[Lloyd Clark]

Hi all,

Since this is a subject that I am extremely fascinated and involved in I wanted to query the experts on historical lengths of swordhilts on swords used from horseback.

My own experience with cutting from horseback has shown that on truly one-handed swords, a slightly longer (say 1" to 1 1/2") grip allows for more wrist movement which is necessary when cutting through a target as you ride by. Unlike cutting a target from a static position, the ability to allow the wrist to rotate "backwards" is important in keeping control of a blade that has suddenly encountered a solid target, in order to keep it from being "ripped" out of your hand.

When I first asked to use the Duke from horseback, I was sceptical due to its size. But the initial cuts that I made on Jason's tatami showed that the blade/hilt combination allowed from free movement of the wrist and that the physics of the blade made for tremendous cutting power using the speed of the horse for impetus. I love this sword and thoroughly enjoy using it from horseback (or will again, when the broken bones in my wrist finally heal).

I have also used the Tritonia from horseback and while I think that Peter et al have recreated a tremendous sword, its cutting characteristics from horseback are not up to the level of the Duke or even the MRL European Sword (http://www.museumreplicas.com/webstore/showproduct.asp?hidProductId=500664&hidSearchPosition=13) that I often use in cutting demonstrations. It is my opinion is that the hilt on the Tritonia is just a bit "tight" and does not allow for the wrist flexion needed for cutting from horseback.

Now, I want to emphasize that this is "ride-by cutting" at a fixed target. I have yet to do an serious exploration of "fighting" from horseback (either against mounted or grounded opponents), to which I think that the Tritonia would actually show itself to be better designed for.

What do you think?

[Steve Fabert]

Is it just the difference in grip length, or do you think the shape of the pommel may make a difference as well? Have you tried out any swords with a short grip and intermediate pommel shape, like the Gaddhjalt or Ritter?

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Thanks Lloyd for the post,
I just want to express how fascinating this subject is for me as soneone less a practitioner and more a collector.
What is interesting is that you noticed a certain ease in using the hand-and-a-half Duke from horseback as oppossed to the single handed swords you have mentioned- interesting that single handed swords have been more historically associated with mouted combat- use with a shield.
Swords like the Duke and Baron have been shown as more infantry style swords. Look at the Lichtenhauer school. I know its not black or white but the issue is perplexing. These are just my thoughts that hopefully may engender some discussion of the shorter versus longer grip lengths and the infanty versus cavalry usage. Which one best suits which? Thanks to you Lloyd and all the folks who put these implements through their paces!! Jeremy

[Lloyd Clark]

Over the years I have used a number of different swords as part of shows and in cutting demonstrations. Many were the mass produced crap and I have had more than my share of tang breaks (which is dangerous for your horse when a blade suddenly drops away from a hilt).

One of the best that I have use is the MRL Cut-and-Thrust With Rain Guard (http://www.swordsofhonor.com/cutandthruss.html), which MRL gave me to use a few years back. Now, I will not say that this sword in any way, shape or form comes close to the quality of the Albion swords that I have had the opportunity to work with, but it proved to be a very "lively" blade from horseback and not only cut well, but allowed me to "spear" melons and cabbage on its point with ease. Again, the hilt is just slightly longer than the norm for a one-handed sword, but allows for free wrist and hand movement.

The Duke, as Eric first described to me, is designed to use from horseback and on the ground. The physics of the blade (the butcher knife on a stick) lends itself well to ride-by cutting. I am going to try and convince Mariah to let me use her Baron to check out its horseback qualities - but just from the look, I would say that it may even outperform the Duke by having a much more defined thrusting tip, a very valuable accessory for stabbing down into groundbased fighters.

I will be getting a new horse shortly (Paladin is one of our "team" horses and had to go home to Canada after the shows) and will be training her to do more than just joust. We are also developing a joust training center in Beaver Dam and I will make sure that we set it up to allow for this kind of research.

Everyone have a great weekend (and don't forget I have blades for sale )

[Chad Arnow]

Lloyd,
This is a fascinating discussion. I've heard it said that swords like Albion's Baron and Duke are designed to be used on foot, since they wouldn't be wieldy on horseback (aka with one hand).

I think I've heard of knights keeping these big swords tied to their saddles, with a smaller weapon strapped to their side. That makes more sense now, if you consider that you'd want the long reach from horseback. If you're off your horse, a shorter weapon might be better in a closely-pressed melee.

I've had the pleasure of cutting with both of those swords, and I can say without a doubt that my level of skill and physical fitness makes those swords hard for me to use one-handed; I would think doing so on the back of a heaving beast would be even harder. But this shows me that it can be done, most likely was.

I think you'll love the Baron from horseback if you liked the Duke. The Baron is heavier, but livelier, due to the profile taper and such. I hosted a gathering where people handled and cut with both. The consensus by all was that the Duke was a monster cutter, but the Baron felt lighter and livelier.

Keep this stuff coming; I'm really enjoying hearing from someone who's used swords and weapons in a more realistic context than cutting pool noodles or milk jugs.

[Gordon Frye]

Lloyd;

Good topic! My own experience in using blades from horseback has been with sabres with a semi-basket hilt (19th Century). In using it against both stationary objects to hit with the point as well as the back swing, the design does indeed make a difference! I personally found that the straighter grip of the British 1822/US 1833 sabre, with it's quill backed blade, to be a lot better with the point, but for the follow-through of the slash, the French 1822/US 1840/60 is better. For blocking the blows aimed against you, I can't see a difference.

What I do look forward to is trying a real sword (as opposed to a sabre) in the courses we set up. It will be interesting to see how my new ATrim/Eljay Baskethilt does!

So... your starting a new horse too, eh? I just picked up a new one myself, a nice big half-draft who's pretty close to bomb-proof. Trail-trained and sturdy, he's going through Cavalry training right now (learning to march in column right next to his mate... some horses don't care for that, but we're working on it!) Drop me a PM, I'd love to know what sorts of things you are doing to train yours. I've got a quintain that I'll set up next week to start the lance part of our training, but have to let the arena dry out a bit first!

Gordon

[Rod Walker]

Hi all. Coming from a re-enactment background I have done a lot of fighting from horseback, both against other cavalry and against foot soldiers. I'll just concentrate on the use of the sword as the lance in these situations is a whole other discussion.

The opinins below are based on my experiences of using the equipment on a horse, wearing period appropriate harness and indulging in unchoreographed combat.

I'll include the use of the shield here as it is a vital part of the knights equipment in the earlier periods.

There are a few misconceptions about the use of the shield from horseback. Firstly a shield is effictively a piece of armour. It should not be held off the body as is seen by some modern joust groups and Medieval times. I understand why they do it but it is not the correct way to use a shield. Dropping the reins is also a modern conceit. Also dropping the reins is also only a North American joust troupe habit. No other joust troupe outside of NA insists on this, it wasn't done in period. The shield is hung from the neck by a guige and usually has two or more enarmes. I have found that I usually only use the first enarme to push my arm through, along with the guige this holds the shield in place on my left side. The shield has become a piece of defensive armour. I can move the shield slightly in front when jousting in the open by rolling my left shoulder forward a little, for a full on joust I can slip another enarme through and brace the shield. During mounted combat you must always try to position yourself so that your left side, your shield side, is always facing your enemy whilst you try to attack their right side.. This can involve some tricky manouvering on horseback and can become a 'dog fight' on horseback. You then attack over your body with large sweeping attacks at you opponents head and upper body, thrusts can also be made at the chest. Of course in a real kill or be killed situation you can attack the face, throat, groin and even the horse but we cannot do that so we are effictively recreating a tournament.

Against foot soldiers I also try to position them on my left but an effecitive attack and defense can be carried out on the right hand side. This is where the bulk, manouverbality and presence of the horse can be used. For some reason foot soldiers don't seem to want to get to close to a horse with an armoured knight swinging 3 feet of steel at them. Those that do decide to get in close can find themselves knocked over as my horse is trained to bowl straight into people. You would be amazed at how far you can knock someone when you swing the horses rump or shoulder into them.

Must dash. I will continue this when I get home.

[Gordon Frye]

Rod;

Good having the chance to meet you in Sonora, sorry I had to run. Good point about how in real combat there are LOTS of targets... remember the old Spanish saying:

"Muerte el Caballo, Perdido el Hombre.."

Thanks for the info on the shield, too. I'll have to rig a guige to my steel target now...

Gordon

[Benjamin McCracken]

I'm glad to hear that my cut and thrust with rain guard wasn't such a bad purchase. I'm curious, what is the best breed for mounted combat?

[Gordon Frye]

Ben;

As our colleagues will affirm, asking what the best breed is for mounted combat is sort of like asking what the best car is, what the best gun is, or what the best sword is. All depends upon which KIND of mounted combat you are contemplating.

For light cavalry style, with just the saber or sword, or a light lance, doing a LOT of movement, an Arabian is hard to beat, since they are agile, smart (as long as you don't buy one of the dumbed-down pretty ones bred for middle-aged women to baby... sorry, a pet peeve) and virtually tireless. That's what they were in fact bred for, doing long-range scouting, fast attacks and faster retreats. Col. Frank Hopkins, in his book "Chasing Villa" had nothing but praise for the Arabians that his officers used in the pursuit of Pancho Villa by the US Cavalry in 1916, over some of the worst country in North America. On the other hand, in Iberia prior to 1500, both the Spaniards and the Moors prefered to use for Mules for their "jinetes", which was Light Cavalry of the most agile kind.

The US Army had a distinct preference for the Morgan breed in the middle years of the 19th Century, but the Confederates, at least the Planter variety, tended to ride Thoroughbreds (at least in the first years of the war, before they killed most of them off in battle). The Morgans are a great breed for US-style Dragoons, being hardy and tough, and even if not the fastest horses out there, they are plenty fast for what they are needed for. The Australian Waler seems to have fulfilled a similar role for the British Cavalry, from the Boer War through the early days of WWII.

For heavily armoured work with the lance, well, again, lots of options. I'm sure that both Lloyd, Rod and Michael have their favorites, but a solid half-draft or warmblood is, I believe, a good choice, with a multitude of specific breeds being one as good as another as far as practicality goes. I personally think that a full draft horse, such as the Percherons that are pretty popular for modern jousting, are a tad on the heavy side, but that's a personal opinion. They are GREAT to ride and use, though, and the one's I've experienced are steady and strong, brave and willing, so I can't complain there! But they eat to damned much, and would be hard to keep fit for a long campaign.

One thing that I have no personal experience in, but my extensive research certainly tells me, is that Stallions were almost always prefered for War Horses (everywhere but in Arabia, North Africa and in Spain... they liked Mares for some reason). Stallions, while they can be a total pain to deal with at times, have the aggressiveness that is needed for charging, and attacking, other horses and men that Geldings tend to not have, certainly not to the same degree. The highest level dressage and hunter-jumper class horses are very often Stallions, because, though they are a pain when they are bored, really snap-to when challenged with interesting things to do, and combat has to count as about the most "interesting" thing a horse can do! 2500+ years of using horses, i.e. Stallions, in combat, must have had some basis in reason.

So anyway, it's all about what you are intending to use the animal for. Light Cavalry can run rings around Heavy Cavalry, but can't stand up to them at all: they get bowled over by the heavier horses if they do (for the most part, in most eras. There are ALWAYS exceptions. For example even British Light Cavalry in the Napoleonic Wars tended to be mounted on much larger, heavier horses than the French, even the French Heavies, and could meet them toe-to-toe and win. In the Mexican-American War, the Texas Rangers, while officially Mounted Rifles, not even real Cavalry, were mounted on larger, heavier horses than the Mexican Cavalry and would knock them over regularly). And Medium Cavalry is of course, in the middle. So many breeds to chose from, so little time.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Benjamin McCracken]

Gordon,
Thanks for the informative reply. I did not expect to get such a detailed response. I've been around horses all my life, and my family has owned quite a few different breeds. Currently my dad's pets include draft horses and several quarter horses. I have always preferred quarter horses, and it seems to me that they are a happy medium between an arab (yuck) and a Thoroughbred or a morgan. Sorry, I have never really liked arabs, but I can see what you mean about their quickness and agility.
The reason I asked about the different breeds does have something to do with this topics theme. I was thinking that the length of the sword would have to have some relation to the height of the horse. I can't imagine an average single hander being very effective from the back of a large draft horse.

I attached a picture of me on my horse

Ben

[Gordon Frye]

Ben;

Well, the surprise is mutual, I didn't expect to find you such an accomplished horseman! You're right that Quarter Horses are a wonderful all-purpose breed... heck, my War Horse for years was a big North Dakota QH. Nothing wrong with them at all, and they would make, I think, a great horse for Light or Medium Cavalry. And of course, for some of the folks getting into the newer variety of what they refer to as "Light Jousting", the QH is fine, a friend uses her,s for such (though she looks funny next to the guys on the big Drafties, LOL!)

I know EXACTLY what you mean about Arabian Horses... but a friend has turned my ideas on their head. He has some seriously wonderful Arabians, trained to Distance riding and cavalry reenacting, and a finer horse you will never see. But these are NOT the same pin-headed, skittish booger-hunters that infest most stables throughout the country, either, LOL! I can see with these animals WHY the Arab got the name it did as a wonderful horse, as distinctly opposed to the modern variety.

You are right in that you need a decent length sword for use in the saddle... and I would certainly think that you would need a much longer blade for a taller horse, too! I think 34" is about the minimum, but much over 38" would be getting unwieldy, at least with any cutting ability. But I guess Lloyd and Rod get to address THAT issue for you!

Well, if you have a couple of big Drafts to play with, heck, take them out and play with them some, make yourself a quintain (you know, the sheild which is on an arm, pivoted at the top of a post so that when you hit the shield with the lance, it spins around. The originals had a bag of sand to smack you in the head as you rode by if you didn't hit it hard enough, LOL! Good learning tool!) But try out you QH too... they might take a shine to that stuff, you never know! But for wearing armour and long days carrying it, the Draft blood will probably be needed. Again, Lloyd, Rod or Michael will have to chime in on this topic!

Great discussing this with you... and sorry Lloyd, for hijacking your thread! But it's lots of fun talking horses and have real-world connotations with it, not just trail-riding, LOL!

Gordon

[Jeremiah Swanger]

[Lloyd Clark]

Hi All,

I don't mind the thread being hijacked, but I would really like for Peter and a few others that have done extensive research on historical blades to maybe enlighten me to what they have found pertaining to hilt length.

As for horses - the draft and draft/crosses (warmbloods) that we in North America tend to joust on are not "period", and are quite a bit taller, heavier, and slower than the types of horses used during the middle ages and renaissance for mounted combat. Medieval horses would have been much more of the size and body type of present day appendix quarter horses (quarter horses are a modern breed) or morgans, around 15hh. The horses that we normally use run from 16hh to 19hh (a "hand" is 4 inches and horses are measured at the top of the withers - the "knob" that protrudes between their shoulders and makes it extremely uncomfortable for males to ride bareback )

In Britain, Henry VIII ordered a campaign of breeding the regular British "stock" to the hotter, taller Spanish horses and had many hundreds of Spanish stallions imported. These horses were the ancestors of the Andalusians and Lippazaners (and I know I spelled that wrong) and would have looked much the same. There is a entire school of thought that the horses that would have been used by the Roman cavalry and later by "King" Arthur's "knights" were actually Fell Ponies (http://www.fellpony.f9.co.uk/fells/rom_dark/k_arthur.htm) instead of the tall, chargers that are generally portrayed in stories.

Most of the horse armour that still exists from the late Medieval period and Renaissance are sized to fit horses around 14.2 hh to 15hh. One horses of this height, the length of the blade was less critical than on an extremely tall horse.

I am attaching a photo of myself on a percheron gelding, Paladin, taken two weeks ago at the Return to Camelot Faire.

[Jeremiah Swanger]

[Gordon Frye]

Jeremiah;

Interesting that there is a claim that the Spanish-Norman is the closest to a Medieval Warhorse around... there's one in pasture with my Quarterhorse/Percheron mix, and the Spanish-Norman is a tad bigger... BIG boy, that bubba! But he sure is a beauty, I'm trying to convice Michael Neeley, who posts here occasionally, to buy him! Gorgeous...

For a total weight carried by a Warhorse, IF you add in the horse armour, I think 400 pounds isn't totally unreasonable, if you consider somewhere around 175 for the rider, 75 for his armour, 65 or so for the arming saddle, and the rest in horse armour. Plus or minus 50 pounds!

Gordon

[Benjamin McCracken]

Sorry about changing the topic a bit. I guess I can try to swing it back though. What I alluded to before was that I think the taller the horse, the longer the sword. So, the longer the blade, the longer the hilt. I suppose however that the sword was not the primary weapon for most mounted knights. My guess is that a lance or a spear was preferred, and the sword only really came out when things got tight. After all, maces, warhammers and other weapons were also used from horseback.

Well I hope that helps to bring the topic back. By the way Lloyd your mount looks a tad bit bigger than mine, but I'll still meet ya in the lists.

Ben

[Jeremiah Swanger]

[Gordon Frye]

Jeremiah;

Agreed... it wouldn't be easy on a Shire! But a good friend (who's 6'8"!) bought himself a "runt Shire" that's about perfect. Only a tad over 16.2 hands high (66", or 5'6" at the withers/shoulders, for the rest of you good readers), he's still a good sized horse. I was pretty proud of myself being able to mount without a mounting block, actually! But he sure fits his owner, they look about the same proportions as I do on one of my horses.

A good friend who is involved heavily in the Jousting circuit (Clif Bassett) has a GORGEOUS Percheron mare that is just a dream, and she isn't at all too broad to ride. I guess it's all a matter of getting used to it, though.

At any rate, I do think that the point is well taken from Lloyd that what we use today as a "Knight's Horse" is rather bigger than the Destrier of old. The Medieval and Renaissance Destriers were big by comparison, but as pointed out above, when Henry VIII had to have ordinances forbidding the breeding of Stallions that were under 14 hands, and Elizabeth forbade the export of Stallions of over 15 hands, you get the point that they weren't looking at these 18 hand Hunter-Jumpers that populate England and Ireland today.

Kind of back to the original topic: one thing that seems to have been in the standard "battery" of a mounted warrior's kit was a mace or war hammer of some kind, especially after the general introduction of plate armour. A sword just doesn't have much effect against plate (great for whacking unarmoured infantry though!), so after the lances broke (they are, adfter all, usually only a "one shot weapon"), it was pretty much grab the mace and start smacking with it. The sword was, I fully contend, a weapon of last resort. It just didn't have the killing power when used against the knight's peers during the age of plate armour.

But back to the original topic, I would point out that one of the most famous engravings of the early 16th Century is Albrecht Drurer's "The Knight and the Devil" (Which has been discussed on this forum before, as I recall) shows a very good rendition of a hand-and-a-half sword being carried by said Knight. So it's certainly PROBABLE that the extra length of these grips/handles was indeed preferred for mounted combat, at least in that era

Sort of back on track!

Gordon

[Lloyd Clark]

Hey Gordon, when you see Clif tell him to call me (Clif is one of my troupe mates on the King's Champions).

I agree that Sue is a great horse, but if you get a chance, convince him to let you ride Salazar and Rainman (I won the 2000 world jousting championships on Salazar).

I also agree with the theory that the lance is a "shock weapon" and is pretty much useless after the initial impetus of the charge is lost. While it could be well used as a stabbing spear - the length would make it too unwieldy in the press of a melee. I also agree that if I were to choose my primary weapon to use from horseback it would be a long-handled, flanged mace (probably about 4" longer than the ones that MRL offer). Over the years I have done quite a few educational shows for schools showing the different "impact" that various medieval weapons make on armour. Once plate was introduced, a mace or warhammer would have to be the weapons of choice.

But, again, this detracts from the main topic of this thread. Maybe I should rename it?