On a totally new subject: I have been wondering if one-handed swords like my "GADDHJALT" were ever used two handed anyway using an overlapping grip?(One hand cupping the other). I can see this happening during a long fight where the shield may have been destroyed or where fatigue would mean using both hands or just standing there waiting to be killed.

Just a passing thought that MIGHT be the beginning of an interesting topic: Not so much for a more powerfull blow but a desperate fix for dead tired arms?

Any opinions from the martial artists or sword designers among us?

Like anything in this study...It 'could' have happened. I have never seen any manual or iconic artwork depicting such a thing. But like you said if serious fatigue set in, you would do just about anything to stay alive.

The evidence clearly indicates that a single-handed sword was sometimes used with both hands. This practice is mentioned in various sagas, which is particularly appropriate for a Gaddhjalt. There are also illustrations of both hands on a single-hand sword; the first one that comes to mind is from the Manesse Codex ( http://www.tempora-nostra.de/index_f_neu.shtml?manesse0-9 thumbnail #111). It seems likely that this technique was used for especially powerful blows, or when a fighter was being extremely aggressive, and didn't worry about his shield.

Jean,

I own a NG Gaddhjalt. I have average-sized hands, and it it possible to get the off-hand index finger entirely on the grip, the middle finger on the grip-side of the pommel, and the ring finger on the aft-end of the pommel. The little finger kind of grips the top of the pommel. The point of the brazil-nut falls comfortably between middle and rings fingers. I find that this "semi-hand-and-a-half-grip" is actually quite comfortable and would lend considerable leverage and speed to the blade if this sword were used in that manner.
I can definitely see this grip used in case of either a lack of a shield, or for a more powerful blow. I don't see it used in case of "tiredness" (of the right arm) because one would have to drop a center-gripped shield to do this. Also, a shield with shoulder and arm straps would be difficult if not impossible to switch to the right arm in combat. So, in either case the shield would have to be discarded to use a two-handed grip on this sword. Well, a strapped shield could be hung from the shoulder and the sword held in both hands, but still, this doesn't necessarily imply changing hands, since if the shield is intact the left arm might be more profitably employed supporting the shield.

Regards,
Brian M

I own a Lutel one handed sword ( http://www.lutel.cz/12017.htm ) , which I use for reenactment fighting.
We primarly fight our duels with sword and buckler, but sometimes we ditch (or forgot to bring) the bucklers, and fight with just the swords.
In these fights using both hands, in a longsword grip, is quite efficient. Not because of increased hiting power, since this is not very relevant in semi-contact combat, but because the two handed grip offers better controll. Basically, you can make faster feints.
It is however worth noting that the two handed grip actually shortens the range of your sword. It also makes it more difficult to grapple.

To sum up: In my experience, a pragmatic use of two handed blows can be efficient. But I would rather have a buckler any day ;)


Yours
Elling

I'll agree with everyone on this one since anything was possible, and if it meant winning the fight then why not?

There's certainly enough examples of swords clearly meant for both single and two handed use.

Hello everyone,
This talk about single and combined hand usage brings up a question I have for the folks at albion.
I would love to see a hand-and-a-half sword produced from the high middle ages (1050-1275), ideally early in that span. I know that the beautiful Duke and Baron should be placed rather firmly in the 1300+ period but my current passion precedes this. Are there any thoughts to such a project- I know Oakeshott has 2 or 3 type XIII's listed in Records from this era. I am confident that Peter has more knowledge that can be brought to this issue. It's just frustrating that we know such swords would have been used and yet the only repro's we have to choose from (I am working on owning each) are single-handed (Gaddjhalt, Norman, Templar, Ritter, and the new Type X's).
High Middle Age war-swerdes please. :\
Jeremy

Thanks for the replies, I don't know if there is much more to say past the obvious that yes this must have been used some time. It may have inspired the idea of making true two-handers?

Brian: I will try that grip you suggested, I also find that if I finger the guard with my strong hand index finger I gain room on the grip for the second hand.

Elling: Yes I have noticed that using two hands does shortens the range of a sword: An extra reason to make the blades of two handed swords longer than than a one hander. The blade of the Gaddhjalt is as long as many bastard swords.

Another possible use of two hands is faster recovery from a missed blow.

As long as you have a shield you would use a one handed sword as intended with one hand.

Yes Michael I have seen the 12th century sword from A&A, and I bet it's great, but for now I'm sticking with Albion-
The whole historical hilt construction thing.
As I understand it both the Duke and Baron would most likely not predate 1300, atleast according to Peter, and believe me I have asked as I really want a war sword from my era of interest. So my appeal goes out again- Albion how about an earlier hand-and-a-half, please. :cry: . . . ;)

Jeremy,

Are you sure that you aren't confusing the 13th century with the 1300's?

I've taken a look at the pre-1300 examples in Records, and there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in those and the post-1300 examples (Or in comparison to Albion's and A&A's offerings either). We also need to remember that there is a significant historical overlap in design and usage. Oakeshott himself dates the XIIa from at least 1250, so there's no reason to believe that it, or the XIIIa couldn't have been in use earlier than that.

"The Victory of Humility over Pride", found in the Jungfrauenspiegel (c.1200) shows a single handed sword being weilded two handed. And, the pommel appears to be of the brazil nut type.

As long as we are talking about high quality work I don't think it matters from a functional standpoint how a hilt is assembled. To damage an A&A hilt would probably require such violence as to destroy the sword.

Perhaps A&A would make the wedged hilts on request?

I was under the impression that A&A used a threaded/peened/compression hilt construction (like Albion's First Gen) for all its swords. I don't think this became "historical" until the 18th Century or so. In this construction, either a threaded pommel-nut or a threaded pommel is mated to a threaded tang, which holds the grip and cross on by compression.
I am not trying to run A&A down, because they clearly make a good product and I'm sure that such a construction could stand most any reasonable use. Nevertheless, a more historical (hot peened, non-threaded) construction is a selling point which gravitated me to Albion's NG line in the first place.

Regards,
Brian M

Jeremy V. Krause wrote:

Quote:

As I understand it both the Duke and Baron would most likely not predate 1300, atleast according to Peter...

Hi Jeremy,

I jumped into this one a bit late and don't know if you have had confirmation one way or another, but I seem to recall Peter saying that the Baron (for instance) would have been very much in vogue from 1250-1350 (or possibly 1275-1325... I can't recall for sure). As mentioned by others, though, according to Oakeshott it would fit comfortably within the 13th and 14th centuries-- that is the 1200's and 1300's.

David