Jack Savante wrote: |
However if one builds up one's forearms, the hammer grip makes perfect sense on Viking swords as much as on two handers. I firmly believe this is how swords in the western tradition were used, and must point out that the Bayeux pictures being used as defence for handshake grips on cruciform swords all seem to show the sword fully extended! In this position the sword can be mistaken for appearing to be held as though a sabre. |
I think it more likely indicates that gripping a sword was/is a dynamic thing where the grip is changed often - even in the course of a single swing of the blade. When I use a sword, my grip on the hilt is subtly changing quite often from 'handshake' to 'hammer' grip depending on the situation. Some cuts are delivered with the 'hammer' grip, some with the 'handshake', and like others have said, both are viable options. There is no issue of weak forearm strength forcing this to happen, and in 'handshake' there is no weakness in the grip - it is as firm and strong as any other grip. As a result of bio-mechanics, I have found that this form of grasping the sword can give more reach to a blow and certainly more 'life' to the cut as is mentioned in Gripping and using a Viking sword.
Here are a few more examples of period artwork showing the 'handshake' grip being used in Europe throughout history, in chronological order:
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
Therefore, human bio-mechanics, the first-hand experience of trained WMA practitioners, and period artwork would all indicate that the 'handshake' grip existed in the past - thus answering your original question: No, the 'handshake' grip is not a modern construction.