myArmoury.com - Rainguards - how common were they?

Forum Index » Historical Arms Talk » Rainguards - how common were they?

Posts: 254 Location: Lubbock, TX

Fri 23 Oct, 2009 10:34 pm

Craig Peters wrote:

I'd like to offer a third hypothesis on the purpose of rain guards....when you fence with a sword that has a rain guard, it prevents rust posts from developing on the ricasso/strong of your sword from thumb placement on the blade. It also prevents calluses or blisters from developing on your thumbs with ongoing intensive practice.

Yes, Craig. This had already come up in the discussion here:

Quote:

So, I had a thought (sorry if its already been stated) in addition to a raingaurd and possible hand protection (maybe the start of ring gaurds found in the 16th century, dunno) what if this device is also actually and extension of the grip. not just in appearance but in function allowing the placement of the thumb during cuts in german systems.

i just quickly grab the following of the german longsword feature on this website. look at the thumbs and the placement. maybe the raingaurd also allowed for better grip for just such hand possisions? I dont know, as i have never used raingaurds, perhaps this is already a common understanding to others in the HEMA world

and here:

Quote:

The idea that these leathers may have been intended to prevent the blade from being stained when using thumb grips as often done in German swordsmanship has been raised a couple of times.
Well, from experience I can only say that cross guard leathers make it hard to polish the guard and the base of the blade. And these parts will stain never-the-less if not oiled and sustained appropriately.
The leather itself neither obstructs nor helps with thumb grips.

I find this option to be the most convincing myself. Granted, the leather keeps the covered part of the sword from receiving the oiling it needs to resist natural corrosion. However, medieval and renaissance minds may not have grasped that the steel will corrode whether it is oiled or not as long as the observed cause of the stain, the thumb is kept off. And if the leather is never removed, they would never learn of the corrosion anyways. At least the leather would keep the blade from being stained by the thumb. I disagree that adding leather "neither obstructs nor helps with thumb grips." Leather is a far superior gripping surface than polished metal and the choice par excellence of the day. After all, leather is what they made sword grips out of in the first place. It seems like the appearance of these leather coverings correspond to the increasing prevalence of dismounted infantry armed with swords as Roland mentions in the video. Perhaps the increase in dismounted combat contributed to the development of higher forms of sword fighting, requiring unprecedented use of the thumb grip, and therefore, grip for the thumb.

I would like to add an objection from Sal Bertucci (raised at ARMA's forum):

Quote:

I have observed one problem with the hypothesis. In many of the images that I have seen the chape is no wider than the blade, but in the version that they are using the chape is almost twice as wide as the blade.

From period artwork and extant examples that I am aware of, it seems like the leather chape is made to be closely fitting to the blade. If it were meant to further displace an opposing sword in the bind, wouldn't the chapes normally be made larger and more robust?

Greg Coffman

Profile PM

Craig Peters

Quote

Posts: 2,167

Sat 24 Oct, 2009 10:29 am

Greg,

It's looks like we both didn't read the other posts closely enough. ;) The objection you raised by Sal doesn't apply, because I wasn't actually talking about displacing swords from the bind. All that I mentioned was less wear and tear on your thumbs, and less rust on the blade. Hand protection, from incidental blade contact during the bind, wasn't a part of my discussion.

Profile PM

Greg Coffman

Quote

Posts: 254 Location: Lubbock, TX

Sat 24 Oct, 2009 11:02 am

I didn't raise Sal's point in response to you Craig, but in objection to the original idea being discussed in this thread: that perhaps the purpose of the chape is to displace a sword in the bind in such a way as the thumb is better protected.

In response to your post, the thumb will get calloused regardless of what material is underneath it. Besides that, I was agreeing with.

Greg

Profile PM

Roland Warzecha

Quote

Posts: 36

Mon 26 Oct, 2009 8:04 am

Greg Coffman wrote:

From period artwork and extant examples that I am aware of, it seems like the leather chape is made to be closely fitting to the blade.

That is correct, though the surviving originals have usually shrunk in size like all age-old leather objects.

The leather shown in the clip is the first one I made.
The leather ring under the flap is just wide enough to cover and seal this training sword's scabbard mouth. The flap over the cross guard is in fact somewhat too wide if compared to period art.

Curiously, with this one, it turned out that it is the ring that offers the required protection. The flap cannot fold back because it is attached to the ring. While it keeps the ring in place, it already shows wear at the edges. The wear on my leather is exactly at the same spots as the apparent wear on the edges of the Vienna example shown in the clip (the original with green background). The specimen I am talking about is og the tubular type. If I would cut off the outer flap parts that apparently take most stress I would be left with the original tubular design, too. The leather construction would then look like depicted in period art., for instance like the example from the Thomas Altar by Master Franke (1425) which is also shown in the clip. In this particular picture you can actually see the space between the tube and the blade base. This I based my version's leather tube on. The combination with an attached flap does, however, not live up to the task. Not surprisingly, the authentic design proved superior.

Greg Coffman wrote:

If it were meant to further displace an opposing sword in the bind, wouldn't the chapes normally be made larger and more robust?

Now here is an interesting observation from experimenting with sharps:

The early flap type (without a tube) folds back, protects the hand and has the blade slide off, leaving almost no trace on the leather. However, now and again the blade is deviated too far and over the cross guard so that the bind is lost completely.

The tubular type gives just enough protection so that the blade sliding in from the initial bind does not hit the thumb. It also catches the edge in such a way that it remains in the bind, energy absorbed by the leather. For split second it feels as if it is glued to the bind which gives a sensation of control to the swordsman using a tubular cross leather. The leather is left with more marks than the flap type but nothing really worth mentioning. However, it will have to be replaced sooner than the flap version.

Both types persisted and remained in use.

So in regard to your question:
The small leather constructions offer enough finger protection, and the tubualr type has the benefit of granting additional control in the bind (if the opponent's sword slldes down to the cross, which is the situation they are supposed to deal with in the first place.)
There is no need for cross leathers to be any bigger, it might even be a disadvantage.

Thanks for your observations,
Roland

Profile PM

Roland Warzecha

Quote

Posts: 36

Mon 26 Oct, 2009 2:35 pm

Hi all,
here is a picture of an early flap.

Saint Jacob on the right carries a sword point up with a flap hanging down and covering part of his hand. This I believe to be the oldest type. It is probably not completely soft but apparently folds back. It is of 1271 and now in the Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.

Surprisingly small and apparently not wide enough to serve as a rain guard.
As it is Italian, it is neither very likely that it was intended to help with the thumb grip which is usually considered a feature of German swordsmanship.

Profile PM

Roland Warzecha

Quote

Posts: 36

Mon 26 Oct, 2009 2:48 pm

Hmm, ...
maybe it is just the top part of the grip?
Looking at it again, I am in doubt now.

Profile PM

M. Curk

Quote

Posts: 35 Location: Slovenia

Wed 31 Dec, 2014 9:18 am

Reading through this thread I felt the need of reviving it.
As we mostly agree that hand protection was quite definitely one of the functions I think that the device on an Albion Knecht's cross guard might be one of the forms (see the link). We see a similar protector on other types of war knives also.
The other thing that comes to mind is that the ricasso part of the Meyer sword has the same function, or am I wrong?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...87692).jpg

Profile PM

Henrik Granlid

Quote

Posts: 103 Location: Sweden

Mon 19 Jan, 2015 2:58 pm

I just found this image.

http://www.gettyimages.se/detail/illustration.../112190208

That's a lot of rainguards.
Sure, it could be artists discretion.
And it might not even be real.

But those sure are a lot of rainguards.

Profile PM

Reply to topic

Page 3 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum