[Carl W.]

My sword hobbying is just last couple months, few hours per week. So far mostly interested in roman & before (doesn't seem too much on before :-).

Commercially available roman swords, & also statements in myArmoury features articles imply/state minimal guards until vikings. But this doesn't seem common sense. Even if preferred thrusting, battle is messy, cutting and parrying with swords sliding along each other must have been fairly common. Would you want a minimum hand guard, made of... wood?

Further, from ~ 1300BC, note the (presumably bronze) Canaanite & Mycenaean swords, which have more prominent, completely metal guards:

http://ina.tamu.edu/UB-tools.htm

Romans didn't know how to do this? Are there any archaeological finds of roman swords with a more pronounced, metal guard?

Thanks for any help.

Carl

[Marc Pengryffyn]

I've been wondering a similar thing recently. I'm sure I've seen spanish falcatas which have the highly curved pommels and bottom guard connected by a rod to make a sort of knuckle bow, but then it wasn't duplicated for another 1500 years. I guess more complex hilts, baskets and such, needed to wait for metalurgical developments to reach a point where they could be made strong enough without being too heavy, but I would have thought a knuckle-bow would have been both achievable and desirable on a lot of swords from the bronze age forwards. So why weren't they used?

On the minimal guards of Roman swords, I would guess that their philosophy was that the sword simply wasn't used for defence, so a larger guard wasn't necessary, and would only get tangled in close-formation combat. I stress that that's a guess, however, and look forward to being illuminated by those more knowledgeable...

[Anders Backlund]

Maybe it's simply a question of taste and fashion?

I know practicality is often stressed when talking historical swords, and when going into battle it is common sense to want a sword that offers decent protection to the hand. But thing is, people didn't always go by common sense.

For example, I've always wondered about the minimalistic guards on many Asian swords, and especially the Chinese jian. The guards on these swords tend to be short, stubby things that appear to be mostly decorative. I asked an online friend who practices Chinese swordsmanship about it. The explanation I got was basically that if your opponent hits your hand it means you didn't use your own sword right and messed up your defense.

So, perhaps the reasoning was: "This is the way we've always made them so why fix what ain't broke? Besides, it looks better this way, and if you go and get your fingers chopped off, well, that's just you being a poor swordsman. Don't blame the sword."

[Steven H]

I've thought about this same subject myself, as well. My own hypothesis, based on the patterns of the development of armour, is that the primary factor was economic and technical. Elaborate guards are expensive and requires good metals to work.

A secondary factor may be the method of use. In conjunction with a shield the guard is less necessary. A pointed guard also adds to the things that can get caught on your mates kit when you're fighting in formation.

And we can't discount fashion, either. The cup hilt and the swept hilt are contemporaneous even though the cup hilt clearly provides more complete protection.

Cheers,
Steven

[Douglas S]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Matthew Amt]

Right, SHIELDS are for parrying, while the guard on the sword is mainly to keep your hand from sliding down the blade. Most Bronze Age swords actually have very narrow guards, and those with "horns" may have been for hooking a finger over.

http://www.larp.com/hoplite/BAweapons.html

Technological ability is certainly not a factor, considering the fabulous metalwork that was done back then, some of which we have failed to duplicate with modern techniques. Economics are also not a factor, since swords tended to be used by the upper classes, and many hilts were made with exotic woods, ivory, stone, and gold. The Romans are an exception to that, of course, but we still find many decorated Roman hilts and scabbards, including silver sheathing.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html

Up until the 2nd century AD, metal guards on Roman swords are practically unheard of. Yet Roman daggers--and Greek swords before the Roman era--were typically made with iron hilt plates over wood or horn, sandwiching the tang.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/pugio.html
http://www.larp.com/hoplite/weapons.html

Like so many other military items, never underestimate the power of FASHION! They made them that way because that's the way they were made. And for those who used them, they worked just fine.

Valete,

Matthew

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Actually, this discussion has led me to some rather strange speculations. The small parma of Roman times was held in a fist grip like a buckler, and Roman skirmishers probably used it a lot in conjunction with the gladius. So, wouldn't it be likely that they used the buckler to protect the hand like in the I.33 style of medieval sword and buckler? I know we don't really have enough source materials to firmly prove or disprove the idea but it's definitely something worth considering in the extrapolation/reenactment of Roman fighting techniques, and now I'm curious about whether any of the Roman groups out there had drawn a similar conclusion.

[Bill Grandy]

Understand that the cross of medieval swords doesn't really make that big of a difference in terms of protecting the hand from being hit. It can be used to help in certian binding manuevers, but having a sword slide down your blade into your hand is pretty rare unless if you're doing something very odd (like pushing your swords together Conan-style. )

Further, the cross guard is a hinderance if it isn't something you're used to. When I did a German longsword demo for a Japanese swordsmanship festival, most of the Japanese practitioners were very surprised at how similar our arts were.. but when they tried going through some of their own techniques with my longsword, they kept bumping the guard on their forearms, as well as the top of their head when they went into jodan no kamae (the high guard).

[Matthew Amt]

[Carl W.]

Thanks all! Not to close off thread or tangents, but to distill for my pea brain...

Romans were shield & close formation dependent, large guard could get caught. Makes some sense, maybe a lot.

Agree with Lafayette that Canaanite & with Douglas that katana guards are not large, but at least not made of wood. So still not clear why not metal rather than wood. Maybe wood saves a few ounces & cheaper/easier to make, given formation dependent anyway? Or as some noted, maybe it was the vogue.

How much variation do we know about guard plates? The photos I can see of commercial roman swords appear to 'emphasize' wood, with a much smaller inset plate. Perhaps interesting, Albion Pedite close up photos appear to show a somewhat more prominent plate than the others.

Is there archeological evidence for a larger plate, as large as the wood? Or is the inset required to stabilize the wood piece hence handle?

Matthew (thanks very much for the links), any examples of the 2nd century AD roman swords you mentioned? Only had little better luck searching for Lafayette's parma - 1 photo on larp.

Bill, what was the point of medieval cross guards if not protection? Years ago I borrowed my brother's rummage sale foil for college fencing PE class. I got lucky, group didn't pay much attention to the rules, we mostly just fought. After a semester the 'blade' was undamaged, but the guard was pretty chewed up. But that was a cup, not a cross. Guess I liked cups at the time :-)

Hard to believe that romans ran off the field if they lost their shield, or never went on light scout missions. But no need for two swords? Maybe "light, quick, & compact" gladius rational for close in fighting, they liked that regardless?

I started 'sword hobby' because felt like it was getting back to basics, simplicity. Wrong :-)

Carl

ps. There is a point to this, I am considering buying a blade, making the rest, trying to plan. Thanks again!

[Steven H]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Matthew Amt]

[Bill Grandy]

[Anders Backlund]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Anders Backlund]

About the medieval cruciform swords: wasn't the idea that you'd be wearing an armoured gauntlet while using them? Our featured article on the Schiavona seems to imply that:

http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_spot_schia01.jpg

Though, for my part I've always wondered why we didn't see side-rings appear earlier; it seems to me a rather simple way of adding a lot of protection to a medieval sword. I may be wrong, though, as I don't have much expertise in the subject.

[Andreas Auer]

My point is the following...a Gladius is mainly for thrusting in a battleline, right. and mainly thrusting from behind a shield. you don't want anything that can hinder your thrust, or get endangeled in shields or whatever. Parrying with the sword is not really an option in sword and shield fighting. you have your shield to parry or absorb thrusts and slashes and you have your sword for thrusting and slashing. so a Guard on a gladius would be a unnessesary thing that might hinder you much more than help you.

Andreas