Go to page Previous  1, 2

Bill,

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiences. This is one of the main reasons I so very much enjoy myArmoury - the willingness to share information in a collegial manner.

Getting back to the grip length issue, to refine my question: I prefer a longer grip because of the leverage it affords. As you related, the longer grip probably results in a reduction of speed relative to a shorter grip. The leverage is, however, useful in defense (at least with wasters) and I am by nature a defensive fighter.

I wonder if more aggressive fighters would prefer shorter grips for this reason.

I would guess that a long grip would also necessitate the use of two hands, which would reduce the available options for attack.

Regardless of my lack of knowledge on the topic, I'm having great fun pondering these issues. ;)
Jeremiah Swanger wrote:
Bill Grandy wrote:

I think you're right about the surviving examples, but we shouldn't assume those are the only types used in the manuscript. After all, the artforms are meant to be near universal, not just for specific blade types.

Also, if you look at some of the Renaissance longsword material, many are illustrated with practice swords that have pretty long grips. And unlike the medieval manuscripts, the later period illustrations tend to be more accurate with issues such as scale and perspective. I really do think we shouldn't focus too much on the "perfect" sizes, so long as they aren't extreme.


You present an excellent point, but you haven't quite answered my question-- if grip length was based on personal preference alone, then the grip lengths would be all over the map. While I guess you could say they are, I am still under the impression that 6.5" to 7.5" seems to be the dominant length. If I am correct, I think it would be important to determine why this was strongly-preferred. If it isn't for the sake of technique, could it be cultural? Perhaps a long sword grip gave the impression that one was... *ah-hem*... "compensating" for something? ;)


Hi Jeremiah

Not so sure I'll buy into this...... without thinking about it much or looking very far {spent two minutes on it}, I came up with three that have much longer handles than 7 inches........

1. The Sture Sword..... try nearly 11 inch handle with a mere 34 inch blade......
In Oakeshott's "Records of the Medieval Sword".....
2. XVIIIa.5, over 10 inch long handle......
3. XX.4 scales out to over 9 inch handle......

I think if I spent some time, I could find several. But unfortunately time is an asset I'm rather short of right now.....

There are several period illustrations that show handles that are obviously longer than 7.5 inches. Having made several swords now, and handled them all, I would say that it would tend to have a lot to do with a couple of things........

Power generation, and durability. Shorter handled swords will have more durable tangs with the same crossections than longer ones......

Handling, ie a swordsman that wants a sword that uses "leverage", or using the two hands motions more for control, than using the center of the body for control {not well described, Bill's much better at this}. Longer handled swords have both advantages and disadvantages, and its the handler that would probably decide which he prefers........
I think it is in the Gladiatoria fetchbuch that it is written that the grip including should be the same as the lenght of your forearm. In our studies on the use of longsword or two handed sword we use 54 inches wasters with a 12 inches grip. I thing it is quite the same as in the Goliath. It is just tooooo bad no sword makers do that kind of sword...
Marc-Antoine Jean wrote:
I think it is in the Gladiatoria fetchbuch that it is written that the grip including should be the same as the lenght of your forearm.


I believe you're thinking of Vadi's Arte Gladiatoria Dimicnadi, and not the German Gladiatoria (unless if the German source also says this and I didn't realize?). But yes, that's exactly what Vadi says.
Marc-Antoine Jean wrote:
I think it is in the Gladiatoria fetchbuch that it is written that the grip including should be the same as the lenght of your forearm. In our studies on the use of longsword or two handed sword we use 54 inches wasters with a 12 inches grip. I thing it is quite the same as in the Goliath. It is just tooooo bad no sword makers do that kind of sword...


The Angus Trim Danish Longsword comes pretty close to those specs: 54" total length with an 11" inch grip.
of course, but the quillons are pretty short...too short.
Well, I do not have any Albion two handers "yet", but on my Arms & Armor swords the German Bastard Sword and the Durer Bastard Sword each have 8 inches between the inside of the crossguard and the inside of the pommel, the HIghland Claymore has 13 inches and the English Longsword is a bit tighter at 6 and a half, but I love the way each one of them handles. Hopefully this helps.

Bob
Bill Grandy wrote:
Marc-Antoine Jean wrote:
I think it is in the Gladiatoria fetchbuch that it is written that the grip including should be the same as the lenght of your forearm.


I believe you're thinking of Vadi's Arte Gladiatoria Dimicnadi, and not the German Gladiatoria (unless if the German source also says this and I didn't realize?). But yes, that's exactly what Vadi says.


Bill, Is he the one that said the cross should be as long as the grip, or was that someone else? (Or was that anyone? I don't have a source.)

As long as he was giving us grip length, did he mention anything in reguards to the length of the blade relative to the weilder?

Hmm.... Also, do we have anyone besides Vadi and Silver commenting on these techniques of measurement?
For me, I love the beauty, elegance, incredible lightness and swiftness of the English Longsword, the awesome power of the Highland Claymore and the German Bastard sword, both of which handle surprisingly easily. The Durer is a hand and a half sword extraordinaire, although it is almost 4 feet in length it's lightening fast and smooth as silk and there is all kinds of room on the hilt!

Sincerely,

Bob
George Hill wrote:
Bill, Is he the one that said the cross should be as long as the grip, or was that someone else? (Or was that anyone? I don't have a source.)

As long as he was giving us grip length, did he mention anything in reguards to the length of the blade relative to the weilder?

Hmm.... Also, do we have anyone besides Vadi and Silver commenting on these techniques of measurement?


I loaned my copy of Vadi to someone, so I'm working from memory (and my strong point is the German stuff, not the Italian, so bear with me), but I believe he says the cross should be the same length as the grip and pommel together. It is possible Vadi is referring to a specialized duelling sword, as he also says something about the cross needing to be square in cross section and pointed at the tips, and the pommel should be pointed as well, though round in cross section to grip. He also states that the sword should only be sharp four fingers from the tip (or at least I think it was four fingers). I believe he also says the sword should be long enough that if you put the tip on the ground, the pommel should be at your armpit.

Now, if you look through Vadi's illustrations, the only swords that look like this are in the armoured combat section, and I think he might even mention something about this type of sword being used "in arme", so as I mentioned, it is quite possible this advice was specifically for a specialized weapon for judicial duelling in armour. The longswords in the unarmoured section appear to be fairly ordinary looking (though the tips do look round, so it isn't out of the question that these are practice swords... who knows?).

As for measurements of the sword, I don't know of any medieval masters that did. Capo Ferro said the sword should be as long as your lunge. King Phillip II of Spain issued an edict that the perfect length of the sword would be to put the pommel at your shoulder and extend the other arm out to the side, with the tip of the sword reaching your fingers. Thibault said if you put the sword tip on the ground, the quillons should be at your navel. Those three measurements are generally assumed to be for rapiers.
We use Vadi's specs for our training weapons and it is really efficient. Real weapons with the correct weight (that is quite rare, most people think it should weight 10 pounds...) are really deadly in my opinion.
This is most interisting. So I take it that the 'forearm length grip' does not include the pommel in this case? Oh, I imagine that's measuring from the tip of the elbow to the wrist.... any reason not to think so?
Before we get too focused on Vadi, keep in mind that the sword he's talking about for fighting in armour really appears to be specialized for such combat.

[ Linked Image ]

Though the only time Vadi says something specific about armoured combat in terms of his ideal specs has to do with the sharpening of the sword near the tip, it does appear that the swords illustrated in the unarmoured section are not the same thing.

[ Linked Image ]
these are all very interesting and miscellaneous posts.
If you go to take a look at longswords in museums or in collections of arms and armor, then you can see any kind of types of lengths, like all the different preferences here.
Most interesting for me were the statements, that a longer grip gives more control and the relationship between a defensive fighter prefers a longer grip and a more aggressive fighter does not, because I think this corresponds to that, what is written in the 3227a Doebringer manuscript. Doebringer described Liechtenauer's fighting style as a very offensive and aggressive one(the fighter attacking first will win). And he prefered not to grip the pommel to generate more powerful blows. He wrote it doesn't matter how heavy the sword is, as long it has enough weight in the pommel for the right balance to swing trough. So the center of balance is one hand in front the crossguard. If you grip the pommel and you make your blow by pushing with your upper hand and pulling with the other you move the center of your sword between your hands. Furthermore you have counteracting lines of power. And with this technique all the power comes from your arms and Doebringer wrote to use the whole body (...Mit ganczem leiben ficht was du stark gerest treiben...)
to generate power. If you put both hands close together, both hands can move to the same direction. You have a bigger leverage because the center is in the right place and the blow gets more powerful.

In my opinion both is historical correct, but the length of the grip depends on the technique and the fighting
style of the fighter.
Go to page Previous  1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum