Continuum of Blades: Are they all that different?

[James Brazas]

Those of us in our group have been talking a lot lately about the similarities and differences between various one-handed swords and we are gradually coming to the conclusion that there are more similarities than differences.

For instance, Talhoffer seems to show arming sword-and-buckler and messer-and-buckler as nearly interchangeable.

Di Grassi in his sidesword manual shows nearly as many arming swords in his illustrations as he does sideswords.

As we have gone through Johannes Lecküchner's Messer manual, I've been using a Falchion waster rather than a Messer waster. With the exception of the techniques that use the pariernagel, I haven't had any problems at all. In fact, even for pariernagel techniques, it seems all I have to do is tilt my blade to use the cross-guard instead.

Please let me know if I'm on the right track here with the following or if I'm off my rocker:



Messer:

For Messer techniques, the Messer (of course) is ideal.

Falchions are nearly ideal (though pariernagel techniques must be done with the cross)

Early Arming Swords (such as Type XII) are quite workable, though pariernagel techniques, halfswording methods, and the wakers have to be adjusted.

Late Arming Swords (such as Type XV) are technically workable, though poorly suited. They have all the differences of an early arming sword plus the fact that they are specialized for thrusting rather than cutting - though they can still cut moderately well.

Sideswords can apply a little bit, though it's quite a stretch.

Rapiers are too different.



Sword-and-Buckler (M.S. I.33 Style):

Arming swords are ideal.

Messers and Falchions would work well, though they would not be as good at thrusting and they can't perform false edge cuts as well (since even with a clipped point, their false edge is pretty tiny).

Sideswords are overlong and have a protective hilt that obviates some of the utility of some of the I.33 guards that use the buckler to protect the hands. But they're still workable.

Rapiers are too different.



Sidesword:

Sideswords are obviously ideal.

Messers and Falchions could apply some techniques, but really aren't well suited for sidesword fencing.

Arming Swords (especially Types XV to XVIII) would work quite well with sidesword techniques. They are shorter and have less hand protection, but they can still do all the same movements. In fact, at least for the cuts, they would do a better job than the sideswords.

Rapiers can do many sidesword techniques, but really can't deliver anything more than a minor harassing cut at best. Plus, rapiers don't do well against metal armor (which doesn't bother the sidesword so much).


Rapiers:

Obviously, the rapier works best.

Except for the sidesword (which can do anything a rapier can do, though with less reach), none of the other swords would be well-suited for rapier play.

What I'm seeing here is something of a continuum of blades from Messer to Falchion to Early Arming Sword to Late Arming Sword to Sidesword to Rapier. The closer the blades are to each other in that continuum, the more they are able to effectively use one another's techniques.

Am I on the right track?

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

I'd certainly agree that there are more similarities than differences.

I think presenting these ideas as a one-dimensional succession is a mistake; most "rapier" treatises can apply to sideswords or equivalent forms of their days. The variety of blades is staggering and does not just boil down to short and wide vs. long and thin, see this post for examples. Thibault and the Spanish masters use shorter swords than the Italians, which could have just as good an edge as what we might think of as sidesword, yet these are called rapier treatises, so the division is quite unclear. And the Italians cut plenty and never say "oh this is just to tire the opponent and bit". But I think this has been discussed before

I think the key divide happened somewhere during the early XVIth century, when straight double edged swords became long enough and acquired enough hand protection to be usable on their own for defence. Although extremely thin and extremely long blades eventually developed, there never was a fencing style catering specifically to these blades.

It is possible to do "rapier" or "sidesword" with a shorter medieval blade. After all, the basics remain applicable. It's just a lot less safe with the shorter blade and without a complex guard, and will lead to grappling more often. I think swords evolved to account for that.

Regards,

[Stacy Clifford]

...For in conclusion after much deliberation, I have found out this Arte, from the which onely dependeth the knowledge of all that which a man may performe with a weapon in his hand, and not onely with those weapons which are found out in these our dayes, but also with those that shall be invented in time to come...
-Giacomo Di Grassi

In general your continuum is pretty accurate, but I think you're trying to subdivide weapons more than the masters themselves saw necessary to. The basic principles apply regardless of the length and shape of the weapon. However, physics still places certain limitations on sword styles. The one fast rule I've found with single-hand swords is that the longer they are, the less inclined you become to swing them in a cut for the simple reason that beyond a certain length, it's just too slow, and may take too much room in tight spaces. You can foyne and thrust with any length sword you please, and any blade width for that matter as long as you are strong enough to control the point. A simple cross may endanger your hand more than a compound hilt, as Vincent states, but the physics of foyning remain sound whether you're using a Norman sword, a Type XXII, or an Italian rapier. You can thrust effectively with one hand from a dagger all the way up to an 8-ft. staff, but past a certain length, cutting effectively requires two hands. If your sword is of a length and shape that allows it to do both well, then you're free to choose your preferred method.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

You can foyne and thrust with any length sword you please, and any blade width for that matter as long as you are strong enough to control the point. A simple cross may endanger your hand more than a compound hilt, as Vincent states, but the physics of foyning remain sound whether you're using a Norman sword, a Type XXII, or an Italian rapier.

Although thrusting is of course possible with any length of blade, I think rapier and to a lesser extent sidesword rely much on being able to wound mortally while staying out of grappling range and controlling the opponent's weapon with the blade. This needs a threshold length of blade (which I put as one arm length + half of chest width, approximately), and is made safer by complex hilts. To take an extreme example, with a dagger you can thrust in time of the opponent's attack, but you can't parry with your blade at the same time, you have to use your other hand or void very skilfully. This gives a different style compared to long blades. Medieval one-handed sword generally don't reach that threshold, even though they're not that far and can sometimes use angle to make up for the difference.

So aside from the slowed down swing, there are other tactical effects of length that cannot entirely be neglected.

Regards,

[Stacy Clifford]

Although thrusting is of course possible with any length of blade, I think rapier and to a lesser extent sidesword rely much on being able to wound mortally while staying out of grappling range and controlling the opponent's weapon with the blade. This needs a threshold length of blade (which I put as one arm length + half of chest width, approximately), and is made safer by complex hilts. To take an extreme example, with a dagger you can thrust in time of the opponent's attack, but you can't parry with your blade at the same time, you have to use your other hand or void very skilfully. This gives a different style compared to long blades. Medieval one-handed sword generally don't reach that threshold, even though they're not that far and can sometimes use angle to make up for the difference.

So aside from the slowed down swing, there are other tactical effects of length that cannot entirely be neglected.

True, I didn't have time to write everything I might have liked yesterday, but certainly shorter swords will have trouble thrusting and defending simultaneously, as rapiers and sideswords are designed to do. What you said about making up for length with angles is what I think Di Grassi had in mind in saying the principles for his single sword hold true for other weapons, or along those lines at least. It's still better to foyne with a weapon that's made for it, rather than one that's made mostly for cutting; I'm simply agreeing with Di Grassi that it can be done provided you make the necessary adjustments. With regard to grappling range, I agree the masters try to avoid grappling with single swords, but many techniques I've seen still occur at strong on strong or strong on middle on the sword, putting the forward hand well within grabbing range if you're so inclined. They may be avoiding grappling for other reasons, like the possibility of a dagger being pulled, but I don't think it's because they're purposely staying out of that range. (I'm counting a hand grab as a form of grapple. Admittedly, Di Grassi doesn't take it any closer than that--no arm bars and such.)

The long and short of it is that you can technically perform the same actions with any single-hand sword, but short blades don't foyne very well and long blades don't cut very well, so fight appropriately. The width and shape of the blade is less important in this regard than the length, so long as you have the strength to control the blade in the manner you choose to fight.

[James Brazas]

Thank you both for your input!

I hadn't really thought of blade length as the primary issue, but it makes sense.

This past weekend, I thought I would try out what both of you said to see how it works in a more practical way. Both of you are right!

I noticed that sideswords are slower and less responsive in the cut relative to a messer or other shorter blade. It can cut, but doesn't like it as much. The weapon's also too long to be able to pull off some of the close-in grappling, ringen am schwert, and disarm techniques taught in the Messer manuals.

I also tested the Messer in a foyning fence with another fencer and we found that you're also right about that too. The Messer certainly can thrust (and Leckuchner has a surprisingly large number of thrusts in his Messer manual). Yet I'm within grappling range by the time my thrust hits home since the blade is shorter than my arm. We also found that traditional hanger parries and counter-thrusts don't seem to work quite the same with the Messer. We could still do them, of course, but we often wound up getting strong-on-strong rather than strong-on-weak. Then there was the fact that we had to disengage from the bind in order to complete the counter-thrust since the Messer's blade is only a little over 2 feet long.

So, at least from my limited experimentation, thrusting seems to be just as doable with short weapons, though there is greater risk in the counter-thrust since you have to leave the bind briefly to complete the thrust (even against similarly short weapons).

Regarding Sidesword vs. Rapier, I agree that the line between them is thick and blurry. My line about Rapiers being unable to do more than harassing cuts was more in reference to the especially long, especially thin rapiers that sometimes didn't even have much of an edge. But I freely admit that not all rapiers were on that extreme end.

I would disagree with one minor point from Vincent Le Chevalier, though.

I admit that you don't see too many manuals teaching arming sword by itself, but Talhoffer and Di Grassi both have illustrations clearly showing arming swords being used alone without any buckler, dagger, or shield. Talhoffer seems to show the arming sword being used in the same style as his messer, whereas Di Grassi's many aforementioned arming sword illustrations are in his sidesword section. I also found, oddly enough, that Joseph Swetnam taught the use of arming sword and dagger. He called it a "short sword" and included an illustration with a wide, cutting-oriented blade that had a simple cross-guard. (Though that's off-topic a bit.)

Then there's the fact that the Messer and Dussack are both usually taught without the aid of bucklers, daggers, or shields - and both the Messer and Dussack are much shorter than the arming sword. Admittedly, the Dussack has lots of hand protection, but the Messer doesn't. It may have the pariernagel, but it's cross-guard is actually a little smaller than most arming swords. So it certainly has a lot less hand protection than any sidesword or rapier.

I agree, though, that greater hand protection means greater ease and safety in using the sword without wearing gauntlets or using a buckler, and longer blades do help with a foyning fence. So I think I agree with your main point there.

The more I experiment with this, the more I see the arming sword as the generalist "do anything" one-handed sword. It can do any one-hand fencing style quite ably.

The Messer and Sidesword/Rapier also seem to be more versatile than I had once thought, though they're all a bit more specialized.

[Stacy Clifford]

The surviving manual of Henry de Sainct-Didier is also focused exclusively on single sword. (He apparently wrote manuals on other weapons as well, but they have yet to be found.) I have a copy, but I've never had time to work through it yet. It contains a very well-rounded collection of cutting, thrusting and grappling techniques for side/arming sword (and poetry and tennis lessons) and looks like an excellent manual to work on.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

For me Di Grassi and Sainct-Didier are both unambiguously sidesword (i.e. long blade complex hilt). The illustrations cannot be entirely trusted, especially those of the English edition of Di Grassi. In the Italian, the blades are long and the index is wrapped around the quillon, a form of grip that is a lot safer with a complex hilt. And complex hilts appear and become common before the publication of either of these works. Of course, many of the techniques can work with a shorter sword without complex hilt, but I think it's the development of the sidesword that really led to these single-sword methods.

Now the messer is an interesting beast, about which I don't know much. I suppose with the shorter blade you don't strike as much in opposition, which is the situation in which complex hilts help most: the opponent's blade sliding on yours towards the hilt as you strike home. We'd have to look more closely at the context surrounding that weapon too...

Regards,

[James Brazas]

Stacy Clifford:

Thanks for the tip! Do you know where I could find the Henry de Sainct-Didier manual? I looked on Wiktenauer, but they only had the illustrations without text (and the original French forward, which does me little good as my knowledge of the French language is extremely limited).

Vincent Le Chevalier:

I mean no disrespect, but I think you may have over-stated your case.

By and large, you're right. Di Grassi and Sainct-Dider are primarily designed as sidesword manuals and single sword became a much more popular style with the sidesword or rapier than it ever was with the arming sword.

Yet I think you've made some over-broad generalizations.

First, I think we can trust the illustrations in the manuals. I think it's safe to say that the Masters understood their own fencing arts very well and knew what sorts of weapons were appropriate for their own manual. Unless there is evidence to suggest that the illustrations are not original, are a forgery, or were adopted by the publisher against the author's will, then the illustrations are what the Masters intended.

Based on the illustrations, my conclusion is that Di Grassi and Sainct-Didier intended their manuals primarily for the sidesword, but mixed in arming swords to show that their fencing style was flexible enough to be effective with other similar weapons.

Then you have the quote Stacy Clifford cited above "...For in conclusion after much deliberation, I have found out this Arte, from the which onely dependeth the knowledge of all that which a man may performe with a weapon in his hand, and not onely with those weapons which are found out in these our dayes, but also with those that shall be invented in time to come..."
-Giacomo Di Grassi

I take that to mean that di Grassi specifically designed his single sword fencing to be applicable to as many swords designs as possible.

And, as I said before, there are occasional manuals even prior to the Sidesword/Rapier era that teach arming sword alone - though the preponderance are certainly arming sword-and-buckler rather than arming sword alone.

Regarding the Messer, I may be able to be of some assistance since our group has been focusing on the Messer for several months now.

Leckuchner's Messer style is actually very diverse. As expected, there are lots of cuts - it is primarily a cutting weapon, after-all. But he also teaches lots of avoid-and-evade tactics, kron binding, the redel (which he calls the "waker"), most of the Master Cuts we're used to from the longsword (the only one he's missing is Krumphau for obvious reasons), lots of ringen am schwert, a good bit of halfswording, the mordschlag, and a surprisingly large amount of foyning fence for such a cutting-oriented weapon. He has many of the same thrusts, hangers, winds, feint-and-thrust techniques, and "striking in opposition" techniques that I would normally expect to see from a Sidesword. He has an extended section detailing different ways to thrust around various counter-winds and guards all while still in the bind. This is in large part because Leckuchner's Messer manual is absolutely gigantic - hundreds and hundreds of pages of nothing but Messer. So, naturally, he covers pretty much everything you could possibly do with a Messer - including things we normally associate with longer, thrusting-oriented blades.

It must be remembered that Messers often had blades as short as 2 feet and were almost always taught alone. There are manuals (like Talhoffer) that show Messer-and-Buckler, and there are manuals (like Albrecht Durer) that show Messer-and-Dagger, but those are few and far between.

So I agree that Sidesword and Rapier are both excellent weapons and well-suited for combat even without the benefit of bucklers, daggers, etc. Yet the Messer shows that a single sword can be very effective and popular even if it has a very short blade and comparatively little hand protection.

[Stacy Clifford]

Thanks for the tip! Do you know where I could find the Henry de Sainct-Didier manual? I looked on Wiktenauer, but they only had the illustrations without text (and the original French forward, which does me little good as my knowledge of the French language is extremely limited).

http://www.paladin-press.com/product/Th ... nct-Didier

First, I think we can trust the illustrations in the manuals. I think it's safe to say that the Masters understood their own fencing arts very well and knew what sorts of weapons were appropriate for their own manual. Unless there is evidence to suggest that the illustrations are not original, are a forgery, or were adopted by the publisher against the author's will, then the illustrations are what the Masters intended.

I think you misunderstood what Vincent was trying to say here. The English version of Di Grassi's manual was not published by Di Grassi himself. Di Grassi's original manual was published in Italy in 1570, and we can presume that its illustrations were approved by the author. The English version didn't come along until 1594, when the manual had become popular throughout a good part of Europe, and we have no evidence that the original author had anything to do with the translation "Englished by I.G. gentleman" or the re-drawn illustrations (if Di Grassi was even still alive by then). Where the Italian version mostly uses the word spada (sword), the English version often says "rapier" despite the drawings not depicting anything of the sort. (This would probably, however, have been a good marketing decision at the time.) There is no evidence that Thomas Churchyard, the publisher, was a professional fight master in his own right, so its depictions are accordingly less reliable with respect to the original author's intent.

Despite that, I can say from experience that the translation itself was effective and useful. The techniques in it do work better with a slender sword more like the Italian illustrations than the English ones. You can make them work with the shorter, broader swords, but it is more difficult for all the reasons previously discussed.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Based on the illustrations, my conclusion is that Di Grassi and Sainct-Didier intended their manuals primarily for the sidesword, but mixed in arming swords to show that their fencing style was flexible enough to be effective with other similar weapons.

Well, for Di Grassi, Stacy has explained what I meant. The original illustrations do not really show arming swords blades. The hilts shown are simple, but then it is also the case in Ghisliero, which is a rapier text. At some point, accurately depicting the hilts was not as important to them I think, because this was constrained by what was available at the time anyway, and is quite hard to draw... Sainct-Didier is less clear in illustrations, they do not have the same realism and the author himself points out at some point that the illustrator did not draw the hands as he should have. But technically, it's better adapted to sidesword in my opinion. Historically that's what they would have handled anyway.

That being said all fencing styles end up being flexible, and can adapt to a wide range of weapon. The key principles of distance, timing, strong vs. weak, apply to everything. I think this is what is alluded to in the Di Grassi quote. The practical application of these principles, however, is influenced by the tool used, and I do believe that the practical form shown in Di Grassi and Sainct Didier has been developed in conjunction with the sidesword.

Regards,

[James Brazas]

Ah, you see that makes sense.

If the illustrations in the English version were different and not approved by Di Grassi, then I can see how the English version illustrations aren't as trustworthy. So even if the English manual does sometimes show simple hilts and shorter, stouter blades (which it does), that doesn't necessarily show Di Grassi's intent.

Of course, I never claimed that Di Grassi and others didn't design their fencing styles around the sidesword. They clearly wrote their manuals with the sidesword in mind.

My only points on this subject are the following:

1. Even though arming swords are not ideal for sidesword fencing, they can certainly pull it off with some adjustments.

2. The idea that a sword must have a long, slender blade and complex hilt to be used effectively in a single sword style isn't in line with historical evidence. The Messer and Dussack were incredibly popular weapons in Germanic and Northern/Central Europe for centuries and were rarely taught with the benefit of an off-hand weapon. Both had short blades and the Messer had a simple hilt. In fact, the Dussack (which evolved from the Messer) remained very popular even after the introduction of the Sidesword and Rapier (see Meyer and Mair).

3. Nor does history suggest that single sword fencing developed due to the invention of longer blades or complex hilts as the Messer was one of the most popular weapons in Germanic/Northern/Central Europe at least as early as the 15th Century (When Leckuchner wrote his magnum opus on the Messer).

But I think we all largely agree.

Generally, it is best to use the weapon the Masters designed their fencing system around. (Messer for Leckuchner, Sidesword for Di Grassi, etc.)

As some Masters indicate through their text or illustrations (I'm referring to Di Grassi regarding text and Talhoffer on the illustrations), their fencing styles were designed to be flexible enough for use with other similar weapons - even if not ideal.

Long blades and complex hilts are certainly helpful for single-sword fencing - especially for a thrusting-oriented style.

Oh, and thanks for the link to the Sainct-Didier manual, Stacy Clifford!

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

2. The idea that a sword must have a long, slender blade and complex hilt to be used effectively in a single sword style isn't in line with historical evidence. The Messer and Dussack were incredibly popular weapons in Germanic and Northern/Central Europe for centuries and were rarely taught with the benefit of an off-hand weapon. Both had short blades and the Messer had a simple hilt. In fact, the Dussack (which evolved from the Messer) remained very popular even after the introduction of the Sidesword and Rapier (see Meyer and Mair).

Yes "must" is probably overboard... However we have mainly looked into the practical, technical aspects, and I do wonder how much influence the social context could have had on these weapons. Basically, if all you are allowed to carry is a big knife for your defence, of course you'll develop a method of use for it. If it becomes traditional, and is a good workout as I hear about the dussack, it'll go on even if it's not really relevant to combat scenarios anymore (as the two-handed swords did right into the 17th century). Didn't the messer essentially evolve as a work-around because carrying swords was not allowed at that time and place?

What I'm getting at is that, in the absence of regulations regarding blade length and type, if you start evolving the designs to build a sword with civilian self-defence and duelling in mind, you'll tend to end up with a sidesword and eventually a rapier. Simply because cleaving the opponent is not the primary concern and the length and hilt gives you a definitive advantage. Of course you can fence with any sword single, but the sidesword (both the sword and the fencing style) seems to have appeared as a design intentionally made to perform better in this scenario, and would probably give an advantage against any other design.

The problem of the complex hilt is also probably more difficult, as technical matters might have prevented its introduction, and as all innovations are it seems obvious to do it after the fact, but still difficult to get the idea first I often wondered if medieval people would not have preferred complex hilts too if they had the chance, i.e. was there a conscious choice to keep the hilts simple or were they just left like that. Not an easy question to settle

Regards,

[James Brazas]

Well, yes. There were laws regulating swords in many parts of the Holy Roman Empire in the Messer era. Non-nobles weren't allowed to carry "weapons of war" (such as the longsword) during peacetime. Thus, the Grosse Messer ("Great Knife") was a useful way around that rule since it was technically just a gigantic knife - and knives are "tools" not "weapons." So, sure, you can have a gigantic "tool" that can effortlessly take off a head in a single blow. Just no swords, ok? Haha! I always found that amusing, but that was the law.

Yet I don't recall any length restrictions. My guess is that Messer's length stayed fairly short due to the fact that it was a wide cutting blade and would have been unwieldy at a longer length.

The Dussack itself, if memory serves, is essentially a Cutlass. Many consider it to be both the evolution of the Messer and one of the precursors of the Saber. So it was hardly just a training tool or an old tradition carried on for tradition's sake. Cutlasses remained tools of war into the early 20th Century (at least for enlisted naval personnel).

The evolution of these weapons is really interesting to me. If you have the time and the inclination, this article explains the connections between all the single-edged, cutting-oriented European weapons far better than I could:

http://www.hroarr.com/the-dussack/

Regarding the sidesword and rapier, I fully agree that they're great weapons and very well-suited to single-sword combat - especially civilian self-defense and duels.

I just don't buy the idea that they're the only way, the certain victor, or the inevitable pinnacle of the evolution of the single sword. The Germans and Central/Northern Europeans loved their short cutting weapons (which continued in military use until the very end of the sword era) even though the sidesword and rapier were freely available. Master Joachim Meyer even went so far as to call the Dussack the "root of all one-hand swords" and claimed it was the most popular weapon in his part of Europe.

Then you get the fact that sideswords, rapiers, and foyning fence in general only developed in Europe. To the best of my knowledge, there are no fencing styles anywhere in the Far East, the Middle East, Africa, or anywhere else that employ long-bladed one-hand swords, or complex hilts or such a strong emphasis on thrusting-oriented swordplay. All three of those things are nearly unheard of outside of Europe. Indeed, Japan and the Middle East have always preferred cutting-oriented weapons (usually curved). The only exception I know of is China. The Chinese have a long history of straight, double-edged thrusting swords (the "Jian" in Mandarin or "Gim" in Cantonese), but the Chinese swords have simple cross-hilts and blades more like a Type XVIII arming sword than anything else.

There is also a very rare Chinese weapon called a Tiger Hook Sword that has a knucklebow, but it's a cutting/hooking weapon (it would be basically worthless in the thrust), it's somewhat short, and is used typically in pairs. So even though China developed straight, double-edged blades, semi-complex hilts, and a thrusting-oriented style of swordplay, they never combined the three into one weapon. I'm also unaware of any one-handed Chinese swords longer than approx. 30".

Finally, you have the fact that cutters like the saber and broadsword outlasted the sidesword and rapier by centuries. Though, to be fair to the sidesword, similar straight, double-edged, complex-hilted, long-bladed, thrusting-oriented swords continued to be used throughout the Pre-World-War modern era. The British military even revived and taught the use of George Silver’s sidesword techniques in 1898. So even though rapier eventually went by the wayside, sidesword-like blades never fully went out of style.

Again, I think you have lots of valid points, but you overstate your case. The sidesword and rapier are clearly excellent weapons and very well-suited for civilian self defense, dueling, etc. The sidesword was also quite good for war as well. You could even make the argument that the rapier and sidesword are the best single-swords for civilian self defense.

But they’re hardly the inevitable conclusion of the quest to find the perfect sword to kill an unarmored man. Thrusts, cuts, and even blunt trauma all kill just fine. In fact, even that excellent reach advantage could become a problem once they get past the rapier's point (hence the popularity of rapier and dagger to rectify that weakness). That was Silver’s main point (though, admittedly, he was arguing in favor of the sidesword or backsword rather than the dussack, messer, arming sword, etc.).

As far as the evolution of complex hilts go, my study of history seems to indicate that complex hilts came about mostly due to guns. In the age of Full Plate, a complex hilt would be redundant since you are already wearing gauntlets. Guns were useful back then, but armor still had the upper hand. Later on as guns rapidly developed in reliability, accuracy, and firepower, even heavy cavalry started carrying them. But gauntlets got in the way of using a pistol or other gun. So they developed the complex hilt as a way of combining gauntlet and sword into one. While using your sword, you had gauntlet-like hand protection. While using your pistol, your fingers were free to load and fire.