Why No Gauntlets?

[Matthew_Anderson]

This topic came recently when discussing a particular manual, and I've been pondering it ever since. Some of the images we see in the fechtbuchs show otherwise fully armoured combatants fighting at the half-sword without gauntlets. The question is, why do we see this so often?

It could be that this is just artistic license, in order to show what the hands are doing, or simply looks better, or for simplicity. This seems unlikely to me however as it appears in different manuals illustrated by different artists. Also, these same manuals show the other armour in pretty accurate detail, so why not include the gauntlets if they are there?

My own experinece with armoured half-swording makes me flinch at the thought of going at it hammer and tongs without gauntlets. Even with gauntlets, the hands are still somewhat vulnerable to pinching, crushing, and stabbing attacks. An otherwise fully armoured man without gauntlets seems to be begging to have his hands mangled. I think I would be really tempted to focus on attacking those unprotected hands with quick chopping and thrusting attacks from range rather than engage in the close combat we see illustrated.

It seems there are plenty of examples of gauntlets used and not used. Manuals such as Fiore Dei Liberi's "Flos Duellatorum", the "Codex Wallerstein", and Vadi's "Atre Gladitoria" clearly show gauntlets used in armour. Others, such as "Gladiatoria", and most of Talhoffer's armoured stuff don't.

What gives? Do you think men really fought in armour without gauntlets, or is there another explaination? Perhaps it was something agreed upon before the start of a judicial combat, to wear them or not? Perhaps you'd be considered a sissy if you wore gauntlets?

[GaryGrzybek]

Hi Matt,

I'm sure most of us have pondered over this mystery. It puzzles me as to why they would not protect the most likely of targets. In my study group we have learned just how easy it is to get the hands pinched, crushed or sliced. This is true even without using half sword. In truth, I rarely train without my padded gloves. Injuries to the hands just suck. <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Bill Tsafa]

I had read that gloves in the medieval ages where very expensive. However I can not imagin them being more expensive then a sword. Perhaps they did not want to give up any gripping power. Or perhaps the non-use of gloves carried over from an earlier period of one-hand swords. I think the risk of hand injury is less then longsword fighting, when fighting on horseback or sword and shield. In longsword fighting they had armored and unarmored. If two people choose to duel unarmed, then that would mean no protection. It is not likly that they would make an exception for the hands. I think that he pictures in the manuals my be of people actuly dueling rather then training. In the weird case of a fully armed person witn no hand protection, well that makes no scence. Just the better grip theory fits. Just some ideas to kick around.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Gary

Maybe I have been lucky, i train very rarely with gloves, i could see two fully armoured guy's taking off there glove's so as to be able to better come to grip's and get a better grip on the blade, to me it makes sense.


Jeff

[Matthew_Anderson]

Jeff, I would agree that the best possble abiltity to manipulate your weapon comes without any kind of gloves, maybe that's why they did it, just to have better control, and they were willing to accept the increased risk of injury. I think that's why some combatants are shown without visors on their helms or with the visor up. It greatly enhances your vision and situational awareness, perhaps a good trade for the loss of face/eye protection. Although, with the scaled finger gauntlets that I normally wear, there is very little if any restriction of movement or decrease in my abiility to manipulate my weapon. To me, the no visor thing makes sense, but the bare hand thing isn't a good trade-off at all.

[Casper Bradak]

Simplicity of art can't be a factor. Any artist could tell you that a gauntlet would be easier to draw than a hand.
Cost can't be a factor. They're wearing full harness, and they're not exactly commoners.
Artistic liscense is not a factor in my opinion, and is extremely unlikely in either case (why?). Some plates from Master Talhoffer's book show a rondel disk gauntlet, worn so that it won't impede the dexterity of the hands.

In a one on one combat in particular, where you will be casting spears and swords, quickly switching your grips among them, quickly snatching for your sheathed dagger to dextrously thrust it into small areas, gain holds on your opponent (much tougher in armour with gauntlets on), perhaps pry open his visor, gauntlets are best done without.
It's probably likely you'll get your hands bumped, bruised, and a little cut, but you shouldn't have to take a direct hit on them in harness any more than you would without.
I, for one, am not afraid of causing any grievous harm to my own hands.

One thing that could've had some influence on this, is that during the time that most of our manuals originate, fingered gauntlets were apparently an unfashionable minority, and the more contemporary, though more protective mitten gauntlets most people used were too hindering to the above uses. If 14th century small plated, fingered and lamellar gauntlets were more common, perhaps we would've seen those in the manuals instead of the participants doing without.

[William Savage]

I agree with Jeff and Casper. I dont think bare hands was about gauntlets restricting movement, but rather the smallest amunt of sensitivity making a world of difference. Especially when grappling some one in smooth armor.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

hmmm...maybe, but instead of just grappling alone, why not smash and punch your enemy in the face with those nice, steel gauntlets, I am not convinced of the grappling theory, although I think it's compelling. It may come down to the cost factor, combined with stlye, combined with social influences, and maybe they agreed upon it in advance. Like matt said when the hands are unprotected they become quite easy to exploit. Maybe the combat was resolved quicker and less dangerously in terms of lethality-what do you guys think of this possibility?-

[JeffGentry]

Hey Aaron

I am not convinced of the grappling theory

I kind of put it out there, and i am not real convinced by it myself.

Feats of Arms of a 15th Century Knight

This actualy is an account of a french knight it has some thing's that are interesting along the line's of no gauntlet's, no helmet and such in a somewhat formal tournament.


Jeff

[Shane Smith]

If a man in harness with no gauntlets comes after me in harness, I'm not even going to the halfsword without taking a chop or two at his hands first without good reason, and even then, my blade will be played heavily on them from the bind at every opportunity until I can poke or throw him.Fiore even gives us a technique or two to injure the hands from a bind <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

That is a good thought on the clamshell gauntlet style restricting dexterity however.

[Attila DeWaal]

I side with the idea that the gauntlets were probably left out of the drawings to make it easier to show what the hands were doing. Seems more plausible to me.

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi!

I have absolutely nothing to back this up -- but if the images are depicting training rather than actual combat, perhaps they wanted to train without the gauntlets to make sure they learn to protect the hands.

I actually don't think that is the case, but it's just a thought to consider. Very interesting thread, though, I've never before actually looked at the images with gauntlets in mind.

[Craig Peters]

I had an idea, which lead to a bizarre line of reasoning, based upon Shane's post. I'm not inclined to believe that this idea is correct, but I'd like to throw it out there anyways, for the sake of discussion.

What if some men did not wear gauntlets deliberately, in order to entice an attack to their hands? Both Shane and Matt said they'd deliberately target the hands if they noticed someone fighting without gauntlets. And this would probably be the case historically too- if a knight noticed that another knight was not wearing gauntlets, the first knight would probably deliberately target his opponent's hands. But, when one expects to receive an attack to the hands, one can be better prepared to respond to that attack. It's similar to the theory that Alber is an invitational guard.

There's at least two reasons why I don't think this idea is good. First, I think there are better explanations out there, such as the point that gauntlets can be restrictive to dexterity. Secondly, the hands make a good target for a sword, which leads me to doubt that anyone would deliberately leave their hands exposed for the purpose of inviting an attack.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Something else I thought of today as well, the development of compound hilts also gives us some indication that they didn't like wearing gauntlets for some reason, as this might be not have been needed were they wearing gauntlets, what do you guys think about this idea?

[JeanryChandler]

This is a real interesting thread guys.

I have to admit I'm horrified by the idea of fighting for real without gauntlets. My left hand was a useless numb wreck for three weeks after my last sparring match (with some ARMA guys, you know who you are <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) and I was struck by a padded sword while wearing a padded half-gauntlet.

Having said that, my take on it is this.

One major difference between what we do and real judicial combat is that they were basically only fighting one bout. We might go on a sparring day and fight 10 matches of 15-20 bouts each. Chances are your hands are going to get hit if you fight that many times.

However, if you are fighting just one fight, and for your life (or to the first blood, with a possibly major financial or criminal sanction hanging in the balance) you might decide that it's worth the risk to your hand to get the extra agility in there.

Because I do agree that you lose agility with heavier gloves. I suffered my injury last sparring day partially due to my own continual experiments to find gloves with the right combination of protection with less interference to my hands. Hockey and Lacrosse gloves protect pretty well but are simply too cumbersome. Welding gloves are way too light. I think something could be designed which worked well but I haven't been able to find it or make it yet.

So anyway, thats my $.02

Jr