It's in the National Museum of Scotland. The case lable says that the hilt was originally straight, but has warped over the years. My memory is that their interpretation is that it was promarily for display. The forward-angled quillons with the four rings on the ends were typical for Scottish swords of the period, but all others I know of have only two quillons.
Just a throwaway comment, but perhaps the 4 way crossguard was something a blacksmith or a fighter tried out. Imagine being in a sword fight, and your sword slips past the guys guard and chops off his hand or some fingers, whatever. Now, you go back to your blacksmith and ask him to make you a sword to try to prevent that from happening to you. He does, it's too damn heavy and unwieldy to be practical, and the process moves on as before. Or the blacksmith makes swords all day, but asks himself if maybe a 4 way guard would be better for fighters. He makes it, it doesn't take off, he moves on. Just a thought.
If it was blacksmith he would just reforge that sword into a normal sword, if it was fighter he would probably sell it so idk maybe blacksmith would buy that and again reforge it into a normal sword
+Gonk Arrows and bolts would fill in the gaps bullets leave behind until some other consumer projectile could step in, but I doubt you could have a world with cannons and not guns.
+Gonk Look at modern Daggers/Bayonets and enlargen them. The word was always a fallback / sidearm / civilian weapon (the latter not relevant today). What i´d find really interesting would be modern versions of actual main battle weapons, polearms and the like. Considering the advances in the material sciences modern body armor (if made with the purpose of close combat in mind) would be really hard to outmatch being limited by the attackers strength i guess. Might see a lot of blunt weapons or beaked / pointed implements to apply maximum pressure to a very small area, think of the spike of a Halberd and other anti-armor implements. But with todays technology. Very intriguing.
+SaltpeterTaffy That's true, in fact without guns we'd probably just have advanced the crossbow design to be longer range and fire automatically somehow haha.
There's bound to be one knight who never had a sword, just a bag pommels and little, Caestus like spikes on his gauntlets. He was praised for always ending it rightly.
Oh the dialogue writes itself too. "You pride yourself on you speed and finesse with your blade, but your technique is flawed... You have to draw your sword!!!!" Throws a pommel from a fake sword attached to his waist into the opponent's face! Endymion Writely is born
I think if you had a time machine and asked the makers, they would say "That is how my customers want them." If you asked their customers why they wanted them that way, they would answer, "That is how the swords I learned to fight with were made and they seemed fine."
Basic logic, the reason the crossguard follows the blade is ergonomics, if it crossed the blade it would wear awkward on the hip, in addition to the other reasons mentioned,
Alison Sanches Krinski Depends on what you mean by chicken. If you mean the chickens of today, the egg. If you mean pre-historic chickens, then the chicken came first. *Evolution*
Historically, the only culture that allegedly introduced the cross guard for religious reasons was the Romans under Constantine. However, as Skall points out, the cross guard transcends Christian Rome, and the classic longsword design actually came from Normandy, which itself got the design from the Norse. There’s my two cents on a three-year-old video. Edit: 5:15 I think, based on the fact that we see the cross guard becoming longer and more intricate as time goes on, that the cross guard evolved to be the way it is because it is more ergonomic to parry with the edge, since your arm is already aligned to apply force along that line. Given that, and the tendency for blades to slide in the bind, the placement of the cross guard makes sense.
The Norse got their swords from the Franks though, who in turn had adopted and evolved Roman designs (even though they are commonly called "Viking swords", they were actually produced in the Frankish kingdoms rather than in Scandinavia). Overall, while I think it is obvious that the origins of the crossguard are practical rather than religious (small crossguards are also seen in Chinese and Middle Eastern swords after all), the later elongation of the crossguard in medieval European swords could very well have been inspired by religious symbology.
More speculation, but perhaps having Perpendicular crossguards would also provide a more visual indication that you're about to strike (you can see more of a sword's surface area) where as a regular crossguard has a thinner profile, making it harder to see when in motion. Just a thought.
Also, it’d be difficult to make a sword with perpendicular crossguards. It makes much more sense from a blacksmith’s PoV (not me) to make it sort of 2D. Think of the tools they had.
+classicfrog80 Which would also explain why sword made for styles where parrying with the flat is more common (i.e. the katana, the jian and the dao, among others) tend not to have much of a hand guard - the perpendicular hand guard would make sense for such a weapon, but it would still be a pain in the arse to wear.
Skall It was awesome seeing you in traffic today, and having Cara stare at me like a deer in headlights. I'd absolutely love to talk to you outside of laughing like a maniac in public while you say something while driving away. either meetup or google+ or skype or something would be absolutely killer
I'm pretty tired of it. A lot of Skal's earlier videos had a lot more constructive comments. With popularity, some...dumber people get involved and so they take up some room, yes, but also this ONE meme takes up 2-3 top comments on every single video. When they catch me off guard, I love it. But they have to be extremely clever because I know going into every video there will be 2-3 right up front.
I agree with both of you with those memes in general, but I haven't been in this community so long that I get tired of it because it's still one of the funnier youtube memes I know.
what it's _called_ isn't in question. he asked why the object known as a cross guard has such a distinct shape. the cross guard doesn't even know that people call it a cross guard, nor does it care.
La Potato It would still be a cross if the long part (the blade) was edge forward instead of edge sideways. P.S. all but the Greek sword was by cultures that traded weapons and slaves with nearby Christian cultures.
John Francis Doe Even before Jesus’ birth or the idea of Christianity people still had and idea of a cruciform guard. Greek or not. It has nothing to do with the church.
I think the last example of how non-ergonomic it would be to march or ride a horse with the hilt repeatedly poking one's hip is spot on, along with how it would force the wrists to supinate in an unnatural way while executing certain movements. Good video.
Also the handle was formed in a way that can protect your fingers against an enemy shield bash ( with purpose of break your fingers ) . Basically the geometry of the handle makes a safe space ( triangle ) that your hand will never be hit ( at least with a shield ) . And we can assume that by the history of cross-guards and weapons that soldiers were caring at that time ( The length of the hilt and gross-guard was increased when the danger of broken fingers and shield bash was bigger ) This is also this is a reason why the pommel was made from steel .
I'm not at all into swords and history of cold weaponry and all that stuff, but for some reason I enjoyed this video a whole lot. Glad it showed up on my feed. Thanks!
The sword has to lie flat against your body. Sheathing their swords, nobody wants to either stab their hip with the cross guard or slice their leg with the blade.
I'm thinking that the crossbar being in line with the blade edge has more to do with when the sword is sheathed than a fighting purpose. This would enable the sword to lay flat against the body and not have the crossbar dig into the wearer and/or snag on things when withdrawn.
+cobra60six I don't understand the debate here. Of course the cross-guard is for defensive purposes. Any parry that is not perpendicular will cause your opponent's blade to either slide up or slide down your edge (nobody parries with the flat, that would bend your blade), and if it slides down it'll hit your hand if you have no cross-guard.
For one, ye should make an endin' with the "End him rightly" sayin', just like the intro from the olde past. For second, ye'r videos are awesome Skall, please, never stop. From the rants to the sword analisis, from the guns to whatever, ye're doin' a superb thing.
I agree. Especially on the carry issue. If you're also carrying a lance and an axe or mace, then you want the sword to stay out of the way and not get hung up on things until you actually need it. This may also be why Japanese and some Chinese swords have disk guards. Given how they dressed (especially the Japanese with their fairly baggy clothes) a sword with a guard that would catch in the clothes when you needed it in your hand would be a liability. And lets face it knights and samurai were often obsessed with the latest fashions. So, they didn't want their swords getting tangled in their finery when they needed them. The other thing that occurred to me was that, other than the murder stroke, that cross guard could also be used to punch with, and it likewise would be less effective used on the flat. It wouldn't be quite as direct and efficient that is. And getting that long cross guard in the eye would tend to distract the opponent. Just some thoughts. Well reasoned out video as usual good sir. :)
I think the carrying of swords was probably the primary reason cross guards were placed the way they were, just practical workmanship. Definitely agree on all your points as well
But it would be very useful in hungary. We have a lot of orcs here and they don't want to work. Whit it I could force them to work. Everyone fear an unscrewed pommel.
assuming you're talking about the monster hunter video games, those swords are far from realistic. So they can do whatever they want because real people aren't using them, and if a design is too big, it either A. goes so fast you can't tell, or B. clips through the character's body.
Oooh, same week I ask this question on matt's channel there's a response on yours. Pretty exciting for me. Thanks for addressing this Skall! Lots of good points here.
+Munich22100 True, not throwing your pommel daily can result in weight gain from insufficient exercise, and is also a detriment to your ability to end someone rightly.
+Demon from the Mud don't encourage the trolling bear, he's just salty because he doesn't have thumbs so he can't unscrew his pommel to end is foes rightly.
The crossguard evolved from viking sword when she shields changed. I don't remember whether it was before or after christianity up there but the main reason is better hand protection. The fact it's cruciform was a happy coincidence. If you look you'll see the majority of swords have a crossguard that's the same length of the grip or handle. In certain angles this covers you hands entirely down one plain. This is also why two handed swords have much wider guards than single handed.
I'm given to understand that one reason for the crossguard is to protect the hand during a shield press. Shield and sword combat was very common, and you could damage your hand in a press of bodies involving shields. It also prevented the hand from slipping onto the blade, and I'm sure it was easier to produce than a basket hilt. I think as armor reduced in prominence, guards became more elaborate (as in the rapier), to protect unarmored flesh from blades.
The murder stroke isn't really a good argument since it is probably a side effect of having the guard like that, not a reason for it. Hand configuration makes sense though. Having the guard in the same direction as the blade, which is in the same direction as the way you hold the blade makes everything easier (cutting, parry, switching, etc)
+starbomber Ease of manufacture and better balance were some of the first things that sprang into my mind as well. Happy to see that I wasn't the only one with this line of thinking. Much as you said though, a very good analysis.
Thank you for covering this topic Skall! As I have not practiced with swords before, I've always wondered why side rings etc weren't more common in swords or any other weapon in general and the factors mentioned weren't immediately obvious to me!
You were wrong about the role of the crossguard in parrying. Mayer may say a lot of things, but during his times, longsword were a dueling weapon and that is how the manual is shaped. For duels. Lichtenauer, on the other hand, does things effectively, so you live and they die. And the way Lichtenauer does simple static blocks (he also says they suck but that is a discussion for another time) is that you angle the sword the way that the enemy blade will slide it down and get stopped by the crossguard, the reason for that is that a really heavy strike will loose all his energy sliding down the blade and it is really easy to block.
+CZProtton How would a strike loose all its energy just from a little bit of friction from the blades sliding against each other? In sparring that is most definitely not the case. The way we practice parries at Blood & Iron (based on Meyer) we generally prefer to let the opponent's blade glance off our own while utilizing the energy from their strike for our counter-cut.
***** It is not about the friction, it is about the angles. The force is not perpendicular to the blade but at another angle, therefore it is easier for me to hold the block in place. All the force of your blow will not go into my blade (and therfore aid in breaking the block) but most of the energy will just make the blade slide low, where it will be stopped by the crossguard. There, I have the advantage, cause it is the hard (heavy) part of the blade while you strike with the light part, the tip. Sorry if my terminology is all over the place, I only know it in Czech and some in German. I know it works cause that is what we train (based on Lichtenauer). I am not saying Meyer is wrong and your way of parry will not work, we have a lot of different kinds of parrying that do not require a crossguard. As I have stated, while Lichtenauer does teach those kind of blocks, it also tells us that they should not be used cause you are only defending and you should never just defend but also attack, that is the idea behind master strikes. However, using them is reliable because if you hold them correctly, the enemy has no chance of going around it. He must shift to a different attack or strike against the block, both gives you time for a counter.
+CZProtton Depending on the angle the blades may not slide at all because the edges bite into each other. Anyway, Liechtenauer has a different approach than most of the other masters and there were quite substantial regional differences in longsword fencing.
***** First of all, holy shit I am having a discussion with Skall, I love your channel even though I sometimes disagree, I hope you have no problems with your shoulder and I am looking forward to some more Long Dark! Second of all, if the angle is correct, the swords will slide. If the angle is bad (as in you fucked up the technique) than the swords will get stuck, that is true. A bind has its place, but not in this type of block. Lichtenauer has some different aproaches to certain situations, yes. There are differences in schools, ofcourse. That is why there are different schools, not just one. But Meyer is not pure longsword fencing, during the time Meyer wrote his fechtbuch, there were rules to duels that had to be respected or otherwise the duel was not legal and the longsword was not a battlefield weapon, so the fechtbuch also respected the rules in the techniques it shows. That is why there are some techniques that do not make sense in a combat to the death scenario (they were valid for first blood duels, though) and the whole style is different. Overall, I am not saying Meyer is bad... but I strongly object to the idea that crossguards are not that usefull for parrying with a longsword. They are, and since Lichtenauer is older than Meyer, we can guess that the crossguard is made in such a way because it was good for the blocks and the techniques that Lichtenauer wrote about, while during the time of Meyer, they were less usefull in fights but stayed on the swords for historical reasons, that is how they made swords before and that is how they will look now. The crossguard did dissapear later in time (replaced by the basket, but earlier basket hilts did still have the crossguard coming out of the basket) so we can guess it was not as valid having it in the later periods.
+CZProtton I wish we could have this discussion in person, since I find it very difficult to describe and understand techniques in text only. Comparing different styles is generally very interesting, but in writing it's easy to misunderstand and talk past each other, often even without realizing it.
I agree with everything you've presented and learned quite a few things from it. I would like to add that when you where in an upper-parry ( guarding, still working on terminology) if it was a four way guard, your opponent could have pushed on the sword and jabbed you in the eye with your own weapon. Thanks again, we love your show. :)
I was lucky enough to have a close look on this strange 4 guard claymore in my recent trip to Edinburgh. The info said that it was a fighter's sword, but being so exceptionally well preserved, i think it hasn't seen much use. Maybe a ceremonial, or an blacksmith's experiment. It has its beauty, though. Just one point i'd like to make: Your argument is based on the "fact" that you are supposed to parry with the edge. Yet in 7:55 - 8:20 you are giving an example of a flat parry to support your case. Don't rush, i'm not some ARMA "FLATOFMYSTRONG" passionate. But maybe, just maybe, both opinions are wrong and a true swordsman would use both techniques whenever they fitted his needs and particular engagement. As always, a well-informed, based on historic facts and practice, video. Solid work. Thanks for all the food of thought. A historian from Greece.
Have you ever played knight as a child and either hit a tree with a stick or something else hard with a metal rod. probably not or you would know that it hurts with a stick and that it feels like a electro shock with a metal rod. So yes you need it to be flexible
It's indeed so that it wouldn't break. You can see the same principle in skyscrapers, bridges and airplane wings for instance. You might be surprised how much they actually sway. If they were ridgid and didn't move the wind could break them.
I think moment of inertia is a big factor when it comes to cross guard design. Objects like to rotate along the largest and smallest moments of inertia. So, keeping the cross guard in line will help in edge alinement. Flipping the guard 90 deg will likely make the edge orientation line up with the second axis of rotation leading to a lot of instability. Look up why tennis rackets flips when rotating to see a more in depth explanation.
Very interesting. I suspect that in some of the earlier blades, like the Greek leaf-shaped Xiphos, the cross-guard was less to catch an opponents blade than to prevent the users hand from sliding up onto the blade during combat. Technique is also a factor to consider in the design as European straight blades use a striking / chopping motion to cut, while in curved blades, like the scimitar, the emphasis is on slashing (moving in arcs). Shorter blades, like the Roman Gladius, were very much thrusting / stabbing weapons. The defensive moves are obviously significantly different for each (& there's often no point adding the extra weight of metal if it's largely unnecessary). There's also the factor of working in close proximity to comrades during infantry maneuvers. Having side protruding cross-guards would be dangerous to the person standing next to you in tight formation - risking impaling them during back swings. There are some intriguing versions of cross-guards in Eastern weapons, such as the disk-shaped Tsuba of the Katana, which does give minimal protection to the sides of the blade, but permits carrying the blade snugly to the side of the body without impeding the speed of the draw. (With the added aesthetic value of having a nonfunctional area to decorate.)
+Skallagrim oh how I have missed vids like these, they are the reason I originally subscribed to your channel, so, I guess thanks for the return to form (and also good to see your shoulder seems to have mended quite well, good on you!) As for the topic at hand, I've always been of the opinion that the cruciform nature of the sword was more serendipitous than on purpose, something you demonstrated with the "Pagan" Gaddhjalt. I guess the only real analog we have of an all rund crossguard is the Japanese Tsuba, well, I say only, it's just the most well known. There are a few more swords that have a disk-shaped wide crossguard, though nowhere near as wide as the cruciform swordstyle. What I do wonder is whether the wider quillons on western swords weren't designed to function as a rudimentary swordcatcher.
There is a clear-cut physical reason why parrying is primarily done so that the opponent's sword strikes at a shallow angle from the edge: a parry that would be perpendicular to the edge would nick the blade badly, and a parry that would be perpendicular to the flat has a considerable greater probability of weakening, stressing or even breaking the blade (an issue from which the sword is mostly protected from when struck perpendicularly to the edge, as the greater breadth of metal is adding to the blade's resilience; do keep in mind, however, that constant nicks on the edge will also result in metal fatigue and eventually cause it to break if continued). When a blade meets another blade at a shallow angle from the plane of the edge, the two metal surfaces will glide against each other; you can then deflect the blow entirely, push away, sweep away or allow the opponent's blade to go near the ricasso, where one's torque is considerably greater than near the tip, thereby allowing for even greater control. At that angle, however, the wielder's hands are counter-intuitively protected much more from a crossguard on the same plane as the edge (thereby certainly stopping the blade before it can reach the wielder's fingers). It should also be mentioned that there is the issue of historical progression that you mentioned: the first swords are variations on the knife and are largely constructed by riveting a blade to a handle. As you showed from early swords, like those found in Bronze Age Greece and elsewhere, it seems that they expanded on the heel featured in most knife blades to guide and protect the wielder's hand (an ergonomic design) and it seems likely that, since they created double-edged blades, they simply mirrored the heel so that it appears on both sides - ergo the crossguard shape (or maybe proto-crossguard). If you combine the two notions, it makes sense that they started that way and progressively made the crossguard bigger. It should also be pointed out that basket hilts became more common with a change in fencing practices and sword makes, which resulted in using the blade in other ways (like trying to circumvent the guard and attacking around it), which made a traditional crossguard rather obsolete.
Nice Video. Marozzo is very clear that you parry with the edge in many cases, you can parry each strike with just mirroring the attacking strike, which leads automatically to a defense with the edge. There are as well several cases when you parry with the flat, but in none of those you should be in the need of a cross-guard. Though Marozzo is using usually side-swords which have often the rings on the outside.Not per se needed, but for sure helpful when you make a mistake, just like the Nagel.
would it be feasible to use a 1h sword and buckler with a dagger equipped on the buckler armed hand if the buckler was attached to the wrist? or would equipping it on the wrist make the buckler useless?
+Optimatium wristmount? no! dont reduce a buckler to a "proto-gountlett"- simply hold the grip of the buckler with your palm (like the leathergrip of a camcorder) and the dagger with the fingers. I've done this with a large viking shield (with a thick wooden grip and a sax (same size as a typical dagger) and it worked well.
The parry with the edge argument is the best. There is never a situation where it is better to parry with the flat part of the sword as opposed to the edge...it is a sword not a shield and parrying with the edge allows it to stay pointed at the target in preparation for the cut rather than having to be 'flipped' and then in position to cut. Its about the cut and always about the cut (see: Book of 5 Rings by Miyomoto Musashi). The sword is an offensive weapon, not defensive. The guard in this fashion provides little defense but at little cost as opposed to the alternative which is little defense at great cost as you demonstrated. Well done.
*For reference to other viewers* Skallagrim had previously published a video that goes deeper into the Edge vs. Flat parrying debate (pros and cons of both), found here: th-cam.com/video/W9b8q7-M_dQ/w-d-xo.html
Its really nice that you mention that claymore. Its in the museum of my home town, Edinburgh. I've seen it many a time. I think I remember reading that it was made fore ceremonial use.
I remember you saying in one of your other videos that you don't think war is glorious. What i find so fricking awesome about it is the people that are still good after having gone through it.
+chris c IIRC he's recording at 4K and only using 1/4 of the recording (a corner). This means the camera is actually further away than you get the impression.
+Skallagrim You never touched on construction, a perpendicular cross guard would be much more difficult to construct in ancient or even renaissance times.
I wish someone could send you a custom sword with the crossguard in the wrong alignment, and then you made a sequel to this video demonstrating it's cons, and maybe even some hidden pros.
This seems very much like a chicken and egg problem. The cross guard is where it is because that's what the fighting style uses. The fighting style is what it is because the cross guard is where it is. Could think of any upsides to a perpendicular cross guard?
good video, another advantage is in some positions if you parry and than thrust you can take control of their blade as it slides down to the crossguard as you thrust their blade is momentarily trapped removing a lot of your opponents ability to counter
Sometimes a sword is simply shaped the way it is and others follow suit. While I don't think that cross guards are in anyway a haphazard design that simply became the norm as they do serve a function, we do find that most historical examples follow a similar standard that may or may not evolve over time influenced equally by both practical (what was effective) and aesthetic design choices. You waited until the very end to cover the impractical carry aspect of a guard that would be hitting your side when worn on the hip, but that's probably more important than many of the practical use issues a perpendicular guard creates. A flat sword is simply easier to carry. It sort of raises the issue that most swords were probably carried lots and used little or even not at all, just like firearms of today.
+Daniel Okada Heheh, ya I kept waiting for him to mention a reason about how it has to hang off your belt. He got to it, eventually. :) Another reason a design might stay the norm is if skilled fighters were simply used to it and wouldn't want a different design, since it could effect their effectiveness in combat. You don't want to parry an attack as you always have, only to realize your guard is different. That would be a fatal mistake. A seasoned fighter would stick with what he knows. Only a new fighter would want to try a different design.
It's not that uncommon for someone with little or absolutely no experience throw out a bunch of "what if" scenarios for equipment designs or tactics before settling into more or less what essentially everyone else is using/doing once they develop some real experience simply because for 99%+ of all individuals, it's just what works best. But you can't fault someone with no practical experience to want to find a shortcut to an advantage in lieu of standard training, lots of practice, trial and error. You end up with some really bizarre designs when they're based upon these "what if" scenarios rather than through thorough testing to the point of failure.
Thank you for all the work you do skall! I realy like these type of video's where you combine history, physics and practicallity to explain why things have developped the way they did. I also respect the way you explained why you think it is not shaped like a crucifix on purpose. You mention it and explain it, in stead of just choosing to ignore it. (the argument about the persian sword was not valid in my opion by the way because the swords you showed were from 1800 so they could have just copied that from the europeans. Maybe it is a valid arugment, but not with the swords you showed here). I think this makes you a realy valuable youtuber and reviewer!
My skill in swordsmanship is Asian in origin, Iaijutsu and Kenjutsu mainly, and primarily Wudang. Cuts to the hand and wrist to bleed the opponent out, with a small straight sword, or the fast draw instant kill with a more traditional, more sturdy sword. I believe your teaching of European swordsmanship is highly accurate, and I commend you on your knowledge and skill.
Trump would obviously compensate for his lack of soul by using a mace, even though it is a sword fight. Clinton would probably go with whatever her ancestors would have used, because that'd be "the right thing to do". Upon learning that the Americans never really engaged in edged weapons warfare (save for bayonets and sabres), she'd probably choose the fanciest thing she could find. Probably some fancy basket guard sabre/rapier.
imma bet on Trump. Clinton would probably yell sonething about how swords represent the patriarchy while trump attempts to use the sword to wall her off, then he would stop since it's pointless and just stab her while she yells about how equal opportunities are not equality because women are weaker and black people must be catered to.
+TheJosephB333 I feel like older swords would've been more likely to break if struck on the flat. I would've guessed the edge parry existed to protect the sword from shattering. Just a guess, I'm not even close to an expert.
+TheJosephB333 If your flat is touching the edge of your opponents blade, your opponent will have a lot more control over your weapon and can easily move your weapon out of the way (mainly with Swords). The only common exception is the Katana because of it's delicate, sharp edge, and also the tsuba (the guard) is round and covers more of the hand compared to early European swords.
One thought I had is that if the crossguard is perpendicular to the plane of the blade, it opens up more lines of attack to the hand. The standard crossguard protects against all lines of attack except for those that are just about exactly parallel to the blade. But in a perpendicular orientation, there is an extra 5 degrees or so to either side where your opponent's blade can slide down the edge of your blade and hit your hand without encountering the crossguard.
First thing that came to my mind when i read the title is: The issue of carrying the sword and being poked by your own crossguard while walking and the chance of it getting stuck in your clothing/armor.
This video is really long. The answer is obvious, how would you wear a sword with a perpendicular cross-guard? Would you wear it so that the quillons were poking into you?, or so that the edge was slapping you in the thigh? Crossguards extended in the plane of the edge protect the hand, and enable you to wear the sword comfortably.
+Thisold Hatte I guess the video needs to be long because thinking and reasoning are two things that have long disappeared from the education system. Or at least I have no better explanation to how people are so stupid after graduating school.
+Thisold Hatte That's obviously part of it, but it's not the only reason. Believe me, if having a perpendicular crossguard would give one a large advantage in a fight people would have come up with ways to carry it. But it doesn't offer enough an advantage, it adds eight, you can't strike with it, and you rarely use it. I imagine it's also much more difficult to make.
***** What larger swords? There is no real evidence for swords being worn over the shoulder. Generally if a sword was too large to be carried in a scabbard at the hip, it would be carried like a pole-arm.
First off, ten minutes is not long. Secondly, had you actually watched it, you would realize that there are several factors that could have hone into the design choice.
Smooth transition at the end xD Great video as always! Now make one on why it doesn't make sense to not have a crossguard at all, because I am very curious!
really have to thank you for these videos. I've been applying them to some of my fantasy art and found the info you give helps me bring some realism and believability to fantasy subjects.
Wow The Knecht (or kriegsmesser sword) is a really beautiful yet simple sword I didn't even know existed and now I fell in love, I really do have a thing for curved sword for some reason... But that unique guard also catches my attention and I like it. Going to do some research about it.
Another benefit of the guard being oriented to the edge of the blade is that it helps to protect the hand from the opponent's shield. When a shield is used to meet an incoming strike, it is quite likely for the hand to impact on the shield; the cruciform guard creates a "triangle of safety" between the tip of the guard, the pommel, and the body of the shield.
Great video, and you raised more points than I initially considered. My first answer would have just been: "To protect the fingers". If you're in some kind of forward stance, your fingers are the closest target to your opponent, and a perpendicular cross guard would leave them open to a hit. Also, I have the same book as you. When I saw the pages on screen, I squealed a little.
The Claymore was either an experiment or the wielder had some physical quirk that made it practical. The nail would also increase the damage of a punch to the face.
My theory was that early swords created with more primitive smithing techniques meant that a cross guard that is in the same orientation as the blade was easier to create - saving time in "mass" production of swords. As more swords were like this, techniques such as parries developed to make use of the guard orientation (the circular logic you mentioned), and as these techniques became more standard, it made sense to continue making swords in this way.
you keep killing me with the pommel thing!! hillarious! Btw, nice video. there's no such a thing like listening to someone who knows what is he or she talking about
nice explaination skall! understandable also for someone like me, who never hold a sword!^^ and again, germans just know it best :D the guard of the "messer" just makes sooo much sense and is still this minimalistic! greetings to you from Germany ;D
This is some pretty cool stuff, after watching For Honor I got curious about some of the techniques and reasoning behind some of the game's actions. Nice videos man!
the four guarded claymore was probably some rich guys idea of a fancy sword.
I like to think his rationale was, "I'm not carrying this bastard on my hip, anyway, so why not give myself a lil some'n extra?"
Haha
Or it was an experimental idea. That never caught on.
It's in the National Museum of Scotland. The case lable says that the hilt was originally straight, but has warped over the years. My memory is that their interpretation is that it was promarily for display. The forward-angled quillons with the four rings on the ends were typical for Scottish swords of the period, but all others I know of have only two quillons.
Well side rings exist
Just a throwaway comment, but perhaps the 4 way crossguard was something a blacksmith or a fighter tried out.
Imagine being in a sword fight, and your sword slips past the guys guard and chops off his hand or some fingers, whatever. Now, you go back to your blacksmith and ask him to make you a sword to try to prevent that from happening to you. He does, it's too damn heavy and unwieldy to be practical, and the process moves on as before.
Or the blacksmith makes swords all day, but asks himself if maybe a 4 way guard would be better for fighters. He makes it, it doesn't take off, he moves on. Just a thought.
+Mark W That's literally what gauntlets are for, though.
Havok
Sure, I agree, which is why that comment was worth what you paid for it. ;)
So a failed prototype
Could be...
If it was blacksmith he would just reforge that sword into a normal sword, if it was fighter he would probably sell it so idk maybe blacksmith would buy that and again reforge it into a normal sword
I wonder what modern swords would be like like now if the gun was never invented.
+Gonk My guess is that the design would look similar, but the materials used would be different or modified.
+Gonk Arrows and bolts would fill in the gaps bullets leave behind until some other consumer projectile could step in, but I doubt you could have a world with cannons and not guns.
+Gonk depends on the armour that we would make as i would imagine swords would be made to counter armour
+Gonk Look at modern Daggers/Bayonets and enlargen them. The word was always a fallback / sidearm / civilian weapon (the latter not relevant today).
What i´d find really interesting would be modern versions of actual main battle weapons, polearms and the like.
Considering the advances in the material sciences modern body armor (if made with the purpose of close combat in mind) would be really hard to outmatch being limited by the attackers strength i guess.
Might see a lot of blunt weapons or beaked / pointed implements to apply maximum pressure to a very small area, think of the spike of a Halberd and other anti-armor implements. But with todays technology.
Very intriguing.
+SaltpeterTaffy That's true, in fact without guns we'd probably just have advanced the crossbow design to be longer range and fire automatically somehow haha.
There's bound to be one knight who never had a sword, just a bag pommels and little, Caestus like spikes on his gauntlets. He was praised for always ending it rightly.
Connor Wilson this could easily be made into an anime. With each opponent he ends rightly he takes their pommel as a trophy.
Bbeaucha88 Holy shit i want to see that now
Yes.
He just hides in a tree as he yells obscenities at his enemies and hurls pommels at them
Oh the dialogue writes itself too. "You pride yourself on you speed and finesse with your blade, but your technique is flawed... You have to draw your sword!!!!" Throws a pommel from a fake sword attached to his waist into the opponent's face! Endymion Writely is born
I think if you had a time machine and asked the makers, they would say "That is how my customers want them." If you asked their customers why they wanted them that way, they would answer, "That is how the swords I learned to fight with were made and they seemed fine."
+Ganjiblob Flankis yup
+Ganjiblob Flankis
No, the cross-guard has to face that way, otherwise how can you effectively finger the guard?
+Ganjiblob Flankis They may also go "Cause this is how you make a sword, have you never seen one before?"
+phileas007 Don't finger the guard. You'll distract him from his duty!
Aramiro
We may share intention, but certainly not taste.
Basic logic, the reason the crossguard follows the blade is ergonomics, if it crossed the blade it would wear awkward on the hip, in addition to the other reasons mentioned,
Yep
+Enigma Cipher That is my reasoning as well. Sometimes the simple answers does not need deeper analysis.
This is also mentioned in the video.
Alison Sanches Krinski Depends on what you mean by chicken. If you mean the chickens of today, the egg. If you mean pre-historic chickens, then the chicken came first. *Evolution*
Enigma Cipher still i would prefer my fingers over a little akwardness
Historically, the only culture that allegedly introduced the cross guard for religious reasons was the Romans under Constantine. However, as Skall points out, the cross guard transcends Christian Rome, and the classic longsword design actually came from Normandy, which itself got the design from the Norse. There’s my two cents on a three-year-old video.
Edit: 5:15 I think, based on the fact that we see the cross guard becoming longer and more intricate as time goes on, that the cross guard evolved to be the way it is because it is more ergonomic to parry with the edge, since your arm is already aligned to apply force along that line. Given that, and the tendency for blades to slide in the bind, the placement of the cross guard makes sense.
The Norse got their swords from the Franks though, who in turn had adopted and evolved Roman designs (even though they are commonly called "Viking swords", they were actually produced in the Frankish kingdoms rather than in Scandinavia). Overall, while I think it is obvious that the origins of the crossguard are practical rather than religious (small crossguards are also seen in Chinese and Middle Eastern swords after all), the later elongation of the crossguard in medieval European swords could very well have been inspired by religious symbology.
Ending pommel jokes rightly with pommel jokes. Sounds like a plan.
More speculation, but perhaps having Perpendicular crossguards would also provide a more visual indication that you're about to strike (you can see more of a sword's surface area) where as a regular crossguard has a thinner profile, making it harder to see when in motion. Just a thought.
I Saw A Bear Why would you want the enemy to know where you're cutting though?
I think they're saying that as an example of why you WOULDN'T use a perpendicular crossguard.
Also, it’d be difficult to make a sword with perpendicular crossguards. It makes much more sense from a blacksmith’s PoV (not me) to make it sort of 2D. Think of the tools they had.
TL DR version:
Ergonomics.
+classicfrog80 This guy, right here.
+classicfrog80 Which would also explain why sword made for styles where parrying with the flat is more common (i.e. the katana, the jian and the dao, among others) tend not to have much of a hand guard - the perpendicular hand guard would make sense for such a weapon, but it would still be a pain in the arse to wear.
Skall It was awesome seeing you in traffic today, and having Cara stare at me like a deer in headlights. I'd absolutely love to talk to you outside of laughing like a maniac in public while you say something while driving away. either meetup or google+ or skype or something would be absolutely killer
+Skutter
Yeah, that was a funny coincidence, and certainly unexpected. :)
Oh man, I have that book! "The illustrated world encyclopedia of knives, swords spears and daggers."
Definitely a great read!
They are shaped that way as to not hinder you in unscrewing your pommel, obviously
Of course none do deadly as the famed pommel throw
+Naelar where does that joke originate from?
+Martisan Look up skalls "end him right" video
+Martisan an older one of his videos
+Martisan an older one of his videos
I friggin love the ended rightly joke this community has.
I'm pretty tired of it. A lot of Skal's earlier videos had a lot more constructive comments. With popularity, some...dumber people get involved and so they take up some room, yes, but also this ONE meme takes up 2-3 top comments on every single video. When they catch me off guard, I love it. But they have to be extremely clever because I know going into every video there will be 2-3 right up front.
I agree with both of you with those memes in general, but I haven't been in this community so long that I get tired of it because it's still one of the funnier youtube memes I know.
The Creator I agree its an awesome joke if used correctly but if everyone just spams it we miss out on critical thinking and productive conversations
What’s the joke?
@@Brandon-sy2du check "end him rightly", it's a meme (and curse) that was accidentally resurrected by Skal
Proto-guards were just a protection for hand from slipping from handle onto the blade. It makes sense to put obstacle for fingers near the edgy part.
"Why crossguards are shaped the way they are"
Well if they weren't, then they wouldn't be called *cross*guards now, would they?
+Xanatos712 It's Brilliant! And before anyone asks, I don't drink Guiness because I simply do not drink alcohol, although legally I can at 26.
what it's _called_ isn't in question. he asked why the object known as a cross guard has such a distinct shape.
the cross guard doesn't even know that people call it a cross guard, nor does it care.
La Potato It would still be a cross if the long part (the blade) was edge forward instead of edge sideways.
P.S. all but the Greek sword was by cultures that traded weapons and slaves with nearby Christian cultures.
John Francis Doe Even before Jesus’ birth or the idea of Christianity people still had and idea of a cruciform guard. Greek or not. It has nothing to do with the church.
I think you guys are thinking too hard about it
Edit: were I guess
I appreciate your embracement of the Pommel jokes 😂.
so i was right, he was saying that you will get pommeled (pummeled) if you are found being uncivilized
I think the last example of how non-ergonomic it would be to march or ride a horse with the hilt repeatedly poking one's hip is spot on, along with how it would force the wrists to supinate in an unnatural way while executing certain movements. Good video.
"Civil discussions mind you. ... Or you will be ended rightly." Your never going to let that go are you skall XD
I honestly believe this is youtube's best channel, thank you for your work
7:10 That's a beautiful buckler!
Also the handle was formed in a way that can protect your fingers against an enemy shield bash ( with purpose of break your fingers ) . Basically the geometry of the handle makes a safe space ( triangle ) that your hand will never be hit ( at least with a shield ) . And we can assume that by the history of cross-guards and weapons that soldiers were caring at that time ( The length of the hilt and gross-guard was increased when the danger of broken fingers and shield bash was bigger ) This is also this is a reason why the pommel was made from steel .
I always assumed the edge parry had more to do with the fact that swords weren't always steel, and copper/bronze were much more easily deformed.
I'm not at all into swords and history of cold weaponry and all that stuff, but for some reason I enjoyed this video a whole lot. Glad it showed up on my feed. Thanks!
*****, and witty!
Hey that buckler is gorgeous :O
So many beautiful swords in this video! congrats Skall
The sword has to lie flat against your body. Sheathing their swords, nobody wants to either stab their hip with the cross guard or slice their leg with the blade.
You take a very intelligent stance with your arguments and every video I'm very impressed with your TH-cam channel keep up the good work
I'm thinking that the crossbar being in line with the blade edge has more to do with when the sword is sheathed than a fighting purpose. This would enable the sword to lay flat against the body and not have the crossbar dig into the wearer and/or snag on things when withdrawn.
+cobra60six
I don't understand the debate here. Of course the cross-guard is for defensive purposes. Any parry that is not perpendicular will cause your opponent's blade to either slide up or slide down your edge (nobody parries with the flat, that would bend your blade), and if it slides down it'll hit your hand if you have no cross-guard.
+cobra60six Thanks for repeating part of the video...
+cobra60six That's exactly what I was thinking
+cobra60six 100% correct in my mind.
+cobra60six 9:00
For one, ye should make an endin' with the "End him rightly" sayin', just like the intro from the olde past.
For second, ye'r videos are awesome Skall, please, never stop. From the rants to the sword analisis, from the guns to whatever, ye're doin' a superb thing.
been getting a lot of albions, skallagrimm - i remember when this channel was very budget friendly
I agree. Especially on the carry issue. If you're also carrying a lance and an axe or mace, then you want the sword to stay out of the way and not get hung up on things until you actually need it. This may also be why Japanese and some Chinese swords have disk guards. Given how they dressed (especially the Japanese with their fairly baggy clothes) a sword with a guard that would catch in the clothes when you needed it in your hand would be a liability.
And lets face it knights and samurai were often obsessed with the latest fashions. So, they didn't want their swords getting tangled in their finery when they needed them.
The other thing that occurred to me was that, other than the murder stroke, that cross guard could also be used to punch with, and it likewise would be less effective used on the flat. It wouldn't be quite as direct and efficient that is. And getting that long cross guard in the eye would tend to distract the opponent.
Just some thoughts. Well reasoned out video as usual good sir. :)
have you ever accidentally hit your camera while recording?
I think the carrying of swords was probably the primary reason cross guards were placed the way they were, just practical workmanship. Definitely agree on all your points as well
That's enough! I have to get a unsrewable pommel. I'm just simply not feel safe without it.
Pardon me?
+Munich22100 not too fat though, you need it to be light enough to throw and it also can't disrupt the swords balance too much!
+bence majlinger But then others won't feel safe around you...
+bence majlinger You are right. I am trying not to be judgemental but screwable pommels are... weird.
But it would be very useful in hungary. We have a lot of orcs here and they don't want to work. Whit it I could force them to work. Everyone fear an unscrewed pommel.
Well done. You've answered it in every single imaginable way.
A disc guard is essentially a cross guard that points in every direction.
+Alexander Salt
Except that a disc guard is about half the length, or even a quarter in some cases.
***** True. I have to make a correction:
A disc guard is a proto cross guard that points in every direction.
+Skallagrim but what of the guards on the monster hunter swords?
assuming you're talking about the monster hunter video games, those swords are far from realistic. So they can do whatever they want because real people aren't using them, and if a design is too big, it either A. goes so fast you can't tell, or B. clips through the character's body.
Oooh, same week I ask this question on matt's channel there's a response on yours. Pretty exciting for me. Thanks for addressing this Skall! Lots of good points here.
1/10 Not enough Pommel throwing.
+Munich22100 can.you.stfu
+Munich22100 thank you
+Munich22100 True, not throwing your pommel daily can result in weight gain from insufficient exercise, and is also a detriment to your ability to end someone rightly.
+Demon from the Mud don't encourage the trolling bear, he's just salty because he doesn't have thumbs so he can't unscrew his pommel to end is foes rightly.
STOP.
The end was BRILLIANT.
Nice video :P
The crossguard evolved from viking sword when she shields changed. I don't remember whether it was before or after christianity up there but the main reason is better hand protection. The fact it's cruciform was a happy coincidence. If you look you'll see the majority of swords have a crossguard that's the same length of the grip or handle. In certain angles this covers you hands entirely down one plain. This is also why two handed swords have much wider guards than single handed.
I'm given to understand that one reason for the crossguard is to protect the hand during a shield press. Shield and sword combat was very common, and you could damage your hand in a press of bodies involving shields. It also prevented the hand from slipping onto the blade, and I'm sure it was easier to produce than a basket hilt. I think as armor reduced in prominence, guards became more elaborate (as in the rapier), to protect unarmored flesh from blades.
The murder stroke isn't really a good argument since it is probably a side effect of having the guard like that, not a reason for it.
Hand configuration makes sense though. Having the guard in the same direction as the blade, which is in the same direction as the way you hold the blade makes everything easier (cutting, parry, switching, etc)
I love that evolutionary tree for swords. Super informative, yet very elegant.
There seem to be a bunch of other reasons in my mind, such as ease of manufacture and better balance. Still, good analysis.
+starbomber Ease of manufacture and better balance were some of the first things that sprang into my mind as well. Happy to see that I wasn't the only one with this line of thinking. Much as you said though, a very good analysis.
Thank you for covering this topic Skall! As I have not practiced with swords before, I've always wondered why side rings etc weren't more common in swords or any other weapon in general and the factors mentioned weren't immediately obvious to me!
You were wrong about the role of the crossguard in parrying. Mayer may say a lot of things, but during his times, longsword were a dueling weapon and that is how the manual is shaped. For duels. Lichtenauer, on the other hand, does things effectively, so you live and they die. And the way Lichtenauer does simple static blocks (he also says they suck but that is a discussion for another time) is that you angle the sword the way that the enemy blade will slide it down and get stopped by the crossguard, the reason for that is that a really heavy strike will loose all his energy sliding down the blade and it is really easy to block.
+CZProtton
How would a strike loose all its energy just from a little bit of friction from the blades sliding against each other? In sparring that is most definitely not the case. The way we practice parries at Blood & Iron (based on Meyer) we generally prefer to let the opponent's blade glance off our own while utilizing the energy from their strike for our counter-cut.
***** It is not about the friction, it is about the angles. The force is not perpendicular to the blade but at another angle, therefore it is easier for me to hold the block in place. All the force of your blow will not go into my blade (and therfore aid in breaking the block) but most of the energy will just make the blade slide low, where it will be stopped by the crossguard. There, I have the advantage, cause it is the hard (heavy) part of the blade while you strike with the light part, the tip. Sorry if my terminology is all over the place, I only know it in Czech and some in German. I know it works cause that is what we train (based on Lichtenauer). I am not saying Meyer is wrong and your way of parry will not work, we have a lot of different kinds of parrying that do not require a crossguard. As I have stated, while Lichtenauer does teach those kind of blocks, it also tells us that they should not be used cause you are only defending and you should never just defend but also attack, that is the idea behind master strikes. However, using them is reliable because if you hold them correctly, the enemy has no chance of going around it. He must shift to a different attack or strike against the block, both gives you time for a counter.
+CZProtton
Depending on the angle the blades may not slide at all because the edges bite into each other. Anyway, Liechtenauer has a different approach than most of the other masters and there were quite substantial regional differences in longsword fencing.
***** First of all, holy shit I am having a discussion with Skall, I love your channel even though I sometimes disagree, I hope you have no problems with your shoulder and I am looking forward to some more Long Dark!
Second of all, if the angle is correct, the swords will slide. If the angle is bad (as in you fucked up the technique) than the swords will get stuck, that is true. A bind has its place, but not in this type of block.
Lichtenauer has some different aproaches to certain situations, yes. There are differences in schools, ofcourse. That is why there are different schools, not just one. But Meyer is not pure longsword fencing, during the time Meyer wrote his fechtbuch, there were rules to duels that had to be respected or otherwise the duel was not legal and the longsword was not a battlefield weapon, so the fechtbuch also respected the rules in the techniques it shows. That is why there are some techniques that do not make sense in a combat to the death scenario (they were valid for first blood duels, though) and the whole style is different.
Overall, I am not saying Meyer is bad... but I strongly object to the idea that crossguards are not that usefull for parrying with a longsword. They are, and since Lichtenauer is older than Meyer, we can guess that the crossguard is made in such a way because it was good for the blocks and the techniques that Lichtenauer wrote about, while during the time of Meyer, they were less usefull in fights but stayed on the swords for historical reasons, that is how they made swords before and that is how they will look now. The crossguard did dissapear later in time (replaced by the basket, but earlier basket hilts did still have the crossguard coming out of the basket) so we can guess it was not as valid having it in the later periods.
+CZProtton
I wish we could have this discussion in person, since I find it very difficult to describe and understand techniques in text only. Comparing different styles is generally very interesting, but in writing it's easy to misunderstand and talk past each other, often even without realizing it.
I agree with everything you've presented and learned quite a few things from it. I would like to add that when you where in an upper-parry ( guarding, still working on terminology) if it was a four way guard, your opponent could have pushed on the sword and jabbed you in the eye with your own weapon. Thanks again, we love your show. :)
Are there any swords that have pointy guards that are sharpened so that they would kinda work as a pickaxe almost when used with the murder stroke?
+Sansidar Uploads
There are pictures of pointy guards and spiked pommels in some of the medieval fighting manuals.
those spiked pommels might be good for throwing
I was lucky enough to have a close look on this strange 4 guard claymore in my recent trip to Edinburgh. The info said that it was a fighter's sword, but being so exceptionally well preserved, i think it hasn't seen much use. Maybe a ceremonial, or an blacksmith's experiment. It has its beauty, though.
Just one point i'd like to make: Your argument is based on the "fact" that you are supposed to parry with the edge. Yet in 7:55 - 8:20 you are giving an example of a flat parry to support your case. Don't rush, i'm not some ARMA "FLATOFMYSTRONG" passionate. But maybe, just maybe, both opinions are wrong and a true swordsman would use both techniques whenever they fitted his needs and particular engagement.
As always, a well-informed, based on historic facts and practice, video. Solid work.
Thanks for all the food of thought. A historian from Greece.
Does sword really have to be that flexible? To me that looks somewhat unnatural for a genuine swords
The flexibility prevents it from shattering on impact. Don't forget, it's a fairly thin blade.
***** thanks!
Have you ever played knight as a child and either hit a tree with a stick or something else hard with a metal rod.
probably not or you would know that it hurts with a stick and that it feels like a electro shock with a metal rod.
So yes you need it to be flexible
Jeremy Resch Thank you for reminding me about that feeling! Yeah, I played samurai and knights also. And that was exactly like you wrote it.
It's indeed so that it wouldn't break. You can see the same principle in skyscrapers, bridges and airplane wings for instance. You might be surprised how much they actually sway. If they were ridgid and didn't move the wind could break them.
I think moment of inertia is a big factor when it comes to cross guard design. Objects like to rotate along the largest and smallest moments of inertia. So, keeping the cross guard in line will help in edge alinement. Flipping the guard 90 deg will likely make the edge orientation line up with the second axis of rotation leading to a lot of instability. Look up why tennis rackets flips when rotating to see a more in depth explanation.
Very interesting.
I suspect that in some of the earlier blades, like the Greek leaf-shaped Xiphos, the cross-guard was less to catch an opponents blade than to prevent the users hand from sliding up onto the blade during combat.
Technique is also a factor to consider in the design as European straight blades use a striking / chopping motion to cut, while in curved blades, like the scimitar, the emphasis is on slashing (moving in arcs). Shorter blades, like the Roman Gladius, were very much thrusting / stabbing weapons. The defensive moves are obviously significantly different for each (& there's often no point adding the extra weight of metal if it's largely unnecessary).
There's also the factor of working in close proximity to comrades during infantry maneuvers. Having side protruding cross-guards would be dangerous to the person standing next to you in tight formation - risking impaling them during back swings.
There are some intriguing versions of cross-guards in Eastern weapons, such as the disk-shaped Tsuba of the Katana, which does give minimal protection to the sides of the blade, but permits carrying the blade snugly to the side of the body without impeding the speed of the draw.
(With the added aesthetic value of having a nonfunctional area to decorate.)
+Skallagrim oh how I have missed vids like these, they are the reason I originally subscribed to your channel, so, I guess thanks for the return to form (and also good to see your shoulder seems to have mended quite well, good on you!) As for the topic at hand, I've always been of the opinion that the cruciform nature of the sword was more serendipitous than on purpose, something you demonstrated with the "Pagan" Gaddhjalt. I guess the only real analog we have of an all rund crossguard is the Japanese Tsuba, well, I say only, it's just the most well known. There are a few more swords that have a disk-shaped wide crossguard, though nowhere near as wide as the cruciform swordstyle. What I do wonder is whether the wider quillons on western swords weren't designed to function as a rudimentary swordcatcher.
There is a clear-cut physical reason why parrying is primarily done so that the opponent's sword strikes at a shallow angle from the edge: a parry that would be perpendicular to the edge would nick the blade badly, and a parry that would be perpendicular to the flat has a considerable greater probability of weakening, stressing or even breaking the blade (an issue from which the sword is mostly protected from when struck perpendicularly to the edge, as the greater breadth of metal is adding to the blade's resilience; do keep in mind, however, that constant nicks on the edge will also result in metal fatigue and eventually cause it to break if continued).
When a blade meets another blade at a shallow angle from the plane of the edge, the two metal surfaces will glide against each other; you can then deflect the blow entirely, push away, sweep away or allow the opponent's blade to go near the ricasso, where one's torque is considerably greater than near the tip, thereby allowing for even greater control. At that angle, however, the wielder's hands are counter-intuitively protected much more from a crossguard on the same plane as the edge (thereby certainly stopping the blade before it can reach the wielder's fingers).
It should also be mentioned that there is the issue of historical progression that you mentioned: the first swords are variations on the knife and are largely constructed by riveting a blade to a handle. As you showed from early swords, like those found in Bronze Age Greece and elsewhere, it seems that they expanded on the heel featured in most knife blades to guide and protect the wielder's hand (an ergonomic design) and it seems likely that, since they created double-edged blades, they simply mirrored the heel so that it appears on both sides - ergo the crossguard shape (or maybe proto-crossguard). If you combine the two notions, it makes sense that they started that way and progressively made the crossguard bigger. It should also be pointed out that basket hilts became more common with a change in fencing practices and sword makes, which resulted in using the blade in other ways (like trying to circumvent the guard and attacking around it), which made a traditional crossguard rather obsolete.
Panagiotes Koutelidakes "There is a clear-cut physical reason..." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
I can't put my finger on why, but your videos are so pleasent to watch, I'm not even into swords or martial arts. You deserve your subs :)
+MrVampdude he rolled an 18 on his charisma
I agree with everything, i just wanna say that your beard touches the mic a lot
***** i will pray for you
Doom 3 is my ASMR. Satanic industrial sounds-- so soothing.
Nice Video.
Marozzo is very clear that you parry with the edge in many cases, you can parry each strike with just mirroring the attacking strike, which leads automatically to a defense with the edge. There are as well several cases when you parry with the flat, but in none of those you should be in the need of a cross-guard.
Though Marozzo is using usually side-swords which have often the rings on the outside.Not per se needed, but for sure helpful when you make a mistake, just like the Nagel.
Please could you make a video on that shiny buckler?
+hardgoodbye If it helps out, I'm quite sure it's one of the newer ArmStreet bucklers.
+Chance Dean is it weird that I think bucklers are less than satisfactory
+for the greater WAAAGH That company or bucklers in general?
+hardgoodbye just in general just not my thing I guess
+for the greater WAAAGH that's probably because you're a chubby teenager. You need more like a tower shield. I get it fight to your strengths.
Awesome video as always Skal, very informative
would it be feasible to use a 1h sword and buckler with a dagger equipped on the buckler armed hand if the buckler was attached to the wrist?
or would equipping it on the wrist make the buckler useless?
+Optimatium Well the Scots did that with a targe and a dirk.
The buckler's handle is thin enough to be used with a dagger so it wouldn't be a problem.
www.thearma.org/essays/SandB/1467T3.jpg
But why?
+Optimatium wristmount? no! dont reduce a buckler to a "proto-gountlett"- simply hold the grip of the buckler with your palm (like the leathergrip of a camcorder) and the dagger with the fingers.
I've done this with a large viking shield (with a thick wooden grip and a sax (same size as a typical dagger) and it worked well.
The parry with the edge argument is the best. There is never a situation where it is better to parry with the flat part of the sword as opposed to the edge...it is a sword not a shield and parrying with the edge allows it to stay pointed at the target in preparation for the cut rather than having to be 'flipped' and then in position to cut. Its about the cut and always about the cut (see: Book of 5 Rings by Miyomoto Musashi). The sword is an offensive weapon, not defensive. The guard in this fashion provides little defense but at little cost as opposed to the alternative which is little defense at great cost as you demonstrated. Well done.
*For reference to other viewers* Skallagrim had previously published a video that goes deeper into the Edge vs. Flat parrying debate (pros and cons of both), found here: th-cam.com/video/W9b8q7-M_dQ/w-d-xo.html
Its really nice that you mention that claymore. Its in the museum of my home town, Edinburgh. I've seen it many a time. I think I remember reading that it was made fore ceremonial use.
but in case swords were build with the cross guard in that way, you wouldn't use the same techniques you use with a normal sword.
+Santiago Boo it likely has to do with weight distribution and practicality.
it sure does. I was just saying that skall´s pointed out some disadvantages that wouldn't be a problem if you used different techniques.
I remember you saying in one of your other videos that you don't think war is glorious. What i find so fricking awesome about it is the people that are still good after having gone through it.
Some day you're gonna slash up the camera during one of those.
+chris c IIRC he's recording at 4K and only using 1/4 of the recording (a corner). This means the camera is actually further away than you get the impression.
+chris c He'll accidentally end the camera rightly with the pommel
+Lothar VonPittinsberg
No, I record in 1080p. But the lens has a pretty narrow angle.
+Skallagrim Ah, I remembered wrong then. Thanks for correcting me.
+Skallagrim You never touched on construction, a perpendicular cross guard would be much more difficult to construct in ancient or even renaissance times.
I wish someone could send you a custom sword with the crossguard in the wrong alignment, and then you made a sequel to this video demonstrating it's cons, and maybe even some hidden pros.
This seems very much like a chicken and egg problem. The cross guard is where it is because that's what the fighting style uses. The fighting style is what it is because the cross guard is where it is. Could think of any upsides to a perpendicular cross guard?
good video, another advantage is in some positions if you parry and than thrust you can take control of their blade as it slides down to the crossguard as you thrust their blade is momentarily trapped removing a lot of your opponents ability to counter
Sometimes a sword is simply shaped the way it is and others follow suit. While I don't think that cross guards are in anyway a haphazard design that simply became the norm as they do serve a function, we do find that most historical examples follow a similar standard that may or may not evolve over time influenced equally by both practical (what was effective) and aesthetic design choices.
You waited until the very end to cover the impractical carry aspect of a guard that would be hitting your side when worn on the hip, but that's probably more important than many of the practical use issues a perpendicular guard creates. A flat sword is simply easier to carry.
It sort of raises the issue that most swords were probably carried lots and used little or even not at all, just like firearms of today.
+Daniel Okada Heheh, ya I kept waiting for him to mention a reason about how it has to hang off your belt. He got to it, eventually. :)
Another reason a design might stay the norm is if skilled fighters were simply used to it and wouldn't want a different design, since it could effect their effectiveness in combat. You don't want to parry an attack as you always have, only to realize your guard is different. That would be a fatal mistake. A seasoned fighter would stick with what he knows. Only a new fighter would want to try a different design.
It's not that uncommon for someone with little or absolutely no experience throw out a bunch of "what if" scenarios for equipment designs or tactics before settling into more or less what essentially everyone else is using/doing once they develop some real experience simply because for 99%+ of all individuals, it's just what works best. But you can't fault someone with no practical experience to want to find a shortcut to an advantage in lieu of standard training, lots of practice, trial and error.
You end up with some really bizarre designs when they're based upon these "what if" scenarios rather than through thorough testing to the point of failure.
Thank you for all the work you do skall! I realy like these type of video's where you combine history, physics and practicallity to explain why things have developped the way they did. I also respect the way you explained why you think it is not shaped like a crucifix on purpose. You mention it and explain it, in stead of just choosing to ignore it. (the argument about the persian sword was not valid in my opion by the way because the swords you showed were from 1800 so they could have just copied that from the europeans. Maybe it is a valid arugment, but not with the swords you showed here). I think this makes you a realy valuable youtuber and reviewer!
skallagrim I wish you would talk about sword breakers. Like the one cold steel makes
I've never tested or even handled a sword breaker, so can't say much about it.
Alexis Larios don't mention the sword breaker, it upsets skall
Especially since you can't end someone rightly with a sword breaker.
Lol, swordbreakers AND cold steel in one sentence. Alexis is living on the edge!
Alexis Larios But could a Sword Breaker break a perfect replica of the Dragon Slayer sword in real life?🤔
My skill in swordsmanship is Asian in origin, Iaijutsu and Kenjutsu mainly, and primarily Wudang. Cuts to the hand and wrist to bleed the opponent out, with a small straight sword, or the fast draw instant kill with a more traditional, more sturdy sword. I believe your teaching of European swordsmanship is highly accurate, and I commend you on your knowledge and skill.
Hey Skallagrim, who would win a sword fight, Hillary or Donald Turmp? What kind of swords would they use?
Trump would obviously compensate for his lack of soul by using a mace, even though it is a sword fight. Clinton would probably go with whatever her ancestors would have used, because that'd be "the right thing to do". Upon learning that the Americans never really engaged in edged weapons warfare (save for bayonets and sabres), she'd probably choose the fanciest thing she could find. Probably some fancy basket guard sabre/rapier.
+Andrew Attard Hilary. Trump with his tiny little hamster size hand cannot carry a sword.
imma bet on Trump. Clinton would probably yell sonething about how swords represent the patriarchy while trump attempts to use the sword to wall her off, then he would stop since it's pointless and just stab her while she yells about how equal opportunities are not equality because women are weaker and black people must be catered to.
Doooode thanks for that development tree pic. I've never seen it before!
Wait? You're supposed to parry with the edge? I thought you were supposed to parry with the flat? Didn't you make several videos on it?
+TheJosephB333 I said the same thing out loud to the computer when I heard it.
+TheJosephB333
th-cam.com/video/W9b8q7-M_dQ/w-d-xo.html
+TheJosephB333 I feel like older swords would've been more likely to break if struck on the flat. I would've guessed the edge parry existed to protect the sword from shattering. Just a guess, I'm not even close to an expert.
+TheJosephB333 If your flat is touching the edge of your opponents blade, your opponent will have a lot more control over your weapon and can easily move your weapon out of the way (mainly with Swords). The only common exception is the Katana because of it's delicate, sharp edge, and also the tsuba (the guard) is round and covers more of the hand compared to early European swords.
*****
Ah yes, thank you skal, this clears it up for me.
One thought I had is that if the crossguard is perpendicular to the plane of the blade, it opens up more lines of attack to the hand. The standard crossguard protects against all lines of attack except for those that are just about exactly parallel to the blade. But in a perpendicular orientation, there is an extra 5 degrees or so to either side where your opponent's blade can slide down the edge of your blade and hit your hand without encountering the crossguard.
He said perpenDICKular.
+Skallagrim whose ISN'T???
UHHHH, yeah Butt Head.
Yan Doroshenko was going to like but I wanted to keep it at 69
hahahaha... lawdy
First thing that came to my mind when i read the title is: The issue of carrying the sword and being poked by your own crossguard while walking and the chance of it getting stuck in your clothing/armor.
This video is really long. The answer is obvious, how would you wear a sword with a perpendicular cross-guard? Would you wear it so that the quillons were poking into you?, or so that the edge was slapping you in the thigh?
Crossguards extended in the plane of the edge protect the hand, and enable you to wear the sword comfortably.
My thinking exactly.
+Thisold Hatte I guess the video needs to be long because thinking and reasoning are two things that have long disappeared from the education system. Or at least I have no better explanation to how people are so stupid after graduating school.
+Thisold Hatte
That's obviously part of it, but it's not the only reason. Believe me, if having a perpendicular crossguard would give one a large advantage in a fight people would have come up with ways to carry it. But it doesn't offer enough an advantage, it adds eight, you can't strike with it, and you rarely use it. I imagine it's also much more difficult to make.
***** What larger swords? There is no real evidence for swords being worn over the shoulder. Generally if a sword was too large to be carried in a scabbard at the hip, it would be carried like a pole-arm.
First off, ten minutes is not long. Secondly, had you actually watched it, you would realize that there are several factors that could have hone into the design choice.
Smooth transition at the end xD Great video as always! Now make one on why it doesn't make sense to not have a crossguard at all, because I am very curious!
I TOUCH MYSELF AT NIGHT
+That's cancerous
8tj6yjstus44zgya1unqg0il.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Forever-alone-400x400.png
Yep, you ended him rightly. XD
***** plis b0ss
the legendary meme in this channel ...
at, knight? ;D
I freaking LOVE your buckler!
Pommel jokes plz.
The "ended rightly" thing awesome. :P Great video! Very interesting stuff!
really have to thank you for these videos. I've been applying them to some of my fantasy art and found the info you give helps me bring some realism and believability to fantasy subjects.
Just gotta say it, your Hair and beard style look really good in this Video.
Wow The Knecht (or kriegsmesser sword) is a really beautiful yet simple sword I didn't even know existed and now I fell in love, I really do have a thing for curved sword for some reason... But that unique guard also catches my attention and I like it. Going to do some research about it.
Another benefit of the guard being oriented to the edge of the blade is that it helps to protect the hand from the opponent's shield. When a shield is used to meet an incoming strike, it is quite likely for the hand to impact on the shield; the cruciform guard creates a "triangle of safety" between the tip of the guard, the pommel, and the body of the shield.
Great video, and you raised more points than I initially considered. My first answer would have just been: "To protect the fingers". If you're in some kind of forward stance, your fingers are the closest target to your opponent, and a perpendicular cross guard would leave them open to a hit.
Also, I have the same book as you. When I saw the pages on screen, I squealed a little.
I love that Skall has just given in and accepted the Ended Rightly jokes.
The Claymore was either an experiment or the wielder had some physical quirk that made it practical.
The nail would also increase the damage of a punch to the face.
Haven't seen one of Skallgrim's vids in a while. The video quality has risen quite a bit!
My theory was that early swords created with more primitive smithing techniques meant that a cross guard that is in the same orientation as the blade was easier to create - saving time in "mass" production of swords. As more swords were like this, techniques such as parries developed to make use of the guard orientation (the circular logic you mentioned), and as these techniques became more standard, it made sense to continue making swords in this way.
You have quite beautiful swords right there man :D
you keep killing me with the pommel thing!! hillarious! Btw, nice video. there's no such a thing like listening to someone who knows what is he or she talking about
nice explaination skall! understandable also for someone like me, who never hold a sword!^^
and again, germans just know it best :D the guard of the "messer" just makes sooo much sense and is still this minimalistic!
greetings to you from Germany ;D
This is some pretty cool stuff, after watching For Honor I got curious about some of the techniques and reasoning behind some of the game's actions. Nice videos man!
I really think that the sword at 1:54 is one of the most beautiful sword shapes I've ever seen.