Hey folks,
I recently got my first pair of gauntlets. It quickly became obvious that there would be contact between gauntlets and guard and pommel. Is there evidence of gauntlets scuffing up sword guards or pommels on surviving antiques? Conversely, is there wear and tear caused by sword parts on surviving gauntlets?

Modern practitioners, what are your experiences with modern gauntlets and swords?

Just a couple of thoughts.

I would think that a "handshake grip" would help to hold the edge of the metacarpal away from the leather a bit. Of course, you would need a longer grip, but then hand-and-a-half swords kind of coincide with increased use of guantlets. This doesn't make a lot of sense, becasue if that were the real reason for the extended grip, why would the blades also be longer?

Also, I've found that even cheap leather will stay on a grip fairly well, until one spot gets loose. Then the whole leather wrap just seems to fall off in a matter of days. Maybe gauntlets are a major reason why most of the antique swords we see have restored grips.

Just the wild musings of one who has no experience with gauntlets; perhaps I should just go back to bed. :lol:

-Grey

The part of the metacarpal plate between the base of the thumb and the index finger.

With my new hourglass gaunts, I find that there is constant contact between the area of the thumb and forefinger and the guard and a little between the forefinger and gaurd. A LITTLE contact with the pommel.

FWIW, the gaurd seems to show no wear so far. There is a "bright" spot on the brass decoration that made contact, so I suspect that after prolonged use, the gaunt will show a bit of wear there.

It's an interesting question. I wonder how often a given sword would actually have been used with gauntlets, though. Somebody might use the weapon in combat for how long and how often? Maybe that doesn't even matter, because if the weapon suffered any damage, that would be repaired before the next combat event, wouldn't it? Abrasions on the cross or pommel could be polished out. Grip leather or the whole grip could be replaced. So lots of swords we see in museums may have suffered this kind of damage throughout their working lives but were retired after their last refurbishing. And, of course, those wonderful Victorian collectors may have erased some evidence of this kind of damage. Archaeology might hold some answers, because broken, lost and discarded swords from battlefields wouldn't have been cleaned up again. Unfortunately, I would guess that these kinds of minor scars would be obliterated by rust.

There could be an interesting experimental archaeology project in all this--documenting what kind of marks the gauntlets leave and where they leave them, how length/frequency of use affects the permanence of the marks, how easily they're removed, etc.

Hello Chad,
I have to say, your question got me curious so I looked at the swords I currently own. With medieval swords I would think gauntlet use would have been more common but with my surviving examples of medieval swords I see no abnormal wear of any kind. Of course I'm not really sure what I'm looking for. It would be nice for a modern re-enactor to scan them, maybe their eye could see something. I then looked at a Katzbalger I have, a little later than medieval but gauntlets may still have been worn. I didn't notice anything there either. And I didn't see any signs on a 16th century broadsword, 16th century semi-swepthilt or an early 17th century crabclaw broadsword (which still has the original leather grip which shows only superficial abrasion wear). Sorry I didn't have anything positive to report...