[Joel Thompson]

Just one last thought here. When you show someone how to hold a later period sword, you show them the handshake grip only (I hope). You don't say, "You can also hold it like a hammer and make chopping motions". I think the Vikings did the opposite. "You hold a sword this way (like an axe or a hammer)." This was the "normal" way. The "usual" way. Anything beyond that was esoteric.

Joel

[Patrick Kelly]

[Geoff Wood]

[Peter Johnsson]

[Howard Waddell]

to weigh in on the level of "sophistication" when it comes to swordsmanship in ancient times...

I used to be somewhat of a martial artist, studying Chinese forms. In my college studies in ancient Irish history, I came across a reference in one of the Irish hero tales, about Cuchulain' arrival at the King's court in Ulster. Cuchulain is described as trying to join a hurling game in process, and the boys of the court responded by throwing their hurling sticks and ball at him -- and he defended himself using his hands, feet, forearms and elbows. That sounds a lot like a martial art to me. Later in life he attended a fighting "school" run by a woman.

If the early Celts had fighting systems, who are we to say that the Vikings or any other people from an earlier time did not as wel? Just because they aren't written down?

We tend to dismiss more "primitive" cultures as purely survival oriented and not thinking about the BIG Questions or developing their own systems and processes for dealing with the world around them. Just looking at our own culture, I would not say that more available leisure time equates to greater thinking -- in fact, the opposite. We have already seen that the design of swords was far more complex than ever thought before. Modern physics and quantum theory are starting to sound closer and closer to the primitive shaman's view of the world, for example

An open mind, and a careful and thoughtful approach to reenactment are the only way we can begin to approach an understanding of what these people thought or how they dealt with the world. We have to leave our assumptions at the door -- our ancestors surprise us at every step along the path of rediscovery.


Just my hundredth of a cent on this.

Best,

Howy

[Geoff Wood]

Peter
Thanks for responding with, as always, an excellent and informative post. My reference to the 'one true grip' was meant to be lighthearted ( I haven't mastered the vocabulary of small grey [that's gray for transponders] faces to indicate states of levity etc..). However, it was in response to your use of the expression 'the proper way to hold a viking sword' near the top of your original post. To me, that suggested that you think there is only one proper way, or you would have written 'one of the proper ways'.
Just to illustrate where I'm coming from, none of my swords are blunt, and I don't engage in re-enactments (although they do look like great fun). I do have a long history, from childhood, of using a variety of cutting tools, but never against a person. However, I fully accept that you have far greater exprience of original swords, and of accurate reconstructions, than I could ever hope to have.
I don't consider earlier cultures to be necessarily less capable. I find statements such as 'the Egyptians couldn't possibly have built the pyramids' to be silly, since they obviously did, so it is, as you say, up to us to work out how they did it, if we are at all interested in the question. However (yes, another one), I think that people fighting, for real, will often behave in a primitive fashion, even nowadays, and that should be taken into account when trying to understand the tools they use.
Any way, back to the discussion. Trying to summarize, you seem to be saying, if you hold it like A you can't cut like B. Joel seems to be saying, if I hold it like A, I can cut like C, and I'm not trying to cut like B because it appears unrealistic to me (e.g. when I'm holding a shield). I'm saying, why is it shaped like D if you're meant to hold it like E so that you can do B with it. Some things, such as the relative flatness of some pommels, make E appear (to me) more likely, but not all pommels are flat. Some things, such as the pommel/upper guard curving away from the grip, make A appear more likely to me, but they don't all curve away and, as Risto pointed out, some curve towards the grip.
Just to throw another couple into the pot, the curving of the cross/lower guard away from the grip on some swords is possibly easier to explain if you assume the hammer grip (unless you think that it is more to do with stopping an opponents sword slipping by than with making more room for the hand and for the latter to move at the wrist - however, I think they may have tended to use the shield to deflect the opponents sword rather than their own sword). If the handshake grip was primary, why are symmetrical pommels still used on single edged swords? Given that only the fingers on the 'edge' side would be bearing on the pommel/upper guard anyway, rather than the rear of the whole hand as in the hammer grip, why wouldn't they have used the opportunity to take advantage of an asymmetric pommel design?
Regards
Geoff

[Allen W]

I believe vinegar was widely used as a disinfectant in the middle ages.

[Sean Flynt]

Can't resist posting the great "Wound Man" medical illustration of 1617. You'll find this in Blood Red Roses, too, as part of that book's discussion of wounds in the Towton victims. Also, to wander back to the main thread, I noticed last night while handling a cheap Mainz gladius that the pommel severely restricts cutting motions when I use a hammer grip. The handshake grip resolved this problem exactly as Peter and others have described. I know, I know...apples and oranges, thrusting sword vs. cutting sword, etc. But I thought it was interesting to note that whether or not the technique was ever used with the gladius, it does at least facilitate cutting motions with this particular replica. Now on to the hapless wound man....

[Gabriel Stevens]

Ummm.............ouch!

[Douglas S]

Very interesting topic! I wish I had posted earlier.

Very little mention of actual test-cutting or tameshigiri, which, I believe, quickly solves the most effective manner of handling a Viking sword. If you intend to use the hammer grip, warn your bystanders to stand back, for you have a very good chance of losing control of your blade.

We have a tendency to equate a firm grip with strength, and a lighter grip with weakness. It reminds me of the wiseacres who observed the first Viking ship excavatation, measured the thickness of the planks, and concluded that the ships could not possibly used at sea... until somebody sailed one across the ocean.

The same misconception remains with the shields of the Vikings (and like people): their quarter-inch thickness convinces some that they were only used for display. Maybe, just maybe, the Vikings had an understanding of where real power comes from...

[Lloyd Clark]

I am definitely going to agree with Douglas' post. When I was taking Kenjutsu and Iaido while in Japan, my Kiyoshi taught us to use a "light grip" on the sword and not to hold it "hard like a shovel." It wasn't until some years later when I was demonstrating draw cuts on thrown 2 liter plastic bottles that I REALLY came understand what he meant.

I worked at Medieval Times in Schaumburg, Illinois and between shows we were out back of the castle and I was throwing up apples and partially filled 2 liter bottles, drawing my katana, and cutting them on either the upstroke or downstroke. One toss was a "bit" too far out and I lost serious focus on my drawing technique, clamping down hard on the tsuka and attempting to mechanically draw fast to reach the bottle. While I did accomplish my aim, I also lost control of the blade (the first time and only time that has ever happened) and ended up throwing the katana to my right and behind me (luckily, no one was standing there). The sole reason I lost control is because I grabbed it "like a shovel" and not like a sword.

So, I would be one practitioner that advocates for the "handshake" over the "hammer" grip.

[Joel Thompson]

If I'm reading Geoff's post correctly, I'm basically inagreement with him. I guess the best way to state my take on the grip is to say that I beieve the hammer grip is what warriors of the Viking age used as their normal grip. Not what is proper or correct or what's comforable to us today, but simply what they used. My reasons are based primarily on the design of the guard and pommel, but also on the way I believe they fought.
Even though these swords could have been gripped with the handshake grip, and even though this grip will give a better cut in many ways, I don't think it was used much with their style of fighting. First, most fighters used a comparatively large shield. This hinders a follow through motion. Second, most parrying and blocking was done with the shield, not the sword. Third, when fighting someone who has a large shield, many strikes are simply not practical to attempt. Such as a mid-level horizontal swing. Your opponent need not even move his shield to intercept. Legs shots may of course be done, but they require a bit of room with the handshake grip because your elbow must extend to bring the sword around into play. Difficult in close quarters fighting. In single combat, the handshake grip can be used freely due to having plenty of room, but is it practical against the shield compared to the hammer grip? Hopefully, we can agree that the arm must be extended to bring the blade into play with the handshake grip. This means that your range must be a bit farther away from your opponent in order to bring the blade down over the shield or to hit him with the sweet spot of the blade. This makes it easier for your opponent to have the time to parry your strike. However, if you are in close, using the hammer grip, not only can you strike over and around the shield, but you can even get inside the shield with you pommel and pull the shield back while simultaneously making a cut.
Ibelieve the Vikings were really expert at using the shield. They were used to being close enough to their opponent to jam and hit and slam and push with it. At this range, the handshake grip is simply not as handy as the hammer style. The type of cuts you can make are limited anyway. Most parrying is done with the shield anyway. So I believe that the Vikings didn't use the grip much because it simply wasn't practical. And they designed their sword handles for the hammer grip for that reason.
As for test cutting, I have done much with many styles of swords and grips. The big difference with the hammer grip comes when you cut something fairly substantial like a cardboard tube. Mats and plastic water bottles are too easy and don't resist much. But try cutting couple of carpet tubes with a Viking sword using the handshake grip. That pommel digs into the base of your palm with each hit. I realize that this is my own opinion, but for me another reason not to use this grip in combat. Now I have held only one artifact blade, one owned by Dr. Lee Jones who was nice enough to let me play a bit.
A lovely tenth century blade from Sweden if memory serves. I found the hammer grip quite comfortable even with my large hand. Dr. Jones had put a new wooden handle on the sword, but the original pommel and guard were in place.
One last question for Peter, but anyone can feel free to share an opinion. I would like, however, Peter's opinion on the reason(s) for the change from the Viking age style of pommels and guards to the other styles as times went by. For me, it seems obvious that the style of swordsmanship was changing. Less dependency on a large shield, as we see in the earliest known fighting manual the I.33. Better and more prevalent body armor. More swords in use on the battlefield. All reasons for more finesse when using a sword. The need to rotate the wrist for parrying and and other sword on sword techniques. So the swords were altered to allow this finesse. Altered to allow a comfortable handshake grip.
Peter?

Thanks for reading all this,

Joel

[Shane Allee]

[quote="Joel Thompson"]

[Joel Thompson]

Well, let me ask a couple of questions here. Do you actually fight, or have you done so? And I mean fight with some intent, not re-enactor style staged combat. And, have you done any test cutting as I've suggested? And, what period depictions are you referring to? Please don't say the Bayeaux Tapestry.
My point about the shields and types of strikes is that if you don't have a reason to do something, you don't design a tool to do it and, generally speaking, you don't the hold the tool you did design with any grip that isn't needed for your purpose. A large shield hinders your follow through. So you don't need a follow through with a chopping motion. So, why would you change your grip to get a better follow through, when it isn't practical? Why change your grip to get a better cut, when there isn't room to make the cut?
When you fight in close, that grip really doesn't help. Even with longsword, I change to a hammer grip when I'm in close. I don't believe these people had a reason to use the handshake grip very often, and therefore didn't.
And sword parrying requires more rotation of the wrist, more subtle movement of the hand. The handshake grip helps in this area due to its being less rigid. But if you don't do many sword parries because you primarily use your shield, then you don't need to chnge to a handshake grip. It doesn't help anything.

Joel


P.S. I don't belive the Celts and Romans used the handshake grip either.

[Patrick Kelly]

A word of caution here gentlemen. This has been a very productive thread thus far. Let's keep it civil.

Disagreement is fine, but don't turn it into a personal issue.

[Geoff Wood]

[Joel Thompson]

My apologies as well. I shall also discontinue. I will however post the promised pictures.

Joel

[Patrick Kelly]

You're fine Geoff.

I'm not advising anyone to stop or discontinue since the discussion has been very interesting. However, the last couple of posts have gotten a bit confrontational, and that's always a bad sign. So let's just keep the discourse at an academic level.

[Risto Rautiainen]

What about some early norman hilt models? Would you use the handshake grip with them? If you look at this norman hilt:

http://www.aiusa.com/medsword/vmuseum/vmx17.html

(click the red square over the hilt) you will see that the pommel is 9,2cm (~3,6in) long. And if the pic isn't distorted you can extrapolate that the grip is about the same length. That's less than 4 in. And that's a quite pointy pommel.

I made a short training sword using that hilt as a model. The pommel in my sword is only 8,8cm (~3,5 in) long and the hilt is 10cm (~4 in) long. But the pommel was gnawing very badly to my wrist and I thought that I made the handle too short. Now that I read this post and tried the handshake grip, I noticed that it works much better. And it would work even more better if the grip was shorter. Now if I use gloves, the grip feels just right.

[Shane Allee]

Sorry Joel I'm afraid that I haven't tried to kill anyone with a sword, so I guess I'm really not qualified to speak on this subject. Also per your request I have not included any depictions of the "hand shake" grip used in the Bayeux Tapestry.

The Archaeology of Weapons, R. Ewart Oakeshott; pg 172 figure 77
From the MS of St. Gall, circa 900-950 "C" depicting the little finger over the pommel.
Oakeshott comments, "a curiously awkward grip shown in very many of these tenth-century drawings;...."

The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England, Hilda Ellis Davidson; Illustrations XVI number 114

Hastings 1066, Osprey Military Campaign series, Christopher Gravett; pg 36
Early 11th century, MS Cotton Cleopatra C. viii fl8v; The British Museum Library
A duel, combatant on the right using "hammer" grip while the combatant on the left uses a "hand shake" grip.

Viking Weapons & Warfare, J. Kim Siddorn; pg 69 figure 31
illustrated depiction of the above "judicial combat" by Levick

Anglo-Saxon Weapons & Warfare, Richard Underwood; pg 130 figure 74
Eleventh century, MS Cotton Claudius B IV f24v "Confusion of the Battlefield"
Clear depiction of a "hammer" grip in the middle center, however a depiction of the "handshake" grip by the King wearing mail located in the upper left hand corner. This is a photo from the British Museum, although illustrations of the scene can be found in a variety of other books.

Shane