Guards

[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 The justification was that it prevented tangling in the loose clothing when shashka was withdrawn from the scabbard.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 The justification was that it prevented tangling in the loose clothing when shashka was withdrawn from the scabbard.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