I love the image of Easton giving his students a pair of knife simulators and telling them they have five seconds to kill each other. Keeping class sizes down perhaps.
Why is the answer of "did this obscure type of weapon exist?" always India/Persia? Like you can sit and wonder like "huh, seems unlikely that something like that would have existed historically." *Checks Indo-Persian weapon sources* "Nope, apparently they existed"
They have a very gaudy culture, so I imagine that just rubbed off on weapon buyers and makers. "Hey, look at this weird spikey thing I made!" "Sweet! It will get hung up on my MC Hammer pants and clashes perfectly with all 30 colors on my shirt and my shiny hat."
European aristocracy also has some obscure weapons. Gunswords, pocket-sized crossbows, lantern-shield-gauntlets. The warhammer with a huge crossguard was also European, and most likely also because some rich guy wanted a personalized weapon. Then there are also Chinese who also have all sorts of weird weapons.
The European ones were more of a show of wealth (I put gold plated rims on my car!) And the Chinese stuff seems to be more for performing arts rather than actual combat.
The whole shield is defensive, basically 100% super-"cross guard". Those with center hand grip have bosses of metal especially protecting the hand. Bucklers are essentially that alone. Also virtually all shields can be used offensively as well. Matt demonstrated the shield being used to protect & hide the hand.
I'd also like to mention that most of our combat is speculative as we have very little historical material regarding Viking era combat. I reckon this is perhaps a little more fun and interesting than learning from the actual fencing manuals from later centuries because there is more freedom when it comes to developing your own style. No two people in my branch fight the same way which means you constantly have to feel out every new opponent.
+Potato Synthesis: Something Matt didn't mention in this video (but he probably has in others, I forget) is that practically all moderate+ intensity HEMA sparring requires hand protection, so it's not just limited to Viking re-enactment. Also, anyone who isn't a dumbass would want hand protection too. :]
I disagree that it's more fun without the manuals, but that's just like my opinion, man ;) Either way, I like how you're representing your more speculative art (discovering and making the rules for yourselves by trying to figure out what works) and that you love doing what you do.
Basically you said everything that I thought you'd say - they're weapons of war used with shields and hand protection, a sword is a sidearm, often civilian, and used by itself. What I didn't know, is that they didn't use hand protection in the early days. But there is one thing that came to my mind when watching this... When blocking with a sword, it might bite in the other blade, but more often it'd slide down. But warhammers and axes have a wooden shaft, that it's way easier to cut into than steel. So my question is this - *is it possible, that one of the many reasons is that an enemy blade isn't as likely to slide down the wooden shaft, but bite into the wood?* It seems plausible, though of little significance compared to the other reasons you mentioned.
"They are fantastic at converting potential energy into kinetic energy at the target" The hammer already has kinetic energy, ie energy due to it's motion. What it's good at is storing alot of kinetic energy and transferring that into a target, hopefully through as small a surface area as possible. Hope that helps
As an aside, what you described is basically what a bow does. Build up elastic potential energy in the bow limbs, transfer that into kinetic energy in the arrow, and use that energy to penetrate a target.
2 points which weren't mentioned. 1. Think about what the cross guard can be used for against armour, using the sword like a hammer against armour. This function of a hilt is obviously not necessary when you're using a percussive weapon and would only serve to add extra weight. 2. Switching weapons. From a HEMA sparring perspective a complex hilt seems like a no brainer but in a battle field the extra fraction of a second needed to draw your weapon or switch to another could be the difference between life and death. Thoughts?
One point that wasn't mentioned was wearing / carrying. Like Matt said, swords are balanced oppositely to percussive weapons, but also they were likely carried the opposite way. Swords are carried point-down, with the handle sticking up. I'd say axes / maces / warhammers are carried head-up / handle-down, probably in a belt loop. If they didn't have straight, smooth grips, they'd get stuck when pulling them out of their loops.
I always figured it was how you carried them out of hand. Swords go in a scabbard with the hilt free and hammers/axes are stored in a belt loop head up/handle down so the weight didn't swing around hitting you in the knees/groin. If they had a complex hilt they would be difficult to quickly draw/pass though a loop.
Speaking as someone who has been involved in sport fencing for a little while now, you are quite right about rules. You change the rules, you change behaviour.
That's what i'm thinking. Strapped shields have less "reach" and offer less protection to the weapon hand. So it would be logical that you'd use your weapon to parry more.
Also, with more armour, you may resort more on suing the crossguard and pommel offensively. Punching a helmet with a viking sword, will probably break your hand.
the thinking actually has to do with the width of these shields allow me to explain, round shields lik viking shields are centre grippedand are usually at least 40cm acorss, so, if you extend both hands out like I.33's longpoint, your hand is voered by at LEAST, if not more, 20cm of shield, and of course most are a lot bigger kite shields on the other hand are narrower, and your arm isnt in the centre but near the edge so suddenly, your hand can often extend past the edge of the shield , for a spatha type guard thats an issue when in that extended position, hence why it might be useful to have a longer guard to cover your hand.more.
Excellent points raised Matt. I noticed at the end of the video you briefly touched on the use of of gauntlets when hammers and axes were utilised as they were weapons of war rather than side arms. Although, the origins of both weapons are in the form of tools converted to war weapons which also influenced design choice. I believe a major factor in maces and hammers not having hand protection was due to why they started becoming more prevalent on the battlefield. That is that armour, particularly the advent of more all encompassing plate armour in which bladed weapons became less useful and a move to more percussive types was made in part. Hence, as you briefly touched on they did not require hand protection from their weapon as it was inherent to their panoply of war.
While this explanation works well for individual weapons, there is an additional explanation at grand scale: Swords may chip or break in combat, but overall metals are quite durable over the course of an entire war. And if the blade is damaged, repair is not simple or quick. This means that the investment needed for the guard is entirely front-loaded - once you have a guard, that guard is there to stay. In wood hafted weapons however, it is far simpler to replace a damaged haft with an appropriate local wood. Also it is still not easy, but easier to gradually inflict damage to that haft. Thus a haft would be replaced unless there was serious damage to the head of the weapon, and having a handle would require far more work to replace that haft - either reassembling the handle (more difficult than securing the head to the haft) or carving of a greater piece of wood. Again, not very convincing for individual weapons, but if you are leading a few hundred soldiers across ten years of warfare this makes keeping your weapons up to snuff far more difficult. Even if you’re not paying for those resources yourself, whoever has the weapon needs access to the right materials and sufficient time to maintain the weapon. So the same basic reason fancy and unique weapons never caught on - unless there is a major improvement in performance, a simpler weapon will find more widespread use due to the ease of construction and use.
Agreed, it's always good to talk more about warhammers. Ever since I heard of them I have thought that might be my preferred weapon. My first guess as to the answer to this question was that one wielding a percussive weapon would be wearing hand protection already.
I had always thought it was due to how the weapon is carried when not in use. A sword is sheathed and hence can have a hand guard but axes and maces are held in loops or belts and with any type of guard would make it hard to put in and out of those loops?
It makes perfect sense that you reached this conclusion. Even looking at hammer-like weapons alone, single-handed war hammers, as we see most of the time in history (some exceptions for 17th-18th century rider hammers/maces), do not have hand guards. Early pollaxes (two handed weapons with similar "business ends") also do not have hand guards of any kind. We only see pollaxes with disc guards when pollaxes begin to get longer and longer, as we progress through the mid to late 15th century. This is definitely due to the way that they were used. As they got longer, people began to execute parries with the "cue" end of the weapon more and more. As this more structured style of pollaxe fencing developed, and the "dague" or top spike of the pollaxes got longer to emphasize the thrusting role of the weapon, more parries were also done with the "poll" or head end of the pollaxe. This facilitated the need for rondelle guards under the head, so that thrusting ripostes could be made more easily. P.s. keep in mind that we know very little about very early polearm fencing (when they were still about 4-5 ft tall or so), so some of what I'm saying is a little bit of speculation, but it lines up pretty well with Matt's point on the purpose of crossguards.
I'm wondering if those people who invented guardless sword opted for more heavy gloves etc. When I see bronze age celtic swords they seem to have a bit of a guard. I know when I was in afghanistant with a rife we all had gloves, and to varying degrees of protection but primarily it was to act as a grip when your hands, specifically your palms sweat. Just a modern warfighter's perspective. Love the videos and your research into the methodology as to why people fought as they did.
we used ours year round, and im not disparaging any othe army, but it is a small piece of equipment that I think is often overlooked because of the idea: "my hand can grip". Now this may be apples to oranges but did swordsmen using the chinese dao use gloves and would a glove, even in summer be a common sense thing like wearing work gloves when digging a trench in the garden?
IMO, gloves are extremely important in modern warfare, not just because a black rifle gets hot lying in the Iraqi sun. If you are moving in and out of cover, going prone and getting back up, your palms are going to be hitting into gravel and concrete pretty often.
Fantastic, infrormative video, especially the observation about the difference between duel and battlefield technique. Few people realize and mention this.
I noticed mass distribution is an important factor to cut effectively with an axe: it has one sharp spot with a cutting edge so a cut from this spot should devide/cut the wood or limb. A handguard "takes mass away" from said sharp spot. A sword/sabre has a long cutting edge so no matter were it hits, it will cuts, but it is not meant to cut would or detach limbs. It is meant to hurt and disable or kill with a thrust (depending on a the kind of sword). It is another kind of cut.
on the topic of having rougher hands in the era: I have frostbite on both my hands and I work manual labour ranging from landscaping to roofing and as a result; I have terrible sensitivity on my fingers and palms. I still wear finger-less gloves in the winter because otherwise I can't feel objects enough to properly manipulate them. I imagine in the midst of a skirmish, this could be problematic as it would be difficult to switch between different weapons either sheathed or lying about and it would make it more difficult to engage in a grapple as it would be nearly impossible to tell when my hand meets the opponent until an opposite force moves it away from my target.
I have a few ideas : The gaurd became more prevent with the introduction of bigger armor. The more binding/heavy the armor, the more imprecise the strike, so the more advantageous a longer gaurd, and non necessity of a wrapping gaurd. Could be why most Chinese weapons have disk guards, i don't think they did the same kind of arm armor. Since most katana have disk guards and a lot of their armor has straps and edges, could influence the keeping of the disk. When the rapier and saber were gained to combat mail, they armor got skinny to add mobility, the wrap gaurd comes in to protect hands with only gloves on. If your always carrying the sword, much like watches, if you want to show wealth, you pump money into what people see. Many of the axes and maces and hammers used had wooden handles, witch were easily replaced after getting hit by other weapons, or hitting other things in the way. If you had a cross gaurd on a wooden stick, you would have more problems changing out the handle, if the whole thing were made of steel, it would be heavy as hell, and not responsive/ throw out your back. Also wouldn't a long gaurd get in the way of shield use when drawing the sword as a side arm?
Hmm... speaking of those viking duels with 5 shields, how long were classical or medieval shields expected to last in battle? Was there doctrine for falling back to get a new shield after a while? Did they have wagon-loads of extra shields?
I can think of an additional reason to all the others - material difference. When you have a sword, you are parrying with a metal bit. Unless you have perpendicular edge on edge contact, other blades are extremely likely to slide on metal, necessitating a guard. Maces, axes and hammers most commonly have wooden shafts, which blades will tend to stick into rather than slide on. This is further evidenced by the fact that where you do see hand protection on these types of weapons, they are almost always on metal-shafted examples.
There's a bit from Roland Warzecha - basically, early viking period swords have small crossguards, because the flat shield is used to gain dominance, and the sword is mainly for striking. When you go to strapped shields, and the sword starts being used to manipulate the opponent's sword, the crossguard becomes larger.
Do you suppose another reason for this could be due to wanting a specific weight distribution in these different weapons? You touched on this slightly in the video when you talk about "nimbleness" of swords vs percussive weapons, but what I am thinking is perhaps the addition of a complex guard to something like a war hammer or axe would add enough extra weight to the back end of the weapon, thus making it harder to transfer the kinetic energy to the top of the weapon. Might this take away some of the weapon's percussive force, making it less useful in it's intended purpose? Do you suppose the extra weight on the back end of the mace/axe/war hammer would make it more unwieldy and clumsy?
True. 17-18th c. Indian Shishpars- which are Flanged Maces, had an iconic Basket Hilt fitted with an extension stem (like many other Indian weapons of their Era), turning them into a one or two handed weapon according to necessity.
To me it seems obvious: such weapons were made for war, not duels. It takes Matt awhile to get to this key point, around minute 6, but finally does a good job of fleshing out this point. Mainly it comes down to not having 1 vs. 1 "fair" fights where you are facing off against one opponent that you can clearly see and fight without the bother of other people getting in the way. If you stab someone in the back, or clunk them on the head while they're fighting your brother next to you, there isn't a point to worrying about hand protection, as your hands aren't being targeted. War is messy and VERY different from duels.
From the Polish sabre sources I read (includes many personal accounts), the most common duel injury at that time was to the hand and the treatise also dedicate a lot of time to teaching strikes to the hand and forearm despite the added protection of a sabre hilt. I think this is mostly a question of the general goal and practice of swordsmanship during the periods.
Another thing about these weapons: If you block a blade with a blade, it would likely slide down to your hand, if you block a blade with a shaft, it will not slide and get stuck to the sword.
some additions 1) you can block with the head of the weapon by hitting the opponents weapon with it (usually the top not the actual blade / hammer side) 2) you may want to change grip closer to the head of the weapon for close melee and looking for openings in the opponents defense and than slide your hand all the way down for the actual blow increasing the hitting force. A handguard would make that vital grip change impossible. Also the way you move around those weapons a hand guard might get in the way of your movement
As for the swords' guard, my first thought was duelling. Shields were standard in warfare, but duels are usually sword to sword, without shields. Also many duels were meant to end at blood, not at death; that would make hand-strikes a lot more viable as a tactic in duelling than in warfare. So, if there was a surge of popularity in duels in a certain area at a certain time, that could explain why swords start to have bigger guards. That's just a first-reaction theory though. I haven't looked into this specifically in detail... yet. I will expand on this enough to fit the theme of the video though - Axes and hammers aren't really duelling weapons. They're weapons of war, designed to smash through armour. Maybe there was someone somewhere who duelled with an axe, but most duelling involved swords, until guns were invented. If I was looking for the origin of hand-guards (which I guess I am now?), I'd look at duelling not warfare.
I loved the little turn and attack from the opposite side of the shield at 2:37 ,it would have completely had me but then I've not done any training ,but impressive enough...cheers now
I've used straight handled axes, mauls and hammers for heating and construction. Very quickly, one prizes the straight, wooden handle because you have great freedom where you grip it. I can choke up for smaller jobs, grab the handle in the customary place for regular power, or grab the handle way back at almost the very end for a maximum effort.
Also, putting a guard on such a weapon would be notably more expensive and add a handful of complications to the design of the weapon. Whereas with a sword, the most general basic construction of a sword is such that you're really already inclined to add a crossguard, so you might as well
Interesting topic as usual Matt! I have been interested in a while now on the practicality of mauls or sledge hammer type weapons against armoured opponents and how one would wield a heavy war hammer. Perhaps you could follow up with a video demonstrating how to keep the momentum going with concussive weapons? I know I would really appreciate it maybe others would too?
What are your thoughts on falacatas,t he ancient spanish sword? Some at least almost have a knuckle bowl. I would guess it was more about creating a very secure grip rather than hand protection? Also some falchons have almost a knuckle bowl in the from of wrapping the handle back around the hand. Do you think that was more a fashion element or a protection element?
Many swords had small hand guards from the bronze age on. Apart from hand protection they stop the hand sliding up onto the blade when thrusting. It's curious that European sword hand guards began lengthening in the 10th century onwards. Did one or two Roman gladiator swords have cup-guards(Like cutlasses) or is that just Hollywood I'm remembering? I always enjoy your videos Matt. It's great to hear from someone with hands on weapons experience.
Now here's the question I want to know. Why don't most of these warhammers and axes have a shape that prevents it from sliding out of your hand? Hand gets sweaty, bloody, wet for any other reason it gets hard to hold on.
They do, at least sometimes. Just like wood-chopping axes aren't completely smooth and straight. Modern reproductions aren't meant for actual combat so they forget some practical details sometimes.
We have almost no handles, at least for viking axes. They might as well have such constructions. Whether it was in the form of your regular wood chopping axe (almost S-shaped handle) or as a glued on strip of fabric/rope/leather (which is common in reenactment circles) or something else entirely, we don't know.
I don't think your hands would get all that bloody using a warhammer. If you manage to hit a guy on the head and somehow break the skin through the helmet, most if not all of the blood would be absorbed by his coif.
True but your hands can get bloody by other means be it your own or someone else's (your hand scrapes against someone's armour or shield and the skin tears, or you grapple with a bloody opponent and then get up to fight someone else). And that still doesn't prevent rain, snow, sweat, mud, or other lubricants from getting on your haft.
BUT WHAT ABOUT DRAGONS? Now that that's out of the way, I am super stoked to see this video. I have been one of those commenters asking this for a long time now, and you addressed every question and thought I have had on the subject from shields to parrying, even mentioning the Indo-Persian guards. Awesome job!
I wonder if that multiple shield rule was actually a thing. It looks like this comes from Kormak's saga, so it's perfectly possible that the multiple shields were just a way to show the strenght of Thorgil and Thord. Especially since it depicts them fighting with swords. I found it really hard to believe that you could destroy even one shield with one sword during a duel, even one that is very good at chopping. The shield would have to be so fragile that it would be useless as a weapon.
The rules for the Holmgang in several Sagas mention 3 shields per man. See Roland Warzecha's series of videos on Viking shields; they were very thin and easy to cut into with a sword, for the purpose of binding an opponent's weapon.
Remember that you really don't want to hit the shield with a sword. It might get stuck. Shields are super at denying your opponents line of attack and keeping missile weapons off you.
Okie dokie, I'm haven't watched the video yet, but my assumption is that it was so they could hold it at different points on the handle so that they could get different leverage depending on what the impact of their swing needed to be
I heard a different explanation a long time ago, and it was the fact that most of the time, hands on swords are on the grip, which is rather small, while for hammers, maces and axes, the haft is very long, so a hand guard gets in the way (from positionning your hands however you want).
In addition to you more likely wearing protection (either a gauntlet or other hand armor in later periods or a shield earlier on) while a sword might be carried in a civilian context, one element people often undervalue and I always like to emphasize: swords are status symbols. We should always consider the social and psychological effects. Scabbards and hilts are always visible and the most attention grabbing part of a sword even if the blade is out (it is just how it is worn and shapped). As steel metallurgy and forging got better and enabled excesses if one so desired (and humans tend to desire that a lot of times), even if it were 100% useless in battle, it would still be interesting to develop hand guards for swords even if as merely extra bling. It just looks more imposing. And if they add a little bit of functionality, pff, even better. None of that apply to percussion weapons, both by the social factor (not usually status symbols) and because of how they're worn and shaped all the attention is on the head. Surprising no one, ornate swords have much more work and detail on the hilt and scabbard, ornate percussion weapons (and tool versions) have more detailing and work put on their heads.
I know this is just speculation, but couldn't it be linked to the transition from boss held round shields to strapped kite shields, which are heavier and can't be extended as far from the body? The fact that shilds become less mobile and harder to keep at arm's length seems like it could lead to the sword becoming a more important tool in parrying blows. As the strapped shield is less useful for protecting the extended arm it also makes sense to make the sword itself more protective.
If you go to the roots and look att bodies that are found from that time the most of the warriors are killed by spears with stick in face, feets and lower legs. That was the only hit zones because of the big shield.
It's a more Case by case for that topic. Like all Arming Swords have Crossguards, but for blunt weapons, it's preference. So someone could put a rope/lanyard, but it isn't standardized
A lot of times you will want to change your hand position on the haft mid-fight. A lanyard or hand guard would prevent this. Look at tomahawk fighting and you'll see.
If you can imagine a lanyard on a mace saving your life, then the people of whatever historical era (whose lives literally depended on this) probably also had the same thought. I absolutely believe they had lanyards. In some cultures they definitely did have them. Viking (short) axes could be carried hanging from the shield hand in a lanyard, basically invisible from your opponent. When the opportunity arises, cast aside the shield, grab the axe and SURPRISE INSTANT DUAL WIELD. Also useful if your shield breaks to the point of being useless. Or, if the opponent knocks the sword from your right hand or breaks it (which was also not unusual), take the shield in your right hand and use the axe in your left hand. This surprise moment is of course nullified in a duel scenario where you both have the same weapon. But it only makes sense to have a lanyard on a strictly one-handed weapon where you don't need to change your grip. It certainly would be useful on short, percussive weapons designed to pierce armour. Imagine getting your flanged mace or warhammer pick stuck halfway through someone's breastplate, he could disarm you by just taking a step back. Consider how a 20th century soldier can modify his weapon (or even create new weapons) to suit the battlefield, with various field-expedient measures. Trench knives, molotov cocktails, punji traps, trench clubs (which, btw, definitely had lanyards). If a soldier thinks something will give him an edge on the battlefield, he will absolutely do that thing.
If I am not mistaken, the german ahlspiess is a polearm that has a disc guard. It always looked a bit funny to me. Would you mind sharing with us some thoughts about it?
Hey Mat, could you comment on "Tam's Sword" from the Wheel of Time bookseries? Haven't really seen anything like it before but it doesn't look like a typical oversized fantasy sword or anything. Pic: www.fableblades.com/Photos/TamsSword/TamsSword%20(15).JPG Description: wot.wikia.com/wiki/Blademaster
Well afaik, the Kriegsmesser is a full two handed weapon? But the Swiss sabre looks like it could be one and a half hand? I would say that "Tam's Sword" is basically a big one handed or a small one and a half hand.
There's the regular Messer(Which, btw, means knife. Legaly, the Messer wasn't a sword, but rather, a knife, due to the shape of the handle), which is the one handed version, and the Kriegsmesser(War knife), which is the two handed variant. It's a bit ridiculous, but adding "War"(Krieg, in this case) or a similar prefix to signify a bigger version of a weapon is actually nothing unusual, at least in some Germanic languages. The Swedish word for greatsword, for example, is "Slagsvärd", which literaly means battle sword... Thanks for the link, though. A very beautiful sword, that. Not a tremendous fan of the scallop in the blade just above the crossguard, but a very elegant weapon nonetheless. Wish we'd see more examples like this in medieval fiction.
MrKevlarkent what is there to really say about it? It's a beautiful single edged sword. Everything about the design is perfectly practical, if not exactly 100% historical. I've never seen a blade shaped exactly like that on historical weapons, but as it has been noted by other responders, it's very akin to a messer or falchion. A perfectly reasonable design. And again, very pretty.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Warriors likely realized the probability of getting hit in the hands must of been very small. That was why they didn't add greater hand protection
Crossguards on swords is primarily to protect the hand from shields; The opponent may purposefully try to smash your fingers with his shield. Also when you strike with sword and he raises his shield to block, you may accidentally smash your fingers against the shield if you don't have a crossguard.
Before watching the vid, will edit after: I have often thought to myself why some kind of knuckle bow wasn't added... it could be quite expansive too, and useful for smashing forward into an opponent if the head is at the wrong spot at the moment. Maybe such weapons were always paired with shields... and swords with more complex hand protection weren't. Edit: So... kind of. Also, full credit to Matt for me thinking about that, because in his Tulwar vids, he consistently points out that you don't need as much hand protection if you're using a shield to block. That last bit with percussive weapons that _do_ have hand protection raises more question though. The Indian Shishpar looks *awesome* ... but did they _not_ use a shield with it? Maybe they fought more Tulwar guys, and were getting disarmed too easily? Confusing.
I keep hearing that one of the reasons for the short quillions on the Viking swords had to do with their use the center boss shields. Bracing a center boss shield is nearly impossible to do with a sword with a crossguard wider than the pummel.
no hand guard so you can jam it under your belt, or something like that. Also without the guard, you can slide up the handle and strike like brass knuckles. - you know a fist strike. You did it for surprise or because very close range. Also you can throw an axe or hammer and the guard gets in the way. Nice video though. Lots of good points.
Any suggestions for HEMA schools near Manchester btw? I know ScholaGladiatoria have one in Marple, but that's a long distance from me. Any recommendations?
Goddamn, you're so English. (I kid.) I have to drive over an hour to get to class every week. See here for KDF Manchester: facebook.com/groups/swordfightmanchester
I'm thinking that another possible aspect of why they (axes, maces, and hammers) typically don't have guards, is that a wood shaft might be much more likely to be gashed or splinted by a blade. Which (if it did) should absorb some of the power of the blow and cause the blade to bite rather than skip or slide down to the hand. Which makes me think of something else. Those steel, hollow, octagonal or hexagonal shafted maces. We know that the shafts kink on those pretty easily. Could the idea behind designing a mace that way be that the shaft is meant to give/cleave in order to bind a weapon and keep it from skipping down to the hand, while still somewhat preserving the usability of it for striking?
Didn't some maces and warhammers have a kind of rondel dagger hilt? A disc above and below the hand... I believe I saw some of that. Mostly those weapons had steel shafts. I just don't know if they were accurate.
It's always good to talk about warhammers? Well, I'll try that next time when I meet a girl in a bar :) At least I'll quickly find out if she's the type of nerd I am looking for :-D
Probably has something to do with duty positions within the standing military positions. “War hammers” were very popular with archers, for example, especially during the Hundred Years War, when the longbow archers ran out of their arrows
Utility and purpose aside, there could be an issue with comfort and method of carrying the item as well. Swords are worn at the waist, hilt up, axes and warhammers if they are worn would be head up so that the handle hangs down rather than having the heavy bashy-bit banging around on your legs while you walk/ride. If you put a complex guard on the handle, then you have that thing banging you in the legs while you walk - not good.
I'd like to point out that (perhaps not so much with the mace, but perhaps moreso with the war-hammer and certainly with the axe) control of a percussive weapon can be very quickly modified by choke-grip along the shaft. Putting a guard on the shaft may limit or severely limit someone's ability to change the position that they hold their weapon in.
I think it is because in the sword, the hand guard guards the handle, obvious I know, but with the axe-mace-hammer weapons the handle is basically the whole weapon. The user would want the option to choke up on the handle or slide the hand some, and the hand guard would have to be huge to cover to the whole handle or be very close to the head of the weapon.
You can see the same kind of movement evolution in the SCA. 30+ years ago, bigger, sweeping movements were the norm, where 20 years ago more precise movements and a lot more feints had become commonplace. The divide is often referred to as old school and new school.
Excellent caveat im heavy into boffer combat. Like larp sans the rp. And arm and leg sniping is a thing absolutely. So the distinction there is clear! Good stuff!
A good pair of gauntlets is an increase of weight that You have to swing around, loss of grip and you may cramp up. I love My Munich Town Guard. It is a heavy duty Rapier. Chop, Slash, Thrust.
What puzzles me is the lack of anything to stop the weapon flying out of your hand. As someone who has used slashers and machetes of various shapes, Weights and designs on my land I definitely prefer one with a shaped handle. With the plain handled slasher I now have a cord around the Base of the 'blade' which I wrap around my hand (after once seeing the thing flying quite impressively though the air towards a busy road.)
I think a reason feinting was limited in those times is because the weapons were so large & heavy. Feinting continually may have been very tiring & resulted in earlier exhaustion during the battle. I imagine that exhaustion during the thick of battle was something that even the best & most skilled warriors feared most.
What is the effect of moving the hand up and down on the axe or mace's haft? It seems like you can grip the weapons in several ways, depending if you want force or precision. Having a complicated guard would eliminate that flexibility. Do you think this is a meaningful influence?
I believe that the last comment you made makes the most sense. War hammers, maces and lucerne were a counter measure to plate armor. People stopped using shields when they started using plate, cause they were very well protected. So why would they need a guard. Also, you want those weapons to be top heavy to be effective. A guard would act as a counter weight.
With a guard it would also be impossible to choke up or down on the weapon without completely releasing your grip. You can easily let a weapon with no guard slide through your hand so that you can grip it at the most advantageous point on the shaft, like for example in a really tight melee you may want to choke up to effectively shorten the haft in order to make the weapon more nimble and easier to wield despite the cost of reach and power.
Without a guard you can also more easily move your hands up and down the shaft :)
I never use protection either. Just doesn't feel the same.
What are we talking about again?
My girlfriend says I'm prone to accidents so protection is a must. You know how it is when you get to excited. In combat I mean. I think
I watch most of Matt's videos, but sometimes I just want to hear the short answer... The short answer for this video is at 11:33.
Jesus, thank you.
I'd say 15:40 is at least as important of a timestamp tho. :)
Seriously, the title says hand protection for maces hammers etc and he talks about swords for most of it.
The guard on a sword prevents the hand from sliding forward on a thrust into the enemy. Axes and maces aren't thrust into enemies.
@@heinzerbrew and?? what is your point, this video is supposed to be about other weapons not swords
I love the image of Easton giving his students a pair of knife simulators and telling them they have five seconds to kill each other. Keeping class sizes down perhaps.
some kind of fighter-darwinism i guess.
Andrew Martin He asks them to pay their club subscription before fighting.
"We only have one opening. Let's see who wants it the most."
He does it with fake knives first, to build confidence.
After a few days of that, he'll slip in the real ones and grab a mop.
what if one brings a gun?
Why is the answer of "did this obscure type of weapon exist?" always India/Persia?
Like you can sit and wonder like "huh, seems unlikely that something like that would have existed historically."
*Checks Indo-Persian weapon sources*
"Nope, apparently they existed"
Whip. sword.
Gun whip
They have a very gaudy culture, so I imagine that just rubbed off on weapon buyers and makers.
"Hey, look at this weird spikey thing I made!"
"Sweet! It will get hung up on my MC Hammer pants and clashes perfectly with all 30 colors on my shirt and my shiny hat."
European aristocracy also has some obscure weapons. Gunswords, pocket-sized crossbows, lantern-shield-gauntlets. The warhammer with a huge crossguard was also European, and most likely also because some rich guy wanted a personalized weapon.
Then there are also Chinese who also have all sorts of weird weapons.
The European ones were more of a show of wealth (I put gold plated rims on my car!) And the Chinese stuff seems to be more for performing arts rather than actual combat.
Why don't shields have cross guards?
Why don't cross guards have cross guards ?
The whole shield is defensive, basically 100% super-"cross guard". Those with center hand grip have bosses of metal especially protecting the hand. Bucklers are essentially that alone. Also virtually all shields can be used offensively as well. Matt demonstrated the shield being used to protect & hide the hand.
2bingtim you must be fun at parties.
Why don't crossguards have pommels?
@@iopklmification isn't that what the lugs are for?
As a Viking re-enactor, we wear hand protection because broken fingers are not our idea of fun.
I'd also like to mention that most of our combat is speculative as we have very little historical material regarding Viking era combat. I reckon this is perhaps a little more fun and interesting than learning from the actual fencing manuals from later centuries because there is more freedom when it comes to developing your own style. No two people in my branch fight the same way which means you constantly have to feel out every new opponent.
+Potato Synthesis: Something Matt didn't mention in this video (but he probably has in others, I forget) is that practically all moderate+ intensity HEMA sparring requires hand protection, so it's not just limited to Viking re-enactment.
Also, anyone who isn't a dumbass would want hand protection too. :]
broke a finger a few weeks ago..was no fun :(
I disagree that it's more fun without the manuals, but that's just like my opinion, man ;) Either way, I like how you're representing your more speculative art (discovering and making the rules for yourselves by trying to figure out what works) and that you love doing what you do.
And you know to much swords, to little spears in reenactment.
Basically you said everything that I thought you'd say - they're weapons of war used with shields and hand protection, a sword is a sidearm, often civilian, and used by itself. What I didn't know, is that they didn't use hand protection in the early days.
But there is one thing that came to my mind when watching this... When blocking with a sword, it might bite in the other blade, but more often it'd slide down. But warhammers and axes have a wooden shaft, that it's way easier to cut into than steel. So my question is this - *is it possible, that one of the many reasons is that an enemy blade isn't as likely to slide down the wooden shaft, but bite into the wood?* It seems plausible, though of little significance compared to the other reasons you mentioned.
Good point.
rubbers3
It is likely, but if the edge alignment isn't quite right it'll still glance off and be a threat to the hand if used to parry.
"They are fantastic at converting potential energy into kinetic energy at the target"
The hammer already has kinetic energy, ie energy due to it's motion. What it's good at is storing alot of kinetic energy and transferring that into a target, hopefully through as small a surface area as possible.
Hope that helps
As an aside, what you described is basically what a bow does.
Build up elastic potential energy in the bow limbs, transfer that into kinetic energy in the arrow, and use that energy to penetrate a target.
Came here to say this, but instead just +1'd your comment.
Right, I was like "wait no" when he said that
2 points which weren't mentioned.
1. Think about what the cross guard can be used for against armour, using the sword like a hammer against armour. This function of a hilt is obviously not necessary when you're using a percussive weapon and would only serve to add extra weight.
2. Switching weapons. From a HEMA sparring perspective a complex hilt seems like a no brainer but in a battle field the extra fraction of a second needed to draw your weapon or switch to another could be the difference between life and death.
Thoughts?
One point that wasn't mentioned was wearing / carrying. Like Matt said, swords are balanced oppositely to percussive weapons, but also they were likely carried the opposite way.
Swords are carried point-down, with the handle sticking up. I'd say axes / maces / warhammers are carried head-up / handle-down, probably in a belt loop. If they didn't have straight, smooth grips, they'd get stuck when pulling them out of their loops.
Clips on the the side of the head
I mean, yeah. That's how you wear a civilian hatchet or work hammer. No need to reinvent the wheel
"its always good to talk more about warhammers"
I agree
11:21 Is where the explanation starts! :p
BrayOfTheDonkey real mvp
This right here is why I unsubscribed to this channel. Dude needs to get to the point.
I always figured it was how you carried them out of hand. Swords go in a scabbard with the hilt free and hammers/axes are stored in a belt loop head up/handle down so the weight didn't swing around hitting you in the knees/groin. If they had a complex hilt they would be difficult to quickly draw/pass though a loop.
I'm glad I waited to comment until I watched the enterity of the video. That last point you made was essentially what first came to mind for me.
It's ALWAYS good to talk more about warhammers.
Speaking as someone who has been involved in sport fencing for a little while now, you are quite right about rules. You change the rules, you change behaviour.
Were longer hand guards gaining popularity at the same time as strap shields? If so, is there causation to this correlation?
Yes they were, and yes it is probably related.
That's what i'm thinking. Strapped shields have less "reach" and offer less protection to the weapon hand. So it would be logical that you'd use your weapon to parry more.
Also, with more armour, you may resort more on suing the crossguard and pommel offensively. Punching a helmet with a viking sword, will probably break your hand.
edi If you throw the pommel, you winst break your hand.
the thinking actually has to do with the width of these shields
allow me to explain,
round shields lik viking shields are centre grippedand are usually at least 40cm acorss, so, if you extend both hands out like I.33's longpoint, your hand is voered by at LEAST, if not more, 20cm of shield, and of course most are a lot bigger
kite shields on the other hand are narrower, and your arm isnt in the centre but near the edge so suddenly, your hand can often extend past the edge of the shield , for a spatha type guard thats an issue when in that extended position, hence why it might be useful to have a longer guard to cover your hand.more.
Excellent points raised Matt. I noticed at the end of the video you briefly touched on the use of of gauntlets when hammers and axes were utilised as they were weapons of war rather than side arms. Although, the origins of both weapons are in the form of tools converted to war weapons which also influenced design choice. I believe a major factor in maces and hammers not having hand protection was due to why they started becoming more prevalent on the battlefield. That is that armour, particularly the advent of more all encompassing plate armour in which bladed weapons became less useful and a move to more percussive types was made in part. Hence, as you briefly touched on they did not require hand protection from their weapon as it was inherent to their panoply of war.
Did Lindybiege buy you that t-shirt?
If he had, it would be a Churchill MkIV t-shirt.
@@scholagladiatoria thicc life forever
I am so glad he brought up the war situation is so much different than one on one.
While this explanation works well for individual weapons, there is an additional explanation at grand scale:
Swords may chip or break in combat, but overall metals are quite durable over the course of an entire war. And if the blade is damaged, repair is not simple or quick. This means that the investment needed for the guard is entirely front-loaded - once you have a guard, that guard is there to stay.
In wood hafted weapons however, it is far simpler to replace a damaged haft with an appropriate local wood. Also it is still not easy, but easier to gradually inflict damage to that haft. Thus a haft would be replaced unless there was serious damage to the head of the weapon, and having a handle would require far more work to replace that haft - either reassembling the handle (more difficult than securing the head to the haft) or carving of a greater piece of wood.
Again, not very convincing for individual weapons, but if you are leading a few hundred soldiers across ten years of warfare this makes keeping your weapons up to snuff far more difficult. Even if you’re not paying for those resources yourself, whoever has the weapon needs access to the right materials and sufficient time to maintain the weapon.
So the same basic reason fancy and unique weapons never caught on - unless there is a major improvement in performance, a simpler weapon will find more widespread use due to the ease of construction and use.
Much more convincing than any other reasonings put forward. I like it.
Agreed, it's always good to talk more about warhammers. Ever since I heard of them I have thought that might be my preferred weapon. My first guess as to the answer to this question was that one wielding a percussive weapon would be wearing hand protection already.
I just love how you break it down into practical reality.
Well done
I had always thought it was due to how the weapon is carried when not in use. A sword is sheathed and hence can have a hand guard but axes and maces are held in loops or belts and with any type of guard would make it hard to put in and out of those loops?
Very informative video! It answered the question quite well, and even addressed the instanced where they DO have hand guards.
I enjoy reading the comments section on Matt's channel; for the most part, good questions and fun conversations.
It makes perfect sense that you reached this conclusion. Even looking at hammer-like weapons alone, single-handed war hammers, as we see most of the time in history (some exceptions for 17th-18th century rider hammers/maces), do not have hand guards. Early pollaxes (two handed weapons with similar "business ends") also do not have hand guards of any kind. We only see pollaxes with disc guards when pollaxes begin to get longer and longer, as we progress through the mid to late 15th century. This is definitely due to the way that they were used. As they got longer, people began to execute parries with the "cue" end of the weapon more and more. As this more structured style of pollaxe fencing developed, and the "dague" or top spike of the pollaxes got longer to emphasize the thrusting role of the weapon, more parries were also done with the "poll" or head end of the pollaxe. This facilitated the need for rondelle guards under the head, so that thrusting ripostes could be made more easily. P.s. keep in mind that we know very little about very early polearm fencing (when they were still about 4-5 ft tall or so), so some of what I'm saying is a little bit of speculation, but it lines up pretty well with Matt's point on the purpose of crossguards.
I'm wondering if those people who invented guardless sword opted for more heavy gloves etc. When I see bronze age celtic swords they seem to have a bit of a guard. I know when I was in afghanistant with a rife we all had gloves, and to varying degrees of protection but primarily it was to act as a grip when your hands, specifically your palms sweat. Just a modern warfighter's perspective. Love the videos and your research into the methodology as to why people fought as they did.
if you think of rifle usage, even in the World War II they used gloves only in winter
we used ours year round, and im not disparaging any othe army, but it is a small piece of equipment that I think is often overlooked because of the idea: "my hand can grip". Now this may be apples to oranges but did swordsmen using the chinese dao use gloves and would a glove, even in summer be a common sense thing like wearing work gloves when digging a trench in the garden?
IMO, gloves are extremely important in modern warfare, not just because a black rifle gets hot lying in the Iraqi sun. If you are moving in and out of cover, going prone and getting back up, your palms are going to be hitting into gravel and concrete pretty often.
Fantastic, infrormative video, especially the observation about the difference between duel and battlefield technique. Few people realize and mention this.
I noticed mass distribution is an important factor to cut effectively with an axe: it has one sharp spot with a cutting edge so a cut from this spot should devide/cut the wood or limb. A handguard "takes mass away" from said sharp spot. A sword/sabre has a long cutting edge so no matter were it hits, it will cuts, but it is not meant to cut would or detach limbs. It is meant to hurt and disable or kill with a thrust (depending on a the kind of sword). It is another kind of cut.
on the topic of having rougher hands in the era: I have frostbite on both my hands and I work manual labour ranging from landscaping to roofing and as a result; I have terrible sensitivity on my fingers and palms. I still wear finger-less gloves in the winter because otherwise I can't feel objects enough to properly manipulate them. I imagine in the midst of a skirmish, this could be problematic as it would be difficult to switch between different weapons either sheathed or lying about and it would make it more difficult to engage in a grapple as it would be nearly impossible to tell when my hand meets the opponent until an opposite force moves it away from my target.
I have a few ideas :
The gaurd became more prevent with the introduction of bigger armor. The more binding/heavy the armor, the more imprecise the strike, so the more advantageous a longer gaurd, and non necessity of a wrapping gaurd. Could be why most Chinese weapons have disk guards, i don't think they did the same kind of arm armor.
Since most katana have disk guards and a lot of their armor has straps and edges, could influence the keeping of the disk.
When the rapier and saber were gained to combat mail, they armor got skinny to add mobility, the wrap gaurd comes in to protect hands with only gloves on.
If your always carrying the sword, much like watches, if you want to show wealth, you pump money into what people see.
Many of the axes and maces and hammers used had wooden handles, witch were easily replaced after getting hit by other weapons, or hitting other things in the way. If you had a cross gaurd on a wooden stick, you would have more problems changing out the handle, if the whole thing were made of steel, it would be heavy as hell, and not responsive/ throw out your back.
Also wouldn't a long gaurd get in the way of shield use when drawing the sword as a side arm?
Hmm... speaking of those viking duels with 5 shields, how long were classical or medieval shields expected to last in battle? Was there doctrine for falling back to get a new shield after a while? Did they have wagon-loads of extra shields?
I can think of an additional reason to all the others - material difference. When you have a sword, you are parrying with a metal bit. Unless you have perpendicular edge on edge contact, other blades are extremely likely to slide on metal, necessitating a guard. Maces, axes and hammers most commonly have wooden shafts, which blades will tend to stick into rather than slide on. This is further evidenced by the fact that where you do see hand protection on these types of weapons, they are almost always on metal-shafted examples.
There's a bit from Roland Warzecha - basically, early viking period swords have small crossguards, because the flat shield is used to gain dominance, and the sword is mainly for striking. When you go to strapped shields, and the sword starts being used to manipulate the opponent's sword, the crossguard becomes larger.
Do you suppose another reason for this could be due to wanting a specific weight distribution in these different weapons? You touched on this slightly in the video when you talk about "nimbleness" of swords vs percussive weapons, but what I am thinking is perhaps the addition of a complex guard to something like a war hammer or axe would add enough extra weight to the back end of the weapon, thus making it harder to transfer the kinetic energy to the top of the weapon. Might this take away some of the weapon's percussive force, making it less useful in it's intended purpose? Do you suppose the extra weight on the back end of the mace/axe/war hammer would make it more unwieldy and clumsy?
Absolutly agree. Never really thought about it but it's absolutely clear how you explained it. Thanks for sharing
In the SCA, striking at the hands was strictly prohibited, but we usualy used a complex hilt just to be extra safe
True. 17-18th c. Indian Shishpars- which are Flanged Maces, had an iconic Basket Hilt fitted with an extension stem (like many other Indian weapons of their Era), turning them into a one or two handed weapon according to necessity.
To me it seems obvious: such weapons were made for war, not duels. It takes Matt awhile to get to this key point, around minute 6, but finally does a good job of fleshing out this point. Mainly it comes down to not having 1 vs. 1 "fair" fights where you are facing off against one opponent that you can clearly see and fight without the bother of other people getting in the way. If you stab someone in the back, or clunk them on the head while they're fighting your brother next to you, there isn't a point to worrying about hand protection, as your hands aren't being targeted. War is messy and VERY different from duels.
From the Polish sabre sources I read (includes many personal accounts), the most common duel injury at that time was to the hand and the treatise also dedicate a lot of time to teaching strikes to the hand and forearm despite the added protection of a sabre hilt. I think this is mostly a question of the general goal and practice of swordsmanship during the periods.
Another thing about these weapons: If you block a blade with a blade, it would likely slide down to your hand, if you block a blade with a shaft, it will not slide and get stuck to the sword.
some additions
1) you can block with the head of the weapon by hitting the opponents weapon with it (usually the top not the actual blade / hammer side)
2) you may want to change grip closer to the head of the weapon for close melee and looking for openings in the opponents defense and than slide your hand all the way down for the actual blow increasing the hitting force. A handguard would make that vital grip change impossible.
Also the way you move around those weapons a hand guard might get in the way of your movement
Such great communication and nice, light combat movement.
As for the swords' guard, my first thought was duelling. Shields were standard in warfare, but duels are usually sword to sword, without shields. Also many duels were meant to end at blood, not at death; that would make hand-strikes a lot more viable as a tactic in duelling than in warfare. So, if there was a surge of popularity in duels in a certain area at a certain time, that could explain why swords start to have bigger guards. That's just a first-reaction theory though. I haven't looked into this specifically in detail... yet.
I will expand on this enough to fit the theme of the video though - Axes and hammers aren't really duelling weapons. They're weapons of war, designed to smash through armour. Maybe there was someone somewhere who duelled with an axe, but most duelling involved swords, until guns were invented. If I was looking for the origin of hand-guards (which I guess I am now?), I'd look at duelling not warfare.
I loved the little turn and attack from the opposite side of the shield at 2:37 ,it would have completely had me but then I've not done any training ,but impressive enough...cheers now
I've used straight handled axes, mauls and hammers for heating and construction. Very quickly, one prizes the straight, wooden handle because you have great freedom where you grip it. I can choke up for smaller jobs, grab the handle in the customary place for regular power, or grab the handle way back at almost the very end for a maximum effort.
When you were swinging the Viking sword around I was cringing at the thought of you lopping off an ear. 😬
Try to attach on a belt an axe with hand protection or hammer. Especially as a secondary weapon))
Also, putting a guard on such a weapon would be notably more expensive and add a handful of complications to the design of the weapon.
Whereas with a sword, the most general basic construction of a sword is such that you're really already inclined to add a crossguard, so you might as well
Interesting topic as usual Matt!
I have been interested in a while now on the practicality of mauls or sledge hammer type weapons against armoured opponents and how one would wield a heavy war hammer. Perhaps you could follow up with a video demonstrating how to keep the momentum going with concussive weapons? I know I would really appreciate it maybe others would too?
What are your thoughts on falacatas,t he ancient spanish sword? Some at least almost have a knuckle bowl. I would guess it was more about creating a very secure grip rather than hand protection? Also some falchons have almost a knuckle bowl in the from of wrapping the handle back around the hand. Do you think that was more a fashion element or a protection element?
Many swords had small hand guards from the bronze age on. Apart from hand protection they stop the hand sliding up onto the blade when thrusting. It's curious that European sword hand guards began lengthening in the 10th century onwards. Did one or two Roman gladiator swords have cup-guards(Like cutlasses) or is that just Hollywood I'm remembering?
I always enjoy your videos Matt. It's great to hear from someone with hands on weapons experience.
Now here's the question I want to know. Why don't most of these warhammers and axes have a shape that prevents it from sliding out of your hand? Hand gets sweaty, bloody, wet for any other reason it gets hard to hold on.
They do, at least sometimes. Just like wood-chopping axes aren't completely smooth and straight. Modern reproductions aren't meant for actual combat so they forget some practical details sometimes.
We have almost no handles, at least for viking axes. They might as well have such constructions. Whether it was in the form of your regular wood chopping axe (almost S-shaped handle) or as a glued on strip of fabric/rope/leather (which is common in reenactment circles) or something else entirely, we don't know.
I don't think your hands would get all that bloody using a warhammer.
If you manage to hit a guy on the head and somehow break the skin through the helmet, most if not all of the blood would be absorbed by his coif.
True but your hands can get bloody by other means be it your own or someone else's (your hand scrapes against someone's armour or shield and the skin tears, or you grapple with a bloody opponent and then get up to fight someone else). And that still doesn't prevent rain, snow, sweat, mud, or other lubricants from getting on your haft.
BUT WHAT ABOUT DRAGONS?
Now that that's out of the way, I am super stoked to see this video. I have been one of those commenters asking this for a long time now, and you addressed every question and thought I have had on the subject from shields to parrying, even mentioning the Indo-Persian guards. Awesome job!
If Viking duel could see the use of up to five shields how long did average Viking duels last for?
The question is more, how long did viking era shields last.
I wonder if that multiple shield rule was actually a thing. It looks like this comes from Kormak's saga, so it's perfectly possible that the multiple shields were just a way to show the strenght of Thorgil and Thord.
Especially since it depicts them fighting with swords. I found it really hard to believe that you could destroy even one shield with one sword during a duel, even one that is very good at chopping. The shield would have to be so fragile that it would be useless as a weapon.
The shields were probably very light, and therefore thin and fragile.
The rules for the Holmgang in several Sagas mention 3 shields per man. See Roland Warzecha's series of videos on Viking shields; they were very thin and easy to cut into with a sword, for the purpose of binding an opponent's weapon.
Remember that you really don't want to hit the shield with a sword. It might get stuck. Shields are super at denying your opponents line of attack and keeping missile weapons off you.
Okie dokie, I'm haven't watched the video yet, but my assumption is that it was so they could hold it at different points on the handle so that they could get different leverage depending on what the impact of their swing needed to be
I heard a different explanation a long time ago, and it was the fact that most of the time, hands on swords are on the grip, which is rather small, while for hammers, maces and axes, the haft is very long, so a hand guard gets in the way (from positionning your hands however you want).
Your videos are awesome, I honestly love watching them.
I like your videos because I can tell you know how to use the weapons unlike some others I've seen.
In addition to you more likely wearing protection (either a gauntlet or other hand armor in later periods or a shield earlier on) while a sword might be carried in a civilian context, one element people often undervalue and I always like to emphasize: swords are status symbols. We should always consider the social and psychological effects. Scabbards and hilts are always visible and the most attention grabbing part of a sword even if the blade is out (it is just how it is worn and shapped). As steel metallurgy and forging got better and enabled excesses if one so desired (and humans tend to desire that a lot of times), even if it were 100% useless in battle, it would still be interesting to develop hand guards for swords even if as merely extra bling. It just looks more imposing. And if they add a little bit of functionality, pff, even better.
None of that apply to percussion weapons, both by the social factor (not usually status symbols) and because of how they're worn and shaped all the attention is on the head. Surprising no one, ornate swords have much more work and detail on the hilt and scabbard, ornate percussion weapons (and tool versions) have more detailing and work put on their heads.
I know this is just speculation, but couldn't it be linked to the transition from boss held round shields to strapped kite shields, which are heavier and can't be extended as far from the body?
The fact that shilds become less mobile and harder to keep at arm's length seems like it could lead to the sword becoming a more important tool in parrying blows. As the strapped shield is less useful for protecting the extended arm it also makes sense to make the sword itself more protective.
I'm a simple man, I see a Warhammer I upvote. Always glad to see another video on these weapons.
If you go to the roots and look att bodies that are found from that time the most of the warriors are killed by spears with stick in face, feets and lower legs. That was the only hit zones because of the big shield.
My question is why didn't warhammers and axes didn't have a lanyard so it would be harder to lose them
It's a more Case by case for that topic. Like all Arming Swords have Crossguards, but for blunt weapons, it's preference. So someone could put a rope/lanyard, but it isn't standardized
A lot of times you will want to change your hand position on the haft mid-fight. A lanyard or hand guard would prevent this. Look at tomahawk fighting and you'll see.
It's possible many of them did but organic material does not endure the ravages of time particularly well
diamened my question is why didn't warhammers and axes have pommels, so they could end people rightly:)))
If you can imagine a lanyard on a mace saving your life, then the people of whatever historical era (whose lives literally depended on this) probably also had the same thought. I absolutely believe they had lanyards.
In some cultures they definitely did have them. Viking (short) axes could be carried hanging from the shield hand in a lanyard, basically invisible from your opponent. When the opportunity arises, cast aside the shield, grab the axe and SURPRISE INSTANT DUAL WIELD. Also useful if your shield breaks to the point of being useless. Or, if the opponent knocks the sword from your right hand or breaks it (which was also not unusual), take the shield in your right hand and use the axe in your left hand.
This surprise moment is of course nullified in a duel scenario where you both have the same weapon.
But it only makes sense to have a lanyard on a strictly one-handed weapon where you don't need to change your grip. It certainly would be useful on short, percussive weapons designed to pierce armour. Imagine getting your flanged mace or warhammer pick stuck halfway through someone's breastplate, he could disarm you by just taking a step back.
Consider how a 20th century soldier can modify his weapon (or even create new weapons) to suit the battlefield, with various field-expedient measures. Trench knives, molotov cocktails, punji traps, trench clubs (which, btw, definitely had lanyards). If a soldier thinks something will give him an edge on the battlefield, he will absolutely do that thing.
If I am not mistaken, the german ahlspiess is a polearm that has a disc guard. It always looked a bit funny to me. Would you mind sharing with us some thoughts about it?
Some Renaissance warhammers have disc guards iirc
Hey Mat, could you comment on "Tam's Sword" from the Wheel of Time bookseries? Haven't really seen anything like it before but it doesn't look like a typical oversized fantasy sword or anything.
Pic: www.fableblades.com/Photos/TamsSword/TamsSword%20(15).JPG
Description: wot.wikia.com/wiki/Blademaster
Its roughly similar to a couple types of swords you see in Europe, the Swiss saber and the Kriegsmesser
Well afaik, the Kriegsmesser is a full two handed weapon? But the Swiss sabre looks like it could be one and a half hand?
I would say that "Tam's Sword" is basically a big one handed or a small one and a half hand.
It looks like it would work at arming sword length. How is it described and used in the books?
There's the regular Messer(Which, btw, means knife. Legaly, the Messer wasn't a sword, but rather, a knife, due to the shape of the handle), which is the one handed version, and the Kriegsmesser(War knife), which is the two handed variant.
It's a bit ridiculous, but adding "War"(Krieg, in this case) or a similar prefix to signify a bigger version of a weapon is actually nothing unusual, at least in some Germanic languages. The Swedish word for greatsword, for example, is "Slagsvärd", which literaly means battle sword...
Thanks for the link, though. A very beautiful sword, that. Not a tremendous fan of the scallop in the blade just above the crossguard, but a very elegant weapon nonetheless. Wish we'd see more examples like this in medieval fiction.
MrKevlarkent what is there to really say about it? It's a beautiful single edged sword. Everything about the design is perfectly practical, if not exactly 100% historical. I've never seen a blade shaped exactly like that on historical weapons, but as it has been noted by other responders, it's very akin to a messer or falchion. A perfectly reasonable design. And again, very pretty.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Warriors likely realized the probability of getting hit in the hands must of been very small. That was why they didn't add greater hand protection
Crossguards on swords is primarily to protect the hand from shields; The opponent may purposefully try to smash your fingers with his shield. Also when you strike with sword and he raises his shield to block, you may accidentally smash your fingers against the shield if you don't have a crossguard.
Before watching the vid, will edit after:
I have often thought to myself why some kind of knuckle bow wasn't added... it could be quite expansive too, and useful for smashing forward into an opponent if the head is at the wrong spot at the moment. Maybe such weapons were always paired with shields... and swords with more complex hand protection weren't.
Edit: So... kind of. Also, full credit to Matt for me thinking about that, because in his Tulwar vids, he consistently points out that you don't need as much hand protection if you're using a shield to block. That last bit with percussive weapons that _do_ have hand protection raises more question though. The Indian Shishpar looks *awesome* ... but did they _not_ use a shield with it? Maybe they fought more Tulwar guys, and were getting disarmed too easily? Confusing.
Another reason is that sword are put into a scabord point first, an ax is put into the belt handle first. A guard would get in the way.
BRUCE Elliott the way they carry the weapon is more informed by the form of the weapon the vice versa id imagine
Some would have a clip for a belt on one side of the head
I keep hearing that one of the reasons for the short quillions on the Viking swords had to do with their use the center boss shields. Bracing a center boss shield is nearly impossible to do with a sword with a crossguard wider than the pummel.
no hand guard so you can jam it under your belt, or something like that. Also without the guard, you can slide up the handle and strike like brass knuckles. - you know a fist strike. You did it for surprise or because very close range. Also you can throw an axe or hammer and the guard gets in the way. Nice video though. Lots of good points.
How do you train with percussive weapons in HEMA? Sparring seems a bit more dangerous
Any suggestions for HEMA schools near Manchester btw? I know ScholaGladiatoria have one in Marple, but that's a long distance from me. Any recommendations?
Goddamn, you're so English. (I kid.) I have to drive over an hour to get to class every week.
See here for KDF Manchester:
facebook.com/groups/swordfightmanchester
Cheers! The ScholaGladiatoria one is over an hour from me, this other one's a fair bit closer!
I'm thinking that another possible aspect of why they (axes, maces, and hammers) typically don't have guards, is that a wood shaft might be much more likely to be gashed or splinted by a blade. Which (if it did) should absorb some of the power of the blow and cause the blade to bite rather than skip or slide down to the hand.
Which makes me think of something else. Those steel, hollow, octagonal or hexagonal shafted maces. We know that the shafts kink on those pretty easily. Could the idea behind designing a mace that way be that the shaft is meant to give/cleave in order to bind a weapon and keep it from skipping down to the hand, while still somewhat preserving the usability of it for striking?
Man, you really made me wait for that final reason, I was wondering if you were going to get to it.
Didn't some maces and warhammers have a kind of rondel dagger hilt? A disc above and below the hand... I believe I saw some of that. Mostly those weapons had steel shafts. I just don't know if they were accurate.
Why did samurai not use shields like everyone else did?
cause katana is so op, there is no protection against it. kappa.
Althix yeah, a good old joke. But it was a serious question...
Simon W. metatron said that long ago there was but they made the decision weather to go 2 handed or singlehanded sword and shield
Metatron has a video on this.
Vodka Toxin But a Katana are as short as a cutlass, so it could easily be use one-handed....
It's always good to talk about warhammers? Well, I'll try that next time when I meet a girl in a bar :) At least I'll quickly find out if she's the type of nerd I am looking for :-D
Soooo do ya' like warhammers?
Probably has something to do with duty positions within the standing military positions. “War hammers” were very popular with archers, for example, especially during the Hundred Years War, when the longbow archers ran out of their arrows
Utility and purpose aside, there could be an issue with comfort and method of carrying the item as well. Swords are worn at the waist, hilt up, axes and warhammers if they are worn would be head up so that the handle hangs down rather than having the heavy bashy-bit banging around on your legs while you walk/ride. If you put a complex guard on the handle, then you have that thing banging you in the legs while you walk - not good.
Do you have methods of practising combat with percussive weapons in your club? Or is it too dangerous compared to blunt swords and sword wasters?
I'd like to point out that (perhaps not so much with the mace, but perhaps moreso with the war-hammer and certainly with the axe) control of a percussive weapon can be very quickly modified by choke-grip along the shaft. Putting a guard on the shaft may limit or severely limit someone's ability to change the position that they hold their weapon in.
I think it is because in the sword, the hand guard guards the handle, obvious I know, but with the axe-mace-hammer weapons the handle is basically the whole weapon. The user would want the option to choke up on the handle or slide the hand some, and the hand guard would have to be huge to cover to the whole handle or be very close to the head of the weapon.
You can see the same kind of movement evolution in the SCA. 30+ years ago, bigger, sweeping movements were the norm, where 20 years ago more precise movements and a lot more feints had become commonplace. The divide is often referred to as old school and new school.
Excellent caveat im heavy into boffer combat. Like larp sans the rp. And arm and leg sniping is a thing absolutely. So the distinction there is clear! Good stuff!
A good pair of gauntlets is an increase of weight that You have to swing around, loss of grip and you may cramp up. I love My Munich Town Guard. It is a heavy duty Rapier. Chop, Slash, Thrust.
Im a new subscriber and big fan. Your videos are great. I have been having a lot of fun with what I have been learning from your videos.
Thank you.👍🤩👍
How prevalent were maces in their heyday?
New favorite phrase to work into conversation, “Hang on, just let me move the war hammer.”
What puzzles me is the lack of anything to stop the weapon flying out of your hand. As someone who has used slashers and machetes of various shapes, Weights and designs on my land I definitely prefer one with a shaped handle. With the plain handled slasher I now have a cord around the Base of the 'blade' which I wrap around my hand (after once seeing the thing flying quite impressively though the air towards a busy road.)
I think a reason feinting was limited in those times is because the weapons were so large & heavy. Feinting continually may have been very tiring & resulted in earlier exhaustion during the battle. I imagine that exhaustion during the thick of battle was something that even the best & most skilled warriors feared most.
What are the advantages of and disadvantages of strap held round shields like the greek Hoplon and whatever Boromir of Lord Of The Rings carried?
What is the effect of moving the hand up and down on the axe or mace's haft? It seems like you can grip the weapons in several ways, depending if you want force or precision. Having a complicated guard would eliminate that flexibility. Do you think this is a meaningful influence?
I believe that the last comment you made makes the most sense. War hammers, maces and lucerne were a counter measure to plate armor. People stopped using shields when they started using plate, cause they were very well protected. So why would they need a guard. Also, you want those weapons to be top heavy to be effective. A guard would act as a counter weight.
Thanks mate. You answered a question I never thought to ask (but should have). Cheers!
It would be epic to see a video with you and Skallagrim. Either sparring or just cut testing.
With a guard it would also be impossible to choke up or down on the weapon without completely releasing your grip. You can easily let a weapon with no guard slide through your hand so that you can grip it at the most advantageous point on the shaft, like for example in a really tight melee you may want to choke up to effectively shorten the haft in order to make the weapon more nimble and easier to wield despite the cost of reach and power.