Craig Peters wrote: |
I'd like to offer a third hypothesis on the purpose of rain guards....when you fence with a sword that has a rain guard, it prevents rust posts from developing on the ricasso/strong of your sword from thumb placement on the blade. It also prevents calluses or blisters from developing on your thumbs with ongoing intensive practice. |
Yes, Craig. This had already come up in the discussion here:
Quote: |
So, I had a thought (sorry if its already been stated) in addition to a raingaurd and possible hand protection (maybe the start of ring gaurds found in the 16th century, dunno) what if this device is also actually and extension of the grip. not just in appearance but in function allowing the placement of the thumb during cuts in german systems.
i just quickly grab the following of the german longsword feature on this website. look at the thumbs and the placement. maybe the raingaurd also allowed for better grip for just such hand possisions? I dont know, as i have never used raingaurds, perhaps this is already a common understanding to others in the HEMA world |
and here:
Quote: |
The idea that these leathers may have been intended to prevent the blade from being stained when using thumb grips as often done in German swordsmanship has been raised a couple of times.
Well, from experience I can only say that cross guard leathers make it hard to polish the guard and the base of the blade. And these parts will stain never-the-less if not oiled and sustained appropriately. The leather itself neither obstructs nor helps with thumb grips. |
I find this option to be the most convincing myself. Granted, the leather keeps the covered part of the sword from receiving the oiling it needs to resist natural corrosion. However, medieval and renaissance minds may not have grasped that the steel will corrode whether it is oiled or not as long as the observed cause of the stain, the thumb is kept off. And if the leather is never removed, they would never learn of the corrosion anyways. At least the leather would keep the blade from being stained by the thumb. I disagree that adding leather "neither obstructs nor helps with thumb grips." Leather is a far superior gripping surface than polished metal and the choice par excellence of the day. After all, leather is what they made sword grips out of in the first place. It seems like the appearance of these leather coverings correspond to the increasing prevalence of dismounted infantry armed with swords as Roland mentions in the video. Perhaps the increase in dismounted combat contributed to the development of higher forms of sword fighting, requiring unprecedented use of the thumb grip, and therefore, grip for the thumb.
I would like to add an objection from Sal Bertucci (raised at ARMA's forum):
Quote: |
I have observed one problem with the hypothesis. In many of the images that I have seen the chape is no wider than the blade, but in the version that they are using the chape is almost twice as wide as the blade. |
From period artwork and extant examples that I am aware of, it seems like the leather chape is made to be closely fitting to the blade. If it were meant to further displace an opposing sword in the bind, wouldn't the chapes normally be made larger and more robust?
Greg Coffman