| Author |
Message |
Rodolfo Martínez
|
 Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: About Bastard swords |
 |
|
Hello people.
I have seen some long or bastard swords, dating from the first half of the XVI century with siderings and some weird looking thing between the edge and the hilt like covering some kind of short ricasso. Do you know if those are knuckle guards?
How a bastard sword with knuckle guards looks like?
http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/images/p_1520.jpg
http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/images/1520_hilt.jpg
Thanks.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
  |
 |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
  |
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, thanks, but, Do you know if a longsword with finger rings and siderings too is accurate?
Thanks
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Wed 04 Apr, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the magnific photos!
I guess i have mistaken swords (I thought finger rings were knuckle guards  ), but i´m glad to see such beautiful examples of swords and in some examples, still fullers running through the powerful blade and their long grips. They look awesome in the hands of a fearsome Gendarme.
Do you know if log gripped swords like type XVIIIb (With 25 cm grips) were re hilted too, or if some grips still were so long?
What is the utility, or how do you use finger and siderings in mounted or foot combat?
Thanks.
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | | What is the utility, or how do you use finger and siderings in mounted or foot combat? |
These were for protecting an unarmored hand (and its associated fingers) from the enemy's attacks, substituting for the presence of a gauntlet. However, even with gauntlets they're still handy for stopping the enemy's attempts at some "scissoring" attacks that can still be effective for causing pain (if not open damage) to armored fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
A finger ring protects the index finger when looped over the cross guard. This is sometimes called "fingering the riccaso" or "fingering the guard." It allows for better tip control. This can be done on most any sword, whether it has a finger ring or not. At the end of the movie, Braveheart, the character of Robert the Bruce fingers the cross guard of his arming sword as he leads the charge.
Side rings protect the hand in general. For example, when cutting a zwerchau against a cut from above, side rings better protect the hand from getting hit than the cross guard alone.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And, what about fully armored men-at-arms, Did they used side and finger rings in their bastard swords too while wearing gauntlets?
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Side rings are either there or not. You don't really "use" them. Finger rings might be used with guantlets if the rings were large enough. Of course, sometimes men-at-arms are pictued in full plate withough guantlets, and then there are mitten guantlets and other types that cover the back of the hand but allow the fingers to be free, such as in the following picture.
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/photo/7981.html
Normally, I think of complex hilts as being latter era and finger rings being more suited to arming swords where tip control might be an issue.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, if i have a Maximilian gauntlet i would better buy a Bastad rsword with siderings only...
Do you know if maces and axes had those knuckle guards too? Since even with gauntlets mace or sword blows to the own hand can be very painful too...
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Thu 05 Apr, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really know that much about axes or maces, so I looked at the albums here. I found a few picks such as the one in this picture with a bit of a guard but not really enough to protect the hand that well. I do not remember ever seeing anything like you are describing, however that doesn't mean that it couldn't exist. It probably means that it would not be very common. On the other hand, I don't know why not. It seems like it would be a good idea. The guard found on Katzbalgers would work fine.
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/photo/999.html
http://www.myArmoury.com/review_lut_13001.html
(Katzbalgers)
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Apr, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rodolfo Martínez wrote: | So, if i have a Maximilian gauntlet i would better buy a Bastad rsword with siderings only...
Do you know if maces and axes had those knuckle guards too? Since even with gauntlets mace or sword blows to the own hand can be very painful too... |
I've never seen an axe or mace with a complex hilt, and I suppose there's a reason for it--as far as I know, maces and axes were carried hanging from the saddle and a complex hilt would have made the task of putting them into action much more difficult. This wasn't such an issue with the sword since its positioning next to the left hip (for a right-handed man) almost automatically ensures that it's in the right position to be drawn even with a complex hilt.
And, like I've said before, some "scissoring" techniques can still cause considerable pain to an armored finger. Side-rings and other hilt components might have helped prevent the enemy from effectively employing such techniques.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Apr, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've never seen an axe or mace with a complex hilt, and I suppose there's a reason for it--as far as I know, maces and axes were carried hanging from the saddle and a complex hilt would have made the task of putting them into action much more difficult. |
I agree that there is probably a reason for it however I don't think this is it. Functionability in use takes precedent over fucntionability in supsension. If axes or maces needed complex hilts, people would have found a way to carry them. I guess this would mean that complex hilts were just not needed on axes or maces...?
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 06 Apr, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | Quote: | | I've never seen an axe or mace with a complex hilt, and I suppose there's a reason for it--as far as I know, maces and axes were carried hanging from the saddle and a complex hilt would have made the task of putting them into action much more difficult. |
I agree that there is probably a reason for it however I don't think this is it. Functionability in use takes precedent over fucntionability in supsension. If axes or maces needed complex hilts, people would have found a way to carry them. I guess this would mean that complex hilts were just not needed on axes or maces...? |
That's also quite possible, since the people who would have used maces or warhammers were generally the most heavily armored ones and therefore would have been the ones who least needed the additional protection provided by a complex hilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.L. Johnson
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I would venture a theory that the finger ring and the technique of fingering the ricasso was prevalent for one-handed wielding from horseback, on the simple grace that attempting more than a few of the two-handed longsword techniques taught for combat on foot are difficult, even impossible, when you're fingering the cross.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am also not a big fan of fingering the ricasso when using a sword with both hands. The use of the finger ring while mounted makes sense to me.
With a sword, edge alignment is crucial and so the hands and fingers must retain their agility. Gauntlets seem to restrict agility and the heavier gauntlet do so even more. Protection mounted on the sword itself might be required to compensate for wearing less hand protection or none at all.
On the other hand, maces do not require edge alignment and so heavy hand protection should not interfere at all with the weapon's use, as long as one can grip the weapon securely.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can´t finger rings be used too (By a crazy guy wearing a gauntlet) to avoid being hit in your fingers by an enemy weapon sliding down after crashing with his sword´s blade while performing that special grip from horseback?
What do you recomend, wearing a gauntlet with a longswords with siderings, or avoid the gauntlet and use a longsword with finger rings too?
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From my own experience with bouting getting hit on the fingers is hard to do except in the bind. That is in a primarily slashing style with few binds, the problem will almost never occur. But once you start binding and winding it happens a bunch.
So sinlge sword use with a shield: no reason not to 'finger the ricasso', especially for the advantage of point control.
Just a hypothesis from my experience.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfo Martínez
|
| Posted: Tue 17 Apr, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, i´m a bit confused now, Where Hand and a half swords used with shields too? And about gauntlets, The type of hilt defenses, like siderings, varied depending on the heaviness of the gauntlet, or to the preference of the owner?
Thanks.
P.D.
I have a problem defining ¨Arming Swords¨, a friend told me that those swords were only single handed and not hand and a half swords, and they were used by foot soldiers, i replied him that arming swords were both hand and a half swords and single handed swords carried as side weapons by cavalry and infantry, What do you think?
¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Tue 17 Apr, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rodolfo Martínez wrote: |
I have a problem defining ¨Arming Swords¨, a friend told me that those swords were only single handed and not hand and a half swords, and they were used by foot soldiers, i replied him that arming swords were both hand and a half swords and single handed swords carried as side weapons by cavalry and infantry, What do you think? |
Wikipedia defines an arming sword solely as a one-handed weapon and that is the use I'm familiar with.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic