Why Early Swords Don't Have Hilts *Very Insightful Video*
WithinAmnesia
Member Posts: 961
in Off-Topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0MZb1SBVfw4
Comments
treat-iss, not treat-eyes
No mention of the added utility of just plain old pummeling with a steel guard vs relying on the pommel. Civilians with less training/experience tend to fight differently than a trained veteran soldier, and if killing is not wise, punching with a guard will do quite a bit of damage.
Its also interesting that not all cultures use the same types of guards for their swords, and some use little or no guard. Guardless swords weren't usually that big, and but I'd wager you'd have much better balance for slashing if you have less hilt-weight. Same principle a battle axe relied on actually, so lighter guards might be prefered in a case where you want a lighter sword that strikes disproportionately hard. Katana are an example of this I would argue, and its not a coincidence that traditionally you wield one with both hands to offset the balance of lacking a large guard or pommel.
When I make machettes for personal use (usually from random good steel scrap), I rarely use much counterweight, as they cut MUCH better with no balance. My most aggressive chopper, a massive two-handed beast can cut incredibly deep from weight/balance alone. I can cut down a pretty big tree in surprisingly little time with it, or section a big log. The only balance I have on it is a wire wrap to absorb shock.
Vs an unarmoured opponent (ie not even boiled leather) you wouldn't really need extra cutting power either, so the cost of less damage for much better defence becomes an obvious trade off.
at most i'd stick with a stick
All told, dangerous toys are fun, but you could get hurt!