Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
There's some interesting points made here but there's also a few problems with this: 1. This style of pommel comes from an evolution of "boat-shaped" pommel caps from the earlier swords from Vimose, Nydam, Ejsbol, etc. and the earlier styles are not at all conducive to using the sword in this manner, having wide almond-shaped pommels (Behmer Type-I, Miks Type-24 and Type-25) that inhibit any ergonomic gripping of the sword this way. Even the ones with narrower pommels that these evolved out of (the Osterburken-Kemathens, Behmer Type-3 and Miks Type-26). Now the Miks Type-23 and Type-25 Handles (the so-called Hourglass-shaped handles, Behmer Type-5) do suggest there was a new way of holding the sword evolving (which Matt Easton termed the "Handshake Grip" in Mortimer and Bunker's recent book on Anglo-Saxon swords) but to position the pommel in the hand like you descibe is not shown in Pressblech, let alone Roman art. 2. The wear on the pommels could easily come from resting the hand on the sword's pommel. A habit we not only fall into as reenactors, but is actually evidenced in the art. 3. Viking swords are not necessarily the only tradition that evolves into the arming sword. True arming swords first appear in the Roman (Byzantine) Empire in about 900 AD with the Galovo-Type Spathion, which did not possess a pommel like this, and evolved out of the Asiatic-type Spatha that had been introduced by the Huns and Avars. And we know the Romans had a system of battlefield dueling with the sword called "Armatura" or "Hoplomakhia" albeit it does not survive. 4. There are a myriad of Germanic and Roman swords with pommels of similar relatively ergonomic shapes such as the Spatha from Cologne (c. 300 AD) or various Gladius hilts and they actually do exhibit similar wear patterns but we know they did not fight with the sword in the way you describe from Roman art and from the shape of the grips (finger groves were popular in this period). We can't totally discount a theory like this, but coming from the perspective of an late Roman/early migration era/Byzantine historian and reenactor, it just doesn't make sense and the evidence is at best circumstantial. It's no better than trying to figure out Roman swordfighting, or Dawson's paper suggesting I.33 comes from Byzantine swordfighting (It probably doesn't - The Romans had a ban on civilian dueling and the evidence from Ivory caskets is circumstantial at best, hence my point).
However finger groves are kinda comfortable in this kind of grip, albeit not so much wrapped around the pommel. When we spar in our reenactment group, using a real sword (a gladius, ok, not a spatha mind you) I use it often to deliver better the thrust instead of a hammer grip, and actually feel better and less "goofy" even in a cutting motion, kind of like when holding a sword with finger rings, it projects well the poin forward
@@339Jackscarify I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's really a weak grip in my opinion and on top of that, it's not evidenced in Roman provincial or gladiatorial art. I think it is worth remembering that the Romans were training for the lowest common denominator, that the idea of parrying with the sword wasn't standard practice in their training as evidenced by the text of Valerius Maxiumus, and that the size and type of shield being used by frontline infantry before the 10th century AD isn't conducive to a style of swordplay similar to the later manuals. Having studied this topic I've slowly come to the conclusion that it's near impossible to make real conclusions about combat in this period because we don't have any reliable sources beyond depictions of fighting gladiators, and those depict some very weird positions that can only be really the result of choreographed fights when looking at the ergonomics.
@@nuancedhistory On the fact of parrying of the blade of the gladius I totally agree, I was just spilling my two cents on the comfortness of the groves themselves with a similar grip
Thanks a lot for all these details! My two cents about gladiators, the weird positions come not necessarily from choreographing the fights but more from a very specific set of moves available to the fighters, due to their equipment and general requirement not to kill each other. So more "ritualized" than "choreographed". Look up Acta Archeo, they're doing quite an amazing job at reconstructing gladiatorial combat.
This is a question I have been considering for a long time. Having spent a while training and sparring with both I have come to several conclusions: 1.) Palm-grip enables much more finesse, movement & control of the blade 2.) Hammer-grip enables much more force to be placed into blows 3.) With practise both of these issues can be substantially ameliorated. I.e. Subtle strikes with the Hammer & Strong blows with the Palm (though neither will be equal to the other) 4.) When training in armour you very quickly realise hammer-grip is the way to go & Palm is best when in standard tunics. It is hard to penetrate mail (even with sharps), and hard to knock down an opponent with the palm-grip. In essence, from my own personal experience of re-creating combat from this era, when fighting against protected opponents, force and aggression (in combination with techniques) is far more conducive to surviving than dexterity
Early medieval armor was insufficient against a well aimed strike and that's also a reason why shield was so important. So there was a place for finesse too, not only for the brute force, that's a good point about these videos.
Thanks for sharing your insights. However, I do not agree. The impact power of a sword blow depends on acceleration. Maximum acceleration requires the sword to move around its respective pivot points. Whatever the hand does is only designed to help the sword move correctly, and at maximum speed. Thus, if a specific blow feels weaker than another, one has to optimize mechanics and train hard.
You do have to remember that many modern replicas of viking swords tend to have a few issues. They pick blades that tend to handle closest to how modern people want and the longest historically accurate grips. And sometimes the more comfortable pommel shapes. I tend to think you're correct that both are used. But I think it might depend on personal preference and some other differences. Potentially fencing styles of different areas. I know roland has handled many originals. So I tend to think he's on to something. Also why if I ever manage to get my sword company idea going I plan on having blueprints of many originals to use for replication.
4 minutes in, something comes to mind. All those things you demonstrated are things that aren’t taught but are simply results of doing it and feeling it’s best to hold the item a certain way, it’s intuitive. Now I’ve never held a sword but I’m sure there must be an intuitive way to do grip it when you’re trying to stab people with it...
I totally like your videos and ideas, but sometimes I have a problem with your "all or nothing" phrasing. To hold the viking age swords in a handshake grip seems to be plausible, but also the hammer grip. Why not both? Why not switch between both methods dependend on what you want to do? For example the Langes Messer uses a variety of grips: do you want to hau forcefully and get speed? --> hammer grip. do you want reach? --> handshake grip. And you can switch fluently between those grips. Start "vom Tag" with the hammer grip, get speed and end in a "saber grip" for a Ausfall. You even can adapt to the blade alignment: thumb on the short blade side of the hilt for maximum reach, thumb flat on the blade for a twerhau, thumb in a 45° angle for a diagonal hau. I think, saying viking swords were held in the hammer grip all the time is wrong, you I stand behind you, but saying they were held in the handshake grip exclusively isn't right either, I'd say.
Excellent video, I really liked when you said that martial arts feels un-intuitive when you first start to learn. When I first started boxing all the positions and punches felt so odd but with training everything becomes streamline and begins to turn to muscle memory, I would think armed martial arts is the same.
I guess this is indeed true for pretty much any skill and physical activity.I cannot think of a single craft or sports that allows for picking up the associated tools and instruments and intuitively do it right - leave alone excell.
Good arguments for the ‘precision’ grip. I will have to think about if the ubiquitous presence of the shield strengthens or weakens this argument. Thank you for the well thought out video.
Awesome video sir . We have had many discussions with fellow Filipino martial artist and other styles on how to grip the bladed weapons.I specially like your video with scientific evidence they may suggest and how they may have held their weapons back in the day
It has been my experience that it seems to be more of an individual preference based on who taught them gripping and of course type of of weapons they are using and skill level.
The wear pattern on the hilts look VERY similar to a well worn duty pistol worn on the outside of the hip with a more exposed holster...It looks to me like everyday wear, bumping into things, knocking against things, wear from working, sweat, etc..This is MUCH more likely than it being worn down from a human hand IMO. It's probably from sleeping, working, living, eating, fighting with a weapon everyday. I found similar wear patterns on my firearms having them on me all day everyday in a combat zone. Now I'm sure the handling of the sword would help with that process but not to such extent as shown. Things like color, and paint would come off from handling it, but it would have to be someone doing nothing but training all day for years to even start to rub the metal down like that. This also explains the asymmetrical wear pattern. It would always be worn and drawn from the same side so more of that side would be worn along with the top from handling objects with your hands while wearing the sword...Unless you add in something like a metal gauntlet to that process. Than it is possible...Seems like everyday scrapes and bumps from it hanging on the hip at all times....Very interesting video..I havent finished watching it all but I had to pause and comment before I forgot about it..Cheers mate..I'm not saying I disagree with how you hold the sword though. It makes alot of sense to me.
Very interesting. And I do not rule out that additional wear is caused by carrying the sword at the hip. Yet I see it exactly the other way round: The gripping hand rubs over the surface way more when practicing. Which is why I see oxidation stains on my hand, yet no stains on my clothing. Daily training is indeed to expected with historical swordsmen, as reflected in numerous sources. This would give you sword hand skin like sandpaper. Just look at the blisters and abrasions on my swordhand after only a weekend without the gloves I usually wear for fencing.
@@swordandshield It could be possible with a softer metal..I trained in the same way with my firearms. Numerous times a day, everyday in the heat of the desert, when we weren't on missions. Same rough hands and blisters from lifting weights, digging fighting positions, buildings defensive structures and training.....Though I'm not familiar with how iron, copper, bronze would wear in everyday use. After I finished the video after my comment I see that you said the hilt was commonly made with these metals combined and or variations of them. You may be on to something. Something as simple of an abrasive material as dirt, sand with sweat could most likely polish these materials with tough hands and alot of regular use....Great video my friend, and I appreciate the exchange of ideas
@@50StichesSteel In the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, there is a statue of St. Petrus. For hundreds of years, pilgrims have touched the right foot, as it is supposed the bring luck. Millions of hands have rubbed off so much metal that is has become an unrecognisable lump of bronze, just by touching it. People underestimate how much damage certain metals or alloys will take by constantly touching or rubbing them.
Kind of apples and oranges, a duty pistol gets wear in 2 ways, from the holster and from holding it. Most police officers rarely hold the pistol for any length of time unless at the range. Over time it does get wear from both though and that can be seen. I have shot Glocks with over 200,000 rounds through them and the plastic frame was worn smooth from firing it, I have also bought police trade in Glocks and S&W M&Ps. If your duty pistol is hitting things you probably have it in the wrong place, it should not be rubbing against anything except your holster.
I think you're seeing what you want to see here - most of those wear patterns will be from fiddling with your sword while walking, or sitting, relocating it to sit or stand, and all other things besides the occasional times it's used. Don't read too much into things that are unrelated. As someone who had to carry a firearm for work all day the wear on it from where I placed my hand wasn't noticeable on polymer as it was with older firearms but it wore from me resting my hand on it in a retention grip often as well as rubbing on one side--as described of the pommel--on my holster. If I wore it day in day out for 50 years I'm sure it'd look like those swords from perpetual contact with my hand moving it out the way to sit and stand or move through crowds and also to retain it. Also when wearing a rifle suspended on a three point harness you find yourself resting your hands on it often in the same places. I suspect it's just wear from carriage, not use.
The methods of suspension of swords shown in early medieval artwork hold the hilts up out of the way and off the the body. Just as rifles pick up wear marks on the finish from where trained users grip them with their weak hand and extend their trigger finger along the receiver, as opposed to the instinctive grip of the untrained, these swords show wear from trained use.
Bashpro0mpg , your absolutely right, the wear comes from 'fiddling ' with pommel while not using it for fighting, from leaning on it poking & scratching it etc. As an archaeologist I'm in & out of a lot of museums and archaeological storage facilities, I first found out when asking a curator about how odd grooves occurred when i was looking at a medieval bronze 'castle type' pomme he had on his desk top , "Probably by a heavy finger ring commonly worn over the gloves in the 14th century ", due go fiddling with it ( to save his long winded explanation of basically what you summed up In 3 words lol, while the owners were 'hanging' around, . & not from cleaning it or caused in battle or from battle practice, those apparently have different identifiable marks. , I was first told about unique 'fiddling'marks by the curator of the museum of london about 15/20 years ago, I particularly like things like that , personality on archaeology I love the social side of archaeology that's hard to find , individualism, graffiti on Roman cups ive excavated are particular favourites too, I love anything like that . "fiddling ' I like that . Its spot on. 👍
I will say you are wrong. As a person who is what we call a gun guy the person who wears a firearm never touches their weapon, it is is a HUGE no-no if you open carry or concealed carry even more so. To touch your weapon is a sign that you are ready to fight. It might be considered the first step to aggression. A warrior never fiddles with his weapon, those swards were very sharp and you without doubt will cut yourself. An outdoorsman never plays with his hunting knife. I suggest you talk with people who carry weapons for a living or for a daily activity. Having carried a M16 almost every day for a few years I can say I never fiddled with it and never saw any other soldier do that whether with their M1911, M16A1 or the M60. An amateur or beginner would do that because they are uncomfortable with it, a professional acts as though it's not there until they need it. I know you would not know this as I doubt you have much if any experience with carrying a weapon all day. I opened carried in Texas and if I had put my hand on my sidearm people would have freaked out.
@@BigDaddy-fx4nx Sorry but how people do it today doesn't apply to the past. Especially considering we have artwork of soldiers, including Roman soldiers (the only thing close to resembling a modern professional army) resting their hands on their swords. Modern drill and discipline are totally different than ancient drill and discipline (which didn't even march in step).
The position and angle where they drilled the hole in the pommel for the tang does not change with wear. The twisting of the pommel could in principle be achieved by forcefully bending the pommel out of position but this should be easy to spot by looking at the shape of the tang. Could any of this happen by normal wear and palming of the grip? No! They positioned these pommels intentionally of centre in the examples Roland showed. It could not come about from wear and tear, sampe pattern again and again and again with different swords. They were built this way because it is impossible to modify the internal contruction of the grip by handling it a certain way.
My carry pistol has similar wear as other comments also claim. I also have a background in carpentry and forestry. Carrying tools/weapons all day on your person while bending, climbing, carrying, ECT will result in noticable wear. That being said palming the pommel definitely gives you an advantage while stabbing and was more than likely used. It increases your range, power, maneuverability and also adds the benefit of being able to quickly redirect the stab angle in a bind situation. I believe certain polearms were used in a similar fashion.
Thank you for a very informative presentation. I recently took part in a discussion regarding the asymmetric orientation of pommels seen in medieval swords. The discussion began with the premise that people today wouldn't tolerate the manufacturing standards of the middle ages, but these "issues" were common and tolerated by even the most demanding Nobles and professionals. Really wish that I had seen this before that discussion! Well done indeed!
Danke mein herr, for sharing your findings with us. I found it quite fascinating. I'm wondering if the offset pommel is found mostly on high status swords as compared to "munition" or blacksmith quality weapons? Although I'm not completely convinced on the wear patterns being %100 from gripping the weapon, you give a very convincing argument. One of my favorite things about this channel is that it always inspires my own curiosity and research. Cant wait for the next video. Again, thank you sir.
excellent research, presentation, thanks for posting plenty of disagreement below in comments Now Dec 2022 so Merry Christmas to the want to be Vikings
I naturally use this hold and agree that it's the best, for me at least. I also strike nails with a hammer using the same grip, so the "hammer grip" name has always seemed as unwieldy as the hold itself to me! There are many examples of other holds shown in historic record, so clearly it was not the only hold used, though as it is a very natural hold, there is no doubt in my mind that some people used their swords as you describe. One theory I have for the difference in preferences is that someone like me can use this "optimal" hold without considering anything else, because I have an unusually strong grip. In school, thrill seeking kids used to challenge me to 1 second games of mercy, like an amusement ride. As a consequence of this strong grip, I am essentially invulnerable to being disarmed, but I often disarm opponents with a flick of the wrist as I parry. Someone who isn't confident in their grip may not in fact be foolish to adopt a more secure grip, even at the cost of reach and precision, as obvious as it may be that these are very significant sacrifices and best avoided if possible. Being disarmed puts you completely at the mercy of your opponent, while other ways of coming off worst a fight may not be so serious, if you can still threaten self defence, so I can see how that fear of the disarm could drive people to adopt the clumsier holds. When HEMA people today see the "precision grip" they most often criticize it for not being as secure, but for me, that's simply not a concern. I also don't worry about the chance of my hammer flying away when I hit a nail, but I worry a little about missing the nail and thus receiving my death blow. =P Another consideration is that ancient and medieval boys would first play at swordsmanship by fencing with sticks. A stick is both lighter and simpler, making the "precision grip" more obviously the way to hold them. When I was young, I too played this way with my friends and I believe we all held the sticks in more or less the same way. For a stronger person, moving to swords, it's natural just to use the same hold as one would for a stick and there's no temptation to change. For someone for whom the sword is no longer a light object, however, it may seem awkward and unnatural. I wouldn't use the "precision grip" that I use for swords if my weapon was a heavy iron bar. For someone who has missed their early stick-fighting education and wants to skip straight to playing with swords, it's more of a puzzle and people are likely to think about how they're "supposed" to do it and what other people are doing, rather than just doing it. Looking at the wear patterns that you highlight, I think that the original being-worn-wear theory may have more to do with it, but of course it must be some kind of combination and it's possible that there is considerable contribution from active use. The reason I doubt though that there is heavy wear from combat is that I doubt that they often trained mano a mano with their sharp and deadly weapons. I doubt they had spare blunt swords. I think there's evidence that they used sticks or wasters, just as most people did in later medieval times, which seems much more sensible. This isn't to say that I think the swords were almost never used - I'm sure they did play with them, given that they carried them everywhere, just probably not at each other. Using the "proper" grip, edge alignment is not a big issue, so there isn't a great need for "test cutting" as a skill if that was the prevalent hold, but as a matter of curiosity, I'm sure they tried cutting and thrusting different things and probably spent time moving their swords through the air, as we see in later weapons based martial arts. They also without a doubt fondled them when they were sheathed and at rest though and this has to have been the bulk of the contact. At first I thought the wear that Sue Brunning described on the inside of the guard was a good evidence for your in-use wear theory, but in your test, you didn't have any wear in that area. Of course, with a slightly different hold you would get wear there and also if you were thrusting each other hard, the inner guard would get heavier contact, but I guess it's also not that strange to rest a thumb or finger on that part.
It's underappreciated how almost all kids will start play fighting with sticks if you leave them to themselves in a forest for a while regardless of what films or TV they've watched. Just like anyone with a sense of fun hitting people with a wrapping paper tube. There's something inherently natural and exciting about it, like a kitten learning to fight its siblings. What I'm saying is that we should all be allowed to walk around with swords, spears and axes.
Most tools are used in several different ways depending on context. A hammer grip does not necessarily mean clamping as keeping the middle finger and thumb relatively tight while loosening the remaining fingers allows faster swings. Gripping the pommel would be great for precision thrusts but would make very weak cuts. My point being that it is all conjecture and wear patterns only show what was the predominant practice form. If that was the only way it was used then why have a full hilt at all and why does it have two blades if you only use/orient on one side? Interesting but not difinitive.
Very interesting video! I like the amount of research you invest, great literature suggestions. It seems the last two arguments are the most convincing to me (the asymmetry of the pommel). I think people have a reaction to your theory because when you do a demonstration out of sparring, your grip is really "extreme", while in a fight, like we can see really well at 18:34 your grip is more of a compromise between the hammer and the functional grip. Good work, this kind of research is important, keep it up.
I have to disagree here for a couple of reasons. 1. As many others have said, the wearmarks could easily come from simply wearing these swords and resting the hand on the pommel. 2. I have yet to see any viking era depictions, manuscripts, iconography, carving or anything that depicts this kind of grip, the depictions only vary between hammer grip and handshake grip. 3. If the intended grip would be the precision grip, the pommel would be shaped differently because it's simply not ergonomic for that type of grip. 4. All the examples you mention are precision tools. The viking era sword is not a "precision tool" or at least not in a sense like a rapier or smallsword is. The blade is not tapered and pointy, and the point of balance is rather far from hilt. For rapiers and smallswords (where the point of balance is basically on the hilt and the point of the sword is rather nimble) it makes perfect sense to hold them in a precision grip like to describe. Viking era swords with broader and not tapered blades are not designed for that, however they make far more effective chopping and cutting weapons, which is not secure with a weaker precision grip.
@@swordandshield i have heard that with indian Tulwars that there where used in a hammer grip to make powerful Drawing Cuts . maybe could a Equal Method to be used with a early Medival sword as well .
Do you know of any modern Carolingian/viking sword reproducers who make it as accurately as possible, with the offset and twisted pommel? Great video as always Roland :)
The diagram from the book showed the wear pattern on top of the ring-fitting. Does that affect the comfort/ergonomics/functionality using the grip as you propose?
On the fine mid-saxon pommel the "arms" have a bit of a convex curve that may match the curve of the user's palm. These things were custom made so you could probably get an idea of the size of the owner's hand.
Yes, this is something that Ingo Petri and myself have noted on numerous early medieval swords: One pommel side is flatter than the other. You can tell that it makes a difference when you pick them up.
regarding the wear and tear on the pummel of the sword, it also makes me think it's possible they rested their hands on the weapon., Reason I say this, if you look at police officers they almost always rest their arms or hang their arms on their belts and or vests when they are thick enough. Just a thought. Hope that makes sense.
Nice observations! But what about wielding those migration era swords with those seemingly uncomfortable pommels to hold? Edit: I discovered that their handles were a bit longer than the early medieval swords!
The wear patterns on pommels coukd be accounted for partially by resting a hand on them, particularly on their ends and edges, however the wear pattern on the faces parallel to the blade do seem more to be from use. The simple action of changing the grip as one extends the arm forward brings the outside upper quarter of the pommel across the heel of the hand and onto the ball of the thumb, this appears to be the most worn quarter.
I certainly think, firstly, that grips have their various purposes, (pros and cons). Many screwdrivers are actually designed by the way to be used with the closed, more limited range of motion style of grip because it allows you to apply more torque to the bit you're working on. Traditionally, a generic image/model of a screwdriver is relatively narrow, and certainly in instances where you don't need that force, your fingers and the precision or articulated grip does the job much better. But in some instances where the screw or whatnot is really resisting you, you may have to accept the limited range of motion and go with a full grip. I know as well that that full, tight grip does allow you to apply and resist pressure much more strongly and consistently, which is why you cannot for instance easily saw through a thick chunk of wood while maintaining the precision grip. Strikes and cuts with swords don't generally seem to require constant pressure at all, instead benefiting from accuracy, alignment of the edge and pure speed. This is what we've found generates for instance the most impressive penetrative power with spears and thrusting weapons, the velocity of the spear that it's able to be accelerated to. In a situation, however it might evolve, where you are in a range to draw and cut deeply, a somewhat tighter grip might avail you more use. There is also the reality of swords like the talwar, whose handle design completely negates a saber grip, (as far as I'm aware) and whose pommel does nothing whatsoever to assist in being held in this way, which does seem to insist or enforce that the user make use of it in the closed-fist position. A similar design can be seen I think in the ancient Roman gladius, whose massive sphere of a pommel also complicates the ability to hold the sword in a pointed grip, despite that it benefited largely from being used in the thrust, which was done so often that Vegetius is quoted as recounting: "Further, they learned to strike by stabbing, not by cutting. For the Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it. And on that account this in particular characterizes the practices of the Romans with regard to combat." A strange thing when the very design of the gladius basically inhibits being held in a 'long point' fashion. So this I think definitely questions the notion that this is a *wrong* way to hold a sword if you want to give point, but certainly I think we can all agree that with this type of sword in particular, it's definitely the most efficient way to do so!
Here's a problem with this idea: The pommel wouldn't be that shape if it was meant to he held like that. You said it yourself, "Weapons were always cleverly designed." If the sword was meant to be gripped that way, it wouldn't have that pommel shape because that's just not ergonomic for the "precision grip". Other types of swords are meant to use a "precision grip" (like later sabers and smallswords), and they don't have pommels like that. Some types of swords are made for a fist-grip. Look at the Indian Tulwar with its short handle and disc-pommel...that sword is OBVIOUSLY designed with a fist-grip in mind. "Viking"-era swords are the same. OBVIOUSLY that grip is meant to lock the hand into the grip just like the grip on the Indian Tulwar. I love your work Roland, but I think you're wrong on this one.
@@allengordon6929 Ok, for one... "...in his grip is perfectly functional." Is it though? PERFECTLY functional? Is it? You could use all sorts of tools the wrong way and still get the job done, but that doesn't mean you're using them them the intended way and it doesn't mean they're PERFECTLY functional. I could grip a hammer way up by the head with most of the handle sticking out from the bottom of my hand and still (eventually) pound a nail into a board, but that doesn't mean I'm using the hammer correctly. And while the hammer may function, it's not PERFECTLY functional. Same thing here. My point stands. Making the sword work IN SPITE of the grip is not the same thing as using the grip as intended.
Exactly. As long as the distance from the handle to the edge of the pommel is short enough, all these swords can be hammer gripped without any issues. If the distance is too long, it will bite to your wrist. Same story with Tulwars and Tuareg Takouba swords, which are having disc pommels and hammer gripped. Note Tuareg swords are straight. Hammer grip allows you to hit with the crossguard, and the pommel when you get close. Thrusts can be done by extending the wrist, which is the Tuareg way. Similar wrist extension mechanic can be used for quick flick type strikes. Power strikes come with hammer grip. I his latest Hedeby videos, I noticed Roland is not using this grip any more, he seems to have thumb on the crossguard in a messer like grip. This is acceptable as historically you could and would use the flat of the blade for training, or with sabers the blunt back edge. We know this from e.g. Khevsurs.
I think that looking at how the Spatha was used before looking at arming swords or other, later, weapons. The Spatha is more close in design to the Sverth and the migration period swords which came between them.
You have to be cautious here to not fall into the trap of a false dichotomy. It is not either the death-grip or your proposed way to hold a sword. Case in point: most chefs do not hold a knife like you did, but in a so-called pinch-grip where the index finger is curled around the base of the blade and the pressure is exerted by the first knuckle of the index finger; *not* by the tip of the index finger. Similarly, there are a variety of ways to hold a sword, eg. like you often use the thumb along the flat of the blade in techniques with the Langes Messer or how you hold a Japanese sword with a so-called shake-hands grip, which is in a way similar to holding a chef's knife. So while the grip you propose does enable a very thrust-centric style, I think that doesn't account for the fact that early medieval swords were also good at cutting; which is very hard to do with a precarious grip at the end of the pommel.
Is it possible the Viking Age swords were not intended to be used in just one grip, but different grips for different situations? The grip mentioned here I can see as being really useful for point control and extending ones reach when it comes to cutting. However I think the hammer grip can still be used on these swords without the wrist and pommel having problems with each other. There is another sword I can think of in history that made use of a small grip and a pommel that has the same problems as a Viking sword if you try to use it the way you might use a cutlass. This sword is the Tulwar as well as other Indian swords. These swords are meant to be used in a hammer grip, but this can seem uncomfortable, especially if you are extending the wrist. But when employing a draw cut the hilt design doesn’t interfere at all. These swords are supposed to be used with draw cuts and push cuts. I think the Viking Age swords might be a similar case, that the hammer grip is to be used when draw cutting. Draw cutting could be a better alternative in tight battle formations especially when considering the large shields used in this time period. The Viking Age swords are similar to the Tulwars in hilt design in terms of small grip and large pommel; but I think the “Viking” swords aren’t just meant for the hammer grip like the Tulwar as they don’t have a disk pommel like the Tulwar does. It could be possible that both the hammer grip and the the sort of handshake grip mentioned in this video were used, and that the Vikings and others with these swords switched between the two grips when needed; or might have had personal preferences, some might have preferred draw cutting and the hammer grip, others the more precise grip for more point control and reach. Masters of the saber in the 19th century didn’t agree on one standard grip for example, Alfred Hutton says to use a handshake grip with the thumb along the back of the grip in his book “Cold Steel” though Charles Roworth thought the sabers to small for that kind of grip and said to use the hammer grip in his book “The Art of Defense”. Neither one is wrong or right, both grips work, have advantages and disadvantages over the others. Ultimately it comes down to preference while still being efficient and most importantly alive, whichever grip a person finds works for them and keeps them alive is what they’ll go with. Great work on the video, it was very enjoyable to watch and made me think quite a bit on this subject.
Interesting but Not convinced. Any soldier will tell any sidewalk Commando that you carry your weapon around and bang into stuff way more than you use it. Way Way more. There is no doubt that some swords were asymmetrical but it also looks to me like some edges were favored for different tasks. one edge may have been sharper . No doubt one side could have looked cooler too. A fine French or Spanish grip is great for foil fencing.. but when your life or limb depends on it...you need/want a very secure grip. Often the pommel is designed to hook your little finger as this is the weakest part of ones grip... that helps you keep your sword in a swing or pull back. But this is fun to discuss.
Question about the "maximal extension of the sword". Is it necessarily about working with a thrust-centric fencing system, especially in the context of swords blades which are not optimised for thrusting at all? Could it be about having a maximal extension in the arc of a cut - which would match well the forward-balanced blades with thin, spatulated tips which make them outstanding cutters? So that you could cut your opponent effectively even with the very tip of the blade.
I find this, and other videos you have posted about the principles of physical movement, very inspiring and can inform fighting skills from many periods and geographies. So often we think of manual skills by people who don't produce written sources as somehow 'primitive', but of course they were carefully considered and carefully taught from one generation to another. If you use a tool every day, or you depend on your tool for survival in critical situations, of course you are going to spend effort on using it most efficiently.
Very interesting. But shouldn't you be more cutting than poking with a Carolingian sword? Can you hold that grip while giving a cutting blow that shatters the opponent's shield?
You're on to something here I think, but I share some of the skepticism expressed by others here. We agree, I think, that the evidence ought to precede the conclusion and I'm afraid that you're allowing your (very reasonable and substantiated) conclusion to precede your evaluation of the evidence. The pommel evidence is interesting, especially if you highlight the great precision in their making and then try to explain the asymmetry, but I want a broader array of evidence chronologically, geographically and with more sword/pommel types. This inquiry is absolutely worth undertaking, but my historical training is yelling at me that we're a bit too premature yet in making these conclusions. Nice work, Roland, as usual.
It is interesting, but that type of grip, you show, is appropriate generally for later "roman" type of swords. This was connected to combat on horse. Constructive elements of dark ages\early medieval type of swords tells us, that they were gripped as most people grip it - in "strong" grip position. There can be no misunderstandings near it. Pattern on the hilts is connected with type of carrying of the swords.
How to sheath a Viking sword ? The false edge is there because I have yet to see any traditional martial art where people sheath the sword with the "threading of the needle" technique like we see at 27:16. This sheathing technique is as historically inaccurate as the hammer grip. Part of what is a good sword design is having an effective way to both sheath and unsheathe the weapon quickly without having to break front sight each time of doing so. Part of why a sword scabbard would be held so high near the chest is when you have a longer rectangular or oval type shield that will just touch the ground before your shield hand can even reach waist level. A long single hand sword handle must rest at chest high for convenient manipulation of the scabbard with the shield hand to either sheath or unsheathe the long blade without looking down. A round shield allows for a lower shield hand grip of the scabbard, because the shield will not touch the ground as soon as a rectangular or oval shield, the scabbard can therefore sit lower near the waist. If the sword was totally razor sharp on both edges, you will cut yourself and the scabbard if you tried to do a no-look sheathing (using what's called the "purlicue", the gap between the thumb and the index, in a pincer gesture to guide the blade back to the mouth of the scabbard).
If the sword is a purpose designed ergonomic tool, having a metal pommel like that rubbing against the heel of my palm for extended periods does not fit that definition for me. I agree with the grip because it maximizes wrist mobility and potential angular velocity of a blow and is used to great effect with say a Shashka. However, I note in most of the original images you provided in the video the warrior was wearing long sleeves with a defined cuff. I propose that the grip would be similar but off the pommel and the observed wear is a result of contact with the cuff (a separate leather brace?) as the wrist moves through the full range of motion. I really enjoy the content you create and especially you thoughtful approach to the material.
That grip is beyond ridiculous and your hand is a complete mess after using it. There is little power or speed transferred using that stupid grip and parrying or getting in the bind would be even worse, waving the sword around like a wand won't produce good cuts (the primary function of these swords). They are not made for rapier like fencing but brutal close quarters fights, otherwise why bring a shield or sit in formation?
Good day, everyone. Can someone answer me, if the shield bosses were used as punching your opponents? I find it mentioned everywhere on the internet, even on wikipedia, but it isn't all that practical to use it in actual combat, especially when the edge of your shield already packs a great offensive punch.
You can, but it's rather to secure your hand cause if it was wood, it could be pierced. Very less risk with an umbo. And punching with edge of the shield, allow to have more reach.
certainly, in terms of tool use, the grip is totally dependant on the force or torque you NEED to impart on what you are working on... the analogy of the the screwdriver falls apart the moment you are driving or removing a screw that is deeply imbedded in the work, the same applies to any of the other tools that you brought up, the hammer and the bread knife as well. I do have to give way to your greater knowledge of using edged weapons... but instinctively, I would argue again, that grip would depend on the force or power that is having to be used... and having watched your latest video about about Sharp Sword and shield combat, i did notice that you were not using the pomel grip as described, but more of an extended "hammer" grip... I feel we aere never going to know the extent of the use of this more precision grip described in this video, we have no way of going back in time to see for ourselves, and they have not been considerate enough to have left us any descriptive texts to fully explain their combat style as used...
The pommel twist determines handedness. I mention it briefly in the video. It is covered in more detail here: www.patreon.com/posts/ergonomic-hilt-31035270 and here: www.patreon.com/posts/sininis-sword-of-34940507
Hypothetically, would a hammer grip be more effective than a precision grip when delivering a strong strike to a static target e.g. when executing a prisoner?
if you are using a talwar, then yes, since the disc pommel more or less restricts you into it and the sword is made to be used as such (though not a death clamping grip like roland shows). with the kind of sword Roland is using, my guess would be that a "handshake grip" would provide the most power
Not necessarily. If you look at certain types of swords that demand a hammer grip due to their design (hilt, blade, or both) then very much so. However, if it does not demand a hammer grip, then I would be more inclined to use what Roland shows, but on the hilt and not strictly the pommel. The reason I say this is because in my experience, I've found that a relaxed grip allows for more control and better leverage. Also, if you allow for more movement, you can create leverage with your last two fingers and generate an immense amount of force when compared to the hammer grip. There are some downsides, but if your opponent isn't moving and/or fighting back, none of them really apply
@@p7outdoors297 I think Matt from Schola Gladiatoria proposes a grip that Uses the pinky to create some sort of hook to create leverage (I dont remember quite well) he also points out the amount of people that naturally feels the need to modify their hilts to extend the 9cm ish standards. I think its a fascinating topic.
Well, the "there are no sources" thing: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not having a proper sources (multiple sources at best to compare viewpoints), we have to assume, we have to try to understand and be open minded about theses. In the end we do not know because no one was there, but we can try to make sense, and also we should assume that people in general and especially from cultures in which hand-to-hand combat was an integral part were smart becasue their lives depended on being smarter and more skillful. And with swords in particular we have the case that swords were one of the very few tools/weapons designed to combat other humans rather than hunting tools or derived crafting tools. I very much support your thesis about the grip because it makes sense, even more so looking at how the Roman gladius was designed.
Swords were so rare that the only people who used them essentialy didn't have to fight very often... Most people used Spears and Axes... with the Hammer grip Hahahah.
@@swordandshield its very light! My sword is above 1250 grams with point of balance above 16 cm and your style of handling is my fave but i think its better on light swords with better point ofbbalance . maybe i m wrong .
Funny how you keep speaking about precision grip, and while you try to sheath your swords at 27:15 you do everything but doing what you are trying to demonstrate. Why ? Because it feel more natural to hold it this way.
That's just body mechanics. Sheathing the sword is done paralel to you chest, stabbing the enemy is done vertivally to your chest. Our body is not made to be precise parralel to our chest. Luckily, when fencing, oponents are usually in front of us instead of at wrestling distance.
That’s what I observed on my steering wheel. But indeed minor stuff like sand or rust on the hands would make the whole hand abrasive. Looking at wear patterns at open holster service revolvers could be interesting.
This is not a comment aimed at Roland specifically, but a general comment about this area of interest: I would invest far more time into this area of history if there wasn't this questionable fetishizing of so called "vikings". There is no reason why this period of history should be focused around such a subculture, and I honestly don't know why it's so morally acceptable to be openly in love with such a parasitic and destructive subculture. "Early medieval", or even "dark ages" is a far more appropriate and accurate term than constantly blarting out "viking". If one is in love with this particular subculture, I'd advise you to try living like them for a while and see how you interact with the world, instead of acting like a modern hypocritic. It's fine to be interested in a period of history, but be wary of your angle and don't be surprised when someone pulls you up on your beloved faction when it's completely at odds with the majority of human societies that have existed, never mind modern society.
Fascinating video, but Roland just sounds arrogant and stubborn when claiming with sweeping certainty that he knows how these swords were held. We don't know; Roland doesn't know. We can only guess, and Roland's guess is only that- a guess. A little epistemic modesty would help his credibility here. Dogmatic certainty on such an obscure data point only makes him look foolish (and I've seen enough vids to know that roland is not remotely foolish in general).
You spend much too much time trying to convince viewers, instead of getting to the point. Six and a half minutes in, and I'm feeling bored and impatient. You made your point clearly within the first couple of minutes, but then decided to beat the dead horse. The only information that you haven't gotten to at this point, is what was already mentioned in the thumbnail...wear patterns. While that might turn out to be interesting, I'm not willing to sit through another twenty minutes plus of you droning on and on, going nowhere.
You could just drop that garbage here and be done with it... OR, you could actually contribute the conversation and explain why you feel that way. C'mon, bruh.
Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
There's some interesting points made here but there's also a few problems with this:
1. This style of pommel comes from an evolution of "boat-shaped" pommel caps from the earlier swords from Vimose, Nydam, Ejsbol, etc. and the earlier styles are not at all conducive to using the sword in this manner, having wide almond-shaped pommels (Behmer Type-I, Miks Type-24 and Type-25) that inhibit any ergonomic gripping of the sword this way. Even the ones with narrower pommels that these evolved out of (the Osterburken-Kemathens, Behmer Type-3 and Miks Type-26). Now the Miks Type-23 and Type-25 Handles (the so-called Hourglass-shaped handles, Behmer Type-5) do suggest there was a new way of holding the sword evolving (which Matt Easton termed the "Handshake Grip" in Mortimer and Bunker's recent book on Anglo-Saxon swords) but to position the pommel in the hand like you descibe is not shown in Pressblech, let alone Roman art.
2. The wear on the pommels could easily come from resting the hand on the sword's pommel. A habit we not only fall into as reenactors, but is actually evidenced in the art.
3. Viking swords are not necessarily the only tradition that evolves into the arming sword. True arming swords first appear in the Roman (Byzantine) Empire in about 900 AD with the Galovo-Type Spathion, which did not possess a pommel like this, and evolved out of the Asiatic-type Spatha that had been introduced by the Huns and Avars. And we know the Romans had a system of battlefield dueling with the sword called "Armatura" or "Hoplomakhia" albeit it does not survive.
4. There are a myriad of Germanic and Roman swords with pommels of similar relatively ergonomic shapes such as the Spatha from Cologne (c. 300 AD) or various Gladius hilts and they actually do exhibit similar wear patterns but we know they did not fight with the sword in the way you describe from Roman art and from the shape of the grips (finger groves were popular in this period).
We can't totally discount a theory like this, but coming from the perspective of an late Roman/early migration era/Byzantine historian and reenactor, it just doesn't make sense and the evidence is at best circumstantial. It's no better than trying to figure out Roman swordfighting, or Dawson's paper suggesting I.33 comes from Byzantine swordfighting (It probably doesn't - The Romans had a ban on civilian dueling and the evidence from Ivory caskets is circumstantial at best, hence my point).
However finger groves are kinda comfortable in this kind of grip, albeit not so much wrapped around the pommel.
When we spar in our reenactment group, using a real sword (a gladius, ok, not a spatha mind you) I use it often to deliver better the thrust instead of a hammer grip, and actually feel better and less "goofy" even in a cutting motion, kind of like when holding a sword with finger rings, it projects well the poin forward
@@339Jackscarify I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's really a weak grip in my opinion and on top of that, it's not evidenced in Roman provincial or gladiatorial art.
I think it is worth remembering that the Romans were training for the lowest common denominator, that the idea of parrying with the sword wasn't standard practice in their training as evidenced by the text of Valerius Maxiumus, and that the size and type of shield being used by frontline infantry before the 10th century AD isn't conducive to a style of swordplay similar to the later manuals.
Having studied this topic I've slowly come to the conclusion that it's near impossible to make real conclusions about combat in this period because we don't have any reliable sources beyond depictions of fighting gladiators, and those depict some very weird positions that can only be really the result of choreographed fights when looking at the ergonomics.
@@nuancedhistory On the fact of parrying of the blade of the gladius I totally agree, I was just spilling my two cents on the comfortness of the groves themselves with a similar grip
@@339Jackscarify fair. Again not impossible just from my experience and research I find it unlikely.
Thanks a lot for all these details! My two cents about gladiators, the weird positions come not necessarily from choreographing the fights but more from a very specific set of moves available to the fighters, due to their equipment and general requirement not to kill each other. So more "ritualized" than "choreographed". Look up Acta Archeo, they're doing quite an amazing job at reconstructing gladiatorial combat.
This is a question I have been considering for a long time. Having spent a while training and sparring with both I have come to several conclusions:
1.) Palm-grip enables much more finesse, movement & control of the blade
2.) Hammer-grip enables much more force to be placed into blows
3.) With practise both of these issues can be substantially ameliorated. I.e. Subtle strikes with the Hammer & Strong blows with the Palm (though neither will be equal to the other)
4.) When training in armour you very quickly realise hammer-grip is the way to go & Palm is best when in standard tunics. It is hard to penetrate mail (even with sharps), and hard to knock down an opponent with the palm-grip.
In essence, from my own personal experience of re-creating combat from this era, when fighting against protected opponents, force and aggression (in combination with techniques) is far more conducive to surviving than dexterity
Early medieval armor was insufficient against a well aimed strike and that's also a reason why shield was so important. So there was a place for finesse too, not only for the brute force, that's a good point about these videos.
Thanks for sharing your insights. However, I do not agree. The impact power of a sword blow depends on acceleration. Maximum acceleration requires the sword to move around its respective pivot points. Whatever the hand does is only designed to help the sword move correctly, and at maximum speed. Thus, if a specific blow feels weaker than another, one has to optimize mechanics and train hard.
You do have to remember that many modern replicas of viking swords tend to have a few issues. They pick blades that tend to handle closest to how modern people want and the longest historically accurate grips. And sometimes the more comfortable pommel shapes.
I tend to think you're correct that both are used. But I think it might depend on personal preference and some other differences. Potentially fencing styles of different areas.
I know roland has handled many originals. So I tend to think he's on to something. Also why if I ever manage to get my sword company idea going I plan on having blueprints of many originals to use for replication.
4 minutes in, something comes to mind. All those things you demonstrated are things that aren’t taught but are simply results of doing it and feeling it’s best to hold the item a certain way, it’s intuitive. Now I’ve never held a sword but I’m sure there must be an intuitive way to do grip it when you’re trying to stab people with it...
If one can let go of preconceptions. There is a reason for the term ‘to grasp‘, after all.
Sometimes the intuitive thing is going against the correct way. Depends on the situation.
I do however think roland is correct on this topic.
I totally like your videos and ideas, but sometimes I have a problem with your "all or nothing" phrasing. To hold the viking age swords in a handshake grip seems to be plausible, but also the hammer grip. Why not both? Why not switch between both methods dependend on what you want to do? For example the Langes Messer uses a variety of grips: do you want to hau forcefully and get speed? --> hammer grip. do you want reach? --> handshake grip. And you can switch fluently between those grips. Start "vom Tag" with the hammer grip, get speed and end in a "saber grip" for a Ausfall. You even can adapt to the blade alignment: thumb on the short blade side of the hilt for maximum reach, thumb flat on the blade for a twerhau, thumb in a 45° angle for a diagonal hau.
I think, saying viking swords were held in the hammer grip all the time is wrong, you I stand behind you, but saying they were held in the handshake grip exclusively isn't right either, I'd say.
Excellent video, I really liked when you said that martial arts feels un-intuitive when you first start to learn. When I first started boxing all the positions and punches felt so odd but with training everything becomes streamline and begins to turn to muscle memory, I would think armed martial arts is the same.
I guess this is indeed true for pretty much any skill and physical activity.I cannot think of a single craft or sports that allows for picking up the associated tools and instruments and intuitively do it right - leave alone excell.
Well said, can’t wait to see what videos you put out next.
Good arguments for the ‘precision’ grip. I will have to think about if the ubiquitous presence of the shield strengthens or weakens this argument. Thank you for the well thought out video.
Of all the review channels out there, I think I learn the absolute most from this channel. Thank you for awesome content!
I am delighted to read this.
Awesome video sir . We have had many discussions with fellow Filipino martial artist and other styles on how to grip the bladed weapons.I specially like your video with scientific evidence they may suggest and how they may have held their weapons back in the day
It has been my experience that it seems to be more of an individual preference based on who taught them gripping and of course type of of weapons they are using and skill level.
The wear pattern on the hilts look VERY similar to a well worn duty pistol worn on the outside of the hip with a more exposed holster...It looks to me like everyday wear, bumping into things, knocking against things, wear from working, sweat, etc..This is MUCH more likely than it being worn down from a human hand IMO. It's probably from sleeping, working, living, eating, fighting with a weapon everyday. I found similar wear patterns on my firearms having them on me all day everyday in a combat zone. Now I'm sure the handling of the sword would help with that process but not to such extent as shown. Things like color, and paint would come off from handling it, but it would have to be someone doing nothing but training all day for years to even start to rub the metal down like that. This also explains the asymmetrical wear pattern. It would always be worn and drawn from the same side so more of that side would be worn along with the top from handling objects with your hands while wearing the sword...Unless you add in something like a metal gauntlet to that process. Than it is possible...Seems like everyday scrapes and bumps from it hanging on the hip at all times....Very interesting video..I havent finished watching it all but I had to pause and comment before I forgot about it..Cheers mate..I'm not saying I disagree with how you hold the sword though. It makes alot of sense to me.
Very interesting. And I do not rule out that additional wear is caused by carrying the sword at the hip. Yet I see it exactly the other way round: The gripping hand rubs over the surface way more when practicing. Which is why I see oxidation stains on my hand, yet no stains on my clothing. Daily training is indeed to expected with historical swordsmen, as reflected in numerous sources. This would give you sword hand skin like sandpaper. Just look at the blisters and abrasions on my swordhand after only a weekend without the gloves I usually wear for fencing.
@@swordandshield It could be possible with a softer metal..I trained in the same way with my firearms. Numerous times a day, everyday in the heat of the desert, when we weren't on missions. Same rough hands and blisters from lifting weights, digging fighting positions, buildings defensive structures and training.....Though I'm not familiar with how iron, copper, bronze would wear in everyday use. After I finished the video after my comment I see that you said the hilt was commonly made with these metals combined and or variations of them. You may be on to something. Something as simple of an abrasive material as dirt, sand with sweat could most likely polish these materials with tough hands and alot of regular use....Great video my friend, and I appreciate the exchange of ideas
@@50StichesSteel
In the St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, there is a statue of St. Petrus. For hundreds of years, pilgrims have touched the right foot, as it is supposed the bring luck. Millions of hands have rubbed off so much metal that is has become an unrecognisable lump of bronze, just by touching it.
People underestimate how much damage certain metals or alloys will take by constantly touching or rubbing them.
Kind of apples and oranges, a duty pistol gets wear in 2 ways, from the holster and from holding it. Most police officers rarely hold the pistol for any length of time unless at the range. Over time it does get wear from both though and that can be seen. I have shot Glocks with over 200,000 rounds through them and the plastic frame was worn smooth from firing it, I have also bought police trade in Glocks and S&W M&Ps. If your duty pistol is hitting things you probably have it in the wrong place, it should not be rubbing against anything except your holster.
Today I've been obsessing about Viking swords, and guess what?
Vielen Dank Herr Roland.
Gern geschehen.
I think you're seeing what you want to see here - most of those wear patterns will be from fiddling with your sword while walking, or sitting, relocating it to sit or stand, and all other things besides the occasional times it's used. Don't read too much into things that are unrelated. As someone who had to carry a firearm for work all day the wear on it from where I placed my hand wasn't noticeable on polymer as it was with older firearms but it wore from me resting my hand on it in a retention grip often as well as rubbing on one side--as described of the pommel--on my holster. If I wore it day in day out for 50 years I'm sure it'd look like those swords from perpetual contact with my hand moving it out the way to sit and stand or move through crowds and also to retain it. Also when wearing a rifle suspended on a three point harness you find yourself resting your hands on it often in the same places. I suspect it's just wear from carriage, not use.
The methods of suspension of swords shown in early medieval artwork hold the hilts up out of the way and off the the body. Just as rifles pick up wear marks on the finish from where trained users grip them with their weak hand and extend their trigger finger along the receiver, as opposed to the instinctive grip of the untrained, these swords show wear from trained use.
Bashpro0mpg , your absolutely right,
the wear comes from 'fiddling ' with pommel while not using it for fighting, from leaning on it poking & scratching it etc.
As an archaeologist I'm in & out of a lot of museums and archaeological storage facilities,
I first found out when asking a curator about how odd grooves occurred when i was looking at a medieval bronze 'castle type' pomme he had on his desk top ,
"Probably by a heavy finger ring commonly worn over the gloves in the 14th century ", due go fiddling with it ( to save his long winded explanation of basically what you summed up In 3 words lol,
while the owners were 'hanging' around, . & not from cleaning it or caused in battle or from battle practice, those apparently have different identifiable marks.
, I was first told about unique 'fiddling'marks by the curator of the museum of london about 15/20 years ago,
I particularly like things like that , personality on archaeology
I love the social side of archaeology that's hard to find , individualism, graffiti on Roman cups ive excavated are particular favourites too, I love anything like that .
"fiddling ' I like that . Its spot on. 👍
I will say you are wrong. As a person who is what we call a gun guy the person who wears a firearm never touches their weapon, it is is a HUGE no-no if you open carry or concealed carry even more so. To touch your weapon is a sign that you are ready to fight. It might be considered the first step to aggression. A warrior never fiddles with his weapon, those swards were very sharp and you without doubt will cut yourself. An outdoorsman never plays with his hunting knife. I suggest you talk with people who carry weapons for a living or for a daily activity. Having carried a M16 almost every day for a few years I can say I never fiddled with it and never saw any other soldier do that whether with their M1911, M16A1 or the M60. An amateur or beginner would do that because they are uncomfortable with it, a professional acts as though it's not there until they need it. I know you would not know this as I doubt you have much if any experience with carrying a weapon all day. I opened carried in Texas and if I had put my hand on my sidearm people would have freaked out.
@@BigDaddy-fx4nx Sorry but how people do it today doesn't apply to the past. Especially considering we have artwork of soldiers, including Roman soldiers (the only thing close to resembling a modern professional army) resting their hands on their swords.
Modern drill and discipline are totally different than ancient drill and discipline (which didn't even march in step).
The position and angle where they drilled the hole in the pommel for the tang does not change with wear. The twisting of the pommel could in principle be achieved by forcefully bending the pommel out of position but this should be easy to spot by looking at the shape of the tang.
Could any of this happen by normal wear and palming of the grip? No! They positioned these pommels intentionally of centre in the examples Roland showed. It could not come about from wear and tear, sampe pattern again and again and again with different swords. They were built this way because it is impossible to modify the internal contruction of the grip by handling it a certain way.
My carry pistol has similar wear as other comments also claim. I also have a background in carpentry and forestry. Carrying tools/weapons all day on your person while bending, climbing, carrying, ECT will result in noticable wear. That being said palming the pommel definitely gives you an advantage while stabbing and was more than likely used. It increases your range, power, maneuverability and also adds the benefit of being able to quickly redirect the stab angle in a bind situation. I believe certain polearms were used in a similar fashion.
Thank you for a very informative presentation. I recently took part in a discussion regarding the asymmetric orientation of pommels seen in medieval swords. The discussion began with the premise that people today wouldn't tolerate the manufacturing standards of the middle ages, but these "issues" were common and tolerated by even the most demanding Nobles and professionals. Really wish that I had seen this before that discussion! Well done indeed!
Danke mein herr, for sharing your findings with us. I found it quite fascinating. I'm wondering if the offset pommel is found mostly on high status swords as compared to "munition" or blacksmith quality weapons?
Although I'm not completely convinced on the wear patterns being %100 from gripping the weapon, you give a very convincing argument. One of my favorite things about this channel is that it always inspires my own curiosity and research. Cant wait for the next video. Again, thank you sir.
Hope you and yours are healthy and happy. Stay safe everyone!
Most beautiful debunking of typical reenactment error, GREAT JOB! 💪💪💪
excellent research, presentation, thanks for posting
plenty of disagreement below in comments
Now Dec 2022 so Merry Christmas to the want to be Vikings
I naturally use this hold and agree that it's the best, for me at least. I also strike nails with a hammer using the same grip, so the "hammer grip" name has always seemed as unwieldy as the hold itself to me!
There are many examples of other holds shown in historic record, so clearly it was not the only hold used, though as it is a very natural hold, there is no doubt in my mind that some people used their swords as you describe.
One theory I have for the difference in preferences is that someone like me can use this "optimal" hold without considering anything else, because I have an unusually strong grip. In school, thrill seeking kids used to challenge me to 1 second games of mercy, like an amusement ride. As a consequence of this strong grip, I am essentially invulnerable to being disarmed, but I often disarm opponents with a flick of the wrist as I parry. Someone who isn't confident in their grip may not in fact be foolish to adopt a more secure grip, even at the cost of reach and precision, as obvious as it may be that these are very significant sacrifices and best avoided if possible. Being disarmed puts you completely at the mercy of your opponent, while other ways of coming off worst a fight may not be so serious, if you can still threaten self defence, so I can see how that fear of the disarm could drive people to adopt the clumsier holds.
When HEMA people today see the "precision grip" they most often criticize it for not being as secure, but for me, that's simply not a concern. I also don't worry about the chance of my hammer flying away when I hit a nail, but I worry a little about missing the nail and thus receiving my death blow. =P
Another consideration is that ancient and medieval boys would first play at swordsmanship by fencing with sticks. A stick is both lighter and simpler, making the "precision grip" more obviously the way to hold them. When I was young, I too played this way with my friends and I believe we all held the sticks in more or less the same way. For a stronger person, moving to swords, it's natural just to use the same hold as one would for a stick and there's no temptation to change. For someone for whom the sword is no longer a light object, however, it may seem awkward and unnatural. I wouldn't use the "precision grip" that I use for swords if my weapon was a heavy iron bar. For someone who has missed their early stick-fighting education and wants to skip straight to playing with swords, it's more of a puzzle and people are likely to think about how they're "supposed" to do it and what other people are doing, rather than just doing it.
Looking at the wear patterns that you highlight, I think that the original being-worn-wear theory may have more to do with it, but of course it must be some kind of combination and it's possible that there is considerable contribution from active use. The reason I doubt though that there is heavy wear from combat is that I doubt that they often trained mano a mano with their sharp and deadly weapons. I doubt they had spare blunt swords. I think there's evidence that they used sticks or wasters, just as most people did in later medieval times, which seems much more sensible.
This isn't to say that I think the swords were almost never used - I'm sure they did play with them, given that they carried them everywhere, just probably not at each other. Using the "proper" grip, edge alignment is not a big issue, so there isn't a great need for "test cutting" as a skill if that was the prevalent hold, but as a matter of curiosity, I'm sure they tried cutting and thrusting different things and probably spent time moving their swords through the air, as we see in later weapons based martial arts. They also without a doubt fondled them when they were sheathed and at rest though and this has to have been the bulk of the contact.
At first I thought the wear that Sue Brunning described on the inside of the guard was a good evidence for your in-use wear theory, but in your test, you didn't have any wear in that area. Of course, with a slightly different hold you would get wear there and also if you were thrusting each other hard, the inner guard would get heavier contact, but I guess it's also not that strange to rest a thumb or finger on that part.
It's underappreciated how almost all kids will start play fighting with sticks if you leave them to themselves in a forest for a while regardless of what films or TV they've watched.
Just like anyone with a sense of fun hitting people with a wrapping paper tube. There's something inherently natural and exciting about it, like a kitten learning to fight its siblings.
What I'm saying is that we should all be allowed to walk around with swords, spears and axes.
Most tools are used in several different ways depending on context. A hammer grip does not necessarily mean clamping as keeping the middle finger and thumb relatively tight while loosening the remaining fingers allows faster swings. Gripping the pommel would be great for precision thrusts but would make very weak cuts. My point being that it is all conjecture and wear patterns only show what was the predominant practice form. If that was the only way it was used then why have a full hilt at all and why does it have two blades if you only use/orient on one side? Interesting but not difinitive.
Very interesting video! I like the amount of research you invest, great literature suggestions. It seems the last two arguments are the most convincing to me (the asymmetry of the pommel). I think people have a reaction to your theory because when you do a demonstration out of sparring, your grip is really "extreme", while in a fight, like we can see really well at 18:34 your grip is more of a compromise between the hammer and the functional grip. Good work, this kind of research is important, keep it up.
I have to disagree here for a couple of reasons.
1. As many others have said, the wearmarks could easily come from simply wearing these swords and resting the hand on the pommel.
2. I have yet to see any viking era depictions, manuscripts, iconography, carving or anything that depicts this kind of grip, the depictions only vary between hammer grip and handshake grip.
3. If the intended grip would be the precision grip, the pommel would be shaped differently because it's simply not ergonomic for that type of grip.
4. All the examples you mention are precision tools. The viking era sword is not a "precision tool" or at least not in a sense like a rapier or smallsword is. The blade is not tapered and pointy, and the point of balance is rather far from hilt. For rapiers and smallswords (where the point of balance is basically on the hilt and the point of the sword is rather nimble) it makes perfect sense to hold them in a precision grip like to describe. Viking era swords with broader and not tapered blades are not designed for that, however they make far more effective chopping and cutting weapons, which is not secure with a weaker precision grip.
Will try to cut my bread with a reverse grip later...
oh you absolutely can. but you must be careful not to split the globe by using such a powerful techniqe.
I reverse gripped my nodachi and it split the fabric of the universe.
Reverse grip cutting was most common, there are still bread knives with an upwards curved handle. But not ice pick grip reverse
Make sure to run a camera, and edit an 'epic fail' contribution!
@@swordandshield i have heard that with indian Tulwars that there where used in a hammer grip to make powerful Drawing Cuts .
maybe could a Equal Method to be used with a early Medival sword as well .
I always enjoy your videos. Your a treasure.
@Roland Wazecha Your viking-era sword rocks. What make is it and where can we find one like it? Danke vielmals!
I think you should try wearing a viking sword a very long time, to see if the wear patterns aren't just from carrying.
Do you know of any modern Carolingian/viking sword reproducers who make it as accurately as possible, with the offset and twisted pommel? Great video as always Roland :)
The diagram from the book showed the wear pattern on top of the ring-fitting. Does that affect the comfort/ergonomics/functionality using the grip as you propose?
I would have to try out. I have not examined a ring-hilted sword, yet.
I noticed this also and wondered the same thing. I have never held a sword with this type of pommel and am very curious.
On the fine mid-saxon pommel the "arms" have a bit of a convex curve that may match the curve of the user's palm. These things were custom made so you could probably get an idea of the size of the owner's hand.
Yes, this is something that Ingo Petri and myself have noted on numerous early medieval swords: One pommel side is flatter than the other. You can tell that it makes a difference when you pick them up.
At 11:45, that looks like a *vicious* blister on your thumb!
regarding the wear and tear on the pummel of the sword, it also makes me think it's possible they rested their hands on the weapon., Reason I say this, if you look at police officers they almost always rest their arms or hang their arms on their belts and or vests when they are thick enough. Just a thought. Hope that makes sense.
Nice observations! But what about wielding those migration era swords with those seemingly uncomfortable pommels to hold?
Edit: I discovered that their handles were a bit longer than the early medieval swords!
The wear patterns on pommels coukd be accounted for partially by resting a hand on them, particularly on their ends and edges, however the wear pattern on the faces parallel to the blade do seem more to be from use. The simple action of changing the grip as one extends the arm forward brings the outside upper quarter of the pommel across the heel of the hand and onto the ball of the thumb, this appears to be the most worn quarter.
I certainly think, firstly, that grips have their various purposes, (pros and cons). Many screwdrivers are actually designed by the way to be used with the closed, more limited range of motion style of grip because it allows you to apply more torque to the bit you're working on. Traditionally, a generic image/model of a screwdriver is relatively narrow, and certainly in instances where you don't need that force, your fingers and the precision or articulated grip does the job much better. But in some instances where the screw or whatnot is really resisting you, you may have to accept the limited range of motion and go with a full grip.
I know as well that that full, tight grip does allow you to apply and resist pressure much more strongly and consistently, which is why you cannot for instance easily saw through a thick chunk of wood while maintaining the precision grip. Strikes and cuts with swords don't generally seem to require constant pressure at all, instead benefiting from accuracy, alignment of the edge and pure speed. This is what we've found generates for instance the most impressive penetrative power with spears and thrusting weapons, the velocity of the spear that it's able to be accelerated to. In a situation, however it might evolve, where you are in a range to draw and cut deeply, a somewhat tighter grip might avail you more use.
There is also the reality of swords like the talwar, whose handle design completely negates a saber grip, (as far as I'm aware) and whose pommel does nothing whatsoever to assist in being held in this way, which does seem to insist or enforce that the user make use of it in the closed-fist position.
A similar design can be seen I think in the ancient Roman gladius, whose massive sphere of a pommel also complicates the ability to hold the sword in a pointed grip, despite that it benefited largely from being used in the thrust, which was done so often that Vegetius is quoted as recounting: "Further, they learned to strike by stabbing, not by cutting. For the Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it. And on that account this in particular characterizes the practices of the Romans with regard to combat."
A strange thing when the very design of the gladius basically inhibits being held in a 'long point' fashion.
So this I think definitely questions the notion that this is a *wrong* way to hold a sword if you want to give point, but certainly I think we can all agree that with this type of sword in particular, it's definitely the most efficient way to do so!
It is so cool to se women involved in sword research and good at it..
Here's a problem with this idea: The pommel wouldn't be that shape if it was meant to he held like that. You said it yourself, "Weapons were always cleverly designed." If the sword was meant to be gripped that way, it wouldn't have that pommel shape because that's just not ergonomic for the "precision grip". Other types of swords are meant to use a "precision grip" (like later sabers and smallswords), and they don't have pommels like that. Some types of swords are made for a fist-grip. Look at the Indian Tulwar with its short handle and disc-pommel...that sword is OBVIOUSLY designed with a fist-grip in mind. "Viking"-era swords are the same. OBVIOUSLY that grip is meant to lock the hand into the grip just like the grip on the Indian Tulwar. I love your work Roland, but I think you're wrong on this one.
and yet his usage of the sword in his grip is perfectly functional.
@@allengordon6929
Ok, for one... "...in his grip is perfectly functional." Is it though? PERFECTLY functional? Is it?
You could use all sorts of tools the wrong way and still get the job done, but that doesn't mean you're using them them the intended way and it doesn't mean they're PERFECTLY functional. I could grip a hammer way up by the head with most of the handle sticking out from the bottom of my hand and still (eventually) pound a nail into a board, but that doesn't mean I'm using the hammer correctly. And while the hammer may function, it's not PERFECTLY functional.
Same thing here. My point stands. Making the sword work IN SPITE of the grip is not the same thing as using the grip as intended.
Yet its not ergonomical for the hammer grip.
@@nutyyyy
Watch Matt Easton's vids on Tulwars and disc pommels. It's the same idea with this design.
Exactly.
As long as the distance from the handle to the edge of the pommel is short enough, all these swords can be hammer gripped without any issues. If the distance is too long, it will bite to your wrist.
Same story with Tulwars and Tuareg Takouba swords, which are having disc pommels and hammer gripped. Note Tuareg swords are straight. Hammer grip allows you to hit with the crossguard, and the pommel when you get close. Thrusts can be done by extending the wrist, which is the Tuareg way. Similar wrist extension mechanic can be used for quick flick type strikes. Power strikes come with hammer grip.
I his latest Hedeby videos, I noticed Roland is not using this grip any more, he seems to have thumb on the crossguard in a messer like grip. This is acceptable as historically you could and would use the flat of the blade for training, or with sabers the blunt back edge. We know this from e.g. Khevsurs.
I think that looking at how the Spatha was used before looking at arming swords or other, later, weapons.
The Spatha is more close in design to the Sverth and the migration period swords which came between them.
Only there are no sources about how the spatha was used, either.
@@swordandshield Odd. I would have thought that the Romans (or Byzantines), at least, would have actually written that sort of thing down.
You have to be cautious here to not fall into the trap of a false dichotomy. It is not either the death-grip or your proposed way to hold a sword. Case in point: most chefs do not hold a knife like you did, but in a so-called pinch-grip where the index finger is curled around the base of the blade and the pressure is exerted by the first knuckle of the index finger; *not* by the tip of the index finger. Similarly, there are a variety of ways to hold a sword, eg. like you often use the thumb along the flat of the blade in techniques with the Langes Messer or how you hold a Japanese sword with a so-called shake-hands grip, which is in a way similar to holding a chef's knife.
So while the grip you propose does enable a very thrust-centric style, I think that doesn't account for the fact that early medieval swords were also good at cutting; which is very hard to do with a precarious grip at the end of the pommel.
Is it possible the Viking Age swords were not intended to be used in just one grip, but different grips for different situations? The grip mentioned here I can see as being really useful for point control and extending ones reach when it comes to cutting. However I think the hammer grip can still be used on these swords without the wrist and pommel having problems with each other. There is another sword I can think of in history that made use of a small grip and a pommel that has the same problems as a Viking sword if you try to use it the way you might use a cutlass. This sword is the Tulwar as well as other Indian swords. These swords are meant to be used in a hammer grip, but this can seem uncomfortable, especially if you are extending the wrist. But when employing a draw cut the hilt design doesn’t interfere at all. These swords are supposed to be used with draw cuts and push cuts. I think the Viking Age swords might be a similar case, that the hammer grip is to be used when draw cutting. Draw cutting could be a better alternative in tight battle formations especially when considering the large shields used in this time period. The Viking Age swords are similar to the Tulwars in hilt design in terms of small grip and large pommel; but I think the “Viking” swords aren’t just meant for the hammer grip like the Tulwar as they don’t have a disk pommel like the Tulwar does. It could be possible that both the hammer grip and the the sort of handshake grip mentioned in this video were used, and that the Vikings and others with these swords switched between the two grips when needed; or might have had personal preferences, some might have preferred draw cutting and the hammer grip, others the more precise grip for more point control and reach. Masters of the saber in the 19th century didn’t agree on one standard grip for example, Alfred Hutton says to use a handshake grip with the thumb along the back of the grip in his book “Cold Steel” though Charles Roworth thought the sabers to small for that kind of grip and said to use the hammer grip in his book “The Art of Defense”. Neither one is wrong or right, both grips work, have advantages and disadvantages over the others. Ultimately it comes down to preference while still being efficient and most importantly alive, whichever grip a person finds works for them and keeps them alive is what they’ll go with.
Great work on the video, it was very enjoyable to watch and made me think quite a bit on this subject.
Thanks Roland
You are welcome.
Interesting but Not convinced. Any soldier will tell any sidewalk Commando that you carry your weapon around and bang into stuff way more than you use it. Way Way more. There is no doubt that some swords were asymmetrical but it also looks to me like some edges were favored for different tasks. one edge may have been sharper . No doubt one side could have looked cooler too. A fine French or Spanish grip is great for foil fencing.. but when your life or limb depends on it...you need/want a very secure grip. Often the pommel is designed to hook your little finger as this is the weakest part of ones grip... that helps you keep your sword in a swing or pull back. But this is fun to discuss.
Question about the "maximal extension of the sword". Is it necessarily about working with a thrust-centric fencing system, especially in the context of swords blades which are not optimised for thrusting at all? Could it be about having a maximal extension in the arc of a cut - which would match well the forward-balanced blades with thin, spatulated tips which make them outstanding cutters? So that you could cut your opponent effectively even with the very tip of the blade.
I find this, and other videos you have posted about the principles of physical movement, very inspiring and can inform fighting skills from many periods and geographies. So often we think of manual skills by people who don't produce written sources as somehow 'primitive', but of course they were carefully considered and carefully taught from one generation to another. If you use a tool every day, or you depend on your tool for survival in critical situations, of course you are going to spend effort on using it most efficiently.
Very interesting. But shouldn't you be more cutting than poking with a Carolingian sword? Can you hold that grip while giving a cutting blow that shatters the opponent's shield?
You're on to something here I think, but I share some of the skepticism expressed by others here. We agree, I think, that the evidence ought to precede the conclusion and I'm afraid that you're allowing your (very reasonable and substantiated) conclusion to precede your evaluation of the evidence. The pommel evidence is interesting, especially if you highlight the great precision in their making and then try to explain the asymmetry, but I want a broader array of evidence chronologically, geographically and with more sword/pommel types. This inquiry is absolutely worth undertaking, but my historical training is yelling at me that we're a bit too premature yet in making these conclusions. Nice work, Roland, as usual.
Das is toll!
It is interesting, but that type of grip, you show, is appropriate generally for later "roman" type of swords. This was connected to combat on horse. Constructive elements of dark ages\early medieval type of swords tells us, that they were gripped as most people grip it - in "strong" grip position. There can be no misunderstandings near it. Pattern on the hilts is connected with type of carrying of the swords.
Gratulacje, zaskakująca dedukcja! Pozdrawiam
How to sheath a Viking sword ?
The false edge is there because I have yet to see any traditional martial art where people sheath the sword with the "threading of the needle" technique like we see at 27:16. This sheathing technique is as historically inaccurate as the hammer grip.
Part of what is a good sword design is having an effective way to both sheath and unsheathe the weapon quickly without having to break front sight each time of doing so.
Part of why a sword scabbard would be held so high near the chest is when you have a longer rectangular or oval type shield that will just touch the ground before your shield hand can even reach waist level. A long single hand sword handle must rest at chest high for convenient manipulation of the scabbard with the shield hand to either sheath or unsheathe the long blade without looking down. A round shield allows for a lower shield hand grip of the scabbard, because the shield will not touch the ground as soon as a rectangular or oval shield, the scabbard can therefore sit lower near the waist.
If the sword was totally razor sharp on both edges, you will cut yourself and the scabbard if you tried to do a no-look sheathing (using what's called the "purlicue", the gap between the thumb and the index, in a pincer gesture to guide the blade back to the mouth of the scabbard).
If the sword is a purpose designed ergonomic tool, having a metal pommel like that rubbing against the heel of my palm for extended periods does not fit that definition for me. I agree with the grip because it maximizes wrist mobility and potential angular velocity of a blow and is used to great effect with say a Shashka. However, I note in most of the original images you provided in the video the warrior was wearing long sleeves with a defined cuff. I propose that the grip would be similar but off the pommel and the observed wear is a result of contact with the cuff (a separate leather brace?) as the wrist moves through the full range of motion. I really enjoy the content you create and especially you thoughtful approach to the material.
Hello, great video! A question although: "The professional warriors used to train twice per day". How much time a train would last? 1 hour?
That grip is beyond ridiculous and your hand is a complete mess after using it. There is little power or speed transferred using that stupid grip and parrying or getting in the bind would be even worse, waving the sword around like a wand won't produce good cuts (the primary function of these swords). They are not made for rapier like fencing but brutal close quarters fights, otherwise why bring a shield or sit in formation?
Good day, everyone. Can someone answer me, if the shield bosses were used as punching your opponents? I find it mentioned everywhere on the internet, even on wikipedia, but it isn't all that practical to use it in actual combat, especially when the edge of your shield already packs a great offensive punch.
You can, but it's rather to secure your hand cause if it was wood, it could be pierced. Very less risk with an umbo.
And punching with edge of the shield, allow to have more reach.
I would love to see a demonstration with a replica migration era sword.
Even if You take modern scandinavian knife like mora classic, it feels perfectly fitting when You hold it like a Viking sword
certainly, in terms of tool use, the grip is totally dependant on the force or torque you NEED to impart on what you are working on... the analogy of the the screwdriver falls apart the moment you are driving or removing a screw that is deeply imbedded in the work, the same applies to any of the other tools that you brought up, the hammer and the bread knife as well. I do have to give way to your greater knowledge of using edged weapons... but instinctively, I would argue again, that grip would depend on the force or power that is having to be used... and having watched your latest video about about Sharp Sword and shield combat, i did notice that you were not using the pomel grip as described, but more of an extended "hammer" grip... I feel we aere never going to know the extent of the use of this more precision grip described in this video, we have no way of going back in time to see for ourselves, and they have not been considerate enough to have left us any descriptive texts to fully explain their combat style as used...
Why didn't you bring up the anti-clockwise turn on the pommel that you notice before as a consoliding evidence for sword asymmetry ?
The pommel twist determines handedness. I mention it briefly in the video. It is covered in more detail here: www.patreon.com/posts/ergonomic-hilt-31035270 and here: www.patreon.com/posts/sininis-sword-of-34940507
That serrated edge on the bread knife, though ... :-0 ;-)
Your ,,precision'' grip is not working with and around a shield.....or in the shield wall with someone pushing on that shield...
Hypothetically, would a hammer grip be more effective than a precision grip when delivering a strong strike to a static target e.g. when executing a prisoner?
if you are using a talwar, then yes, since the disc pommel more or less restricts you into it and the sword is made to be used as such (though not a death clamping grip like roland shows).
with the kind of sword Roland is using, my guess would be that a "handshake grip" would provide the most power
Most likely prisoners are executed like livestock as people have most expertise in that. I never looked at IS video but that’s what I expected.
Not necessarily. If you look at certain types of swords that demand a hammer grip due to their design (hilt, blade, or both) then very much so. However, if it does not demand a hammer grip, then I would be more inclined to use what Roland shows, but on the hilt and not strictly the pommel. The reason I say this is because in my experience, I've found that a relaxed grip allows for more control and better leverage. Also, if you allow for more movement, you can create leverage with your last two fingers and generate an immense amount of force when compared to the hammer grip. There are some downsides, but if your opponent isn't moving and/or fighting back, none of them really apply
@@p7outdoors297 I think Matt from Schola Gladiatoria proposes a grip that Uses the pinky to create some sort of hook to create leverage (I dont remember quite well) he also points out the amount of people that naturally feels the need to modify their hilts to extend the 9cm ish standards. I think its a fascinating topic.
Baru ku tahu
Well, the "there are no sources" thing: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not having a proper sources (multiple sources at best to compare viewpoints), we have to assume, we have to try to understand and be open minded about theses. In the end we do not know because no one was there, but we can try to make sense, and also we should assume that people in general and especially from cultures in which hand-to-hand combat was an integral part were smart becasue their lives depended on being smarter and more skillful. And with swords in particular we have the case that swords were one of the very few tools/weapons designed to combat other humans rather than hunting tools or derived crafting tools. I very much support your thesis about the grip because it makes sense, even more so looking at how the Roman gladius was designed.
Swords were so rare that the only people who used them essentialy didn't have to fight very often... Most people used Spears and Axes... with the Hammer grip Hahahah.
You clearly know a lot about it.
Se incroci un colpo di spada pesante tenendola in quel modo, saresti disarmato all' istante. Hai provato? Beh provaci.
your norse swords seem so light! what is the weight of the sword in the begining of the video?
830 grams. Original weights vary considerably. I have examined swords from the Early Middle Ages with 730 - 1600 grams.
@@swordandshield its very light! My sword is above 1250 grams with point of balance above 16 cm and your style of handling is my fave but i think its better on light swords with better point ofbbalance . maybe i m wrong .
@@swordandshield who made this sword? It has a great look.
a whole loaf of dark rye bread, yup, he's german.
nowthenzen But using a postwar grip and knife, looks like he’s not in re-enactment
It is spelt, not rye. And this is by no means considered dark in Germany!
Me, a German: "Dude, it's just bread."
Btw it looks to be like you live in a wattle and daub house, did you build it yourself?
My vassals did.
I like the idea and think it's conclusive.
Did you discuss that with Sue? If yes, what did she think about that?
Where do you buy these swords?
Hello from the Black Hills! Allo fram sie Schwarz Hügeln!
Hallo aus Mecklenburg.
Funny how you keep speaking about precision grip, and while you try to sheath your swords at 27:15 you do everything but doing what you are trying to demonstrate.
Why ?
Because it feel more natural to hold it this way.
That's just body mechanics. Sheathing the sword is done paralel to you chest, stabbing the enemy is done vertivally to your chest. Our body is not made to be precise parralel to our chest. Luckily, when fencing, oponents are usually in front of us instead of at wrestling distance.
If people wore rings most wear would come from that
Set up an appropriate experiment, record it, draw conclusions.
That’s what I observed on my steering wheel. But indeed minor stuff like sand or rust on the hands would make the whole hand abrasive. Looking at wear patterns at open holster service revolvers could be interesting.
This is not a comment aimed at Roland specifically, but a general comment about this area of interest: I would invest far more time into this area of history if there wasn't this questionable fetishizing of so called "vikings". There is no reason why this period of history should be focused around such a subculture, and I honestly don't know why it's so morally acceptable to be openly in love with such a parasitic and destructive subculture. "Early medieval", or even "dark ages" is a far more appropriate and accurate term than constantly blarting out "viking". If one is in love with this particular subculture, I'd advise you to try living like them for a while and see how you interact with the world, instead of acting like a modern hypocritic. It's fine to be interested in a period of history, but be wary of your angle and don't be surprised when someone pulls you up on your beloved faction when it's completely at odds with the majority of human societies that have existed, never mind modern society.
12:56 That shiela looks a bit rough. Did he should "It's M'lady!" and trash a gamestop later?
Fascinating video, but Roland just sounds arrogant and stubborn when claiming with sweeping certainty that he knows how these swords were held. We don't know; Roland doesn't know. We can only guess, and Roland's guess is only that- a guess. A little epistemic modesty would help his credibility here. Dogmatic certainty on such an obscure data point only makes him look foolish (and I've seen enough vids to know that roland is not remotely foolish in general).
You spend much too much time trying to convince viewers, instead of getting to the point. Six and a half minutes in, and I'm feeling bored and impatient. You made your point clearly within the first couple of minutes, but then decided to beat the dead horse. The only information that you haven't gotten to at this point, is what was already mentioned in the thumbnail...wear patterns. While that might turn out to be interesting, I'm not willing to sit through another twenty minutes plus of you droning on and on, going nowhere.
BS
Richard Wallace how so?
You could just drop that garbage here and be done with it... OR, you could actually contribute the conversation and explain why you feel that way. C'mon, bruh.
I think it is ok to disagree but your comment its aimed just for destruction while you could elaborate and elevate the conversation towards progress.