Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 1:23:37 GMT
"Viking swords were held in a 'handshake' grip".I am currently thinking about whether that assumption is accurate or not. In this day and age we have experimented with ways to use this weapon without dislocating our wrists. That is based on the manner that we assume the swords were used. We assume that Vikings mostly struck their opponents as we would strike with a stick. Therefore, we want to flex our wrists (actually perform ulnar deviation) during the strike. But we don't know for sure. We are assuming all of this, based on scant information. Join me, if you will, in a little head-scratching. Would they have maintained that hilt shape for 100s of years if they were required to assume a hand-shake grip to use it? Are there other similar sword hilts in history that we have some data on? Certainly. Let me introduce you to the Indian Tulwar: This is a real weapon; it was used in India for real combat for at least as many centuries as the VIking sword, possibly more. But can you see the problem? Like the Viking sword, you could not use a tulwar in a manner that you assume it would be used. More to the point, the handshake grip will not work! Here are Sikh warriors demonstrating their ancient art: Notice that they move their swords quite fast, they don't dislocate their wrists, and the don't "flex" their wrists. What happens is that the blade slides along the expected target, creating a natural slicing movement. I am confident that this is possible with a Viking sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 1:38:41 GMT
Interesting concept. The main difference I can see is that the Tulwar is dramatically curved. Also, it's a cavalry weapon, pricipally, no? It's lighter I imagine too. The Norse fought on foot. BTW, I love the footwear of those Sikhs. Have you seen the massive thread on Myarmoury about this? Peter Johnsson believes that Viking swords were used with a handshake grip. Never having held one, I can't say for sure, but I respect him immensely as a historian and sword maker. www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2478&highlight=gripping+viking+sword
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 18:20:47 GMT
I am looking at it from the point of view of a steak knife. If you really want to slice a steak efficiently (with or without serrations in the blade), the best way is to press down relatively lightly and push or pull the knife. With comparatively effort (compared to whacking it with a cleaver), the meat parts very nicely.
And I note that most steak knives are not curved.
I don't know, it's a question I'm asking rather than a statement I'm making. I'll check out Myarmoury on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 6:16:23 GMT
I recently had a chance to hold one of those Indian Tulwar's. I wish I had payed more attention, but in general I found the grip very uncomfortable because it was small (short). The sword was very light, perhaps 2 lbs. It had a blade was not only thin but short too. My initial thoughts were that Indians are very thin people and not as strong as Northern Europeans, so the sword is suited to them. They can be tall though with long fingers, hence a thicker grip. Their thin, lankly nature tends to give them better flexibility based on some Indians I have worked with over the years. Viking on the other hand have more of a stout build. I would not expect them to have any more flexibility then Europeans today. This is all my theory based on what may be circumstantial observations.
I also think that the squarish pommol on a viking sword will dig in more then the circular pommol on the Tulwar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 6:26:39 GMT
The tulwar is not a cavalry sabre, it was designed to be used on foot by the sikhs. You also can't hold one of these in a handshake grip, you have to hold them in a lose grip so that you can maneuvre them, also some of the rules applied to medieval and japanese swords do not apply here. You don't always have your whole hand on the sword for example, it flicks through so many rotations that at times you are, for a brief second, holding it between two fingers and sometimes not at all. It is possible to rotate a blade whether medieval or japanese or indian without dislocating the wrist. I do it with my weapons all the time, shifting it from overhand to underhand grip and using circular wrist movements to spin the blade "under and over."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2008 18:27:42 GMT
I have seen other Gatka videos where they are "rolling" the sword, basically doing figure-eights without a care for edge alignment. That does not help real sword use, IMHO. In the video that I shared, they're not doing that as much as slicing. Tsafa, sometimes if you live in a big city like SF, you can find an auction house that is doing an auction of a collection of antique weapons. Sometimes tulwars are among the swords, and before the auction the public can usually check them out. You're right; the "real" swords are usually very light and the replicas are normally boat-anchors. Viking swords appear to have weighed an average of about 2 pounds as well. I remember that when they dug up the first Viking ship, the "smart" guys looked at the thin strakes that made up the body of the ship and declared that it must not have been sea-worthy. Until some fool built one to spec and crossed the ocean with it! We assume that the Vikings were built like Arnold and had massively thick weapons and armor. not true; their shields, for instance, measured an average of about 1/4 inches thick! Anyway, I am interested in your comments. We have little to go on regarding Viking-age combat, but none of us has all of the answers. That shouldn't keep us from thinking about it, however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2008 23:52:15 GMT
Have you seen this thread on Vikings: /index.cgi?board=swordhistory&action=display&thread=1181614449
As far as viking size and strength, I think they probably looked like giants to the the monks and peasants they were raiding. My studies suggest that they averaged between 5'8" and 6' with medium builds for that hight.
I don't want to mix threads, but given their light armor, cutting and smashing weapons, pus spears, I suspect that their fighting style would resemble SCA fighting. Given the round shields they would have been very vulnerable to leg shots and would have had to really on a lot of sword blocks should they run into any competent resistance during a raid.
You mentioned 1/4 inch thick shields, that is about the size SCA wooden shields are. They weigh about 8 lbs. That gets very tiring within 10 minutes regardless of how well trained you are. Not that you can't hold it up at all... but your reaction time suffers after 10 min. It is interesting that Normans who are decedents of vikings adopted long kite shields. I wonder if earlier vikings also used kite shields but to a lesser degree.
You mentioned figure-eights. Figure-eights have a very specific purpose. If you are using a bastard sword that is ideal for two handed use with only one hand, figure eights are a good way to keep momentum. With a 4.5 lb sword it is hard to initiate a one handed strike from a dead stop. However, if you keep the sword in motion, at the time of your choosing you can strike out from that pattern. Only when striking do you need to get your edge right. I don't know if their is any historical documentation to back this up, but it works.
There is little historical documentation on Vikings. So everything we know is based on archaeological remains. To figure out their fighting styles, we can only look at their weapons and armor and see what works.
I was talking to an SCA guy from Florida a few weeks ago that came to my practice. He uses a round center grip viking shield. A asked him how he responds if someone with a shield strapped to the forearm presses his shield and causes it to rotate. He showed me how in that instance he has to move his body into a defensive position. I thought that was interesting. His shield is jammed out of position, so he moves his body behind the shield. He also depends on sword-blocking. He also explained to me how he stops it for getting rotated by supporting the edge of his shield with his sword-guard or his shoulder on the other side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2008 8:13:01 GMT
Tsafa, we use the same move-the-body principle in gung fu. It's useful for sliding out of your opponents fired strike, and into an angle that allows you to strike at a now-unguarded target.
I imagine that most viking swords would be delicate compared to modern examples crafted by albion, and hence by peter johnnson. They did not have our modern super steels, nor the ability to monitor the exact temperature of their forges the way that we do. If I were a warrior that had to rely on an expensive piece of equipment, I would treat it as delicately as my task allowed me.
A handshake grip enables me to strike authoritatively, but not like a hatchet. I use a draw-cutting motion when striking at a pell or a target when using this grip. Granted this only works with the leading edge of the sword (i.e. the one lined up with my knuckles on the hilt), but then again didn't the vikings term their edges short and long? Long being the primary striking, and the short whichever edge was not in the forward role? The same motion is taught in chinese Jian as a small cut. The cut does not have to be hard, but instead is effective because of it's economy of power, and the natural cutting action of the edge. Now, I don't mean that this would be effective against a chainmail armoured portion of the body but rather it would be effective againsted an unarmoured neck or forearm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2008 17:33:18 GMT
One possibility is that they used a "Zwerchhau"-type strike where the blade is rotated 90 degrees in the hand so the thumb lays on the flat. Like an escrima "abaniko". Since the Vikes fought almost exclusively with shields, their main problem was getting around that shield and a Zwerch does that ably, and is not a pain at all with a Viking sword. www.artsofmars.com/Art-SwordShielTechs1.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2008 3:35:25 GMT
Kortoso, what advantages does changing the grip to slip the thumb offer?
I have just tried it with my hanwei practical viking (almost impossible for me to do fluidly) and my sticklestad (which is easier) but all I really found is that it makes things more clumsy and time consuming. I found that by using my wrist and keeping a firm grip with my last 3 fingers I could achieve with good control what felt to be the same type of movement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2008 20:23:44 GMT
I don't know about the Stikklestad, but the Hanwei allows plenty of room for a conventional grip. But plenty of the original Viking swords had small hilts. I use my Del Tin 2070 as a reference.
|
|