They are interesting swords. What led you to the conclusion that the back bar is for interfacing with a scabbard? It's a new idea to me, my experience has generally indicated it as designed for protecting the back of the hand.
The fact that I'm speculating is clear, yet not interesting. But the reasons behind my speculation might be. So I'll go over them one by one.
First, Antiques Armoury states on their page that (I didn't quote this part in their section) "The hilt is comprised of a finger guards with knuckle guard and on the opposite side a spatulated quillion and spike, this was likely to trap the opponents blade. it also shows signs of having received some trauma as it should be more down swept." So I think we can all agree here that trapping the opponent's blade that way is not a good idea. I wanted to address this issue more than anything else in my original post.
Second, I never thought about that back bar (spike) being used for protection of the back of the hand. Thank you for bringing it up. I agree that if you press your hand on the crossguard to finger the crossguard, you would expose your hand even if you manage to catch the opponent's blade with your top quillon. And maybe that's what the Venetians used before they adopted a more symmetric finger-ring design that moved the danger farther away from the hand. The use of the spike in question in this role does seem inefficient to me, but if it had been seen in those times as solving a perceived problem, I'm sure they would have adopted it regardless of actual efficiency.
The third photo from the bottom seems to indicate more what you suggest compared to my view. They come in at a steeper angles. I just took them as being damaged (some look that way).
Finally, about my speculation:
- I have swords that have fingerings and blade spikes on the back-edge (like the Albion's Doge sword). The scabbard has a cut on the two sides to accommodate both of them. And it makes the retention of the sword worst for it.
- Tod Todeschini has his video talking about why we don't want a snug fit for the scabbard, and I agree with them as well. Scabbards change with humidity, and Venice is by the sea. So it's better to error on the side of a loose scabbard.
- There is a late 19th century Japanese Type 32 sabre that has a lamellar spring in the scabbard that presses on the blade to secure it in, and there's a button next to the hilt that needs to be pressed to release the sword. Soldiers that have a sword as a side arm rather than a primary weapon, would want to have a way to secure it properly in the scabbard, since 99% of the time they will not use it. This is a recent example, but I see no reason why this would not have been the case a while back. Related, army pistol holsters had protective flaps and buckle to secure pistols in (think WW1), and only when the US started to incorporate them into squad tactics (i.e. empty the rifle magazine, take out the pistol and keep firing as you approach the target) did fast release holsters appeared. Again, how often you use something dictates how well you want it secured or not.
- The guards of the Doge that had these swords (the ones with the Fleur de Lys in particular) would want them secured in the scabbard as they did their role (it would be an embarrassment to have your sword fall out in front of some official guests), while needing them still to be easy to extract if needed. This spike pressing on the side of the scabbard would allow for this in my opinion.
- The Single-edged Sidesword from the Met (see The Ideal Sidesword) has a small spike next to the side port ring that I suspect has the same scabbard securing role. So I think we may have neglected that aspect when looking at swords.
So for all these reasons, I suspect the spike to be related to the scabbard. But maybe I have seen what I wanted to see (like I said, I was not even thinking of the role you mentioned). Or it may be that we are both right and that's why the shape is as it is and not another (one better at protecting the hand). I'll try to find a picture of a scabbard (if any survived; I hope so, considering the large number of these swords). That would confirm or disprove immediately my hypothesis.
Addendum, just went to look at the "perfect sidesword" with the spike, it's definitely a familiar structure but yes it doesn't have an obvious function as it parallels the blade. How interesting.
Thanks for such a comprehensive answer to my question! I think we agree about pretty much everything there, especially the difficulty in finding universal answers to these questions.
I think perhaps my bias was showing in that I am usually very focused on the combative aspects of sword design and tend to prioritise them. Your points about the necessity of easy carry when the sword is not in use are well made.
Yes, a scabbard with a metal locket to interface with the spike would be a smoking gun...
They are interesting swords. What led you to the conclusion that the back bar is for interfacing with a scabbard? It's a new idea to me, my experience has generally indicated it as designed for protecting the back of the hand.
The fact that I'm speculating is clear, yet not interesting. But the reasons behind my speculation might be. So I'll go over them one by one.
First, Antiques Armoury states on their page that (I didn't quote this part in their section) "The hilt is comprised of a finger guards with knuckle guard and on the opposite side a spatulated quillion and spike, this was likely to trap the opponents blade. it also shows signs of having received some trauma as it should be more down swept." So I think we can all agree here that trapping the opponent's blade that way is not a good idea. I wanted to address this issue more than anything else in my original post.
Second, I never thought about that back bar (spike) being used for protection of the back of the hand. Thank you for bringing it up. I agree that if you press your hand on the crossguard to finger the crossguard, you would expose your hand even if you manage to catch the opponent's blade with your top quillon. And maybe that's what the Venetians used before they adopted a more symmetric finger-ring design that moved the danger farther away from the hand. The use of the spike in question in this role does seem inefficient to me, but if it had been seen in those times as solving a perceived problem, I'm sure they would have adopted it regardless of actual efficiency.
The third photo from the bottom seems to indicate more what you suggest compared to my view. They come in at a steeper angles. I just took them as being damaged (some look that way).
Finally, about my speculation:
- I have swords that have fingerings and blade spikes on the back-edge (like the Albion's Doge sword). The scabbard has a cut on the two sides to accommodate both of them. And it makes the retention of the sword worst for it.
- Tod Todeschini has his video talking about why we don't want a snug fit for the scabbard, and I agree with them as well. Scabbards change with humidity, and Venice is by the sea. So it's better to error on the side of a loose scabbard.
- There is a late 19th century Japanese Type 32 sabre that has a lamellar spring in the scabbard that presses on the blade to secure it in, and there's a button next to the hilt that needs to be pressed to release the sword. Soldiers that have a sword as a side arm rather than a primary weapon, would want to have a way to secure it properly in the scabbard, since 99% of the time they will not use it. This is a recent example, but I see no reason why this would not have been the case a while back. Related, army pistol holsters had protective flaps and buckle to secure pistols in (think WW1), and only when the US started to incorporate them into squad tactics (i.e. empty the rifle magazine, take out the pistol and keep firing as you approach the target) did fast release holsters appeared. Again, how often you use something dictates how well you want it secured or not.
- The guards of the Doge that had these swords (the ones with the Fleur de Lys in particular) would want them secured in the scabbard as they did their role (it would be an embarrassment to have your sword fall out in front of some official guests), while needing them still to be easy to extract if needed. This spike pressing on the side of the scabbard would allow for this in my opinion.
- The Single-edged Sidesword from the Met (see The Ideal Sidesword) has a small spike next to the side port ring that I suspect has the same scabbard securing role. So I think we may have neglected that aspect when looking at swords.
So for all these reasons, I suspect the spike to be related to the scabbard. But maybe I have seen what I wanted to see (like I said, I was not even thinking of the role you mentioned). Or it may be that we are both right and that's why the shape is as it is and not another (one better at protecting the hand). I'll try to find a picture of a scabbard (if any survived; I hope so, considering the large number of these swords). That would confirm or disprove immediately my hypothesis.
Addendum, just went to look at the "perfect sidesword" with the spike, it's definitely a familiar structure but yes it doesn't have an obvious function as it parallels the blade. How interesting.
Thanks for such a comprehensive answer to my question! I think we agree about pretty much everything there, especially the difficulty in finding universal answers to these questions.
I think perhaps my bias was showing in that I am usually very focused on the combative aspects of sword design and tend to prioritise them. Your points about the necessity of easy carry when the sword is not in use are well made.
Yes, a scabbard with a metal locket to interface with the spike would be a smoking gun...
Very thought provoking. Thank you.