John, right on, that was great, best, Hank

Geoff,

Your views are as valid as John's, or anyone elses for that matter. Please don't think otherwise.

I am always fascinated by the way people approach a sword when they have never handled one before. Whatever the model, be it rapier, modern foil, courte épée or medieval longsword, invariably the natural response is to pick the thing up in a baseball bat grip, and then twist the wrist around a couple of times as if to check out some kind of response, or feel, as if the holder wished it would somehow talk to him. It is usually at this juncture that I step up to the plate and indicate to my guest that he should try it another way, for example by passing the forefinger on the other side of the quillon when using a rapier or courte épée. It does'nt come natural, and someone had to show me once upon a time when I began fencing back in 88... this thing about holding a foil between thumb and forefinger for point control, what a concept !!! How about bunching up the thumb when doing sabre?? Natural, I think not, but it speaks to the use of the tool in question. So, when seeing ancient drawings which show swordsmen holding the object ensuring their survival, as there was no known point system back then, I do give great weight to these drawings and conclude that they are meaningfull. Someone had to show these swordsmen that this was the , oh no, is there a friendly way to say ''proper'' ?? I am new and do want to be friendly.. oh well, yup, the proper way to use the darn thing. Now, with my own stubby hands, using replicas and such, I only wish that I could get the knack of it, because, as I said, it doen't come natural.... but hope springs eternal, and I will try again, because obviously a good number of very interested afficionadoes have succeeded in doing so. But then my Maître d'armes always did make sure that I never get any illusions about giving up the day job, so maybe it's just me, dexterity just isn't my thing.
Regards to everyone, Jean-Carle

Excellent post Jean-Carle!

And welcome to the forum :D

ks

I think one point that was dismissed early in the thread and only mentioned one or two times since, is the size of the sword wielder. Its seems to only make sense that the height of the man and the size of his hand would be taken into account when making blade and grip. I just finished reading a study which pointed out that the average 1st century CE Roman soldier was 5' 7" tall. This fits in with the shortish grip on most gladii. Would a 5' 7" Viking be as effective using a sword make for someone that was 6' tall?

Diet, environment, medicine, economics, etc all played roles in the height of people over the centuries. If you go look at homes that have been preserved from the American Colonial time, you'll notice that the beds of the adults are tiny compared to even a full size bed today. If you were 6' tall in the 1700s you were uncommonly tall but today thats fairly normal

Hello everybody,
I know i´m late by months to this thread, amazing thread, but i´m having so much fun and delight reading everything in this forum that finally i got the chance to dig into this amazing (did i say that before?) thread.

I´d like to say that while i think that a viking sword, as well as any other type of sword, could benefit from both forms of gripping, the general rule in many martial arts is that you should never grasp a weapon so tightly that would actually disturb your movement range and tire your hand in a short time, so i guess, from my limited experience as hand and a half, and spanish destreza vulgar practicioner, as well as old time aikido bokken practitioner, that the hand shake sould be the natural way, shifting to hammer grip when needed.

On the other matter that arose from the range and way of attacking the leading leg of your enemy. The statistics shown from the great image from wisby burials determine that a 50 something percentage of all wounds were in the leading leg of the corpses. Apart from the explained way of how this was measured, that could have been better done, and the clearly explained matter that many deadly wounds that would avoid the bones were not recorded, there´s IMO another factor that i think has not been talked about in the thread, that will make things still harder. What i think the reason of such a high percentage of wounds found affecting the leading leg might bring some more confussion to the way we think this might be or not a primary target.
If you get a deep cut or get your leg severed in a battlefield, you are surely not leaving the area, you can´t walk, much less run, and probably you´ll be finished on the spot. If you are hurt in an arm or any other part, and the wound is not incapacitating (hope to get the wording right) you might still move away from the battlefield, probably to die elsewhere, but you´ll not be buried in the battlefield in a mass grave, as you probably run away from the area.
So when archeologists find the mass graves in recent times, they might actually find a lot of warriors with severed or cut legs, bringing (or not) the idea that this might be a primary target in battle, when actually (IMO again) most of this corpses are together because they all died there without chances of moving away, as they could not move at all.

I hope i worded everything right, english is not my first language, excuses in advance.
Juan Carlos

A very interesting thread indeed, shame I didn't see it before.

I for one am convinced that the typical, standard grip for a Spatha was the way that Peter described in his initial posting - I'll call it the "extended grip" for the time being (because the pommel is an extension of the grip). I learned about it only about a year and a half ago, but it made so much sense.

Original hilts are usually too short to hold them the "hammer grip" (which I call the "paw grip"). The height of people varied throughout the ages, but there were several eras when the average height was about the same as it is today. Especially the Germanic and Viking peoples were known for their tall build, so we can't assume 5'6" here or something.

Last week I held in my hands what I consider the "final proof" in this matter. A wonderful replica of the River Whitam "Leutfrit" sword. The entire sword feels as if it was made specifically for me. The handle automatically nestles itself into my hand the "extended" way, and it definitely feels like it's supposed to be that way. The blade length is exactly so that it does not touch the ground when I stand there and stretch my arm downward. Both blade and hilt look and feel perfectly right, neither too short nor too long.
From this, I deduce that the original owner, i.e. the warrior for whom the original sword had been made, was about my own size. I am 6'2" (188cm).

This is how I'd try to explain the "extended grip" without a picture at hand:
Loosely take the sword into your hand. Wrap the index finger under the grip directly behind the lower guard. Place the ball of your thumb on the pommel. Now you touch the sword only with your index finger and the ball of your thumb. Only then close the other fingers around the grip. It should feel like a true extension of your arm.

Let me start off by saying I only read the first and last pages of this thread.

It may be because I have very short hands, but honestly I find the idea that the "handshake" grip would be more accurate absurd. It may have been used by some people but clearly the traditional hammer grip was the most common. Every single contemporary piece of art shows the hammer grip and if I'm mistaken I'd like to see some evidence. The vast majority of Viking fighting would have been done in close quarters; in a sheild wall, ship to ship and urban envirnments when raiding.

Basically, I have no problem developing all the power, speed and flexibility I need when handling a Viking sword with the traditional grip, whereas I think parrying and blocking with the other grip wouldn't be as effective. I've been handling weapons for over 16 years, since I was about 12, so I'm no n00b.

I actually do think that people would have had smaller hands generally back then, and those that had large hands would have been the exception rather than the rule. They may have had the grips on their swords customised for their hands and we just haven't found those rarer swords. I've seen guys with big hands grip Viking swords with smaller grips buy tucking their little finger over the pommel and I think that's far more likely.

If this is the way they used their swords I think the swords themselves would have shown some evidence of this, possibly aquiring a sabre like pistol grip, but again we have no evidence of this.

OK, after reviewing the thread I will take my last post back.

What I was thinking of as a traditional Hammer grip, to me is actually both a hammer and a handshake grip depending on the strike. Most of the strength of my grip comes from my index finger, middle finger and thumb, this allows for a fluid motion between the two without having to actually change grip, esspecially with my short fingers and small hands (my finger is only 7.5cm long and my hand is 16.5 cm long).

I think in many ways this is a semantic argument as different people use different terms for the same things, or the same term for different things.

Regarding the size of the hands of people back then i guess it´s just a matter of checking the bones found in tombs and mass graves. I don´t recall reading anything on this matter (of them being small), but nordic people tended to be on the big side, and this is just pure natural selection, only the strongest would survive in those weather and geographical conditions. Something quite different in other areas, such as my country, where due to soil available for more extended agricultural activities and a much gentle weather, you could find people of all physiological conditions (big and small). And this is not a matter of believing, it can easily be scientifically proven, if it hasn´t already be done.

So i still stand on the hand shake grip being more natural, and the hammer style being useful everynow and then. And still, as someone has already written, in a shield wall, the main weapon would be the spear or even the axe, leaving the sword only for the individualized fighting that usually develops after the wall is broken or disbanded (as well as for duelling).

Juan Carlos

I have finally finished reading all 8 pages :)

First off ,my thanks to Chad for directing me here. Second, my thanks to all of you who contributed. This single thread was of so much value I think I will upgrade my membership!

Having said that, it has been a couple of months since the thread was last commented on. Has anyone made any new and fascinating discoveries that they wish to add?

Shane Allee :

Your post was able to solve a problem I was having. I plan to buy a Viking-era sword pretty soon, and was debating whether I should get one with the shorter hilt, or something slightly longer as I have fairly big hands. I suppose I am used to the hammer grip by nature. Now I can make my decision confidently without worries about grip length. Thanks very much.

And, as an aside, thanks to your photo of how to grip the Viking sword, I tried the same grip on my Windlass 'Qama', which had always been slightly uncomfortable to hold with a similar hilt arrangement, and voila, it works like a charm for that blade as well. So the advice applies not only to Viking-specific hilts, but can allow an otherwise shorter than comfortable hilt on another weapon to perhaps get a new lease on life.

Apologies if I'm coming to this topic very, very late, but this is something I've seen and heard debated repeatedly around a camp-fire amongst 9th-10th C reenactors, and I think I've heard and seen the merits of both the arguments for and against; personally I'm one who thinks it is a matter of preference; seeing as the texts that do come to us claim that Danes in single combat were given to strength and not speed, and that the whole point of single combat was a demonstration of strength; so it is up to interpretation which grip is more given to this contest (one offers more power, the other a better chance of keeping hold of the sword as the heavier blow is struck).
However, one thing that I did note was the claim much earlier on that swords were only ever used once a shield-wall had broken down, as the spear is the primary shield-wall weapon. Whereas this is broadly true, there are a couple other things to consider.
1) Frequently in shield-wall combat the two front ranks are shunted INTO each other, not simply standing passively back; in times like this (such as when a svynfylka charges) the front ranks would have axes, seaxes and swords drawn, as a spear cannot be used in such restricted conditions with any effect (many a time someone in the second or third rank has actually wrenched my spear off me).
2) Spears are frequently siezed, broken or discarded if they stick fast in shields or (hopefully) an opponent.

This doesn't really impact too much on the argument, but I think it's important to note that although the swords of the day were not neccersarily designed for shieldwall combat alone, it would have been part of the consideration of the design- such as being able to club with the pommel in the close press of a shield-wall.