thedarksider
Member
I'm really starting to run out of room for my Collection.
Posts: 227
|
Post by thedarksider on Mar 3, 2018 0:01:08 GMT
Hi Everyone.
So I was just thinking to myself and wondering why so many early medieval sword pommels are either Disc or wheel shaped. I was just wondering if anyone knew why. I can't see any religious reason, and surely it would have been easier for a smith to make a Square, rectangular, or even triangular shaped pommel. Maybe I'm completely wrong and there are plenty of examples of non circular shaped pommels.
Any Budding Historians know the answer?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Mar 3, 2018 0:24:40 GMT
I can't offer much expertise on the subject, but there have been numerous pommel shapes throughout history. I don't know which came first, or earliest, or whatever, but I feel like discs were somewhere in the middle. "Viking" swords, for instance, can be argued as pretty early, and seemed to favor lobes and curves. Then there's the "Brazil nut" and its ilk, and a lot of old Celtic stuff had the famous anthropomorphic hilts. Later on you got scent stoppers, fish tails, etc. Couple of random pics I googled: i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/a3/9c/aba39ca10d4eff8c067e6c679b5b7e5b.jpgwww.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/illustr/geibig_pommel_types.gifSomeone who actually knows will chime in soon.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 3, 2018 0:53:16 GMT
I don't have very much interest in medieval swords but I've always though of them as two main things; a counterbalance, (though apparently quite a of the larger ones are hollow) and as a stop for the hand, and of course a point to hold all the hilt together and perhaps for pummeling people in the face. But you don't need a large pommel to do the latter two things as we can see in loads of other swords.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 3, 2018 1:05:06 GMT
Same pics as above, but inline: Geibig pommel types:  Oakeshott pommel types:  Early Medieval pommels (e.g., Migration Period and Viking sword pommels) often have a very flat surface on the pommel for the hand to sit firmly against (and often a short grip so that the hand sits snugly between guard and pommel). Top pic. Pommels like this will support the whole base of the hand - the heel of the hand and the little finger - when held in hammer-grip. Swords like this are well-suited to being used in hammer grip, with a shield, for short-range slicing draw-cuts. The swords often have POBs at 6" or a bit further. Next, chronologically, we see a range of pommels that are still fairly flat against the hand, like Oakeshott A-E (the swords typically had long straight crosses, rather than stubby little Viking guards). These would still suit hammer grip well. Then we see wheels and discs (Oakeshott G-K). A large wheel or disc is excellent for supporting the little finger; this provided a lot of leverage for flicking the blade forward, while retaining some support for the base of the hand in hammer grip. This flicking-forward about the little finger doesn't work as well with a Viking hilt - you need to move the heel of your hand off the pommel, and let the pommel slide up by your wrist (into handshake grip). The large flat pommel won't let you do this without slipping the pommel against the wrist. A wheel gives you more room to rotate the sword while keeping the pommel in line with the heel of your hand. The wheel, and the flat disc even more so, makes it even easier to slip the pommel against the wrist to move into a handshake grip allowing you full extensions and maximum range. Note that Oakeshott M, N, O, Q, W, Z will work similarly. This change might have been driven by a move to longer-range fighting styles with swords. Perhaps due to fighting on horseback becoming more common. This is just a guess; we don't know why these different pommels were used when they were. The various scent-stopper, fishtail, etc. pommels (Oakeshott T-V) lose that point of leverage for the little finger. On single-handed swords, this could be due to a shift towards more thrust-oriented fighting with swords. But don't discount fashion. As noted above, M and N should give the same mechanical benefits as wheels/discs, but they provide a smaller surface for ornament. A round disc is really good for display. Discs/wheels are more likely to be decorated than many other Medieval pommel types:       |
|
stormmaster
Member
I like viking/migration era swords
Posts: 7,714
|
Post by stormmaster on Mar 3, 2018 1:07:07 GMT
there were really tons of shapes not just wheels, honestly the middle finger pommel will always be a guilty pleasure of mine lol
|
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Mar 3, 2018 1:10:39 GMT
Its probably for a couple of reasons.
Early medieval swords tend to be cutting oriented. A wheel pommel would help in retaining the weapon in your hand when swung at speed.
Edge alignment. The disc shaped pommel will butt up against the heel of your palm. Left palm if its a two hander. You are therefore more able to feel the alignment of the edge.
Cutting mechanics. Your pinky will lie at the junction of the pommel and grip. This allows you to use the tightening of your pinky finger against the pommel to propel the blade forward.
As for square and triangular pommels, they do exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Mar 3, 2018 1:21:03 GMT
As for square and triangular pommels, they do exist. Oh yeah, there was a Renaissance-era rapier or sidesword from one of the bigger brands with a somewhat bloated rectangular pommel. I wish I could remember which sword that was...and whether it was based on an antique.... Edit: Did some digging, and I must be remembering wrong (or just not finding the right sword) because the closest I'm finding to what I thought I remembered is more of a round tube, some more chubby than others. Not a disc, but not a rectangle, either, though some are faceted... Anyway, bedtime.  |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,327
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 3, 2018 5:33:44 GMT
You're right, I have a picture but in the moment I can't upload. IIRC there was a thread with a showcase of swords with nearly square shaped pommels, perhaps from a Venice armoury? Edit: uploading attachements works again, but MOK already has posted better pictures. Here:  |
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Mar 3, 2018 10:19:49 GMT
|
|
thedarksider
Member
I'm really starting to run out of room for my Collection.
Posts: 227
|
Post by thedarksider on Mar 3, 2018 15:39:59 GMT
Wow everyone. Just wanted to thank you all so much for the info. A very pleasant read. I'm always looking to broaden my knowledge about these kind of things. So Thank you for helping me learn some incredibly interesting new information. I look forward to researching even more about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Mar 5, 2018 18:19:11 GMT
Form follows function. The "Brazil nut" styles you often see in Type X's are useful as a control point and as a bashing weapon. The edge on the bottom is a force concentration device, and could break a bone through mail. These types seem to keep the impact force of the earlier pommels while allowing more hand movement.
The wheel pommels you see on a lot of high and late medieval one handers are exceptionally good as rudders for tight control, while still offering punch. Different styles of wheel fit differently in the hand. Some have an inner raised area, others are smooth. The smother they are the easier they are to manipulate but the raised center style seem to offer more stability in maintaining edge alignment.
The scent stoppers are excellent for longswords, since they offer the left hand a secure spot and are essentially mace heads for impact work.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Mar 5, 2018 19:28:32 GMT
Another fun thing to think about is all the swords from all over the world that didn't really have pommels, or at least now how we'd think of them in the context of medieval Europe.
It pretty much came down to the system if fighting, and whether the pommel was a counterweight, grip point, or a weapon in itself.
Probably most typically when one thinks of swords without large pommels, they tend to think of messers or even katana. Putting aside that a messer, by its own definition, is not a sword but a knife...I believe a part of that definition ruled out the same type of pommels seen on swords. I hesitate to say they didn't have pommels, because I can't think of any other than the Cold Steel repro right now and I distinctly recall its major weakness early on was a flimsy pommel.
A lot of other swords simply had pommels, some big, some small, integrated into the hilt that probably didn't serve much function other than grip. Think of middle-Eastern and Arabic stuff like shamshir, kilij, yatagan, etc.
Then there's the shashka, and its variants.
My personal favorite is the "beak" style, asymmetric, often integral, concave on the inside toward the hand. Makes a nice snug grip that really lets you whip the sword around, but not much of a counterweight or striking implement...
|
|
