not much experience with blood, but sweat'll make a good grip on a (calm day) a pain in the arse on a bad one(battle). Blood clots though, so i would think it would make the grip sticky in short order...other fluids though, we would have to talk to someone from ww2 for that.

I believe I have read some accounts from 19th Century British cavalrymen about the problems posed by blood running down the blade of a sabre and onto the grip. I don't recall any authors' names offhand, but I am sure I have read at least one detailed narrative from the battle of Omdurman, where the British fought the Dervishes in Egypt, that describes the problem posed by the extended use of sabres which became increasingly slippery with blood. (I don't think it was Winston Churchill, though he may have commented on the use of sabres by others in describing his own reliance on a Mauser pistol instead.)

This is one reason for the presence of tassels on the guard of these implements, to wick the blood away from the grip. Unless the blade is held point down or kept swinging about at great speed, the blood has nowhere else to go other than down the blade toward the grip. Apparently in actual use it was fairly common for cavalry sabres to be employed in vertical strokes ( rather than thrusts or horizontal strokes) which allowed substantial amounts of blood to travel to the grip area while the point was held upright.

Ladies and Gentlemen, are you worried about getting your opponent's gore on your grip? Worried about staining those lovely gauntlets? Well, fear no more! I present to you the "Gutter Guard" (patent pending):

---

 Attachment: 17.84 KB

I seriously don't think this would be much of a problem. There isn't that much spray from a sword hit, so you would pretty much need to be underneath the vicim for substantial mounts of blood to get on your hands.
Additionally, there seems to be a serious overestimation of how many people a fighter might kill during a battle; anything more than three would be exceptional, under normal circumstances. It is quite plausible to not hit anyone for the entire duration of the battle, even if your side is winning...

in response to last fella's comment...my definition of "winning" is to be the last bunch standing on the field. In order to render an opponent innefective, you don't always have to kill him. this can take time, what with swords locked in ribs, tangled in armor, etc. Wounded folks, though, can bleed a bit, as the excitement of having cold steel rammed into/across ones anatomy is known to cause the heart to pump harder and faster, whether you want it to or not. SOmeone with no arm can still thrash about, pretty much until he is empty.

Seems like we're wandering with more than a few assumptions. Since I've never been engaged in large group hand to hand combat with edged weapons and an intent to kill, I have no idea how much of an issue gore becomes. The best it seems we can do in this thread is analyze recorded accounts and extrapolate based on other experiences that a may or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand.