[Bart M]

I'm new to longswords and warswords (any sword with a two handed grip really) from a practical standpoint. I have read and watched quite a bit about their usage online. Recently I got a first warsword with a grip that just barely accommodates two hands on the grip and started experimenting.

I know that an established way to grip a longsword based on most, if not all, sources is to place a dominant (right) hand close to the guard and the non-dominant (left) hand near the pommel. This makes perfect sense to me with a handle that allows some space between hands on the grip. I feel that with a short handle, undercuts are more difficult and have a shorter reach with this grip.

I have also noticed, that with a grip that is just long enough for two hands, I do better with a dominant hand close to the pommel and the other close to the guard, just like you hold a two handed staff or a polearm. I find I have better edge alignment (based on auditory signs, no cutting done yet) and especially under cuts feel more natural, are faster and more efficient this way. Undercut from the left is still challenging though.

I started experimenting with this for two reasons. The first one is my experience with a two handed staff (Jogo de Pau), the second is miniatures from Albion Alexandria sword site linked below:

https://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-alexandria-xviiia.htm

You can see an armoured knight thrusting his sword (2nd miniature from the top) using the grip with right hand in the back. On another one, (2nd from the bottom) you can see two dark fighters using the same grip.

It is possible of course, that this is just a mistake by the artist. Yet it made me think - were warswords gripped differently than later longswords? Are there any historical sources that confirm or deny it? I would be grateful for the input of people experienced in this field, both practical and theoretical.

[Johannes Zenker]

Differentiations like "warsword" and "longsword" are mostly modern convention. It's ultimately a sword you use in two hands which is still short enough to be worn and carried as a sidearm. The variations within each of those relatively arbitrary and somewhat anachronistic classifications are so great that differentiating ways of gripping between them doesn't make a lot of sense.

Some "warswords" (i.e. early "longswords") have very short hilts barely scratching 20cm, others are around 30cm. It's not so much a difference between types, but between individual samples. The same is true for later "longwords", all the way through the renaissance. They can have barely 20cm of hilt or reach a good bit over 30cm.

As for how you should grip a sword of certain length, that is largely preference based. There's not really anything wrong about using a widely spaced grip, and there's nothing inherently wrong with keeping the hands closer together. Likewise there is nothing inherently wrong with gripping the pommel vs. laying the palm of your hand against it ever so slightly. Many, if not most people transition freely between different ways of gripping when fencing anyway, and the pictoral sources we have show all kinds of different ways of gripping, regardless of what sword we're talking about.

There are certain biomechanical advantages and disadvantages to gripping swords in a certain way (cf. e.g. Mike Edelson's book "Cutting with the Medieval Sword"), but since those are always tradeoffs, I wouldn't necessarily fret over it.
Just don't hammer fist clench your sword grip.

[Bart M]

Thank you Johannes. You have made some good points about gripping swords in general. I also understand your points about longswords and warswords. I have used these terms to, hopefully, make my meaning clearer.

Do you know any sources that deal specifically with issue I mentioned in the first post? Meaning holding the two handed sword with right hand back and left in front. Contrary to you, I think it makes a big difference in comparison to the other way around. It changes many things in subtle and not so subtle ways - your stances, they way you move, how you balance your body when defending etc.

I have never studied historical fighting manuals in detail, only random points here and there over the course of many years. Yet everything I had seen in them points to holding your right hand in the front. Let's ignore details about spacing your hands or gripping the pommel for now.

Funny thing is, I now also consider the debate between so-called 'hammer grip' and ''handshake grip' completely irrelevant, but that's another topic

[Johannes Zenker]

Well, holding the right hand at the rear and the left at the front is commonly done by sinistral people (or at least people fencing left handed). Nothing too fancy about it. Of course it changes the geometry, but it's something lefties (and people fencing with lefties) have to deal with either way.

If you're actually right handed but prefer using the sword as though it were left handed, that could either mean that you need more practice in the "usually recommended" grip, or that it just suits you better (more power to you). If it's just the case with shorter hilts I'd see it as a great opportunity to learn techniques ambidextrously.

Liechtenauer's teachings do preach that you should fence from your strong side, i.e. a righty would normally have the right hand forward, left hand at the rear and vice versa for lefties. Footwork is also to be adapted to your respective "handedness".

Again, I'd recommend Mike Edelson's lectures and book on cutting with the medieval sword for more details on hand positioning and its effects.

[Sean Manning]

Many of those war swords were not sidearms, they were swords you strapped to your saddle.

Edit: people who have studied art from the 12th/13th century see signs that sword fighting was different than in the written traditions from the 14th century and later, so the way someone taught you to use a sword in 1200 might have been very different than the way they taught 200 years later

[Sean Manning]

Manuscript Miniatures can be a good site to check if you want medieval pictures of people fighting. Here are some examples of swords in two hands before about 1350.

701-800

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/4437/11052 (David killing Goliath)

1101-1200

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/4885/14173 (Humility defeats Pride)

1201-1300

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/4446/11749
https://manuscriptminiatures.com/search?tag=3423#results

There are some people with their left hand near the cross and their right hand near the pommel in the 1200s

[Bart M]

Thank you Sean! I tried searching through manuscriptminiatures but it seems I used incorrect terms and failed to find anything specific. These are very neat and helpful illustrations.

Yet it seems that either:

- I asked a silly question

- There are no sources which specify how transitional swords were used on the battlefield(one handed --> two handed) and it is impossible to find an answer

It looks like this will remain impossible to understand based on period sources. Maybe these guys from miniatures are indeed lefties Maybe miniatures are artistic license/propaganda. Who knows?

AFAIK it is accepted in HEMA/historical circles that transition from one handed to two handed sword on a battlefield was a long process connected with armour development. We can definitely see some warriors in these miniatures holding what looks like a one handed sword in two hands, one over another.

My speculative guess is that if swords were actually used in melee skirmishes in those times , like miniatures show, there was no space for elaborate techniques (lets ignore team tactics for now), it was mostly about distance, timing and overcoming an enemy quickly with powerful blows. Especially if there were times where weapons were lagging slightly behind armour. I imagine using a one handed sword in two hands is a bit of a desperation move (or you could call it adapting to the situation) you use when you realize that your weapon does not hurt a well armoured enemy.

In my brief experience, holding a sword with right hand at the back lets you accelerate the tip a bit faster compared to gripping it with left hand forward. For powerful blows from overhead that is. Maybe that was needed in occasional skirmishes on the battlefield in those times and explains the grip. That's my best guess...

I hope that was an interesting question to ask. It still puzzles me and it will for quite a while I imagine even if I can never find an answer.

[Sean Manning]

[Bart M]

Understood. I was silently hoping there might be some information from the sources hidden here or there that I have never heard about. I have seen so many enlightening posts on myArmoury on so many different topics, where someone quotes an obscure document with relevant info out of nowhere. Maybe one day

I will keep experimenting myself, surely my opinion will change with time with time and more practice. I just can't be sure in which direction If I get a chance to talk to experienced HEMAists in person, I will no doubt mention this subject.

Meanwhile, if anyone else feels like experimenting with this and sharing their experience, please do!

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

Arms and Armor made a weird replica of a 13th-century Hungarian Longsword that's basically a really long type XI sword with a somewhat loose grip of 120mm, which is really odd to the point that I questioned how they could claim it was a "hand and a half" sword just because you could somewhat put a second hand in the grip/pommel area (one-handed swords generally have 70-100mm grip length, as far as I could notice).

https://www.arms-n-armor.com/collections/single-handed-swords/products/hungarian-sword

I couldn't find photos of the original in the said source (it's apparently in Budapest), but I suspect it's pretty much just to add a more strength base movement instead of a fencing based thing.

Albion Swords, on the other hand, have long blades and long grips, so I don't get when exactly a bastard sword becomes a two handed one. And well, what a "true two hander" thing is another can of worms, today I'm of the opinion that even 13th-century swords can be "two handers"; we have in Records some types XIIa/XIIIa with 110cm BL that clearly show an early application of such practice.

For experience issues, I own slightly short katana (made in USA) and a Brazilian copy of the Albion Principe (BL 87cm; W 7,54) which I find unbearable to use with one hand (never practiced HEMA though), but Skallagrim showed great skill with only one hand, so I questioned if my theory on "if the grip is long enough, then it's a two-handed sword") was right and things were more blurred; my sword can be shitty too, but it doesn't seem to be the case, as the point of balance is near the hilt; perhaps a fencer with experience can properly wield heavier blades than a weight-lifter like me?

But on your thoughts on the longer grip: I agree. In fact, I once saw a messer with REALLY long grip, like more than 300mm, but the museum doesn't give info. I suspect you may lose something with a longer grip, but what?

https://www.khm.at/en/objectdb/detail/372127/


https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10210322576977907&set=basw.AbpkE7767IRhtZCZYY7Us3cNz_tmoZjvNhkMxlvh0Wod0cOA-M92JWlBET9Odu7mN1bKyOOaD_V1tMl16R48tcknaJZfks2Y3dqyKrQe7e3Y4MJhxD5D09_Idsi3NkM6Oc10X-WC6cA0bOx1B2LGOGzr&opaqueCursor=AbpXGLPAl01A3Q7J7TxIQspsqVp-UFbqwVpHUr0oWqtBD_AXe46rKp7IoWhaxNt81EOWk-gL5DCfiUIrId8I872X2tm3t9amZJcjWDjFXFOGypIQzDlyO5hwv0xS6JuUfRFPewobyZU4BM60mvEHGHCIxfsl4kltycc6rMmHvgr1-t_NIBEZxLyxsygVARatfzurJYx5eu8znjcwYGKvYf053yGqR6_Y6DDMkYtBA4YmpHJeLTlwqynJI7AeLN9qRsEQ48M4UeDRikAmG2X56rj4yodn1Nk_qNMeVs6eNnxAu238U1aK7ew72gGM8q5sMRqujV49svuJx4-hP5FjvS8xCjb11g5Sc5uJxASmT8LM-KhQZ3sspJk5gmq8wcbebmTi-6vT_VPtG-Cu5fpifZngu51-zmZJ5qdBxvd83THmqiAiwTMfYfOirzluPrIC5fX7ZEDRhUkeV16OQjcSzLocaBRsa3qgbf-CFHTqyZhlZBejjSwWhN88MWGiePU6U2X_epuA9DL7uc0_Bi3asS5F0_zEEH_sruQemvWAAV7GcP_pUjI1vsR_1kj9_MV2khSstMXPGvidJkDw6LH4wAgwpa2K5XA3mj9c9Ig-4P6N-D42h_s-63xpU9IBYVlNDonCMyQLe62u-5ACZkszTklbi5EK7_1FNmu84fKZDQNH2qsfjXEZxIHvzeoRDrRqR0v1MFctii90wAoZ0ralfo1qKBZDRk6OZeJnWYfvxgU-pKL6C9ItnNHWRrGW_uXbIEkifc7kXkM7G2x-_1VOW2DP