Why do sabers generally lack pommels?
May 29, 2011 13:43:03 GMT
Post by Anders on May 29, 2011 13:43:03 GMT
Kilted Cossack wrote
I know that some of the Scottish basket hilts used hollow pommels, vice solid ones. I don't know how prevalent this practice was, nor how much actual weight was saved by going to a hollow pommel, but I cannot help but imagine it was significant. Could it have been esthetic considerations? Along the line of, "Well, all swords have pommels, you idiot, put a pommel on that basket hilt you're making!"
I know that some of the Scottish basket hilts used hollow pommels, vice solid ones. I don't know how prevalent this practice was, nor how much actual weight was saved by going to a hollow pommel, but I cannot help but imagine it was significant. Could it have been esthetic considerations? Along the line of, "Well, all swords have pommels, you idiot, put a pommel on that basket hilt you're making!"
Well, I wouldn't know. I think we need someone with more expertise on baskethilts to answer this.
Dave Kelly wrote
Without some critical criteria and a large sample of swords it kind of hard to make sense of any of this. The question was why do sabers generally lack pommels? Which sabers are we refering to. The 1796 was used as a case in point. Light sabers of 2.25lbs or less and highly tapered in their foibles don't need counter weight because it would pull the point of percussion too far back on the blade and lighten the blow on a sword that is so light bladed to begin with you need all the leverage you can get. The swords "usually" used as the basis for the european model of the 18th Century came from Turco-Persian (Indian in actual origin) models.
Without some critical criteria and a large sample of swords it kind of hard to make sense of any of this. The question was why do sabers generally lack pommels? Which sabers are we refering to. The 1796 was used as a case in point. Light sabers of 2.25lbs or less and highly tapered in their foibles don't need counter weight because it would pull the point of percussion too far back on the blade and lighten the blow on a sword that is so light bladed to begin with you need all the leverage you can get. The swords "usually" used as the basis for the european model of the 18th Century came from Turco-Persian (Indian in actual origin) models.
The question was more like: "Why are more or less all sabers from Napoleonic times and onwards designed without pommels when (at least from what I have seen) European sabers from before then tended to have them?"
Apologies if this was unclear, my bad.
You used a picture in you last post of a "saber with a ball pommel". It's a transitional mongrel. That is a walloon pallasch hilt mated to saber blade. The walloon was a better thrust weapon than a cutter. I can't imagine how this would feel in handling. Eventually half-baskets replaced most full baskets in order to accomodate wrist cuts while better protecting the hand.
It's far from exceptional, though. In fact, most pictures of sabers from that era I have seen go for similar designs, with hilts more or less the same as the straight cut and thrust swords of the time. (See links below.)
Kilted Cossack wrote
I may have misunderstood your whole question. Initially, I read it as covering sabers in general---going back to the Turco-Mongol antecedents. Based on the (heavily snipped) response above, was your question more oriented to the disappearance of pommels on Napoleonic Era sabers?
I may have misunderstood your whole question. Initially, I read it as covering sabers in general---going back to the Turco-Mongol antecedents. Based on the (heavily snipped) response above, was your question more oriented to the disappearance of pommels on Napoleonic Era sabers?
I guess, kinda? Like I said, I seem to be seeing some kind of paradigm shift in sabers around roughly that period. Still, looking at sabers in general probably helps in sorting this out.
If so, I would guess that the disappearance of pommels was part of a general shift away from the use of a pommel on most swords. Certainly by the second quarter of the 19th century, European military swords in general seem to have shifted away from using a substantial pommel in favor of a metal back plate. (I hope I'm using back plate right: the thing which covers the base of the grip and then goes up the back of the grip, hence "back plate.")
Even the eagle head you posted looks---to my eyes---less like a true pommel and more like a "finial" or something, a decorative cap at the end. (How heavy were the pommels on the eagle head sabers?) As far as that goes, if the eagle head pommel does qualify as a "European pommel" then I'm even more confused about your question!
Even the eagle head you posted looks---to my eyes---less like a true pommel and more like a "finial" or something, a decorative cap at the end. (How heavy were the pommels on the eagle head sabers?) As far as that goes, if the eagle head pommel does qualify as a "European pommel" then I'm even more confused about your question!
Well, they are hardly as substantial as pommels on medieval swords, I'll give you that. Keep in mind, though, that mass distribution is more important then weight. Sometimes even a little in the right place helps.
You state that "there was undeniably a period when European saber hilts were constructed more or less the same as the hilts of all other swords of the time." Could you provide an example? I'm still trying to educate myself, and although I can think of lots of Euro sabers that had metal parts at the base of the grip, I can't think of an example of a European saber fitted with what I intuitively recognize as a "Euro style pommel." I associate sabers more with "strike plates" or "base plates" than pommels---although I'd love to find some examples of pommeled sabers.
Oh, sure. MyArmoury has a whole bunch of examples:
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/5036.html
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/1249.html
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/2259.html
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/4608.html
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/4596.html
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/1251.html
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/1525.html
www.myarmoury.com/albums/photo/1276.html
Most of these are 17th century, I think.
I know I'm being (somewhat) argumentative, but I hope I'm not coming across as a jerk!
Not at all. This is a good discussion.
Lunaman wrote
None taken. I don't think it's an oversimplification, but I certainly didn't make my terms very clear. "Balance," that is, static balance (the kind of thing where you stick out two fingers and make a little seesaw out of your weapon to impress people like Orlando Bloom in the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie) is a side-effect, not a goal. Pommels weren't used TO balance or counterweight a sword blade, but yes that is something they do inadvertently. That's because static balance is next to useless to a person actually fighting with a sword, as they don't hold their sword still the whole time.
What actually matters is the feeling of the sword in-motion: it's responsiveness, it's power, it's "dynamic balance" if you will.
[-]
The GOAL of sword makers when making a fighting sword (which is still their goal when they make a pommel) is to optimize and adjust this "dynamic balance" or "rotational behavior" to make the sword an effective weapon. The way the sword balances around it's center of gravity AKA "balance point" will fall where it may as a result of this process, but is not a goal of the pommel itself.
The pommel is a lump of weight that is just part of the overall mass-distribution of the sword. Most of the mass distribution is and always will be concerned with the engineering of the blade and tang, since that's what constitutes most of the mass. The way the blade is shaped governs the need for a pommel or not.
None taken. I don't think it's an oversimplification, but I certainly didn't make my terms very clear. "Balance," that is, static balance (the kind of thing where you stick out two fingers and make a little seesaw out of your weapon to impress people like Orlando Bloom in the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie) is a side-effect, not a goal. Pommels weren't used TO balance or counterweight a sword blade, but yes that is something they do inadvertently. That's because static balance is next to useless to a person actually fighting with a sword, as they don't hold their sword still the whole time.
What actually matters is the feeling of the sword in-motion: it's responsiveness, it's power, it's "dynamic balance" if you will.
[-]
The GOAL of sword makers when making a fighting sword (which is still their goal when they make a pommel) is to optimize and adjust this "dynamic balance" or "rotational behavior" to make the sword an effective weapon. The way the sword balances around it's center of gravity AKA "balance point" will fall where it may as a result of this process, but is not a goal of the pommel itself.
The pommel is a lump of weight that is just part of the overall mass-distribution of the sword. Most of the mass distribution is and always will be concerned with the engineering of the blade and tang, since that's what constitutes most of the mass. The way the blade is shaped governs the need for a pommel or not.
This I understand. What I mean is this: If you make two swords that have the same point of balance (that is, balances on the same spot when doing the seesaw test), where one has more mass distributed to the pommel wereas the other has more mass in the guard, they are going to perform differently when wielded even though they have identical balance points, yes?
That is what I'm saying--it's my guess that should be accompanied by a shrug with two hands in the air. You can make great weapons with pommels and you can make great weapons without them. Neither's easy, but I bet the second one is simpler to mass produce once you've figured out the tricky stuff with the prototype. If I've made an oversimplification, THAT's probably it. 
Well, it's as good a theory as I've heard so far.
