Why crossguards are shaped the way they are (and not perpendicular) 

I wonder what modern swords would be like like now if the gun was never invented.

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."

the four guarded claymore was probably some rich guys idea of a fancy sword.

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.

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,

They are shaped that way as to not hinder you in unscrewing your pommel, obviously

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.

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.

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.

TL DR version: Ergonomics.

Ending pommel jokes rightly with pommel jokes. Sounds like a plan.

I friggin love the ended rightly joke this community has.

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 appreciate your embracement of the Pommel jokes 😂.

"Why crossguards are shaped the way they are" Well if they weren't, then they wouldn't be called *cross*guards now, would they?

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.

"Civil discussions mind you. ... Or you will be ended rightly." Your never going to let that go are you skall XD

Oh man, I have that book! "The illustrated world encyclopedia of knives, swords spears and daggers." Definitely a great read!

have you ever accidentally hit your camera while recording?

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.

7:10 That's a beautiful buckler!

1/10 Not enough Pommel throwing.

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.

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.

That's enough! I have to get a unsrewable pommel. I'm just simply not feel safe without it.

Awesome video as always Skal, very informative

You take a very intelligent stance with your arguments and every video I'm very impressed with your RU-vid channel keep up the good work

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.

Hey that buckler is gorgeous :O

So many beautiful swords in this video! congrats Skall

I honestly believe this is youtube's best channel, thank you for your work

Another reason is balance. Swords need to be somewhat flat in their structure to cut well, and that flat plane needs to be parallel to the cutting direction. Otherwise, with bits of weight sticking out to left and right it'd be really awkward to manouver.

sat through the entire video even though i don't care about swords nice work

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 really enjoy your videos, and your input. Thank you for making these videos.

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)

been getting a lot of albions, skallagrimm - i remember when this channel was very budget friendly

The "ended rightly" thing awesome. :P Great video! Very interesting stuff!

The end was BRILLIANT. Nice video :P

The grip is stronger when forward pressure is applied as opposed to the side to side. I think the sword would pop out of your hand when struck if the crossguard was facing the other way.

A disc guard is essentially a cross guard that points in every direction.

Thanks for this Skall. I found the video very instructional and interesting.

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!

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?

Does sword really have to be that flexible? To me that looks somewhat unnatural for a genuine swords

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.

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.

There seem to be a bunch of other reasons in my mind, such as ease of manufacture and better balance. Still, good analysis.

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.

Thank you. I have been wondering about this for a long time.

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!

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.

*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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W9b8q7-M_dQ.html

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!

Very informative great video dude.

i feel like its just easyer to forge. the viking swords had no guard but that part was still facing the edge. all they did was streching it out. no need to overthink it

I agree with everything, i just wanna say that your beard touches the mic a lot

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!

Haven't seen one of Skallgrim's vids in a while. The video quality has risen quite a bit!

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.

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?

I love that evolutionary tree for swords. Super informative, yet very elegant.

+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.

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.)

Please could you make a video on that shiny buckler?

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.

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

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?

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.

You have quite beautiful swords right there man :D

Great video, very informative. Also fan of the beard.

Some day you're gonna slash up the camera during one of those.

Hey Skallagrim, who would win a sword fight, Hillary or Donald Turmp? What kind of swords would they use?

Well done. You've answered it in every single imaginable way.

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.

skallagrim I wish you would talk about sword breakers. Like the one cold steel makes

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?

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 :)

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

According to dark souls I can party with a caestus

He said perpenDICKular.

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!

Glad to see you back in action man. I was worried that that accident you were in would have some lasting effect.

Pommel jokes plz.

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.

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.

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.

I TOUCH MYSELF AT NIGHT

Excellent video !!! 😊

Doooode thanks for that development tree pic. I've never seen it before!

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

Great study. I subscribed!

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. :)

Random new subscriber, but, I had always asked myself this question. Great video man. History is a fucking trip.

as always..very informative and a lot of commonsense thanks skall

Howdy, great video! That's a concept that I was debating with somebody the other day! Anyhow, I've actually been looking at the sword of Feanor for a long time. Is it a good sword?

Can you make a vid about all your swords you own? Like showing us how many it are and which. It looks like you must have hundreds of swords :-D Would really like to see that. Keep on filming. Love your vids

Just gotta say it, your Hair and beard style look really good in this Video.

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.