Our 13th cent re-enactment group spent a while being confused about wearing a sword (similar to your norman design scabbard). On foot its much more comfortable and practical to have the sword on your hip - the movement is more neutral and higher on the waist is a bit uncomfortable. BUT, sources show that that swords were worn higher on the waist which isn't as practical or comfortable. So we lived with the contradiction as we fight tournaments on foot. Then one day we went and had a session on horses. My friend was in full knights kit. He got on the horse, and for comfort the first thing he did was hike the belt up to his waist.. AH!! now we see! Jump off the horse, waist belt is high. 10 minutes later after the scabbard smacked the horses flanks which led to an unscheduled trip to the woods at high speed, he then twisted the belt so the sword was more in front of him. which resolved that issue and made cutting the horses ears off less likely.
You show the nuances of history and help to bring it to life, any small detail and you're instantly their trying to work it out. Great channel really appreciate the dedication you put in. You must be very happy.
Growing up with horses you're taught that traditionally you always mount from the left side, but it's neat to learn the reason for why that came to be (makes sense since most ppl being right handed and wearing their sword on the left hip makes for easier mounting). Also, wouldn't they use a long saddle blanket (caparison) as part of the tack in order to prevent the sword from bumping and rubbing against the horses flanks? Just a thought. Great vids as always!
As with bardings, caparisons weren't always used. And since he started with norman swords, the Bayeux tapestry actually depicted no armored horses. Every norman knight rode horses with no coverings.
@Real Aiglon Actually the reason why most people get on the left side of a horse is cause, like people, horses have a favored side. And also like humans mostly favor the right side, horses usually favor the left. I know this cause I’ve worked with horses most my life.
@@aaron756 But, isn't it possible that horses favoring their left is an adaptation they developed from being mounted on the left side for over 1,000 years?
@@professormetal4411 No cause a horse today wasn’t mounted a thousand years ago. A horse that has never been rode has no clue about riding, regardless of how many or their ancestors have been rode. They aren’t connected like that and anyone who says they are has never worked with or tamed horses.
7:08 I don't have hardly any experience with medieval weapons or armor but I am good with horses, having grown up in rural parts of the US where horses are still used for cattle and rodeos. I can tell you that a good rider with a well trained horse doesn't need to hold the reins at all times. You can give commands to your horse with your feet, or assuming the noise levels aren't too high around you, your horse can also take simple audible commands such as "clicks" and "smooches", etc. I would imagine that if a knight really needed to he could drop the reins for a moment and still have control of his horse.
You know, I asked this exact thing at a HEMA clinic I attended some time back and I got a really interesting answer from the instructors: there are a couple fight book plays we know of where mounted knights would close fencing distance into saddle grappling, in which scenario you'd first make a grab at the reigns to take control of the opponents horse, and if your opponents hand's aren't in control of the reigns, they're SOL. One that was directly referenced was from Fiore's 'Fiore di Battaglia' (45th Verso in the Getty); you can see the "play" of stealing the reigns if you go to the mounted fencing section and scroll down to number thirty: wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de'i_Liberi#Mounted_Fencing
It also wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that anyone who could afford to take a horse into battle would have also practiced drawing a sword quite a lot, especially knights who were trained for years
Jason, love how Warlord when first handling the swords making noise Warlord investigated rather than being shy. Obviously very at ease and intelligent. Animals say a lot if we pay attention and thanks to you seeing more of the language of horses.
I remember way back long ago now it seems, when I first started riding horses. My instructor told me, we always mount on the left side of the horse, it was due to knights wearing swords and the sword would get in the way if they tried to mount from the right :) I’m glad you showed that and talked about it!
Warlord is a lovely boy. All of that horse emotion and personality upstaging Jason at every minute possible. Love those animals, they are quite extraordinary.
The hours and hours of training are so evident here. Warlord is at ease being still, under lights, and with Sir Jason making alk sorts of clinking noises with his swords, which he must be used to. Excellent horsemanship on full display here.
Jean de Joineville indicated in his first-hand account of a battle during the 7th crusade that he was equipped with two swords. One was attached to his person and one on the side of his horse. He mentions having to draw the "horse sword" as a lance strike made it impossible for him to reach the one at his waist.
@@beardedbjorn5520 like tatars and russians heavy horsemen or mongol noyans ect they probably carried 2 swords the one on the horse longer than the other on your belt. the one used on horse of the russians can have a 1.5 meter blade
@@beardedbjorn5520 yeah poles 16-18th centuries carried 2 swords on horseback too due to this tatar influence as many of their troops were tatars, .. but i think such long swords only used on horseback got far back in nomad histor, there is savres with peircing points that are 130cm blades found in the altai for example, so its likely they carried two swords. as the shorter swords have different blade styles and some long swords are very specialised, id guess there woukd be different belts or hangers for the two types. the price of such long swords in 1500s russia was sometimes 4-6x that of a regular sabre because they were long quality steel blades with a point to pierce mail and leather armor
Talhoffer does mention that one should draw the sword above the rein hand, to prevent cutting your reins. That is the possibility number two which Jason eliminate.
I'm sure you get this comment a thousand times a day but Warlord is absolutely the prettiest horse to ever live. Ethereal. 200/10. I'll follow him anywhere.
One thing that interests me about the change in suspension methods is how they reflect the availability (or not) of your other hand. Because the earlier method is strapped quite tight it's easy to draw with one hand, but later methods are sufficiently loose that you may need to hold the scabbard to draw it cleanly (certainly this is true of very late battle swords such as military sabres, which literally hang off the waist). This is obviously important when your left hand is required to hold a shield, as is almost certainly the case with the Norman example. Later, of course, shields fall out of use among armoured knights, simply because the armour is effective enough on its own. That availability of the other hand also leads to an increase in the use of two-handed swords. How all this relates to being on horseback, I have no idea (though you probably have...) - but I'm also aware that actually fighting from horseback became *less* frequent towards the end of the medieval period. We tend to think of knights in full plate armour launching great cavalry charges, but by the time of the Wars of the Roses they were rare, and it was far more usual to dismount and go into a pitched battle on foot (partly because armour had become so effective, partly perhaps because of the impact of archery on cavalry). All of those things taken together clearly have a big influence on the suspension method. What struck me the most, though, when strapping on a sword, was how awkward it was going up and down stairs... Combine that with the cramped space of a tower spiral staircase, and wearing a sword becomes a really major pain. I have a strong suspicion that swords were simply carried most of the time.
It's refreshing to see a scholar who likes to get his hands dirty. Having theories is all fine and good, but until you test them in real-world conditions, they're just theories. I really like this channel, and I wish you great success! :)
@@ModernKnight Wow, I didn't expect a response, let alone such a fast one! Your enthusiasm for the subject matter comes through, and is a large part of what makes these episodes more engaging. I also like your attitude of 'different tools/weapons for different times/applications'. That tells me you've actually used them, and thought about their application (a weapon will tell you how to use it, if you let it). With your knowledge, enthusiasm, and good production values, I look forward to watching the rest of this series (and hopefully more to come)... :)
I love your care for your horse (your little hello when Warlord was nudging you at the beginning was so sweet) and how much you love the minutiae of history as much as you love the grand things
Tapestry art seems to suggest that the sword suspension for horseback was quite a bit different than that of a foot soldier. The sword is position much further forward and much more vertical than at an angle.
I believe that a good hint is to look at how the Royal Guard and mounted police are riding with sabres and batons. I also think that there's a clear benefit to a single edged weapon, such as the sabre, on horseback. A single edged weapon can be carried with the blunt side of the weapon against the body, and there's also less risk of accidentally hurting the horse.
Admittedly this is US Cavalry related, but we were taught to hold the reins low by the pommel and tight against the waist, then draw the saber over the rein-hand (blade out so as not to amputate your hand, but then this is for a single-edged saber). Of course, we always wore leather cavalry gauntlets. So I would (dare I say it) 'assume' that the riding style would have been modified from a 'rains high' to a 'reins low' for the draw. Just my two cents worth (sorry, we haven't used the 'tuppence' in a couple hundred years). Keep up the good work.
Fascinating as usual. Some cutaways of the swordbelt fastening process would make it more professional and interesting. It's great to see there are still horsemen pursuing this ancient skill.
The cutting of the inside of the arm could be one explanation why single edge swords became popular with Cavalry, provided the edge was facing down. Which is something that both Samurai and other asian cultures did
@@ModernKnight actually i take my point back, i upon some light experimenting will dull swords realised that the main problem comes from the true edge. So either double or single edge sword would still be able to cut the inside of the arm. Could you also do a video on how swords would be used on horseback? Since the two main forms that I'm aware of is cutting from horseback, which seems quite dangerous to the horse, and a more thrusting approach like seen in tent pegging.
If you wear the sword lower it sits against your leg which pushes it out of the way more. See later 18th/19th century cavalry swords which are very low.
I'm no where close to your experience, for me growing up in the USA and having ponies and horses as a child and teenager was a great time as well as a life experience, and so I've always been extremely interested in fighting styles on and off horses I read about and watch reenactments of battles and other different ways that individuals would use their swords (I'm really interested in swords and how they effected our history over time, and also the way that people would think of a specific sword almost as it was alive just like you would with hourse, with it being just as important) and the two ways that seem to be most prevalent was reins down to the left or right of your waist so that the forarm or palm would rest on the top of the scabbard and the other hand would draw the sword, the other method is the scabbard is attached to the saddle normally in front of the leg with enough strap so as if you're right handed you would reach down grabbing scabbard close to the hilt with your left hand pulling the sword out with the right hand while temporarily letting the reins dropped over the pommel of the saddle. The first being use with the idea of using the sword as a main weapon in an event like a charge, the later seems to be with the idea that the sword is a backup for some other main weapon such as a lance. I just found your channel and I have really enjoyed your videos it's refreshing to see someone taking such an active role in trying to show how our ancestors fought and died, and also how they lived and went about their ways of doing things.
As a rider this is a question that has always just wandered around in the back of my head, particularly how the sword moved in various positions of the horse. Great to see it in action to truly understand how it works/doesn't work. If you ever get a chance I would love to see you compare many of the medieval knight topics that you cover with those of another great, but very different, horse based war nation - Mongolia. Just a thought if you ever feel the impulse :)
Very interesting to watch drawing the blade. It seems if the blade is long then it would be nearly impossible to draw easily on the horseback. I think curved blades might be easier
Being descended from Polish nobility, I've always been fascinated with Polish knights (later hussars), since my ancestors actually were mounted soldiers. In old paintings I've seen, I know that they did in fact wear their szablas on their hips, as well as directly on the saddle (hilt in front) as you've mentioned. Granted, szablas are curved Easter European blades, so I'm not sure if that would work for a straight Western sword...
Been thinking about it, having realised we always ride with bare swords without scabbards at events and then, while watching this vid, I realised that in some ancient depictions the nobles on foot have their sword sheeth positioned literally in front of their left leg. Also, do note how high they wore belts compared to us today- at waist and not on hips. Tnx for vids. Just keep em coming. 👍
When I was younger and riding I was taught the left hand/arm was at times kept hanging at the side of the body.Maybe this is a carry over from the days of wearing the sword to avoid the contact with the arm.
For more modern british military swords there is a hook on the frog. It allows you to hitch the sword right up onto the belt itself and dramatically changes the position of the sword so it is pretty much pointing straight down. Perhaps medieval scabbards had this on them. Would mean when walking around you can have it loose and dangling which I presume looked cool at the time then you hook the sword up higher when riding to ensure it was easily reachable and not hitting the horse.
Interesting point about drawing a sword while riding and still keeping the arm safe. As for carrying the sword on the saddle vs. the hip, I believe Jean de Joinville in his account of a battle in which he and several French knights were defending a small bridge, recounts that they were taken by surprise by a group of enemies so quickly and tightly-packed that he had no room to draw the sword at his waist, so he had to draw the one from his saddle. Of course, sword-draw technique wasn't the focus of his chronicle, but it's interesting how he just casually mentions the sword in his saddle as if his audience already knew that's where a sword would be -- despite wearing one already on his person. Fortune favors the redundant, apparently...
Such a very interesting video, thank you for sharing and what a beautiful horse. I know nothing about horses and wish I did being a country man but warlord is stunning!!
* bird flies by * Warlord What the....?!!! *Jason doing all kinds of nonsense, making noise, tapping Warlord with stuff* Warlord: Thats my human, being weird again, I love him.
My guess is that saddle scabbards were the best solution ultimately, much like the ones used for cavalry carbines in the US Civil War. This demonstration gave me an interesting idea - could a soldier implement a brace for his back similar in design to the wings of the winged Hussars which carried a set of small spears, javelins, or the like? It would keep them out of the way and would eliminate the need for a porter/page to rearm them after every charge.
Nice video as always, I used to also think that the medieval period started in the Norman era but modern researchers have indeed concluded that it started in the 5th century when Rome left the British isles. Its interesting about carrying swords on horseback I have never seen a tapestry where the knights are carrying a sword in the scabbard, while riding either. I guess some things will just remain a mystery and for us to figure out.
Well done sir. Oh & i think i recall seeing artwork someplace where they attached the sword & scabbard to the front of the saddle. I know this was done in later in the 19th-20th centuries but i would swear that ive seen it done in medieval artwork. Though I could be misremembering.
Love your videos! I'm more viking age oriënted as it suits my pony better for one. Not half as knowlegdeable as you are I fear. I however don't find it akward of a problem to mount from the other side. Maybe it's because I don't use a 14th century saddle. I've done it on a westernsaddle, bareback pad and my current saddle that is with a bit of imagination nog far from a roman saddle in construction. What I have experienced is the bumping of the sword (I carry a viking sword) and it is very uncomfortable for me and horse. I never thought about the drawing of a sharpened blade! Carrying it on the saddle is a solution but should you be thrown of dehorsed... There goes your backup weapon... Very interesting topic! I have doubts the Vikings would even use horses in battle, I feel horses werd great for transport but in a raid of fight with a viking shield , sword (axe) and spear it's not practical. Would love go hear you views on that.
Signe of Horses Interesting to read your comment about Vikings. Also, I can't help but say: Rohirrim are Vikings on horseback! Though not historically accurate probably ^_^
You're correct that the Norsemen didn't fight on horseback. Also, the Rhorrim are very, very loosely based on the Norse, Lord Of The Rings is in no way historically accurate.
Napoleonic sword suspension allowed the weapon to be hitched up when mounted, or let down on foot. Is it possible that 15th C. knights adjusted their weapon's suspension so that it's more rigid while mounted, and more flexible on the ground?
I googled images of horse riders with swords, and on most of the old paintings and stuff, the swords were worn quite far down with their points pointing down, almost at the same angle as your legs, or at least at a steep downward angle. Probably not to poke the horse in the sides. They'd be harder to draw, I imagine, but better for the horses. Other things I noted was the blanket thing under the saddle, they have those bigger ones that go much farther back sometimes, or covering their backs and sides entirely, as well as those leather bands that go from the saddle and back around its butt. I'm thinking, might these have been to protect the horse from their riders' swords? Not just to look fancy and keep the saddle in place.
See, I was always under the impression that in order to equip a weapon, you have to press the "Inventory" button, then go to "Equipment", then select the weapon you want, then press "A" to equip. Then the weapon just sort of hovers on your back or around your hip
It's one of the characteristics of history, that is to say, that the common, everyday, mundane things were not recorded. Maybe there was no "way". Wouldn't each knight find what works for them ? Can the Bayeux be relied on to accurately depict the practices of the day ? Only recently discovered your channel by the way, and really enjoy it.
I've heard it suggested that on horseback the scabbard was worn on the same side as the dominant hand. It would be something of an awkward draw, but at least the blade wouldn't be moving about inside your armpit or nearly across the horse's ears or reins. Not sure if any manuscripts back that up.
I tried your suggestion and i isn't very easy, not with anything other then a very short blade, and you can come out with the blade reversed, ice pick grip if you draw it without turning your arm over slightly awkwardly.
Was expecting the ice pick grip, but I hadn't anticipated sword length being an issue. Very interesting. It's awesome that you tried it- reading that made my day.
Hmm interesting idea, in theory an ice pick grip on the same side as your sword hand would work, but you would have to move the sword to a normal grip and perhaps you risk dropping it?.
I was thinking the same thing... According to my research, knights and soldiers were pretty dexterous, so I would presume they would draw with an ice-pick grip and then either toss or spin the sword into a normal grip.
Pretty much every tradition to do with horses suggests that the scabbard was worn on the left, for the sword to be drawn across to the right. We mount from the left of the horse, we lead from the left of the horse (although this is also for strength), manes are trained to be on the right of the horse so they don't tangle the sword when drawn. Now I don't know half as much as majority of people here so I'm not in any way saying I'm right because of this, but these are traditions horse people still follow without even knowing why. Speaking of horse people and being stubbornly stuck on tradition, is it possible the household cavalry carry their swords and scabbards the way they do because of medieval practices?
I just had a quick look at the bayeux tapestry online. Towards the end of the tapestry I could see what looks like scabbards on saddles. Its interesting to note that footmen depicted on the tapestry carrying swords have scabbards that are tied to the hip of the person. Some of the horsemen on the tapestry that are wielding swords have what looks like scabbards positioned on the side of the saddle itself pointing down toward the ground, with no belt on the horseman. In the scene "William rides to war" scene 2, a horseman can be seen carrying a spear in one hand and a sword in its scabbard on his person, with the scabbard pointing down.
I think you are right about the Japanese type of fixation with iado, its not true for the cavalry daito, and that is just symptomatic of the time, Id est that an attack could come from anywhere at any time. Like in the viking or dark ages in general, or as the modern appraisal of those ages is. Here in the dark ages, as in Germany proper then, the arm would be on the wall anyway, so it is an Eastern thing, the Chinese would probably throw away the scabbard, 'still. Thanks for so many great videos, Andrew.
Great demonstration. My first thought was maybe they could have worn their swords on their backs, but they would have been near impossible to draw in full armor. I think scabbards attached to the front of the saddle may have been the only solution. The only other option I can think of is maybe squires held on to the knights' swords and presented them when called for, like in tournaments.
As far as I am aware they would only wore a sword like this in actual combat and emergency moments. For all else you would get it out of the way inside a bedroll, besides the flank of the horse etc. That just makes sense, since its just annoying to ride with, for horse and rider. Also note that when you were able to carry a sword, you usually weren't poor and had at least some other men around you, be it household or soldiers so less need to be able to instantly draw your sword as well. The illustrations show the way they wear them mostly in battle not when riding in between on campaign.
i bet you.. since everything was so customized. that every knight had a certain way they had their things. i think you are on with them. you would say these things to your "team" and they would try to fix it.
There are plenty of horsemen with swords on the Bayeaux tapestry, but the suspension in armour is slightly inconsistent. It's clear from the tapestry that the standard method of suspension at the time was to wear a sword belt. Interestingly, these can be seen in moderate detail (seeming to be a short belt, just long enough to encircle the waist, with something at each end, probably a buckle and a strap end), because Harold Godwinson's sword was confiscated upon his capture and is thus carried for a few scenes, rather than worn. In this state, the scabbard, belt and sword are kept together as a unit, suggesting that the belt wasn't worn as an aid to any garment, but specifically in order to suspend a sword. It could even be that the sheath was sewn onto it. The belts and scabbards are rarely shown when the wearers are clothed in armour. This has been said to be the result of this equipment being worn under the armour and protruding through a slit. I'm not sure if there's any archaeological basis for that claim in surviving pieces of armour, but it does make sense, as people would carry swords all of the time, but only slip into armour when the need arose - an important factor in the battle of Stamford Bridge, just before Hastings. However, where, on the tapestry, swords are shown suspended on armoured horsemen, the depictions are not quite consistent with the above theory. They're shown with no belt, but also, in full, not protruding from a slit. I would say that this suggests that hauberks weren't supposed to be slipped on over a sword, though it could show a system wherein the belt was passed through a hole to be worn under the armour, while the sword and sheath remained outside the armour. This seems a little awkward, but perhaps the threat of having the belt severed was enough to induce the precaution. If this is the case, it wasn't universal, because some footmen are shown wearing sword belts over their armour. As to the awkwardness of riding with a sword, keep in mind that medieval folks, while not unintelligent, were generally chillingly disinterested in animal welfare. Caring for increasingly distant types of object is something that really has advanced in leaps and bounds over the millennia, surprising as it is to think about. It's an advance that we really take for granted, though even in our own time, there are clearly cultures in the world that have different average levels of compassion toward non-human animals and they tend to broadly align with levels of general enlightenment/Englishness (the French, of course, being the antithesis).
Picture of the Battle of Neville's Cross from Froissart's Chronicle 15th Century. On the bottom left there is a horse and Knight with a scabard. The horse also has some, probably leather, trappings over its rump which might help reduce the tapping of the sword tip against the horse. Just a thought.
So Sir Jason Kingsley OBE, besides the honor his name carries, not only is an amazing top notch content creator for UA-cam, whose content puts some TV series to shame both in quality and presentation, but he is also the CEO of Rebellion (game developers) best known for the Sniper Elite franchise, among many others, and some other things that you have to Google if interested. Oh good Sir, my respects to you, what an amazing and talented guy you are!
The drag of the scabbard looks like it not only will hit the horse on the flank but also in some of the movements of the horse, it will likely jab your mount in the flank. & a soft scabbard could possibly tear out & stab your horse with the blade.
In war, you have to think the small problems of having a sword on a horse were out stripped by the desire to have a back up weapon in case something happened to your main weapon. We know the epic scene of a knight drawing his sword from a metallic sheath and leading a charge likely wasn't reality. The knight would much more likely have charged in with a lance, lowered it at the last moment to strike his target, and then moved back out of there. If he was cut off from his withdrawal, the lance would likely be dropped (if not released or broken from the charge) and the sword drawn as quickly as possible to defend himself and fight his way out. The time frame you're talking about, in part, predates knights and you would have more skirmisker style light cav with spears or poleaxes instead of lances, but the situation would still be the sword being drawn for a fighting withdrawal after a charge. What is interesting, is the lance used later on is much less useful after the initial charge once mounted melee begins.
Warlord always steals the show, sorry jason, but he's the real star here
I know!
@@ModernKnight how about the origins of dressage
@RIchyJ Productions moan!!!! 🤣🤣
Talos too, both very goodhearted, attentive and focused horses.
What about wearing the sword upside down and on your back?
Min 9:01 the horse gives him an epic side glance. Love it. "Watcha doin' hooman? Cat was right, they are weird."
I was about to post something about the horse looking back at the 9m mark too, then I noticed you'd already done it 😊
The cat would know: always believe a cat.
@@DieFlabbergast especially a Cheshire cat
Our 13th cent re-enactment group spent a while being confused about wearing a sword (similar to your norman design scabbard). On foot its much more comfortable and practical to have the sword on your hip - the movement is more neutral and higher on the waist is a bit uncomfortable. BUT, sources show that that swords were worn higher on the waist which isn't as practical or comfortable. So we lived with the contradiction as we fight tournaments on foot.
Then one day we went and had a session on horses. My friend was in full knights kit. He got on the horse, and for comfort the first thing he did was hike the belt up to his waist.. AH!! now we see! Jump off the horse, waist belt is high.
10 minutes later after the scabbard smacked the horses flanks which led to an unscheduled trip to the woods at high speed, he then twisted the belt so the sword was more in front of him. which resolved that issue and made cutting the horses ears off less likely.
Yes I agree, the higher belt position is a cavalry thing.
@@ModernKnight What about a sheathed scimitar in a sash like a cummerbund, around the waist as seen in Laurence of Arabia with Peter O’toole?
Jason and Warlord are like the real life Geralt and Roach.
I just love ~ the way you treat your horses! You rarely see people handling their horses with both love AND skill.
Pandemic binge watching-
In medieval times I would have just died from the plague, so this is much better.
Nice video Warloard! Thanks for bringing your knight with his swords!
8:59 Warlord be like "Bro, that's annoying, can you not? k thanks"
Warlord photobombed you! He is such a lovely lad. I think he wanted your attention.
You show the nuances of history and help to bring it to life, any small detail and you're instantly their trying to work it out. Great channel really appreciate the dedication you put in. You must be very happy.
Thanks for that!
Such a well behaved horse, beautiful ☺
At the start, Warlord just kept peeking at him like, “Are we doing anything fun yet?” 💛
Growing up with horses you're taught that traditionally you always mount from the left side, but it's neat to learn the reason for why that came to be (makes sense since most ppl being right handed and wearing their sword on the left hip makes for easier mounting).
Also, wouldn't they use a long saddle blanket (caparison) as part of the tack in order to prevent the sword from bumping and rubbing against the horses flanks? Just a thought. Great vids as always!
As with bardings, caparisons weren't always used. And since he started with norman swords, the Bayeux tapestry actually depicted no armored horses. Every norman knight rode horses with no coverings.
@Real Aiglon Actually the reason why most people get on the left side of a horse is cause, like people, horses have a favored side. And also like humans mostly favor the right side, horses usually favor the left. I know this cause I’ve worked with horses most my life.
@@aaron756 But, isn't it possible that horses favoring their left is an adaptation they developed from being mounted on the left side for over 1,000 years?
@@professormetal4411 No cause a horse today wasn’t mounted a thousand years ago. A horse that has never been rode has no clue about riding, regardless of how many or their ancestors have been rode. They aren’t connected like that and anyone who says they are has never worked with or tamed horses.
I'm so glad War Lord is willing to put up with all of this so we can see it. Please give him an apple from 'us'! Great video. Thank you.
Came for the history lesson but found myself just enjoying and watching Warlord’s every movement. 🐎
7:08 I don't have hardly any experience with medieval weapons or armor but I am good with horses, having grown up in rural parts of the US where horses are still used for cattle and rodeos. I can tell you that a good rider with a well trained horse doesn't need to hold the reins at all times. You can give commands to your horse with your feet, or assuming the noise levels aren't too high around you, your horse can also take simple audible commands such as "clicks" and "smooches", etc. I would imagine that if a knight really needed to he could drop the reins for a moment and still have control of his horse.
You know, I asked this exact thing at a HEMA clinic I attended some time back and I got a really interesting answer from the instructors: there are a couple fight book plays we know of where mounted knights would close fencing distance into saddle grappling, in which scenario you'd first make a grab at the reigns to take control of the opponents horse, and if your opponents hand's aren't in control of the reigns, they're SOL. One that was directly referenced was from Fiore's 'Fiore di Battaglia' (45th Verso in the Getty); you can see the "play" of stealing the reigns if you go to the mounted fencing section and scroll down to number thirty: wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de'i_Liberi#Mounted_Fencing
It also wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that anyone who could afford to take a horse into battle would have also practiced drawing a sword quite a lot, especially knights who were trained for years
Jason, love how Warlord when first handling the swords making noise Warlord investigated rather than being shy. Obviously very at ease and intelligent. Animals say a lot if we pay attention and thanks to you seeing more of the language of horses.
I remember way back long ago now it seems, when I first started riding horses. My instructor told me, we always mount on the left side of the horse, it was due to knights wearing swords and the sword would get in the way if they tried to mount from the right :) I’m glad you showed that and talked about it!
Started tapping Warlord in that soft point and goes, "What are you doing back there!?"
Warlord is a lovely boy. All of that horse emotion and personality upstaging Jason at every minute possible. Love those animals, they are quite extraordinary.
I find it very admirable the way you treat your horses. Thank you.
The hours and hours of training are so evident here. Warlord is at ease being still, under lights, and with Sir Jason making alk sorts of clinking noises with his swords, which he must be used to. Excellent horsemanship on full display here.
Jean de Joineville indicated in his first-hand account of a battle during the 7th crusade that he was equipped with two swords. One was attached to his person and one on the side of his horse. He mentions having to draw the "horse sword" as a lance strike made it impossible for him to reach the one at his waist.
That is very interesting, it implies that he had his horse mounted sword on the right side.
@@beardedbjorn5520 like tatars and russians heavy horsemen or mongol noyans ect they probably carried 2 swords the one on the horse longer than the other on your belt. the one used on horse of the russians can have a 1.5 meter blade
@@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 that’s interesting
@@beardedbjorn5520 yeah poles 16-18th centuries carried 2 swords on horseback too due to this tatar influence as many of their troops were tatars, .. but i think such long swords only used on horseback got far back in nomad histor, there is savres with peircing points that are 130cm blades found in the altai for example, so its likely they carried two swords. as the shorter swords have different blade styles and some long swords are very specialised, id guess there woukd be different belts or hangers for the two types. the price of such long swords in 1500s russia was sometimes 4-6x that of a regular sabre because they were long quality steel blades with a point to pierce mail and leather armor
@@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 Has two handed swords ever been used on a horse? Just "steering" with leg commands when using it?
When you touched Warlords side with the sword he just looked at you lol you really are blessed to have such a good horse mate.
Warlord lightly stomping his back hoof kept making me smile. ^_^
Talhoffer does mention that one should draw the sword above the rein hand, to prevent cutting your reins. That is the possibility number two which Jason eliminate.
Or cutting your horse's ears off
Most of the attempts of drawing the sword were fine, the arm was lower/back of the Hilt and clear and free.
I'm sure you get this comment a thousand times a day but Warlord is absolutely the prettiest horse to ever live. Ethereal. 200/10. I'll follow him anywhere.
thank you
One thing that interests me about the change in suspension methods is how they reflect the availability (or not) of your other hand. Because the earlier method is strapped quite tight it's easy to draw with one hand, but later methods are sufficiently loose that you may need to hold the scabbard to draw it cleanly (certainly this is true of very late battle swords such as military sabres, which literally hang off the waist). This is obviously important when your left hand is required to hold a shield, as is almost certainly the case with the Norman example. Later, of course, shields fall out of use among armoured knights, simply because the armour is effective enough on its own. That availability of the other hand also leads to an increase in the use of two-handed swords. How all this relates to being on horseback, I have no idea (though you probably have...) - but I'm also aware that actually fighting from horseback became *less* frequent towards the end of the medieval period. We tend to think of knights in full plate armour launching great cavalry charges, but by the time of the Wars of the Roses they were rare, and it was far more usual to dismount and go into a pitched battle on foot (partly because armour had become so effective, partly perhaps because of the impact of archery on cavalry). All of those things taken together clearly have a big influence on the suspension method.
What struck me the most, though, when strapping on a sword, was how awkward it was going up and down stairs... Combine that with the cramped space of a tower spiral staircase, and wearing a sword becomes a really major pain. I have a strong suspicion that swords were simply carried most of the time.
It's refreshing to see a scholar who likes to get his hands dirty. Having theories is all fine and good, but until you test them in real-world conditions, they're just theories. I really like this channel, and I wish you great success! :)
Thanks, having a go s one of the reasons I do this channel.
@@ModernKnight Wow, I didn't expect a response, let alone such a fast one! Your enthusiasm for the subject matter comes through, and is a large part of what makes these episodes more engaging.
I also like your attitude of 'different tools/weapons for different times/applications'. That tells me you've actually used them, and thought about their application (a weapon will tell you how to use it, if you let it).
With your knowledge, enthusiasm, and good production values, I look forward to watching the rest of this series (and hopefully more to come)... :)
Warlord is such a proud boy! he's so cool!
I love to see you riding around with the sword out, swinging it and all. It's rad to see a modern knight
My goodness,Warlord is so beautiful and majestic.. wonderfully trained..and such a beautiful union of man and beast!
A man with a horse, a sword, long hair AND a history buff... 😍
When he drew the sword from the back of the horse was pretty majestic
Dr. Phil's creampie lounge Thank you, you sexy beast Doctor Phil. He will never have a sexy forehead like yours
Mirax3, I agree. A very romantic figure indeed.
To fully appreciate the equipment, he must wear stockings a la Henry VIII😏
Mmmm, I know what you mean. Watching him wear his armor and 'fight' is quite enticing.
I love the little details you share from getting out there and actually doing the things 👌👌
Warlord, a excelent name for a battle horse, thank you for the inspiration 😁
Man, you and your horse are both majestic as fuck
I love your relationship with your horses. You can see how much they trust you.
this dude is definitely a time traveler, Sir.Jason Kingsley .
I love your care for your horse (your little hello when Warlord was nudging you at the beginning was so sweet) and how much you love the minutiae of history as much as you love the grand things
Sometimes Jason haven't the answer, But he never misses the question that makes all the differences.
Warlord wasn’t impressed. At all.
just give him a carrot! that will satisfy his interests
9:00 "no"
Clay Indeed, "could you not, please?"
what a badass name, though!
Better than anything you have I guess?
Tapestry art seems to suggest that the sword suspension for horseback was quite a bit different than that of a foot soldier. The sword is position much further forward and much more vertical than at an angle.
Funnily samurai mount from the right, not the left…
He's such a good boy.... all that "mucking around" and he just lets you get on with it.
I believe that a good hint is to look at how the Royal Guard and mounted police are riding with sabres and batons. I also think that there's a clear benefit to a single edged weapon, such as the sabre, on horseback. A single edged weapon can be carried with the blunt side of the weapon against the body, and there's also less risk of accidentally hurting the horse.
Admittedly this is US Cavalry related, but we were taught to hold the reins low by the pommel and tight against the waist, then draw the saber over the rein-hand (blade out so as not to amputate your hand, but then this is for a single-edged saber). Of course, we always wore leather cavalry gauntlets. So I would (dare I say it) 'assume' that the riding style would have been modified from a 'rains high' to a 'reins low' for the draw. Just my two cents worth (sorry, we haven't used the 'tuppence' in a couple hundred years).
Keep up the good work.
Warlord is probably the most beautiful horse I have ever seen.
Awww, Warloooord! He's conquered our hearts. 🥰 🐎
Fascinating as usual. Some cutaways of the swordbelt fastening process would make it more professional and interesting. It's great to see there are still horsemen pursuing this ancient skill.
I love that Warlord gets first billing.
Your horse is trying to tell you something mate. I mean hes so patient I love it such a good horse.
The cutting of the inside of the arm could be one explanation why single edge swords became popular with Cavalry, provided the edge was facing down. Which is something that both Samurai and other asian cultures did
very interesting point.
@@ModernKnight actually i take my point back, i upon some light experimenting will dull swords realised that the main problem comes from the true edge. So either double or single edge sword would still be able to cut the inside of the arm.
Could you also do a video on how swords would be used on horseback? Since the two main forms that I'm aware of is cutting from horseback, which seems quite dangerous to the horse, and a more thrusting approach like seen in tent pegging.
If you wear the sword lower it sits against your leg which pushes it out of the way more. See later 18th/19th century cavalry swords which are very low.
I'm no where close to your experience, for me growing up in the USA and having ponies and horses as a child and teenager was a great time as well as a life experience, and so I've always been extremely interested in fighting styles on and off horses I read about and watch reenactments of battles and other different ways that individuals would use their swords (I'm really interested in swords and how they effected our history over time, and also the way that people would think of a specific sword almost as it was alive just like you would with hourse, with it being just as important) and the two ways that seem to be most prevalent was reins down to the left or right of your waist so that the forarm or palm would rest on the top of the scabbard and the other hand would draw the sword, the other method is the scabbard is attached to the saddle normally in front of the leg with enough strap so as if you're right handed you would reach down grabbing scabbard close to the hilt with your left hand pulling the sword out with the right hand while temporarily letting the reins dropped over the pommel of the saddle. The first being use with the idea of using the sword as a main weapon in an event like a charge, the later seems to be with the idea that the sword is a backup for some other main weapon such as a lance. I just found your channel and I have really enjoyed your videos it's refreshing to see someone taking such an active role in trying to show how our ancestors fought and died, and also how they lived and went about their ways of doing things.
Just found this channel and I have a feeling I'll be watching it all spring break
I love how Warlord is like "mmh, what u have here hooman? is it muchies? no, no munchies. mh, wat dis? foot? no interesting, me wants munchies"
As a rider this is a question that has always just wandered around in the back of my head, particularly how the sword moved in various positions of the horse. Great to see it in action to truly understand how it works/doesn't work. If you ever get a chance I would love to see you compare many of the medieval knight topics that you cover with those of another great, but very different, horse based war nation - Mongolia. Just a thought if you ever feel the impulse :)
Fantastic series of videos. Keep up the great work!
Warlord looking magnificent as ever
I truly appreciate that you always ask and answer the questions I truly want to know.
Very interesting to watch drawing the blade.
It seems if the blade is long then it would be nearly impossible to draw easily on the horseback.
I think curved blades might be easier
what an interesting idea, something to look into in the future I think.
I would think the curved sword/scabbard also moves the point up so it isn't whacking the horse as much.
Maybe this is the reason the Sabre became popular with the nomadic steppe cultures, easier riding.
Being descended from Polish nobility, I've always been fascinated with Polish knights (later hussars), since my ancestors actually were mounted soldiers. In old paintings I've seen, I know that they did in fact wear their szablas on their hips, as well as directly on the saddle (hilt in front) as you've mentioned. Granted, szablas are curved Easter European blades, so I'm not sure if that would work for a straight Western sword...
interesting, I have very little experience of curved swords.
Been thinking about it, having realised we always ride with bare swords without scabbards at events and then, while watching this vid, I realised that in some ancient depictions the nobles on foot have their sword sheeth positioned literally in front of their left leg. Also, do note how high they wore belts compared to us today- at waist and not on hips.
Tnx for vids. Just keep em coming. 👍
I love this video. Warlord is such a beautiful horse.
When I was younger and riding I was taught the left hand/arm was at times kept hanging at the side of the body.Maybe this is a carry over from the days of wearing the sword to avoid the contact with the arm.
For more modern british military swords there is a hook on the frog. It allows you to hitch the sword right up onto the belt itself and dramatically changes the position of the sword so it is pretty much pointing straight down. Perhaps medieval scabbards had this on them. Would mean when walking around you can have it loose and dangling which I presume looked cool at the time then you hook the sword up higher when riding to ensure it was easily reachable and not hitting the horse.
Interesting point about drawing a sword while riding and still keeping the arm safe. As for carrying the sword on the saddle vs. the hip, I believe Jean de Joinville in his account of a battle in which he and several French knights were defending a small bridge, recounts that they were taken by surprise by a group of enemies so quickly and tightly-packed that he had no room to draw the sword at his waist, so he had to draw the one from his saddle.
Of course, sword-draw technique wasn't the focus of his chronicle, but it's interesting how he just casually mentions the sword in his saddle as if his audience already knew that's where a sword would be -- despite wearing one already on his person.
Fortune favors the redundant, apparently...
Such a very interesting video, thank you for sharing and what a beautiful horse. I know nothing about horses and wish I did being a country man but warlord is stunning!!
* bird flies by *
Warlord What the....?!!!
*Jason doing all kinds of nonsense, making noise, tapping Warlord with stuff*
Warlord: Thats my human, being weird again, I love him.
My guess is that saddle scabbards were the best solution ultimately, much like the ones used for cavalry carbines in the US Civil War. This demonstration gave me an interesting idea - could a soldier implement a brace for his back similar in design to the wings of the winged Hussars which carried a set of small spears, javelins, or the like? It would keep them out of the way and would eliminate the need for a porter/page to rearm them after every charge.
Very interesting video. Great stuff!
I like how the entire time Warlord is just like "what is this madman doing"
my favourite thing about this video is how you can ever so slightly hear the rain pattering away on the roof
Or maybe they just extended the padding underneath the saddle to cover the area where the sword hits the side of the horse.
I love this channel. Calling that lovely soft horse Warhorse 😄 it looks like it'd rather a handful of juicy grass and a neck rub than go to war.
I appreciate this series and how you care for your horses.
Nice video as always, I used to also think that the medieval period started in the Norman era but modern researchers have indeed concluded that it started in the 5th century when Rome left the British isles. Its interesting about carrying swords on horseback I have never seen a tapestry where the knights are carrying a sword in the scabbard, while riding either. I guess some things will just remain a mystery and for us to figure out.
Well done sir. Oh & i think i recall seeing artwork someplace where they attached the sword & scabbard to the front of the saddle. I know this was done in later in the 19th-20th centuries but i would swear that ive seen it done in medieval artwork. Though I could be misremembering.
Love your videos! I'm more viking age oriënted as it suits my pony better for one. Not half as knowlegdeable as you are I fear. I however don't find it akward of a problem to mount from the other side. Maybe it's because I don't use a 14th century saddle. I've done it on a westernsaddle, bareback pad and my current saddle that is with a bit of imagination nog far from a roman saddle in construction. What I have experienced is the bumping of the sword (I carry a viking sword) and it is very uncomfortable for me and horse. I never thought about the drawing of a sharpened blade! Carrying it on the saddle is a solution but should you be thrown of dehorsed... There goes your backup weapon...
Very interesting topic! I have doubts the Vikings would even use horses in battle, I feel horses werd great for transport but in a raid of fight with a viking shield , sword (axe) and spear it's not practical. Would love go hear you views on that.
Signe of Horses Interesting to read your comment about Vikings.
Also, I can't help but say: Rohirrim are Vikings on horseback! Though not historically accurate probably ^_^
You're correct that the Norsemen didn't fight on horseback. Also, the Rhorrim are very, very loosely based on the Norse, Lord Of The Rings is in no way historically accurate.
13:40 until Warlord turns to look at Jason. Hilarious! I think Warlord agrees. Anyway, really enjoyed the video. Thank you!
he's so nice to his horses. it's gotta be that you had different backup weapons, smaller daggers and hammers. We hear about maces with knights a lot.
You can tell how much you love Warlord by how you talk to him
Loved the video. Tinny details never get attention
Napoleonic sword suspension allowed the weapon to be hitched up when mounted, or let down on foot. Is it possible that 15th C. knights adjusted their weapon's suspension so that it's more rigid while mounted, and more flexible on the ground?
I was going of more modern calvery and how they wore their sword. you have far more experience than I. Thanks for the quick reponse
I googled images of horse riders with swords, and on most of the old paintings and stuff, the swords were worn quite far down with their points pointing down, almost at the same angle as your legs, or at least at a steep downward angle. Probably not to poke the horse in the sides. They'd be harder to draw, I imagine, but better for the horses. Other things I noted was the blanket thing under the saddle, they have those bigger ones that go much farther back sometimes, or covering their backs and sides entirely, as well as those leather bands that go from the saddle and back around its butt. I'm thinking, might these have been to protect the horse from their riders' swords? Not just to look fancy and keep the saddle in place.
See, I was always under the impression that in order to equip a weapon, you have to press the "Inventory" button, then go to "Equipment", then select the weapon you want, then press "A" to equip. Then the weapon just sort of hovers on your back or around your hip
It's one of the characteristics of history, that is to say, that the common, everyday, mundane things were not recorded. Maybe there was no "way". Wouldn't each knight find what works for them ? Can the Bayeux be relied on to accurately depict the practices of the day ? Only recently discovered your channel by the way, and really enjoy it.
I've heard it suggested that on horseback the scabbard was worn on the same side as the dominant hand. It would be something of an awkward draw, but at least the blade wouldn't be moving about inside your armpit or nearly across the horse's ears or reins. Not sure if any manuscripts back that up.
I tried your suggestion and i isn't very easy, not with anything other then a very short blade, and you can come out with the blade reversed, ice pick grip if you draw it without turning your arm over slightly awkwardly.
Was expecting the ice pick grip, but I hadn't anticipated sword length being an issue. Very interesting. It's awesome that you tried it- reading that made my day.
Hmm interesting idea, in theory an ice pick grip on the same side as your sword hand would work, but you would have to move the sword to a normal grip and perhaps you risk dropping it?.
I was thinking the same thing... According to my research, knights and soldiers were pretty dexterous, so I would presume they would draw with an ice-pick grip and then either toss or spin the sword into a normal grip.
Pretty much every tradition to do with horses suggests that the scabbard was worn on the left, for the sword to be drawn across to the right. We mount from the left of the horse, we lead from the left of the horse (although this is also for strength), manes are trained to be on the right of the horse so they don't tangle the sword when drawn. Now I don't know half as much as majority of people here so I'm not in any way saying I'm right because of this, but these are traditions horse people still follow without even knowing why.
Speaking of horse people and being stubbornly stuck on tradition, is it possible the household cavalry carry their swords and scabbards the way they do because of medieval practices?
This was lovely. A delightful exploration in practicality.
I just had a quick look at the bayeux tapestry online. Towards the end of the tapestry I could see what looks like scabbards on saddles. Its interesting to note that footmen depicted on the tapestry carrying swords have scabbards that are tied to the hip of the person. Some of the horsemen on the tapestry that are wielding swords have what looks like scabbards positioned on the side of the saddle itself pointing down toward the ground, with no belt on the horseman.
In the scene "William rides to war" scene 2, a horseman can be seen carrying a spear in one hand and a sword in its scabbard on his person, with the scabbard pointing down.
I think you are right about the Japanese type of fixation with iado, its not true for the cavalry daito, and that is just symptomatic of the time, Id est that an attack could come from anywhere at any time. Like in the viking or dark ages in general, or as the modern appraisal of those ages is.
Here in the dark ages, as in Germany proper then, the arm would be on the wall anyway, so it is an Eastern thing, the Chinese would probably throw away the scabbard, 'still.
Thanks for so many great videos,
Andrew.
I know they didn't carry them on their backs but it seems it would be a convenient way to travel on horseback when not to battle
I believe, when traveling, weapons and suits of armer were carried on another horse managed by a squire.
I think mostly only knights could afford a squire other lower men at arms could have carried there own gear.
Great demonstration. My first thought was maybe they could have worn their swords on their backs, but they would have been near impossible to draw in full armor. I think scabbards attached to the front of the saddle may have been the only solution. The only other option I can think of is maybe squires held on to the knights' swords and presented them when called for, like in tournaments.
As far as I am aware they would only wore a sword like this in actual combat and emergency moments. For all else you would get it out of the way inside a bedroll, besides the flank of the horse etc. That just makes sense, since its just annoying to ride with, for horse and rider. Also note that when you were able to carry a sword, you usually weren't poor and had at least some other men around you, be it household or soldiers so less need to be able to instantly draw your sword as well. The illustrations show the way they wear them mostly in battle not when riding in between on campaign.
Army officers wore swords on horseback until quite recently, maybe not recently enough to get a first-hand account but well into the photographic age.
I like the channel i just wish he did more than just medieval..i wanna see this content with a 19th century calvary saber
i bet you.. since everything was so customized. that every knight had a certain way they had their things. i think you are on with them. you would say these things to your "team" and they would try to fix it.
There are plenty of horsemen with swords on the Bayeaux tapestry, but the suspension in armour is slightly inconsistent.
It's clear from the tapestry that the standard method of suspension at the time was to wear a sword belt. Interestingly, these can be seen in moderate detail (seeming to be a short belt, just long enough to encircle the waist, with something at each end, probably a buckle and a strap end), because Harold Godwinson's sword was confiscated upon his capture and is thus carried for a few scenes, rather than worn. In this state, the scabbard, belt and sword are kept together as a unit, suggesting that the belt wasn't worn as an aid to any garment, but specifically in order to suspend a sword. It could even be that the sheath was sewn onto it.
The belts and scabbards are rarely shown when the wearers are clothed in armour. This has been said to be the result of this equipment being worn under the armour and protruding through a slit. I'm not sure if there's any archaeological basis for that claim in surviving pieces of armour, but it does make sense, as people would carry swords all of the time, but only slip into armour when the need arose - an important factor in the battle of Stamford Bridge, just before Hastings.
However, where, on the tapestry, swords are shown suspended on armoured horsemen, the depictions are not quite consistent with the above theory. They're shown with no belt, but also, in full, not protruding from a slit. I would say that this suggests that hauberks weren't supposed to be slipped on over a sword, though it could show a system wherein the belt was passed through a hole to be worn under the armour, while the sword and sheath remained outside the armour. This seems a little awkward, but perhaps the threat of having the belt severed was enough to induce the precaution. If this is the case, it wasn't universal, because some footmen are shown wearing sword belts over their armour.
As to the awkwardness of riding with a sword, keep in mind that medieval folks, while not unintelligent, were generally chillingly disinterested in animal welfare. Caring for increasingly distant types of object is something that really has advanced in leaps and bounds over the millennia, surprising as it is to think about. It's an advance that we really take for granted, though even in our own time, there are clearly cultures in the world that have different average levels of compassion toward non-human animals and they tend to broadly align with levels of general enlightenment/Englishness (the French, of course, being the antithesis).
Picture of the Battle of Neville's Cross from Froissart's Chronicle 15th Century. On the bottom left there is a horse and Knight with a scabard. The horse also has some, probably leather, trappings over its rump which might help reduce the tapping of the sword tip against the horse.
Just a thought.
So Sir Jason Kingsley OBE, besides the honor his name carries, not only is an amazing top notch content creator for UA-cam, whose content puts some TV series to shame both in quality and presentation, but he is also the CEO of Rebellion (game developers) best known for the Sniper Elite franchise, among many others, and some other things that you have to Google if interested. Oh good Sir, my respects to you, what an amazing and talented guy you are!
Thanks, very kind of you to say so. I am surrounded by a great team of talented people, both here and at my day job in Rebellion.
The drag of the scabbard looks like it not only will hit the horse on the flank but also in some of the movements of the horse, it will likely jab your mount in the flank. & a soft scabbard could possibly tear out & stab your horse with the blade.
In war, you have to think the small problems of having a sword on a horse were out stripped by the desire to have a back up weapon in case something happened to your main weapon. We know the epic scene of a knight drawing his sword from a metallic sheath and leading a charge likely wasn't reality. The knight would much more likely have charged in with a lance, lowered it at the last moment to strike his target, and then moved back out of there. If he was cut off from his withdrawal, the lance would likely be dropped (if not released or broken from the charge) and the sword drawn as quickly as possible to defend himself and fight his way out.
The time frame you're talking about, in part, predates knights and you would have more skirmisker style light cav with spears or poleaxes instead of lances, but the situation would still be the sword being drawn for a fighting withdrawal after a charge. What is interesting, is the lance used later on is much less useful after the initial charge once mounted melee begins.