so silly question(s), time. Was/is there any account of people wearing gauntlets while wielding a basket/complex hilted sword? I feel like most of the appeal of the basket hilt is how it functionally replaces arm protecting armor when expecting a fight, and if not expecting a fight isn’t so much to lug around. but then are people Doing (insert type of sword with a simple cross guard)Sword Wrong because they aren’t wearing the appropriate armor? it’s probably more complex than that ….
The short answer is that the basket-hilt broadsword is from the Napoleonic era and was primarily a military sword rather than a sword that saw use in civilian life like a rapier or a smallsword. So, yes, it would have been used with leather gauntlets and the armor of the period. (Like the Cuirassier.) More hand protection for the grip does not equate a replacement for armor. It just means more hand protection. Hand protection is important because the hand is one of the first (and best) targets to strike for with a sword, if they don’t have a hand or if the hand is injured then your opponent can’t use their sword. (The fact that the basket hilt exists at all should tell you how important that hand protection is to a soldier.)
Most people who’ve never engaged in any sort of martial training, martial arts tend to think the center is the first place one strikes toward because (obviously) that’s obviously the quickest way to end the fight. Ranged weapons aim for center mass, but in a duel, in hand to hand, or with an armored warrior on the battlefield, that center is going to be the most well-defended part of the body. Your extremities like your arms, your legs, and your hands are much easier to reach, and just as necessary to your opponent putting up a defense or retaliating. They’re also more likely to be open to attack, so you go after those first.
However, for every advantage given to a weapon, there is a disadvantage. The problem with the basket-hilt in civilian life is, as Easton points out in his video, the sword is potentially difficult to draw quickly and provides more opportunity for fumbling than a sword with a less complex hilt. The more protection you give a sword’s hilt then the fewer options you have to just grab and go. The same rules you’ve applied to your enemy also apply to you, the wielder. For the civilian, who has different priorities from a soldier, this is an issue.
A civilian is going to be going around their daily life with their sword sheathed, and need to draw quickly in case of emergency. They’re going to face surprise violence from unexpected places. The soldier will likely already have their sword drawn when the battle starts. The civilian needs speed over additional protection, where the soldier needs that extra defense. You see this concept painted most clearly with the Old West gun duels, but the general answer is: he who draws first wins. Your sword has a lot of hand protection, but that won’t help you much if you can’t get it out of its sheathe. (The same is true in the knife versus gun debate. The gun has range over the knife, but that doesn’t matter if the knife is out and close enough to strike while the gun is still holstered. The fight will be over before the one with the gun has time to draw.) The civilian, for the most part, doesn’t have extra armor to buy them time. They need to be quick, and they need to grip the hilt from any potential angle. In that scenario, the basket-hilt hinders more than helps.
Just because one person adds more armor doesn’t mean they’re doing that so they can take away from somewhere else. The soldier is still going to wear their gauntlets and gloves to protect their hands, they’re just reducing the chance of being struck further with the basket-hilt or quillions on the cross-guard. After all, the basket-hilt only protects the hand and not the rest of their arm. Someone sticks you in the bicep or triceps, good luck using your arm. After all, if you can’t use your muscles then there’s no way to move the arm, or you’ll be doing so while in extreme pain.