| Author |
Message |
|
Carl W.
|
 Posted: Thu 07 Aug, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: guards on ancient swords?! |
 |
|
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
Location: Canberra, Australia Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Aug, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
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...
Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Aug, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
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."
The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.
"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Aug, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
 |
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Aug, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: guards on ancient swords?! |
|
|
| Carl W. wrote: | 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?
|
It's easy to make assumptions about these things, never having one's hands bathed in red. 
Keep in mind that most "ancient" combat was done with the accompaniment of shields.
On the other hand, a Japanese katana does not have much more of guard than a Viking sword does, and nobody is calling them impractical.
The bolos and barongs of Indonesia and the Philippines have been used in combat regularly, are used defensively (parrying or whatever term makes sense to you), and have little or no crossguards.
Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Aug, 2008 12:25 am Post subject: Re: guards on ancient swords?! |
|
|
| Carl W. wrote: | | Commercially available roman swords, & also statements in myArmoury features articles imply/state minimal guards until vikings. |
How minimal is "minimal?" The guards on the Canaanite swords you posted don't really seem to be more substantial than the guards found on the gladius and spatha, and all of those forms (including the Canaanite) seem pretty adequate for the basic function of preventing your hand from slipping onto the blade and guarding against the few stray blows that might miss the shield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Aug, 2008 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Aug, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
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
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Aug, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
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).
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Aug, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | 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. |
You may need to define which "parma" at which time! Those carried by velites (skirmishers) during the Republic were full-sized shields, and velites mostly chucked javelins. You may be thinking of the small shields carried (often slung behind) by standard bearers during the Empire. (Often used by first century reenactors, but as I recall they might not show up in artwork until the 2nd century! Before that a larger oval shield is carried.)
Actually, there are a lot more "buckler" sized shields back in the Bronze Age, made of bronze, leather, and wood, ranging from one to two feet in diameter.
http://www.larp.com/hoplite/LWshld5.jpg
http://www.larp.com/hoplite/Cloon10.jpg
http://www.larp.com/hoplite/sarshld4.jpg
http://www.larp.com/hoplite/Pefshld1.jpg
Generally the swords used with these were short (roughly gladius-sized), but of course spears and axes were also common. And all we have for pictoral sources are a few scattered rock carvings, so not much chance of figuring out what was actually done.
Sorry, I don't think I'm helping with your speculations! But I don't think anyone has delved into the deeper aspects of Roman shield use apart from the scutum.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl W.
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Aug, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Aug, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: |
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. |
I'll trust you on this one.
I'm gonna disagree though on the guard of a longsword not being protective. Not so much for the blade sliding down into the hand. But the cross seems to me to protect my fingers from the direction they are most likely to get hit.
I'll admit that I haven't used other swords for comparison purposes . . . and I CAN'T discount fashion alone.
-Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Aug, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | Matthew Amt wrote: |
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. |
I'll trust you on this one.
I'm gonna disagree though on the guard of a longsword not being protective. Not so much for the blade sliding down into the hand. But the cross seems to me to protect my fingers from the direction they are most likely to get hit.
I'll admit that I haven't used other swords for comparison purposes . . . and I CAN'T discount fashion alone.
-Steven |
The guard being most useful when one messes up maybe and the long guards can be useful in the bind and get in the way when the opponent tries to slip under one's sword, " Windings " or be used to do the windings ( maybe not the right terminology ).
Also, if one misses with the sword to stop an attack one might get lucky and the wide guard might save one's " bacon ".
Also the guards can be a weapon in themselves when thing get really into grappling distance. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Aug, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carl W. wrote: | | Romans were shield & close formation dependent, large guard could get caught. Makes some sense, maybe a lot. |
I don't think it's all that important, since even medieval/Renaissane swords with long guards could be used easily in tight formation once you got used to it. But the "getting used to it" part may be important--it's possible that a sword with a narrow guard might make it easier for untrained recruits to adapt. And I certainly have never tried forming a shieldwall that combined medieval swords with any shield as large as a scutum....
| Quote: | | 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. |
Or because wood worked well enough against the accidental impacts that it could reasonably be expected to take?
| Quote: | | Bill, what was the point of medieval cross guards if not protection? |
I'm not Bill, but I'd agree with the opinion that it's very useful for winding and binding. Many of these techniques rely on the presence of the long cross to keep the hands safe during the winding motions, and sometimes the technique wouldn't have been possible without the presence of the cross itself (i.e. it wouldn't have worked well with a circular tsuba or a Roman sword's small guard).
| Quote: | | Hard to believe that romans ran off the field if they lost their shield, |
They didn't need to. They had many friends on either side, and I don't think it's possible that they could have been so successful if they hadn't had a system for letting a soldier with broken equipment retire to the ranks and have himself replaced by a friend from the rear ranks.
| Quote: | | 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? |
As I said in the parma speculations above, they had other--lighter--kinds of shields for use on light infantry duty, and these shields were probably big enough to provide decent protection for the hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Aug, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carl W. wrote: | | 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. |
No, I don't think it was a weight or cost issue. Many gladii are pretty light already, and much of the rest of a legionary's gear is unnecessarily complex, ornate, and costly.
| Quote: | | 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. |
Huh, it looks pretty typical to me. Here's a handy page, drawings from Bishop and Coulston's "Roman Military Equipment" (what we like to call "The New Testament"!):
http://romanmilitaryequipment.co.uk/figures.htm
Doesn't have a LOT of sword guards shown, but a good sample:
http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p239/mcbis...fig040.png
Top right are 2 guard plates. No cross-section is shown, but all the others I've seen are thin brass. A few are set against the face of the wood and are visible at the edge, but most are set into the bottom, like on the Albion gladii. But it also seems pretty clear that not all guards had a metal plate. And I don't know of any Roman hilt pieces that show signs of weapon damage, so I'd have to say it wasn't much of a threat.
| Quote: | | Matthew (thanks very much for the links), any examples of the 2nd century AD roman swords you mentioned? |
http://s129.photobucket.com/albums/p239/mcbis...fig077.png
The 2 at left are 2nd century ring-pommel swords, both pommel and guard being iron.
| Quote: | | 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? |
My guess is that it's pretty hard to completely lose your shield in the middle of an ancient battle, unless you drop it to run away! Otherwise, your buddies are all around, and all you have to do is drop back and let one of them take your place. Scouts carried shields regularly, as I understand it. They could even be armored, though if they wanted to go "light" I suppose they could leave the armor behind. Most Roman soldiers also carried a dagger as well as a sword, but it was not really meant to be used in the left hand with the gladius in the right. Sword, dagger, 2 javelins, shield, armor, helmet--most of the world went to war with just spear and shield, so the Romans are already toting more than they needed!
| Quote: | | I started 'sword hobby' because felt like it was getting back to basics, simplicity. Wrong :-) |
Ha! Good research tends to question the answers, rather than answering the questions, in my experience! You just have to learn to love it. "Wow, this is great, we don't know CRAP! Ain't it FUN??" Happy to help.
Vale,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Aug, 2008 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carl W. wrote: | | Bill, what was the point of medieval cross guards if not protection? |
Oh, don't get me wrong. They're protective. And as Lafayette points out, many actions are done where having a long cross can aid you while keeping the hands safe. I'm just saying that not having one isn't a major detriment, as the guards don't make *that* big of a difference, otherwise you wouldn't see so many other arts that use small guards. To a degree it depends on the art you are practicing as well. German swordsmanship does a number of actions where you specifically use your guard for certain actions, but I've never seen those actions done in Chinese arts (with the disclaimer that I don't practice Chinese arts, and only have a passing familiarity, so I could be wrong on that aspect).
| Quote: | | 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 :-) |
There are a few factors involved here. First, that is a different style of swordsmanship, so that changes some things. Also, the guards of foils are made of lightweight aluminum, so they will scratch the second a steel blade makes contact with them (hence why they're so scarred after even one use). Third, if you didn't have the guard on a foil, you probably still would only be hit on the hand occassionally (unlike epee). And finally, by this argument, we could ask why medieval swords didn't have foil shaped guards, which certainly defend the hand better than cross guards. On that last point, I would suspect the answer was simply that it wasn't necessary for their methods of combat.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Aug, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carl W. wrote: |
Agree with Lafayette that Canaanite & with Douglas that katana guards are not large, but at least not made of wood. |
Actually, from what I hear, tsuba were occasionally made of leather.
The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.
"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Aug, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | You may need to define which "parma" at which time! Those carried by velites (skirmishers) during the Republic were full-sized shields, and velites mostly chucked javelins. You may be thinking of the small shields carried (often slung behind) by standard bearers during the Empire. |
Yes, it's the signifer's small shield.
As for the velites, they seem to have become significantly more aggressive from the late 3rd century B.C. onwards; in the Battle of Mount Olympus (189 B.C.), they actually engaged the Galatians in hand-to-hand combat with the sword. This is one of the incidents that makes me think that, at least in this later period of their existence, they must have had a reasonable level of swordsmanship skill. How big is the "full-sized shield" you're referring to, BTW? As far as I recall, by the Polybian period (2nd Punic War, that is) the velites' shields were round and three feet across, which might be fairly big but (in my opinion) still small enough to qualify as bucklers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Aug, 2008 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.
"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Auer
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Aug, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
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
The secret is,
to keep that pointy end thingy away from you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic