Just one last thought here. When you show someone how to hold a later period sword, you show them the handshake grip only (I hope). You don't say, "You can also hold it like a hammer and make chopping motions". I think the Vikings did the opposite. "You hold a sword this way (like an axe or a hammer)." This was the "normal" way. The "usual" way. Anything beyond that was esoteric.
Joel
| Joel Thompson wrote: |
| Just one last thought here. When you show someone how to hold a later period sword, you show them the handshake grip only (I hope). You don't say, "You can also hold it like a hammer and make chopping motions". I think the Vikings did the opposite. "You hold a sword this way (like an axe or a hammer)." This was the "normal" way. The "usual" way. Anything beyond that was esoteric.
Joel |
I disagree. I believe that both methods were probably taught, and they knew when to use one or the other. I'd hardly call it esoteric.
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
| I believe that both methods were probably taught, and they knew when to use one or the other. |
Hi Patrick
This is an appropriately ecumenical viewpoint from a moderator, but I don't think Peter agrees with you. In his post that starts this offshoot thread, he is politely (as always) adamant that the handshake is the one true grip.
regards
Geoff
| Geoff Wood wrote: | ||
Hi Patrick This is an appropriately ecumenical viewpoint from a moderator, but I don't think Peter agrees with you. In his post that starts this offshoot thread, he is politely (as always) adamant that the handshake is the one true grip. regards Geoff |
Ahhhh,
Geoff, this was not what I intended to say. What I was trying to say was that it is a mistake to think the hammer grip is the best or predominant or most accurate way to hold a viking sword. I also said this topic is one that is very difficult to discuss on the internet since it is multy-faceted and much depending on the ideas, experiences and references of each participant in the discussion.
If your exposure to swords is in a reenactment situation you will invariably have anohter impression of swords than someone that uses swords for testcutting mostly (what type of target you use in testcutting will also have a large impact on what aspects you appreciate in a good sword). Also, if you are mostly exposed to blunts, your impression will be different from somepne who is mostly exposed to sharp swords. The situation is further complicated by the fact that most "replicas" on the market are not so close to originals as they are made out to be.
The contemporary typical blunt "viking" sword made for reenactment fighting is usually shorter in the blade and has a longer grip than authentic original viking swords. Many are heavier than what is the norm with authentic swords of the same type. The balance point is as a norm closer to the hilt than what is seen on originals. This is a natural result of the blunt sword being made to be safe to use for simulated fights (where your are careful not to harm you opponent in any sigificant way).
Using a sword like this on dayly basis will have great influence on how you will appreciate a sharp sword.
I say this only as an example on how our experience of swords will influence what we see as the important aspects and the most proper use.
I agree that there can be situations where a hammer grip might be used, but not as a static grip used in all situations, nor would I agree with the notion that it is the primary or "correct" way of holding the sword.
(quoting myself):
"You may still use a hammer grip in some situations, but that has a limiting effect on the performance of the sword. I think the hammer grip is used when only short chops in close mode is an option. In full length distance a more supple grip is used."
By advocating a supple grip I would also like to point out that your grip will naturally change during a swordfight depending on the situation.
K Holsen said this very well:
"I use a hammer on a regular basis. I do not hold it the same way for everything and Im sure that armorers and smiths dont hold their hammer the same for everything either. Is it not possible that the grip was shifted for different instances ? Yes the "hammer grip" is more useful in a shieldwall and the "handshake" in single combat. so what ?"
I like to stress the fact that we need to turn to originals and base our practical studies of swiordsmanship by using *realistic* replicas or reconstructions. We are also well served by fostering an attitude of an open mind during these studies.
If some aspect of a sword is befuddling us, like the seemingly weak construction of bronze age swords or the supposed tightness of viking swordgrips, our confusion is probably caused by a faulty or limited understanding of the proper use of these weapons. These weapons were made by the experts of the time and used by warriors who depended on the quality of these weapons for their survival.
Progress and developent is the religion of our age and we often focus on what wee see as shortcomings in the designs or constructions of earlier time periods. This is only true in a relative sense. At their time these were the best man could produce and they were put to use in the most effective way possible. When situations changed by the flood of time, humankind developed new tools to deal with new problems and new possibilities. Every age perfected proper tools to deal with situations according to the possibilities at hand.
I think it is a mistake to think that swordsmaship was primitive and un-refined in earlier times.
Humankind has a great ability to refine and develop the arts that are important in any age.
If the level of technology in a culture is capable of the production of swords there is certainly a capability to use them in a varied, effective and specialized way.
There is often a tendency to think that earlier time periods were more primitive, but this is only true to some degree and in a relative sense. It is a mistake to think that this applies in an absolute way to those arts that were important at the time. In many cases certain traditions or arts were *more* advanced in ancient times and less so today. The art of memorizing, the art of calligraphy or indeed the art of swordsmanship are examples that were certainly all more advanced and more widely applied and appreciated in times previous to ours.
You can build a civilization on the cutting edge of obsidian, you do not need powder metallurgy to build an empire. The cutting performance of any tool or weapon is largely depending on the proper understanding of its use, and less the "quality" of the tool.
Our task today (if we like this challenge) is to develop an understanding of the tools and weapon of previous times. If something causes chafing (and I mean this both in a cognitive and practical way) we should try to see this as a challenge to study the problem and not be so quick to draw conclusions.
One thing we can rely on: there was nothing wrong with the designs of the swords during the viking age. By being to sure that one way and only that way is the proper way will limit our understanding of these weapons. A limited understaning will not bring out the best or full potential in their use. We must aslo recognize the importantce of turning to original sources. Even if much has been lost to us, there are vast amounts of information to base our study on.
This thread has been very interesting to read. I hope I do not put a lid on it by posting this message. I would be very interested to read further replies and thoughts!
Best
Peter
to weigh in on the level of "sophistication" when it comes to swordsmanship in ancient times...
I used to be somewhat of a martial artist, studying Chinese forms. In my college studies in ancient Irish history, I came across a reference in one of the Irish hero tales, about Cuchulain' arrival at the King's court in Ulster. Cuchulain is described as trying to join a hurling game in process, and the boys of the court responded by throwing their hurling sticks and ball at him -- and he defended himself using his hands, feet, forearms and elbows. That sounds a lot like a martial art to me. Later in life he attended a fighting "school" run by a woman.
If the early Celts had fighting systems, who are we to say that the Vikings or any other people from an earlier time did not as wel? Just because they aren't written down?
We tend to dismiss more "primitive" cultures as purely survival oriented and not thinking about the BIG Questions or developing their own systems and processes for dealing with the world around them. Just looking at our own culture, I would not say that more available leisure time equates to greater thinking -- in fact, the opposite. We have already seen that the design of swords was far more complex than ever thought before. Modern physics and quantum theory are starting to sound closer and closer to the primitive shaman's view of the world, for example
An open mind, and a careful and thoughtful approach to reenactment are the only way we can begin to approach an understanding of what these people thought or how they dealt with the world. We have to leave our assumptions at the door -- our ancestors surprise us at every step along the path of rediscovery.
Just my hundredth of a cent on this.
Best,
Howy
I used to be somewhat of a martial artist, studying Chinese forms. In my college studies in ancient Irish history, I came across a reference in one of the Irish hero tales, about Cuchulain' arrival at the King's court in Ulster. Cuchulain is described as trying to join a hurling game in process, and the boys of the court responded by throwing their hurling sticks and ball at him -- and he defended himself using his hands, feet, forearms and elbows. That sounds a lot like a martial art to me. Later in life he attended a fighting "school" run by a woman.
If the early Celts had fighting systems, who are we to say that the Vikings or any other people from an earlier time did not as wel? Just because they aren't written down?
We tend to dismiss more "primitive" cultures as purely survival oriented and not thinking about the BIG Questions or developing their own systems and processes for dealing with the world around them. Just looking at our own culture, I would not say that more available leisure time equates to greater thinking -- in fact, the opposite. We have already seen that the design of swords was far more complex than ever thought before. Modern physics and quantum theory are starting to sound closer and closer to the primitive shaman's view of the world, for example
An open mind, and a careful and thoughtful approach to reenactment are the only way we can begin to approach an understanding of what these people thought or how they dealt with the world. We have to leave our assumptions at the door -- our ancestors surprise us at every step along the path of rediscovery.
Just my hundredth of a cent on this.
Best,
Howy
Last edited by Howard Waddell on Fri 22 Oct, 2004 10:30 am; edited 2 times in total
Peter
Thanks for responding with, as always, an excellent and informative post. My reference to the 'one true grip' was meant to be lighthearted ( I haven't mastered the vocabulary of small grey [that's gray for transponders] faces to indicate states of levity etc..). However, it was in response to your use of the expression 'the proper way to hold a viking sword' near the top of your original post. To me, that suggested that you think there is only one proper way, or you would have written 'one of the proper ways'.
Just to illustrate where I'm coming from, none of my swords are blunt, and I don't engage in re-enactments (although they do look like great fun). I do have a long history, from childhood, of using a variety of cutting tools, but never against a person. However, I fully accept that you have far greater exprience of original swords, and of accurate reconstructions, than I could ever hope to have.
I don't consider earlier cultures to be necessarily less capable. I find statements such as 'the Egyptians couldn't possibly have built the pyramids' to be silly, since they obviously did, so it is, as you say, up to us to work out how they did it, if we are at all interested in the question. However (yes, another one), I think that people fighting, for real, will often behave in a primitive fashion, even nowadays, and that should be taken into account when trying to understand the tools they use.
Any way, back to the discussion. Trying to summarize, you seem to be saying, if you hold it like A you can't cut like B. Joel seems to be saying, if I hold it like A, I can cut like C, and I'm not trying to cut like B because it appears unrealistic to me (e.g. when I'm holding a shield). I'm saying, why is it shaped like D if you're meant to hold it like E so that you can do B with it. Some things, such as the relative flatness of some pommels, make E appear (to me) more likely, but not all pommels are flat. Some things, such as the pommel/upper guard curving away from the grip, make A appear more likely to me, but they don't all curve away and, as Risto pointed out, some curve towards the grip.
Just to throw another couple into the pot, the curving of the cross/lower guard away from the grip on some swords is possibly easier to explain if you assume the hammer grip (unless you think that it is more to do with stopping an opponents sword slipping by than with making more room for the hand and for the latter to move at the wrist - however, I think they may have tended to use the shield to deflect the opponents sword rather than their own sword). If the handshake grip was primary, why are symmetrical pommels still used on single edged swords? Given that only the fingers on the 'edge' side would be bearing on the pommel/upper guard anyway, rather than the rear of the whole hand as in the hammer grip, why wouldn't they have used the opportunity to take advantage of an asymmetric pommel design?
Regards
Geoff
Thanks for responding with, as always, an excellent and informative post. My reference to the 'one true grip' was meant to be lighthearted ( I haven't mastered the vocabulary of small grey [that's gray for transponders] faces to indicate states of levity etc..). However, it was in response to your use of the expression 'the proper way to hold a viking sword' near the top of your original post. To me, that suggested that you think there is only one proper way, or you would have written 'one of the proper ways'.
Just to illustrate where I'm coming from, none of my swords are blunt, and I don't engage in re-enactments (although they do look like great fun). I do have a long history, from childhood, of using a variety of cutting tools, but never against a person. However, I fully accept that you have far greater exprience of original swords, and of accurate reconstructions, than I could ever hope to have.
I don't consider earlier cultures to be necessarily less capable. I find statements such as 'the Egyptians couldn't possibly have built the pyramids' to be silly, since they obviously did, so it is, as you say, up to us to work out how they did it, if we are at all interested in the question. However (yes, another one), I think that people fighting, for real, will often behave in a primitive fashion, even nowadays, and that should be taken into account when trying to understand the tools they use.
Any way, back to the discussion. Trying to summarize, you seem to be saying, if you hold it like A you can't cut like B. Joel seems to be saying, if I hold it like A, I can cut like C, and I'm not trying to cut like B because it appears unrealistic to me (e.g. when I'm holding a shield). I'm saying, why is it shaped like D if you're meant to hold it like E so that you can do B with it. Some things, such as the relative flatness of some pommels, make E appear (to me) more likely, but not all pommels are flat. Some things, such as the pommel/upper guard curving away from the grip, make A appear more likely to me, but they don't all curve away and, as Risto pointed out, some curve towards the grip.
Just to throw another couple into the pot, the curving of the cross/lower guard away from the grip on some swords is possibly easier to explain if you assume the hammer grip (unless you think that it is more to do with stopping an opponents sword slipping by than with making more room for the hand and for the latter to move at the wrist - however, I think they may have tended to use the shield to deflect the opponents sword rather than their own sword). If the handshake grip was primary, why are symmetrical pommels still used on single edged swords? Given that only the fingers on the 'edge' side would be bearing on the pommel/upper guard anyway, rather than the rear of the whole hand as in the hammer grip, why wouldn't they have used the opportunity to take advantage of an asymmetric pommel design?
Regards
Geoff
I believe vinegar was widely used as a disinfectant in the middle ages.
Can't resist posting the great "Wound Man" medical illustration of 1617. You'll find this in Blood Red Roses, too, as part of that book's discussion of wounds in the Towton victims. Also, to wander back to the main thread, I noticed last night while handling a cheap Mainz gladius that the pommel severely restricts cutting motions when I use a hammer grip. The handshake grip resolved this problem exactly as Peter and others have described. I know, I know...apples and oranges, thrusting sword vs. cutting sword, etc. But I thought it was interesting to note that whether or not the technique was ever used with the gladius, it does at least facilitate cutting motions with this particular replica. Now on to the hapless wound man....
Attachment: 73.9 KB
Attachment: 73.9 KBUmmm.............ouch!
Very interesting topic! I wish I had posted earlier.
Very little mention of actual test-cutting or tameshigiri, which, I believe, quickly solves the most effective manner of handling a Viking sword. If you intend to use the hammer grip, warn your bystanders to stand back, for you have a very good chance of losing control of your blade.
We have a tendency to equate a firm grip with strength, and a lighter grip with weakness. It reminds me of the wiseacres who observed the first Viking ship excavatation, measured the thickness of the planks, and concluded that the ships could not possibly used at sea... until somebody sailed one across the ocean.
The same misconception remains with the shields of the Vikings (and like people): their quarter-inch thickness convinces some that they were only used for display. Maybe, just maybe, the Vikings had an understanding of where real power comes from... :cool:
Very little mention of actual test-cutting or tameshigiri, which, I believe, quickly solves the most effective manner of handling a Viking sword. If you intend to use the hammer grip, warn your bystanders to stand back, for you have a very good chance of losing control of your blade.
We have a tendency to equate a firm grip with strength, and a lighter grip with weakness. It reminds me of the wiseacres who observed the first Viking ship excavatation, measured the thickness of the planks, and concluded that the ships could not possibly used at sea... until somebody sailed one across the ocean.
The same misconception remains with the shields of the Vikings (and like people): their quarter-inch thickness convinces some that they were only used for display. Maybe, just maybe, the Vikings had an understanding of where real power comes from... :cool:
I am definitely going to agree with Douglas' post. When I was taking Kenjutsu and Iaido while in Japan, my Kiyoshi taught us to use a "light grip" on the sword and not to hold it "hard like a shovel." It wasn't until some years later when I was demonstrating draw cuts on thrown 2 liter plastic bottles that I REALLY came understand what he meant.
I worked at Medieval Times in Schaumburg, Illinois and between shows we were out back of the castle and I was throwing up apples and partially filled 2 liter bottles, drawing my katana, and cutting them on either the upstroke or downstroke. One toss was a "bit" too far out and I lost serious focus on my drawing technique, clamping down hard on the tsuka and attempting to mechanically draw fast to reach the bottle. While I did accomplish my aim, I also lost control of the blade (the first time and only time that has ever happened) and ended up throwing the katana to my right and behind me (luckily, no one was standing there). The sole reason I lost control is because I grabbed it "like a shovel" and not like a sword.
So, I would be one practitioner that advocates for the "handshake" over the "hammer" grip.
I worked at Medieval Times in Schaumburg, Illinois and between shows we were out back of the castle and I was throwing up apples and partially filled 2 liter bottles, drawing my katana, and cutting them on either the upstroke or downstroke. One toss was a "bit" too far out and I lost serious focus on my drawing technique, clamping down hard on the tsuka and attempting to mechanically draw fast to reach the bottle. While I did accomplish my aim, I also lost control of the blade (the first time and only time that has ever happened) and ended up throwing the katana to my right and behind me (luckily, no one was standing there). The sole reason I lost control is because I grabbed it "like a shovel" and not like a sword.
So, I would be one practitioner that advocates for the "handshake" over the "hammer" grip.
If I'm reading Geoff's post correctly, I'm basically inagreement with him. I guess the best way to state my take on the grip is to say that I beieve the hammer grip is what warriors of the Viking age used as their normal grip. Not what is proper or correct or what's comforable to us today, but simply what they used. My reasons are based primarily on the design of the guard and pommel, but also on the way I believe they fought.
Even though these swords could have been gripped with the handshake grip, and even though this grip will give a better cut in many ways, I don't think it was used much with their style of fighting. First, most fighters used a comparatively large shield. This hinders a follow through motion. Second, most parrying and blocking was done with the shield, not the sword. Third, when fighting someone who has a large shield, many strikes are simply not practical to attempt. Such as a mid-level horizontal swing. Your opponent need not even move his shield to intercept. Legs shots may of course be done, but they require a bit of room with the handshake grip because your elbow must extend to bring the sword around into play. Difficult in close quarters fighting. In single combat, the handshake grip can be used freely due to having plenty of room, but is it practical against the shield compared to the hammer grip? Hopefully, we can agree that the arm must be extended to bring the blade into play with the handshake grip. This means that your range must be a bit farther away from your opponent in order to bring the blade down over the shield or to hit him with the sweet spot of the blade. This makes it easier for your opponent to have the time to parry your strike. However, if you are in close, using the hammer grip, not only can you strike over and around the shield, but you can even get inside the shield with you pommel and pull the shield back while simultaneously making a cut.
Ibelieve the Vikings were really expert at using the shield. They were used to being close enough to their opponent to jam and hit and slam and push with it. At this range, the handshake grip is simply not as handy as the hammer style. The type of cuts you can make are limited anyway. Most parrying is done with the shield anyway. So I believe that the Vikings didn't use the grip much because it simply wasn't practical. And they designed their sword handles for the hammer grip for that reason.
As for test cutting, I have done much with many styles of swords and grips. The big difference with the hammer grip comes when you cut something fairly substantial like a cardboard tube. Mats and plastic water bottles are too easy and don't resist much. But try cutting couple of carpet tubes with a Viking sword using the handshake grip. That pommel digs into the base of your palm with each hit. I realize that this is my own opinion, but for me another reason not to use this grip in combat. Now I have held only one artifact blade, one owned by Dr. Lee Jones who was nice enough to let me play a bit.
A lovely tenth century blade from Sweden if memory serves. I found the hammer grip quite comfortable even with my large hand. Dr. Jones had put a new wooden handle on the sword, but the original pommel and guard were in place.
One last question for Peter, but anyone can feel free to share an opinion. I would like, however, Peter's opinion on the reason(s) for the change from the Viking age style of pommels and guards to the other styles as times went by. For me, it seems obvious that the style of swordsmanship was changing. Less dependency on a large shield, as we see in the earliest known fighting manual the I.33. Better and more prevalent body armor. More swords in use on the battlefield. All reasons for more finesse when using a sword. The need to rotate the wrist for parrying and and other sword on sword techniques. So the swords were altered to allow this finesse. Altered to allow a comfortable handshake grip.
Peter?
Thanks for reading all this,
Joel
Even though these swords could have been gripped with the handshake grip, and even though this grip will give a better cut in many ways, I don't think it was used much with their style of fighting. First, most fighters used a comparatively large shield. This hinders a follow through motion. Second, most parrying and blocking was done with the shield, not the sword. Third, when fighting someone who has a large shield, many strikes are simply not practical to attempt. Such as a mid-level horizontal swing. Your opponent need not even move his shield to intercept. Legs shots may of course be done, but they require a bit of room with the handshake grip because your elbow must extend to bring the sword around into play. Difficult in close quarters fighting. In single combat, the handshake grip can be used freely due to having plenty of room, but is it practical against the shield compared to the hammer grip? Hopefully, we can agree that the arm must be extended to bring the blade into play with the handshake grip. This means that your range must be a bit farther away from your opponent in order to bring the blade down over the shield or to hit him with the sweet spot of the blade. This makes it easier for your opponent to have the time to parry your strike. However, if you are in close, using the hammer grip, not only can you strike over and around the shield, but you can even get inside the shield with you pommel and pull the shield back while simultaneously making a cut.
Ibelieve the Vikings were really expert at using the shield. They were used to being close enough to their opponent to jam and hit and slam and push with it. At this range, the handshake grip is simply not as handy as the hammer style. The type of cuts you can make are limited anyway. Most parrying is done with the shield anyway. So I believe that the Vikings didn't use the grip much because it simply wasn't practical. And they designed their sword handles for the hammer grip for that reason.
As for test cutting, I have done much with many styles of swords and grips. The big difference with the hammer grip comes when you cut something fairly substantial like a cardboard tube. Mats and plastic water bottles are too easy and don't resist much. But try cutting couple of carpet tubes with a Viking sword using the handshake grip. That pommel digs into the base of your palm with each hit. I realize that this is my own opinion, but for me another reason not to use this grip in combat. Now I have held only one artifact blade, one owned by Dr. Lee Jones who was nice enough to let me play a bit.
A lovely tenth century blade from Sweden if memory serves. I found the hammer grip quite comfortable even with my large hand. Dr. Jones had put a new wooden handle on the sword, but the original pommel and guard were in place.
One last question for Peter, but anyone can feel free to share an opinion. I would like, however, Peter's opinion on the reason(s) for the change from the Viking age style of pommels and guards to the other styles as times went by. For me, it seems obvious that the style of swordsmanship was changing. Less dependency on a large shield, as we see in the earliest known fighting manual the I.33. Better and more prevalent body armor. More swords in use on the battlefield. All reasons for more finesse when using a sword. The need to rotate the wrist for parrying and and other sword on sword techniques. So the swords were altered to allow this finesse. Altered to allow a comfortable handshake grip.
Peter?
Thanks for reading all this,
Joel
[quote="Joel Thompson"]
A large shield may, but it hinders no matter the type of grip. Shields of the Viking age might have been larger on average when compared to earlier anglo saxon shields, however they are much smaller than earlier roman and celtic shields or even later kite/tear drop and heater types.
Most people would be in agreement here, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it relates to how you grip your sword.
Once again I'm having a hard time seeing how this relates to one grip but not the other, you should be able to do strikes any of the same ways with either grip.
For the life of me I can't figure out what your doing, your elbow doesn't need to extend any more with either one. Once again, your arm need not extent any more with one grip or the other. During a shield press you could bring the pommel down on the other guys head with either grip, wouldn't even see why you couldn't pull his shield back with the pommel cap and cut if you so wanted.
You have stated your opinions over and over and they don't really hold any water. Also as far as designs go, the swells to some of the pommel cap designs creates a seat at the seem between the upper guard and pommel cap for the bottom part of the palm to sit when using the "hand shake" grip. Also as I have already mentioned many of these designs seem to be the ones with shorter grips. So between those two characteristics one might draw the conclusion that some designs were made for the "hand shake" grip rather than your statement of them designing them for the hammer grip.
Once again I'll restate myself. In the "hand shake" grip the flat of the upper guard and pommel cap rest against the flat of the palm. Therefore the ends of the pommel cap/guard can't dig into the palm, any force that is transferred from the pommel to the palm will be distributed over a larger area. Not to mention any significant force that might be transferred would have to be from an impact on the flat of the blade rather than the edge.
You seem very insistent to disprove the use of the "hand shake" grip, yet you don't even address the period depictions showing the little finger wrapped around the pommel cap that would not be possible without dislocation when using the hammer grip. Yet would clearly appear that way when using the "hand shake" grip.
Have whatever opinion you like, but your pushing like you have some sort of aggenda. Frankly though your logic and reasons for much of your opinion seem flawed, and the clues we have seem to point to its use sometimes.
Shane
| Quote: |
| Even though these swords could have been gripped with the handshake grip, and even though this grip will give a better cut in many ways, I don't think it was used much with their style of fighting. First, most fighters used a comparatively large shield. This hinders a follow through motion. |
A large shield may, but it hinders no matter the type of grip. Shields of the Viking age might have been larger on average when compared to earlier anglo saxon shields, however they are much smaller than earlier roman and celtic shields or even later kite/tear drop and heater types.
| Quote: |
| Second, most parrying and blocking was done with the shield, not the sword. |
Most people would be in agreement here, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it relates to how you grip your sword.
| Quote: |
| Third, when fighting someone who has a large shield, many strikes are simply not practical to attempt. Such as a mid-level horizontal swing. Your opponent need not even move his shield to intercept. |
Once again I'm having a hard time seeing how this relates to one grip but not the other, you should be able to do strikes any of the same ways with either grip.
| Quote: |
| Legs shots may of course be done, but they require a bit of room with the handshake grip because your elbow must extend to bring the sword around into play. Difficult in close quarters fighting. In single combat, the handshake grip can be used freely due to having plenty of room, but is it practical against the shield compared to the hammer grip? Hopefully, we can agree that the arm must be extended to bring the blade into play with the handshake grip. This means that your range must be a bit farther away from your opponent in order to bring the blade down over the shield or to hit him with the sweet spot of the blade. This makes it easier for your opponent to have the time to parry your strike. However, if you are in close, using the hammer grip, not only can you strike over and around the shield, but you can even get inside the shield with you pommel and pull the shield back while simultaneously making a cut. |
For the life of me I can't figure out what your doing, your elbow doesn't need to extend any more with either one. Once again, your arm need not extent any more with one grip or the other. During a shield press you could bring the pommel down on the other guys head with either grip, wouldn't even see why you couldn't pull his shield back with the pommel cap and cut if you so wanted.
| Quote: |
| Ibelieve the Vikings were really expert at using the shield. They were used to being close enough to their opponent to jam and hit and slam and push with it. At this range, the handshake grip is simply not as handy as the hammer style. The type of cuts you can make are limited anyway. Most parrying is done with the shield anyway. So I believe that the Vikings didn't use the grip much because it simply wasn't practical. And they designed their sword handles for the hammer grip for that reason. |
You have stated your opinions over and over and they don't really hold any water. Also as far as designs go, the swells to some of the pommel cap designs creates a seat at the seem between the upper guard and pommel cap for the bottom part of the palm to sit when using the "hand shake" grip. Also as I have already mentioned many of these designs seem to be the ones with shorter grips. So between those two characteristics one might draw the conclusion that some designs were made for the "hand shake" grip rather than your statement of them designing them for the hammer grip.
| Quote: |
| As for test cutting, I have done much with many styles of swords and grips. The big difference with the hammer grip comes when you cut something fairly substantial like a cardboard tube. Mats and plastic water bottles are too easy and don't resist much. But try cutting couple of carpet tubes with a Viking sword using the handshake grip. That pommel digs into the base of your palm with each hit. |
Once again I'll restate myself. In the "hand shake" grip the flat of the upper guard and pommel cap rest against the flat of the palm. Therefore the ends of the pommel cap/guard can't dig into the palm, any force that is transferred from the pommel to the palm will be distributed over a larger area. Not to mention any significant force that might be transferred would have to be from an impact on the flat of the blade rather than the edge.
You seem very insistent to disprove the use of the "hand shake" grip, yet you don't even address the period depictions showing the little finger wrapped around the pommel cap that would not be possible without dislocation when using the hammer grip. Yet would clearly appear that way when using the "hand shake" grip.
Have whatever opinion you like, but your pushing like you have some sort of aggenda. Frankly though your logic and reasons for much of your opinion seem flawed, and the clues we have seem to point to its use sometimes.
Shane
Well, let me ask a couple of questions here. Do you actually fight, or have you done so? And I mean fight with some intent, not re-enactor style staged combat. And, have you done any test cutting as I've suggested? And, what period depictions are you referring to? Please don't say the Bayeaux Tapestry.
My point about the shields and types of strikes is that if you don't have a reason to do something, you don't design a tool to do it and, generally speaking, you don't the hold the tool you did design with any grip that isn't needed for your purpose. A large shield hinders your follow through. So you don't need a follow through with a chopping motion. So, why would you change your grip to get a better follow through, when it isn't practical? Why change your grip to get a better cut, when there isn't room to make the cut?
When you fight in close, that grip really doesn't help. Even with longsword, I change to a hammer grip when I'm in close. I don't believe these people had a reason to use the handshake grip very often, and therefore didn't.
And sword parrying requires more rotation of the wrist, more subtle movement of the hand. The handshake grip helps in this area due to its being less rigid. But if you don't do many sword parries because you primarily use your shield, then you don't need to chnge to a handshake grip. It doesn't help anything.
Joel
P.S. I don't belive the Celts and Romans used the handshake grip either.
My point about the shields and types of strikes is that if you don't have a reason to do something, you don't design a tool to do it and, generally speaking, you don't the hold the tool you did design with any grip that isn't needed for your purpose. A large shield hinders your follow through. So you don't need a follow through with a chopping motion. So, why would you change your grip to get a better follow through, when it isn't practical? Why change your grip to get a better cut, when there isn't room to make the cut?
When you fight in close, that grip really doesn't help. Even with longsword, I change to a hammer grip when I'm in close. I don't believe these people had a reason to use the handshake grip very often, and therefore didn't.
And sword parrying requires more rotation of the wrist, more subtle movement of the hand. The handshake grip helps in this area due to its being less rigid. But if you don't do many sword parries because you primarily use your shield, then you don't need to chnge to a handshake grip. It doesn't help anything.
Joel
P.S. I don't belive the Celts and Romans used the handshake grip either.
A word of caution here gentlemen. This has been a very productive thread thus far. Let's keep it civil.
Disagreement is fine, but don't turn it into a personal issue.
Disagreement is fine, but don't turn it into a personal issue.
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
| A word of caution here gentlemen. This has been a very productive thread thus far. Let's keep it civil.
Disagreement is fine, but don't turn it into a personal issue. |
OK Patrick. Apologies to all if my persistent advocacy has been annoying. I'll stop now.
Thanks for a fascinating discussion.
Regards
Geoff
My apologies as well. I shall also discontinue. I will however post the promised pictures.
Joel
Joel
You're fine Geoff.
I'm not advising anyone to stop or discontinue since the discussion has been very interesting. However, the last couple of posts have gotten a bit confrontational, and that's always a bad sign. So let's just keep the discourse at an academic level.
I'm not advising anyone to stop or discontinue since the discussion has been very interesting. However, the last couple of posts have gotten a bit confrontational, and that's always a bad sign. So let's just keep the discourse at an academic level.
What about some early norman hilt models? Would you use the handshake grip with them? If you look at this norman hilt:
http://www.aiusa.com/medsword/vmuseum/vmx17.html
(click the red square over the hilt) you will see that the pommel is 9,2cm (~3,6in) long. And if the pic isn't distorted you can extrapolate that the grip is about the same length. That's less than 4 in. And that's a quite pointy pommel.
I made a short training sword using that hilt as a model. The pommel in my sword is only 8,8cm (~3,5 in) long and the hilt is 10cm (~4 in) long. But the pommel was gnawing very badly to my wrist and I thought that I made the handle too short. Now that I read this post and tried the handshake grip, I noticed that it works much better. And it would work even more better if the grip was shorter. Now if I use gloves, the grip feels just right.
http://www.aiusa.com/medsword/vmuseum/vmx17.html
(click the red square over the hilt) you will see that the pommel is 9,2cm (~3,6in) long. And if the pic isn't distorted you can extrapolate that the grip is about the same length. That's less than 4 in. And that's a quite pointy pommel.
I made a short training sword using that hilt as a model. The pommel in my sword is only 8,8cm (~3,5 in) long and the hilt is 10cm (~4 in) long. But the pommel was gnawing very badly to my wrist and I thought that I made the handle too short. Now that I read this post and tried the handshake grip, I noticed that it works much better. And it would work even more better if the grip was shorter. Now if I use gloves, the grip feels just right.
Sorry Joel I'm afraid that I haven't tried to kill anyone with a sword, so I guess I'm really not qualified to speak on this subject. Also per your request I have not included any depictions of the "hand shake" grip used in the Bayeux Tapestry.
The Archaeology of Weapons, R. Ewart Oakeshott; pg 172 figure 77
From the MS of St. Gall, circa 900-950 "C" depicting the little finger over the pommel.
Oakeshott comments, "a curiously awkward grip shown in very many of these tenth-century drawings;...."
The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England, Hilda Ellis Davidson; Illustrations XVI number 114
Hastings 1066, Osprey Military Campaign series, Christopher Gravett; pg 36
Early 11th century, MS Cotton Cleopatra C. viii fl8v; The British Museum Library
A duel, combatant on the right using "hammer" grip while the combatant on the left uses a "hand shake" grip.
Viking Weapons & Warfare, J. Kim Siddorn; pg 69 figure 31
illustrated depiction of the above "judicial combat" by Levick
Anglo-Saxon Weapons & Warfare, Richard Underwood; pg 130 figure 74
Eleventh century, MS Cotton Claudius B IV f24v "Confusion of the Battlefield"
Clear depiction of a "hammer" grip in the middle center, however a depiction of the "handshake" grip by the King wearing mail located in the upper left hand corner. This is a photo from the British Museum, although illustrations of the scene can be found in a variety of other books.
Shane
The Archaeology of Weapons, R. Ewart Oakeshott; pg 172 figure 77
From the MS of St. Gall, circa 900-950 "C" depicting the little finger over the pommel.
Oakeshott comments, "a curiously awkward grip shown in very many of these tenth-century drawings;...."
The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England, Hilda Ellis Davidson; Illustrations XVI number 114
Hastings 1066, Osprey Military Campaign series, Christopher Gravett; pg 36
Early 11th century, MS Cotton Cleopatra C. viii fl8v; The British Museum Library
A duel, combatant on the right using "hammer" grip while the combatant on the left uses a "hand shake" grip.
Viking Weapons & Warfare, J. Kim Siddorn; pg 69 figure 31
illustrated depiction of the above "judicial combat" by Levick
Anglo-Saxon Weapons & Warfare, Richard Underwood; pg 130 figure 74
Eleventh century, MS Cotton Claudius B IV f24v "Confusion of the Battlefield"
Clear depiction of a "hammer" grip in the middle center, however a depiction of the "handshake" grip by the King wearing mail located in the upper left hand corner. This is a photo from the British Museum, although illustrations of the scene can be found in a variety of other books.
Shane
Page 4 of 14
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum