The handshake grip has some similarities to the " sabre grip " which has the thumb on or near the top of the handle as opposed to the thumb down in a closed fist of a hammer grip, but in use one goes from saber to hammer grip without one having to think about it naturally when one goes from a more relaxed grip to tightening one's grip just before impact.

The handshake grip with the very short handle and wide pommel of the Viking sword locks the hand in place, prevents losing one's grip even when it is relaxed and helps in indexing the orientation of the edges.

Basically agreeing with Greg and Elling and just adding in my " personal experience " with a wide variety of swords and handle lengths and styles.

A pommel can give support to the heel of the hand even with a longer handle but it's subtlety different than the handshake grip in usefulness and the way it is done: More behind the heel of the hand and the pommel; less or not at all to the side.

The human hand is very adaptable to various gripping styles and most of it happens in adapting to the design of the sword handle: The design almost imposes the style of grip used, and some hilts allow or disallow different grips to various degrees i.e. some handles are very optimized to using a specific grip to the point that any other grip become uncomfortable or impossible to use.

The wide disk of a Tulwar mostly forces one to exclusively use a hammer grip in my opinion. ;)
http://www.google.ca/search?q=tulwar&hl=e...mp;bih=984

It's never easy rowing against the tide as they say, nonetheless I stand by my comment that the handshake grip (as Peter has depicted it) is not only wrong, but likely to cause injury to the wielder.

It is wrong because it transposes modern thinking onto medieval objects, in particular expectations of comfort.

It is wrong becuase there is no solid archaeological record to back it up.

The original respondent to this proposition was right, the Viking sword is meant to be held exactly as it looks despite us moderns thinking it may be uncomfortable with our like and expectation of all things in life being easy.

I'm a huge fan of Peter, but I must challenge this idea of his of the 'handshake grip'.

To the forumites who believe I am being rude to Peter merely by challenging one of his ideas I ask you to realise that all propositions should be expected to face scrutiny, regardless of who makes them. Disagreeing with someone does not constitute being hostile towards them, and disagreement is the cornerstone of intellectual advancement.

I stand by my advice that the best people to proffer information on a given subject are the person who 'do' rather than 'emulate'. In this case the best people to consult are soldiers and criminals. However, Peter will always be one of the world's greatest sword smiths, and I will continue to refer to his work for invaluable information always.

Jack,
I hope you can appreciate the irony here. You are saying Peter's opinion isn't backed up by evidence. And you're not giving any evidence to back up your opinion. :) Please give us evidence, or a summary of your experience in this matter so people can decide how much weight to give your opinion.

In terms of evidence, here are quotes from earlier posts in this thread:

Shane Allee wrote:

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.

Patrick Kelly wrote:

The 'handshake' grip is shown being used in period medieval art work like the Bayuex Tapestry so I don't think it was confined to the viking age alone.

Eric Meyers wrote:

My group and I have generally come to prefer holding a viking sword in a loose hammer grip as the "default grip," but we do almost no cutting with that grip. Its OK for up close work - especially close range thrusts, but I prefer to cut further out in my reach. Basically, we "cast" from hammer to handshake for the cut, slipping the pommel up to the wrist as shown in Peter's picture, and then recover to that loose hammer grip again. I can do this at very close range or at extreme reach equally comfortably, and with similar precision.

Stephen Hand wrote:

Interesting topic gentlemen. As is usual in this sort of thing I had to say "I don't know, I'll let my body tell me". So I went out, grabbed one of my Viking swords and went through a number of the actions shown in Manuscript I.33, the world's oldest fencing manual. I found my hand constantly moving between a hammer grip and a handshake grip. Some actions were impossible with one, some impossible with the other. In many actions I found myself seamlessly transitioning between the two grips. That suggests to me that both grips must have been used.

What we have are several instances of period art showing both grips. Sounds like evidence to me. Eric Meyers is a respected HEMA instructor. Stephen Hand is a published author and martial artist and has studied period treatises and collaborated on their translation and interpretation.

To say a handshake grip doesn't exist ignores pictorial evidence. To say it isn't martially sound ignores practical evidence by people who have spent a great deal of time working with period manuals and HEMA instruction.

I think both grips were used, though I find myself in the handshake grip more often than not. We have period and practical evidence for both.

This idea isn't Peter's; other people before him and independently have made the same observation. I think Peter is one of the most knowledgable folks out there, but that doesn't mean we're all sheep following him blindly. Rather, there is practical and period evidence from multiple sources of what he's discussing that gives some of us enough comfort to try the idea.

If you have evidence or experience to the contrary, please post it. Otherwise, you're only offering an opinion with no evidence to back it up.

Jack I am not one calling you rude (although I can understand why others might). I definitely agree there is far too much modern thinking put into this subject. Suggesting that todays soldiers and criminals might be consultant on the subject appears to perpetuate that error as much as any of the other posters on the subject. What usually drives us into error is emotional attachment to an argument. Its a difficult thing to lay aside once taken up.

The handshake grip has more endurance than the hammer grip, I found this out while drilling and cutting with my Albion vigil which isn't exactly a small 1 handed sword.

When my grip was getting tired, I found I was naturally adjusting my hand to the handshake grip to continue, so I just kept it like that and found I could wield it a lot longer.

I took a great class on viking swordsmanship. The instructor was upfront that he had never seen nor heard of a good record (unlike, say, German or Italian longsword).

It seemed to me that the "handshake" grip* was very useful for false/short edge strikes to the back of the knee and for rotating strikes over the shield (#1 and #2 in the first image thrown from something like the second image but hand higher). This is very useful because it comes over and under the shield, supposing the opponent fails to defend, of course.

Sorry these aren't great images but they're the best I can find on the 'net while I should be working....

http://www.americankangdukwon.org/images/escrima003.gif

http://i.ehow.com/images/a02/88/j4/strike-esc...00x800.jpg

Also, we held the weapon with the thumb on the fuller (sometimes called the "German grip" in other kinds of fencing). With that thumb position, we could rotate the weapon between "hammer" and "handshake".

Also, we did this strike that would start as a hammer strike toward the head, was easily absorbed with minor movement of the opponent's shield, but at the last moment dropped the tip and we either false-edge-struck to the back of the knee or, more interestingly, came around with the tip from the shield-side in this odd crossed position.

With the "handshake" grip and thumb on the fuller, these strikes were very easy to make, rotating the blade about the axis of one's wrist by moving the elbow a lot. They did not work so well with a "hammer" grip.

Thrusting to the eyes with that grip was easier than with the other grip. The "handshake" grip also made the blade horizontal which would be more likely to get a thrust through any eye slits.

All this convinced me, at least, that the "handshake" grip is quite valid. "Hammer" grip could also be used, but I think less frequently because of that uncomfortable pommel.

* A few notes on the grip itself:
- Thumb on fuller
- Blade is parallel to the first finger digit, i.e. the part between the big knuckle and the medium knuckle.
- Blade is not pointed toward the middle knuckle (put your thumb on the middle knuckle of your pointer finger, that's not where the blade edge points)
- Blade is agile as opposed to strong

And one thing I never did figure out was how to hold the weapon comfortably if the pommel is flat (H shaped handle). I don't know if the size was wrong or if I lacked callouses or what, but the two metal and one wood models I tried were never comfortable. I strongly prefer a disc-shaped pommel.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, for what it's worth.

This video pretty well sums up how to hold a sword properly as i understand it, IMHO the handshake grip is just asking to have your sword knocked from your hand, whereas a hammer grip is rock solid. When using a shield you dont need to make long sweeping blows that the "handhsake" grip allows, it also puts undue stress on the wrist since the wrist flicking is doing all of the work behind the cut as opposed to the hammer grip where your forearm, biceps, shoulder upper body , and even hip rotation come into play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIcm5f6zFPw&am...load_owner

To add: you don't "hammer" the opponent with the sword using a hammer grip. With hammer grip, you should elegantly slice-and-dice, draw-cutting in close. If you want to "hammer" the opponent - chop at them - use handshake grip.

One dumb question - on the Viking sword that fits you best, regardless of the grip you like to use, does your whole hand fit in the grip between the pommel and quillons? Or is the grip just a little shorter than your fist as measured from pointer finger to pinky?

Just want to get it right before ordering a custom one....

And thanks, I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

Oh, and Wes, that video was nice, but it does not describe the gripping of a Viking sword with its short grip and unique pommel designs.

I could not hear the video (I'm at work) but it also gave me the impression that the guy was advocating the use of one grip. When longsword fencing, I regularly change grips from a "hammer" to a "German" grip, where the German grip has the thumb along the fuller. This is especially useful for the Zwerchhau (see link). Notice his thumb position.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Mastercuts/Zwerchhau2.jpg

Sorry if the audio in your link already described this. I had it on mute and had to watch in a tiny little window....

My Viking sword measures 4 1/4" grip length, and my open palm measures the same across. When I grip the sword with a "hammer" grip, my palm swells with the curvature and grip, resulting in the quite snug grip Timo mentions. I have a larger than average palm, and would also like to try a shorter gripped sword to see how that feels. I suspect that the 4 1/4" grip will suit me best however. The "handshake" grip places the pommel right on the bottom heel of my palm, not quite in my hand and yet not quite out of it.

Thanks for the answers, Timo & Greg.

I fully agree with Peter.

I have worked with both medieval and Viking Age type swords for over a decade now, trying to reconstruct the according fighting arts. I have come to the insight that, not surprisingly, weapon design never was arbitrary.
Because there are underlying universal principles that make a martial art work and because these principles are based on anatomy and physics, the design of a sword holds clues regarding its use. Laws of physics and anatomy are absolutes and there is no point discussing them.

One of the essentials in close combat with bladed weapons is measure.
The truth is that the so-called hand-shake grip allows for exploiting maximum reach with a Viking sword while the hammer-grip does not. Only the former allows for making the blade a straight extension of the sword arm. The reach advantage compared to the so-called hammer grip is enormous. A Viking sword cuts effortlessly through appropriate practice targets if cast forward to maximum extension and then moving around the shoulder joint in an arc. And this is how swords should work: effortlessly.
Look at this photo: Ingo lets the blade fly forward to full extension, using the grip suggested by Peter. Note also that while accelerating the weapon, it looks like he is using a hammer-grip. This is the moment of a blow that we often see depicted in period art. But the decisive part is when you hit the target. It is amazing how little resistance is felt when you let the sword do its job in such a fashion.

Interestingly, this kind of blow is hardly possible with a different pommel design: disc or wheel pommels do not provide the same safe lock for ring finger and pinky that prevents the sword from slipping out off your hand. This is because they were designed and optimized for a different kind of combat that focuses on blade binds (as opposed to Viking combat being focused on shield binds, as I explain in this video). I will not touch upon the historical reasons for these developments but it is quite telling that the intermediate brazil nut pommel allows for both kinds of blows: The traditional cast blow with the sword forming a straight extension of the arm, as well as the medieval covering blow (schirmschlag) with the sword held at an angle, sword arm crossing the torso, in order to provide cover while striking. See an according period depiction of an extended blow with a brazil nut pommel sword here:
[ Linked Image ]

In this photo you can see Oliver executing an extended blow with a brazil nut pommel sword. Note the impressive reach.
Apparently, the extended blow was given up in the long run, because it does not provide cover. In blade-bind focused fencing, well documented by according treatises and which was to dominate the last centuries of European swordsmanship, covering blows were called for.
And combat requirements dictate design.

So the bottom line is that
a) Viking spatha type swords cut excellently at maximum reach applying the grip suggested by Peter
b) a combatant insisting on using a so-called hammer grip would willingly reduce weapon reach. So he would inevitably need to get closer to his opponent. Because distance and time are inextricably intertwined in swordsmanship, this means that he would be in reach later than an opponent wielding an extended blow using the hand-shake grip, which would put him at a tactical disadvantage from the start.
This does not make sense at all in martial arts and is likely to prove fatal. I doubt that this grip's proponents lived long enough to ever make it popular.

In fact, I believe that fully embracing a handle is inadequate not only to a sword, regardless of type, but to any tool. Does anybody of you hold a knife while slicing bread in such a fashion? Anyone holds a file this way? And do you really press a hammer handle into your palm consistently while using it? I doubt that any expert user, say, a smith or carpenter ever does this.
Fully embracing any handle deprives you of your fine motor skills and these are eminent in any craft if executed with skill.

Swords are about precision, not about force.
Otherwise the sword would have never been developed.