When swords were a reasonable weapon of choice, did combatants regularly get their fingers chopped off from blows to the hilt? (See comments for related questions)

not a historian, but a HEMA/western martial arts enthusiast. If this violates any rules of the sub, please let me know and I'll edit/remove accordingly

Since you're mentioning mounted knights, I'm going to assume you're more concerned about western Europe?

Here is a good discussion regarding the development of handguards on swords. TL;DW: Taking a sword/axe/mace to the fingers is possible but it's not as viable a target when in the middle of a battle. Aiming for the vital points on the head/torso has a better chance of incapacitating an enemy. More complex crossguards were a more serious development once it became more popular/legal for civilians to carry swords around.

I won't speak too much regarding mounted/foot combat except that foot combat certainly wasn't abnormal. Horses are large animals with relatively fragile legs. (Someone with more knowledge on the matter can chime in).

It would be important to remember that swords are primarily sidearms. They're not as much use against an armored opponent as a mace, axe, hammer, or any type of polearm would be. The sword would be better served as a backup weapon. But armored swordfighting happened, and it was primarily a game of bring your opponent to the ground and thrust your sword in between the gaps in the armor. A common tactic was halfswording where you flip your sword around and use it as a club. This was effective because percussive weapons are more effective than cutting weapons against armor. Also, having a two-handed grip along your sword allows it it act muct like a long crowbar. It gives you more leverage to wrestle your opponent to the ground where you can better take advantage of the gaps in their armor. The image was taken from one of Hans Talhoffer fencing treatisies.

/r/AskHistorians Thread