[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Note that George Silver used something along the lines of a sabre grip for his variable fight, with the thumb long the handle. He did claim this wasn't very effective for parrying strong blows in his open fight or guardant fight:

[J.D. Crawford]

Just to throw another wrench in the works, I recently purchased a Viking-style sword with an historically accurate grip that was so short I could not get the hammer or handshake grip to work effectively. I ended up using something something like a 'gun grip', shifting the index finger upwards nearly to the point of hooking the guard. So, whatever works I guess.

http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=36018

[Ryan Hobbs]

Ah, i tend to choke down pretty far. I have an Albion Squire line Viking and a few blunt "Viking" swords, and the handshake grip just feels absolutely natural when using them. I find my edge alignment with my squire line Viking is much better than the next gen sword I have using a hammer grip. I also appreciate the wrist flick that can be used with the handshake grip.

[Tom King]

I've glossed over but haven't read the whole thread so it may have been addressed, but at least in fighting with a longsword redirecting and counter cutting is far more important than any form of strong block. if you step back and block with the weak of the blade and redirect versus trying to do a hard block like in movies you can counter cut easily.

the hammer grip by itself is extremely limiting and it needs to be remembered that for most fighting I.33 style and assumedly earlier the SHIELD is what you're using to block with, not the sword itself. A loose grip on a sword you only intend to hit flesh, not another sword, is perfectly fine with the proper follow through to the cut.

[Greg Ballantyne]

Something occurred to me while cutting some targets with a reproduction Viking sword last month - the use of the pommel and the grip after the cut. While this is a departure from the "hammer vs. handshake" subject, it is related. Using large one hand cutting swords exposes the wielder to the risk of losing the sword due to difficulty removing the sword from the target after some cuts.

While these swords were not the main battle weapon of choice, they were prized, expensive, and very important go the owner especially while being used. Last resort weapons or duelling weapons, in either scenario, retention, or maintaining possession of the sword is quite important.

While cutting some fairly soft targets (large pumpkins) the large pommel was very handy for quickly dislodging the blade from a cut that wanted to hang onto it. Pumpkins I'm sure are not the same as active muscle and bone targets, which would perhaps hang onto the blade a little more....

[Steve Fabert]

Nearly all of my swords have blades designed primarily for thrusting. So I find myself naturally grasping their hilts by placing my thumb on the cross, with its tip directed toward the sword's point. I do this whether the sword has a single-hand grip or a hand-and-a-half. It's the same grip I would use in handling a two-edged fighting knife with a sharp point. It would be very awkward to thrust accurately if I held the sword the way I would grip a hammer. Perhaps if I were holding a sword with a Type X or XIII blade I might shift over & handle it as I would grip a hammer. Does the comfort of the grip depend on the planned use of the blade, or am I imagining things?

[Jacek Gramlowski]

Hello guys!
Firstly my post is related for early age only. Second i put aside a grip with finger in front of guard which i believe is fine, even though it is little bit risky.

And therefore for earlier (especially viking)age a so called handshake grip as a standart feature is a new age construct and nonsense...with few exceptions.
I think Matt has summarized it very well. Lets watch his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KOIzQI999w
Plenty of depiction posted here as a handshake grip, are actualy normal grips in extended position. Handshake grip hasnt its pomel under and behind wrist like in those pictures.
Even in "bible" of dimicator the I.33, there is not a single one depiction of handshake grip. All fingers are always depicted in front of pommel. And once again letting pommel get on the inner side of your wrist or loosening your grip isnt miracle handshake grip. In fact the so called handshake grip is very situational. Basing whole system on such situational thing is risky at least.
Same goes for their active viking shield overuse. In this case it is more legit and less situational than handshake grip but again basing whole sistem on one thing is wrong. This one is for another discussion.

Lets get to those exceptions.
Of course such grip is fine for thrusting weapons, sabers/messers/dussacks or other later weapons.

With early medieval sabres and palashes, which are my point of interest, i ocasionaly use it. I believe, it is possible to use it even with viking or other type of early sword.
In first situation, you must be sure that you would be succesful or at least hit oponent or you would end up in his position. Generaly i use it when i have a reach advantage or against much less skilled oponent. Situation looks like this one even with shields and much more archaic weaponry: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/images/p54stop.jpg
Second situation is harrasing slower oponent with low reach from distance(often without chance of hitting) to read his reactions. Both situations are very rare.

Lets sum it up again.

As some of guys here already posted such grip is very VERY weak both in deffensive and offensive actions. And you would never discover its full weakness, until you go for full speed and power. It is similar with french versus belgian grip in sport fencing but problem is that in early age fighting was far more power dependant and you gain much less reach. Matt pointed it probably better than me in his video.

When you use such grip in full speed and power, you would discover another unplesant feature. It is slow recovery. Simply you need longer time for making another type of movement in both defensive and ofensive way. It is not a big difference, but in full speed combat even little delay could be(and often is) that difference betveen win vs loose, or life vs death, if you wish. You can say, that you dont need to use sword defensively, or you can say you always hit. That idea is however as silly ,as is going to modern conflict without bulletproof vest and helmet, armed only with WW2 repeater gun.

What it gives you in other hand?.. Little bit more reach, accuracy and single use speed.

So in the end: Use it if you wish but be aware, that first oponent skilled in feinting, or good in distance, or tempo play would quickly show you, how bad idea is to depend on it.


[/u]

[Geoffroy Gautier]

Even if the handshake grip is sub-par or shoddy... so what? People have been doing things sloppily since basically forever. What is the proportion of people in your area to properly use the turn signal? How many people drive drunk, or without their seat belt attached? And its also a matter of life and death, and we have national programs to tell us how to behave properly, which by the way is just common sense, and there are laws and a police to punish us when we overlook them, and yet it's still done over and over again. So give us a break about your theories. It was done, by the very virtue that it can be done. Depictions are unreliable whatsoever, and can't be used as an argument one way or the other.

[Jacek Gramlowski]

[Geoffroy Gautier]

My post wasn't meant for you specially, but to adress that whole theory that "it wasn't done because it's not good". Some people drive drunk in France, some people drive without seatbelt in France, quite a lot of people don't seem to know what turn signals are in France, and this is really not a question of chauvinistic pride but basic fact that people are and have been acting shoddily since man is man. Whatever your degree of experience or expertise is, whatever your conclusions are, my only point is that you can't assume all swordsmen were clever, competent, and performance-oriented. Just as in any population, many were dim, stubborn, or incompetent.

We don't know how each one trained and envisioned training, how serious or superficial they were about it, what role it played in their individual life, etc... We don't know how individual or collective the training was. We don't know what good and relevant or shitty and unfounded hearsays or advices were circulating around in communities. And I don't mean ten or fifteen texts scattered over the course of half a millennium and for a whole continent, I mean fine, granular data, with corpus of at least a handful of texts per "sampling unit" (no longer than 25 years and no larger than a large diocese). We basically know nothing scientifically, it's a bit of extrapolation and a huge lot of wishful thinking.

And even if from actual data we could gather that there was good communication and information exchange among swordsmen, which tended to make practices more homogeneous, standardized and performance-oriented, and less prone to individual fantasy and shoddyness, we wouldn't be much more advanced, as even nowadays, HEMA practitioners seems to disagree on whether or not handshake grip is best, hammer grip is best, or that your grip depends on the situation.

[Johannes Zenker]

There are at least three very different approaches to reconstructing medieval combat that yield different conclusions and assumptions.

1. Tournament-Style HEMA sparring. The gear somewhat limits your mobility (older/heavier jackets and gloves especially), the common heavier gloves are more likely to receive hits that bare fingers would have been protected from by a properly aligned crossguard, the Feder is a mediocre sword simulator (usually improper mass distribution, excessive length-per-weight, often too flexible), and most importantly getting hit is basically inconsequential. The priority is hitting the opponent. If you double, you double. Depending on the scoring system, you can even "win" by points from a double hit.

Consequences: Snipes, overreliance on the "vor" rather than control (of "the center" or the opponent's weapon), reckless actions, lots and lots of hits that aren't clean - either because they were shoddily executed or doubled. Heavy gloves also limit your sensitivity in a bind and your ability to use "angled" grips on your sword. That alone restricts "fencing" and leads to more "bashing".

2. Bloßfechten, usually with blunt swords (currently most prominently done by Dimicator, can also be seen by others, with other weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wfet9yxsE , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWBlV4r2wlQ ). Basically no movement restrictions (somewhat limited by the mask of worn), choice of Feder or blunt sword (handling quality varies wildly). Yes, you kinda don't want to smash your partner's skull, wrist, ribs, knee or elbow, but that doesn't make you all that slower. The far bigger impact on speed is self-preservation: you need to be safe, because you don't want to GET hit. That's way more important than hitting the other guy. Depending on who you're doing it with and what school you're in you may end up hitting the opponent with reasonable force ("fencing to the touch") or you may stop your hit either before impact or even at the moment both you and your partner realize that you could land it. The latter (fencing to the opening) is obviously what is required for "safe and sane" practice with sharp swords.

Consequences: snipes, especially to the hands, blade binds, grabs, grappling, far fewer double hits. A Zwerch at speed is obviously not allowed to land (if not wearing masks), but the Zwerch of which Meyer is so fond is often NOT a very safe action. Gripping technique in this type of simulation varies a lot and is very situational. You often end up standing in guard with a "hammer" grip, but as soon as the sword is moving and a bind is established a "forward" grip (call it handshake if you will) becomes relevant.

3. Buhurt-Style Full-Contact fighting (SCA, Buhurt, Battle of the Nations, M1). Restricted mobility (helmet, armor, gauntlets), wide range of simulators, getting hit with a swing or thrust at force usually won't be very painful, and depending on scoring system also won't yield any points (and I think it shouldn't - you're wearing armor, after all).

Consequences: lots of flailing and bashing leading to a grappling situation (which is really what has to happen against armor if you aren't equipped or able to thrust in a weak spot). No finesse in gripping swords whatsoever due to immobile-yet-vital hand protection. Also not really any need for finesse, you're having a melee, not a fencing duel.



Neither of those approaches are perfect, all offer some insight, yet conclusions drawn from one situation don't necessarily apply to a different situation. Yes, the handshake grip makes little sense in a situation where you don't engage in blade binds. Yes, the "hammer" grip has its place in swordfighting, either if you're not concerned about range and blade binds or if your gear prevents it in the first place.


(dis)honorable mention: There are some who engage in contact "Bloßfechten" with sharp swords. While those sometimes claim that they're the closest you could get to a real swordfight, they too have restrictions imposed upon themselves: e.g. wearing a helmet with aventail as well as bulky gauntlets (and, funny enough, ignoring hits to the armored regions), as well as not thrusting at all. (for reference [GRAPHIC] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rzLyx779W0 ). The takeaway there is basically "distance is really really important".


Interesting articles for reference:
https://chivalricfighting.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/why-you-should-train-with-sharp-swords-and-how-to-go-about-it-without-killing-anyone/
https://guywindsor.net/blog/2013/10/how-to-spot-the-bullshit-in-any-martial-arts-drill-and-what-to-do-about-it/
http://www.xkdf.org/blog/2016/10/31/triangulation-in-hema

[Jacek Gramlowski]

[Jacek Gramlowski]

[Johannes Zenker]

Yeah, Sword and Shield are a weird one in terms of simulation, simply because of the contexts in which such a fight might occur.
Sword + (large) Shield but no armor? Probably a duel, historical "Holmganga" and the like, or a personal feud between (norse) families that escalated.
Sword + (large) Shield + a little armor (helmet, maybe bracers, maybe a gambeson at most)? Maybe a Viking raid on a town with little defense, but I'm pretty sure every raider would have opted for more armor.
Sword + (large) Shield + decent armor (lamellar armor, mail shirt, helmet, maybe bracers and gloves?)? Viking raid or battle in an armed conflict. While I think this is the most likely context we now have the problem that we are wearing ARMOR, so cutting (on the protected parts at least) won't do any good, and thrusts won't do against anything armored with more than cloth (Gambeson, leg wraps)

The important bit is that as soon as we have any armor, the entire dynamic of the fight changes - targets become unavailable, hits can be shrugged off, direct attacks with the sword won't accomplish much anymore. Practicing for unarmored situations and armored situations are two very different things, and the overlap is rather small. That starts already at the realization that a knight with an estoc/longsword in full armor is pretty much just as scary as a knight with a dagger wearing full armor. The reach advantage matters a lot less.

A few more thoughts on the guys wailing at each other with sharp swords:

They are performing duels to first blood within very specific rules. No thrusts, armored head, armored hands that are apparently ignored when struck. It is all about landing one cut, regardless of how inconsequential it is. That's fine for student saber (which they do as well, and that looks pretty decent), but it has probably even less to do with a duel that aims for a killing blow than any Bloßfechten or HEMA tournament.

Now they will argue "we don't care if those self-proclaimed "masters" say that their techniques are "too dangerous" in free play, we fight for real", but really, they don't. If they did, they'd quickly realize that those techniques *are* in fact too dangerous for unarmored sharp full contact freeplay.

Much more interesting were their Gassenhauer duels, about which my only criticism would be: Why did they even hack away at one another? Once the close fighting began it looked somewhat reasonable.

I also don't see how they "debunked" any "myth" about swords being somewhat sticky in a bind. In a wild flailing duel like they have binds don't occur, and the substantial force of impact prevents the blades from sticking to one another. They simply take chunks out of the edge. Whenever a controlled bind *does* occur between sharp blades, they bite.

It's a matter of conviction. You believe that an actual swordfight would look somewhat like a Holmgang Hamburg duel or a HEMA tournament. You may be right or wrong. I do not believe that (anymore). I think Dimicator's free swordplay is probably the closest we've gotten. I may be right or wrong.

We may also both be right AND wrong, as results may vary wildly between individual combatants.