[Tom Carr]

Sorry Im coming in on this dicussion a bit late, but I just had a very extended cutting session. About 5 hours worth, and the handshake is by far the most comfortable and I might add responsive of the 2 grip styles. I tested with sword alone, and with a 8lbs Viking type shield useing multiple makers viking swords. These included a Tinker viking, an AT type X, and an Albion Gotland. The handshake works best with the cut, while the hammer grip worked best for short chops.
I had seen this thread a few days ago and I decided to do an extensive test. I switched back and forth between the two grip styles, and I have to say that both were used as curcumstanses required. In close a short strike was effective useing the hammer grip, while the handshake worked best for a more extended cut. Now it stands to reason that battles are not a static standing fight, but a rolling, fluctuating feast of gore. The shield wall will be broken at some point and will break up into a series of individual battles. At this point the handshake takes over. More room to strike needs more effective cutting grip. Even with the shield you would use it and exploit a mistake made by an enemy. Strike, feint, clash shields together, lift and push it across his body with yours and cut his legs out from under him. You need a long sweep to do this. Most of the sword wounds from Visby were leg wounds, many cut clean off. At least one lost both legs from one blow. Many of the sagas speak of arms and legs taken off so clean that the poor slob almost didnt realize it until he dropped from the sudden drop in blood preasure. Wounds come from hammer chops and break the sheild wall, but handshakes Kill!

[Elling Polden]

I realy havent done much test cutting, but I do quite a lot of sparring. Thus, a couple of questions on the performance of the handshake:

How easy is it to feint with? Can you do a controlled left-right or high-low feint?
How does it stand up to deflection? If you change to handshake, and the opponent strikes your blade as your attack, is it easy to recover control?
Blocking! (You realy dont want to lift your viking round shield to defend your head, due to 1)That you can't see anything while you do 2)Your shield will be directly in front of you, so that you cannot attack, and 3) You are practicaly begging to be disemboweled. Thus, the conventional wisdom is to block the high blows with the sword, and everything else with the shield.) If you have to block an attack while using the handshake grip, how does it perform?

Yours
Elling

[Eric Myers]

So the one thing I feel compelled to point out here, is that grips shouldn't be static. Some others have also said this I believe. All decent swordsmen that I have discussed this with (not the same as all decent swordsmen! )change their grip according to what is going on at the time. You tighten your grip a bit while cutting or parrying, but only enough to not lose your sword. You shift your grip based on what parry, deflection, guard, attack, etc you are using.

There are lots of personal preferences that we all start with, such as whether you align the cutting edge with the knuckles or with the forearm, and these are the basis of many great discussions for the meadhall. But any discussion of a sword grip pretty much has to be discussion about preference, not an argument about How It Was Done.

That said, here's my preference

My group and I have generally come to prefer holding a viking sword in a loose hammer grip as the "default grip," but we do almost no cutting with that grip. Its OK for up close work - especially close range thrusts, but I prefer to cut further out in my reach. Basically, we "cast" from hammer to handshake for the cut, slipping the pommel up to the wrist as shown in Peter's picture, and then recover to that loose hammer grip again. I can do this at very close range or at extreme reach equally comfortably, and with similar precision. Backedge cuts are always done in handshake grip though, now that I think of it, slipping the pommel before the cut and not casting at all. With a good sword (Tinker Viking) and with footwork that simulates an actual fight, we can quickly make multiple clean cuts (front and backedge) all the way through large soft targets (5-6 inches of Tatami) with horrifying ease.

The casting action significantly increases the velocity of the sword for the cut, but does not seem to negatively affect the handling. None of the occasional hits that go awry and land at an odd angle or that hit the wooden cutting stand have caused us to lose our grip on the sword, or noticeably hindered our recovery into the next move.

Slipping the pommel is only a problem if we do it with too tight a grip, then it can dig into the hand or wrist, but this rarely happens anymore.

Cheers,

[Gabriel Stevens]

I think we have to remember that getting out of the way is a nice option as well.

[Elling Polden]

[Douglas S]

[Elling Polden]

It is quite posible to do fairly realistic fighting with blunts. At least realistic enough to deduce the rest.
Basicaly, both blunt fighing and test cutting are just pieces in the puzzle.
To understand medevial fighting, you will need to recon them both in, as well as a unknown amount of other factors. As a comparison, modern warfare is more than just marksmanship.

My experience with shield fighing is that, yes, it does get in the way. But you still definitely want it, because the alternative is geting hit. You can duel without one, granted the opponent is similarly equiped, but in a battle enemy spearmen will make short work out of you.
Due to the fact that you, and your opponent will be carrying shields, most blows will be for the head. Striking for the legs is posible, but invoves moving the sword away from where it can protect your own head.
This does of course make hiting the enemy quite hard. I reccon that this would cause fighters to resolve to lots of "brawling"; Slamming into people, trying to push them over, hiting them with the pommel, and so on. The viking Svinfylking is based on this kind of fast, brutal fighting; make a tight shield wall so that you are not killed on the way in, and physically push your way into the enemy formation.
We know this beacause when you are NOT trying to hurt people badly, the svinfylking does not work

yours
elling

[Tom Gilreath]

I am a new member of myArmoury.com and this is my first post. I felt I had to contribute even a tiny bit to this extremely interesting thread. It seems to me that knowledge is advanced by open, candid discussion and criticism. That is precisely what we are doing here. Perhaps more so, at least in this particular instance, than in more "legitimate" forums. Kudos to all of you! As long as the back-biting remains absent, I believe we will get somewhere with this.

I would tend to agree with the posters who thought that the Vikings probably allowed their grip to shift, depending upon the circumstances present. There's no reason to maintain either grip, when the other grip would better serve. Is there an agreement that both grips were utilized to some extent? Has the discussion come down to which grip was used most frequently? If so, then how often did the Vikings fight in close quarters as opposed to man to man combat? When they were in single combat, did they press and close using the shield as a weapon even then which might prevent them from making sweeping cuts (handshake grip)?

The handshake grip is definitely more comfortable for me, even when making shorter chops, because my tendency is to break the wrist (that is, to turn the hand in the direction of the blow) which would cause the pommel to dig into my wrist. Now this is just my own assessment and I/we have little idea about how the Vikings were trained to fight. They may have been trained not to break the wrist, but it seems to limit movement somewhat.

Then again, what do I know?

Tom

[Steve Fabert]

[Patrick Kelly]

Welcome aboard Tom.

Yes that is my general opinion, that both grips were used as the circumstances dictated. This was probably one of those "no brainer" kind of things during the age. I find that my most effective cuts with a single handed sword combine the two. By starting the cut with a hammer grip and then transitioning to a handshake grip as the cut reaches it's apex (or the moment before contact), I find that this gives the cut that effective "pop" without having to break the wrist. By keeping the grip supple (to use Peter's term) the shift is rather effortless and really doesn't take a lot of forethought to accomplish.

"............more "legitimate" forums."

[Tom Gilreath]

"............more "legitimate" forums."

I was being a bit sarcastic when I typed that, Patrick. I was referring to the impression some people have of strictly internet discussions as opposed to, perhaps, the writings or discussions of "experts" or professors in this field of study or in a strictly educational setting, such as a college. Not at all a slam against anyone here, in fact, just the opposite. From what I have read here and elsewhere, it seems that the good folks here are quite knowledgeable and have very valid points. The fact that a debate of this nature can be held here without sniping and personal vendettas is inspirational and certainly only adds to the quality and, indeed, the "legitimacy" of what is being done here.

Thanks to you all for such thought provoking posts! I'm loving it!

Tom

[Mats Norlund]

I think that using the hammergrip vill shorten the movment of your hand. Also, holding the svord static in a handshake grip makes your grip weak.
Combine the two grip and you have a winner.

[Alex Oster]

[Elling Polden]

[Martin Wallgren]

I also think one should think of the thrusting! In all swordfighting that is of equal or more degree important as a cut or slash This goes for fighting with scandinavian swords from the period 700 to 1100 to. And in my experience when shields are in use this is verry true. It´s one of the best ways to get passed the shield. With the grip Peter is showing the agility of the sword is increast and this helps alot in fighting.

Just my humble input in the debate.

Martin

[Stephen Hand]

Interesting topic gentlemen. As is usual in this sort of thing I had to say "I don't know, I'll let my body tell me". So I went out, grabbed one of my Viking swords and went through a number of the actions shown in Manuscript I.33, the world's oldest fencing manual. I found my hand constantly moving between a hammer grip and a handshake grip. Some actions were impossible with one, some impossible with the other. In many actions I found myself seamlessly transitioning between the two grips. That suggests to me that both grips must have been used.

Thank you for making me think about it.

Cheers
Stephen

[Charles G.]

It seems to me that two key points are missing in the discussion on Viking sword gripping techniques: (1) what were the tactical circumstances of use and (2) what where the physical characteristics of the individual sword owner.

In regards to the first, it must be emphasised that, in the Viking Age, the sword was really a secondary, not primary, melee weapon. The primary weapon seems to have been the spear. It was this, then, that was used in a shield wall, not a sword. Thus, arguments that a certain grip must have been used since it (allegedly) works better in a shield wall (coupled with those that insist that the Viking Age sword was designed as a specific tool for this particular tactical circumstance) seem to shoot wide of the mark.

Indeed, the long slashing sword has almost always been a secondary weapon, intended for open order combat. With the exception of the Roman Legion use of the short gladius (a different sort of sword, in any event) in tight formations, long swords (or shearing/slashing swords in general) seem to have no place in a shield wall. This point is reinforced by the disasters that befell the Celts when using such weapons in formations against the Romans especially in the 1st Cent. B.C. and onward.

The only time one sees the slashing type swords as primary weapons seems to be in the Late Bronze and earlier Iron Ages, starting with the Naue II types. In this period one finds the heavily armed skirmisher as the arbiter of battle, armed with javelins and his sword (c.f. Drews’ “End of the Bronze Age”), in complete ascendance over the formerly supreme chariot armies, who in turn had achieved preeminence over the simple short spear phalanx formations of the earlier Bronze Ages.

Only the introduction of Hoplite Phalanx tactics changed this, relegating the skirmisher to a secondary (though still important) role. However, away from the intense military evolution that was going on in the Mediterranean, the Celts at least seem to have persisted with the “skirmisher” mentality, and the sword seems to have maintained a central role in warfare, with the javelin as the primary missile weapon. I say this based upon the amount of effort and iron that went into the elaborate sword suspension chains often found with these swords. The iron of the scabbard and its chains was often heavier than the sword itself! This was necessary to keep the scabbard firmly fixed in place so as not to entangle in the bearer’s legs whilst running, and thus would seem an item of serious concern for a skirmisher, who must of necessity be fleet of foot.

There is obviously a lot we do not know from this time period; regardless, the main point is simply that without knowledge of the tactical niche the sword filled in the Viking Age, it is difficult to ascertain specifics on its actual use in battle, and thus deduce fighting techniques.

The second problem is that, so far as I know, no one has ever bothered to conduct a study that examines the skeletal remains (presumably of the owner) found with the sword, which would go a long ways towards sorting out what size hand was appropriate to what size grip. Granted that cremations are not uncommon, and that one cannot be certain that a person buried with a particular weapon actually ever used it, nevertheless I feel that such a study would be very helpful.

We often forget that a sword was either made, or modified, to suit a particular wielder and his fighting style. This is often missed in even high-end reproductions these days - only with katanas have I ever seen any sort of indication that the sword should be sized to suit the wielder. However, I highly doubt that such attention to detail was something only the clever little Japanese managed to figure out... I would wager serious money that similar considerations drove some aspects of sword sizing in the Viking Age.

I believe that a crucial gap in our understanding of period swords and swordsmanship hinges on this glaring omission, and that it is imperative that we treat the sword and its wielder as a unified fighting system (when possible), rather than examining the sword by itself and, in effect, out of context.

How to do this is beyond me - I have zero access to the swords themselves, much less any corporeal remains associated with them. Whether or not archaeologists have even bothered to keep track of which skeletal remains belong with which swords is an open question - I would like to think that they have but, frankly, most archaeologists are as dumb as toast (present company on this Forum exempted, of course), and I have my worries.

As to what to measure, I do not know - bones associated with the hands, arms, and legs seem the likely candidates, to determine length of said members and also overall height. But I am no anatomist, and leave the answering of this question to those qualified to do so. Whatever is measured would then be compared with blade and grip length (at least) and see what happens.

Should such a study ever be conducted (unlikely, I would guess) and should certain proportions become evident (unlikelier, I fear, owing to the likely fragmentary nature of the evidence) then one ought to gain some very keen insight into how to grip and use a given sword.

That’s my story and I’m sticking with it!

[Patrick Kelly]

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

[Patrick Kelly]