Best length of grip for a longsword? -- myArmoury.com

David Martin · Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 8:01 am Post subject:

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. Wink

Angus Trim · Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 11:23 am Post subject:

Marc-Antoine Jean · Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject:

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...

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team

Addison C. de Lisle · Posted: Sat 22 Jul, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject:

Marc-Antoine Jean · Posted: Sat 22 Jul, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:

of course, but the quillons are pretty short...too short.

Bob Burns · Posted: Sun 23 Jul, 2006 8:48 am Post subject:

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

George Hill · Posted: Mon 24 Jul, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject:

Bob Burns · Posted: Mon 24 Jul, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject:

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

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team

Marc-Antoine Jean · Posted: Tue 25 Jul, 2006 8:37 am Post subject:

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.

George Hill · Posted: Wed 26 Jul, 2006 2:12 am Post subject:

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?

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team

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.

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.

Michele Solimando · Posted: Fri 28 Jul, 2006 11:58 am Post subject:

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.