Hello

From the amazingly informative and interesting posts seen here i must confess i´m really enjoying this thread.
So thank you very much to you all for sharing.

Quote:

Actually, as a little comment here. I have trained and sparred a bit the last months with the lokal Viking Reenactment grope called "Österhus Vänner " and found out that at least I prefer to loose my shield after the shieldwall has dispersed of any reason. Even against an advesary with a shield this is an advatage for me because in this situation I can get in close on the shieldside of the advesary and keep his sword or axe away with my own blade, and get into grappling. Always a great trick! I think that the large roundshields are quite unpractical in man on man fighting, though they fill theire use in formationfighting. A smaller version (60cm in diameter) that one in the group have is much more useful in man on man bouts. But I don´t know about any evidence of shields like that from the timeperiod. Please enlighten me if there is such a archiological evidence.

In my humble, and possibly uninformed opinion, if the shield wearer is an expert one, as any seasoned warrior should be, as soon as you get close to his shield you´ll be knocked off with it, unless you catch him by surprise. Shields were not only defensive, but could as well be used as weapons, so a combination of shield/sword could be told as of a double weapon. If you engage a foe and you don´t have a shield (he´s got one), your opponent might send you a cut or a stab with the sword (real or feint), forcing you to parry it, only to find you have been fooled and get a good knock from the shield. And i have experience on this (i got the knock).

Regarding the previous posts on considering (or not) the sword as a secondary weapon, what i tend to think is that they were not secondary in importance, but on usage, they were usually drawn once the spears and axes or maces were wasted. Could be a matter of wasting the cheaper weapons before, or could be something else related maybe to how a mass battle evolved from close formations to open engagements.

cheers
Juan Carlos

First Charles, if you're going to participate in our forums word your responses so they are not quite so confrontational. It will avoid possible problems. Everything depends upon verbiage in this environment.

Quote:

Regarding your definition of "secondary" I should point out that it is yours, and not mine, and that you are reading a meaning into that word that I did not intend.

I never stated that was your point, nor did I "read anything" into your statement. This is a common viewpoint that has been forming within our community for some time. That is why I mentioned it as an "increasing viewpoint", instead of "Charles' opinion that........" Taking what is written at face value is always better than reading between the lines.

I have used a sword in a shield wall formation in re-enactment combat, as well as a spear. One will work better than the other in certain circumstances. It really depends on where you find yourself in the formation and what the other side is trying to do to you at the time.

Quote:

Disagree with the last bit: sometimes a given weapon can be inferior, but this is usually driven by circumstance

I believe that's what I said. The weapon itself is neither superior or inferior. It may be lacking for the situation at hand but that doesn't necessarily mean the weapon itself is inferior, but rather the way it's being employed.

Quote:

The long shearing sword proved inferior to the short gladius when used by an organized legion - this is well documented.

Not really, that's an oversimplification of the issue. If cultures that used the shield wall tactic, such as the nordic countries and the Saxons, had found the longer single-handed sword to be lacking in their prefered method of warfare logic dictates that they would have used something else rather than rely on a single weapon such as the spear. The long two-handed war axe was also used within those formations (as documented by accounts of the battle of Hastings for example) and it was longer and seemingly more akward than the sword.

The roman legions didn't succeed because their style of sword was superior to their opponents. They succeeded because they possesed superior organization both on and off the battlefield. The romans possesed superior unit tactics and communication, while their germanic opponents often possesed neither. Yes, there are accounts of the longer sword being ineffectual in battle against the romans, but that's more an issue of the roman legions possesing a systematic method of combat wherein they were able to optimize the strengths of their equipment and minimize it's weaknesses. It really had nothing to do with the length of the sword blade itself. That organized part is the key, not the sword. The romans would have probably been victorious regardless of which type of sword they used due to their superior discipline. Your example of the Teutoburg forest is an excellent instance where the enemy used the circumstance and terrain, as well as a knowledge of roman tactics, to their advantage. That victory had nothing to do with the types of weapons employed.

I think we're both trying to make the same point here. :D

My only responses to you regard your assertion that the sword was an akward weapon to use in a sheild wall. I have not found this to be the case given the right circumstance. On the increasingly tired debate of which gripping technique was used with a viking sword: I continue to maintain that both were used in conjunction with one another depending upon the users intent. This may very well have been something that they took for granted and didn't feel the need to discuss. Unlike we moderns who seem to want to catagorize and overanalyze everything.

Okay I had a viking sword pass show up last night and I was fooling with it a bit. It reminded me I've been meaning to ask a question... Is there any documented evidence of the "handshake" style grip being used?

.... nevermind looks like I've some reading to do...

As always an informative thread presents itself...


*note to self always use the search function...

I’m going to chime in on this one. I couldn’t agree more with Peter. There is nothing intuitive about how to hold swords of this type. When I first received my Gotland I set about cutting some mats with it. Using the “Hammer” grip, I soon stripped back a 1/2 “ x 1 1/2 “ flap of skin on my palm from the pommel :eek:. It quickly became apparent the sword took exception to being held in this manner. When I changed to the grip, that peter suggested the sword became quite “alive” it :D and it responded without hesitation . It also held the flap of skin in place so I could continue cutting. I find the Vinland (my newest addition) also responds in the same manner.
I think the “Hammer” grip at best is left to situations where you have a limited range of motion and even then if you over extend you run the risk of the sword levering it’s self out of your hand.
Peter, your drawing is perfict.

This has been a really great thread. It's rare to see one going on so long, with such a wide variety of strongly-backed theories.

Regarding sword grips in general, I have always preferred what Peter Johnsson describes as the handshake grip. I bought a Del Tin 2103 many years ago, and it quickly taught me the right way to grip it, even before I had ever heard anyone describe the proper grip for a Viking-era sword.
I have also found that this type of relatively loose grip works best with any weapon with a wide pommel, such as a Mainz gladius.

When I don't use the "handshake grip", I use the "italian grip ", which in my mind should be called the Sassanian grip, where the forefinger is looped over the guard.

Regarding medieval antisepsis, most ancient cultures were familiar with the antiseptic qualities of wine and vinegar, which are tremendous. Properly cleaned and treated, even a severe wound is survivable without the use of modern antibiotics.
Just look at the large body of evidence for trepanning, and other evidence of survived cuts found in the North American archaeological record.

Thanks, everyone, for the fascinating discussion.

I think you are all too much into an "either or" situation here. A square hilt that will jab into your wrist can be easily handled by letting the pommel slip past your wrist. Takes only a minor amount of getting use to. Some are so small that it is almost impossible to grip it in any other way than to take the whole hilt into your hand. Each individual would have a shape that he might prefer, but end up with something else. A gift, a grave theft, or just what he might find when he needs it. I cannot stree too much that all of this stuff is so much one of a kind, and individual preference. Let me give an example. I like to shoot. I shoot a .45 a lot, and now it is considered proper to shoot with two hands. yet I grew up shooting one handed, and my score on the combat range was just as good as the guys shooting two handed, Its what the individual gets use to and what he prefers.

Some swords don't give you much choice as to using a sideways palm grip: I'm thinking about some Bronze age or early Iron age antenna swords were the antennas are many inches wide.

I agree with Mr. Reinhardt ( Not comfortable saying " Hank " during a first exchange of views. :D ) that the hand can quickly adapt to different grip styles and sizes, unless the design is really bad: Shifting grip from hammer to handshake can become fluid and automatic and it's not this or that grip but both changing as needed.

These wide Viking pommels make a loose and relaxed grip possible as they serve as " stop " keeping the sword from sliding out.

I assume that a loose grip would be good for fast fluid cuts: Could be wrong, please confirm or correct me, if I'm wrong.

Would one tighten ones grip just at the moment of contact or would one try to keep the hand relaxed concentrating on keeping the edge well aligned for a maximum efficiency cut ?

With a one handed sword I always tighten my grip as I strike. I frequently also snap my wrist, this gives a little extra momentum and helps the cut. A trick I learned from the Ghurkas. Met some while I was at the firing range in Todendorf in '57. Showed me how to cut effectively with a kukri. Please, Hank is much better than Mr. Reinhardt...sounds so damn old...Hank

Pleased to call you Hank: Just wanted to break the ice on that for myself and everybody else. :cool:

I'm a young 55 myself soon to be 56. :eek: I always feel strange if someone calls me SIR because in my mind I'm still a kid who likes to play with his toys !

I have always found that snapping the wrist at the end of a one-handed cut, especially with a shorter blade, does work well.

Grip versatility is a wonderful thing (great thing about axes and spears), and I use a lot of transitions on longer-hilted weapons, but there is just no way that I can sandwich my fat paw between the upper and lower guards on a typically short Viking-style hilt. My fingers are short, but my hand is very wide, making it mechanically impossible for me to use a short-gripped Viking-style weapon, with what we have been describing as a hammer-grip, with any degree of agility or comfort.
Yes, the Vikings had tough hands from handling oars and lines all day for months at a time, but then so too do some of us farm boys and girls. I think that the human hand and wrist do have mechanical properties that go beyond/supercede sheer toughness.
For me, at least, that's why slipping the pommel just feels so damn natural.
With different hand sizes and shapes, other people's mileage may vary. :-)
So, like a lot of other things, I reckon it just comes down to individual tastes, preferences, and the fact that . . . . size does matter. :-)
Can I say that on a public forum? . . . . . . .

The thing I'm not clear on is why didn't the scandinavians just design their swords with grips sized such that they din't have to move from the "hammer" to the "handshake" and back? Or was this changing of the grip common to all time periods? I've never heard that claim.... Is there something technically superior about using a "handshake" grip when using a cutting sword? If so why don't other predominatly cutting swords also exhibit inordinately small grips, the type XIII or XIV for example?

My own opinion on this is that the shorter grip and handshake method goes back earlier than just the Scandinavians. I shortened Nate's La Tene grip down for him to where it was too short for me, but it didn't really matter since I pretty much always handled it this way anyway. If you look at the La Tene lobed style hilts, many of them when viewed from the side could have had swelling in the lobes very similar to what we see in Viking age swords. As well in the last month or so I have been faced with a large number of La Tene blades that have very short tangs. Most of these have been coming in around five inches, which doesn't give you much room to work with these organic hilts. Of course the first things I have to shrink with these is the grip, and your getting a three inch grip or less then. With both groups though we are looking at fairly wide bladed cutting swords.

Another opinion that I have been expressing lately is that the handshake grip could be very useful when used from horseback or chariot. For me at least it seems that you do little in the way of turning your wrist to line up a cut, it just seems to line up in a more nature way. Plus it seems to transition from one side to the other easier.

For me though it is just much easier to have proper edge alignment with these wide cutting blades using the handshake grip.

Shane