I imagine one advantage with a short guard would be that it's a smaller risk hooking the guard onto your own shield. If you're working with the sword around the edge of the shield and want to thrust beyond the shield then you don't want the guard to get stuck on the edge of the shield.
Based on experience practicing the i.33 manuscript (sword and buckler) I think that is likely part of the reason and also with a smaller shield or buckler there are a lot of actions where you cross your hands and work on both sides of the shield. So a symmetrical crossguard that is not too long is helpful in this case. Personally I like the guards that are curved a bit towards the point of the blade mainly because I wear leather gloves with built-in gauntlets and straight crossguards tend to catch on them when I'm doing these crossing actions or a simple moulinette. If you had a guard with an asymmetrical guard such as the right-angle thumbnail on a langmesser, this would potentially catch on the shield if you tried to cross-hands and thrust from behind your shield on your non-dominant side.
For examples of thrusting / fighting "Viking style" with a large shield, check out Roland Warzecha's channel: ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=roland+warzecha+shield+and+sword
I wouldn't be surprised if the frankish style spathas from the 9th and 10th centuries would be kept for a while by most soldiers that could afford them. Most of these swords would stay a while and then fade away with advances of tech.
I'm partial to the theory that a short cross guard enabled you to brace the back of a round shield with your sword hand, which may have been more important when using a large boss-held shield. Swords with similar length lower and upper guard may have been particularly good for this. With a longer lower guard, bracing against the back of a shield may have been more cumbersome. The transition to a strapped shield may have reduced the need to brace the shield with the sword hand. I remember watching a video that demonstrated some of this theory, probably a Roland Warzecha video. Can't wait to see that sword. The transitional type X / Xa swords with brazil nut pommels are my favourite type of single handed swords, aesthetically speaking.
Hi Matt! Thanks for your excellent channel and videos! I practise HEMA in Finland, I have MA in archaeology and I currently work in the Häme castle, which is close to the finding place of the Janakkala swordsman. There are few things I'd like to comment on two separate topics in this video. 1. I have one theory about the reason for crossguards getting longer. With many (not all, but a significant amount) Viking period swords the crossguard and the pommel come just slightly further than your knuckles. This would allow you two stabilize the center boss shield especially when you are holding it with the shields face towards the enemy. For example, in shield wall you might need to push the wall forwards. With a longer crossguard you wrist would twist unpleasantly, but than again just like you said, there is also a shift in the type of shields. Especially in how the shields are strapped. With the center boss shield you only have one point of your body (ie. hand) attached to the shield, but with later shields you have two points (ie. hand and forearm). This would free the swordhand to do more on its own and, therefore, you would need more protection against hits on the sword arm. Moreover, shield walls tend to disappear after the Viking Age be it reasons in changes the swords and shields or changes in military tactics. That is my (and I've seen many other people talk about this as well) current theory, BUT there might (and there probably are) be other reasons as well. 2. The Janakkala swordsman with the two swords. I'm not sure how much news coverage or articles have been made in English on the burial after the initial excitement etc., but there are few things at least in Finnish articles. One thing that I would like to contradict is that these swords would have been used at the same time. Firstly, the person buried has been radiocarbon dated to around the year 1300 from samples taken from his arm. The Viking period sword is from roughly 950-1050 and the Medieval sword 1050-1200. So the Medieval sword would have been old even at the time of his dead and the Viking sword even older and there is only a small gap during which these sword types might have been used at the same time. Of course some transition is present, but to me, it looks like that the transition was relatively quick one. Moreover, the Viking period sword had been burnt and the tip of the sword had been cut off before it was placed into the burial. There is even charcoal in the grave, which is radiocarbon dated to around the year 1000. This would close the possibility that these two swords were in use at the same time. Most likely explanation is that, the Viking sword had been transported from an ancestral grave (along with some charcoal), when the man died in around the year 1300, and reburied with him along with his (most likely) personal sword. In Finland it was not uncommon to worship ancestors even in the 1300s and many pagan ways continued all the way up until 1800s, while the people still identified themselves as Christians. In Finland body burials are interpreted as a sign of Christian influence, but not necessarily a sign that the deceased was a Christian. On the other hand, many people were cremated even in the 1200s, although there are not many burial goods. So the cremation and burying the body existed together for quite a long while as did Christian and pagan traditions. In northern Finland there are few cases of cremation burials on top of body burials in Christian cemeteries from the 13th and early 14th centuries.
With a kite shield strapped to the arm, wouldn't it be more difficult to protect the hand while attacking in comparison to the round boss held shields? Since you cannot extend the shield as far as you possibly could with the round one (?), it would be nice to add a little more protection to the guard.
Although they could be worn on the arm I think the straps on a lot of kite shields and even heater shields were designed to be gripped in a fist like a dhaal. I think you can see this in the Bayeax tapestry if you bear in mind that it has been heavily restored.
I think that's the most observant interpretation. Looking at the I.33 material, we see how the buckler protects the sword hand. A "Viking" shield could have been used in a similar way.
Is it possible that with boss-held shield you might more often need to brace the shield and that could be easier to do if crossguard is shorter? And with strapped shield you don´t need to do that as much and so it might be more benefitial just to get bit more protection.
@nick What? @MrMonkeybat I'm always sceptical about a practical interpretation of usage of equipment when it comes to medieval art. The political purpose, art necessities (as dictated by the style etc.), composition etc. generally comes as a priority in contrast to, let's say, the proper way of holding a shield or sword. Although I agree it is one of the few documents we have about such moments of history. @Dúnedain That's my reasoning. It's possible that there is a difference when it comes to defensive movements with the kite shield's grip. The sword adaptations might have covered possible flaws with the new design. After all, it's generally about focusing on something at the exchange of losing something else when it comes to arms and armours. @Henri This sounds to me a bit like that argument that shield walls and phalanx formations are basically a shoving match. Granted it could happen, but I tend to think of it as something more occasional.
I can't remember where I've seen it, but there was a nice theory on the evolution of the sword hilt: Earliest: pommel and guard same length that you can press them against a roundshield to prevent it from turning. Sword very top heavy chopper; bad for pointing the sword out; bad at parrying (also often too soft or brittle to take hits) Transitional: guards longer, pommels still the same, but eventually getting rounder: allows angling of the wrist. Swords become better balanced and more resilient so that they can be used for parrying, but sacrifice some of their chopping potential. The increase of the guard might be because swords in civilian context were used without shields and needed a better hand protection, if you parry with them (which hadn't been common earlier, due to poorer quality and lower availability of swords). brasil nut to round shield: when round shields were no longer thick enough, thicker, but heavier kiteshields were used, which are strapped to your forarm and thus impossible to hold out as far as roundshields. This means that you need to parry more with your sword. Swords also become more pointy and thrust centric.
As always entertaining and engaging thanks your show is my favourite on this subject . I've started collecting and my first buy is a sword from this era used by Norman's . Also I've brought a kite sheild to sit on my wall with the sword. I'm going through your videos and my enthusiasm for the subject is only guarded by financial situation as a injured person who can't hold either due to injures back in 09
Perhaps it started out as a place to put your forefinger. As swords were used to do more thrusting and the blades were getting longer, having the forefinger over the guard makes the sword more controllable especially in thrusts. This might explain why this early Norman sword had longer cross guards but not long enough to protect the hand, which was a still later development.
I’m excited about the next videos in this series. I love the Norman period. As for the hilts, I feel the sword became more used in defense as you said and more involved in the bind, which needed better hand protection.
As others has pointed out, it has to be related to a change in fighting style- and since the "Norman" kite shield becomes popular, it is probably linked to how the shield is used. The main difference between the kite and the round shield is not the shape, but the way you hold it. When you cant put your shield as far out as you used to, you have to reach out with the sword- hence the need for more hand protection.
There are many reasons that sets the stage for generally longer cross guards. All weapons are pices in a system and needs to function with them and the tactics used. Note that this is for the general fashion of swords, there will always be special cases etc. And yes..I probably forgot a ton of stuff. 1: Good quality steel became more avaible and brought about new uses and techniques for swords (and armour). You could block strikes from other weapons as a viable part of the way you fought. Protection for the hands becomes a real thing in the later period. 2: Ever tried to fight with a norman shield in a line, with masks? The right side and face is a bit more exposed and the hand is an easier target. Especially when you try to attack your opponent. The big, center grip round shields can be troublesome with long cross guards as it more easily snags on your shield or on your opponents shield, when you try to thrust or cut behhind it. 3:The maille gets longer sleeves and the coif is becoming an essential pice of the armour, to give better protection of the neck and upper part of the torso. I would argue that this has to do with how the norman shields function and the fact that quality steel became cheaper. The swords, at the same time, followed the new design requirements and offered a better protection for the hand. just some small practical points on why I think the design altered.
1. Swords with minimalist handguards work better with boss held shields. The shield is held further from the body and your hand should not extend past the shield edge. Your hand protection is the shield and having a substantial crossguard just adds more discomfort in wearing the sword and the guard possibly getting hung up on your shield with no protective benefit (assuming you know what you are doing with your shield). 2. Once people moved to strapped shield now the hand has to extend past the shield meaning the sword must be more protective. The strapped shield (in this time period) was caused by the continuing improvement of the power of cavalry and of men-at-arms type soldiers who had to fight both mounted and on foot. Previously to that, footsoldiers and cavalry used different shield (or often no shield for cavalry). You need a strapped shield as cavalry so you can operate the reins. The Norman style "kite" shield was the first of the type of combo shield that over time morphed (lost the boss, became flat topped, shortened) into the "heater" style once leg armor became common. 3. So boss held shields -> no handguard, strapped shield -> simple handguard, no shield -> complex handguard. This seems to be also true in earlier phalanx warfare where strapped shields were used (for different reasons) and you see some development of hand protection.
Since the viking swords are exceptional hefty cleaver and falchions come along to be popular around 13th century, it is not surprising that those migration-era-style swords are still in favor by some by 11th century.
I think you may have hit on it briefly there: that as you start using the sword to parry more (for whatever reason), hand protection becomes more important.
That's generally a cop out. But answers like that continue to apply, because there's no way to discern the truth beyond conjecture, in cases like these. All we can be certain of is what's false such as 'long quillons only appeared on ceremonial swords', when there's evidence of a lot of longer quillon swords, it correlates more with purposes of warfare than ceremony, since it doesn't (in our eyes) appear to make economic sense to have so many lethal ceremonial swords. However, there's little correlation for answering WHY longer quillons appear. Status is a common answer, because it is a common correlation for other things, though that theory gets overused in my opinion.
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin the main argument against "status" is a primary thing is that swords very similar had been in use for a thousand years. why would it suddenly be a "status symbol" then and not say 600 years before. this is particularly important since comes during a major shift in military tactics (the growth in importance of armored knights) personally I think the change in guards is related to 2 things 1. change in the use of shield, 2. use from horse back (and both issues are related) before this (Roman, migration, Viking era) time periods are noted that much of the warfare revolved around foot and shield combat. This does not mean that cavalry and knight did not exist before these swords but that they were adapted to better suit the type of warfare (and for the record it could still be seen as a status symbol later on)
I've always considered the Viking shield a more "active" shield if you can call it that, than the kite shield. What I mean is that I've always used the Viking shield in a more combined way with my sword, simply because it's lighter and has better reach, whereas the kite shield is heavier and thus easier to use when held closer to the body to form a sort of wall, you can attack from behind. You don't need as much skill, at least that's my experience, when you're using a kite shield, as you need with a Viking shield. And you only need to angle the bottom a bit towards your opponent to cover your legs. It's very small an simple movements compared to how you use a Viking shield, and thus easier for people learn. Maybe formation fighting became more static with the invention of the kite shield, and as it wouldn't be used in combination with the sword to protect the hand, create openings and so on, it might've made sense to people back then to improve hand protection some other way. Just a thought.
Thrad talked about how the older style guards were used to help push on the boss held shield. Later strapped shield no longer needed the extra leverage with the sword hand. Plus the strap shield is closer to the body thus it can not protect the hand as well when a strike is thrown. So the cross guard was lengthened to balance the shield’s drop in hand protection
Perhaps the reason for this is that a center grip round shield is used more actively, protecting the striking hand quite like a buckler. So firstly, the hand is protected while striking (Roland Warzecha makes a great point about this which he bases on sizes of the found round shields). Secondly, it is way easier to move a small guard around behind a shield. The larger guard, however, paired with the much more passive kite shield, as well as a more pointy blade and better chainmail availibility, was developed so that the arm (possibly covered with mail) could move around more independently and strike outside of the shield.
I was just thinking it as you were saying it. "Because people wore mail shirts and you win by lopping something from your opponent off. Also with the type of shield and combat they were using. It was probably way more likely to be hit fatally in the legs than anywhere else, at least that's what some of the skelletons from people that died on Gotland implied. So people were hiding behind their shields and trying to chop each others legs off. Chopping blades are thus better for that. Also the tip might need to be strong and not quite as pointy if people were indeed using the tip cuts that Thrand has been proposing they might have used.
Jan Erik, yes, I watched a docu on the Battle of Visby so I know exactly what you're talking about with those skeletons... that was really brutal, I feel bad for those brave but desperate peasant farmers who were locked outside the gates and made their last stand up against the wall and got their legs chopped off. Damn. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Visby
You said it yourself - while things were going on - the period saw a lot of warfare which bred necessity - which bred invention. I think that longer sword hits were being developed slightly before other things, like the kite shield, people realised it was just generally a good idea and went with it while changing other things.
The kite shield seems to offer a lot of passive protection to hide behind, with that large surface area, but it also seems like it might be a little clumsy and restrictive when it comes to active defense, like parrying and establishing binds. Perhaps the extended quillons were an attempt to make up for this drawback because kite shield users had to rely on the sword for those active defenses.
Thegn Thrand and Roland Warcheka have decided that since the hand guard and pommel were the same length, they were used as a sort of handle to be put on the shield to give extra rigidity in certain formations. so maybe with the Advent of the kite Shield you no longer needed to stabilize a center boss shield with your sword and the guard could evolve to add more protection for your hand.
I recently got a norman type sword reproduction... first thing I noticed was the pommel which is rounded and domed but has corners, it's not quite a brazil nut shape. The corners stop you from swinging too far by biting your hand. Maybe this was to prevent overswing? It stops you with the blade horizontal to the ground. BUT... unlike the squarer viking style pommels it is domed on the sides, sort of tapered, so if you let the pommel slide past the edge of your hand it fits perfectly in the little dent in the heel of your hand, not allowing you to overswing, but rather change the angle of the sword in your grip....
I also agree with your idea that mail armor was quite rare in the early middle ages. I believe most people would have fought using little but their clothes, and perhaps helmets if they could afford them. Looking at the vikings though, it seems like not a huge amount could even afford helmets, and fur hats were widely used both outside of battle but in it as well.
Roland figures that part of it was a change in the shield which corresponded to a change in the way swords were used. As fighters moved from shield binds to blade binds as the predominant method of interaction.
I have wondered about hilt design as well, and the answer I came up with you already alluded to: swords changed from slashing weapons to thrusting weapons. I have taken quite a little bit of fencing, and fenced in a club. That style of sword play relies on thrusting. I also took stage combat, and swung a slashing type sword. Epées and foils hit differently than broadswords, and thus require different protection. When wielding a broadsword, maintaining fluid motion and momentum is second only to not getting hit. That differs greatly from fencing, where rapid, jerky thrusts follow subtle parries. When parrying with a broad blade, one deflects the blow, keeping ones own blade more or less perpendicular to their foe's blade. The attack is not stopped so much as redirected; the foe's blade ideally would slide down mine with minimal effort on my part, allowing me to lead with my wrist and initiate my own swing as soon as my foe's blade had slid off my sword's tip. With that being the ideal, that position is what I would strive for with every parry, and it is hard to imagine many scenarios where I would be parrying in such a way that the foe's blade slid down mine toward my hand instead of off my blade's tip. Despite the dramatic fight sequences portrayed on film, I would not try to lock hilt or guards with my opponent just to get up in their face and then push back away. If my goal is to make my enemy's sword slide not toward my hand but off the tip of my sword, while at the same time lining up my own counter strike, my hand is rarely going to need protection. In fencing, however, even with a full bell guard, I found my wrist and fingers being cracked and bloodied even through leather gloves they were hit so much. In fencing, one leads with the point, thrusting forwards. And my foe is fighting that same way. If I am pushing my hand forward, my sword tip straight out and away from me, and my foe is doing the same, the tips of the weapons are always right by one's hand. Furthermore, the angle one parries at encourages an opponent's blade to slide toward my hand, not towards the tip of my sword. Now, the point you alluded to: armor. Armor changed. Slashing swords became less and less effective as time went on, until the pinnacle of thrusting swords was created in the rapier. But long before the rapier, swords were being used more and more for stabbing. Hence, as you said, the increasingly tapered and increasingly pointy blades. The change wasn't for show; it was not some fashion trend, but a real change in fighting style. Thrusting became more common. And so fighters needed more hand protection. Thus, better armor led to pointier swords led to different fighting style led to need for better hand protection, led to larger and more complicated guards. I still prefer the slashing style of fighting, and still love the early Viking era sword more than any others, though my second favorite is the fencing style and the rapier. Very different, but both very fun and both supremely gorgeous and capable weapons.
Interesting thing about that grave in Janakkala Finland, was that the "more modern" sword was 120cm long. Very long for a one handed "Norman" sword. That would make it very clumsy to use, unless you were fighting on horseback. That extra 20cm added to reach, would then be quite useful.
Has probably to do with the change in shields (among other things), considering that sword & shield formed a unit. Center-grip shields were very versatile, but required bracing/ stabilizing with both arms in some circumstances, in which case you wouldn't want a long handguard to get in the way. Strapped shields are more independent in that regard, but also less versatile, requiring the sword to step up and provide for its own hand protection.
I think longer quillons came because of the larger use of cavalry. If you're on a horse and have a shield and a sword, you can't have them on the same side, unless the shield is really small, which the ones during the post-viking era swords weren't. That means that the sword hand is on its own without a shield to protect is. So they made the handguard more protective.
More pointed swords implies thrust through armour. So they did more thrusting and less slashing. When you attack like that, your opponent defensive strokes might slide or skip down your blade a lot more.
Matt, something to look at I think as a modern comparison is the variety of different types of firearms available. There are huge arguments among enthusiasts about reliability in revolvers vs semiautomatics, magazine capacity, ammunition size and caliber and also size of the gun itself. And that's just handguns, there are just as many if not more arguments about the best rifle, shotgun, etc. And don't under estimate the power of nostalgia or status for owning an older weapon. There are lots of collectors that only care about older guns and some of them have been taken care of or restored so that they are just as effective today as when they left the factory. Thanks to two world wars there are lots of vintage firearms out there for purchase because many countries didn't throw away their old stuff. When a new rifle came around the old ones were stored in armories or given to reserve units. Would it be any different in ancient times? Are there any accounts of older weapons and armor being stored as they were replaced or was everything pretty much recycled or buried with the owner? How old was the Finnish warrior you mentioned? Maybe the older sword was his first sword from his first battle and it was a way of saying, "this is how long I've been fighting, the swords changed but I still went out and killed the enemy regardless." When the US military made the switch from the .45 caliber M1911 to the 9mm Beretta there were a lot of people keeping the old M1911s because they wanted the larger stopping power. Especially among special forces units there is a preference for the .45. So it could be that some people simply thought the older sword designs were better. Throw in some superstition (this sword was blessed by Thor, I can't just throw it away!) and its easy to see why some people held on to older weapons.
I've given some thought on this, and it seems like we need to make some guesses in changing styles of combat. We see this change in guards, from the minimal guard of germanic guards, to the pointy medieval guard, to the swept hilts that protected the hand in the early modern period. In the context of use in the medieval period, I would claim that armor forced a style that would proceed to form of grappling to get the opponent off their feet, reaching its height in the pollaxe. So incorporating spiky bits to grab and bite at your opponent was a natural development.
IMO the way of holding the shield dictates lenght of crossguard. Possible explenation (proposed by Roland Warzecha) is that you can use center grip shield almost the same way, you can use a buckler, but because it's larger, you can rotate it faster with help of sword-hand. In that explenation, longer crossguard makes this move harder to execute. Also, you can extend your shiled as far as you can extend your sword arm, protecting it. With strap shield you can't use this techniques, so it is more convenient to go for better hand protection. I pretty much agree with that explenation, well at least for viking-era swords. Their shields were pretty light and maneuverable.
My GUESS is that soldiers/warriors didn't always walk around with shields...but they did carry their swords. It's possible over time, the likelyhood of a soldier/warrior actually having their shield on hand became less (for cultural/social reasons). So maybe at this time period, fights/duels occurring spontaneously (no time to get shields) lead to new consideration on hand protection and parrying attacks. So for a little extra material, they would get a large increase in hand protection + as well as a large increase in the probability of catching an enemies blade. *Usually the simplest answer is the correct one!
I think the most important reason for development of better hand protection would be that boss-gripped shields are better to protect you sword hand than presumably heavier larger kite shields strapped to your arm. And maybe swords were more commonly 'worn', i.e. carried in a in a non-battle context e.g. as status symbol, and therefore theoretically also more often used without a shield (which would probably not be worn in a non-battle context) for self defense etc. Probably also the context in which the light and easy to wear buckler was getting popular.
I have two ideas - first one is the difference in a way shields are held: with a boss-grip you have much bigger range of movements to protect yourself, including being able to stretch it out further, like with a buckler, which you can't really do with a strapped shield. This means that longer quillons weren't necessary until the change in shields, as the hand was protected by the shield more. Second idea is just pure guessing, I don't have time to research more, but it may also be due to the increased use of swords in civilian self defence context, you know, without shields.
I think the longer crossguard is guess to the hirer avaibility of metal. As the soldiers mail shirts got longer and mail started to cover more of the body it shows that metal was becoming more common than previously. So if you can afford more metal on your sword what do you add it to? Two options: 1. The blade 2. The guard So it may simply be metal was more affordable. (I could be completely wrong on this)
The Viking round shield is used for more for winding and binding than the kite shield or the heater shield. Control of the center was established with the shield before the blade was used. With the kite shield, because of the way it is strapped to the arm, there is much less extension and the sword must be used to wind and bind and control the other blade. The shield has gone from an offensive weapon to a defensive one. Because the blade is being used to more to control and counter the opposing blade, the hand and arm are more exposed and greater protecting is needed. And extended crossguard provides the protection and also aids in the bind in controlling the opposing blade. As to why Viking blades were not pointed, it is perhaps because, like axes, there were used for chopping and cutting rather than thrusting and the target was most often the legs as evidenced by the wounds referenced at Stamford Bridge. Sword of the era were mostly pattern welded and only the most extensively forged blades were not prone to bending or breaking under stress, and the thrust against armor is highly stressful to a blade. This is why the +ULFBERTH+ blades were so highly prized. As forging improved, so did blade quality and strength allowing swords to withstand more and more contact both in offense and defense.
The old style were still used because of cost to replace sometimes but more likely comfort with what your use to using and most likely in scandinavia is sentimental reasons having been handed down in the family
I've always thought that one reason for the development of longer (and thinner) cross-guards is for turning the sword round,and gripping by the blade as is sometimes shown in pictures from the time, that the guard can then be used similarly to a war spike. So your sword tip may not be able to thrust through chain-mail, and maybe, even half-swording, you're just bad at finding gaps, so using your cross guard as a war spike will allow you to penetrate and kill, when otherwise you'd not be able to
A complete shot in the dark; could having a longer cross guard be advantages if your primary weapons was a long cavalry defence spear. You could in the moments of defending a charge have your sword in your left hand (for quick access) spear in right hand, dug (underfoot?) in the ground and using the cross guard to cradle the shaft as well.. then when the cavalry breaks through the line and your spear breaks quickly switch sword hands? Just a thought/possibility.
First of all, this is a video topic that I have been wanting to see for some time. It seems like a lot of content focuses on the migration/viking era equipment and swords and skips to the later medieval and early renaissance era. I am particularly interested in the time in between. The early medieval/crusader era is the time period I am most interested in. As to the changes in sword design, I think the shield design may be a crucial part to that. A boss held shield offers more maneuverability at the cost of protection and stability. Meanwhile, a kite or heater shield offers more protection and stability at the cost of maneuverability. This would probably lead to having to protect more with the sword.
The longer cross guards post-1066 might be partially the result of a change in cavalry tactics resulting from the greater area the comparatively limited number of Norman troops had to cover, thus requiring fewer troops per given patrol (which then included Britain as well as Normandy). This would necessitate a change in tactics away from relatively more massive formations that permitted shared responsibilities for individual defense toward greater individual responsibility for individual defense. I'm sure the greater likelihood of combating dismounted opponents (particularly in Britain post-Hastings) was also a contributing factor, which I think bolsters my thought that the lengthening of sword quillons was as much to do with changing tactical environments as anything else. Once William's men-at-arms demonstrated the effectiveness of the change in design, it only stands to reason their Continental opponents would adopt their own version. Just a thought.
I chatted with Mike Loades about the tip shape early. One thing he brought up was the iron/steel of the period was rather iffy in quality, something us modern smiths who can go and get good steel very easily have problems relating to, and a fine point in that material would be bent/broken rather quickly.
I think a new fencing style become more popular where you parried and blocked more with the sword, even when using a shield. And even had more option of stances where you held your sword in front of you some times exposing the hand. Some people preferred the traditional fencing style and still used the traditional hilt. So I think the fighting style drove the hilt development and more use of gauntlets and different ways of using the shield followed from that; not the other way around that shield use and armour development changed the fencing style. Edit; maybe the new type of pommel also allows changing how you grip the sword, also part of a more elaborate fencing style.
I've always had this question too. Why did they just all of a sudden start getting longer crossguards on their swords at some point in the 11th centruy? This kind of reminds me of 19th century sabers. Why did they get progressively less curved throughout the century?
If anyone was intrigued by the swords found that were widely different to eachother, they can be found in Oakeshotts Book - "Records of the medieaval sword"
I am wondering if it is like the back sword/rapier thing. Back swords were an older design, that remained in use long after the rapier started being used. Difference in purpose may be a thing. When in war with my sheild I do not need this big hand guard. However post 1066 England and Normandy especially, but also other areas of modern France were in a lot of termoil, partly to do with pacification of England, partly the problem of ruling Normandy and England, and partly with disputes of sucession of both places. Thus you may need your sword out side of pitched battle when you are not carrying a bulky shield to protect your hand.
I think that as metallurgy changed and swords got slightly less expensive therefore there were more of them. You’ve also mentioned that a sword was a secondary weapon not a primary as well and when you toss in swords as heirlooms I would imagine you would see many hold over designs.
I wonder how much material constraints had to do with the various design changes you listed. It seems reasonable to assume that maybe they didn't have long quillons because they were worried that they would snap due to slag and other inclusions in the steel. And maybe similar concerns led to them to have broader points on their swords.
I believe that when we consider sword vs armor we often make a big mistake. Normally we look at best sword vs best armor of specific time period. We should be looking at newest sword vs one generation older armor. If we took a knight and his pointed long sword. He will not use it as a main weapon against other knights but it will be very useful when he will chase fleeing enemy, probably lower ranking solder, with older version of armor (chain male). Other option is, if knight find himself in loosing position, he will need to face a lot of soldiers with older armor trying to over power him with advantage in numbers and sword will be very useful again. Another example is viking era: Best sword of that time is more dedicated to cuts and not thrusts and the best armor of that time is chain mail. Which is very good against cuts. But lower ranking soldiers (always more numerous) wouldn't wore chain mail and cutting sword would be perfect against them.
As pointier tips became more common, probably to combat maille armour, thrusting would have been used more due to its efficacy in penetrating maille. Given the width of the 'Viking" sword's blade, a small crossguard would easily allow an opponent's blade to ride over the crossguard with a simple turn of the wrist. Longer crossguard = better ability to turn a blade aside and prevent a slice of the hand or arm.
Hi Matt What swords using the Swabian knights in the battle of civitate 1053 , against the Normans? William of Apulia says this over the Swabians : " There were proud people of great courage, but not versed in horsemanship, who fought rather with the sword than with the lance. Since they could not control the movements of their horses with their hands they were unable to inflict serious injuries with the lance; however they excelled with the sword. These swords were very long and keen, and they were often capable of cutting someone vertically in two! They preferred to dismount and take guard on foot, and they chose rather to die than to turn tail. Such was their bravery that they were far more formidable like this than when riding on horseback
Maybe a form of warfare more oriented towards mounted combat meant that it was increasingly difficult to use the sword in coordination with a shield (with the shield physically covering the sword hand) so a more protective handguard had to be devised?
Maybe when sword starts to be carried more often in travels or by non military people, they where use a bit less with shields and some wanted more hand protection what do you think of that of that option.
Also a thing that is very interesting is that, while they changed to more pointy blades with bigger quillons, they also made swords with less decorations. If you see, norman age swords were very decorated with engraves in their guards, complex pattern-welding and pommels with diverse forms, but when we are near to the 11th century, we start to see swords that were less decorated and much more focused on practicality. If we think of an evolution to them be more effective against armour, they should have only changed the length of the quillons and the blade shape, right?
I imagine the gaurd got longer because the style of fighting changed. In moderns styles people tend to "bind" a lot to go for deep thrusts to penetrste armour, meaning hands are always in danger of being hit. If older styles didn't use the bind very much and instead opted for sweeping strikes, to knock weapons aside and lop limbs off etc then a wider gaurd isn't necessary
Probably because you use more the sword in certain parries rather then just the shield, with a strapped shield is more stationary than a boss held shield, so you tend to use more the sword and shield in combination to parry not just allways parrying with the shield only, boss held shields are very mobile, while strapped shields are less, so my idea is more passive defence with shield combined with active sword use, and i think because sword were more often used without shields because more people had access to swords as self defence weapons
I would also keep in mind that swords became lets say "more toollike" around 800. They went away from the highly ornamented germanic swords with lots of soft organic material, copper and gold, to the typical metall hilted "viking sword" and then relativly quickly to the somewhat more protective versions. I think the short guarded viking sword is more of a transitional type in that way.
here's my thinking. we see a change from large round center grip shields and minimal armor, to less large strapped shields with slightly more armor. Because in earlier time you had less armor, you had to rely on that big round shield. Since that shield was center grip, you had more length of shield extending out into your right side, where your sword would swing from. Having a large crossgard or long handle/pommel could interfere with your shield - the space you fit your sword around the shield could really matter, especially if you don't want to move your shield out of the way and potentially open your (fairly unarmored) self to attack. If you look at the shape of the classic "viking" sword pommel/crossgard it really does look like they were trying their best to not take up any more space around your hand than they absolutely had to. Later on with a strap shield, the shield protrudes less far into your right hand side. This allows the right hand more room to maneuver, and take advantage of having a crossgard. I can't say that I am 100% for sure right, but it fits all the facts as I know them.
Hi, I'm late to the party as I only just found this video. I suspect that the change in guard size is related to the shield size and type and how the sword would be used in combination with the shield. For the post-Roman and Viking period the sword was very much a secondary weapon with the spear & shield being the principal weapon set even for a sword armed warrior. Having had experience with a wide range of replica weapons and shields from the 4th-12 centuries I've noticed some things that work together. When you look at the evidence for shield sizes from Anglo-Saxon graves, the 5-7th century shields seem to have been smaller than the 9-10th century round shields seen in art/stone-carvings etc. The early style shields tend to fall into three groups, with the middle group (roughly around 18-26" diameter) being by far the most common. There are larger shields (some as much as 36") but these are the rarest type, but are more analagous to the later types, and smaller (around 12-18") which seem to be more common than the large type, but far less common than the mid-sized ones. (These diameters might not be 100% correct, as I'm working from memory without the exact figures in front of me.) The small shields are superb for skirmishing with a spear and little armour as you can be very mobile, both on the ground and with parrying with the shield. The mid size are less mobile, but a good compromise between mobility and body coverage. The large shields tend to be less mobile due to additional weight as well as size but offer greater 'passive' defence. I found I favoured a sheild of around 24" if I was using spear and sword for armament. When fighting around a shield this size the shield is very mobile and a longer crossguard requires more care or wider attacks to avoid catching the edge of a shield so the shorter guard is ideal. If shields were becoming larger and mail more common by the 10th century the two things can combine to slow shield mobility, meaning the sword gets used for parrying more often, where a longer guard becomes helpful. By the time the strapped kite shields appear they offer greater passive defence, but are far less mobile, and in some strapping arrangements have limited ability to quickly defend certain areas of the body meaning the sword is used even more for defence, again making longer guards more desirable. Several people have mentioned the short guard being useful when bracing the round shield in a shield wall, and whilst this is true it should be remembered that the principal weapon of the shield-wall was the spear - if you drew your sword it would generally mean things had gone very badly (your shield wall has been broken and the battle had devolved into a melee) or very well (you'd broken the enemy shield-wall and were cutting down fleeing foes.) A swordsman in a shield-wall comprised mostly of spearmen can be at a severe disadvantage, although I suspect it may have happened, particularly if in the course of the fighting your spear was lost or broken. I know there are circumstances where swordsmen have an advantage against spear-formations, such as attcking the flanks or rear, but in my experience a good spearman with a mobile shield can often easily match two swordsmen of similar skill level. Of course if you are in a heavy press and the enemy are inside the reach of your spear the swordsman can get the upper hand quickly if you don't gain distance fast, but again, in this kind of press the shorter guard would make it easier to fight around the shield. I suspect in the earlier period the guards were not longer simply because they didn't need to be as a mobile shield is a much better defence than a sword.
I have one idea that is heavily nuanced. In the era of infantry, and round shields, shield walls, etc. (I don't think they fought in shield walls all the time, like Bernard Cornwell seems to think though) - they would have used the sword to help brace or push with the shield. Also, the sword would have an easier time resting against the shield, and then moving it out to attack. Making longer quillons on a sword and then flattening the ends, so they can be used to rest against, or push a shield has a disadvantage to it. Namely, it's harder to balance the sword in the hand, when it's leaning against the shield. Also, the metallurgy might have been different - extending the quillons would require more skillfully worked metal that was overall stronger, so that the quillons wouldn't bend or snap. Longer quillons run the risk of bending or breaking off, than shorter ones, due to the stress points. So maybe some of the reason has to do with that. It could also be because most warriors were familiar with shorter quillon swords that they could move behind their shield. The population of europe in the early middle ages was relatively small, and the warrior class was smaller, and the people that could afford swords were smaller still. So the sword culture was relatively insular, and preferences may not have been too diverse because of it. Maybe a lot of thegns, hersirs, werrod, heerban (sp?), petty kings, huscarls and the like were swaggering around going "Only a true warrior fights in this way!"
I think the migration period sword was used until the 11th century is because some people preferred the cleave over the thrust, like me, I prefer a cleaving blade over a thrusting blade
Armour became more common during the 8th, 9th century. To account for this change, blades were made more pointy, which made them lighter, which made fencing more feasible, which then required better hand protection.
Hi Matt perhaps the development of longer guards is linked to the role of feudal Norman Knights who would wear a sword with civilian clothing so require better protection for the hand. The Normans had adopted french chivalric notions and would have been at higher day to day risk as a invading elite. Regards rob
The difference in sword might be because of ... A kite shield strappede to the arm, are more limited in reach (it is held close to the body), and for that reason the shield cannot follow the sword hand as far out in reach, making the sword hand more exposed ... ?
Different groups of people had different frequency of mail armor. I read about a battle in Brittany where Charles the Bald and a number of Saxon mercenaries attacked Brittany, and it's said the Franks in the army were heavy infantry, covered in armor, but the Saxons were lightly armored and few had mail.
One idea that comes to mind is that if swords started to become more tapered and longer wouldn't that influence how the sword is handled? So maybe that meant the fighters had to move their sword hand in a way that exposed it more and thus more protetction was needed?
Even though they had mail, a big ass sword like that must have had a bludgeoning effect. Also there is art showing swords slashing through helmets (I'm not sure if these helmets had some weak spot or that the quality of helmets varied greatly from one soldier to another). But yes, weapons and armors evolve side by side. So mail led to swords being pointier. Even if armors are available, you need to wait a while for weapon to adapt.
More mail present and/or a change in how the sword was used are the only possibilities I can think of. Why the change in shield (which you've discussed before)? Why more mail? Because of more wealth? Also more swords around (which you've discussed before as well).
As always I think there are several factors influencing changes in design like this, but in this case I think it is safe to point to one factor above all others: The increasing use of strapped shields. A strapped shield is simply more passive in use and less effective at providing active protection for the hand, when striking. Hence the need for greater hand protection.
Another, slightly more controversial, factor might have to do with the emergence of the knightly class and its role in the high middle ages. It is a mistake to view the knight and his weapons from a purely military perspective. The knightly class first and foremost functioned as the monopoly of violence for the ruling class of large landowners. The knight’s primary task was not to fight other knights but to control, supress and, if necessary, fight unruly members of the peasantry. In this task the knight needed weapons that enabled him to fight inferior opponents when outnumbered, such as a sword with greater defensive capabilities. This, I think, is the main driving force behind a lot of changes in fighting equipment of the emerging knightly class, such as ever more protective and extensive armor, increased use of horses in combat and the rise in popularity of the falchion (which is fairly useless against knightly armor but extremely good at hacking down peasants wearing at most padded cloth armor) All of these innovations are force multipliers against an opponent with inferior training and equipment, thus making the knight more effective at his primary task of keeping the peasantry in check.
Matt, do you know how the swords back then were sharpened? I understand the initial shaping, with the fullers (I don't think this has changed much, has it?) and probably some kind of grinding wheel, but how did they finish the edge? How did they get the angle right? How did they know what angle to make the edge? Did they ever have secondary bevels? (i.e. a reinforced edge). And how did they fix swords that were broken? In my opinion, this is the real purpose of a honing steel. Any edges that get used a lot, one would expect they'd get damaged eventually, no?
Personally I think the kite shield was used as a more static defense held in front of the body than the round shield which would be held out to protect the hand and control the opponent. That’s just some speculation based on the ergonomics but there you go.
Total guess, but the transition to more mounted warfare could result in the sword being used more frequently as less of a side arm. Mounted Norman nights used spears and early lances. However, it seems likely they would be without these weapons more often than shield and spear infantry would, leading to an acceleration in sword specialization. Later knights utilized a wider array of short-range, single-handed, arms than was common among footsoldiers who held onto their spears and polearms. Perhaps this is a similar, only earlier, development? Maybe?
In Scandinavia they used viking sword all the way up to the 1200. Newer things often came to Denmark first. In Sweden and Norway development took longer time. For example in Sweden many men still only used horses for transportation to the battlefield, where they would dismount and fight on foot.
That was my first thought. I have seen other very convincing explanations in the comments here. The question here is what sort of damage might a sword blade expect to suffer if it is used to parry another weapon?
One reason for the longer cross guard may have been that sword on sword combat had become more common. As more swords became available through conquest and trade.
If I'm not mistaken attaching small plates or scales onto a vest would be cheaper than making a mail-shirt, which on top protects less against thrusts. This begs the question why they weren't used as much. Is it because they are heavier? The stiffness doesn't matter IMHO when it comes to vests, but becomes an issue, when you speak of coats.
Pentti Koivuniemi Technically it's just scale armor. As I understand it, the difference between scale and lamellar is that lamellar has no backing, the scales are attached only to each other. Scale, on the other hand, has a backing to which the scales or plates are attached to.
No. It's a very complicated topic. There are several basic versions: a) plates stiched or rivetted; both overlapping or not b) scales stiched and overlapping giving a fish-scale pattern c) scales stiched together without any supporting textile d) plates that slide over each other without underlying support e) plates built into mail f) scales built into mail so that they form an overlapping fish-scale pattern on top of a normal mail layer Lamellar are only plates or scales that overlap. Which are included, depends very much on who you ask. Some restrict it to d), others include b), d) and f) Romans used all sorts of variations and might be the only ones that used f) but are more known for c) and d) East Europeans are known for b) and e) Late medieval Europeans used a) and e) Asians used a), b) and e)
edi I think the main reason why mail was so popular in nearly all cultures was it's repairability. Mail can be repaired more easily than pretty much any other type of metal armor. All metal armor was expensive, so the ability to repair damaged armor quickly and without the help of a professional craftsman was important. The usual theory about the Roman army going back to mail from lamellar (although lamellar was never universal) is cost, although the Romans (and Byzantines, if we must separate them) used scale armor as well, which is another type of relatively easily repaired armor.
matt dk if this so but i seen a artical many moons back ...porporting that swords started changing with the spread of the christan belife system ...wider cross guards and rounder pommels were supposed to resemble the crucification of christ ?
Another question for me is why these viking swords had such broad and large fullers. Cause the more blade area you spend on a fuller, the less you have available to taper towards the sides and that would result in less sharp edges, no? In theory a sword with a diamond cross section (like the roman ones) should be better at slashing, than a sword with a fuller. So why did they deviate away from that diamond design?
One reason that comes to mind is cost. A longer guard needs to be made of proper steel, which was expensive. A short stubby guard on the other hand can be hammered out of almost anything. When steel became cheaper over time they could afford to use the good stuff for other parts than just the blade.
The increase of cavalry fighting, if your shield is on your left side of the horse your only defence on your right side will be your weapon, a spear normally but swords as well especially once lines are broken and you're moping up stragglers
Because it was like modern warfare but without the comfort of fronts, where a full blown attack could happen at any time, from anywhere, most of the time, folk would have been unarmoured. Also, wolves and bears, also as a tool to gather nettle for food. Andrew***°
Well, I might suggest looking to the "Un-armed" use of the sword in civilian life and the emergence of the Milites as more of a "Kinghtly Class" in our terms (which also happened in the 11th century). After all, if your social identity depends on having a sword at all times and the readiness to use violence, then there is a heavy chance of being attacked when eating or traveling (or attacking others in small groups). Thus, with violence in non military situations, you might not have a shield (or be able to run and get one). After all, especially for the heavy shields, they would be really annoying to carry around all the time. Carrying a shield would also (presumably) be seen as a highly aggressive action that might give away an ambush at a social event (or trigger a conflict). And if you can't guarantee having a shield, then the longer quillons and more slender blade give you a more universally useful weapon (you get some hand protection, and a better ability to stab armored opponents if need be). Not to mention that a longer sword is generally needed for fighting on horseback (which became more common in western Europe at that time because of economic expansion).
@@williamt.sherman9841 No, but sword wearing in civilian life as a symbol of being a military elite was. This is true in the Carolingian Empire with the emerging milites, and in Early English (pre Norman) England with Thegn and Thanes.
I am by no means an expert. But looking at some of the artwork from the periods it could be that in shield formations with a boss grip round shield there is the possibility that longer quillons could catch on the edge of the shield when thrusting within the formation. By the art of the Kite Shields, because of the way the tapers, it looks like it would be less likely for any cool wants to catch on the edge of your own shield. Again not an expert but just something that came to mind.
It always strikes me that with a short guard, when thrusting hard you risk your hand sliding up the blade if your grip isn't strong enough. If the guard gets wide enough, it becomes unlikely even with a slack grip.
pommell are almost *NEVER* straight alongside guard. they were all bent slightly sideways by at least 2 to 5 * degrees, if you were right handed, it was bent to left , if you were left handed, the pommel was bent toward the right. it made handling far more better. I found this out by looking at most swords that were found, around 900 through 1066, and drew a conclusion that people was already doing this throughout dark ages onward 1066. I handled both straight pommel Norseman sword and a slightly bent one, I much preferred bent one. i could do a bit more range of motions without pommel edges digging into my wrist or bottom of my palm.
Could it be that strapped kite shields make it more difficult to defend the sword hand than round boss gripped shields since they can't be extended as far from the body?
Were swords used more in day to day self defense? When you're not in battle, you're not likely to carry a shield, thus necessitating better hand protection.
I think it's a combination of things. As time progressed, weapons and armour became more accessible(cheaper) AND...professional men at arms (or at least career fighters) became more common. That means costs came down on weapons and armour. At the same time, weapons and armour of all kinds were being used more often. This created a complimentary situation where people who have seen more battles have learned and remembered the strengths and weaknesses of their kit, while at the same time having more money and less overhead, giving them the ability to customise their gear based on what they've learned. If you see a lot of people taking hand injuries, you ask for a sword with more hand protection. If you see a lot of men cut down at the legs, you invent a longer shield to protect the legs. This eventually leads to greater and greater development in both offensive and defensive technology. Conversely......men who are conscripts or once in a life time raiders would grab whatever was at hand that they could afford....maybe fight once in their life when needed and never think about it again. So basically....necessity was the mother of invention.
Does it? I can't think of many new technological products that became more expensive as they became more popular, excluding inflation of course. Demand increases production which increases competition, which increases production streamlining and decreases cost. Add to that all the captured and older used gear available on the market as the years passed. Over all weapons became cheaper. Also, we know for a fact from Matts other videos that indeed.......weapons and armour became much cheaper and more available over time. Hence more people able to wear it. Obviously this isn't going to include high end amazingly complex ceremonial dress weapons and the like. There's always high end and low and and medium range like any products today. Not much has changed.
If I gave you a headache I'm sorry. I know it's difficult to focus for multiple seconds on a single concept. You did well for a hashtager though! Good job. ;)
"I can't think of many new technological products"... New is the keyword here. But I can give you a few... Super computers for one, fighter aircrafts, truffles... You are assuming that the ability of manufacturer also increases, and over time it does, but at that time in history, steel of a good enough quality, and the ability to make swords was not readily available. And no demand does not always increase production, sometimes the availability of resources and skilled labor is not available for increased production... It is a pretty good rule of thumb, but it is not always true. "all the captured and older used gear available on the market"... A lot of it was also destroyed though... Sure it helps, but only over time, and don't forget we are still talking about something of an elite, at the time... Peasants were not allowed swords at this time period, that is most of the people. "became much cheaper and more available over time"... Yes but not in the timeframe we are talking, some 100-200 years...
> I can't think of many new technological products that became more expensive as they became more popular, Well, it wasn't "new" but caviar was once just fish eggs, good enough for fishermen to eat while fishing, but not for serving to customers. Then people ashore started eating it, too, it became a "delicacy" and the price skyrocketed to the point that no one fishing would eat it rather than keep and sell it. The amount of caviar was fairly fixed, just as the quantity of steel until technological advances made it easier several centuries after the Conquest/FirstCrusade era discussed here.
I imagine one advantage with a short guard would be that it's a smaller risk hooking the guard onto your own shield. If you're working with the sword around the edge of the shield and want to thrust beyond the shield then you don't want the guard to get stuck on the edge of the shield.
Yes, I would agree, and in a shield wall formation, thrusting out between several shields would be easier without a large guard.
Could it explain asymetric guards on historical swords used with shields, such as the kris?
Based on experience practicing the i.33 manuscript (sword and buckler) I think that is likely part of the reason and also with a smaller shield or buckler there are a lot of actions where you cross your hands and work on both sides of the shield. So a symmetrical crossguard that is not too long is helpful in this case.
Personally I like the guards that are curved a bit towards the point of the blade mainly because I wear leather gloves with built-in gauntlets and straight crossguards tend to catch on them when I'm doing these crossing actions or a simple moulinette. If you had a guard with an asymmetrical guard such as the right-angle thumbnail on a langmesser, this would potentially catch on the shield if you tried to cross-hands and thrust from behind your shield on your non-dominant side.
For examples of thrusting / fighting "Viking style" with a large shield, check out Roland Warzecha's channel:
ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=roland+warzecha+shield+and+sword
I wouldn't be surprised if the frankish style spathas from the 9th and 10th centuries would be kept for a while by most soldiers that could afford them. Most of these swords would stay a while and then fade away with advances of tech.
I'm partial to the theory that a short cross guard enabled you to brace the back of a round shield with your sword hand, which may have been more important when using a large boss-held shield. Swords with similar length lower and upper guard may have been particularly good for this. With a longer lower guard, bracing against the back of a shield may have been more cumbersome. The transition to a strapped shield may have reduced the need to brace the shield with the sword hand. I remember watching a video that demonstrated some of this theory, probably a Roland Warzecha video.
Can't wait to see that sword. The transitional type X / Xa swords with brazil nut pommels are my favourite type of single handed swords, aesthetically speaking.
Hi Matt! Thanks for your excellent channel and videos! I practise HEMA in Finland, I have MA in archaeology and I currently work in the Häme castle, which is close to the finding place of the Janakkala swordsman.
There are few things I'd like to comment on two separate topics in this video.
1. I have one theory about the reason for crossguards getting longer. With many (not all, but a significant amount) Viking period swords the crossguard and the pommel come just slightly further than your knuckles. This would allow you two stabilize the center boss shield especially when you are holding it with the shields face towards the enemy. For example, in shield wall you might need to push the wall forwards. With a longer crossguard you wrist would twist unpleasantly, but than again just like you said, there is also a shift in the type of shields. Especially in how the shields are strapped. With the center boss shield you only have one point of your body (ie. hand) attached to the shield, but with later shields you have two points (ie. hand and forearm). This would free the swordhand to do more on its own and, therefore, you would need more protection against hits on the sword arm. Moreover, shield walls tend to disappear after the Viking Age be it reasons in changes the swords and shields or changes in military tactics. That is my (and I've seen many other people talk about this as well) current theory, BUT there might (and there probably are) be other reasons as well.
2. The Janakkala swordsman with the two swords. I'm not sure how much news coverage or articles have been made in English on the burial after the initial excitement etc., but there are few things at least in Finnish articles. One thing that I would like to contradict is that these swords would have been used at the same time. Firstly, the person buried has been radiocarbon dated to around the year 1300 from samples taken from his arm. The Viking period sword is from roughly 950-1050 and the Medieval sword 1050-1200. So the Medieval sword would have been old even at the time of his dead and the Viking sword even older and there is only a small gap during which these sword types might have been used at the same time. Of course some transition is present, but to me, it looks like that the transition was relatively quick one. Moreover, the Viking period sword had been burnt and the tip of the sword had been cut off before it was placed into the burial. There is even charcoal in the grave, which is radiocarbon dated to around the year 1000. This would close the possibility that these two swords were in use at the same time.
Most likely explanation is that, the Viking sword had been transported from an ancestral grave (along with some charcoal), when the man died in around the year 1300, and reburied with him along with his (most likely) personal sword. In Finland it was not uncommon to worship ancestors even in the 1300s and many pagan ways continued all the way up until 1800s, while the people still identified themselves as Christians. In Finland body burials are interpreted as a sign of Christian influence, but not necessarily a sign that the deceased was a Christian. On the other hand, many people were cremated even in the 1200s, although there are not many burial goods. So the cremation and burying the body existed together for quite a long while as did Christian and pagan traditions. In northern Finland there are few cases of cremation burials on top of body burials in Christian cemeteries from the 13th and early 14th centuries.
With a kite shield strapped to the arm, wouldn't it be more difficult to protect the hand while attacking in comparison to the round boss held shields? Since you cannot extend the shield as far as you possibly could with the round one (?), it would be nice to add a little more protection to the guard.
Although they could be worn on the arm I think the straps on a lot of kite shields and even heater shields were designed to be gripped in a fist like a dhaal. I think you can see this in the Bayeax tapestry if you bear in mind that it has been heavily restored.
I think that's the most observant interpretation. Looking at the I.33 material, we see how the buckler protects the sword hand. A "Viking" shield could have been used in a similar way.
I think they are meant to be held in the hand, with another strap further down the forearm
Is it possible that with boss-held shield you might more often need to brace the shield and that could be easier to do if crossguard is shorter? And with strapped shield you don´t need to do that as much and so it might be more benefitial just to get bit more protection.
@nick What?
@MrMonkeybat I'm always sceptical about a practical interpretation of usage of equipment when it comes to medieval art. The political purpose, art necessities (as dictated by the style etc.), composition etc. generally comes as a priority in contrast to, let's say, the proper way of holding a shield or sword. Although I agree it is one of the few documents we have about such moments of history.
@Dúnedain That's my reasoning. It's possible that there is a difference when it comes to defensive movements with the kite shield's grip. The sword adaptations might have covered possible flaws with the new design. After all, it's generally about focusing on something at the exchange of losing something else when it comes to arms and armours.
@Henri This sounds to me a bit like that argument that shield walls and phalanx formations are basically a shoving match. Granted it could happen, but I tend to think of it as something more occasional.
I can't remember where I've seen it, but there was a nice theory on the evolution of the sword hilt:
Earliest: pommel and guard same length that you can press them against a roundshield to prevent it from turning. Sword very top heavy chopper; bad for pointing the sword out; bad at parrying (also often too soft or brittle to take hits)
Transitional: guards longer, pommels still the same, but eventually getting rounder: allows angling of the wrist. Swords become better balanced and more resilient so that they can be used for parrying, but sacrifice some of their chopping potential. The increase of the guard might be because swords in civilian context were used without shields and needed a better hand protection, if you parry with them (which hadn't been common earlier, due to poorer quality and lower availability of swords).
brasil nut to round shield: when round shields were no longer thick enough, thicker, but heavier kiteshields were used, which are strapped to your forarm and thus impossible to hold out as far as roundshields. This means that you need to parry more with your sword. Swords also become more pointy and thrust centric.
As always entertaining and engaging thanks your show is my favourite on this subject . I've started collecting and my first buy is a sword from this era used by Norman's . Also I've brought a kite sheild to sit on my wall with the sword. I'm going through your videos and my enthusiasm for the subject is only guarded by financial situation as a injured person who can't hold either due to injures back in 09
Perhaps it started out as a place to put your forefinger. As swords were used to do more thrusting and the blades were getting longer, having the forefinger over the guard makes the sword more controllable especially in thrusts. This might explain why this early Norman sword had longer cross guards but not long enough to protect the hand, which was a still later development.
I’m excited about the next videos in this series. I love the Norman period.
As for the hilts, I feel the sword became more used in defense as you said and more involved in the bind, which needed better hand protection.
As others has pointed out, it has to be related to a change in fighting style- and since the "Norman" kite shield becomes popular, it is probably linked to how the shield is used. The main difference between the kite and the round shield is not the shape, but the way you hold it. When you cant put your shield as far out as you used to, you have to reach out with the sword- hence the need for more hand protection.
i didn’t know swords were so interesting. thanks for making these videos, they’re really informative and entertaining!!
nick sweeney uh what?
nick sweeney you’re a pretty strange person. have a good night !
There are many reasons that sets the stage for generally longer cross guards. All weapons are pices in a system and needs to function with them and the tactics used.
Note that this is for the general fashion of swords, there will always be special cases etc. And yes..I probably forgot a ton of stuff.
1: Good quality steel became more avaible and brought about new uses and techniques for swords (and armour). You could block strikes from other weapons as a viable part of the way you fought. Protection for the hands becomes a real thing in the later period.
2: Ever tried to fight with a norman shield in a line, with masks? The right side and face is a bit more exposed and the hand is an easier target. Especially when you try to attack your opponent. The big, center grip round shields can be troublesome with long cross guards as it more easily snags on your shield or on your opponents shield, when you try to thrust or cut behhind it.
3:The maille gets longer sleeves and the coif is becoming an essential pice of the armour, to give better protection of the neck and upper part of the torso. I would argue that this has to do with how the norman shields function and the fact that quality steel became cheaper. The swords, at the same time, followed the new design requirements and offered a better protection for the hand.
just some small practical points on why I think the design altered.
1. Swords with minimalist handguards work better with boss held shields. The shield is held further from the body and your hand should not extend past the shield edge. Your hand protection is the shield and having a substantial crossguard just adds more discomfort in wearing the sword and the guard possibly getting hung up on your shield with no protective benefit (assuming you know what you are doing with your shield).
2. Once people moved to strapped shield now the hand has to extend past the shield meaning the sword must be more protective. The strapped shield (in this time period) was caused by the continuing improvement of the power of cavalry and of men-at-arms type soldiers who had to fight both mounted and on foot. Previously to that, footsoldiers and cavalry used different shield (or often no shield for cavalry). You need a strapped shield as cavalry so you can operate the reins. The Norman style "kite" shield was the first of the type of combo shield that over time morphed (lost the boss, became flat topped, shortened) into the "heater" style once leg armor became common.
3. So boss held shields -> no handguard, strapped shield -> simple handguard, no shield -> complex handguard. This seems to be also true in earlier phalanx warfare where strapped shields were used (for different reasons) and you see some development of hand protection.
Since the viking swords are exceptional hefty cleaver and falchions come along to be popular around 13th century, it is not surprising that those migration-era-style swords are still in favor by some by 11th century.
I think you may have hit on it briefly there: that as you start using the sword to parry more (for whatever reason), hand protection becomes more important.
I tend to think it may have been a status thing - Behold my shiny new sword let me show you its features.
That's generally a cop out. But answers like that continue to apply, because there's no way to discern the truth beyond conjecture, in cases like these. All we can be certain of is what's false such as 'long quillons only appeared on ceremonial swords', when there's evidence of a lot of longer quillon swords, it correlates more with purposes of warfare than ceremony, since it doesn't (in our eyes) appear to make economic sense to have so many lethal ceremonial swords.
However, there's little correlation for answering WHY longer quillons appear. Status is a common answer, because it is a common correlation for other things, though that theory gets overused in my opinion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin the main argument against "status" is a primary thing is that swords very similar had been in use for a thousand years. why would it suddenly be a "status symbol" then and not say 600 years before. this is particularly important since comes during a major shift in military tactics (the growth in importance of armored knights) personally I think the change in guards is related to 2 things 1. change in the use of shield, 2. use from horse back (and both issues are related)
before this (Roman, migration, Viking era) time periods are noted that much of the warfare revolved around foot and shield combat.
This does not mean that cavalry and knight did not exist before these swords but that they were adapted to better suit the type of warfare
(and for the record it could still be seen as a status symbol later on)
I've always considered the Viking shield a more "active" shield if you can call it that, than the kite shield. What I mean is that I've always used the Viking shield in a more combined way with my sword, simply because it's lighter and has better reach, whereas the kite shield is heavier and thus easier to use when held closer to the body to form a sort of wall, you can attack from behind. You don't need as much skill, at least that's my experience, when you're using a kite shield, as you need with a Viking shield. And you only need to angle the bottom a bit towards your opponent to cover your legs. It's very small an simple movements compared to how you use a Viking shield, and thus easier for people learn. Maybe formation fighting became more static with the invention of the kite shield, and as it wouldn't be used in combination with the sword to protect the hand, create openings and so on, it might've made sense to people back then to improve hand protection some other way. Just a thought.
Thrad talked about how the older style guards were used to help push on the boss held shield. Later strapped shield no longer needed the extra leverage with the sword hand. Plus the strap shield is closer to the body thus it can not protect the hand as well when a strike is thrown. So the cross guard was lengthened to balance the shield’s drop in hand protection
Perhaps the reason for this is that a center grip round shield is used more actively, protecting the striking hand quite like a buckler. So firstly, the hand is protected while striking (Roland Warzecha makes a great point about this which he bases on sizes of the found round shields).
Secondly, it is way easier to move a small guard around behind a shield.
The larger guard, however, paired with the much more passive kite shield, as well as a more pointy blade and better chainmail availibility, was developed so that the arm (possibly covered with mail) could move around more independently and strike outside of the shield.
I was just thinking it as you were saying it. "Because people wore mail shirts and you win by lopping something from your opponent off. Also with the type of shield and combat they were using. It was probably way more likely to be hit fatally in the legs than anywhere else, at least that's what some of the skelletons from people that died on Gotland implied. So people were hiding behind their shields and trying to chop each others legs off. Chopping blades are thus better for that. Also the tip might need to be strong and not quite as pointy if people were indeed using the tip cuts that Thrand has been proposing they might have used.
Jan Erik, yes, I watched a docu on the Battle of Visby so I know exactly what you're talking about with those skeletons... that was really brutal, I feel bad for those brave but desperate peasant farmers who were locked outside the gates and made their last stand up against the wall and got their legs chopped off. Damn.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Visby
You said it yourself - while things were going on - the period saw a lot of warfare which bred necessity - which bred invention.
I think that longer sword hits were being developed slightly before other things, like the kite shield, people realised it was just generally a good idea and went with it while changing other things.
The kite shield seems to offer a lot of passive protection to hide behind, with that large surface area, but it also seems like it might be a little clumsy and restrictive when it comes to active defense, like parrying and establishing binds. Perhaps the extended quillons were an attempt to make up for this drawback because kite shield users had to rely on the sword for those active defenses.
Thegn Thrand and Roland Warcheka have decided that since the hand guard and pommel were the same length, they were used as a sort of handle to be put on the shield to give extra rigidity in certain formations. so maybe with the Advent of the kite Shield you no longer needed to stabilize a center boss shield with your sword and the guard could evolve to add more protection for your hand.
I recently got a norman type sword reproduction... first thing I noticed was the pommel which is rounded and domed but has corners, it's not quite a brazil nut shape. The corners stop you from swinging too far by biting your hand. Maybe this was to prevent overswing? It stops you with the blade horizontal to the ground. BUT... unlike the squarer viking style pommels it is domed on the sides, sort of tapered, so if you let the pommel slide past the edge of your hand it fits perfectly in the little dent in the heel of your hand, not allowing you to overswing, but rather change the angle of the sword in your grip....
I also agree with your idea that mail armor was quite rare in the early middle ages. I believe most people would have fought using little but their clothes, and perhaps helmets if they could afford them.
Looking at the vikings though, it seems like not a huge amount could even afford helmets, and fur hats were widely used both outside of battle but in it as well.
Roland figures that part of it was a change in the shield which corresponded to a change in the way swords were used. As fighters moved from shield binds to blade binds as the predominant method of interaction.
I have wondered about hilt design as well, and the answer I came up with you already alluded to: swords changed from slashing weapons to thrusting weapons.
I have taken quite a little bit of fencing, and fenced in a club. That style of sword play relies on thrusting. I also took stage combat, and swung a slashing type sword. Epées and foils hit differently than broadswords, and thus require different protection.
When wielding a broadsword, maintaining fluid motion and momentum is second only to not getting hit. That differs greatly from fencing, where rapid, jerky thrusts follow subtle parries. When parrying with a broad blade, one deflects the blow, keeping ones own blade more or less perpendicular to their foe's blade. The attack is not stopped so much as redirected; the foe's blade ideally would slide down mine with minimal effort on my part, allowing me to lead with my wrist and initiate my own swing as soon as my foe's blade had slid off my sword's tip. With that being the ideal, that position is what I would strive for with every parry, and it is hard to imagine many scenarios where I would be parrying in such a way that the foe's blade slid down mine toward my hand instead of off my blade's tip. Despite the dramatic fight sequences portrayed on film, I would not try to lock hilt or guards with my opponent just to get up in their face and then push back away. If my goal is to make my enemy's sword slide not toward my hand but off the tip of my sword, while at the same time lining up my own counter strike, my hand is rarely going to need protection.
In fencing, however, even with a full bell guard, I found my wrist and fingers being cracked and bloodied even through leather gloves they were hit so much. In fencing, one leads with the point, thrusting forwards. And my foe is fighting that same way. If I am pushing my hand forward, my sword tip straight out and away from me, and my foe is doing the same, the tips of the weapons are always right by one's hand. Furthermore, the angle one parries at encourages an opponent's blade to slide toward my hand, not towards the tip of my sword.
Now, the point you alluded to: armor. Armor changed. Slashing swords became less and less effective as time went on, until the pinnacle of thrusting swords was created in the rapier. But long before the rapier, swords were being used more and more for stabbing. Hence, as you said, the increasingly tapered and increasingly pointy blades. The change wasn't for show; it was not some fashion trend, but a real change in fighting style. Thrusting became more common. And so fighters needed more hand protection. Thus, better armor led to pointier swords led to different fighting style led to need for better hand protection, led to larger and more complicated guards.
I still prefer the slashing style of fighting, and still love the early Viking era sword more than any others, though my second favorite is the fencing style and the rapier. Very different, but both very fun and both supremely gorgeous and capable weapons.
Interesting thing about that grave in Janakkala Finland, was that the "more modern" sword was 120cm long. Very long for a one handed "Norman" sword. That would make it very clumsy to use, unless you were fighting on horseback. That extra 20cm added to reach, would then be quite useful.
Has probably to do with the change in shields (among other things), considering that sword & shield formed a unit. Center-grip shields were very versatile, but required bracing/ stabilizing with both arms in some circumstances, in which case you wouldn't want a long handguard to get in the way. Strapped shields are more independent in that regard, but also less versatile, requiring the sword to step up and provide for its own hand protection.
I think longer quillons came because of the larger use of cavalry. If you're on a horse and have a shield and a sword, you can't have them on the same side, unless the shield is really small, which the ones during the post-viking era swords weren't. That means that the sword hand is on its own without a shield to protect is. So they made the handguard more protective.
More pointed swords implies thrust through armour. So they did more thrusting and less slashing. When you attack like that, your opponent defensive strokes might slide or skip down your blade a lot more.
Matt, something to look at I think as a modern comparison is the variety of different types of firearms available. There are huge arguments among enthusiasts about reliability in revolvers vs semiautomatics, magazine capacity, ammunition size and caliber and also size of the gun itself. And that's just handguns, there are just as many if not more arguments about the best rifle, shotgun, etc. And don't under estimate the power of nostalgia or status for owning an older weapon. There are lots of collectors that only care about older guns and some of them have been taken care of or restored so that they are just as effective today as when they left the factory. Thanks to two world wars there are lots of vintage firearms out there for purchase because many countries didn't throw away their old stuff. When a new rifle came around the old ones were stored in armories or given to reserve units. Would it be any different in ancient times? Are there any accounts of older weapons and armor being stored as they were replaced or was everything pretty much recycled or buried with the owner? How old was the Finnish warrior you mentioned? Maybe the older sword was his first sword from his first battle and it was a way of saying, "this is how long I've been fighting, the swords changed but I still went out and killed the enemy regardless." When the US military made the switch from the .45 caliber M1911 to the 9mm Beretta there were a lot of people keeping the old M1911s because they wanted the larger stopping power. Especially among special forces units there is a preference for the .45. So it could be that some people simply thought the older sword designs were better. Throw in some superstition (this sword was blessed by Thor, I can't just throw it away!) and its easy to see why some people held on to older weapons.
I've given some thought on this, and it seems like we need to make some guesses in changing styles of combat.
We see this change in guards, from the minimal guard of germanic guards, to the pointy medieval guard, to the swept hilts that protected the hand in the early modern period.
In the context of use in the medieval period, I would claim that armor forced a style that would proceed to form of grappling to get the opponent off their feet, reaching its height in the pollaxe. So incorporating spiky bits to grab and bite at your opponent was a natural development.
IMO the way of holding the shield dictates lenght of crossguard. Possible explenation (proposed by Roland Warzecha) is that you can use center grip shield almost the same way, you can use a buckler, but because it's larger, you can rotate it faster with help of sword-hand. In that explenation, longer crossguard makes this move harder to execute. Also, you can extend your shiled as far as you can extend your sword arm, protecting it.
With strap shield you can't use this techniques, so it is more convenient to go for better hand protection.
I pretty much agree with that explenation, well at least for viking-era swords. Their shields were pretty light and maneuverable.
My GUESS is that soldiers/warriors didn't always walk around with shields...but they did carry their swords. It's possible over time, the likelyhood of a soldier/warrior actually having their shield on hand became less (for cultural/social reasons).
So maybe at this time period, fights/duels occurring spontaneously (no time to get shields) lead to new consideration on hand protection and parrying attacks.
So for a little extra material, they would get a large increase in hand protection + as well as a large increase in the probability of catching an enemies blade.
*Usually the simplest answer is the correct one!
I think the most important reason for development of better hand protection would be that boss-gripped shields are better to protect you sword hand than presumably heavier larger kite shields strapped to your arm. And maybe swords were more commonly 'worn', i.e. carried in a in a non-battle context e.g. as status symbol, and therefore theoretically also more often used without a shield (which would probably not be worn in a non-battle context) for self defense etc. Probably also the context in which the light and easy to wear buckler was getting popular.
I have two ideas - first one is the difference in a way shields are held: with a boss-grip you have much bigger range of movements to protect yourself, including being able to stretch it out further, like with a buckler, which you can't really do with a strapped shield. This means that longer quillons weren't necessary until the change in shields, as the hand was protected by the shield more.
Second idea is just pure guessing, I don't have time to research more, but it may also be due to the increased use of swords in civilian self defence context, you know, without shields.
I think the longer crossguard is guess to the hirer avaibility of metal. As the soldiers mail shirts got longer and mail started to cover more of the body it shows that metal was becoming more common than previously. So if you can afford more metal on your sword what do you add it to? Two options:
1. The blade
2. The guard
So it may simply be metal was more affordable.
(I could be completely wrong on this)
The Viking round shield is used for more for winding and binding than the kite shield or the heater shield. Control of the center was established with the shield before the blade was used. With the kite shield, because of the way it is strapped to the arm, there is much less extension and the sword must be used to wind and bind and control the other blade. The shield has gone from an offensive weapon to a defensive one. Because the blade is being used to more to control and counter the opposing blade, the hand and arm are more exposed and greater protecting is needed. And extended crossguard provides the protection and also aids in the bind in controlling the opposing blade.
As to why Viking blades were not pointed, it is perhaps because, like axes, there were used for chopping and cutting rather than thrusting and the target was most often the legs as evidenced by the wounds referenced at Stamford Bridge. Sword of the era were mostly pattern welded and only the most extensively forged blades were not prone to bending or breaking under stress, and the thrust against armor is highly stressful to a blade. This is why the +ULFBERTH+ blades were so highly prized. As forging improved, so did blade quality and strength allowing swords to withstand more and more contact both in offense and defense.
The old style were still used because of cost to replace sometimes but more likely comfort with what your use to using and most likely in scandinavia is sentimental reasons having been handed down in the family
I've always thought that one reason for the development of longer (and thinner) cross-guards is for turning the sword round,and gripping by the blade as is sometimes shown in pictures from the time, that the guard can then be used similarly to a war spike. So your sword tip may not be able to thrust through chain-mail, and maybe, even half-swording, you're just bad at finding gaps, so using your cross guard as a war spike will allow you to penetrate and kill, when otherwise you'd not be able to
There is no evidence for the use of mordhau-esque techniques before the advent of plate armour.
A complete shot in the dark; could having a longer cross guard be advantages if your primary weapons was a long cavalry defence spear. You could in the moments of defending a charge have your sword in your left hand (for quick access) spear in right hand, dug (underfoot?) in the ground and using the cross guard to cradle the shaft as well.. then when the cavalry breaks through the line and your spear breaks quickly switch sword hands? Just a thought/possibility.
First of all, this is a video topic that I have been wanting to see for some time. It seems like a lot of content focuses on the migration/viking era equipment and swords and skips to the later medieval and early renaissance era. I am particularly interested in the time in between. The early medieval/crusader era is the time period I am most interested in. As to the changes in sword design, I think the shield design may be a crucial part to that. A boss held shield offers more maneuverability at the cost of protection and stability. Meanwhile, a kite or heater shield offers more protection and stability at the cost of maneuverability. This would probably lead to having to protect more with the sword.
The longer cross guards post-1066 might be partially the result of a change in cavalry tactics resulting from the greater area the comparatively limited number of Norman troops had to cover, thus requiring fewer troops per given patrol (which then included Britain as well as Normandy). This would necessitate a change in tactics away from relatively more massive formations that permitted shared responsibilities for individual defense toward greater individual responsibility for individual defense. I'm sure the greater likelihood of combating dismounted opponents (particularly in Britain post-Hastings) was also a contributing factor, which I think bolsters my thought that the lengthening of sword quillons was as much to do with changing tactical environments as anything else. Once William's men-at-arms demonstrated the effectiveness of the change in design, it only stands to reason their Continental opponents would adopt their own version. Just a thought.
I chatted with Mike Loades about the tip shape early. One thing he brought up was the iron/steel of the period was rather iffy in quality, something us modern smiths who can go and get good steel very easily have problems relating to, and a fine point in that material would be bent/broken rather quickly.
I think a new fencing style become more popular where you parried and blocked more with the sword, even when using a shield. And even had more option of stances where you held your sword in front of you some times exposing the hand. Some people preferred the traditional fencing style and still used the traditional hilt. So I think the fighting style drove the hilt development and more use of gauntlets and different ways of using the shield followed from that; not the other way around that shield use and armour development changed the fencing style.
Edit; maybe the new type of pommel also allows changing how you grip the sword, also part of a more elaborate fencing style.
Longer cross guards are for stirring their tea.
🤔👍🙂
I've always had this question too. Why did they just all of a sudden start getting longer crossguards on their swords at some point in the 11th centruy? This kind of reminds me of 19th century sabers. Why did they get progressively less curved throughout the century?
If anyone was intrigued by the swords found that were widely different to eachother, they can be found in Oakeshotts Book - "Records of the medieaval sword"
I am wondering if it is like the back sword/rapier thing. Back swords were an older design, that remained in use long after the rapier started being used. Difference in purpose may be a thing. When in war with my sheild I do not need this big hand guard. However post 1066 England and Normandy especially, but also other areas of modern France were in a lot of termoil, partly to do with pacification of England, partly the problem of ruling Normandy and England, and partly with disputes of sucession of both places. Thus you may need your sword out side of pitched battle when you are not carrying a bulky shield to protect your hand.
You should also give a visit to Alec Steele, who I believe are in Norfolk. He is a blacksmith youtuber who likes to make swords
I think that as metallurgy changed and swords got slightly less expensive therefore there were more of them. You’ve also mentioned that a sword was a secondary weapon not a primary as well and when you toss in swords as heirlooms I would imagine you would see many hold over designs.
I wonder how much material constraints had to do with the various design changes you listed. It seems reasonable to assume that maybe they didn't have long quillons because they were worried that they would snap due to slag and other inclusions in the steel. And maybe similar concerns led to them to have broader points on their swords.
I believe that when we consider sword vs armor we often make a big mistake. Normally we look at best sword vs best armor of specific time period. We should be looking at newest sword vs one generation older armor. If we took a knight and his pointed long sword. He will not use it as a main weapon against other knights but it will be very useful when he will chase fleeing enemy, probably lower ranking solder, with older version of armor (chain male). Other option is, if knight find himself in loosing position, he will need to face a lot of soldiers with older armor trying to over power him with advantage in numbers and sword will be very useful again.
Another example is viking era: Best sword of that time is more dedicated to cuts and not thrusts and the best armor of that time is chain mail. Which is very good against cuts. But lower ranking soldiers (always more numerous) wouldn't wore chain mail and cutting sword would be perfect against them.
As pointier tips became more common, probably to combat maille armour, thrusting would have been used more due to its efficacy in penetrating maille. Given the width of the 'Viking" sword's blade, a small crossguard would easily allow an opponent's blade to ride over the crossguard with a simple turn of the wrist. Longer crossguard = better ability to turn a blade aside and prevent a slice of the hand or arm.
Hi Matt
What swords using the Swabian knights in the battle of civitate 1053 , against the Normans?
William of Apulia says this over the Swabians : " There were proud people of great courage, but not versed in horsemanship, who fought rather with the sword than with the lance. Since they could not control the movements of their horses with their hands they were unable to inflict serious injuries with the lance; however they excelled with the sword. These swords were very long and keen, and they were often capable of cutting someone vertically in two! They preferred to dismount and take guard on foot, and they chose rather to die than to turn tail. Such was their bravery that they were far more formidable like this than when riding on horseback
Maybe a form of warfare more oriented towards mounted combat meant that it was increasingly difficult to use the sword in coordination with a shield (with the shield physically covering the sword hand) so a more protective handguard had to be devised?
the chop of a more, uh, choppy blade might actually do some good blunt force damage to a mailed opponent or might even bite a bit into it.
Maybe when sword starts to be carried more often in travels or by non military people, they where use a bit less with shields and some wanted more hand protection what do you think of that of that option.
Also a thing that is very interesting is that, while they changed to more pointy blades with bigger quillons, they also made swords with less decorations.
If you see, norman age swords were very decorated with engraves in their guards, complex pattern-welding and pommels with diverse forms, but when we are near to the 11th century, we start to see swords that were less decorated and much more focused on practicality. If we think of an evolution to them be more effective against armour, they should have only changed the length of the quillons and the blade shape, right?
I imagine the gaurd got longer because the style of fighting changed. In moderns styles people tend to "bind" a lot to go for deep thrusts to penetrste armour, meaning hands are always in danger of being hit. If older styles didn't use the bind very much and instead opted for sweeping strikes, to knock weapons aside and lop limbs off etc then a wider gaurd isn't necessary
Longer quillons mean a heavier hilt. That seems like an easy way to adjust the balance of a sword in case you want to use a longer blade or something.
Probably because you use more the sword in certain parries rather then just the shield, with a strapped shield is more stationary than a boss held shield, so you tend to use more the sword and shield in combination to parry not just allways parrying with the shield only, boss held shields are very mobile, while strapped shields are less, so my idea is more passive defence with shield combined with active sword use, and i think because sword were more often used without shields because more people had access to swords as self defence weapons
I would also keep in mind that swords became lets say "more toollike" around 800. They went away from the highly ornamented germanic swords with lots of soft organic material, copper and gold, to the typical metall hilted "viking sword" and then relativly quickly to the somewhat more protective versions.
I think the short guarded viking sword is more of a transitional type in that way.
here's my thinking. we see a change from large round center grip shields and minimal armor, to less large strapped shields with slightly more armor. Because in earlier time you had less armor, you had to rely on that big round shield. Since that shield was center grip, you had more length of shield extending out into your right side, where your sword would swing from. Having a large crossgard or long handle/pommel could interfere with your shield - the space you fit your sword around the shield could really matter, especially if you don't want to move your shield out of the way and potentially open your (fairly unarmored) self to attack. If you look at the shape of the classic "viking" sword pommel/crossgard it really does look like they were trying their best to not take up any more space around your hand than they absolutely had to.
Later on with a strap shield, the shield protrudes less far into your right hand side. This allows the right hand more room to maneuver, and take advantage of having a crossgard.
I can't say that I am 100% for sure right, but it fits all the facts as I know them.
Hi, I'm late to the party as I only just found this video.
I suspect that the change in guard size is related to the shield size and type and how the sword would be used in combination with the shield. For the post-Roman and Viking period the sword was very much a secondary weapon with the spear & shield being the principal weapon set even for a sword armed warrior. Having had experience with a wide range of replica weapons and shields from the 4th-12 centuries I've noticed some things that work together. When you look at the evidence for shield sizes from Anglo-Saxon graves, the 5-7th century shields seem to have been smaller than the 9-10th century round shields seen in art/stone-carvings etc. The early style shields tend to fall into three groups, with the middle group (roughly around 18-26" diameter) being by far the most common. There are larger shields (some as much as 36") but these are the rarest type, but are more analagous to the later types, and smaller (around 12-18") which seem to be more common than the large type, but far less common than the mid-sized ones. (These diameters might not be 100% correct, as I'm working from memory without the exact figures in front of me.) The small shields are superb for skirmishing with a spear and little armour as you can be very mobile, both on the ground and with parrying with the shield. The mid size are less mobile, but a good compromise between mobility and body coverage. The large shields tend to be less mobile due to additional weight as well as size but offer greater 'passive' defence. I found I favoured a sheild of around 24" if I was using spear and sword for armament. When fighting around a shield this size the shield is very mobile and a longer crossguard requires more care or wider attacks to avoid catching the edge of a shield so the shorter guard is ideal. If shields were becoming larger and mail more common by the 10th century the two things can combine to slow shield mobility, meaning the sword gets used for parrying more often, where a longer guard becomes helpful. By the time the strapped kite shields appear they offer greater passive defence, but are far less mobile, and in some strapping arrangements have limited ability to quickly defend certain areas of the body meaning the sword is used even more for defence, again making longer guards more desirable.
Several people have mentioned the short guard being useful when bracing the round shield in a shield wall, and whilst this is true it should be remembered that the principal weapon of the shield-wall was the spear - if you drew your sword it would generally mean things had gone very badly (your shield wall has been broken and the battle had devolved into a melee) or very well (you'd broken the enemy shield-wall and were cutting down fleeing foes.) A swordsman in a shield-wall comprised mostly of spearmen can be at a severe disadvantage, although I suspect it may have happened, particularly if in the course of the fighting your spear was lost or broken.
I know there are circumstances where swordsmen have an advantage against spear-formations, such as attcking the flanks or rear, but in my experience a good spearman with a mobile shield can often easily match two swordsmen of similar skill level. Of course if you are in a heavy press and the enemy are inside the reach of your spear the swordsman can get the upper hand quickly if you don't gain distance fast, but again, in this kind of press the shorter guard would make it easier to fight around the shield. I suspect in the earlier period the guards were not longer simply because they didn't need to be as a mobile shield is a much better defence than a sword.
I have one idea that is heavily nuanced. In the era of infantry, and round shields, shield walls, etc. (I don't think they fought in shield walls all the time, like Bernard Cornwell seems to think though) - they would have used the sword to help brace or push with the shield. Also, the sword would have an easier time resting against the shield, and then moving it out to attack.
Making longer quillons on a sword and then flattening the ends, so they can be used to rest against, or push a shield has a disadvantage to it. Namely, it's harder to balance the sword in the hand, when it's leaning against the shield. Also, the metallurgy might have been different - extending the quillons would require more skillfully worked metal that was overall stronger, so that the quillons wouldn't bend or snap. Longer quillons run the risk of bending or breaking off, than shorter ones, due to the stress points.
So maybe some of the reason has to do with that. It could also be because most warriors were familiar with shorter quillon swords that they could move behind their shield. The population of europe in the early middle ages was relatively small, and the warrior class was smaller, and the people that could afford swords were smaller still. So the sword culture was relatively insular, and preferences may not have been too diverse because of it. Maybe a lot of thegns, hersirs, werrod, heerban (sp?), petty kings, huscarls and the like were swaggering around going "Only a true warrior fights in this way!"
I think the migration period sword was used until the 11th century is because some people preferred the cleave over the thrust, like me, I prefer a cleaving blade over a thrusting blade
Armour became more common during the 8th, 9th century. To account for this change, blades were made more pointy, which made them lighter, which made fencing more feasible, which then required better hand protection.
Hi Matt perhaps the development of longer guards is linked to the role of feudal Norman Knights who would wear a sword with civilian clothing so require better protection for the hand. The Normans had adopted french chivalric notions and would have been at higher day to day risk as a invading elite. Regards rob
The difference in sword might be because of ... A kite shield strappede to the arm, are more limited in reach (it is held close to the body), and for that reason the shield cannot follow the sword hand as far out in reach, making the sword hand more exposed ... ?
Different groups of people had different frequency of mail armor. I read about a battle in Brittany where Charles the Bald and a number of Saxon mercenaries attacked Brittany, and it's said the Franks in the army were heavy infantry, covered in armor, but the Saxons were lightly armored and few had mail.
One idea that comes to mind is that if swords started to become more tapered and longer wouldn't that influence how the sword is handled? So maybe that meant the fighters had to move their sword hand in a way that exposed it more and thus more protetction was needed?
Great video, viking swords for the win.
Even though they had mail, a big ass sword like that must have had a bludgeoning effect. Also there is art showing swords slashing through helmets (I'm not sure if these helmets had some weak spot or that the quality of helmets varied greatly from one soldier to another). But yes, weapons and armors evolve side by side. So mail led to swords being pointier. Even if armors are available, you need to wait a while for weapon to adapt.
More mail present and/or a change in how the sword was used are the only possibilities I can think of. Why the change in shield (which you've discussed before)? Why more mail? Because of more wealth? Also more swords around (which you've discussed before as well).
Perhaps the longer crossguards were for self-defense / duelling situations where a man would be wearing a sword but not a shield / helmet / armour?
As always I think there are several factors influencing changes in design like this, but in this case I think it is safe to point to one factor above all others: The increasing use of strapped shields. A strapped shield is simply more passive in use and less effective at providing active protection for the hand, when striking. Hence the need for greater hand protection.
Another, slightly more controversial, factor might have to do with the emergence of the knightly class and its role in the high middle ages. It is a mistake to view the knight and his weapons from a purely military perspective. The knightly class first and foremost functioned as the monopoly of violence for the ruling class of large landowners. The knight’s primary task was not to fight other knights but to control, supress and, if necessary, fight unruly members of the peasantry. In this task the knight needed weapons that enabled him to fight inferior opponents when outnumbered, such as a sword with greater defensive capabilities. This, I think, is the main driving force behind a lot of changes in fighting equipment of the emerging knightly class, such as ever more protective and extensive armor, increased use of horses in combat and the rise in popularity of the falchion (which is fairly useless against knightly armor but extremely good at hacking down peasants wearing at most padded cloth armor) All of these innovations are force multipliers against an opponent with inferior training and equipment, thus making the knight more effective at his primary task of keeping the peasantry in check.
Matt, do you know how the swords back then were sharpened? I understand the initial shaping, with the fullers (I don't think this has changed much, has it?) and probably some kind of grinding wheel, but how did they finish the edge? How did they get the angle right? How did they know what angle to make the edge? Did they ever have secondary bevels? (i.e. a reinforced edge).
And how did they fix swords that were broken? In my opinion, this is the real purpose of a honing steel. Any edges that get used a lot, one would expect they'd get damaged eventually, no?
Personally I think the kite shield was used as a more static defense held in front of the body than the round shield which would be held out to protect the hand and control the opponent. That’s just some speculation based on the ergonomics but there you go.
Total guess, but the transition to more mounted warfare could result in the sword being used more frequently as less of a side arm. Mounted Norman nights used spears and early lances. However, it seems likely they would be without these weapons more often than shield and spear infantry would, leading to an acceleration in sword specialization. Later knights utilized a wider array of short-range, single-handed, arms than was common among footsoldiers who held onto their spears and polearms. Perhaps this is a similar, only earlier, development? Maybe?
In Scandinavia they used viking sword all the way up to the 1200. Newer things often came to Denmark first. In Sweden and Norway development took longer time. For example in Sweden many men still only used horses for transportation to the battlefield, where they would dismount and fight on foot.
Could it be a consequence of changes in metallurgy?
More resiliant blades -> more parrying with the blade -> longer quillons?
That was my first thought. I have seen other very convincing explanations in the comments here.
The question here is what sort of damage might a sword blade expect to suffer if it is used to parry another weapon?
With a straped shield the attaking hand is less covered and need more protection.
One reason for the longer cross guard may have been that sword on sword combat had become more common. As more swords became available through conquest and trade.
The question about Swords vs. Mail may be backwards; Mail was popular because people used slashing Swords.
If I'm not mistaken attaching small plates or scales onto a vest would be cheaper than making a mail-shirt, which on top protects less against thrusts. This begs the question why they weren't used as much. Is it because they are heavier? The stiffness doesn't matter IMHO when it comes to vests, but becomes an issue, when you speak of coats.
Isn't that just lamellar? I can't say about their relative popularity, but both were used in various places around the world.
Pentti Koivuniemi Technically it's just scale armor. As I understand it, the difference between scale and lamellar is that lamellar has no backing, the scales are attached only to each other. Scale, on the other hand, has a backing to which the scales or plates are attached to.
No. It's a very complicated topic. There are several basic versions:
a) plates stiched or rivetted; both overlapping or not
b) scales stiched and overlapping giving a fish-scale pattern
c) scales stiched together without any supporting textile
d) plates that slide over each other without underlying support
e) plates built into mail
f) scales built into mail so that they form an overlapping fish-scale pattern on top of a normal mail layer
Lamellar are only plates or scales that overlap. Which are included, depends very much on who you ask. Some restrict it to d), others include b), d) and f)
Romans used all sorts of variations and might be the only ones that used f) but are more known for c) and d)
East Europeans are known for b) and e)
Late medieval Europeans used a) and e)
Asians used a), b) and e)
edi I think the main reason why mail was so popular in nearly all cultures was it's repairability. Mail can be repaired more easily than pretty much any other type of metal armor. All metal armor was expensive, so the ability to repair damaged armor quickly and without the help of a professional craftsman was important. The usual theory about the Roman army going back to mail from lamellar (although lamellar was never universal) is cost, although the Romans (and Byzantines, if we must separate them) used scale armor as well, which is another type of relatively easily repaired armor.
matt dk if this so but i seen a artical many moons back ...porporting that swords started changing with the spread of the christan belife system ...wider cross guards and rounder pommels were supposed to resemble the crucification of christ ?
Another question for me is why these viking swords had such broad and large fullers. Cause the more blade area you spend on a fuller, the less you have available to taper towards the sides and that would result in less sharp edges, no? In theory a sword with a diamond cross section (like the roman ones) should be better at slashing, than a sword with a fuller. So why did they deviate away from that diamond design?
One reason that comes to mind is cost. A longer guard needs to be made of proper steel, which was expensive. A short stubby guard on the other hand can be hammered out of almost anything. When steel became cheaper over time they could afford to use the good stuff for other parts than just the blade.
The increase of cavalry fighting, if your shield is on your left side of the horse your only defence on your right side will be your weapon, a spear normally but swords as well especially once lines are broken and you're moping up stragglers
Increased "fencing" with longer blades could lead to the lengthening of the crossguards
Because it was like modern warfare but without the comfort of fronts, where a full blown attack could happen at any time, from anywhere, most of the time, folk would have been unarmoured. Also, wolves and bears, also as a tool to gather nettle for food.
Andrew***°
Well, I might suggest looking to the "Un-armed" use of the sword in civilian life and the emergence of the Milites as more of a "Kinghtly Class" in our terms (which also happened in the 11th century).
After all, if your social identity depends on having a sword at all times and the readiness to use violence, then there is a heavy chance of being attacked when eating or traveling (or attacking others in small groups).
Thus, with violence in non military situations, you might not have a shield (or be able to run and get one). After all, especially for the heavy shields, they would be really annoying to carry around all the time. Carrying a shield would also (presumably) be seen as a highly aggressive action that might give away an ambush at a social event (or trigger a conflict).
And if you can't guarantee having a shield, then the longer quillons and more slender blade give you a more universally useful weapon (you get some hand protection, and a better ability to stab armored opponents if need be).
Not to mention that a longer sword is generally needed for fighting on horseback (which became more common in western Europe at that time because of economic expansion).
that's what bucklers were carried for.
its not like the times were so much less violent for the pervious 1,000 years.
@@williamt.sherman9841 No, but sword wearing in civilian life as a symbol of being a military elite was.
This is true in the Carolingian Empire with the emerging milites, and in Early English (pre Norman) England with Thegn and Thanes.
Very nice explanation and very thought out.
I am by no means an expert. But looking at some of the artwork from the periods it could be that in shield formations with a boss grip round shield there is the possibility that longer quillons could catch on the edge of the shield when thrusting within the formation. By the art of the Kite Shields, because of the way the tapers, it looks like it would be less likely for any cool wants to catch on the edge of your own shield. Again not an expert but just something that came to mind.
It always strikes me that with a short guard, when thrusting hard you risk your hand sliding up the blade if your grip isn't strong enough.
If the guard gets wide enough, it becomes unlikely even with a slack grip.
if your hand slips past a Migration-Era guard you aren't holding it, you just have your hand near it. :P
pommell are almost *NEVER* straight alongside guard. they were all bent slightly sideways by at least 2 to 5 * degrees, if you were right handed, it was bent to left , if you were left handed, the pommel was bent toward the right. it made handling far more better. I found this out by looking at most swords that were found, around 900 through 1066, and drew a conclusion that people was already doing this throughout dark ages onward 1066. I handled both straight pommel Norseman sword and a slightly bent one, I much preferred bent one. i could do a bit more range of motions without pommel edges digging into my wrist or bottom of my palm.
Maybee a stupid question:
When does a hand guard become too long?
Seriously. When does a hand guard become a problem due to lenght?
Could it be that strapped kite shields make it more difficult to defend the sword hand than round boss gripped shields since they can't be extended as far from the body?
Were swords used more in day to day self defense?
When you're not in battle, you're not likely to carry a shield, thus necessitating better hand protection.
I think it's a combination of things. As time progressed, weapons and armour became more accessible(cheaper) AND...professional men at arms (or at least career fighters) became more common. That means costs came down on weapons and armour. At the same time, weapons and armour of all kinds were being used more often. This created a complimentary situation where people who have seen more battles have learned and remembered the strengths and weaknesses of their kit, while at the same time having more money and less overhead, giving them the ability to customise their gear based on what they've learned. If you see a lot of people taking hand injuries, you ask for a sword with more hand protection. If you see a lot of men cut down at the legs, you invent a longer shield to protect the legs. This eventually leads to greater and greater development in both offensive and defensive technology. Conversely......men who are conscripts or once in a life time raiders would grab whatever was at hand that they could afford....maybe fight once in their life when needed and never think about it again. So basically....necessity was the mother of invention.
"professional men at arms (or at least career fighters) became more common" that would argue against the cost going down (it is a greater demand).
Does it? I can't think of many new technological products that became more expensive as they became more popular, excluding inflation of course.
Demand increases production which increases competition, which increases production streamlining and decreases cost. Add to that all the captured and older used gear available on the market as the years passed. Over all weapons became cheaper. Also, we know for a fact from Matts other videos that indeed.......weapons and armour became much cheaper and more available over time. Hence more people able to wear it. Obviously this isn't going to include high end amazingly complex ceremonial dress weapons and the like. There's always high end and low and and medium range like any products today. Not much has changed.
If I gave you a headache I'm sorry. I know it's difficult to focus for multiple seconds on a single concept. You did well for a hashtager though! Good job. ;)
"I can't think of many new technological products"... New is the keyword here. But I can give you a few... Super computers for one, fighter aircrafts, truffles...
You are assuming that the ability of manufacturer also increases, and over time it does, but at that time in history, steel of a good enough quality, and the ability to make swords was not readily available.
And no demand does not always increase production, sometimes the availability of resources and skilled labor is not available for increased production... It is a pretty good rule of thumb, but it is not always true.
"all the captured and older used gear available on the market"... A lot of it was also destroyed though... Sure it helps, but only over time, and don't forget we are still talking about something of an elite, at the time... Peasants were not allowed swords at this time period, that is most of the people.
"became much cheaper and more available over time"... Yes but not in the timeframe we are talking, some 100-200 years...
> I can't think of many new technological products that became more expensive as they became more popular,
Well, it wasn't "new" but caviar was once just fish eggs, good enough for fishermen to eat while fishing, but not for serving to customers. Then people ashore started eating it, too, it became a "delicacy" and the price skyrocketed to the point that no one fishing would eat it rather than keep and sell it. The amount of caviar was fairly fixed, just as the quantity of steel until technological advances made it easier several centuries after the Conquest/FirstCrusade era discussed here.