Talk:Ricasso

untitled

Do the ricassos on modern knives better enable thrusts, just as their mideval counterparts on larger weapons did, or are they merely cosmetic? -Toptomcat 01:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ricassos on knives are for additional force and accuracy during pulling cuts only, using them when trusting actually increases the chance you will cut yourself by your finger sliding onto the edge portion of the blade.

Additionally, the unsharpened section that keeps getting described as a ricasso on the gladius is simply not one, and the picture needs to be removed as I have now done twice. A gladius is a Roman short sword, which certainly does not have a ricasso and actually predates them by centuries; the termination of the blade bevels before the guard is a common feature of many edged weapons and is not related to a ricasso. ~Nick

Nick: Try supplying a decent illustration of a ricasso. That should put paid to it, rather than providing yet more complaint. Zonemind 03:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I originally restored the page because you had not only removed the picture, but also the words defining Ricasso (I assume this was unintentional). The article no longer made any sense, at least not to the uninitiated. Spinningspark 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of half-swording applies because of the massive change in the physics of the weapon (with the hilt effectively becoming more than half of the weapon). Similarly, because of the length of longswords, even getting one or two fingers above the cross can make a large difference in the way the weapon handles (as can "thumbing" the blade). I cannot claim to understand the physics any better than that...it's above my head. While it is possible that shifting one or two fingers onto the blade of a knife would improve its handling during thrusting, it would be a small difference in comparison to the same action taken on a sword. Because a knife is already so short the effect would be rather minimal. (Side Note: Many people who use chef's knives put a thumb and one finger at least partially onto the blade, simulating the same effect of increased accuracy without a loss of blade length. Here's an image. Keep in mind this is done during precise kitchen work, not trying to stab someone in a knife fight.) Now, depending on the knife that you are talking about, you may actually be referring to the bolster (not a true ricasso), a part of the blade (which would be below or at the same level as the cross on a sword) that is unsharpened and provides support (and the above gripping capability) for the handle before becoming the tang. I hope that made sense and answered your question. -- Xiliquiern 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference being, for chefs, that the diced food stuffs are not likely to rise from the chopping board and cut off one's hand. (See "Ricasso Dangerous" below.) On consideration, the ricasso seems either: 1) A failed sword enhancement, 2) A novelty, useful for shock effect, 3) A way to strengthen a long sword, 4) A device contrived to meet some well-quantified, persistent enemy, capitalizing on some combination of their weapon/training weaknesses.

It would be wonderful to see historical citations about the theory, practice, historical duration, prevalence of ricasso. What were sword designers thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of ricasso dangerous

I'm a fencer, using modern, blunt sports weapons sabre, epee, and foil. The concept of gaining additional leverage by putting a hand higher on the blade is clear, but it's a struggle to imagine when anyone would put their hand above a guard in real combat with a full length blade. In most situations, moving the hand above the guard would be inviting an instant, disabling blow from a wary opponent. What is vaguely conceivable is using the hand above the guard to press home an attack which has already landed, with the intent of forcing the sword through armor, shielding, or a parrying sword. In this extreme situation, I'd imagine myself putting my hand on the upper sword -- regardless of whether it was sharp or not -- and probably much higher up to gain leverage.

(Since only a touch is required in sports fencing, the ricasso would have no purpose on those weapons of any kind.)

So it would be very interesting to hear how the ricasso was theoretically intended to work, or any documented accounts of an encounters using it. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 03:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This site has excellent descriptions and pictures of the techniques used.

Spinningspark 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, Spinningspark! Nothing like a site with a few hours' interesting reading. On that particular page, the men are using typical swords, and are grasping the sharp upper with a gloved hand. So that still leaves some question as to how an unsharp area above the guard would be used. Perhaps in a marginal situation against a specific enemy armor, where there's almost enough force to get through? Or as a surprise "power" move?

An unbeveled section of a sword would be quite strong, compared to the beveled part. Maybe it was also a matter of avoiding breakage? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The same site has a facsimile of the Codex Wallerstein, an historical fighting manual (Fechtbuch) from the period. In particular, this plate seems to show a grip just above the guard being used to drive home a blow. However, you are correct in that all the plates showing a grip on the blade are with a gauntleted hand. It is particularly significant that this same Fechtbuch in an earlier section has plates showing fighting where the combatants have bare hands. None of these plates show a grip above the guard. I have looked at several other Fechtbucher and they all follow the same pattern, hands on the blade are protected. Of course, this may be due more to the risk of your enemy striking your hand if you bring it outside the guard rather than whether or not the sword is sharp to touch.

I have also seen a suggestion that the fighting techniques shown in these old Fechtbucher imply that there was also an unsharpened portion in the centre of the blade. Don't think that any archeologist has ever found an example of such a sword though!

Spinningspark 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fencing has little similarity to armored combat with large blades, it's a sport, similar to Kendo in Japan. A sword with a ricasso was a large weapon for two hand use, and handled much differently than even the rapiers and other light swords fencing comes closer to emulating. These were battlefield swords, meant for use in full harness(those that could not afford armour could not even come close to affording a sword, it was probably the most expensive weapon in the middle ages) As mentioned above, period manuals of fighting show gripping ricassos and gripping blades, which is not actually that dangerous with mail or plate gloves - metal needs to shear metal, it can't pressure cut at degrees of force a human can generate. Swords never really cut plate armor on the battlefield, unless perhaps swung from horseback; a man in plate was knocked down, then stabbed in a soft spot, or more likely, set upon by peasants with war picks and maces to crush to death. Even mail was seldom sheared through, shattering bone and crushing flesh below was the way. This isn't because most swords of this period were dull, as some may claim,(They were typically quite sharp, I've held an antique that could shave a business card on the flat), but because a sword was used least commonly on heavily armored opponents(knight on knight), and most commonly by a knight cutting down lightly armored infantry, where the sharp edge killed efficiently. A ricasso served another purpose to the sword maker - a cutting bevel is time consuming and expensive to forge, and extending it down to a place that will never be used to cut is a waste. I've taken a photo of my own sword of this type in order to add a good quality photo to this section.

      ~Nick, 2/25/08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.227.47 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 

It's understood that there are many types of swords, from sports weapons to what amount to little more than clubs.

What I'm disinclined to accept is that ricassos were useful for forcing a weapon through armor, when gripping the blade further up would get much better leverage. As you point out, Nick, a hand could be easily protected well enough for the attacker to grasp the sharpened portion. That is, from the point of view of improving attack, perhaps the ricasso is a design experiment that failed.

However it does seem likely that a ricasso would make manufacture (and maintenance) cheaper. Also, it would be possible to make that "non-cutting" part of the weapon very thick and strong. (I wonder if it could be faster to draw a sword with a ricasso?) A recent episode of "Mythbusters" seemed to suggest that it was not possible to slice through an opponent's sword, but that it would bend. Perhaps the ricasso affected the blade performance under such extreme conditions?

The question of how sharp ricasso swords were isn't that critical, since we seem to be agreeing it would be easy to glove a hand to be directly in contact with a sharp edge. The larger question "How sharp were swords?" is interesting, but perhaps for a different article. There are all kinds of factors to be considered, there. Chief among them is probably the question of whether extremely sharp swords were always best. There would be several disadvantages. Experimentally, I took expensive kitchen knives and struck them against one another: they were immediately dinged, even though the metal is presumably better than common blades of the Middle Ages. I was happier striking the dull backsides together, because I had confidence the blades would not chip and perhaps bind.

Regards,

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I was mulling the notion that blade need not be sharpened in the ricasso area, on account of it not used for cutting. At first I was thinking that was true, then I was thinking that area, unlike, say a sports fencing weapon, would sometimes come in contact with something cutable, say flesh. Then it seemed that the most important thing for the swordsman is that they are aware of the characteristic of their own blade in the ricasso area, and that it enchances their personal style.

This is the sort of question I was never very clear on, even after years of sports fencing. There, the weapon length is regulated. But in real battle, choice of weapon length -- for a custom sword -- would vary depending on the swordsman's strength, speed, arm length, personal fighting style, and possibly, those characteristics in their enemy. A dagger may be very quick, for example, but in one-on-one combat in an open area, I would choose a much longer weapon than a dagger. Conversely, if I thought the opponant slow, weak, and using an over-heavy weapon I might choose a shorter weapon than theirs, even if I could handle the longer blade. Getting back to ricasso, is is possible that it was a "specialty" feature, suited toward a specific person's style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk • contribs) 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that discussion in sword sharpness is probably best left for elsewhere, however, in reference to the kitchen knife experiment, two points. One, sword bevels were much more stoutly built and stronger than kitchen knife bevels - kitchen knives are meant to contact only materials much softer than they are, and as a result, have a very, very thin bevel with almost no reinforcing material, almost like a razor blade. This makes them much more prone to dings when they do in fact contact something hard. A stout bevel, while more effort to create and not quite as finely sharp, would be more than sufficient to slice an opponent apart with a sword length object and is much more tolerant of knocking against things like metal armor and the flats of other blades. The only swords typically seen with very thin fine edges are Japanese swords, and these edges are more prone to chipping when they contact hard objects full force then European blades. Second, edge to edge contact was something that was avoided as completely as was possible with most swords and edge weapons. With a cutting weapon, the game is often very different from fencing - Not only was edge on edge terrible for the sword, but it is the least efficient and most dangerous way to deflect a cut, as it puts you in harms way and requires heavy force. Glancing was how you guarded cuts with swords before the smallsword and fencing as personal defense era - the flat of the blade, positioned as a glancing surface, would take almost no damage and absorb only a tiny fraction of the force of the strike, resulting in your opponent having to counteract the momentum of his own attack before striking again, and your own blade being in much better physical position for returning an attack. So it's easier, less risky to you, less risky to your sword, and puts your opponent at a disadvantage. I've also seen a couple swords that were through the ringer and had hard edge on edge contacts; when it does happen, it makes a REALLY big ding. Overall, I think the a ricasso had several appeals to it... ease of make and maintenance(swords were expensive, and forging bevels the most expensive and time consuming part, so with a big sword, a large ricasso saved a lot of work), style(when something didn't strongly affect performance, style was often a big factor during this period), and of course, the desires of the user. It's worth noting that a number of very large swords with ricasso sections also had quillions, to make extended use of choked up grip less dangerous, and that personally, I think choking up when killing a grounded opponent wasn't to generate more power by increasing distance between your arms, but because it's easier to place the point precisely with your hands further apart, and finishing someone in full armor who has been grounded generally involves carefully placing the point at a less-hard spot and pushing the blade through it and into them rather than hacking them as hard as you can.

    ~Nick(6-15-08)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickdig (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 

From my understanding, with particularly large swords (two-handed), if you were fighting a guy in metal armour, you would try to knock him onto the ground. If you wanted to kill him, you would grip the Ricasso in one hand, and stab the sword into a weaker part of the armour. Even with all the huge sword, it would take a while to hack through the armour. By stabing, the force would be applied into a small point, and the fact that one hand held the hilt, while the other held the ricasso made the entire stabbing motion much more feasable. Obolisk0430 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)obolisk0430

You would actually be gripping the ricasso when fighting with a longer blade at close quarters turning that larger blade into a short pole arm. In a judicial duel or a pitch battle then who ever was the better trained or luckier wrestler won(look at sword wrestling) then as above state gripping the ricasso would help slay a grounded foe. This feature in medieval and renaissance fighting taught in various schools across western and central europe. Pistol gripping, aka italian grip, didnt appear later on as a style and was largely used for duels of honor leading to civilian evolution of blades used for personal duels in which paved the road for modern fencing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX-C-zlvypk <---- See this from example.

Picture orientation

The description says that the ricasso is 'above' the guard, but the picture shows it below. Is the picture upside down? Should we change the wording to match the picture or flip the picture to match the wording?? WesT (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made an edit to that image to present the sword in the correct orientation and correct the label. Comfycore (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Other possible use for the Ricasso?

Totally new to this topic and have not read extensively yet so this idea may be "well known". What do you think about the idea that the Ricasso is there to support the sword\knife\etc. when sheathed? If the end of the sword is sharpened all the way to the guard it is thinner and weaker than a blocked area of metal which continues through the cross-guard and into the grip area of the hilt. Any twisting or bending forces acting on the hilt of the sword while sheathed would be strongest at the junction of the sheath and cross-guard. It would also make sense to create a block at that area of the sword that would fit perfectly into the scabbard to “suspend” the sword down the length of the scabbard to avoid contact and dull the edge, or damage to the blade due to grinding against the inside of the scabbard while travelling. FinlandRobert (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)RobertFinlandRobert (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)