[Mike West]

Most production longswords seem to have grips of 7"-8". It would seem that a longer grip, say, 10" would give the sword better handling characteristics (such as control), especially with a long blade (35"-40".)

I have an old MRL Del TIn(38" blade) as my only example and, while my hands fit on the 7" grip, I often find myself gripping the pommel as it feels much better. Bill Grandy's recent article mentioned one medieval sword teacher's advice about not gripping the pommel. A 10" grip would improve things, I think.

Why don't we see more such blades with longer grips? Was such a length historical? Would a 10" grip change the way a sword is used for cutting, or German swordsmanship, than a 7" grip?

Thank you.

[Bill Grandy]

Hi Mike,
Grip length is really just personal preference. There are historical swords with longer grips and ones with shorter ones. Some masters gripped the pommel, some didn't. I personally grip the pommel, and like a reasonably long grip, but the very long ones feel funny to me. Some of my students prefer the really long ones.

If a 10" grip feels right to you, then that's probably what you should use. It doesn't inherently give better handling characteristics, though it does change the feel. The leverage may be better, though it may also sacrifice some cutting ability as well. What's more important, though, is how it relates to the rest of the sword: If we over analyze one aspect of the sword alone, we tend to ignore more important aspects.

[Mike West]

The 7" grip on mine doesn't seem to give me enough control over the blade, especially when I have commited to a cut.
I just cut and, the blade has to move in the direction it was sent. Recovering seems to be kind of tough until the blade has completed it's arc. Things change for the better when I grip the pommel. My hands are in a hemmer grip when gripping the handle alone, but I have more of a handshake grip when I use the pommel.

Since the grip and, pommel together make about 9.5" in length, I was thinking that a longer grip would be better.

Your article is the only thing I have to go by for the German school. I've printed it and, use it for backyard drills.

The passing of the feet seems to be necessary when cutting with such a large sword (nearly 4 lb's.)

[Lancelot Chan]

Just to say that long grip isn't anything wrong. I use 10 to 12 inches grip on both my personal longsword. I also grip the pommel. I have friends who prefer shorter grip or not gripping the pommel. Well as long as they can do the same outcome, why not?

[Bill Grandy]

I'm not familiar with the sword you have specifically, but it's possible it has more to do with the sword overall than the grip specifically. I don't know.

But if you feel more comfortable gripping the pommel, then definately do so. The master quoted in the article, Doebringer, is claiming that having the hands closer gives a more powerful cut. But it is clear from many illustrations that other master thought gripping the pommel to be more helpful.

I find that swords with short grips make me want to grip the pommel, swords with long grips make me want to grip the handle. There are certain swords that feel more comfortable with something that shifts in between these grips. Overall it's just a matter for what feels right for a particular sword and a particular user.

[Sean Flynt]

By the way, swords of Oakeshott Type XVIIIb have exceptionally long grips--11" or 12". So, 10" is certainly historically plausible, especially for 15th c. German longswords. See Dürer images for historic examples of these long grips.

Type XVIII spotlight: http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_spotxviii.html

[Jörg W.]

I only got a wheel pommel sword and it feels comfortable to grip the pommel with techniques that require a gab between the hands. But are there any pommel types that aren't good to be gripped so that longer grips are preferred? i think about type V.

And to add something else on the subject, I think that a too long grip might be a handicap for some sword techniques. Especially one hand techniques and halfswording should change with longer grips. Sometimes it is suggested that the length of the grip should be matter of the users forearm and hand size. i'm not sure if the usual preference of long grips represents the history. Maybe we just don't know enough about the handling yet or some of us (including me) just didn't handled enough good (longer grip preferred with misbalanced pieces?) swords yet.

[Mike West]

The sword I currently have has the same blade as the Del Tin 2146, and has a different pommel and cross guard. It probably handles the same. The MRL version was sold by them in the 1980's and, is in some of the very original catalogs.

[Jean Thibodeau]

At the other extreme I find that with the Tritonia which has a fairly short one-handed grip, the round pommel is easy to grip and could be used twohanded in a pinch. This is tempting since the blade of the Tritonia is Big and long enough that it wouldn't be out of place combined with an 8" or 9" handle.

I could say the same thing for the Gaddhjalt to a degree but the pommel of the Tritonia is more comfortable and easy to grab.
On the other hand the handle of the Gaddhjalt is a bit longer and if one fingers the guard a " crowded " twohanded hold is possible.

In general the 8" to 9" grips seem best for the hand and a half type swords giving the most adaptability for one or two handed use.

With the really big swords with blades over 45" long a longer handle seems better to me, at least with my limited to waving a sword in the air in front of me experience.

[Jeremiah Swanger]

[Jared Smith]

Another complication in all of this, ...
the techniques that many of us relate to are based on combat on foot. I have a totally different preference for a longsword grip to be used primarily one handed (mounted with reins in one hand) versus a foot combat situation where two hands is a viable option. A 10 to 12 inch (250 to 200 mm long) grip is very uncomfortable for test cutting or drilling one handed.

What background do most surviving German swords studied have? Are they surviving swords of knights who fought mounted, or infantry / dueling swords? A large number of castles and smaller armories (from hill regions where mounted combat was not known decisively as the dominant form of combat) were essentially emptied during WWII. What one sees in tourists exhibits along the Rhine today are typically specimens from somewhere else. In contrast, Danish blades speculated to have been made in Germany, often seem to have relatively long grips.

I realize I am not offering a clarification. Possibly Peter Johnson or someone very familiar with background of surviving swords could though.

[Bill Grandy]

[Bill Grandy]

[David Martin]

Let me preface this post by saying that I'm greatly hindered in my lack of knowledge of formal and established sword fighting techniques using "real" swords. My experience comes from wasters of various designs and mediums and unconventional sparring with said weapons.

I found over the years that grip length was a better determinant of my success in combat than blade length. I started out using wasters of conventional longsword dimensions and gradually found myself shortening the blade and lengthening the grip. As an extreme example, I made a waster with a 24" blade and a 12" handle. It looked ridiculous, but it was brutally effective, at least against the fellows I was sparring with in my early college days.

I think the main advantage was the increased leverage I obtained using the long-handled swords. When fighting an opponent with a longer blade, I'd assume a defensive position and wait for an opportunity to engage his sword and use my increased leverage to manipulate/control his blade, or to simply jump inside my opponent's defense and take advantage of his limited mobility.

The only substantial disadvantage I found when using a sword with a long grip was when I attempted to grip it with one hand. Hands were a common target when we fought (the old "skip over the guard and smash the knuckles ploy") and I found the long-handled swords very unweildy in situations in which one of my hands had been badly rapped and I was forced to fight with one.

I have been advised that fighting with "real" swords is significantly different, and I although I have yet to confirm or deny this assertion, my hunch is that the laws of physics aren't going to change just because the weapon is steel instead of wood.

If anyone has the opportunity to test and determine if my experiences hold true with "real" swords, I'd be very interested in reading the results.

Best wishes,


David

[Bill Grandy]

[Jeremiah Swanger]

[David Martin]

[Myrick J. Hethington]

Hello sirs:
I have been following the conversation and I very new when it comes to swords in general.Think that a swords hilt length is and was determined by the bodily purportions of the swordsman and that the reason there seems to be a trend in hilt length is becauseof body size being that most swordsmen and men in general were of the same stature(height,weigth length of arm.ect.)along whith the differences in hilt length being a matter of strength, preference,and personal ability.Not leaving out the ocasional big man.but my knowledge and experience is limited.








Forever undefeated is the ever moving mind.

[Bill Grandy]

[Bill Grandy]