Install Mech Arena for Free 🤖 IOS/ANDROID: clcr.me/scholagladiatoria_June and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days

Curve a sword; accentuate cutting at the cost of reach. Shift the balance further back; improve point control at the cost of chopping power. It all goes back to one of the biggest lessons I've learned from this channel. There are few (if any) free lunches in sword design. To gain in one area one must usually sacrifice at least somewhat in another. Whether that sacrifice is worthwhile or not depends on, well, context!

I remember reading a historical account where Spanish troops in the Philippines would often have their sabres with complex guard get snagged by the bushes and branches while trekking in the jungle.

@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145

2 жыл бұрын

I have heard this too. I live near a bamboo grove & in the summer getting into the new growth is not easy; it's much like a jungle. I generally carry swords nor wear them to go cut but even so shorter swords & less complex hilts are noticeable easier to carry into the dense growth. Like Matt says it's context. In the Philippines shorter swords with simple hilts we're easier to carry in their environment & could double as jungle knives/machete. European side swords & sabers are long, the hilts definitely snag & are not really great as machete. But in the open battlefields of Europe longer swords with complex hilts do have an advantage over shorter simple hilted swords. It's definitely interesting to see how environment effects weapon design as it's a less talked about reason.

@jon2067

2 жыл бұрын

Well that is a VERY specific case.

@AlGoYoSu

2 жыл бұрын

@@jon2067 Context!

@williamsmith8790

Жыл бұрын

@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 That level of intricate guard was a technological leap. More likely they didn’t have the sword smiths that knew how to make them.

@williamsmith8790

Жыл бұрын

Maybe. But, they still used them to great effect.

Completely agree with you here, Matt. I'm comfortable fighting with my messer against nearly any type of sword. Just participated in a stout blade tournament this past weekend where I swept my pool that were using claymores (basket hilted) and sideswords/arming swords. Not once during that tournament was I hit in the hand despite only having a cross guard and nagel.

@romanista77

2 жыл бұрын

Great example! As a fan of the messer I’m happy to hear it!

@peterwolf4230

2 жыл бұрын

I'm assuming you are a left handed swordsman, does that make a difference as well?

@TheSinisterSwordsman

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterwolf4230 it means they target my hands more, because it's even closer than a right handed person's would be.

It's always great to hear your opinions on size and use of protection.

@TheBaconWizard

2 жыл бұрын

Got to consider it when thrusting for deep penetration.

@beamrunner0471

2 жыл бұрын

🤨

@jaredbaker7230

2 жыл бұрын

Gotta use protection! You can't just be thrusting in there all willy-nilly!

@TheBaconWizard

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaredbaker7230 I ASSURE you, my willy is NOT nilly and never has been!

Given that a complex hilt allows one to use more aggressive, hands-forward guards compared to medieval swords where the hands are usually retracted, doesn't a complex hilt in fact protect more than just the wrist, as your head and legs also get less exposed?

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

That's kind of complex to answer, because while the medieval guard positions are often (not always - longpoint etc) retracted, as soon as you start to attack or defend, the weapon comes to the front in a similar position to something like a rapier or sabre.

2 жыл бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria But then you loose the time you need to set your blade that way, isn't that counter-productive with the idea to be quicker? Or am I completely wrong?

@winsunwong5648

2 жыл бұрын

In those eras without a large handguard, you could be wearing a gauntlet and armor instead. Handguards dont provide the best protection when you have full armor, they are merely a compromise for a world that doesnt wear armor on the daily for various reasons yet expects to be sword fighting.

@seriousmaran9414

2 жыл бұрын

Only if it gets in the way of an attack. The area is fairly small. Another point is what the person is wearing, no reason for a basket hilt if in full plate armour with gauntlets. For that a simple metal disk as with a rondel dagger is a better option. Chain mail would also reduce the need for this. Sabre and basket hilts only really seem to get started as armour vanishes due to guns?

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, it does, assuming unarmored combat. George Silver's guardant fight is a great example of this. It wouldn't work so well with a simple cross guard.

I'm still convinced this was another thing that was to do with the wielder's preference. Personally I have a ring hilted bastard sword and a swept hilt sidesword, I like being able to block and strike properly with the hilt (I'm not a fan of the murder stroke) but prefer being able to use a handshake grip so I'm not a lover of complete guards. Also wandering around with them is so much easier, even my scottish cousins that use the claymore with the complete guard don't really wear them

I read the title out loud then immediately yelled "CONTEXT!" I blame Matt Easton for making me think objectively about everything...

In self teaching myself swords in the early 90s (90-95) I started with a diagram of French stick fighting & adapted it to swords. I discovered the European manuals in around 1999 or 2000 so that added much to what I was doing. But early on I learned to not rely on a guard for protection but to see it as a backup insurance. In stick fighting, generally, you have no guardb so even a medieval cross guard is a jump in protection. One must be very mindful of hand position how to attack & defend without getting ones hand hit. One thing I learned early on was parry with the upper forte away from your hand! When applied to swords with simple guards this means if the opponents blade slides down you have a moment to position the guard to intercept it. Complex hilts allow one to party closer to the guard, have better leverage & be safer in a bind; especisllybwhen fighting in a bind. With simpler hilts a brief bind or quick parry can help keep your hand(s) moving & away from danger. Obviously there are exceptions such as in longsword when fighting in a bind but having a simple cross guard. These are my finds and certainly could be debated, but in a nutshell less hand protection necessitates parrying further up the blade & keeping the sword moving freely. More guard allows parrying closer to the hilt, allows more bind work safely & allows one to hold forward guards more stagnantly.

Hi Matt, I believe a shell, cup or sabre hilt may not be so much important in defence as it is in riposte, it allows you to stay on your opponent's blade and thrust in opposition This may be more relevant for rapiers and smallswords for this very reason.

@killerkraut9179

2 жыл бұрын

But in Lichtenauer winden winding (winding), sword binding Exist . but maybe its more difficult with just a cross !

@wildrangeringreen

8 ай бұрын

@@killerkraut9179 well, the risk you run with a simple cross is that the side of your hand and thumb is more prone to cuts as the opposing blade slides down yours on to your guard. Do not underestimate the effect a cut on your hand makes to your ability to use your hand. Then again, I have two main swords that I use (I have both a sharp and blunt training version of each): one's a M1902 saber with a different guard (which I use more in the Spanish saber style of Jaime Merelo), and the other is essentially a type XVI Arming sword blade with finger rings and a connecting ring (used prodominantly in a mix of Destreza Verdadera (Thibault and Rada) and Destreza Vulgar (Godinho, Meyer). I use the arming sword against rapier, "Side Sword", and sword+buckler; and I don't see any real problems. There was only one time that a spatulated tip, narrow bladed rapier blade happened to slip through the ring and get me in the hand, but that's it; and I doubt I will ever see that happen again in my time fencing. The connecting ring (or a nagel) provided enough side of hand protection that as you wind, your thumb/ hand is protected; without the hilt being obtrusive or overly heavy. It's all about angles, and shifting the grip to keep your hand safe (ish).

i think when i thrust and penetrate with my stiff sword, and when i defend myself from getting penetrated, i prefer to have more protection, but sometimes i go risky

60 seconds and perfectly summed up the entire internet.

I think some folk, think everything is a competition. But like life itself it’s subjective. Loving your channel and if I was healthier. After watching your weapons fighting tuition camp. I would be there. Would like to see more of the sparring. Especially between yourself and other’s as proficient . This is how history should be taught at comprehensive school. Much easier for young minds to enjoy and remember. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.

@Riceball01

2 жыл бұрын

I think that part of that comes from games, first tabletop RPGs like D&D then later video games where for game mechanics, everything is quantified and rated against each other.So you get sword A is better than sword B because of X.

@Oooo-bi7bi

2 жыл бұрын

@@Riceball01 thank you so much Riceball. Not being a gamer I would never have known that innocent reason. You have restored my faith in humanity.

@nevisysbryd7450

2 жыл бұрын

@@Oooo-bi7bi That it probably not the sole (or necessarily primary) reason, although it is definitely a contributing factor. Modern economics and logistics also place quite a lot of emphasis on marginal comparisons.

@Oooo-bi7bi

2 жыл бұрын

@@nevisysbryd7450 I’m just interested in human behaviour. Studied a tiny bit of marketing as part of my qualifications for work. Remember them saying it’s about needs and wants. The trade I learnt as a kid is butchery. With something that resembles a knife I can break down a whole beast. It’s quicker and easier if I use a proper boning knife but I can and have done the same with a penknife in the field. It’s because of my training and the amount of times I’ve done it. So I can relate this to other subjects. Bought myself a decent guitar for the first time a few years ago. It’s easier to keep in tune and nice to play. But I know a professional guitarist can make any guitar sound good. So forgive my waffling but I’m thinking are sword manufacturers or people themselves creating this scale of quality. I do it myself. I have top of the range if I can afford it but pretty sure I could get away with the basic model

11:00- somewhat reminiscent of adding armor to fighter aircraft; it can help in certain ways, but on the other hand a fighter predominantly defends itself by maneuvering. The armor is there for when maneuver fails, and too much makes the plane heavy and sluggish.

In addition, there is the economics of protection. Figure, in battle a knightly longsword was held by someone wearing armour bought with his own funds in an economy designed to filter the wealth up to him. What the hilt lacks in protection, the gauntlets will forgive in an emergency. They could skimp a bit on the hand protection because the hands themselves were armoured. Cavalry sabres and even Highlander full baskets were supplied by the state (or, were designed to state requirements). The state did not want to pay for everyone's gauntlets, plus it's really hard to manipulate a musket or wheel lock in anything more than gloves. So the sword needs to respond to the financial and physical needs of the state that provides and the soldier who wields. The guard ends up covering the middle ground between "my hand needs protecting" and "the Treasury's not paying that!" To quote the drill sergeant in Old Man's War, "There has never been a military in the entire history of the human race that has gone to war equipped with more than the least that it needs to fight its enemy. War is expensive. It costs money and it costs lives and no civilization has an infinite amount of either. So when you fight, you conserve. You use and equip only as much as you have to, never more." And don't get me started on how the metallurgy and manufacturing alters the guard! Stronger steels and the advent of specialised factories usually meant you could do more with less....

@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting point. Although the basket hilt definitely develops before standard issue swords, later on when swords were standardized your point certainly applies. Thanks for sharing the idea

@Blowfeld20k

2 жыл бұрын

thanks for sharing that brother, everyone concentrates so much on the "exciting" bits and we forget that it all happened in a social and economic context.

@Reginaldesq

2 жыл бұрын

I think you are pretty much on the money here. I had a number of weapons teachers. They all told me that the hand was the primary target, since, it can be hit without putting your body in range of their weapon and a couple of good strikes makes the opponents weapon unusable. I agree that a fully armoured hand did not require an elaborate guard, where as a completely unprotected hand was a liability. I also agree with your reasoning that a custom made gauntlet was very expensive, where as a standardised basket was a bargain in comparison

@chroma6947

Жыл бұрын

In a battlefield the blade is what counts. Who gives a f99k what is around the hand

@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145

Жыл бұрын

@@chroma6947 the blade is definitely important, but so to is protection. If one needed no protection on the battlefield shields & armor would never have been used. When shields were no longer carried and less & less armor worn ... Well hands are vulnerable & if hit there immediately disabling. A sword with less hand protection was often paired with a shield, buckler or used in armor. With no protective gear the sword begins to be used more for direct defense which puts ones hand in more exposed positions. A more developed guard is a very good thing when doing so.

When I was younger & had played with fewer swords I did feel a basket hilt, particularly a certain type of German basket hilt, was the best single-handed sword possibly. Then I posted & cut with some basket hilts... While i certainly feel confident & my hand well protected in a basket hilt they tend to also feel a bit restrictive. They tend to feel nimble, yet oddly sluggish due to the weight. I'll still say they are the best for hand protection, but I think I'd rather fight with a good side sword. There is no overall best sword. Just what works best for someone in a given context.

One small point I think you missed: that medieval arming sword was designed to be used with a shield and with armour and you have previously shown how well the shield protects the sword hand. Whereas the later swords are designed to be used on their own with no shield and some or no armour. You also have also demonstrated that you fight in a different way: with a shield you are (more or less) square on but with a basket-hilted sword you are either on horse or (more or less) side on, minimising your profile. You briefly touched on antiquity: was casting a bronze basket hilted sword beyond the ability of the time?

@the8thark

2 жыл бұрын

He also didn't talk about medieval gauntlets.

@QuentinStephens

2 жыл бұрын

@@the8thark When did metal-armoured gauntlets come in?

@the8thark

2 жыл бұрын

@@QuentinStephens From some very quick research Early mitten like ones (no separate fingers) in the 12th century. The more advanced style with separate fingers in the gauntlet, around the early to mid 14th century.

It would be interesting to see how does the increased popularity of more ‘complete’ hilt effect the way people design swords as a whole. For example, would swordsmith at the time when complex hilt is the norm deliberate make blade lighter so that the whole sword (blade + hilt) won’t get too heavy?

@gustavchambert7072

2 жыл бұрын

I would say that's almost certainly true, given that military sabres of the 18-19th centuries were usually no heavier than sideswords of the middle ages. Often they were significantly lighter, even though they had more hand protection. I'd say bladesmiths got off easy in design choices though, since improvements in metallurgy gave them more advanced design options.

@PJDAltamirus0425

2 жыл бұрын

Well, depends. Highland broadswords used with shields could get heavy. Stocatta has one which basically has an 7 inch point of balance and weights flipping 3 pounds. When you have a good shield, sword nimbleness doesn’t as much cus your shield is your main defense.

@lunacorvus3585

2 жыл бұрын

@@PJDAltamirus0425 That would be a fairly good cutter. Though I suppose the value of the basket hilt would drop significantly if you primarily fight with shield.

@atom8248

2 жыл бұрын

@@lunacorvus3585 Yeah, but it's prob a targe which isn't that big

@PJDAltamirus0425

2 жыл бұрын

@@lunacorvus3585 Yeah, though it is good bit of steel to pulverize someone with in extremely close combat.

This idea of active defense is absolutely a core fundamental of Chinese swordsmanship, and exactly why you don't see large hand guards on Chinese weapons, despite them existing on training weapons going all the way back to the Han dynasty. Chinese sword defense is almost always active parrys, not passive blocks.

@-Zevin-

2 жыл бұрын

@meatandmeat They are historical, but much more modern, mostly 19th century from what I have seen. One half of the Z forms kind of a half knuckle bow, the top half of the Z is allegedly for catching and manipulating the opponents blade. I have studied some 19th century dadao and even then that type of guard seemed rare, most had a very small cross guard, more of a hand stop. The Chinese did have full hand protection and knuckle bows on swords going all the way back to the Roman era, so the idea wasn't lost on them, it's just extremely interesting that it was only for training. To me it signifies that that during repetitive training they wanted to minimize hand injury, but in a life or death fight they preferred the quickness of the blade over the hand protection. No point having pristine hands if you are dead.

do single knuckle bow guards have roughly the same weight in general as crossguards? since the back quillon tends to be around half as long as a cross guard and that mass is instead distributed in the bow. I think another thing to mention is simply how the weight is distributed in addition to total weight difference.

7:50 Just a small correction. Adding more mass to the sword increases its inertia, and its rotational inertia (meaning it is less nimble), regardless if it is added behind or in front of the center of rotation. Adding mass behind the center rotation does counteract the torque put on the sword by gravity though, which is a different mechanism.

@JZBai

2 жыл бұрын

Interestingly enough, large hand guards by that logic don't actually aid in counteracting torque since they tend to be put in front of the center of rotation which in sword terms would be the place where your hand rotates the sword and actually adds more torque due to the extra mass of the guard adding to the gravitational force.

@victorro8760

2 жыл бұрын

@@JZBai Yes. I don't see anything wrong with that statement. If you have an armingsword and just add rings to the crossguard, I think that logic makes sense. If you are comparing how an armingsword behaves compared to a rapier, then that logic wouldn't apply because the mass of those swords are distributed completely different.

Of course not, some (defensive) techniques can be literally impossible to perform, as you explained in the Swiss sabre episode iirc (not to mention failing to draw the sword because it caught on the clothes, as these horrible mid XVIII century disk guard swords love to do), and the shift in balance resulting from the larger guard literally robs the blade of inertia making beats difficult and risky (idk, is this why XIX century masters preferred static parries but I suspect it has a lot to do with the weight)

I forgotten how charming you can be Mr. Easton. Thank you

more hand protection is also going to mean you fumble more often drawing the sword and you lose some flexibility in grip positions. depending on the style of basket you might even have trouble using it with your other hand.

The lack of worn hand protection (gauntlets etc) in later periods probably explains the greater emphasis on hand protection. Also fashion, when the blade is away 99.9% of the time how do you show your craftsmanship as a swordsmith and how do you show your wealth as a customer 🤔

Great vid as usual - I'm convinced by your argument...the point that won it for me was "swords defend you with the blade, not the hilt" - I'd never given it enough thought and was a confirmed basket hilt advocate but now I'm a convert!

Another consideration that doesn't often get mentioned. You only need protection when your hand would be hit. So awareness that you hand could be hit and Skills to reduce or eliminate the possiblity make a protective hilt less necessary necessary. However we engage in risk benefit and so if add greater protection we instinctively take greater risk, thereby increasing the likelihood of the event happening and when what protections are in place fail, that can be seen as a justification or example of why protection or more protection is needed. There's plenty of research in a range of fields showing this in other activities where risk is a factor. Secondary, reducing the consequences in kne area may increase dangers/consequences elsewhere, especially when combined with potential increase in risk taking and other factors you mentioned.

As my second katana-teacher uses to say: 'No fingers - no cookies.' And the katana has not too much hand protection 😉

@manfredconnor3194

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, but to most Katana teachers your fingers are superfluous as long as you have killed your foe.

@KlausBeckEwerhardy

2 жыл бұрын

@@manfredconnor3194 To fight with any sword your fingers are essential.

@lunacorvus3585

2 жыл бұрын

@@manfredconnor3194 That’s a fairly unreasonable and suicidal mentality. Any source to backup such claim?

@manfredconnor3194

2 жыл бұрын

@@lunacorvus3585 No not really. You will have to research it yourself. A long time ago before there was the internet or cellphones I dabbled in Japanese Kenjustu for a few years. I had two instructors, who were better than Matt Easton. You can believe that if you want or not, I do not care. It was from these instructors that I first learned about this. Later on, when I studied at the university, I do remember reading it in a couple of books, so it must be well documented. Think of the Samurai. Think of Bushido. In feudal Japan the individual was not important and the life of the individual samurai was not as important as his loyalty to his lord and his honor. Dedication and commitment to technique were important. It was far more important to kill the enemy or the person that you were dueling and to save the lord or your honor (respectively) than it was to worry about a few fingers or a hand. Connections to this life were not important. Honor, dedication, loyalty and commitment were. This of course was the IDEAL and a great many people did not live up to it. I am not saying that it is worthy to live up to or not, I am just saying that there were people who lived by this codex in feudal Japan (for that matter in other places as well) and there were people, who did not live up to it. To be clear, I am not saying that they ran out there willy-nilly with their hands and fingers exposed on purpose, so that they could be chopped off! It was not a preferred tactic. Don't misunderstand me. That would just be stupid! But it was an attitude and I am pretty certain there are still techniques to this day that are taught along these lines. You ought to be able to find them. All I am saying is, that to achieve their goals, under certain situational circumstances, they were prepared to sacrifice. In a given situation, it was better for them to sacrifice their fingers or their hand in order to kill their enemy. These men had that presence of mind to make a split second choice and not think twice about themselves. There are still people, who live like this today. They live by a warrior codex that they are committed to. I am not saying it is good or bad or more or less honorable or worthy. It just is a thing that is. You can scoff at that or doubt it if you want. I do not care. There are techniques that teach this sort of thing and books that document it, but you will have to find them yourself. I am not that interested in it.

@manfredconnor3194

2 жыл бұрын

@@KlausBeckEwerhardy Your problem is wanting to fight in the first place. The goal is to be committed to your attack and to kill your enemy for your honor and your lord. Your fingers do not matter. Don't mind your beard when your head is about to be taken. If you live and are missing a few fingers, it is better than being dead. If you have the opportunity to kill the enemy and save your honor and your lord, would you miss that opportunity, because of your fingers? Then you are not a warrior. If you live, your wife and children can feed you cookies. If you are dead, even fingers will not help you.

Another aspect is being able to draw the sword quickly. It's primarily a sidearm, after all. Civilian self-defense swords tend to have very open and often minimalistic hilts. Shashka, katana or even a smallsword are easier to draw in a hurry than a full basket-hilt. Similarly, complex hilts on your sidearm may not help, when you have to ditch the pike or a lance and quickly grab something more suited for crowded melee. And indeed, the labor and skill required to make a basket hilt is not trivial. A modern bladesmith said in a video, that he expects that more or less every blacksmith back then could forge a blade. A bit better, slightly worse, but a serviceable blade nonetheless. While creating even a fairly simple hilt was not tivial. If it involved lots of small forge-welds, it was even more difficult. They didn't have MIG welders back then. Only a fire, which couldn't be applied precisely to the spot you needed hot, and then you had to hammer the pieces together. Not trivial, without distorting the whole structure. It could be done, obviously, but it wasn't easy.

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

2 жыл бұрын

Rapiers & so-called sideswords were civilian self-defense swords, yet they often had elaborate hilts. Some rapiers had absurdly long blades too. This definitely made drawing swiftly a challenge. With practice, it's possible to rapidly deploy even long rapier with an intricate hilt.

@bakters

2 жыл бұрын

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 The way Silver describes the influence of rapiers, it looks like they were more of a dueling weapon. It worked more like a deterrent, than a weapon of choice in case you were jumped by a ruffian in a dark alley. Of course, in case of that, usually you'd have a dagger, which was much quicker to deploy. Anyway, cultural influences sometimes trumped pure practicality. Otherwise it's hard to explain why an army would adopt a weapon optimized for quick drawing, like the Russians did with shashka. The sheath construction alone makes it a questionable choice, because water can drip into the scabbard, which is a big deal. Yet they done it, which means that not every choice people make is always optimal for the purpose. The general trend seems to be clear nonetheless.

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

2 жыл бұрын

@@bakters Silver still recommended a basket-hilted sword with a 37-40in blade, & ridiculed the claim that such a full hilt made the sword too hard to draw swiftly. Lots of 16th/17th-century fencers favored complex hilts & long blades. Gérard Thibault included techniques for how to rapidly deploy a rapier with a blade a few inches longer than Silver's, in the context of a street argument. He did consider rapiers with blades longer than his favored length too difficult to quick draw. Nick Thomas has a video of deploying a long rapier under pressure with surprising speed. All things being equal, a shorter blade will always draw faster, but a practiced wielder can draw a long blade with a complex hilt fast enough in most cases.

@bakters

2 жыл бұрын

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 It looks like you rather support my argument than weaken it with all those examples. Apparently, plenty of people considered complex hilts and long blades to be a hindrance when the weapon needed to be deployed quickly. If you look how shashka is drawn, a knuckle bow or even a cross-guard would slow the movement down. You can do it one handed from under the cloak. Really fast. A good guy will deliver the cut before the rapier is fully out of the scabbard.

While the issue of how to avoid/prevent opening a vulnerability to the hand is obviously crucial, I think asking about the "defense" role of a feature gets us into a conceptualization where one pictures offense and defense as separate things one does or doesn't do, while my (admittedly far less than Matt's) experience and training has been that they are seamless and completely intertwined. Every thing I've learned suggests that how one probes, feints, and seeks openings, is happening simultaneously as one responds to the range, movement, and threats presented. It feels very very similar (absent getting my ears rung) to playing music live with others. This hugely oversimplified comparison is intended for people who have not handled or sparred with hand to hand weapons. Dancing too has some striking parallels to this sort of encounter, though the contexts seem diametrically opposed in intent.

An interesting perspective. Convenience of carry must be a major element with any sidearm as for many persons, it's very much a last ditch weapon.

A good comparison could be the 1828 Pattern Highland Broadsword where you can swap the basket out with the crossguard

@neilmorrison7356

2 жыл бұрын

There are photographs of highland officers in the field up to and including WW1 where the basket hilt has been replaced with a cross guard on active service.

@Dynogone

2 жыл бұрын

@@neilmorrison7356 Indeed, i wouldn't really want a full basket hanging by my side either

@neilmorrison7356

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dynogone link to photo of Gordon Highlander officers i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/2a/5e/7e2a5ed8bff5fb0e753b028d9dafbf45.jpg i.pinimg.com/originals/de/a4/65/dea4652dc237fa3f62afad82d0c30ed3.jpg

Very similar points to the discussion of shield vs buckler, the latter being much more convenient to carry and arguably able to defend a much larger area due to being lighter, more mobile and able to be held out at arm’s length. Back when I was training regularly in the Bolognese style there was a repeated line about a buckler being the world’s largest shield, it just came in in instalments.

A basket hilt is also more prone to a slower draw from the scabbard because you have to get your hand into the basket to grip the handle.

Another great video Matt, but I feel you missed out on another reason for choosing a particular type of hilt and that is gloves and gauntlets. For instance a classical cross hilted medieval sword would most like be worn with mail or plated gauntlets of some description, where as a later basket hilt or half basket would be wielded with bare hands or light leather gloves.

The basket hilt and such like were also seldom used with any hand armour (as far as I know), whereas in earlier centuries the cross hilt style were frequently used in association with some form of armoured gauntlet..

Quite a few British swords no longer have their leather guard liners. They tend to rust the guard and get stained by the rust and in time are discarded. However liners allow guards to be decorated with perforations. Cavalry swords were worn on the saddle depending, so you could have a larger guard. I am a believer in retaining my thumbs or you won’t be holding anything!

Allow me to come back to these considerations and emphasize that on a battlefield the sword is indeed most of the time only a side weapon. The main weapon then being rather a pole weapon, the fighter will therefore seek above all protection for his hands in the context of the use of it, which will probably lead him to wear protection directly on his hand, like an armored glove (I leave aside the shield option). In this context, where he must already manage the weight of a metal glove, adding weight to his sword without adding any advantage (since his hand is already protected) turns out to be rather an annoyance. This probably explains why for a long time the cross guard was preferred. Moreover, the semi-basket hilt or basket hilt began to become really popular at the time when firearms became predominant on the battlefield, but the use of these did not go well with wearing armored gloves, these quickly disappeared from military equipment and this may partly explain the fact that the semi-basket hilt or basket hilt has become an interesting option in the event of close combat. Oh, sorry I saw only after writing this comment that many had already mentioned this idea ;)

Hand guards that cover the hand are an advantage in LRP, eliminates rakes across the knuckles which count in most rules/systems as a full blow for damage.

I'm seeing the question from a completely different perspective. Different swords are wielded with different styles of motion, and to a great extent, the size of the hand guard reflects the vulnerability of the hand. This is most clearly illustrated in the development of the rapier, where early cut-and-thrust weapons had relatively simple guards, but as the weapons began to be used in a more standardized, guard-forward, thrust-dominant way, the hand became more of a static target and needed more protection. You can look at swords from other lands to see this clearly-- Middle Eastern and eastern European swordsmen tend to have swords with small guards that are swung very broadly so that the hand is always in motion and less vulnerable. On the other side of the spectrum, the German Schlaeger is used in a way that the hand is always in one place and always vulnerable (even if not a target according the the rules), and that has a guard the size of a watermelon (a small one, anyway).

This discussion couples well with your hand injury video. It seems likely that more hand protection was useful in 1 on 1 duels or civilian unarmored defense situations where the person was wearing less body armor on the rest of their body regardless of the time period. The fight context that a particular sword was likely used in also has a huge impact on how useful the more complex/heavy guards are. To reference your hand injury video line of reasoning, in unarmored duels or self defense versus bandits and other situations where sniping the hands was more likely, having something close to a buckler on your sword hand becomes much more appealing than it would if you were in full plate harness where hand attacks were mitigated by gauntlets/vambraces. In later periods, when sabers become more common, it was also coupled with an increasing lack of full body armor due largely to the increased use of firearms, so even in skirmish and dense melee fighting, the general lack of armor (particularly on arms and hands) would have offset the negative effects of added weight to the sword somewhat and increased active defense capacity.

That title makes me think of another subject you might consider covering: Effects of hand size and pommel size in swords, compensating in combat for small or weak hands, etc. Combat while one hand is immobilized/missing. Seriously.

@TheBaconWizard

2 жыл бұрын

I'd be interested in this: I am right-handed but I smashed my elbow in a motorcycle accident some years ago and now don't have the full range of motion: I'd be curious if there is a style of sword or style of sword-fighting that would best suit me.

Hello. Thank you very much for your channel. I always though that more minimalistic early swords were accompanied with another type of hand guard - the gauntlet. This kind of protection will never stop any hard blow on your fingers, but it will save your hand from quick and light hits that may potentially cut the finger off and finish any fight with that. So when the armor weight and all around amount of it started to go down, any smart person would still want to have his fingers protected. And the half-basket hilt is something that is sufficient enough, whilst full basket is redundant. Yes, it is better protection, but it is more weigh and less comfort, less skill, like you perfectly said. So, the point I am going to is: yes, your thoughts are correct, but only if we compare half-baskets and full-baskets. Taking simple cross guard as example for comparison is a mistake due to is accompanied with another form of finger protection - gauntlet. If it is not, user is at risk of get a short quick hit to the hand and loose his finger.

Good distinctions. I would noted taht what else you might wear on your hand might be important.

Wow Matt you've really been putting out some awesome videos of late!

We all can agree that bigger hand guards might be better for a novice against an expert though, it might save his hand. The quicker you are with your hands because you have done a 1000 repetitions of the same slash angle or thrust. The more you can get away with less hand guard.

Wow, Matt's favourite word, "context" took a whole 47 seconds before it was said!

Thanks, this will help me with an idea. Question, what would happen if you put high power magnets (mozaic pattern) to the front of a basket.

I feel like hand protection also follows a law of diminishing returns. Going from a simple cross and adding a knucklebow I find really increases the hand protection, but between a shell hilt and a cup hilt, I don't feel much difference. Especially if you consider that hand protection also dissuades your opponent from attacking your hand. A hand protected by two side bars is as little a tempting target as one protected by a full swept hilt.

Note about the mass: A crossguarded sword usually has more mass in the pommel then a baskethilted one. This means the might even have the same weight but the point ob balance of the crossguarded one would be lower.

Matt would definitely be a cool chill teacher if he worked in a school

Captain Context rides again. 😉 And even more than context, simply: Trade-offs, personal preference--and educated guesswork on the part of each person on which trade-offs (*if* differences even prove relevant in an actual fight) end up counting. Educated guesses that still, in any given situation, might still prove to be wrong. (Hey, in blackjack you definitely should stand on a 20 against a dealer's 13. Still doesn't mean they can't draw an 8.

Hence, very complex-hilted "zweihanders" aren't really a thing (although if anyone has any exceptions, I'd love a link) I am aware that some had a couple of large side-rings...

Just want to point out too, (and this goes hand in hand with what you're saying), that hand guard size, may largely have to do with the fighting style of the sword. If you look all around the world: swords that emphasize slashing, over stabbing: all tend to have smaller hand guards. Japanese Katanas, Chinese Daos, Indian Talwars, the Egyptian Kopesh, Arabian Scimitars, Western Cavalry Sabers... etc., all those have smaller hand guards. The style of those kinds of weapons is to slash the blade back and forth and so the momentum of the blade itself has a guard effect in that it deflects other weapons as you swing it, and hence a smaller hand guard is fine. Even the Chinese Jian, which is a straight sword, has a small hand guard and the Jian is meant to be used with a constantly spinning, fluid slashing fighting style that deflects oncoming blades. However, if you have a sword that is meant more as a jabbing, thrusting weapon, the way many European swords are: it makes sense to have a larger hand guard, as you are extending your hand and forearm way out in front of you to make stabbing thrusts. Your hand is going to be more vulnerable, more often and so you'll want to protect your hand more as a result.

Hand-guards serve a purpose that very few talk about: they offer a means to use your hands when getting back up from a fall! A decent guard lets you do 'push-ups' while holding the weapon. Getting back up quickly keeps you fighting.

The sort of hilt that swords were made with can be correlated quite well with how highly, during a particular period of history, the fingers and knuckles were valued. During the Viking era, for example, the Vikings did not highly value fingers as they had plentiful slaves which had all the fingers they needed.

Totally off topic, but I like that type XV. I like that type XV a lot!

That parang is awesome looking! Looks like something out of a game or fantasy movie. I love the handle design and the wicked curved blade.

Some very good points made. It would be cool to see video games; and even series' and movies, to the extent that they can; (which feature melee-combat) paying a bit more attention to the defensive aspects of various weapons. Whereas they all too often focus purely on the offensive aspects. Because really; with the exception of maybe a few particularly reckless and bloodthirsty individuals; most people would be far more interested in surviving a fight, than in the slaying of an opponent. I know I certainly would be! :)

OK but best sword discussion channel ever. Scholagladiatoria!!!

As a hiker I very much agree about comfort. Many military and fantasy weapons that people describe as "the best" would be absolutely miserable to take on a 3 day hike in the mountains. A lighter, less cumbersome weapon is going to be so much better to wear while gathering wood for a fire or making your way through brush.

Thank you for the video. I will go to sleep confident in the knowledge that you will always be Matt Easton.

I've always been surprised that more swords don't have forward facing blade traps incorporated into the guards. It would give a huge leverage advantage and control the opponents weapon. A full basket could be stamped and pierced 18ga sheetmetal. A 3 bar would be .25"+- weighing about the same or possibly more. A pierced stamped and hardened 18ga guard would have minimal weight and maximum protection allowing for more pommel weight to perfect the balance. I do agree that the Sabre Guard is a great balance of protection and encumbrance.

That's why I think I like a lot of different country and period weapons. Because taking myself my favorite weapon might not be ideal for someone else. We all have our preferences

My favorite flying horse is the Drakkensteed... Oh, that was a joke.

The hand is the part of the body that is usually closest to the opponent during a fight, though. It's obviously a good place to prioritise for additional protection. If you get hit in the hand and drop your sword, then the blade can't defend any other part of you anyway. It's not really surprising that more complex hilt designs became so popular.

I think it depends on your swordsmanship style... the transition to thrusting swords and the abandonment of shields/bucklers/capes/parrying daggers (as well as the practices of rapier/smallsword/modern fencing dueling practices - not battlefield combat) increased the need for larger and more elaborate hand guards. You can also see the evolution continuing in hilt design as the fencing blades switched to the "pinch"/pistol grips for sport fencing. European swords starting adding those knuckle bows, side bars, etc. as metallurgy advanced and as a demonstration of the swordmaker's art. The same protective bits you see on the larger zweihanders, etc. may have been more useful against spears and pikes than other swords. And yes, the metal gauntlet performed a similar protective function but faded away as soldiers and officers stopped wearing full body armor. If you look at non-European swords, many of them have rudimentary or practically non-existent hand guards as body movement and non-thrusting blade styles didn't emphasize them in combat (i.e., the sword designed as a primary weapon rather than an adjunct to firearms on the battlefield) and they were less cumbersome to wear as well. For example, the Chinese jian straight sword (tai chi sword) - used into the 20th century, has a fairly rudimentary cross or small cup guard. Chinese swordsmanship allows strikes to the hand and the arms without any kind of Marquis de Queensberry-style prohibitions in fighting, and likewise for the Japanese katana and wakizashi or the shashka of the Russian Cossacks. Similar principles apply to knives. Some people like a large guard on the knife to protect the hand and to prevent it slipping on the edge, others prefer little or no guard. Some users of Ka-Bar knives cut the back part of the guard off as it interfered with its use in some cutting tasks and the Ek commando knife has a relatively small guard.

The definition of the meat of this video is your knuckles getting into them is the idea of my swordplay but if your idea of swordplay is twisting your card into my place then you're probably okay

@eberp9270

2 жыл бұрын

I have no idea what Barret Harms is expressing, but I'm reading all of their comments and I desperately wish to read more.

I am glad that an elephant in the room was mentioned in the discussion, a Shashka. It was used in World War II and later, this saber has no hand protection.

4:12 that sword is like a scaled down 1796 Cavalry sabre

What's the blazon for your arms?

Great points!

Good point.

Funnily enough, you posted this right after I purchased a 1917 US Naval cutlass with a half-basket in place of a regulation three bar guard :)

Point 4. Speed/Ease of access. The more complex/complete the handguard, the more deliberate you have to be in grasping the hilt; therefore the slower you'll be in getting the blade "in play".

If you are wearing a meaty set of gauntlets, do you need a huge basket hand guard? Or is just enough to deflect the sword away (like a flat piece of metal as a hand guard). I think the bigger hand guards came around because gauntlets stopped being worn. Be them leather or metal hand coverings. So in place they moved to a bigger hand guard. A result of guns existing possibly? You need free uncovered hands to shoot the gun or hold the horse reins. So because of this the guards of the hands moved from hand coverings (gauntlets and heave gloves) to the hand guard of the sword.

Even though I done martial arts and I don't really have any experience in sword fighting other then a brief period of foil fencing so I don't think I'm the best person to give an informed answer on this but I tend to like the idea of fairly large guards and I tend to be a sucker guards even though I know that having fairly large or big guards are far from being the end all be all or everything.

In a similar way, is it useful to use different material for say any sword from steel into aluminium, or titanium, or any other lighter material (then steel)? Have they been used before 1900? The main idea is to have a very nimble sword/quick sword which still does decent damage to unprotected areas. I assume steal plated armour would resist it any day (but maybe I'm wrong) I did some quick google search and at least today aluminium swords exist, but maybe only decorative or in roleplay, unsure.

Are a falcate and a kopis the same thing or related? I remember when you talked about if you could carry swords in modern times what would it be and I would go for kopis. Especially because I can see that knuckle guard becoming an efficient knuckle duster of sorts and it looks to have the chopping power of a machete but with the advantage of reach despite being a fairly short sword from my limited understanding. I'm very new to your channel. Do you do many swords from antiquity? Things like the sickle swords or even early bronze age weapons?

Well, I have a preference for sabers and cutlasses. Of course, with no experience even in HEMA I am going by looks and they do have a lot of hand protection. I guess I have to include my love of Shashka's and of course the Yataghan has always been a favorite. Three bar hilts are just beautiful to me. Athletes have a saying speed kills, they also say the best defense is a good offence, so it could hold true in fighting as well because sports are a way to channel aggression and get exercise and discipline needed for combat.

Another great video Matt, you are awesome!!!!!!

For what it's worth.... I might have to respectfully disagree with some of this, for once, but the reasons are nuanced. My background is mainly sidesword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, and recreated dark ages sword and shield. My daughter does longsword. I can certainly see the advantages of her longer, but not caged guard, sparring. I do like to keep my fingers unharmed, I must admit, and it's advantageous dealing with prickers on the property, an ongoing battle. The advantages and disadvantages are hard to weigh.

It's certainly easier to wear a flat 2D style hilt, like a 1796 LC sabre. You can walk normally swinging your arms by your side, move your arms from your side to reach forward, carry other objects easily etc. Even simple side rings are slightly annoying to wear as they can get hooked on things. For a sidearm that gets carried alot but possibly never used I'd go for something simple. , If i had a basket hilt I'd be more tempted to leave it at home.

Next video: Gauntlet vs hand guard

@JZBai

2 жыл бұрын

Indian dandpatta: why not both? :P

Cross guard and small(ish) side rings or nagel(s) - probably the best protection/mass ratio. Light and small knuckle bow as add on - depends.

Apologies if I missed it, but I think another consideration is how the weapon was intended to be used. Full hand protection makes little sense for a two-handed sword, one where a second hand may or may not be employed depending on the intended strike/parry, one used in a way in which grips shift a fair amount, or even one used in a manner that uses a lot of wrist movement in all three dimensions etc.etc. They also probably make little sense for a weapon intended as a backup, which needs to be drawn quickly while under serious stress and pressure e.g. Opponent has grabbed your polearm, and you have a quarter of a second to get a point/edge in under their arm while you abandon your primary weapon.

A half basket Hilt is more than I need but I have the skill that a half basket Hilt more than I need the amount of pills that a person uses is determined by their fighting style a small basket belt is for somebody who does not attempt to protect their hand or their wrist as your fighting style starts to protect these things and can reduce the amount of guard that your weapon of choice provides personally I do not like a full basket because it is heavy and it is lightweight that is every piece of protection is lighter-weight then I prefer when I'm guarding my hand because I use my basket aggressively however a knuckle do is pretty Hardy and protects less then I am interested in it protecting as I am not likely to come across a Rapier A-Rod cup is quite sufficient as long as the knucklebow portion is reinforced.

@eberp9270

2 жыл бұрын

When I was young and foolish I read William S Burroughs. Then I discovered Barret Harms.

Would the protagonists not have used 'hand protection' in the form of some kind of armoured or heavy duty gloves or gauntlets? instead of relying on the protection being on the swords themselves? Great content as per usual. Thanks Matt.

The best type of flying horse is a crossbred unicorn and pegasus. It is known by different names depending on the historical context, but mainly under the title "pegacorn". It is the ultimate in bling rides with at least 157.3 times the street cred of any sportscar. It is a contentious matter, but many argue that it is an even more impressive method of transport than a haunted pirate ship. My own personal feelings are that a haunted pirate ship is better for impressing male friends, but the horned and winged pegacorn is a huge hit with the ladies.

As a general rule, I think we too often forget that the vast, vast majority of a sword's life is spent either propped up somewhere, in storage, or worn in a scabbard. Even adding a few hundred grams can make a noticeable difference when it's on your hip. And if you don't expect the sword to be used that much, why optimize it for fighting at the expense of all else?

@cattraknoff

2 жыл бұрын

Well you do generally want it to do its job. Fighting is certainly a primary concern, but not the only one.

It feels to me as if the size and proportion of hand guards are inverse to the use of shields and armor. As far as I know, carrying a sword alone into a martial environment is exceedingly rare, and well nigh limited to large weapons with nearly the reach of a spear and while wearing seriously robust armors. TBH it is an intuitive idea, I have only the timeline of correspondence between simple disk, cross bar, or D guard, and the levels of bodily protection worn/carried. Also, I've come to this idea almost entirely based on how those trends appear from late bronze onwards in Europe, but I think parallels can be seen in Chinese and Indian weapons history as well. Matt, if you happen to read this, please weigh in, I'd love to know your thoughts on it.

Just wanted to say... you the man, Matt

Is there such a thing as a full basket hilt with a prominent crossguard? Like an even more enclosed swept hilt.

I feel like there is still somethings missing here, like the ease of acces. A full basket hilte makes it notibly harder to quickly draw the sword. Another intresting point it the fighting system for the sword, some of the saber guards just do not work that well when using a cross guard sword and vice versa yuou wouldn't pommel a basket hilted sword. Hight differences, like being on top of a hource also make a reasonable difference.

@scholagladiatoria and anyone else Question/hypothesis: having the sword be lighter and therefore quicker, it makes it easier to defend - *but* is that not still contingent upon the person using the sword being well trained to use it? So is it possible then that people would go for a bigger hilt (of any of the versions) for protection if they perhaps weren't super proficient in using the weapon? So that they might not be technically capable of benefiting from the lighter weight and would go for greater physical protection to make up for that fact? Because one could assume that not everyone who wore a sword (for protection or potentially just to look cool - because I'm sure there were people back then, much like people today - not with swords but in other ways, who could have worn swords as a matter of prestige or to show off wealth and who might not be trained all that well to fight with them.) In which case again they might want the most "protection" (in their minds) and thus choose to go with a hilt that covers their hand more. Having said that - if these bigger hilts were more common in later centuries could it be that this was the case because fewer people who wore swords were as trained to use them as in the past or ended up using them less often and therefore had less experience and thus would go for a bigger hilt for the reason I mentioned above? I have no idea if any of this is reasonable or makes sense, but it seems like it might be logical to me - and so I put this to people who are more knowledgeable (please respond and fill me in if you have an idea about it).

Fascinating topic. Does the historical literature indicate that injuries to the swordsman's hand or fingers were very common? One imagines that such issues would reveal themselves even in practice sessions of the era, and would affect hilt design. (?)

Not sure how to feel about that point on weight. Like, arming swords often have massive pommels and not even a simple knucklebow. I guess maybe there's an issue with older swords where the blades had to be extra heavy because of bad metallurgy, so pommels had to be bigger but it was much more important to keep crossguards light? Whereas as blades got lighter pommels could be smaller and guards could get larger.

What’s the bestest historical arms and armor KZread channel?

First thoughts I punch with my cup so yes I prefer a sabre with a good guard.

I reviewd all the sparring vídeos i could find between Katana and the long sword, and i did'nt find any advantage for any sword, most of the cuts were at forearm and the skill from the swordsman was the biggest advantage when there was some. Its also important to keep in mind that many times, the protection for the hands comes from armour and not from the sword it self, and when there is no armour, most sword guards keep the sword hand near the body.