Basket hilts: why not used earlier?

[Andeerz]

Hello everyone!

I have a question that I cannot really get a concrete answer to. It may have likely been covered in a previous post, but I could not find an answer after looking for a long while. Perhaps those much more experienced in fighting could answer it for me. Or perhaps someone could point me to a thread where there is an answer. Here it is:

Given that hands are primo target area in real life fighting, why were basket hilts not more popular (or even exist at all maybe?) back in medieval, bronze age, and other times, cultures, etc. for single handed weapons?

I could only think of three reasons that I feel are very shaky.

1. Grappling/grabbing stuff: In my experiences Filipino stick fighting, occasionally I would be able to use my weapon-holding hand when in-fighting to momentarily grab something (wrist, weapon, face...). Well, I'm not terribly experienced and cannot attest to the concrete tactical advantage of such actions and having the capabilities to execute them. Also... it is not uncommon (to my knowledge) in FMA to hold more than one weapon in one hand, normally a throwing weapon that is thrown at the opponent before engaging...

2. Getting disarmed: Could a basket hilt get in the way while resisting being disarmed?

3. Weighting of the weapon: I could see having a basket hilt causing the center of the weapon's mass to be more localized toward the grip, perhaps taking away some of the oomph of impact of the business end of the weapon. But this could be a good thing depending on preference of the user or other characteristics of the weapon... Meh.

Well, I'm stumped. Any thoughts?

Andeerz

[Graedwyn]

Sometimes things just do not get invented
until they get invented.
Then everyone looks at this oh-so-obvious
solution to a problem, smacks themself in the
forehead and says "why didn't I think of that?"

We have lots of discussions like this-
for instance, people are always debating why
they did not seem to wear a padded gambeson
under mail until until the 12th century.
Maybe it is just that no one thought of it till then.

-Graedwyn

[iomtalach]

Because they weren't necessary?

The hand is the primary target, but you learn to use the sword correctly pretty damned quickly.

Consider in rapier, the hand is a target. Those bars really don't do a damn thing to protect you against a thrust. To deal with a thrust to the hand, a rapier fighter will do one of three things: Complain and try to get the rules changed, wuss out completely and get a cup hilt, or learn the proper techniques of swordplay and use the forte to defend yourself.

I also teach German and Italian longsword. Same thing. The position of your sword protects the hand. They are a target, but you learn to protect and counter-attack that target pretty quick. It's part of what makes the style.

Basket hilts show up initially for cavalry. I assume about the time cavalry started to use swords instead of spears, and shorter sword at that...I would guess it would be because the extra protection for the hand is needed...at high speed, you don't have time for finicky motions to protect the hand...and in horse-to-horse fighting, you sometimes want to protect your mount more than you hand. It makes sense to me, but that's just me.

The infantry sword with a basket hilt is a later development, but parallels the development of the rapiers swept hilt, for the same reason. People start to use the point more, and the driving action of the thrust leaves the hand more vulnerable to the grazing actions of cuts...particularly against scimitars and other curved blades.

Grappling, BTW, was nearly always done with the left hand. In good fighters it's an instinct to use the left almost at the moment of closure.

[Arminius]

they did not seem to wear a padded gambeson
under mail until until the 12th century.
Maybe it is just that no one thought of it till then.

-Graedwyn

Romans had a padded coat that was worn under mail.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/subarm.html

As far as basket hilts go...I'm guessing the wire type were not as easy to make as they are now a days (welder). Riveted basket hilt cups...not sure why those were not created.

[Glaukos the Athenian]

Sometimes things just do not get invented
until they get invented.
Then everyone looks at this oh-so-obvious
solution to a problem, smacks themself in the
forehead and says "why didn't I think of that?"

We have lots of discussions like this-
for instance, people are always debating why
they did not seem to wear a padded gambeson
under mail until until the 12th century.
Maybe it is just that no one thought of it till then.

-Graedwyn

Graedwyn,

I am not so sure.

For example, I just learned that Romans wore a type of padded garment called subarmalis that worked a lot like a gambeson.

Also, some types of gladiatorial swords are pictured with cup hilts, especially those associated with "Thracian" armed combatants






It is interesting that baskets truly start appearing in swords just as firearms hit the battlefield. While I cannot say it for certain, I would suggest that there is some sort of a connection. Maybe they were considered too heavy or too bulky on knightly and earlier swords. Maybe the hilt got caught with other pieces of armour.
Even if metal was expensive, one could make a very decent hardened leather cup hilt for a regular sword, but these don't appear to be used in any iconographic sources.

Perhaps someone with more specific information can tell us. But I think this is not an issue of "not being discovered" as much as "chosen not to use them...."

my 2 drachmae...

Glaukos

[Andeerz]

iomtalach, your explanation makes good sense. And, Glaukos, your mention of the hilt possibly getting caught on other pieces of armour also could be part of it, at least in my opinion. Thanks for the input. I think I can live with this explanation, though I will certainly be looking out for further comments.

[Saritor]

Could be any number of explanations. I'd look in to a combination of money and shift in the composition of armies as the primary reason, if I were researching it.

Easier to equip larger numbers of inexpensive troops with a basket hilted sword that can be left in an armory rather than trying to fit gauntlets for the troop levies that couldn't afford them (or upkeep on them).

I'm looking at this from an anglo-centric point of view, and thinking of 16th century trained bands and armies in both the Low Countries and Ireland.

[Bob H]

That was a huge surprise - look which was the baskets are turned! You may have found circumstantial evidence of gladiators using "wrap shots".

(donning asbestos suit ...)

[Graedwyn]

Arminius, Glaukos,
As I said, we are always debating it.
I was looking at it from a northern european,
early medieval viewpoint. Most artistic depictions
(sculptural, manuscript) seem to show mail without
padding beneath.

-Graedwyn

[Cian of Storvik]

For the high middle ages, it's probably a bit more simplistic. This is my guess:
The sword was a back-up weapon. Not your primary. If you were a knight or man-at-arms, your primary or first weapon is a lance (if mounted) or pole weapon/spear (if on foot).

The basket on your sword does you no good while weilding your primary weapon, and putting a basket on your pole weapon is not going to work. So you wear gauntlets, like all good men-at-arms do.
Now, since you're wearing gauntlets makes the basket a bit supurfluos, not to mention making the gripping and draw of your sword more problematic then an open hilt sword, if you have to go for the back-up. (The basket/cup wouldn't be too bad if you just have gloves on, but gauntlets + cup = fiddling to grasp your weapon).

In that same vein. If you have gauntlets on, it doesn't matter what weapon you pick up or discard. Your hands have some protection, but if your only hand defense is a single sword with a basket and you need to discard or are somehow unarmed of your sword, your hand then has no protection.

That's my guess atleast. Not to mention, if you fight without a basket, you tend to grip the sword a bit differently then with the basket. (atleast in my experience of swinging SCA weapons), and maybe during the period the kinds of chopping and thrusting attacks were considered more dexterous with an open grip then with a cup (just a theory. I have no evidence that it is an actual reason or that people ever even considered using a cup on a sword in the high middle ages).

-Cian

[Dan Howard]

Romans had a padded coat that was worn under mail.

There is no evidence to support this. It is likely that the segmentata was worn over padding but we have no idea whether other armour types used a padded garment. Lorica hamata had a leather edging and this could be an indicator of an integrated padded liner. If true then the subarmalis was unlikely to have been worn under Roman mail.

[Graedwyn]

I apologize to the original poster for
derailing his thread with a comment illustrating
how some things are debated endlessly,
thus initiating an unrelated endless debate.
Sorry.

I do like Cian's take on the original question though.
It makes a lot of sense.

-Graedwyn

[Aaron]

The sword was a backup weapon. The primary weapon was the spear. If someone got close enough to nick your hand with a sword, one more half-step solved that and now you are grappling.

But it's an interesting discussion. Keep it up!

-Aaron

[Tascius]

There is no evidence to support this.

There is no physical evidence but both sculptural and literary evidence does exist. The concept at least existed. In De Rebus Bellicis a felt garment worn under the armor to prevent chafing is mentioned. (thoracomachus) Argument exists as to if the garment was a commonly used garment or an old garment that needed to be re-adopted. At the time of this documents writing, the armor of the Roman soldier is almost exclusively scale and chainmail.

The subarmalis is mentioned in several texts. The very form of the word suggests a undershirt for armor. In one reference a man is saved by his subarmalis when a javelin pierces his chainmail.

For more see below.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewto ... 20&t=17663
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewto ... =17&t=4629

While the evidence is not enough to prove the existence of a padded under armour, it is far from 'no evidence'.

[Tascius]

Uhg! Lost track of the topic of the post. Sorry. Here is another take on the basket hilt concept. (very late in period though)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pata- ... -Patel.jpg

[Donal Mac Ruiseart]

There was an Atlantian fighter who had an SCA version of that sort of "gauntlet sword." I believe the concept was Persian.

I think it was Duke Achbar ibn Murad, but I'm not sure. the grip was more or less perpendicular to the line of the blade.

A real sword of that design might not be very fast, but it would strike with tremendous power (The user's wrist could not flex). The SCA version was of limited use because of the lack of speed, though it WAS good for thrusting, as I recall.

I seem to remember, though, that it was banned due to the danger of injury to the user's wrist because of the leverage of the cuff. If you fell on it . . .

[Leopold der Wolf]

There was an Atlantian fighter who had an SCA version of that sort of "gauntlet sword." I believe the concept was Persian.

I think it was Duke Achbar ibn Murad, but I'm not sure. the grip was more or less perpendicular to the line of the blade.

A real sword of that design might not be very fast, but it would strike with tremendous power (The user's wrist could not flex). The SCA version was of limited use because of the lack of speed, though it WAS good for thrusting, as I recall.

I seem to remember, though, that it was banned due to the danger of injury to the user's wrist because of the leverage of the cuff. If you fell on it . . .

Plus I imagine it'd be considered a punch weapon and banned for that . Indians had alot of cool weapons. The Katar and its longer brother the Pata (sword-gauntlet above) were historically excellent for piercing through armor. I want one .

From the wiki:

Use of the pata in warfare appears to be mostly restricted to the 17th century. Shivaji is reported[who?] as a prominent user of this weapon during his time. One of his generals, Tanaji Malusare, used the weapon with both his hands during the Battle of Sinhagad, before one of his hands was cut off. In the Battle of Pratapgad, when Afzal Khan's bodyguard Sayyed Banda attacked Shivaji with swords, Jiva Mahala, Shivaji's personal bodyguard fatally struck him down, cutting off one of Sayyed Banda's hands with a Dandpatta.[citation needed] Emperor Akbar also used this weapon during the siege of Gujarat. The Rajput warriors are known to have used this weapon very effectively during the Mughal period. They also developed variations of Pata with matchlock pistols adjoining the handle too.[citation needed]

One of the best collections of this weapon can be seen at the Durbar Hall, Shiva Nivas Palace, at Udaipur, Rajasthan. The erstwhile rulers – the Royal Family of Mewar owns the collection. It is displayed along with many other bladed weapons.[citation needed]

[Motley Fool]

Ok, since I'm 1647 years old, maybe I can explain this. Back in the day, basket hilts were for sissies. Yes, it's true. You lost all battlefield cred if you showed up with one. But now a days, basket hilts are for sissies. So there you go.

[Maeryk]

Uhg! Lost track of the topic of the post. Sorry. Here is another take on the basket hilt concept. (very late in period though)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pata- ... -Patel.jpg

Hehe.. a boarding weapon. Damned hard to lose, but somewhat tough to "fight" with as well.. as the blade is straight out from your knuckles..

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

In that same vein. If you have gauntlets on, it doesn't matter what weapon you pick up or discard. Your hands have some protection, but if your only hand defense is a single sword with a basket and you need to discard or are somehow unarmed of your sword, your hand then has no protection

Yes, but swords without baskets are used for 100s of years before Gauntlets are common - even mail mittens.

I always thought they didn't wear baskets (prior to gauntlets, which does, as you point out, make them superfluous) because losing a finger was not that bad an outcome in a sword fight. There were lots of other, more fatal places that could be hit, too.

[Malcolmthebold]

Seems to me that the basket came into popularity as the gauntlet (along with the rest of armour in general) went out.

[Vebrand]

It's simple ergonomics. Put a basket hilted sword and a stand sword in a scabbard, hang them own your side and draw them out. Now think about having to do that in armor under combat conditions and see which you would rather pull when seconds can decided the difference between life and death.

Vebrand

[Steven H]

For the high middle ages, it's probably a bit more simplistic. This is my guess:
The sword was a back-up weapon. Not your primary. If you were a knight or man-at-arms, your primary or first weapon is a lance (if mounted) or pole weapon/spear (if on foot).

The basket on your sword does you no good while weilding your primary weapon, and putting a basket on your pole weapon is not going to work. So you wear gauntlets, like all good men-at-arms do.
Now, since you're wearing gauntlets makes the basket a bit supurfluos, not to mention making the gripping and draw of your sword more problematic then an open hilt sword, if you have to go for the back-up. (The basket/cup wouldn't be too bad if you just have gloves on, but gauntlets + cup = fiddling to grasp your weapon).

I love this explanation. It's so succinct and explanatory. Basket hilts first show up on troops who are wearing less armour,because bullet proof was too heavy, and they were moving to firearms; and on civilians wearing civilian-specific swords (rapiers). Both of these scenarios explains why basket hilts make sense - none of these involves already having hand protection.

I wonder if metallurgy played a role as well? Would the early, lower quality iron be as well suited to a complex hilt of slim bars as the 15th century steel? I really don't know enough to do more than speculate - but it may explain why in earlier eras in which gauntlets weren't worn yet they still didn't have basket hilts.

Cheers,
Steven

[Steven H]

That was a huge surprise - look which was the baskets are turned! You may have found circumstantial evidence of gladiators using "wrap shots".

(donning asbestos suit ...)

In another recent thread Sir Angus (Jeremy O'neil) noted that wrap shots targetted at the hamstring are clearly shown in art depicting gladiators.

Cheers,
Steven

[Norman]

Uhg! Lost track of the topic of the post. Sorry. Here is another take on the basket hilt concept. (very late in period though)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pata- ... -Patel.jpg

I'm pretty sure Pata is very very post period. Weapons that evolved into the Pata in period was the Katar - it had two bars - one in front of the hand, the other in back.
http://www.ancient-east.com/products/da ... 500-lg.jpg

To the rest of the question --
I once got some US Cav sabres to refit into period sabres.
They work much better without the basketwork. This may be why Europeans never quite got comfortible with curved sabres. In the 200 years or so that they used them they kept changing basket style, blade style... until Patton's version in WWII essentialy is a pistol gripped smallsword.
Meanwhile, in the East the weapon remained very little altered for a thousand years. Sometimes the Indian Talwar had a ring to protect the index finger which loops to the outside of the guard. The heavier Polish Karabellas got a ring at the thumb to support the weight (but it realy does not have a protective function. Hungarian and Russian sabres got a rudimentary knuckle guard, while the Cossacks on the other hand removed the guard altogether by the mid-19th century (following the lead of the Turkish Yatagan).

[Kilkenny]

There was an Atlantian fighter who had an SCA version of that sort of "gauntlet sword." I believe the concept was Persian.

I think it was Duke Achbar ibn Murad, but I'm not sure. the grip was more or less perpendicular to the line of the blade.

A real sword of that design might not be very fast, but it would strike with tremendous power (The user's wrist could not flex). The SCA version was of limited use because of the lack of speed, though it WAS good for thrusting, as I recall.

I seem to remember, though, that it was banned due to the danger of injury to the user's wrist because of the leverage of the cuff. If you fell on it . . .

Bet you a bacon sandwich that Duke Akbar has never fought in the Kingdom of Atlantia

His Grace sat the throne of the East for his last time before I became active

As to the actual subject of this post, I believe that basket hilts appear as part of civilian swords before becoming common in military situations, for very much the reasons Cian put forth. The armoured man at arms had protection for his hands and did not need the basket hilt.

The civilian who needed to use his sword suddenly was not likely to have a plate gauntlet with him and time to put it on

Gunpowder reduces the value of armour upon the military field, and in the absence of a gauntleted hand, the basket-hilted sword becomes valuable to the military.

I think those elements are promising contributors to the observed pattern of development.

[Kilkenny]

There was an Atlantian fighter who had an SCA version of that sort of "gauntlet sword." I believe the concept was Persian.

I think it was Duke Achbar ibn Murad, but I'm not sure. the grip was more or less perpendicular to the line of the blade.

A real sword of that design might not be very fast, but it would strike with tremendous power (The user's wrist could not flex). The SCA version was of limited use because of the lack of speed, though it WAS good for thrusting, as I recall.

I seem to remember, though, that it was banned due to the danger of injury to the user's wrist because of the leverage of the cuff. If you fell on it . . .

And thinking a bit further, I recall Akbar commenting that while the weapon had no finesse at all, it was the only way he had ever been able to beat down Garanhir's shield. It was slower than snap technique, but not that much different from the then conventional circle technique in speed. I don't recall him commenting at all about thrusting with it.

I also don't recall it being banned, but I think that may well just be me missing that bit

[Andeerz]

Just about all of explanations I've seen thus far, especially Storvik's, Vebrand's, and iomtalach's explanations, really make a whole lot of sense.

I understand that in many instances for the man-at-arms or equivalent the sword was not the primary weapon, and that a longer weapon like a pole-arm was used primarily during engagements. In that case the lack of basket hilt makes sense with respect to having the freedom to quickly switch out weapons when engagement distances close. In my limited experience, solid hand armour, unless a really nice fingered gauntlet or well shaped mitten, really can get in the way of pole-arm handling and switching weapons in tight situations, not to mention grappling.

The use of cutlasses and such with basket hilts in ship-board combat in piratey times also lends support to some of the explanations presented. Most people weren't going to be using or have access to a pole-arm in such close quarters, and no one was going to be needing a gauntlet. So might as well put the hand protection on the sword itself where it would be most practical.

Glaukos' posts reveal that basket hilt protection did exist much earlier than the age of pirates and such, at least in the Gladiatorial setting, dictated I guess by the style a Gladiator fought in. Not all Gladiators had the option of using a polearm with a single handed weapon as back up, at least as far as I know. And some bronze age weapons that were commonly used did have incorporated hand protection, like at least one extant falcata I've seen, though it wasn't a basket hilt.

Hmmmm... so, basically, here's the jist I'm getting, and please tell me if I'm wrong: in every theater of ancient and medieval war, the spear or other pole-arm was the primary melee weapon. Single handed weaponry was secondary. The need to efficiently switch out weapons when the time arose necessitated hilt design efficient for such actions, pretty much making a basket hilt too cumbersome to justify its use in the field of battle. Good technique protected the hand regardless.

Also, would it be safe to say that in most instances where a basket hilt would be useful in preventing injury, the kind of injury would likely have been superfluous? I could see a basket hilt being great for protecting against getting fingers chopped off or broken (as in the SCA), but I figure that such injuries would occur mostly if you were trying to block with your hand anyway instead of the strong part of the blade/shaft. Perhaps I'm wrong... hmmm... this has been a really interesting discussion.

[Tascius]

Sir Angus Halfhand of Atlantia did try a short live experiment with a sword strapped to his arm. (He is missing his left hand.) He wanted to fight two stick and this method seemed the only way. He decided to stop after 'thrusting' an opponent with this punch sword. The power of such a punch impressed him to the point that he deemed it inherently unsafe.

[Tibbie Croser]

Perhaps another explanation is that hand protection was considered less important in earlier times. Protecting the head and torso was more important, since wounds to those areas were much more likely to be fatal than a hand wound.

[Steve Hick]

There was an Atlantian fighter who had an SCA version of that sort of "gauntlet sword." I believe the concept was Persian.

I think it was Duke Achbar ibn Murad, but I'm not sure. the grip was more or less perpendicular to the line of the blade.

A real sword of that design might not be very fast, but it would strike with tremendous power (The user's wrist could not flex). The SCA version was of limited use because of the lack of speed, though it WAS good for thrusting, as I recall.

I seem to remember, though, that it was banned due to the danger of injury to the user's wrist because of the leverage of the cuff. If you fell on it . . .

Bet you a bacon sandwich that Duke Akbar has never fought in the Kingdom of Atlantia

His Grace sat the throne of the East for his last time before I became active

As to the actual subject of this post, I believe that basket hilts appear as part of civilian swords before becoming common in military situations, for very much the reasons Cian put forth. The armoured man at arms had protection for his hands and did not need the basket hilt.

The civilian who needed to use his sword suddenly was not likely to have a plate gauntlet with him and time to put it on

Gunpowder reduces the value of armour upon the military field, and in the absence of a gauntleted hand, the basket-hilted sword becomes valuable to the military.

I think those elements are promising contributors to the observed pattern of development.

As to his grace, my knight, Akbar, he did indeed make a pata, a gauntlet sword, during my tenure as his squire, as well as we made a katar for Umbaugh, and I had a short madu. None of them were subtle, the katar being the most offensive it really could thrust, so cold the pata, it also could hit like a brick, not having the lose function from transmission through wrist and hand.

As to basket hilts, I think the further development of the grip also has to with other changes, the larger quillions come about as shields become smaller and enarmed. But generally I agree, most are 16th century when armor in the field was generally more limited, and perhaps you were less likely, familiar or trained to parry with another weapon (aka shield).

Lengthy discussion, too lengthy for AA, maybe we could chat about ideas at the next thing in Delaware, should another happen.

Steve

[Glaukos the Athenian]

There is also something else to consider.

To my knowledge, except -again- in a gladiatorial Roman setting, there are no documented gauntlets until the Middle Ages. And then those start as extensions of the hauberk.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Histor ... ingOut.jpg


They are not seen in the Bayeux tapestry
http://mirax.files.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... rold-1.jpg

Alexander fights without one
http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/A/ALE/a ... mosaic.jpg

And so do hoplites....
http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Alexander/C ... tes_Lg.jpg

and

Legionaries
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_ima ... naries.jpg

They are not deposited in Sutton Hoo, or evident on other norse related deposits (before you jump on me, read about the connection between Sutton Hoo and Swedish grave goods).

So people are simple not going out of their ways to create a serious protection for the hand. The only shining exception of a partial hand protection is in the Kopis/Falcata family of the Hoplites and Iberians:
http://www.4hoplites.com/Kopis.jpg
And this was probably dictated by the particular chopping used of this peculiar sword as much as by fashion.

So I think that part of the matter, as said above by myself and others, is that guards were not chosen as part of a weapon, and considered either unnecessary, bothersome or dangerous.

Being ignorant about the origins I searched and found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket-hilted_sword
and this
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_schia.html

Of note is the fact that baskets appear to develop at the same time people start thrusting more than slashing with their weapons. Whether the two are connected or simply synchronous is a different matter.

But it is clear that something happened where the development of these baskets was deemed desirable and they appear all over the place.
Notice that Japanese swords never have baskets, allowing for Musashi's targeting and kendo's kote strike.

Many years ago, a professor made the exaggerated point that periods are created by us to help ups organize things. As he said, it is not that a king sent an edict proclaiming that "The Bronze Age is over and now starts the Iron Age" so that the populace were required to break all their pottery, get rid of their bronze tools and acquire Iron Age pottery and Iron tools. One should remember this when dealing with dating matters.

I believe it may be best to see this as a very gradual shift, modified as much by actual use as fashion. Since armour was made obsolete by firearms, it was skill with a sword that counted (until repeater weapons) and the modern fencing arts developed (and became available to people other than knights and students of the knightly schools alla Lichtenauer et al ) , since even the poorest soldier could afford to have a sword at hand, and now needed to learn how to use it. Also a civilian with a sword was nearly as ready for battle as a military man.

The use by SCA fighters is clearly needed since we need our hands to work on Monday morning, as stated above. I am not sure how many people would use them if the fighting was for keeps.....

Just some ruminations....


Glaukos the Athenian[/img]

[Steven H]

Glaukos-

It seems to me that hand protection was considered a low priority.

However, as the technological and economic changes allowed more and more armour a point was reached where the only part un-armoured was the hands. So you might as well armour them next

Once the tradition of hand protection gets started, in the Medieval era, then it's retained even though it requires complex, and then basket hilts as gauntlets become less common or necessary.

That's the theory at least.

Cheers,
Steven

[Leopold der Wolf]

I remember seeing in one of my fencing books the evolution of basket hilts. It started with guys putting their pointer finger over the hilt to generate a better thrust.

After a lot of guys got their fingers cut off a ring was added for the index finger to slide into. This evolved into the fancy swept hilts untill eventually we have the Spanish bell guards etc.

If you look at books of sword and buckler fighting alot of the guards exist to protect the hands from attack. My guess is before hand guards were created the soldiers just learned to keep their hand behind the shield/far back as much as possible.

Duke Bellatrix's fighting style was probably common. Our SCA styles (A-frame, Sword basket on top of shield, shield wall "sword held up at an angle etc) exist because our hands are not a kill shot and we all have gauntlets or basket hilts. They were probably not period at all for the most part.

Go fight cut & thrust. I was kinda taken aback at how much more careful I had to be with my guards/distance etc since a quick slashing blow could hit me in the hand and I'd be out of the fight. It really makes fighting with a great weapon or pole weapon a whole nother beast since your hands are prominently available. But then again shields were not invincible back then and you wouldn't get to yell good and walk off after getting slammed in the brain either so I guess there was much more of a fear factor involved.

[Luca Sogliano]

That was a huge surprise - look which was the baskets are turned! You may have found circumstantial evidence of gladiators using "wrap shots".

(donning asbestos suit ...)

These weapons protect your investment. Contrary to Hollywood myth, most Gladiatorial bouts were not to the death, that would simply be too expensive. (Note, the "gladiatorial" execution of prisoners is a wholly different phenomenon, and was referred to differently by the Romans)

These swords would make it difficult to kill your opponent, because they really could only be used for slashing. A fleshy slash makes for good circus, especially since we've already determined that gladiators were--for lack of a better term--fat.

Owners of gladiators, who were of course slaves, did not want their expensive toy, or money-making commodity destroyed needlessly in the ring.

Sorry for the continued derail, but I find this stuff fascinating.