I've been curious lately as to two things about swords.

1. What advantages, if any, does a curved blade have over a straight one, and vice versa? I've heard that sabers usually cut better but straight swords usually thrust better, though I've also heard that that's just a myth or exaggeration and that there is not much of a difference between the designs.
2. What advantages might a well-curved grip have over a straight one, and vice versa? Would a curved grip be more comfortable to hold and easier to thrust with?

I'll admit I'm terribly ignorant of swords and I've never really handled a proper one, but it seems to me like a curved grip would better fit the human hand than a straight one. They're silly examples, but I've noticed just how remarkably comfortable bananas are to hold, and how it's easier and more comfortable to thrust with a kukri than with a straight knife. I get the impression that a curved grip helps avoid wrist strain, makes pointing and accurately thrusting easier, and so on. But of course, if this were the case, then why do so very few swords have strongly curved grips while almost all of them have straight grips? As far as I know, only sword with a well-curved grip is the ginunting, and that only sometimes:

http://api.ning.com/files/8Ls-QuqArghcKnSLOES...height=465

My apologies if these topics have already been discussed, but I couldn't find any features or threads on them. I appreciate your answers!

Well, a curve-bladed sword with a recurved grip might be called a 'lazy-s'.......indicative of a cutter/slicer. A more 'ellegant' motion of cut than a straight blade, which might be more of a 'hacking' motion. The straight blade, with point in line with the hilt, would attract a more thrust-oriented method of use.............I'm no swordsman. Others can answer better....McM

I thinks its to do with the shape of the blade and the motion made when cutting with a sword. As far as blade shape, a curved one will, I think, allow for a longer edge than a straight blade of similar size (as the curve makes the point between pommel and point closer than a straight edge of the same blade length). Also due to the curve, the longer edge is allowed to stay in contact with the target for longer with each cut allowing for a better slice than a straight edge which is limited to more of a chopping motion.
Hope that made some sense to someone that doesn't live in my head!
Nick

Some quick observations.
I have not done much fighting myself with curved blades, but I have done plenty with straight swords, and handled enough sabres.
This has a lot to do with pracal combat use, rather than abstract "damage". The maximum cutting capacity of a sword is not really that important. The important bit it is how easy it is to deliver an effective attack.

The sabre, with is bacward curve, is a better draw cutter. A straight sword that looses momentum after impact will tip out of the wound. A curved blade will "roll" along, thus making it easier to make draw cuts, and deliver effective cuts at ranges where a straight sword would snag.
On the down side, they are harder to land blows with, since its tip effectively curves away from the target. They are also easier to cover against with shield from range.

The curved grip (held sabre style) allows you to hold your sword with the tip further forward than a straight grip would allow. In some ways you can say that the curved grips on sabres are there to counter the negative effect of the blade. They also let you apply pressure to the blade for short blows and draw cuts. On the down side, you have less felexibility to the sides.

Thanks for the replies, all!

I asked partly because lately I've had an idea for a sword. I figured a strongly curved grip ( a continuous curve, not like a shamshir's, which only curves towards the "pommel") would fit nicely in the hand, allowing for precise thrusts, strong cuts, and general comfort. It might, however, make it difficult to cut with the back edge, so it would be a backsword, except the third or so of the blade nearest the point would be sharp on both edges to help with the thrust.

However, it now seems like this sword would be decent at thrusting but unimpressive in cutting, which I suppose is why there's never been any weapon quite like it!

Sounds like the typical 9th-10th century Central Asian sabre, and you can probably find the same combination of design elements into the 19th century.

Look at the Charlemagne sabre (either the original or the Hanwei reproduction). This fits your description as written. Does it fit your description as intended? If you prefer a straight blade, you can probably find a 19th century military sword that has the curved grip.

The curved grip makes it less suited to the draw-cut, but there are other ways of cutting, so it doesn't mean bad at cutting. Is not the kukri known for effective cutting?

There are a number of sword types and cultures that had what is sometimes called a canted grip. Here are two more extremes, a US Starr 1812 and the other a Philippines talibon.

The Latham article a great overview across some of those cultures. Another would be yataghan type swords and maybe that is more what you are thinking of.

Cheers

GC

---

 Attachment: 74.03 KB



 Attachment: 45.78 KB



 Attachment: 9.43 KB

9-10th century Magyar/Khazar etc. sabres would indeed fit that bill pretty nicely.

http://znaleziska.org/wiki/index.php/Szabla_(Czechowice)


http://znaleziska.org/wiki/index.php/Szabla_(Radymno)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqrvqKhIcL0&am...fPRRChEI0o

this seems to suggest that there isnt THAT much difference between curved and straight blades in terms of their ability to cut.

Again I should point to practical combat use rather than cutting performance against static targets when considering sword design.
Against unarmoured target, dealing fatal damage is not hard. Hitting the target whithout being hit yourself, however, is harder.

It is also worth keeping in mind that if one design was decidedly better than the other, it would be universally adopted. Both curved and straight blades work. Curved handles work as well, if you want to fence that way. But the difference is one of preference.

Again, thanks for the replies!

I never did find any grip that was quite what I was looking for. So here's a (very) crude doodle I made with my smart pen and uploaded to Paint. Though on second thought, even this grip might be a bit straight for my tastes...

---

 Attachment: 3.25 KB

What you are looking for is a fencing foil pistol grip;
[ Linked Image ]

Not quite that extreme! I meant to make my grip only a few degrees more angled, is all.

Although I wonder- what are the disadvantages of such a "pistol" grip? Would it be at all useful on a sword that is also meant to slash or cut?

the charlmagne sabre is just one famout example of a large number of swords used by the magyars, kipchaks, and rus (to name a few)
http://www.manningimperial.com/catalogue/swor...-sabre/289
http://www.manningimperial.com/catalogue/swor...-sabre/353
http://www.manningimperial.com/catalogue/swor...-sabre/288

and they all have the same kind of grip and guard configuration. which, according to some people i know who use these sabres in reenactment, allow for a very flowing grp and not the tight hammer grip a viking sword of the same period would allow.

The pistol grip gives great up/down flexibility, but little strength, and does not allow for the transfer of strength from the body into a cut either. Good for fencing foils (or lightsabres!)
It is also less adaptable, should you find yourself at less than ideal range or angle.

On the contrary, I've been told that the pistol grip is "stronger" in that it's harder to lose the weapon to either an accident or a deliberate disarming action, and that it tends to let beginners deliver their thrusts with more force than necessary.

The part about angulation is true, however--French grip fencers are more likely to suddenly flip their point onto the opponent's arm or knee if the latter wasn't paying enough attention or wasn't recovering fast enough from a failed attack. On the other hand, I don't see them used much in in-fighting (when the two fencers are closer than an extended blade's length from each other), which tends to be the province of pistol-grippers in modern fencing. Classical fencing (and extremely skilled classically-trained fencers in modern competitions) can be a different story, though; I've seen a video of a classically-trained Italian classical epéeist dominating a series of infighting exchanges (and scoring several touches in a row) against a pistol-gripper, mostly with circular parries and glissades.