Whatever else might be true, I can at least state one thing for certain, judging from artwork of ca. 1450-1530: The great majority of German/Austrian swords in this period, at all levels of quality and status, had some form of this device. I don't see it much in the illuminations of Froissart's Chronicles, so it might have been a regional preference/innovation. In any case, it should be common on better quality reproduction swords of northern European type, but I know of only one example in production (Albion's Svante).

I agree with Roland about the dubious value as a rain guard, though the tubular type does seal the top of the scabbard very well. On the other hand (so-to-speak) if hand protection is the point then surely, over a couple of hundred years, somebody would have had the idea to reverse the flaps so that they cover the top of the hand (but maybe they skipped straight to the complex hilt to achieve the same thing). The reality might be that the chappe does both things to some degree, but does neither very well. I can imagine it surviving on that basis.

There is one possibility we haven't discussed here. A recent sword project, including a scabbard and tubular chappe, was very instructive to me. I'm a long, long way from being an expert, but I suspect that there aren't lots of people making both a scabbard and a tubular chappe and fine-tuning the fit between them. Among the things I learned, both from the work and close examination of period artwork, is that this type of chappe must have been a very close fit to the mouth of the scabbard. With a close fit between these parts, the chappe helps retain the sword in the scabbard, providing just enough friction to secure the weapon but not so much that it hinders drawing it. Elsewhere on this site we've discussed the problem of a wooden scabbard core expanding and contracting, which precludes creating a perfect initial fit that remains perfect over the life of the scabbard. The tubular chappe doesn't suffer from this problem. Expansion or contraction of the mouth of the scabbard that might be sufficient to bind the sword isn't likely to have a significant impact on the fit between scabbard and chappe. In theory, then, the tubular chappe allows a more loose original fit between scabbard and blade without the danger of the sword becoming dislodged in a fall. This doesn't explain the "D" shaped leather piece that existed alongside the tubular type, but it adds a third function to the first two discussed here, and further extends the value of the piece.

Here's the project I'm referring to. Notice the size of the scabbard mouth in relation to the blade and chappe. I based these proportions on depictions in artwork of ca. 1490-1510. In some cases, the chappe was much shorter and closer-fitting, thus probably not much use as hand protection.

---

 Attachment: 214 KB



 Attachment: 165.57 KB



 Attachment: 129.92 KB

Again beautiful work, Sean.

I agree that there may be more than one purpose for the cross leather.
Securing the weapon to the scabbard is a nice side benefit of mine, too.
It has been suggested before and I am inclined to agree.

However, the protective value of such a leather against this one specific minor injury that occurs in unarmoured fencing when you don't wear gauntlets seems to be widely under-estimated.
It only happened to me once a year or so. But it happpened. With the leather guard, I doubt I will receive a black thumb nail any time soon.

Anybody done comparable experiments in their sword figthing training?

I think you make a good case for the chappe preventing minor injuries, Roland, no matter what else it does. I'd love to see you make and test one of these tubular chappes and see how it compares to the other types for prevention of this specific injury.

I must say, I like this thread. From a simple raingaurd to hand protection, from simple leather to orinate.

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

http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_arms_gls06.jpg

http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_arms_gls17.jpg

http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_arms_gls19.jpg

http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_arms_gls21.jpg

http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_arms_gls24.jpg

thoughts?

Hello,

I would like to highlight a particular point. And I do so for it's academic interest and peer review - this is not intended to be an attack.

A swordsman, Roland, concludes that the piece is for protecting the swordfighter.

A collector, Sean (and many others), concludes that the piece is for protecting the sword.

This seems to be, possibly, more a conclusion based on background. What a psychologist would call unconscious bias.

It is my opinion that a decorated piece of leather, which is limited in both what regions it appears in and the time it is used is probably just a fashion thing. Perhaps they were first suggested/implemented for one of the practical reasons listed here. But ultimately they do none of those really well. So if it's not that practical, and it is pretty then I feel that the simplest conclusion is: Fashion Accessory.

Note that fashion accessory is in no way demeaning coming from me. Denying the power and influence of fashion in this period, even when dealing with "practical" items like swords and armour is just folly.

Cheers. I love a good thought provoking thread.

Thanks,
Steven

Hi Steven,

I think that's missing something, because Claus and Roland are saying the leather piece works very well for protection. Claus shot some very convincing videos to this end.

So, I'm not sure why you feel it doesn't fill this role well. None of which is to say for sure that's why they evolved, or that was their only purpose.

All the best,

Christian

Hi,

thanks for your thoughts.

I will address some of them, though you might forgive if I repeat myself. I am having this discussion on four forums and two mailing lists at the moment!

First, these guard attachments are present in European art from around 1300 onwards, regardless of place. I don't think their appearance was limited to any region. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Rain guard:
Honestly, if you just picture the amount of water it would take to enter a scabbard, you will realize that the very idea is shere nonsense. In rain, the complete sword (including the hilt!) would be better protected under a cloak! A soldier on campaign will have to clean his sword from mud and gore, grind out nicks and re-sharpen it, oil it and put it back into the scabbard. And - do you notice: There is no flap to cover the scabbard mouth while the sword is drawn! Why? Because the opening is so tiny that you would have a hard time getting a lot of water in even if you tried it on purpose. Leave alone when the sword is inside!

Any moisture remaining in the leather will stain the cross guard and eventually the base of the blade much more significantly, even after the biblical floods of rain have stopped. It would be easier to discard the leather, clean your sword and keep it nicely oiled.

So please, please, don't call it a rain guard. That is utter nonsense.

Now, a more interesting objection against the protection thesis: Why not make them of metal? Well there are a couple of surviving pieces that do sport a tubular metal piece which covers the base of the blade just below the cross. They can also be seen with some later and much more elaborate swords. It has been pointed out that these later swords' complex hilts offer sophisticated hand protection. So it seems that here the tube can only be intended to seal the scabbard mouth.

While I appreciate the nice fit on the scabbard that my cross guard leather provides and while I am convinced that this was an appreciated side benefit back then, too, there is suppossedly more to it.
Brian Mcilmoyle kindly shared his experience in private correspondence (I take the liberty here to quote him):
Their existance on complex hilts adds rather than detracts to this as even complex hilts provide little protection from a point in line with the blade. ( my current study of the rapier providing lots of experiencial evidence of this ) The fact that many rapiers are furnished with this protection in steel ( cup hilts come to mind) add to the evidence.

Have a look at the famous Vasa sword, keeping Brian's words in mind!
I can understand that if you do not have according experience it is hard to imagine that such a little tube can put a point offline in a significant manner. Well, it surely does not make up for bad fencing but it keeps your hand safe when it counts.

More Examples with metal tubular guards from Vienna, Munich and the arms collection in Dresden.

None of these examples is 14th or early 15th century. So what made them stick with the leather attachments for so long and why was leather never given up completely?

Before I address this question I would first like to explain why the tubular type might have evolved from the flap type:
The early flap type (the one that is not fixed to the blade) does its job nicely: The blade sliding down from the bind folds back the flap and is deviated. Finger remains unscathed. However, it showed that the flap may deviate the opponent's blade too much and eventually results in losing the bind.
This means losing control of the opponent's weapon.

Fixing the flap to the blade base was an obvious solution. It still offered enough point deviation but reduced the loss of the bind because the flap couldn't fold back any more. Consequently the flap was reduced in size and lost its original purpose. The protection was now merely offered by the tube around the blade.
We might also want to consider that the more your fencing is focused on thrusting from the bind, the better a tubular type serves your purpose. If your fencing sees a lot of cutting and blows you may be better off with the flap type.
This would explain why both types remained in use.

But why leather?
I think that is pretty obvious with the flaps: Leather folds back, metal doesn't. Metal rather has another disadvantage: It tends to make a blade bumb off. Leather absorbs energy and traps the blade. Which is exactly what showed in recent tests with sharps: The incoming blade's remaining energy (remember it is sliding in from the bind) is virtually choked, control is perfect. (I have seen the according videos taken by friends of mine who decided to not publish them on the net for liability issues).
Of course, everything comes at a price. Leather will be cut and wear out and needs to be replaced at one point, whereas metal won't.

The fact that these cross guard attachments were very ornate and were used to express a sense of fashion is really no reason to doubt that they had a protective value. Plate armour, for example, didn't evolve much after 1500, it just became more and more ornate. Still it remained armour.

And finally:
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.

Let me conclude with another quote from Mr Mcilmoyle:

I require no evidence or proof to benefit my assessment other than a single injury foiled.

All the best,
Roland

Hello all,

Good discussion.

Christian-
I watched the video, and I don't doubt their conclusions per se. It is my feeling though that the same amount of leather, arranged as disk would be more protective. The guards on the weapons in Rene of Anjou's tournament book illustrate my thoughts on this.

So my logic goes that if the same material, arranged differently, works better then we may be misunderstanding the purpose.

I don't doubt that it helps. But it helps against only a small range of actions. For instance, I have not - in three years - suffered the injury they describe.

Perhaps that is merely luck on my part. So while I find that particular argument valid, I don't find it convincing.

However, I was mistaken on the range of their use. Which doesn't invalidate the fashion hypothesis. It merely weakens the hypothesis.

I was not aware of the existence of metal versions, which I'll agree supports the notion of it's protective role. (Though I've contemplated doing essentially the same thing to a couple of my swords just to make the balance better.)

Roland-
I am convinced that the item is not a rainguard. Your point about cloaks being much better makes a very good point. And that cleaning the sword under the chape is difficult only reinforces the point.

Overall, I lean towards a mixed use theory: That the item has protective value, sufficient to incite it's design but it was kept around (and later elaborated) for it's fashion. That an items existence is owed to multiple purposes is not surprising and probably more reasonable.

Cheers,
Steven

I think the almost universal use of leather rather than metal--even on very fine swords--supports the defense/control theory. Surviving metal chappes are thin and probably would easily be deformed or destroyed in combat. Leather can deform and spring back into place without sacrificing any defensive value compared to thin metal. A damaged leather chap also should be more easily replaced because it's so easily bent, molded, sewn, etc. In fact, as defense from relatively weak cuts and thrusts I think I'd prefer the thick leather to the thin metal anyway.

Steven -

I can well understand your point of view and if people give up the ludicrous rain guard theory then the discussion was useful already.

If you haven't suffered from the kind of injury we refer to, than that's good for you and a mark of skilled swordsmanship. Mind you though that this injury is only likely to happen with steel trainers and only when not training or fighting with bare hands or with thin leather gloves only.
Against this kind of minor but distracting hit the historical arrangement works like a charm.

A solid leather disc as an alternative and supposedly better alternative has been suggested elsewhere. However, if it is too hard it will not fold an thus be damaged much quicker. If it is softer, well, than it is the early circular flap.
Also, a disc of leather mounted onto a hilt will most likely turn into a flap after a while, both from wearing the sword at the hip aswell as from fencing.
So something that works in a tournament context may not be the appropriate choice for the working man's sword.

All the best,
Roland

The "hilt feature" (so I don't offend anyone) on the 15th century sword of Estorre Visconti is silver. I doubt it would have much protective value and its main purpose seems to have been decorative.

... which to me rather suggests that a sword like this was more of a status symbol than intended for constant use (whatever constant would have meant back then!).

Anyway, it would require according tests to know for sure. A delicate sheet metal tube may still deviate point or blade just enough to leave the thumb unscathed. It will probably get damaged. But then again, it's not like this is a threat and a situation you encounter in every bind or even every fight. But if the silver does get damaged, well, then you have it repaired. Just like you need to polish out nicks and re-sharpen your edges. At least you looked flashy with that sword if you insisted to use it. And your thumb is still fine, too.

Cheers,
Roland

Hi all,

The piece on the Visconti sword is semi-circular, like the guards seem in Kal and elsewhere. Unless it was truly might blow (and that's not the situation these work in anyway), its shape would tend to direct the opposing sword off to the side, where the cross itself would then take over the defense.

Given the proposed purpose, I don't think these would need to be terribly strong.

Cheers,

Christian

I've been following the discussion here a few days now and I'm very pleased to see that new ideas are flowing! Very often old ideas die hard. I have for a long time wondered what these peices of leather on so many swords was for and I can only agree with Rolands theory. It makes perfect sense. I've really tried to find another use for these dingys but have come up with absolutely zero... I have worn swords in foul weather and I've never had trouble with dirt and water entering the scabbard. If you get rust on the sword from moisture in the scabbard due to weather its just poor maintenance.
I also find the use for them very logical since I've gotten cuts on my fingers (especially thumb and knucles) just as roland describer when in the bind, this regardless if it's one och twohanded swords.

So thanks a lot for this enlightenment Roland!
You Hammaborg guys never stop to impress me! Hope I could train again with you some day, haven't been able to come to Swordfish or any place else due to injured knees for way too long...

Good discussion.

Please be cautious calling swords with decorative features not intended to be used for combat. This is not true. A vast majority of them are, as their customers required them to be so. Further, many surviving swords with decorative features show signs of use. This has been discussed on the site before.

Anyway, it doesn't help this conversation but I wanted to make that small point.

Artis Aboltins: good point. Swords are intended to to do their purpose (attack and defense). Damage to the wielder is important, not necessarily the sword :)

Thanks for a good and civilised discussion, I enjoy it.

Chad, thanks for guiding me to the article on the Visconti sword. I agree that it was made to be used and I wouldn't be surprised if it had seen service. From the look of it I would think the delicate metal attachment would be enough to derail a blade just enough to miss the thumb. It really doesn't take much. I was surprised when I did my first experiments.

Sorry if I seemed to suggest that ornate swords are generally not likely to have been made for actual service. That wasn't my intention nor is it what I think.

And I agree with Artis - if it is damaged, repair it or replace it. That's what probably happened to the worn out leather versions constantly. The important bit is that it fulfilled its purpose when it counted.

Eric, thanks for the praise. But it was Claus Sørensen who started to try out cross leathers in Laurentiusgildet's fencing training. He suggested a protective function to us recently. So the credit is his.
Too bad I will not see you at Swordfish next week. Hope your knees will be fine soon.

All the best,
Roland

I'd like to offer a third hypothesis on the purpose of rain guards. This is not my own hypothesis (I don't want to plagiarize someone else's idea here) but rather John Clements', director of ARMA. He has noted that the idea of rain guards being rain guards is a 19th century notion; to that point, I would also add that some of the "rain guards" we see depicted in period images look rather small if they were intended to serve that purpose.

However, 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.