| Author |
Message |
D Wick
Location: Lampeter University Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 13
|
 Posted: Sun 06 Jan, 2008 2:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Speculatively, rich Danes would carry a sword, long-hafted axe, seax (all belt-slung at this stage) and possibly three spears of varying type; two smaller spears/.javelins can be easily gripped alongside the boss in the left hand, and transferred quickly to the right hand for throwing purposes. So, theoretically, Anglo-Saxon/Danish warriors circa 9th Century would be carrying quite an arsenal to choose from (having carried this much gear I can confirm it is possible, and isn't as encumbering as people first assume).
"What possesses a man to take better care of a length of steel than himself?"
|
|
   |
 |
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Sun 06 Jan, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | | I Viking age warriors were not Atheists, they were Pagans. Their pommels may have had some religious imagery we don't know about. |
After thinking a bit more about this, it occurred to me - what was the most common religious symbol in Viking culture? That would have to be Mjolnir, Thor's hammer, worn as an amulet for protection. Attached below is a drawing I grabbed from Wikipedia showing several common forms of the viking hammer amulet. Is it just me, or do these look a lot like various forms of Viking pommels?
So I venture to propose that just as the cruciform sword of the medieval period had its Christian imagery, the Viking sword hilt may indeed have had it's 'Mjolnir' imagery for it's Pagan users. (I apologize if someone else has pointed this out before, but if so I have not seen it).
Now, back to the original posting by Mr. Johnsson - I did some testing of my own this weekend with various broadsword hilt types (not just Viking) and asked myself the reverse question - if you want to use a hammer grip, which hilt works best? Scent-stopper pommel types seemed worst - they provide little stability against the palm and a poor grip (in the handshake position). Some variants of the wheel pommel seemed better than others - a flattened wheel provides a good stable fulcrum against the palm, but smaller forms do not provide a very secure grip. The winners seemed to me, to be my flattened viking-style hilts, which provided both a good fulcrum point (with the palm helping to balance the sword when held knuckles-up) and a very secure grip, with the ring finger / little finger / thumb looped around the wide pommel and the other fingers/thumb holding the handle in a precision grip position. And for this position to work, you naturally crave a short handle...longer handles place the hand to far from the guard. So I think this reverse-analysis approach tends to support Mr. Johnsson's original proposal.
And wouldn't a shorter handle be best in cramped conditions...like the shield wall, on a crowded long ship...as opposed to the cavalry situation of the medieval knight?
This may sound like I'm arguing back and forth against myself, but the point I am again trying to make is that there were likely multi-factorial influences going into Viking hilt design based on cultural, performance, and tactical factors - with these various factors influencing each other in complex ways.
 Attachment: 16.52 KB
Various forms of the Thor's hammer amulet resemble viking sword hilts - is it a coincidence?
|
|
|
|
|
D Wick
Location: Lampeter University Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Sun 06 Jan, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | | And wouldn't a shorter handle be best in cramped conditions...like the shield wall, on a crowded long ship...as opposed to the cavalry situation of the medieval knight? |
This has, unfortunately, touched on one of the 'Commonly Misunderstood' concepts of 'the medieval knight'.
Medieval knights recognisable to a modern thinker (980 AD-onwards) were not neccersarily cavalry. This is something of a modern view, based on a narrow view of a knight. Knights would fight up to a third of their battles on foot, being commonly dismounted from horseback to form heavy infantry units used in conjuction with their mounted comrades backing them up as cavalry. The first major historical incidence of this is The Battle of the Standard, or Northallerton as it sometimes known, on the 22nd of August 1138.
"The knights had dismounted to fight on foot. In the front rank of this deployment, blocks of archers were interspersed with armoured men-at-arms so that the army 'could with equal vigour and security either attack or recieve [an enemy] attack.' " (p23, British Battles, Ken and Denise Guest, English Heritage Publishing)
The average knight (of the 12th-13th century) could wield his shield, accompanied by an array of hand weapons such as the axe, mace, sword, dagger, single-handed spear (in earlier times also the javelin) and lance and most young knights were additionally taught the disciplines of the bow and crossbow (despite Papal insistence that the weapon should not be used at all; case in point is the seige of Jaffa in which Richard I was said to wield 'sword and crossbow') so that they could be mutli-disciplinary troops, deployable in any circumstance. Most knights beyond the mid-12th century also practised with some form of two-handed weapon on foot, such as the spear, the newly arrived polearms such as the lochaber axe, or even a pole-mace. The knight, spending much of his day training for war was meant to be the first of his kind; a 'universal soldier'- therefore his wargear is the 'best fit' for all the scenarios he would encounter. Whereas some argument can be made that richer knights could afford a selection of wargear carried to the field by attending retainers, this could only be a limited amount of gear for practicality's sake.
Knights as late as the early fourteenth century would fight dismounted in something recognisable as a 'shield wall'- less so the later one moves forward in history. However, the case in point would mean that an early period Norman sword (such as the ubiquitous 'brazil nut' type XIa) would be used from horseback, amidst the shieldwall, in single combat, and even ship-borne combat (Italo-Normans were, in some cases, glorified pirates).
Apologies for the length of my correction, but as a 12th-century reenactor the first question one always encounters is;
'But didn't all knights fight from horseback, with a lance 'n stuff?"
"What possesses a man to take better care of a length of steel than himself?"
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I get an image of a knight carrying armloads of weapons to the battle.  In reality he would probably pick from his collection before leaving for battle, or he would have a wagon loaded and staffed with his vassals, where he had a selection of weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| D Wick wrote: | | This has, unfortunately, touched on one of the 'Commonly Misunderstood' concepts of 'the medieval knight'. Medieval knights recognisable to a modern thinker (980 AD-onwards) were not neccersarily cavalry. |
Several good points, no doubt, but I don't think I said that Medieval Knights only fought on horseback. I hope we can agree that they did in some situations, more so than Vikings, or I've really missed something!
Anyway, weren't we talking about Viking sword grips? I'm surprised that no one poked fun at my wacky religious influence thesis. I'm rather proud of it, but I've learned long ago that silence does not necessarily mean agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="J.D. Crawford"] | D Wick wrote: | | Anyway, weren't we talking about Viking sword grips? I'm surprised that no one poked fun at my wacky religious influence thesis. I'm rather proud of it, but I've learned long ago that silence does not necessarily mean agreement. |
Well it's an entertaining theory, but I have to say that I've never seen any evidence of it. Even the cross symbology in hte knightly cruciform sword was pretty much developed after the fact, symbology following function if you will.
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Watt
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to come down on the side of "maybe" for your wacky religious association for the grip.
It's actually plausible, nothing particularly contradicts it, and not only are there religious associations for Christians with the cruciform hilt, the Celtic anthropomorphic hilt provides a nice bookend to the other end of things.
That being said, at best it's a possible, not a sure thing.
I think it would take a lot of research to tie the two together... but if you can show a consist connection between the design and morpology of Norse amulets and sword hilts, you'd have a good start.
Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
|
|
|
|
|
D Wick
Location: Lampeter University Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree you didn't say exclusively from horseback; but it was the example of 'knightly combat' that you gave; the point I was making is that a Norman sword circa 1120 is actually going to be subjected to similar treatment to a 'Viking' pattern Anglo-Danish blade of 820.
Something to consider regarding the religious significance of the profile of the hilt would be the continuing use of 'Norse pattern' hilts in Anglo-Norman culture, Franco-Flemish culture and Italo-Norman culture. If it did have religious significance, it lost it rapidly. It is something of an interprative theory with no real evidence to support or denounce it.
The major point about knightly combat is that Norman swords occasionaly sported similar hilts and handle-lengths to Anglo-Danish blades, and yet due to the pictorial evidence of their hand protection, we can surmise that the 'handshake' grip would be at very least highly difficult to maintain.
(Personally I am outside the debate, adopting the arguably later period Hispanic grip with my forefinger curled over the crossguard; so my hand orientation is somewhere between the two)
"What possesses a man to take better care of a length of steel than himself?"
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Burns
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I picked up a real nice Del Tin Viking Sword today, the pommel and crossguard is solid bronze with bird figures on them, it has a custom sinew cord wrap that has some kind of heavy duty finish over it. I bought it at Kult of Athena. The pommel and crossguard are shaped so as to curve away from the grip area and it handles really nice in the handshake grip as depicted by Peter Johnsson.
This is my first Del Tin and I am quite impressed with the quality!
Bob
|
|
 |
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Feb, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looking at other swords from history, I find the tulwar of the Indian Sikhs.
Now the "handshake grip" could not be used with a sword like this. Obviously there is another solution, and it may apply equally to the Viking sword.
This may be a clue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_UNVmEJZ04
Holding a sword in the "hammer grip" one has no trouble achieving a slice or draw-cut. That can be a very effective cut, ask your local T-bone steak.
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Douglas S wrote: | Looking at other swords from history, I find the tulwar of the Indian Sikhs.
Now the "handshake grip" could not be used with a sword like this. Obviously there is another solution, and it may apply equally to the Viking sword.
This may be a clue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_UNVmEJZ04
Holding a sword in the "hammer grip" one has no trouble achieving a slice or draw-cut. That can be a very effective cut, ask your local T-bone steak. |
Interesting point and video, I can see a viking sword being used with a hammer grip like this sometimes. On the other hand, I can't see them being used like this all the time (not that anyone said they were). The Sagas are replete with stories of legs being hacked off; taken at face value, this would seem unlikely to arise from a slicing cut.
I've been playing around with viking-style replicas for years, and after reading this thread I tried to observe more carefully what I do naturally (as opposed to consciously trying to impose a style). Based on this approach, I find myself agreeing with those above who say 'both hammer and handshake'. My natural tendency is to adopt a loose grip that easily rotates between hammer (when the sword is at right angles to the wrist) and handshake (when the sword is parallel to the wrist). Just a personal observation.
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Feb, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yes, mostly what we are sure about is the artifacts. It's hard to make assumptions based on just that.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Feb, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | We often fall into the trap of evaluating a technique when the results are based upon our own physical limitations. The old-timers lacked our modern conveniences, and their day to day existence would have been much more laborious than ours. A grip that may feel insecure in our soft 21st century hands probably would have been fine to a hardy viking age warrior.
|
I agree with this thought. I have spent years throwing shots in the SCA in melees and single combat and a hammer grip is slow but powerful. A looser grip increases speed and in that comes the power.
But in no way would I compare my technique with that of people who used the sword all their lives and depended on it for their lives. And by no means this is the only way they would handle a sword. Each person had his on take on what worked best.
The same is true today.
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
 |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | | My natural tendency is to adopt a loose grip that easily rotates between hammer (when the sword is at right angles to the wrist) and handshake (when the sword is parallel to the wrist). |
Mine, too. I've been reading the older posts in the thread with amusement although I can't stop scratching my head at the idea that you have to use only one or the other. Even with later medieval swords, I move back and forth between the hammer and handshake grips quite naturally because I find it impossible to employ the full range of attacks and defenses for the sword if I have to restrict myself to only one mode of gripping.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | J.D. Crawford wrote: | | My natural tendency is to adopt a loose grip that easily rotates between hammer (when the sword is at right angles to the wrist) and handshake (when the sword is parallel to the wrist). |
Mine, too. I've been reading the older posts in the thread with amusement although I can't stop scratching my head at the idea that you have to use only one or the other. Even with later medieval swords, I move back and forth between the hammer and handshake grips quite naturally because I find it impossible to employ the full range of attacks and defenses for the sword if I have to restrict myself to only one mode of gripping. |
I fully agree that one can very easily transition from the one grip to the other and even in mid stroke: Just always seemed obvious to me that one doesn't choose one of these two grips and has to take a pause or a break in combat to change grips.  
This Topic is so long that I have no idea what I may have wrote before, but the above comments I do know I agree with now if not before. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary A. Chelette wrote: | | Patrick Kelly wrote: | We often fall into the trap of evaluating a technique when the results are based upon our own physical limitations. The old-timers lacked our modern conveniences, and their day to day existence would have been much more laborious than ours. A grip that may feel insecure in our soft 21st century hands probably would have been fine to a hardy viking age warrior.
|
I agree with this thought. I have spent years throwing shots in the SCA in melees and single combat and a hammer grip is slow but powerful. A looser grip increases speed and in that comes the power.
But in no way would I compare my technique with that of people who used the sword all their lives and depended on it for their lives. And by no means this is the only way they would handle a sword. Each person had his on take on what worked best.
The same is true today. |
Slung a bit of rattan in my time as well.
Have you tried cutting with a loose grip? Just clearing out some brush with a machete or cutting tatami? Try it with a loose grip and with a firm grip, see which one works best as an experiment.
It always bears re-stating that we're viewing medieval combat through a glass darkly. Since none of us has experience in the reality of sword combat (rather than modern sport forms), it's generally best to reserve judgement; all we can do is speculate.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, one's grip can be loose in the swing and tense up just on impact.
There is also loose and then much too LOOSE were you lose control of the sword and it flies away: Depends on what you mean ?
A hammer grip can be gripped hard or loose and I think the handshake grip can also be held more or less loosely !?
All things being equal, a firm hammer grip is probably firmer than a firm handshake grip.
Oh, the typical Viking grip will keep a sword from slipping out of relaxed grip as will the grip shape of a falcata or the pistol grip of a shamshir.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Oh, one's grip can be loose in the swing and tense up just on impact.
There is also loose and then much too LOOSE were you lose control of the sword and it flies away: Depends on what you mean ? |
= Edge control.
|
|
|
|
|
Jerzy Miklaszewski
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Jan, 2009 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forgive me if I tell something that was already told, but still 10 pages of information is still a little bit too much for my very short span of free time i can give for my hobbies. Nevertheless as I read many replies of yours I have noticed that the way you considered grip was stacked within two styles: hammer grip - where all fingers keep the handle tight, the other slight diagonal, but loose grip.
What I have to say is the biomechanical interpretation of the grip: (that is what I think and base on my knowledge)
AS we all know, most viking swords were considered heavy (mostly due to the length, but sometimes as well due to the width), thus the way you should swing should enable you to either use its momentum and drive it along the circular lines around it, or grip it tight and swing it with full strength from either your arm or forearm. That is at least what comes to me if I analyze it with my logic.be
Now if we add to that the way the handle is built, we often the problem that when swinging it loose, the pommel will be unpleasantly stacking with your wrist, so that you won't be able to fully wield that for a long time. So following this thinking, the second way may be more suitable to confer more reliable combat prowess.
So in this biomechanics I mentioned before, the way to properly grip with strength without loosing the hands maneuverability is griping with two small fingers (ring and pinky) tightly, the middle one with less strength and the index finger holds very lightly and the thumb with the strength of the middle finger. (it is in fact very similar to this "diagonal" way of griping, but doesn't allow such overloading of the hands' muscles)
< - this one is hard at first, as we are used to grip things with full hand, but griping with index fingers makes the muscles of the hand tight too much and the wrist is being overused and damaged.
This type of grip is described in Joachim Meyers book, is as well used by many schools of traditional kenjutsu.
It stands contrary to the typical Polish sabers type Ia grip described by Zabłocki , where the thumbs takes over much of the hands abilities and seems similar, but still not the same to the same authors polish saber type II grip, which develops much more power of the middle and index finger, as the thumb uses up completely different function. It has some elements of the grip typical to the light sabers (like Armenian or Turkish) and western falchions as they use mostly the middle and ring thingers with thumb, loosing the index and pinky which makes them very loose and easy to wield in the direct cuts.
The last way described by me is probably used by the sikh warriors in the video, but they may still have many different ways, as the anatomy of our bodies still has secret that we never really undestand
What do you think of my point of view?
Greetings to you all! it has been 8 month since my last visit here...
"Work is of two kinds, first altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter, second, telling other people to do so. The first is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid."
Bertrand Russell
Art of the old swordmasters is back to the Castle of Kings!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ole W.
Location: Norway Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I must fully agree with J.D. Crawford that religious influence is very possible, and that the hilt shapes often may resemble period Mjølnir symbols.
Furthermore, I do not believe shorter grip lengths on Viking swords are caused by a smaller hand size. On the contrary, it is possible that some modern people may have too small hands to properly handle these swords in the "handshake-grip".
From the Annals of Fulda, describing battle against vikings: "In that battle such men are said to have been killed among the Northmen as had never been seen before among the Frankish people, namely in their beauty and the size of their bodies"
Ibn Fadlan said: "I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blonde and ruddy..."
From this it can probably be established that vikings were not physically smaller than contemporary people from other cultures.
Human height dropped dramatically in the 17th century due to various factors.
The greatest average global height amongst humans was during the Stone Age. The agricultural revolution caused height to drop, likewise later middle age migration to the cities. Only now, we are apporaching stone age height,.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a