|
|
Post by pellius on Oct 5, 2016 14:00:09 GMT
pgandy - thank you for the info and video clips. I have never seen a form set with a shield. They must have been common at some point in history (maybe they still are in some places?).
The commentator made a distinction for Southern styles, which I have not studied. Perhaps butterfly swords enjoy a more prevalent place in those styles? The comment that some soldiers limited weapons training to staves (spears) and a single butterfly sword (with shield) really brought to mind Greek and Roman formation fighting.
I never studied butterfly swords. The (admittedly limited) MA schools I have either visited in person or viewed online almost always have a wall-o-weapons that often include dual butterfly swords. I have never seen a shield on display.
I guess that goes to show how much knowledge has yet to permeate my little corner of the occidental world (and the limited usefulness of drawing broad conclusions from limited data).
To lean back toward the OP thread...
The general consensus here seems to be that handshake vs. hammer grip is an issue best resolved by the sword wielder's preference that may change depending on the circumstances and particular technique being used.
I don't know anything about Viking swords, but a number of posts on SBG (sorry - no can cite) left me with the impression that some hilts would only accommodate a handshake grip due to their length and layout.
To address the OP issue directly, why wouldn't a war-going sword be built to accommodate both grips (i.e., be long enough for both)? Adaptability would seem especially important for a war-going culture more remembered for berserking rather than formation fighting (I know - how Vikings are "remembered" may be wrong or I may simply be mistaken).
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 5, 2016 14:41:54 GMT
The commentator made a distinction for Southern styles, which I have not studied. Perhaps butterfly swords enjoy a more prevalent place in those styles? They're THE classic sword for southern styles. Technically, a single dao of that type used with a shield isn't a butterfly sword (which refers to them being a pair, like the left and right wings of a butterfly). While you could use half a pair of butterfly swords, they also made dedicated single dao. The difference is the hilts - a pair are made to sit flat, and one side of the grip is flat. The made-as-singles have grips rounded on both sides. You see the same thing with Chinese "bowie" knives - some are made as pairs, with 1/2 flat grips, and some are made as singles, with all-round grips. To address the OP issue directly, why wouldn't a war-going sword be built to accommodate both grips (i.e., be long enough for both)? Alas, if you make it long enough for handshake grip (without palming the pommel), then it doesn't work as well in hammer grip. So the longer-gripped ones don't usually have the pro-hammer pommel. There are tulwars out there where the disc pommel has been removed. They've been turned into handshake-grip compatible tulwars. |
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659 
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 5, 2016 14:49:25 GMT
The commentator made a distinction for Southern styles, which I have not studied. Perhaps butterfly swords enjoy a more prevalent place in those styles? They're THE classic sword for southern styles. Technically, a single dao of that type used with a shield isn't a butterfly sword (which refers to them being a pair, like the left and right wings of a butterfly). While you could use half a pair of butterfly swords, they also made dedicated single dao. Butterflies have two pairs of wings, and you would thusly need 4 arms to pull this off correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 5, 2016 14:51:03 GMT
To address the OP issue directly, why wouldn't a war-going sword be built to accommodate both grips (i.e., be long enough for both)? Adaptability would seem especially important for a war-going culture more remembered for berserking rather than formation fighting (I know - how Vikings are "remembered" may be wrong or I may simply be mistaken). Well, yes, that is kinda like saying the Japanese are remembered mostly for being ninja and flipping out all the time.  It's a modern pop culture phenomenon, not any kind of reflection on historical facts or even semifactual historical accounts - for every mention of berserks in the Norse sagas, for example, there are ten of heroic formation fighting, clever tricks and coolly calculated battle tactics. |
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 5, 2016 15:04:05 GMT
Butterflies have two pairs of wings, and you would thusly need 4 arms to pull this off correctly. Not necessarily!  |
|
|
|
Post by scottw on Oct 5, 2016 15:26:00 GMT
To address the OP issue directly, why wouldn't a war-going sword be built to accommodate both grips (i.e., be long enough for both)? Adaptability would seem especially important for a war-going culture more remembered for berserking rather than formation fighting (I know - how Vikings are "remembered" may be wrong or I may simply be mistaken). Well, yes, that is kinda like saying the Japanese are remembered mostly for being ninja and flipping out all the time. It's a modern pop culture phenomenon, not any kind of reflection on historical facts or even semifactual historical accounts - for every mention of berserks in the Norse sagas, for example, there are ten of heroic formation fighting, clever tricks and coolly calculated battle tactics. Kind of like the horned helms, that expertly catch blades and deflect them into your head? |
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Oct 5, 2016 15:27:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Oct 5, 2016 16:12:33 GMT
I get that pop culture isn't archaeology, and that propaganda, pride, myopia and bias might influence how "historical" accounts are recorded. I also have gathered that many modern Viking sword models are based upon actual archaeological examples.
I would've thought raiding warriors (as opposed to occupying armies armed en masse by a larger corporate, military or sovereign entity) operating without substantial ongoing logistical support would've chosen to craft a swords that would accommodate various grips. However, I can fully understand the value of optimizing a sword for an intended use, even at the expense of flexibility.
I suppose that is just another way of getting to the answer already given - optimize the grip length for the intended use chosen by the user.
Regarding butterfly swords, I suspected there was a name given to such a sword intended for solitary use, and that "butterfly swords" was a term describing both the type of weapons and their use as a pair (similar to, e.g., "shuang jian"). However, I don't know the term, and the linked videos referred only to "butterfly swords" despite only one being used.
Calling it a "dao" or even "dan dao" still would seem too vague. Google translated (English to Mandarin) "short knife" as "duandao," and "short sword" as "duan jian." Always eager to learn, I must know - what is the proper name for a single sword with the general shape of a butterfly sword?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,327
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 5, 2016 16:24:53 GMT
"One butterfly sword"
|
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Oct 5, 2016 17:22:14 GMT
See, supra.
|
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 5, 2016 19:02:03 GMT
I also have gathered that many modern Viking sword models are based upon actual archaeological examples. Well, more or less. Even when they otherwise copy historical artifacts quite accurately, practically all modern production "viking" swords aside from Albion have too long handles - not necessarily outside historical parameters, as such, but the modern average is around the upper end of the historical range, and the handle length on any given reproduction is almost always significantly longer than on the historical item being reproduced. (It's been suggested that this may be a result of most modern swords being targeted at re-enactors and thus needing longer handles to accommodate modern hand protection. Which may be where it started, but even sharp swords clearly not meant for any kind of sparring seem to ape it - just because at this point it's become a sort of industry standard, I suppose. And the annoyingly persistent myth of historical people having much smaller hands doesn't help rectify the situation, obviously.) Note that when I say "significantly" I mean a finger's width or more, which IME does make a surprisingly big difference in handling, with both the hammer and handshake grips. When you hook your pinky in the angle between the handle and the protruding pommel, rather than pushing the fork of your thumb against the guard, on modern "viking" swords with excessively long handles the extra length essentially shifts the mass of the sword away from you, making it slower and more blade heavy than it would be with a snug handle that keeps all that mass closer to your hand. It's only a matter of centimeters, but it really is quite palpable. I'm quite convinced that the difference between hammer and handshake grips is entirely situational, and that historical warriors would have employed both without really even thinking about it, rather than stick to either one - why would you choose one for everything when they're each clearly better suited to different actions? - and that whether you prefer the hammer or handshake grip or both or neither, the optimal grip length for a sword in the "viking" style, with the short guard, protruding pommel and medium-length, cut-oriented blade design, is roughly equal to the width of your palm at the knuckles. (Obviously, the actual measurement will vary from one person to another! For me, it's about 3.5 inches.) The way I see it, the handle length doesn't actually dictate the sort of grip you should employ with it, as such, IMO; it's more that this type of swords' overall design tends to encourage a certain method of using them (i.e. snuggling the pommel rather than the guard, whether in hammer or handshake grip) and that this method benefits from a handle just long enough for a snug, secure grip. PS. All that said, we don't live in an ideal world and sometimes (or ofttimes!) the sword you have is not one that's ideally suited to your personal measurements. Maybe it's a hand-me-down, maybe it's spoils of war or piracy, maybe it's a gift, maybe it's simply the best you could find and afford. And in that case you just have to do your best with what you've got, adapting your grip and other aspects of how you use the sword to the individual sword's quirks and peculiarities in whatever way seems to work the best for you with that particular weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by wolfshield on Dec 15, 2016 7:08:58 GMT
It's not just grip length being exaggerated. It's the whole ideal that "Vikings" were brutish and thus had brutish swords. Even people that acknowledge that more than a few Norse swords were 2" (or a bit less) wide and had more acute points turn a blind eye to that fact when purchasing a reproduction. It doesn't fit the "brutish Viking barbarian" ideal we all grow up with. A few Viking era swords seem better fit into the profile taper of the lighter XII type but you hardly see reproductions of them. Most people will turn their nose up and snort at the lower end of the 2 lbs of weight and relatively pointy "Viking" sword that seems more in tune for thrusting, even when it's historical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Heff on Dec 15, 2016 23:31:08 GMT
It's not just grip length being exaggerated. It's the whole ideal that "Vikings" were brutish and thus had brutish swords. Even people that acknowledge that more than a few Norse swords were 2" (or a bit less) wide and had more acute points turn a blind eye to that fact when purchasing a reproduction. It doesn't fit the "brutish Viking barbarian" ideal we all grow up with. A few Viking era swords seem better fit into the profile taper of the lighter XII type but you hardly see reproductions of them. Most people will turn their nose up and snort at the lower end of the 2 lbs of weight and relatively pointy "Viking" sword that seems more in tune for thrusting, even when it's historical. Wait, I thought Vikings were basically leather clad bikers just that they rode around in long ships instead of Harleys ? |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Dec 16, 2016 0:03:10 GMT
... and they all wore horned helmets, right?   |
|
|
|
Post by tea on Dec 16, 2016 2:44:06 GMT
Note that when I say "significantly" I mean a finger's width or more, which IME does make a surprisingly big difference in handling, with both the hammer and handshake grips. When you hook your pinky in the angle between the handle and the protruding pommel, rather than pushing the fork of your thumb against the guard, on modern "viking" swords with excessively long handles the extra length essentially shifts the mass of the sword away from you, making it slower and more blade heavy than it would be with a snug handle that keeps all that mass closer to your hand. It's only a matter of centimeters, but it really is quite palpable. I'm quite convinced that the difference between hammer and handshake grips is entirely situational, and that historical warriors would have employed both without really even thinking about it, rather than stick to either one - why would you choose one for everything when they're each clearly better suited to different actions? - and that whether you prefer the hammer or handshake grip or both or neither, the optimal grip length for a sword in the "viking" style, with the short guard, protruding pommel and medium-length, cut-oriented blade design, is roughly equal to the width of your palm at the knuckles. (Obviously, the actual measurement will vary from one person to another! For me, it's about 3.5 inches.) The way I see it, the handle length doesn't actually dictate the sort of grip you should employ with it, as such, IMO; it's more that this type of swords' overall design tends to encourage a certain method of using them (i.e. snuggling the pommel rather than the guard, whether in hammer or handshake grip) and that this method benefits from a handle just long enough for a snug, secure grip. ^^^ this. When I first got my Ronin Katana Viking Era sword, I thought the handle was too thin as I was initially holding it with my hand up towards the crossguard. However, after seeing some of the videos by Matt Easton, Thegn Thrand and Roland Warzecha on the subject of how to hold a Viking Era Sword and started holding my sword using the t-juncktion of the pommel to secure my grip, I found that my grip was much more secure with either the hammer or handshake grip and the sword is much livelier in my hand. As noted, though, the Ronin Katana Viking Era sword, like most recreations, has WAY too long of a handle and I've noticed that the forward weight of the sword is accentuated a bit more when my grip is down towards the pommel. |
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Dec 16, 2016 15:10:14 GMT
Thank you for the great info, fellow forumites.
In the past, I haven't been much of a Euro sword guy, but I am greatly enjoying learning more about them and their related martial arts. I had always been given the impression that European martial arts and weapon craftsmanship (between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance) was brutish and unsophisticated, and that anything of value was imported from the Middle or Far East. It is very satisfying to learn that those impressions are demonstrably false.
Anyway, how would you guys rate the Hanwei Cawood sword? In terms of representing the genuine feel and handling of a late Viking sword, is it close?
My impression is that it is a Type XII blade - am I close? The Hanwei's grip is about a finger width too long (for an average hand) from what I can gather, but again I'm brand new to the field. The sword itself feels very nimble but has good presence to my hand, despite its weight of 2 pounds 6 ounces. It feels as fast as my Hanwei Oxtail Saber, which is almost half a pound lighter.
My modest training is in Chinese saber. Not a lot of techniques (that I know) transfer to a two edged sword, especially if used with a shield within a military fighting formation.
Anyway, thanks again for the good info.
|
|
|
|
Post by tea on Dec 16, 2016 18:59:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by swordflasher on Dec 27, 2016 13:00:59 GMT
More on the Viking/ Dane sword grip. Ive enjoyed all the points of view so far, so will add my own. Firstly, I'm certain there was no absolutely standardised approach to sword fighting back in the day - there would have been teachers at great halls and large towns, but our current discussion would have taken place back then too between small groups of farmers turned warrior going a-viking.
Secondly, I agree with the general use of the hammer grip but maybe ending a long cut with the handshake grip - Viking swords don't respond well to being held like sabres most of the time, but the short hilts make long 'casting a fishing rod' cuts very difficult.
This brings me to my last point. I imagine (could be wrong) Viking swords could have been used in a way not dissimilar to tulwars. In which case the issue is not how the sword is held but how cuts are made. Having practiced Gatka, I'd suggest keeping the arm bent at 90 degrees, wrist twisting not bent, and using the back muscles not arm muscles. A good way to practice this is spinning a staff, with one end of the staff as the sword and the other end hitting you if you get the cut wrong. Check out the beginning of 'tribute to my Gatka teachers' on YouTube for how staff spinning translate s to cuts. Just my 50p worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Jan 1, 2017 13:46:34 GMT
This is all very interesting. Lots to learn here but I have a question. Do you all think that when the vikings or people of that era who went to battle, that they actually practiced these grips? I mean think about it. Heat of battle, fog of war. You got axes poking, swinging and flying around. You got arrows flying. You got warriors trying to break a shield wall possibly from a charge. Spears being thrusted...... You get the idea. I think about myself in a battle and I can easily see these grip types going out the window. Unless like all martial arts, with constant practice its just second nature???
Also most viking era swords from what I read came from a Frankish/Germanic background and I remember seeing a you tube video from one instructor who is well known teacher of viking sword fighting, (Roland Warzecha) discussing how Frankish swords handles were a bit longer. I need to find the video and when I so I will post link.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!
|
|
|
|
Post by gruggier on Jan 1, 2017 13:59:24 GMT
This is the video
|
|
