Go to page Previous  1, 2

Maybe I missed it in the above posts but one theory that I ran across is that the cruciform hilt was never intended to protect the sword hand from the opponent's sword but to protect it from being jammed by the opponent's shield. That is not to say that it was never use to stop an opposing blade but to do that one is going to have block with the edge of the sword for the cross guard to be effective.

More complex hilts came into use as the shield was discarded with side rings that would stop an opposing blade by while blocking with the flat of the blade.
Doug Lester wrote:
Maybe I missed it in the above posts but one theory that I ran across is that the cruciform hilt was never intended to protect the sword hand from the opponent's sword but to protect it from being jammed by the opponent's shield.

That is John Clements' explanation in Medieval Swordsmanship, I don't know if he came up with it or if it came from another source... It has always felt sort of unstable to me in that application, but I don't have much experience in that domain. I guess it could be useful that way still.

Quote:
That is not to say that it was never use to stop an opposing blade but to do that one is going to have block with the edge of the sword for the cross guard to be effective.
More complex hilts came into use as the shield was discarded with side rings that would stop an opposing blade by while blocking with the flat of the blade.

I'm not a big believer in these theories. When you use your edge to cut into attacks at an angle, the cross is still very useful. By the time side-rings come into being, parries with the edge (either as a cut into the attack or even as a static block on the strong) are common and explicit in treatises, while reference to using the flat are rare (in fact I don't remember one).

Regards,
This is a very interesting topic, I myself have always wondered why complex hilts are seen so late in the evolution of swords. I practice German longsword with a bit of sword and buckler and kali silat thrown in and found side rings to be a very useful addition to the guard of a longsword. I agree with Vincent, I feel it gives me quite a substantial increase in security while taking away nothing whatsoever in terms of practicality. At least if the side rings aren't too small for my gloved thumb to fit under... ;)

Now of course a simple guard works just fine but for me, it was a no-brainer to employ additional protection to the hands. I have already broken a finger once in sparring and whatever keeps my hands safer without taking away anything regarding use and mobility is a big win in my book. One thing I noticed though is that with the additional security of side rings, my Ochs tended to get a bit sloppy, now that I didn't have to rely to perfect technique anymore to keep my fingers safe. I figure it's best to do partner exercises and technique training with a simple cross but spar with a complex hilt.

Regarding the argument that a simple cross is as good as it gets for longsword fighting, as it worked without side rings for so long... I don't buy it. As soon as complex hilt started popping up, they were added to pretty much every bladed weapon, including longswords. If a simple cross is all you need or desire on a longsword, why the huge popularity of side rings as soon as they became known? I can't believe that it was just a fashion trend.

As a sword maker who has fiddled with complex hilts, I can also tell you that it is NOT as simple as adding a few metal bars to a straight bar. The more complex the hilt gets, the more pain in the a** it is to get everything lined up and not hindering mobility. Of course I today can just arc weld the rings on, back in time they did not have that possibility, further complicating the process.
Lukas MG wrote:
One thing I noticed though is that with the additional security of side rings, my Ochs tended to get a bit sloppy, now that I didn't have to rely to perfect technique anymore to keep my fingers safe. I figure it's best to do partner exercises and technique training with a simple cross but spar with a complex hilt.

I think this incidence on technique is one of the reasons why medieval HEMA people are not too keen on adding rings to their hilt in general (I think you're the first I hear about!). There is some fear that the habit would creep in to use the hilt protection to its full potential, in a way that is not compatible with the contemporary conditions of the early sources.

That makes sense from the methodological point of view, as you say otherwise you have to consciously compensate for that, which is not always easy I guess?

Regards,
Go to page Previous  1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum