank you for making this video. I'd like to say that I generally agree with your conclusions, especially the claim that the needs that people had for swords changed quite a bit during the 16th century and that this change, perhaps more than any others really drove this kind of change. I think a very strong supporting point is that complex hilts did not become particularly common anywhere else in the world before the 19th century, besides certain swords from India and the sub-continental region. Most of the swords the world over had small hilts consisting of simple bars, squares, or discs. The ancient masters, pretty much all over the world all favor very direct blows to the head and the body and their strategies are designed around that premise, and the exigencies of the battlefield seem to make that a requirement. Additionally, the attacks directed at the hands in the older styles often hit the wrist behind the hand, and extra hand protection won't often be very helpful against such techniques. At the same time, masters like Ringeck for example, also claim that attacking other targets, the hands and feet, open one up to simple dodging and counterstrikes that are very simple to execute. One example from Ringeck: "When you’re close, strike at his head and at his body, so he may not be able to change through in front of your point". In their view attacking other targets could be very dangerous and counter techniques against attacks to the hands were taught to be particularly dangerous. The change in the fencing style where your opponent might not instantly rush in and strike to your head or body after avoiding a strike to the hand, but instead take a more cautious approach, stay out of range of striking the head and body, which does not to allow one's own head and body to be endangered, and attack the hand and arm really seems to be at the heart of this development. In addition to all that I would say that as the style of fighting changed it drove the rapid expansion of hand protection from simple rings and knuckle-bows to enclosed hilts in a sort of loop. The design permitted stylistic changes and the stylistic changes encouraged the further development of hand protection.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the proto-knucklebow we see on Kopis and Falcata back in the classical period. What were they fore and why didn't they catch on?
I believe thrusting was the main attack type with (big) shields, especially with any type of military formations where you needed to attack forward only. If the sword has a wide hilt it's going to get stuck at the edge of the shield. Later with full body armor shields became less important in close combat, but you wanted to avoid hits on your hand so big hilts were developed.
I was also thinking about the fact that a duel is a more personal situation. It might tend to become even more blatant that you are dealing with a real human being instead of just a nameless enemy on the battlefield. The move from battlefield slaughter to duel fencing maybe then also means that people welcomed the option of incapacitating someone by cutting their arm, instead of killing them, especially if honor is involved an all that.
To Matt's point about the sword being a war-time side arm: I also have to think that the enclosed guard, if it had been considered, was dismissed for being slightly unnecessary for something that was not your primary weapon (I think Matt touched on this). Also, a quote that I can't quite remember the origin of, so I'm paraphrasing: " Military men throughout history were rarely sent to battle with more than the bare minimum of what they need to fight". Again, if the enclosed hilt had been considered, it was definitely more difficult to make than a straight bar, especially in mass quantities to be issued to soldiers. It would take additional metal and time that could both be better utilized creating more weapons. Basically, if you spend most of your time fighting with another weapon, your sidearm may have some compromises. Think about how some modern military units use the pistol as a side arm to some type of assault rifle. You probably carry fewer rounds (compromise), the barrel is shorter which makes the weapon less accurate at long range (compromise), the smaller nature of the weapon usually means the caliber is lower and has less stopping power (unless you're talking about a Desert Eagle).
The ancient greek Kopis has a quite enclosed hilt, with only a small opening in some models and sometimes joined by a chain. This is the earliest I know of a more enclosed hilt.
one thing that got in to my mind is, if you are going to war or travel in a hostile area you may have the best armour you can aford. But if you are going to walk down to the pub for a bit to eat and a pint of ale you get your sword and a some Money. When sword becomes more of a fashion statement then a weapon of war, you don´t. you don´t have the armour to protect your torso, and it makes more sense that the sword has somthing to protect the hand and the rest of the body.
The design of small handguns went through a bit of a renaissance in America in the last decade due to the mass legalization of concealed weapons and we see all kinds of innovations and I think it was the same pressures for swords in the late 15th century
Matt i don't quite follow your analogy using the buckler as a prop. At the time the buckler was popular, there were also very elaborately defensive sword hilts that had developed. They were designed without the thought of the co-use of buckler in mind. JMO. I have never picked up a sword and you are an expert on the topic.
I guess one important thing in development of everything is "mass production". Before the hand guard, most swords were mass produced for battle field purposes. They were used less for civilians. On the battlefield, there is a certain type of combat that required certain things from a sword. (the ability to easy swap from one hand to the other, the ability to easily pick it up fast and easy in case you drop it, the need to tak a random sword from the ground, in case yours is stuck in somebody, etc.) for the battle field, a hand guard might be quite annoying. Also, most injuries in wars were most likely to the torso, head, throat so the main protection focus was on that part. Once the general public started to carry more swords, the mass-production shifted from army to public, since there are more civilians with weapons than soldiers, Civilians used swords mostly for 1v1 fights. In that kind of fight you don't simply jam your sword in the other guy and have the need to pick up a sword fast from another fallen guy. The fight style is also changed, two civilians will have more time to aim for the hand of their opponent. A fight between two equally skilled civilians will last longer and the opponents will have time to attempt different techniques on each other, while in battle, most poor bastards died before having the opportunity to swing the sword a couple of times and they were generally swinging swords at large body parts. In non-lethal duels, most injuries might have been to the hand. Once you cannot hold your sword, the duel was over TLDR: Before swords were mostly mass-produced for wars, in Wars there is not really to much technique and when you are surrounded by 10-100 enemies, you aim for the closest big part of an enemy, you don't have time to attack a small part like the hand. After, swords were mass-produced for civilians, that mostly fought non lethal duels 1v1, with the ability to use techniques and attempt to harm the hand is you see an opening.
when buying your own sword you will spend a little extra to get something better, but when supplying an army it is more important that everyone gets something.
Thanks for the video. With all due respect, I think you not only give the gauntlet short shrift, you even kind of gut that point when you make your main point at the end. Yes, the period where the guard evolves most quickly is the period where swords are suddenly being made for civilians. And civilians are much less likely to care about having room for a gauntlet. It's not as simple as 'because gauntlets' but neither are they unrelated. In the iron age not a lot of people wore gauntlets but swords were made for the elite, and even if they did in actuality wind up passing through many hands and being used in many contexts, they were still extraordinarily expensive pieces designed and produced to meet the needs of a military elite. People that could afford good armour, and probably aspired to one day take part in a real battle - with a decent chance of success. That didn't prevent more elaborate guards from being made but it meant there was no real pressure or demand for them, which was good enough to get the same result.
I'd be curious to see what impact advances in metallurgy might have had on hilts. It's pretty well accepted that one of the reasons that rapiers and smallswords came about was due to advances in metallurgy, but I don't know how much research there's been into how it affected the other parts of the sword.
I love the civilian legal and tactical context. One theory that I've heard which I find somewhat unsatisfactory is the idea that high grade steel was too expensive to waste on hilts. However, I wonder if the lack of reliability in still manufacture might have meant that a thin still bar would be more likely to fail (compared to a blade for example) and this might help explain why we don't see any complex hilts prior to the 12th century? Anyone have thoughts? Metallurgy isn't my area of expertise.
What about the symbolic value of the shape of the sword being a cross. I think this played a big role at the times of the crusades, when knights used their swords as crucifixes in their prayers before battle. From the 14th century onward, mercenaries became the dominant forces on the battlefield and they probably didn't care much for the knightly traditions. They also fought in different ways of course.
Amazing ! U mentionned that the guard positions changed when people start to get elaborate hilts .My question is : What about Cavalry swordplay ? Are there any differences between the use of a saber and the arming sword (or any medieval sword) from hoseback ?
Might there have been any innovations in the processes of forging or metallurgy that enabled these developments, as well? It strikes me that the bars on a basket hilt tend to be far slimmer and more rounded than the guards of a simple-hilted weapon. At a guess, I would think that such a design would require a stronger steel, more adeptly worked by the smith. Are there noted improvements in the quality of steel which might have facilitated the development of complex hilts?
Was there any leap in metallurgy during that time that could have made the option for the basket a stronger option? I was also thinking there might have been a rise in the skill levels of the smiths due to the demands of the populace wanting to be armed (when allowed).
Interesting thing to note is that medieval treatises dealing with civilian combat go for the hand as well - I.33 tells you so in a few places (mostly from how to defend against it perspective), and implies it heavily in others, Codex Doebringer tells you to use Krumphau against hands... Also, I don't think that Fiore has any arming sword techniques in it - what his sword in one hand section (and the rest of the book) shows is in my opinion a hand-and-a-half sword. This not only explains why you have comparatively little single handed techniques (you don't want to use just one hand unless you have to), it also fits the techniques shown - there are no movements there that would require an agile sword (I can't really think of any one handed sword system that doesn't have an attack by disengage in it in some form or shape, and yet, there's none here). Not to mention that pictures show a sword with hilt with enough space for two hands, though how strong an argument this one is is debatable.
Was there a change in smithing or mining to coincide with the use of basket-hilts? I always had the thought that the use of basket-hilts might have to do with metals becoming cheaper to manufacture. The materials are cheaper, so you can use more/experiment more.
Very interesting. Another question that comes to mind is why did some cultures never come up with elaborate hand guards? The Chinese did have some elaborate guards on their hook swords, but, on their straight swords and sabers they had very simple guards. Likewise the Japanese kept the simple disk guard until they started imitating western swords, and then they only put a knuckle bow on some of their blades. But, there were some attempts at more complete hand protection in ancient times. The kopis almost has a knuckle guard. So did many of the single edged swords used by the Germanic tribes that attacked and destroyed 3 legions in the Teutoberg Forest. So, even though I kind of agree with your points, I also think a lot has to do with fighting styles evolving too and the styles evolve (as you touched on) due to social conditions. In both China and Japan there was little stylistic change because the social systems were resistant to change. Therefore my thinking (for what its worth) its a mix of styles changing because of social pressures and the combination of style change and human inventiveness are what cause the guards to change.
Also, the quality of the metal in the early swords were less consistent so they were easier to bend,chip, then you would move to the other edge. so if you had a full guard it interfere with the use of the sword. (when you bend a double edge sword and then use the other side it would bend back into shape... somewhat).
Here's a question: what would you say, from experience, is the most versatile weapon man has created (or found and used)? Something suitable for most encounters, be it one-on-one, on a battlefield, hunting, even. One tool is never useable to peak effectiveness under all circumstances, but I'm interested in what comes closest to doing so. As always, I thank you for sharing free knowledge with the world, and hope to train with you, if ever I can get myself to the UK.
You raise some excellent points and I would love to see you explore this topic further!!! I agree with your thoughts about gauntlets and shields. Overall, I feel the answer lies with the differences between civilian (generally dueling as you say) and military use of swords. That is what nails it on the head. But perhaps these differences could be expounded upon and some of the assumptions explored. The "invention" idea doesn't really sit right with me. Also, forgive me if this has been answered in any of your other awesome videos, but what of the evolution of the role of the thrust in combat? First off, did the thrust increase in prevalence at all in combat, perhaps before the adoption of more protective hilts? And, if so, why (on and off the battlefield if applicable)? That said, might a higher reliance on the thrust translate to the hand and arm being presented in vulnerable positions within striking distance more frequently, thus eventually necessitating more enclosed hilt designs? I am not sure I agree with this notion that the thrust necessarily increased in prominence later in the medieval period (I mean, look at its prevalence in the I.33!), but might that idea be worth toying with? And am I wrong? Also, as mentioned by some commenters previously, might civilians who started carrying swords with greater frequency (and in more urban settings), and who are also likely not dedicating their entire lives to warfare, have adopted poorer technique, leaving their hands more exposed and thus requesting more enclosed hilts? I don't know if I buy this, though... some of the more protective hilts and their predecessors were certainly adopted by experienced warriors on the battlefield. I am not sure I really buy the idea that the adoption of enclosed hilts depended in significant part to someone just plain coming up with the idea and the idea spreading from there. The idea must have been toyed with in the past. Any injury to the hand could be disastrous as you mentioned and it must not have been far from the mind of those whose lives depended on their martial prowess and the functionality of their tools of the trade (in this case their weapons). I also don't buy any of the comments below alluding to metallurgical limitations; if you can make a cross-guard or helm, you can make sturdy bars or curved plate to go over the hand in whatever fashion you please.
"Your left limb is still a useful thing to have." -- o.0 I would certainly hope so. Yeah, I got so used to learning Fiore's techniques in my early days that I found proper one-handed fencing to be awkward and I could never pick it up. It just never seemed 'right' to keep my hand behind my back all the time.
What do you think of the idea that the basket hilt was developed to counter the greater prevalence of swords that were better designed for thrusting. A cross guard I presume would be adequate when fending a cutting blow yet a thrust seems more likely to slide past a simple cross guard and wound the hand.
Point about duels is great in my opinion. I myself thought that is because knights have another hand protections (as you said shields and gauntlets) and developing protection only for archers wasn't profitable (they aren't rich) or worth attention (how often they will use it). When rich civilians adapt swords things get changed.
As Matt pointed out, the swords used for was were generally semetric. If during a battle the true edge of your sword gets damaged or dulled, you just flip your sword around and keep going. If there is a basket on the hilt, that would no longer be possible to do, causing the sword's life span to be cut in half.
I think you make a very good point about trying to disable versus trying to kill your opponent. That being said, as someone who makes swords (part-time), I think you have neglected a few considerations, specifically the difficulty and time of construction and the cost of the materials involved. For example, if you are making hundreds/thousands of swords for war, you make them as time- and cost-effectively as you can, and the time alone required to make those baskets can be considerable.
Roland Warzeca has some good Ideas for this: The Hilt was developed because the Shield was going to vanish from the Battlefield. Before this time the Sword has no hilt but was used in tie with shield nearly 1 meter in diameter and was used in a way that protects your Fingers/hands/wrist from direct strikes.
I have always wondered why rapier have such wire like guards (basket). I fence as a hobby and many times my opponents tip has deflected off my solid guard, assuming that the fighting style is somewhat similar to that of fencing. Is that not an ineffective guard? (Although my understanding would be it could be used to parry against the 'edge' of the blade), I feel it would be ineffective towards the main thrusting actions of the style. P.S, love the videos, keep it up. :)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
"Your left limb is still a usefull thing to have"
~Matt Easton, 2015
Especially if you're left-handed.
Jeffrey Gleason .....sad
Jeffrey Gleason I think you mean rewarding, b/c your "small sword" was designed just for the thrust. ;)
***** your middle limb? what kind of fighting do you do with that????
Someone call the feminists!
sound advice if you ask me lol
The can opener was invented almost a century after the can. The corkscrew wasn't invented until the end of the 18th century. Putting the cap at the bottom of the mustard bottle was like 5 years ago. The most elegant ideas seem obvious after the fact, but can take a while before someone thinks of it.
I generally agree, but the corkscrew example doesn't really hold up . . . glass bottles with cork stoppers were only invented in the mid 17th century, and by the end of the 17th century people had started repurposing "gun worms" as corkscrews and patenting improvements. Though glass bottles for wine existed and were sometimes used earlier, they were generally stopped with oiled rags, or wax.
The civilian sword is a bulky weapon on account of the basket and could get in the way if you were using a proper primary weapon like a spear or halberd. The sword is a side arm, as you say, and for the warrior, a sword is a secondary weapon that needs to stay out of the way. The ability of the cross guard to lay flat against the body is a good quality for a side arm in battle. The bulk of the basket hilt is fine for the sword as primary weapon.
Another thing is that the cross guard is more versatile than the basket. I would guess. The cross guard allows more ways to grip the sword and is probably better at half-swording. What do you think?
Awesome video as always! Thanks.
I was about to say the same, for example leaf blades had wider bases (probably) so they can be carried without them rattling, soldiers have been constantly obsessed with ease of carry for equipment, trench knives weren't easy to carry and use in most situations so they weren't very popular.
Problem is in 17th century swords/sabers with basket guards were used extensively as sidearms by soldiers and they did seem to manage just fine.
They were soldiers and firearms were basically still muzzle loaded. That meant.......your sword, or bayonet would most likely see use in every battle. It wan't the primary weapon but sure as heck was a well used, almost mandatory secondary.
ceiling, Matt.. be careful about ceiling...
***** Well, he'd have two smaller houses, but I get what you mean.
Plumjelly I'm almost certain Matt films these in a summer house of some kind.
HeavensTroll BladeMaster ugh, after reading the ceiling comment that is all I can think about when I watch him moving those swords around.
1:24 bullshit! I have played many mmorpgs and I have seen hundreds of people walking around the cities with shields on their back xD
carrying 64 swords, 43 axes, 25 chestplates, and 176 tons of gold in their pockets
***** dont forget 15 horses/dragons
Noobs, get a traveling bank bot....
***** wtf were you even playing?
***** That's the MMO equivalent of being a streaker. Pervert!
I suspect that one of the factors that drove the change in Italian fencing from emphasis on the cut, as in the Bolognese style, to more point centric, as per Giganti, Capo Ferro & Fabris, was the urban environment. It is very difficult to perform the sweeping cuts of the early styes in a tight space such as a covered alleyway or crowded market place.
To simulate the narrow streets of european cities my fencing group will set up a fight (one on one or two on two) in a narrow hall way. In this situation we can use only the point & half cuts from the wrist/elbow as laid out by the early 17th century masters. This means keeping the sword in an extended guard position with the point always threatening your opponent(s). The extra reach and complex hilt of a rapier is a big advantage in this scenario.
If I could sum up why they developed more complex hilts into one word? Context.
What other word can be use in so many contexts and yet make perfect sense? It's also what a lot of people discussing details of anything tend to miss out. The bigger picture is hard to see when you have your eyes on the individual strokes.
Another Duck "the" :)
Robert R Yes, but that's not nearly as informative.
scholagladiatoria I think this is one of my favorite of your videos yet. Funny how one seemingly simple sword feature veers into everything from the sword itself, to usage changes to cultural significance and social customs.
I really like how organized your thoughts are put onto the video, it makes it real easy to understand your ideias.
This was an awesome video, Matt, thanks. I love these longer videos, you always strike me as a man who needs a little bit of time to fully get your point across.
did you just join the ceiling scratcher club?
You always ramble Matt, it's one of your charms!
Matt can you do a video about how protective different hilt are?
great video makes a lot of sense especially when you consider that these gentlemen who would be carrying a sword or wanted to distinguish themselves from each other by having you know custom-made swords that they would tailor-made to their needs
I know you have talked about context is everything, i'm am impressed how much it crosses over into modern self defense even if the primary weapon is the handgun.
I There's one thing i like about Matt, it's just simply his way of thinking, his paradigm...
He doesn't seem to be invested in any particular idea or understanding about the weapons, techniques and history that he studies, he simply just seek to understand and learn...
Also the old saying applies here: "The wisest of men is not he who knows for certain when he is right, it's he who knows when he certainly is wrong"
Thanks for sparking my interest in HEMA Matt :)
I think you're right with the invention argument. As equipment evolved you can see how people tended to play around with ideas until someone hits on a very good one and then its popularity becomes universal. A similar thing happened with the bayonet. The idea of a musketeer having his own defense was played around with for a long time with Swedish feathers, using various pole weapons as rests etc until someone hit upon the bayonet and then it's use became so universal the pike gradually disappeared. Hindsight is a difficult thing to overcome.
I wish you would use scripts for these videos. These videos are amazing and I learn a lot, but you tend to wonder around your point a lot. Hopefully with the attention they are getting, it will justify the time it would take to sketch out a draft of your thoughts.
Either way, I'll keep watching because there is so much great stuff in these. Don't look now, but you are becoming the face of arms history for the common person on the internet! ;)
So how long did traditional cross-guard hilts stay for? Did they all evolve into more complex hilts or did many stay at the same time?
I really liked your rambling. You should do another video; regarding civilian vs military purposes with swords
I've always imagined that it was a case of "it wasn't obvious...until it was."
I think it also has something to do with the fact that even in the late medieval period when there were lots of swords, most of them were old and passed down. Those were cheap, poor qualtiy blades and I imagine it to be quite possible that they would break beyond salvaging if you adapted the hilt (that is presuming you even had the idea), which in turn would explain sword & buckler being a common combination, because there was no other hand protection.
That was a good session thank you.
so far this is the best logical and detailed explanation of the topic.
That beam in the top right of the frame is seriously pissing me off
+Jon Deal Just scrolled up to look for the beam :p
Might it not be, that the more enclosed hilts allow for more adorned hilts, which might also be especially interesting for civilian life?
I wonder if the development of better steel and casting and forging techniques were also a factor. I've done some limited smithing in a coal forge and working in three dimensions as on a basket hilt is much more complicated than a straight guard, and may even require special tools. On casting we have some similar challenges; such a hilt would require the lost wax method I would think. I wonder when such innovations came about in smithing generally.
That's what I was thinking too, but you would think if that was the case then more swords would at least have a knuckle bone, because that wouldn't be very hard to forge
I definitley agree with the military v. civilian usage. Although shields and basket hilts were obviously used in combination later, you can see how a person at the time would find something like that redundant or potentally getting in the way of using their sword together with their large shield.
I also think there's something to the strong desire to keep the sword symmetrical so it could be flipped around as needed for various reasons. Maybe a holdover from the days before they had better quality materials that could reliably hold a good edge? Once you've added the knuckle bow you really can't go back to that.
On both points, note that the messer had a side nagel before the finger rings came about. That's both a weapon that A. saw lots of civilian day to day carry, and B. was not symmetrical, so no reason to worry about retaining the ability to turn it around and use the other side.
I do agree that there is kind of a tipping point - when you have enough hand protection you can use totally different guards and gain a real advantage. Before then marginally adding hand protection bit by bit would help less as it couldn't really change how you used it very much. Sort of explains why the simple cross was the standard for so long, then a rapid evolution to much more complete protection.
I am rewatching this after a long time, and new ideas came to my mind. First thing I suggest is getting hold of the theory of diffusion of innovations (hopefully not just the diggest version you often find online). Not just for this topic, but helps to understand historical events too (why this or that wasn't adopted until bleh happened/meh period).
One thing I think was an issue, more so back then, is that you see many European swords being double edged and people seemed to have liked it. When you have more comprehensive guards, you may have a double edged blade, but you pretty much lose your ability to simply flip the sides and turn the false edge into the front facing edge. There were probably plenty of practical reasons for that (I could speculate on some but I dont wan to be that long), such as logistics (a sword that is sharpened on both edges can last twice as much in the battlefield without need of repair). If you're using that theory, until the need/interest in this trait in swords decrease, the standard crossguard has the relative advantages for the army as a whole (and also to many individuals) and the compatibility. When the advantage/interest in that ability decreases or disappears, those traits become weaker while the relative advantage of more complex hand protections remains the same, thus looking more appealing in this new scenario.
1/ it's more expensive
2/ it take more space
3/ on a double edge blade you loose the use of one edge
4/ it's impractical for two hands use
5/ it's heavier
+Uryendel 6/ If you can afford a complex hilt you can probably afford some sort of gauntlets.7/ If you're using a cutting sword and a large shield your hand isn't exposed defensively and armouring other parts of your body is a higher priority
+Jonas Weselake-George Although, if you used a wooden hilt it wouldn't necessarily be that heavy and it'd be cheap.
6/ half-sword bashing a knight's armor would be harder
+Uryendel
I think it's mostly because, in battle, they didn't aim for hands, but for necks, joints and faces.
In that situation, you don't have time for 'fencing' as we know it because while you're fencing, one side may be killing your squad mates.
Swords were also a back up weapon for when everything else fails and not a primary weapon.
The basket hilt was just never in demand for military use.
One thing I would add is that more complicated hilts could interfere with halfswording. As you noted, intricate hilts became common in the 1600s, when plate armor wasn't used anymore (due to firearms).
+Cameron Nedland "wasn't used anymore" thats simply false they still used Plate armor in 1600... Just not as much as before.
Fair enough.
That's what I thought... ha. Good analysis on both of our parts - great video
Watching you move a little during the video, and thinking about times I used rapiers and basket hilts vs times I've used Chinese swords and long swords, I wonder if there might be a point to the change in your mobility. The sword schools may have expected you to have maximum mobility, and a developed hilt would just get in the way. Once the sword moved into the hands of those who practice a few hours a month instead of a few hours a day, 10% more protection goes further than 10% more mobility. But I didn't think of that until I was watching you move, so it may be more perception than reality on my part.
Thank god, a video over 15 minutes.
Wow, all those sabres you use in the video are very cool
I wonder if part of the reason was also because medieval swords were more often double edged while later on swords became more single edged or relied more on thrusting and so didn't need the false edge as much. If you want to be able to spin your sword around and keep fighting with a keen edge it is kind of hard to do that if you have a complex or basket hilt.
one of your best videos!
Very interesting explanation/argumentation.
Very good video Matt. I do think you were a bit quick with the gauntlet suggestion though. First, because while gauntlets don't protect well against heavy weapons of war, neither do basket hilts (save the most sturdy). A solid strike from a halberd would crush many knucklebows or basket hilts. While they might add more protection, it isn't staggeringly more than a gauntlet.
Second, while many soldiers didn't have gauntlets (like the archers you mention) they also weren't the economic force driving sword design. The innovators in sword design were designing for armored men at arms, not peasant archers, because the money was in the men at arms. This would help explain why there aren't specialized unarmored swords until the nobility started giving up on armor.
Overall though, your points are very good. I certainly don't think that gauntlets explain it all, but I think a better case can be made that they played a role. In all, it was probably a mix of all points you cover: shield use, armor (and the weapons needed for armored fighting), change in warfare and society, and the time for innovation to take place.
Some Kopis and Falcata had knuckle bows. Boarding swords often had complex hilts as early as the 13th century, although they tended to be gauntlet swords like a katar not conventional basket hilts.
I'd love to see a video comparing and contrasting the backsword vs the saber. Strengths, weaknesses and similarities. Why you prefer the saber to the backsword and so on. 👍 Thanks!
Great Video and very convincing arguments! :)
That basket-hilted backsword makes me smile like DoomGuy getting a new gun! If it had a katana's hamon pattern on its edge (looks and hardening) and a slightly different basket, I'd consider it a perfect weapon. Certainly, that pattern of sword is my choice, katana being 2nd. I love my nylon sparring sword from HEMA shop, thanks for the recommendation.
I'm very pleased you say the basket-hilted technology came about largely for civilian self-defense (a topic near and dear to my heart). That's probably why I love this sword design so much, it perfectly fits my philosophy of use.
11:57, I am glad to see mine is not the only place where the room's ceiling has strange scrapes and nicks. LoL
ever noticed that talhoffer shows bare hands in ARMOURED swordwork (1467 edition) and gauntlets in the armoured pollaxe (1459 edition).
fingered gauntlets work fine with pollaxes. we also see gauntlets in mounted swordfighting, on horseback the sword is a little less secondary and taking a full on strike on your arm is depicted (gauntlets are usefull)
on the point of armoured HEMA: there is very few people who own good reproduction armour to really trust to a pollaxe strike, and full impact fighting is done outside of BOTN, in particular in australia, but also the netherlands for instance, but it is a little select group due to armour requirements.
Probably has to do with versatility aswell. On a battlefield where multiple soldiers are fighting multiple opponents you don't want a big handguard that hinders the way you can grab and use the sword. You want to be able to grab it with both hands, twist it around and lead with the other edge, use the hilt for blunt or crossguard for piercing damage etc.
A great video. Really well thought out and well explained. Allow me to paraphrase half of the video which you laid out here.
Technological progress is a long and slow march.
The thing to remember (keep in mind, I am no expert and I am simply trying to reach a conclusion through common sense and logical deduction), is that back then, the sword was technology. Like with all technology, what we see is a slow and steady build on the knowledge that has been previously accumulated. Much like with computers. When the first computers came along, they were large, bulky, cumbersome and slow. However, as time went on, they slowly became sleeker, less cumbersome, faster etc. etc. The Basket hilt was not developed back then simply because it was still going through it's technological development. If the gun had never arrived, then it is possible that swords today would be even more developed better suit the world it found itself in.....And now I am rambling. Sorry.
Anyway, great video, as always. I am really gaining a lot of interest in this subject over the past few weeks and you are the best source of information in this regard in my opinion (no offense to Lloyd or Skalagrim. I like them as well).
I have one question, however. I can't figure it out. Why didn't they continue to use shields in one on one sword duels even after plate armor had practically died out? If I were a civilian back then and I was going to have a sword duel, I would think you'd want to bring a shield or buckler, regardless of the hilt of your sword. so why not continue to use a shield at least in one on one civilian duels? I know they sometimes used daggers in their off hand, which makes me wonder even more because a shield surely would have been more useful, right?
The "became popular" and the "social civilian everyday" was a theory i started thinking about and the reason i found your video. the gauntlet thing was new to me, and the buckler/shield probably holds some legitimacy.
I can not remember where but i have seen paintings from around 1100-1200 with some unusual swords with cages on them, wich supports the "popularity" theory due to the fact that they certainly was not fairly popular at the time.
If i can find them, i will link them. (or if some one ells know of them please link them)
Nice video, you clearly know your stuff!
Matt, some things you missed that I'd like to hear your opinion on are the possible technological and economical factors.
From a technological standpoint, perhaps there were advances in metallurgy and smithing techniques that allowed the thinner bars of a more advanced hilt to reliable in a combat context? I imagine that 11th and 12th century metalwork would have required putting a lot more mass into the guard than 16th or 17th century smithing.
As far as economics, I can see two possible influences- the first being the price of steel, the second being the growing availability of second hand weapons. Focusing on the second point, do you think that as the used sword market grew, smiths were forced to innovate and make newer, more advanced weapons just to keep sales and prices up so that they made a decent wage?
Looking at this from the context of firearms, it makes a lot of sense to me. I spent years as a soldier, and the rifle I carried had little extra on it. It was the rifle it's self, a sight that was mounted, and a IR laser for night time use. I look at civilian versions of the same rifle, and they have a lot of extra stuff on them that is apparently required. Part of this comes down to that as a soldier, every ounce counts, I don't want more weight while walking for long distance, I don't care if it is only a few ounces of extra, because extra ounces add up to extra pounds, and extra pounds get heavy very quickly. Also I look at the techniques used by people, and there is a lot more flashy stuff that is used civilian side. Part of this comes down to conditions, as a soldier I expect to fight when tired, thirsty, either over heating in the desert or hating my life trying to avoid frostbite, while wearing armour and carrying supplies (eg my rations). Part of it comes down to people on the civilian side putting more effort into things looking good, which I imagine would be even more predominant in a society of people trying to be gentlemanly, so I can imagine that style would be a consideration in form, which would adjust the requirements of the sword (don't hold it behind you like that, that looks defensively cowardly, must be forward, engaging and brave looking).
How about a video on the development from ancient bronze daggers and swords to the medieval crossguard iron sword?
I wonder if it had to do with preserving the crucifix shape of the sword for religious reasons.
gotta agree here with Matt. I am in no way a medieval martial expert, but from a logical standpoint it does make sense that with the rise of civilian use of swords the guards on hilt started to play a bigger role in their usage.
Some excellent points, particularly about the context of civilian fighting putting more emphasis on attacking the hands.
I wonder if there is a bit of hindsight bias going on in our attitudes as well though. That is, many of the most useful inventions seem obvious once they happen, but before the idea gets out, its just not thought of. Like what happened when Apple released the first iPhone, and suddenly it seemed the obvious way to design a smartphone that, for some reason, nobody really thought of before.
Also something you did mention, partly due to the fact maybe people didn't think on the issue enough, possibly due to soldiers and such having bettter training with weapons and having other things to worry about in combat due to training themselves not to put their hands in vulnerable positions. Even large groups tend to invent things one at a time.
Interesting video Matt. It also explains why weapons like warhammers and maces didn't develop complex handles in the same way swords developed complex hilts as they were battlefield weapons. I know some maces and hammers had rondels attached to them, but it does seem that these hand protectives didn't develop much further than that.
I'd think it was metal quality - significant additional weight, but the material wasn't strong enough to make extra hand protection feasible. This could be a reason why such guards did not develop until the 15th/16th century as metallurgy techniques improved.
Matt could it also be to the introduction of firearms in bigger number on the battle field which results in less plate armour been worn. Which in turn changed the style of swords been carried. I.e. single edged swords for cutting/slashing rather then the big traditional medieval double edged swords used to punch through armour plate and chain mail? Hence allowed for more intricate and complex enclosed hilts?
Thank you for making this video. I'd like to say that I generally agree with your conclusions, especially the claim that the needs that people had for swords changed quite a bit during the 16th century and that this change, perhaps more than any others really drove this kind of change. I think a very strong supporting point is that complex hilts did not become particularly common anywhere else in the world before the 19th century, besides certain swords from India and the sub-continental region. Most of the swords the world over had small hilts consisting of simple bars, squares, or discs. The ancient masters, pretty much all over the world all favor very direct blows to the head and the body and their strategies are designed around that premise, and the exigencies of the battlefield seem to make that a requirement. Additionally, the attacks directed at the hands in the older styles often hit the wrist behind the hand, and extra hand protection won't often be very helpful against such techniques. At the same time, masters like Ringeck for example, also claim that attacking other targets, the hands and feet, open one up to simple dodging and counterstrikes that are very simple to execute. One example from Ringeck: "When you’re close, strike at his head and at his body, so he may not be able to change through in front of your point". In their view attacking other targets could be very dangerous and counter techniques against attacks to the hands were taught to be particularly dangerous. The change in the fencing style where your opponent might not instantly rush in and strike to your head or body after avoiding a strike to the hand, but instead take a more cautious approach, stay out of range of striking the head and body, which does not to allow one's own head and body to be endangered, and attack the hand and arm really seems to be at the heart of this development. In addition to all that I would say that as the style of fighting changed it drove the rapid expansion of hand protection from simple rings and knuckle-bows to enclosed hilts in a sort of loop. The design permitted stylistic changes and the stylistic changes encouraged the further development of hand protection.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the proto-knucklebow we see on Kopis and Falcata back in the classical period. What were they fore and why didn't they catch on?
I believe thrusting was the main attack type with (big) shields, especially with any type of military formations where you needed to attack forward only. If the sword has a wide hilt it's going to get stuck at the edge of the shield. Later with full body armor shields became less important in close combat, but you wanted to avoid hits on your hand so big hilts were developed.
Your most gear-head video! Bravo
I was also thinking about the fact that a duel is a more personal situation. It might tend to become even more blatant that you are dealing with a real human being instead of just a nameless enemy on the battlefield. The move from battlefield slaughter to duel fencing maybe then also means that people welcomed the option of incapacitating someone by cutting their arm, instead of killing them, especially if honor is involved an all that.
To Matt's point about the sword being a war-time side arm: I also have to think that the enclosed guard, if it had been considered, was dismissed for being slightly unnecessary for something that was not your primary weapon (I think Matt touched on this). Also, a quote that I can't quite remember the origin of, so I'm paraphrasing: " Military men throughout history were rarely sent to battle with more than the bare minimum of what they need to fight". Again, if the enclosed hilt had been considered, it was definitely more difficult to make than a straight bar, especially in mass quantities to be issued to soldiers. It would take additional metal and time that could both be better utilized creating more weapons.
Basically, if you spend most of your time fighting with another weapon, your sidearm may have some compromises. Think about how some modern military units use the pistol as a side arm to some type of assault rifle. You probably carry fewer rounds (compromise), the barrel is shorter which makes the weapon less accurate at long range (compromise), the smaller nature of the weapon usually means the caliber is lower and has less stopping power (unless you're talking about a Desert Eagle).
Mighty interesting. Good ideas to start thinking about...
Thanks.
:-)
Well constructed argument. Very good information.
The ancient greek Kopis has a quite enclosed hilt, with only a small opening in some models and sometimes joined by a chain. This is the earliest I know of a more enclosed hilt.
one thing that got in to my mind is, if you are going to war or travel in a hostile area you may have the best armour you can aford. But if you are going to walk down to the pub for a bit to eat and a pint of ale you get your sword and a some Money. When sword becomes more of a fashion statement then a weapon of war, you don´t. you don´t have the armour to protect your torso, and it makes more sense that the sword has somthing to protect the hand and the rest of the body.
The design of small handguns went through a bit of a renaissance in America in the last decade due to the mass legalization of concealed weapons and we see all kinds of innovations and I think it was the same pressures for swords in the late 15th century
You answered a question I had
Matt i don't quite follow your analogy using the buckler as a prop. At the time the buckler was popular, there were also very elaborately defensive sword hilts that had developed. They were designed without the thought of the co-use of buckler in mind. JMO. I have never picked up a sword and you are an expert on the topic.
I guess one important thing in development of everything is "mass production". Before the hand guard, most swords were mass produced for battle field purposes. They were used less for civilians. On the battlefield, there is a certain type of combat that required certain things from a sword. (the ability to easy swap from one hand to the other, the ability to easily pick it up fast and easy in case you drop it, the need to tak a random sword from the ground, in case yours is stuck in somebody, etc.) for the battle field, a hand guard might be quite annoying. Also, most injuries in wars were most likely to the torso, head, throat so the main protection focus was on that part.
Once the general public started to carry more swords, the mass-production shifted from army to public, since there are more civilians with weapons than soldiers, Civilians used swords mostly for 1v1 fights. In that kind of fight you don't simply jam your sword in the other guy and have the need to pick up a sword fast from another fallen guy. The fight style is also changed, two civilians will have more time to aim for the hand of their opponent. A fight between two equally skilled civilians will last longer and the opponents will have time to attempt different techniques on each other, while in battle, most poor bastards died before having the opportunity to swing the sword a couple of times and they were generally swinging swords at large body parts. In non-lethal duels, most injuries might have been to the hand. Once you cannot hold your sword, the duel was over
TLDR: Before swords were mostly mass-produced for wars, in Wars there is not really to much technique and when you are surrounded by 10-100 enemies, you aim for the closest big part of an enemy, you don't have time to attack a small part like the hand. After, swords were mass-produced for civilians, that mostly fought non lethal duels 1v1, with the ability to use techniques and attempt to harm the hand is you see an opening.
when buying your own sword you will spend a little extra to get something better, but when supplying an army it is more important that everyone gets something.
Very interesting ! is there much archaeological evidence of perimortem finger injuries for battlefield casualties ?
Thanks for the video. With all due respect, I think you not only give the gauntlet short shrift, you even kind of gut that point when you make your main point at the end. Yes, the period where the guard evolves most quickly is the period where swords are suddenly being made for civilians. And civilians are much less likely to care about having room for a gauntlet. It's not as simple as 'because gauntlets' but neither are they unrelated. In the iron age not a lot of people wore gauntlets but swords were made for the elite, and even if they did in actuality wind up passing through many hands and being used in many contexts, they were still extraordinarily expensive pieces designed and produced to meet the needs of a military elite. People that could afford good armour, and probably aspired to one day take part in a real battle - with a decent chance of success. That didn't prevent more elaborate guards from being made but it meant there was no real pressure or demand for them, which was good enough to get the same result.
I'd be curious to see what impact advances in metallurgy might have had on hilts. It's pretty well accepted that one of the reasons that rapiers and smallswords came about was due to advances in metallurgy, but I don't know how much research there's been into how it affected the other parts of the sword.
I love the civilian legal and tactical context. One theory that I've heard which I find somewhat unsatisfactory is the idea that high grade steel was too expensive to waste on hilts. However, I wonder if the lack of reliability in still manufacture might have meant that a thin still bar would be more likely to fail (compared to a blade for example) and this might help explain why we don't see any complex hilts prior to the 12th century? Anyone have thoughts? Metallurgy isn't my area of expertise.
it would be nice to see someone with solid fencing background like yourself experiment with some arming sword bouting
What about the symbolic value of the shape of the sword being a cross. I think this played a big role at the times of the crusades, when knights used their swords as crucifixes in their prayers before battle. From the 14th century onward, mercenaries became the dominant forces on the battlefield and they probably didn't care much for the knightly traditions. They also fought in different ways of course.
Amazing ! U mentionned that the guard positions changed when people start to get elaborate hilts .My question is : What about Cavalry swordplay ? Are there any differences between the use of a saber and the arming sword (or any medieval sword) from hoseback ?
very interesting video
thx matt!
I'm interested on that guitar on the back! Can we have more info on that? lol
Might there have been any innovations in the processes of forging or metallurgy that enabled these developments, as well? It strikes me that the bars on a basket hilt tend to be far slimmer and more rounded than the guards of a simple-hilted weapon. At a guess, I would think that such a design would require a stronger steel, more adeptly worked by the smith. Are there noted improvements in the quality of steel which might have facilitated the development of complex hilts?
Was there any leap in metallurgy during that time that could have made the option for the basket a stronger option? I was also thinking there might have been a rise in the skill levels of the smiths due to the demands of the populace wanting to be armed (when allowed).
Interesting thing to note is that medieval treatises dealing with civilian combat go for the hand as well - I.33 tells you so in a few places (mostly from how to defend against it perspective), and implies it heavily in others, Codex Doebringer tells you to use Krumphau against hands...
Also, I don't think that Fiore has any arming sword techniques in it - what his sword in one hand section (and the rest of the book) shows is in my opinion a hand-and-a-half sword. This not only explains why you have comparatively little single handed techniques (you don't want to use just one hand unless you have to), it also fits the techniques shown - there are no movements there that would require an agile sword (I can't really think of any one handed sword system that doesn't have an attack by disengage in it in some form or shape, and yet, there's none here). Not to mention that pictures show a sword with hilt with enough space for two hands, though how strong an argument this one is is debatable.
Was there a change in smithing or mining to coincide with the use of basket-hilts? I always had the thought that the use of basket-hilts might have to do with metals becoming cheaper to manufacture. The materials are cheaper, so you can use more/experiment more.
'it doesn't really cut the mustard' thats one i haven't heard!
Very interesting. Another question that comes to mind is why did some cultures never come up with elaborate hand guards? The Chinese did have some elaborate guards on their hook swords, but, on their straight swords and sabers they had very simple guards. Likewise the Japanese kept the simple disk guard until they started imitating western swords, and then they only put a knuckle bow on some of their blades.
But, there were some attempts at more complete hand protection in ancient times. The kopis almost has a knuckle guard. So did many of the single edged swords used by the Germanic tribes that attacked and destroyed 3 legions in the Teutoberg Forest.
So, even though I kind of agree with your points, I also think a lot has to do with fighting styles evolving too and the styles evolve (as you touched on) due to social conditions. In both China and Japan there was little stylistic change because the social systems were resistant to change.
Therefore my thinking (for what its worth) its a mix of styles changing because of social pressures and the combination of style change and human inventiveness are what cause the guards to change.
Also, the quality of the metal in the early swords were less consistent so they were easier to bend,chip, then you would move to the other edge. so if you had a full guard it interfere with the use of the sword. (when you bend a double edge sword and then use the other side it would bend back into shape... somewhat).
Here's a question: what would you say, from experience, is the most versatile weapon man has created (or found and used)? Something suitable for most encounters, be it one-on-one, on a battlefield, hunting, even. One tool is never useable to peak effectiveness under all circumstances, but I'm interested in what comes closest to doing so. As always, I thank you for sharing free knowledge with the world, and hope to train with you, if ever I can get myself to the UK.
You raise some excellent points and I would love to see you explore this topic further!!! I agree with your thoughts about gauntlets and shields. Overall, I feel the answer lies with the differences between civilian (generally dueling as you say) and military use of swords. That is what nails it on the head. But perhaps these differences could be expounded upon and some of the assumptions explored.
The "invention" idea doesn't really sit right with me.
Also, forgive me if this has been answered in any of your other awesome videos, but what of the evolution of the role of the thrust in combat? First off, did the thrust increase in prevalence at all in combat, perhaps before the adoption of more protective hilts? And, if so, why (on and off the battlefield if applicable)? That said, might a higher reliance on the thrust translate to the hand and arm being presented in vulnerable positions within striking distance more frequently, thus eventually necessitating more enclosed hilt designs? I am not sure I agree with this notion that the thrust necessarily increased in prominence later in the medieval period (I mean, look at its prevalence in the I.33!), but might that idea be worth toying with? And am I wrong?
Also, as mentioned by some commenters previously, might civilians who started carrying swords with greater frequency (and in more urban settings), and who are also likely not dedicating their entire lives to warfare, have adopted poorer technique, leaving their hands more exposed and thus requesting more enclosed hilts? I don't know if I buy this, though... some of the more protective hilts and their predecessors were certainly adopted by experienced warriors on the battlefield.
I am not sure I really buy the idea that the adoption of enclosed hilts depended in significant part to someone just plain coming up with the idea and the idea spreading from there. The idea must have been toyed with in the past. Any injury to the hand could be disastrous as you mentioned and it must not have been far from the mind of those whose lives depended on their martial prowess and the functionality of their tools of the trade (in this case their weapons). I also don't buy any of the comments below alluding to metallurgical limitations; if you can make a cross-guard or helm, you can make sturdy bars or curved plate to go over the hand in whatever fashion you please.
"Your left limb is still a useful thing to have." -- o.0 I would certainly hope so.
Yeah, I got so used to learning Fiore's techniques in my early days that I found proper one-handed fencing to be awkward and I could never pick it up. It just never seemed 'right' to keep my hand behind my back all the time.
Combination of utility, competitive advantage, and availability
What do you think of the idea that the basket hilt was developed to counter the greater prevalence of swords that were better designed for thrusting.
A cross guard I presume would be adequate when fending a cutting blow yet a thrust seems more likely to slide past a simple cross guard and wound the hand.
Point about duels is great in my opinion. I myself thought that is because knights have another hand protections (as you said shields and gauntlets) and developing protection only for archers wasn't profitable (they aren't rich) or worth attention (how often they will use it). When rich civilians adapt swords things get changed.
As Matt pointed out, the swords used for was were generally semetric. If during a battle the true edge of your sword gets damaged or dulled, you just flip your sword around and keep going. If there is a basket on the hilt, that would no longer be possible to do, causing the sword's life span to be cut in half.
I think you make a very good point about trying to disable versus trying to kill your opponent.
That being said, as someone who makes swords (part-time), I think you have neglected a few considerations, specifically the difficulty and time of construction and the cost of the materials involved. For example, if you are making hundreds/thousands of swords for war, you make them as time- and cost-effectively as you can, and the time alone required to make those baskets can be considerable.
Roland Warzeca has some good Ideas for this:
The Hilt was developed because the Shield was going to vanish from the Battlefield.
Before this time the Sword has no hilt but was used in tie with shield nearly 1 meter in diameter and was used in a way that protects your Fingers/hands/wrist from direct strikes.
I have always wondered why rapier have such wire like guards (basket). I fence as a hobby and many times my opponents tip has deflected off my solid guard, assuming that the fighting style is somewhat similar to that of fencing. Is that not an ineffective guard? (Although my understanding would be it could be used to parry against the 'edge' of the blade), I feel it would be ineffective towards the main thrusting actions of the style. P.S, love the videos, keep it up. :)