Guards

[fenlander]

I have been pondering lately as to what is the logic behind a decison of a knife or sword maker on the size of a guard ie its length. It seems that the size of some guards are completely or almost completely usless (too small). A small guard in a sword may (if you are lucky) stop you getting your wrist cut off from an enemy sword. A larger guard will of course be better as it will afford more protection to the whole forearm. Why on so many of these swords that i see here, do they have such small guards ? What is the point in making a guard, say 1 inch long, why not make it larger ? The western medieval swords seem to have much larger guards, or the viking sword next to the forum title. It seems that these western swords were made far more practically than the Eastern swords, so many of which have no guard at all. Why ? Why have no guard or a very small one, is there something I am missing here ? Exception being the Chinese sai and butterfly swords. I am really curious about this. Why would a designer of a sword decide to have no guard, or one so small that is almost like having no guard, is there a good practical fighting reason ?
(I am not talking about cavalry swords)

[Tim Simmons]

Interesting, I think in some areas cost and technique might have something to do with it. A guard may only have an aesthetic function or be there as an adaption from tradition. Also I think a guard may be absent or minimal as the weapon was not used with the intention of fighting in a situation where swords where clashing and parrying with opponents as in films or in training. Sure some defencive moves were most probably made but I suspect especially with small inter tribal conflicts opponents were rushed at with the hope of catching them of guard or in surprise raids or ambush. A minimal guard might well have been enough in these circumstances

[joshualayne]

It seems like a full knuckle guard could get in the way of some fighting styles, for example (from the movies... :P) if you switch hands while fighting a knuckle guard would really get in the way.

A general crossguard could also get caught on clothing, etc... during wear (perhaps during use as well) and so would not be desirable in that sense, also an overly large straight crossguard can impede the wrist/forearm.

my $0.02

j.

[Rich]

On Nihonto (Japanese swords), the tsuba (hand guard) is not meant to
prevent the opponents swords from striking the hand, but rather to
prevent the users hands from slipping onto the blade. Hence many are
small and somewhat "delicate" sukashi (cut out) styles. It is rare to find
a tsuba with a sword cut on it.

Rich S

The Japanese Sword Index
http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/nihonto.htm

[Hrthuma ibn Marwan]

Originally Posted by Rich

On Nihonto (Japanese swords), the tsuba (hand guard) is not meant to
prevent the opponents swords from striking the hand, but rather to
prevent the users hands from slipping onto the blade. Hence many are
small and somewhat "delicate" sukashi (cut out) styles. It is rare to find
a tsuba with a sword cut on it.

Rich S

The Japanese Sword Index
http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/nihonto.htm

^That is one good reason.

You also have to see the "ideology" behind the guards on the swords. Some might be for protection, some might be like the tsuba.
Then also, the European swords were meant for sheer power, but other swords might have been built in order to be swift and quick etc..

What I like is the european sabres and pirate swords. Usually have a good protection plus, good maneuverability

[Bill M]

Different fighting styles dictate different guard styles. Note the difference in european swords and Chinese. Personally I find the lines of a Chinese sword guard more appealing than a European.

Certainly many guards are from strict convention like and tradition the Moro kris and the barong.

How the handle fits is important also. I just bought a kris from a seller who knows nothing about them. He has a few for sale and he told me that some are very comfortable to hold, but one of those I bought from him was very uncomfortable. That one had the handle on backwards.

Here is a guy who never held a kris before and yet he knows that many are comfortable and one is not. He did not understand why it was uncomfortable. But this tells me that on some swords there is only one comfortable way to hold it and that was how it was designed.

[Chris Evans]

Hi fenlander,

Consistent with Tim's post, Egerton Castle, the renowned English swordsmanship historian of the Victorian era, observed that the degree of hand protection offered by a sword's hilt was a direct reflection of the amount of defence expected from the weapon. Until fairly late in the piece, the late renaissance, swords were primarily weapons of offence and the defence was relegated to an auxiliary implement, such a shield or dagger, or simply bodily evasion. The most basic form of defence, using a sword, is hiding behind one's blade from the threatening attack, usually called "covering". More advanced techniques involve parrying with various techniques using the blade or hilt.

As observed by Rich, handguards were also fitted simply to prevent the hand from slipping onto the blade. This is the case with most knives that carry a handguard, left hand parrying daggers excepted, as these had complex handguards designed to protect the hand from the opponent's sword.

As well as protecting and locating the hand, many handguards had a further role: That of allowing a greater control by way of improving the grip of the sword. Fingers and thumbs were often wrapped around parts of the handguard.


Cheers
Chris

[fenlander]

This is a great forum with having so many experts on it like the contributers to this thread, Chris etc. I am learning so many things. I think now in the age of the internet, you can learn things so much quicker than in the old days. This information on hand guards would of taken so long to study in the pre-computer era.
Anyway thanks from now on i will be looking at swords in a completely different way. I had never even thought of the guard as being there to protect ones own hand from slipping onto your own blade. I guess it is because I practice with wing chun butterfly swords that I was thinking of them (guards) only in terms of trapping the opponents sword.

[ariel]

Shashkas had no handguard. The justification was that it prevented tangling in the loose clothing when shashka was withdrawn from the scabbard. Perhaps. On the other hand, there are handguards on the swords from Arabia, North Africa or Turkey, where clothing was as loose if not looser than in the Caucasus.
I guess the form might have come first and the justification later.
Kwasniewicz dedicates a lot of discussion to the issue of sword guards. Exaggeratedly-long quillons of the early Hungarian-Polish swords might have been thoght to provide greater degree of hand protection. Subsequent development of semi-closed guards and, especially, D-guards with thumb ring dramatically altered fencing techniques.
There were 2 modes of dealing with the handguard: the early one had it not attached to the pommel. This was believed to inflict vibration and loss of terminal energy in the blade that struck it. Later, the end of the handguard was attached to the pommel and... nothing bad happened.
The thumb ring was a brilliant invention! We often read here that the small tulwar handles were designed to accomodate a grip with the index finger in front of one quillon. True or not, this converts a standard grip into a "pistol" one. The thumb ring achieved the same but with proper protection. The "new and improved grip" allowed better control of the blade and permitted thrusts.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

Originally Posted by ariel

Shashkas had no handguard. The justification was that it prevented tangling in the loose clothing when shashka was withdrawn from the scabbard. Perhaps. On the other hand, there are handguards on the swords from Arabia, North Africa or Turkey, where clothing was as loose if not looser than in the Caucasus.
I guess the form might have come first and the justification later.
Kwasniewicz dedicates a lot of discussion to the issue of sword guards. Exaggeratedly-long quillons of the early Hungarian-Polish swords might have been thoght to provide greater degree of hand protection. Subsequent development of semi-closed guards and, especially, D-guards with thumb ring dramatically altered fencing techniques.
There were 2 modes of dealing with the handguard: the early one had it not attached to the pommel. This was believed to inflict vibration and loss of terminal energy in the blade that struck it. Later, the end of the handguard was attached to the pommel and... nothing bad happened.
The thumb ring was a brilliant invention! We often read here that the small tulwar handles were designed to accommodate a grip with the index finger in front of one quillon. True or not, this converts a standard grip into a "pistol" one. The thumb ring achieved the same but with proper protection. The "new and improved grip" allowed better control of the blade and permitted thrusts.

You know, I always wondered about Shashkas, and those long quillons on Hungarian/Polish sabres. On rapiers, very long quillons (up o 30cm)served the purpose of preventing the opponent's blade from traveling around ones hilt. But on those sabres? If it was to protect the hands, because the fighting was that tight, surely they would not have made much difference unless complemented with side rings, for how could it be ensured that the opponents edge would slide down only along one's own edge or back? And then why fit them with thumb rings, that exposed the thumb completely?

I haven't heard that account of why knuckle guards were attached to pommels later in time. I always assumed that it was to impart more strength by providing two points of support. But that explanation re vibration also makes good sense.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi fenlander,

Thank you for your compliments. There is great merit in pooling knowledge and discussing various issues. The internet is a great vehicle to this effect.

But being human, we all err from time to time and it is advisable to validate anything that one reads on forums by following up on published sources, preferably primary. Secondary sources can be very unreliable, as can be the internet, because there is a tendency for authors to quote each other.

Cheers
Chris

[fenlander]

Good advice Chris.

yes I agree that the internet can be unreliable, however I think this forum is better than most others. I think internet forums are a great way to point beginers in the right direction. Books recommended on forums can be very useful. But I take your point about checking up on information gained from the internet as anyone can post on here or any other forum. A beginner like myself would not have a clue if they were accurate or not. Trouble is I want to learn everything at once but don't really know where to start. I can speak Chinese (read a little) and know something about the history of China as well as having studied Chinese martial arts for some time, Therefore I will start to concentrate on Chinese swords and knives (Phillip really knows a lot about China and is a walking encyclopedia on it ) I will also as a secondary pursuit learn something about the Fillipino knives and daggers as well.

[Chris Evans]

Hi fenlander,

Originally Posted by fenlander

Good advice Chris.

yes I agree that the internet can be unreliable, however I think this forum is better than most others. I think internet forums are a great way to point beginers in the right direction. Books recommended on forums can be very useful. But I take your point about checking up on information gained from the internet as anyone can post on here or any other forum. A beginner like myself would not have a clue if they were accurate or not. Trouble is I want to learn everything at once but don't really know where to start. I can speak Chinese (read a little) and know something about the history of China as well as having studied Chinese martial arts for some time, Therefore I will start to concentrate on Chinese swords and knives (Phillip really knows a lot about China and is a walking encyclopedia on it ) I will also as a secondary pursuit learn something about the Fillipino knives and daggers as well.

Yes, I agree that this forum is a couple of notches above the rest, but that's because we collectors are such nice and reasonable, not to mention scholarly people

As someone who has a command over Chinese, not to mention excellent English, your input will be invaluable and greatly appreciated. One of my greatest frustrations re oriental weapons is that I am forever compelled to rely on secondary or often poorly translated sources.

Cheers
Chris

[fenlander]

Thanks Chris