I can picture two fearsome Scandinavian warriors fighting side by side in battle. During a respite one leans over to the other and whispers furtively, "dude, you're holding that thing wrong...it's like THIS..."

Yes. It's a distinct possibility that people 1000 years ago were just as stubborn and individualistic as they are today, and there was no one standard method used by every warrior, even for the exact same grip. Nevertheless, for those of us with an academic interest in the topic its worth considering the possibilities and learning from others.

I mentioned that I used a modified handshake grip on a very heavy Windlass replica of an Oakshotte XVIII sword but after a cutting session today I realized that I was using a hammer grip. By using a hammer grip I could control the sword cut quite well. This particular sword is just too heavy to control with a handshake grip which I tried using but the sword just about fell out of my hand due to its weight. Next I tried the Tinker Pearce Viking to cut with using the handshake grip. This type of grip with the light Tinker Viking gave me absolute control over the blade and the cuts it made.

From my empirical observations I would venture to say that the weight of a sword, type of grip, and the length of grip would be factors in the grip used for a particular used. one uses a diferent technique when driving a heavy truck than when driving a quick, light sports car. Only comparison handling and cutting on a side by side basis can one really get a feel for the distinctiveness for the handling qualities of a particular sword.

The Windlass 14th Century Sword was made at a time when plate armor coming into its own. A heavy blade which could deliver a powerful cut yet with a diamond shaped spine to make the blade stiff and a stout point gave it the ability to punch through plate armour plate and mail and padded jackets underneath. While the Tinker Pearce is a delightful sword I think that the Viking swords were heavier by far and probably bludgeoned more people to death at least in the early manufacture of the swords than were killed by the slash of the blade. :idea:

Or, much more probably, the Windlass sword is just too heavy--quite a bit heavier than what its actual historical prototype would have been. As far as I know, Viking swords weren't "heavier by far" and they weren't designed to "bludgeon people to death;" "graceful implement of destruction" is more like it, and indeed would pretty much have to be for a weapon that a man may be expected to hold and fight with for more than just a few seconds.

What are the statistics for the Windlass replica you have, BTW? Weight, length (blade, hilt, and total), and point of balance? I have the suspicion that we're looking at one of the not-so-good examples from a company whose product quality has been known to be highly variable.