|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 1, 2017 20:43:56 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??? I doubt they would have thought "Now I'll switch to <foo> grip". Given time to think, maybe something like "I'll push his shield, move in, and slice him open like a kipper" or "I don't want to be pushing shields with him! I'll snap one into his leg from a distance and let Einar spear him later". If there isn't enough time for that much thought, you just react to what is happening (or die). For different types of cuts/blows/thrusts, if they need different grips, you change grips to suit. It doesn't take immense amounts of practice for stuff to become second nature. It's a gradual process, and how long it takes depends on the person and the kind of practice. Even young professional warriors should have in excess of 1000 hours practice/training (and I use 1000 hours since that should easily get good people to black belt level in modern martial arts that have respectable black belt standards). Part-time fighters like pirate-merchants or local militia are a different story. (Despite that practice, they'll still feel the effects of stress in combat.) 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. Eastern Baltic handles were longer too, I have read. Haven't seen enough grip length measurements to say. Hilt length measurements are much easier - just total length minus blade length, and those are often given, even if hilt length isn't. Given a photo, and hilt length, one can measure with reasonable accuracy. Sounds like a fun project, but time-consuming. |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Oct 9, 2017 19:23:24 GMT
It would be interesting to systematically study the length of handle in those swords with stumpy crossguards and those with longer crossguards. IIRC during the 10th and 11th both crossguard styles were around, so if this was part of a change in fighting styles it should be reflected in the surface area for using fine blade manipulation.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Oct 9, 2017 22:13:14 GMT
Hm, I think your picture actually shows a handshake grip... I find handshake grip perfectly safe and strong enough for battle when not wearing a glove. With a glove too if sword grip is thin enough and pommel gives good support for the hand. If grip is a bit thick or pommel not very ergonomic, than I use hammer grip. Actually, to be honest, during the battle I often have no conscious idea what grip I'm using. :D
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 9, 2017 22:16:14 GMT
the vast majority shows swords being held in a hammer grip, even when picturing a moment of impact. I don't think that "vast majority" is correct for moment-of-impact images. Handshake is common in moment-of-impact images, especially when the sword is extended for reach. I haven't counted, but 50/50 is much closer than a vast majority either way. Handshake, even though target is close:  Two handshakes (and a hammer at the start of a blow):  So at the current state, it seems to me that medieval warriors did their best to retain a strong as possible grip on their swords at any time (imagine losing your secondary weapon in battle), while still being able to strike their blows home (and for that working more with angling the wrists, elbows and shoulders), which, based on my analysis and recreational practice, I`d describe as a, though perhaps often subtle, generally rather firm hammer grip. Where we have sources, they do not tell us to "grip as tightly as possible". "Relaxed" is much more typical. More detailed sources will say to tense at the moment of impact/parry: Roworth: "At the instant of parrying or attacking, it is requisite to grasp it with strength, but that exertion of the muscles is so natural, as to not need much insisting on." First, a relaxed hammer grip is reasonably secure, and with a suitable hilt (e.g., Viking, Migration, gladius, tulwar) very secure. It isn't the strongest possible grip, but the strongest possible grip (a vice-like hammer grip) slows you down (due to muscular tension in the arm) and leads to fatigue. Second, a relaxed handshake grip is also secure. The insecure grips are finger-and-thumb grips (like a French foil fencing grip) and thumb-along-guard grips (fencing sabre grip). I haven't seen either grip recommended for heavy (say, about 1kg) swords in any reputable manual, and have seen fencing sabre grip explicitly recommended against for "heavy" swords. Both hammer and handshake give you thumb and fingers around the grip. The difference is where the heel of the hand, and heel of the hand behind the grip (hammer) doesn't give any support during impact, so there's little difference in security of grip between them as you strike with a blow (IMO, a hammer-grip-friendly hilt will add some security; without such a hilt, I don't think there is any difference in security). |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Oct 9, 2017 22:22:05 GMT
I don't doubt that there was an evolution of design. Hammer gripping with a system such as I.33's is a nightmare for the wrist. Immediately painful and dangerous. Whereas if you keep your grip flexible and can steer the blade it becomes possible to do the techniques. But the hilt design has changed. Instead of thick, short crossguard and massive pommel there's a thin, long and sometimes forward arcing crossguard paired with a wheel pommel set further down the handle. The consensus seems to be that this was part of a change in tactics that corresponded to smaller shields and the use of the sword in covering the line and directly interacting with the opposing blade. A Viking era blade with a stocky crossguard offers little hand protection and few options for winding and blade/blade interaction. But if we assume that the shield was doing the line clearing, the sword's job would not require winding or complex blade-on-blade interactions. Either cut or stab at mid measure or punch and bash at close measure. And these it can do exceptionally well.
It's interesting that transitional blade types with longer crossguards and longer handles can function either way. But I'd like to see hard data on the handle length of this category before drawing any serious conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 9, 2017 22:27:44 GMT
That concurs with my testing showing the handshake grip (not fingering the guard, but sliding pommel along the wrist, with the pinky stopping the movement) a) exerting a relatively large amount of impact force, but comparatively little follow through (both factors would be enlarged through use from a charging horse), b) having more reach (especially important from horseback), c) being best suited to feel pressure in a blade bind, d) allowing for a greater variety of striking angles ( with c) and d) being most important for dueling). In comparison, the hammer grip is much better at a) exerting pressure through the whole range of a cut and thus leading to larger wounds on soft targets, b) consecutive striking / recovery, c) parrying hard blows / weapon retention on hard targets, of which all is important on foot and especially in cramped battle situations with opponents pressing on each other. Yes, handshake grip is better for chopping, hammer grip for slicing. Reach, yes. Bind, yes (partly this is due to reach). Parrying, yes (one can usefully (and easily) switch from handshake to hammer for a hard block). Consecutive blows/recovery, I don't know. A following blow after a blow in handshake is a simple matter of rotating the sword (e.g., forehand blow to side of head, followed by backhand to other side of head: hand doesn't move much, hand goes from palm up to palm down as the sword rotates about, elbow moves from low to high). After a long slicing cut in hammer grip, the sword needs to move further for the next cut. This can be done fluidly, but I don't know if it's easier or faster - the following blow in handshake is fast and easy (butmaybe I'm biased from having done more pell time with it). Hm, I think your picture actually shows a handshake grip... I find handshake grip perfectly safe and strong enough for battle when not wearing a glove. With a glove too if sword grip is thin enough and pommel gives good support for the hand. If grip is a bit thick or pommel not very ergonomic, than I use hammer grip. Actually, to be honest, during the battle I often have no conscious idea what grip I'm using. :D I'd call it a hammer. The wrist also looks contorted enough that it might be inaccurate art. Handshake grip is more common in art showing such extended positions. |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 10, 2017 5:13:14 GMT
My inclination with a Viking would be to just stay with hammer grip.
The issue in practice seems to me to be that when you are in handshake grip, you probably have the sword extended (having just struck a blow at long range), with blade close to parallel to forearm, and to return to hammer grip, you need to bring the sword back enough to get about a 90 angle between blade and forearm. This takes time. Quickly playing around, the quickest way to do this seems like pulling back on the hilt and lifting the hand, coming into hanging guard with that 90 degree angle, and then the grip can easily switch to hammer. You could also pull the sword back far enough, keeping it horizontal, to get that 90 degree angle, at which point your sword hand will be at about your hip, and it isn't likely to be a good position for the parry/block you need to do.
So this isn't an issue with trying to switch from handshake to hammer, but an issue with getting the sword as a whole into position to parry/block.
If you're in handshake grip with the sword not extended, but blade horizontal (e.g., if you are about to thrust to long range), then the quick way to switch to hammer grip is to, again, lift the hand up until in hanging guard at a 90 degree angle. To switch into hammer grip with the point up needs a large rotation of the blade working against gravity (the rotation of the sword in the transition to hanging guard works with gravity, not against gravity).
If you're in handshake grip, with the sword not extended, blade up, then it's really easy: you push your hand out towards the incoming attack to meet the attack with your strong/forte, and as you get to that 90 degree angle, you should be able to easily switch to hammer.
With a two-handed grip, where you have a lot more leverage to rotate the sword against gravity, the transition from blade-extended handshake to blade-up hammer is much easier.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Oct 10, 2017 21:12:33 GMT
Hm, I think your picture actually shows a handshake grip... I find handshake grip perfectly safe and strong enough for battle when not wearing a glove. With a glove too if sword grip is thin enough and pommel gives good support for the hand. If grip is a bit thick or pommel not very ergonomic, than I use hammer grip. Actually, to be honest, during the battle I often have no conscious idea what grip I'm using.  Yes, I guess there are different opinions about what a handshake grip is. The difference is rather fluid, I guess. As I said above, to me a handshake grip (on a short-hilted sword) starts when the pommel slides past the bottom of the wrist, to the side of the lowest part of the forearm – and in result the blade gets angled a bit sideways to the palm. Cant`s see that in the picture. I see a bend wrist. Then again, this seems to be dueling situation :) It’ll interest me which grip you use predominantly during a prolonged battle. It`s not unlikely that every fighter had his own preferences, back then just like nowadays. I like my grip to be flexible, hammer for close work or blocking, handshake if I really want to hit something... It makes no sense to use the same grip the whole time... But gauntlets don't let you use handshake... |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Oct 11, 2017 16:22:14 GMT
I think those are are some valid points. Roland is very good. I've sparred with him dozens of times and only managed *one* solid hit on him in S&B and that was by cheesing it a bit using my larger size. In some ways that can be a hindrance in evaluating the merits of concepts. He may be winning because he's so experienced, not necessarily because his particular insight is correct (this is a pretty common problem in HEMA). And I agree he's doing what's really I.33 sword work using the Viking style blade. That rotation to a short edge cut is very common with the buckler in spaces where you simply don't have the time or space to get back to a strong edge. Counter shield strikes for example when you have only a very short moment to hit before your opponent regains control. Here, he does have space to go back to the strong edge but reverts to the buckler style. He also has big hands, and can hold a large pommel for his cast blows in a way most people probably couldn't.
It's his shield work I find most impressive, and that's where I think he's offering the most insight. Prior to his work, most people were still using centergrip and medieval shields as passive blocking devices. By recreating authentic shields and using them offensively to secure the line, I think he's showing the primacy of the shield for that era of combat. Obviously that changed by the 14th century, and swords became sword and shield and spear in one package. But when you start examining the details of the centergrip shields you see how they were made as light as possible with the balance to be used with an extended arm. Of course you essentially go blind when using one that way, but then it's a game of fulen to see who's door will open first. After the shield's work is done, there's not much for the spear or sword to do beyond make a fast strong attack. So I could see sticking with a pretty simple grip. Then again there may have been exceptions with better swordsmen, and I've seen at least one bone handle for a viking blade that has raised areas at the top and bottom suggesting a handshake or some modified grip. Perhaps it was a desire for more flexibility that led to longer crossguards and longer handles.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Oct 13, 2017 20:49:50 GMT
@ Timo Nieminen: You describe pretty much how it feels for me. @ Luka : Thanks for your reply, though I'm still not sure what you mean by flexible (hard to transport that with words - it is, for me, at least). Some more, earlier images (on top of page): manuscriptminiatures.com/search/?tags=%22sword%22What I can't get warm with by now is that: Note how he grips the sword almost like a brush or something - imo, although certainly suited for that particular technique, not practicable for most situations (and definitely not well suited to be used while wearing gloves or looking to cut with effect through any kind of heavy clothing). In dueling – yes, maybe. On the battlefield, facing motivated opponents – hard to imagine unless playing sword-tag, although admittedly in a very sophisticated style. To me, gripping the sword this way looks like a good way to get your knuckles smashed. Note how in the first, low pressure sequence he shows a nice, but complicated way to put pressure on his own shield using his right forearm and coming back from the bind with a Sturzhau. I don’t see the need for the Sturzhau here, a simple Oberhau would have done. That would allow him to put much more pressure on his own upper shield edge, and save his knuckles, probably ending the sequence even earlier. Also, as soon as the pressure is raised just a little bit in the second sequence, he works early with his shield and sword arm separated, raising his shield early to overbind his opponent, and working with much more body strength. Just a tad less of retreatment and he would have been double-hit in the hip severely. But I never had a chance to train with Roland Warzecha, and possess not even a fracture of this man's knowledge, so who am I to criticize.
By flexible I mean easy to transfer from hammer grip to handshake when you need more power and longer reach. You can even hold the grip in hammer and even start the swing and you let your grip to become handshake during the swing if you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 13, 2017 22:13:08 GMT
By flexible I mean easy to transfer from hammer grip to handshake when you need more power and longer reach. You can even hold the grip in hammer and even start the swing and you let your grip to become handshake during the swing if you want.
So if I get you right you don't mean a very opened, almost saber-grip-like grip right from the start of a strike , but letting the hilt slide a bit up in your hand for extension? I do this kind of thing - transition from hammer to handshake as you strike a long-range blow - with a good wheel pommel. I don't know if I'd say "hilt slide up a bit". I start with my little finger against the pommel, and it stays there - relative to my fingers, the hilt can't slide up. The heel of my hand slides down relative to the pommel, and you could describe this as the pommel sliding up and beside the heel of my hand. (Hanwei Practical Knightly and this? No. It's a bad wheel pommel. Where my definition of "good wheel pommel" includes it helping me do this grip transition.) |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 13, 2017 22:34:00 GMT
Wheel and brazil nut pommels are really good for this, the best symmetric pommels I've played with like this.
Many Philippine and Indonesian, and some other pommels (e.g., some Indian and Afghan, shamshir pommels, some yataghan pommels) are also very good for this. Whenever you play with any sword with a pommel with a forward projection that can support your little finger, try it.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Oct 13, 2017 22:34:44 GMT
So if I get you right you don't mean a very opened, almost saber-grip-like grip right from the start of a strike , but letting the hilt slide a bit up in your hand for extension? I do this kind of thing - transition from hammer to handshake as you strike a long-range blow - with a good wheel pommel. I don't know if I'd say "hilt slide up a bit". I start with my little finger against the pommel, and it stays there - relative to my fingers, the hilt can't slide up. The heel of my hand slides down relative to the pommel, and you could describe this as the pommel sliding up and beside the heel of my hand. (Hanwei Practical Knightly and this? No. It's a bad wheel pommel. Where my definition of "good wheel pommel" includes it helping me do this grip transition.) Yes, this. |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,327
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 13, 2017 23:05:23 GMT
My experience is that gripping this way you "create" a new pivot point close to the crossguard which helps to move blade heavy swords.
|
|
