Both hands on longsword grip?

[Jeffrey Hull]

To focus a moment on the last item above, there is a cut in battodo called "dodan." You set up a bunch of double rolled mats horizontally and stack them one on top of the other, then you come up to it, measure yourself, cock all the way back (even bending over backwards) and see how many mats you can cut through on the way down. Now at first glance this would seem to have little to do with combat. After all, who is going to let you walk up to them, take a massive prestretch and cut? But that initial impression couldn't be further from the truth. Dodan is one of the most combatively applicable cuts I've ever done. As I understand dodan, its purpose is to test your grip as your sword passes through a massive and dense object...the human torso (there's probably lots more to it, but I'm fixated on this one aspect). If your grip is good, the sword will continue straight down and either stop in the target (if you run out of steam) or on the wooden stand below it. If your grip is flawed, you will lose control of the sword and it will torque inside the target.

No quarrel meant with you sir, but I fail to realise why dodan is combatively applicable. Honestly, it just seems like an old Reinhardt-stunt to me. Plus may I point out that there is not a single reference to test/target-cutting in any Fechtbuch.

Or we can just listen to Dobringer. The only text source in the medieval German tradition that tells us how to grip the sword (when striking, as opposed to when doing binding actions/close work) tells us very specifically not to grip the pommel.

That is quite true and by it nature as coming from a primary source, it deserves our respectful consideration.

[Michael Chidester]

These are the kinds of experiments we can do to see if holding the pomel can give proper results. Anything less just won't do, because we don't have the experience to determine by feel what works and what doesn't. Or we can just listen to Dobringer. The only text source in the medieval German tradition that tells us how to grip the sword (when striking, as opposed to when doing binding actions/close work) tells us very specifically not to grip the pommel.

Doebringer's advice actually isn't that specific, and it seems therefore like he would prefer us to keep our hands off the pommel even when winding. The other manuals do not give us advice on gripping the sword as far as I can recall (there may be something hiding in on e of the Meyers that slips my mind), but they do offer us instructional diagrams. These are actually mixed. Here's Fiore holding the pommel before striking:

http://wiktenauer.com/w/images/c/cc/Pis ... MS_17r.JPG

Here's Talhoffer, where the man in guard does not hold the pommel but the man mid-strike does:

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db ... 51&seite=5

Here's the Anonymous, hands off the pommel in guard:

http://wiktenauer.com/w/images/a/a3/Cod.44.A.8_2r.jpg

Here's Goliath, hands on the pommel in Shrank (but he image of Pflug is off the pommel):

http://wiktenauer.com/w/images/3/33/MS_ ... 20_19v.jpg

Here's Hans Medel, with hands fully on the pommel while cocking back to strike Zornhauen:

http://media.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de ... 381556.jpg

And finally, here's Meyer, with hands on the pommel even while cutting:

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Meyer_1 ... word_A.JPG

So, opinions among masters seem to be mixed.

[Jon Wolfe]

First off, I've never done any test-cutting in any system, however, I don't find that gripping the pommel has ever effected any of my striking techniques adversely. I prefer to grip the pommel with my trailing hand (left if it matters) because I very much like to reverse it when I wind on my opponent's blade, when going into Schrankhut, Pflug, and Ochs. I noticed a bit of issue with my hands being a bit too far apart like Michael E. mentioned, but my solution was to choke-down on the handle (I primarily use an A&A Fechterspiel). One could also simply use a sword with a shorter handle, if they would not be comfortable choking-down.

[Mike Edelson]

What is the purpose of the images? Instruction, or advertisement? Who drew them, the master himself or some artist without the ability to see the same details as a trained fencer would? Did the master scrutinize each image? Did he care which grip was shown?

Some of the images in Talhoffer, Kal and others show not only gripping the pommel, but holding it as though it had an attached pistol grip (or in the absence of picatinny rails, as though the hand were resting on the pommel and not holding it). Meyer shows some wonky finger positions (look at the man on the left in the image you linked...should we hold the sword like we're doing fingertip pushups on it?). The 1467 Talhoffer shows fingers not curled around the handle but folded behind them with only the thumbs actually keeping the sword from falling (plates 2, 6, 8, 9, etc. as per the Rector book). Why does it show these things? My guess is shitty artwork with an artist incapable of understanding why what he is drawing is wrong.

Opinions on image interpretation tend to run strong, and I respect the fact that mine is but one of many, but for my money, I'll listen to period text and human physiology measured against quantifiable results (as described in my posts above) over images of questionable purpose.

[Mike Edelson]

First off, I've never done any test-cutting in any system, however, I don't find that gripping the pommel has ever effected any of my striking techniques adversely.

Your statement makes complete and perfect sense if your interests lie in sport fencing, where the only thing that matters is that you strike your opponent. What you're essentially saying is that gripping the pommel has not had a measurable effect on your ability to smack people with plastic or dull steel swords in free fencing, devoid of any and all requirements to inflict injury with an actual sword and not fall victim to any of the pitfalls entailed in doing so. Again, this makes perfect sense in a sport fencing context, and I assume that this is what you meant.

If the above is true (about where your interests lie), then ignore the following.

However if your interest is in training to use a real sword in a fight to the death, and you've never done any cutting, how would you know? That would be like saying "while I've never actually cooked soup, holding the spoon by the big round bit has had no effect on my ability to ladle imaginary broth out of my cookpot."

[Francesco Lanza]

Meyer shows some wonky finger positions (look at the man on the left in the image you linked...should we hold the sword like we're doing fingertip pushups on it?).

Are you referring to the apparent "lightness" of the pommel grip (the distance between the fingers and the pommel) or the hand position itself (hands with their backs facing)?

[Michael Chidester]

What is the purpose of the images? Instruction, or advertisement? Who drew them, the master himself or some artist without the ability to see the same details as a trained fencer would? Did the master scrutinize each image? Did he care which grip was shown?

These are fair questions. Not all manual art is created equal.* Let's consider what art we can trust. Fiore specifically states that he wrote his treatise as an instruction manual and illustrated it himself to make his text clearer. Our four extant versions are by four distinct artists (and four distinct scribes), so let's assume that none of them is the original that he scribed and illustrated himself. Even in this case, when a detail is identical across all four versions it means that either all four artists made the same mistake independently, or that it is a true reflection of the original text. When that detail is repeated without exception across all four versions, as in this case, the argument for it being artistic error gets quite feeble. Fiore, I'm quite confident, intends us to grip the pommel. Why? Well, it may simply be that longswords were shorter in 1360 (when Fiore trained) than they were in, say, 1560 (when Meyer trained). Shorter grip, less space for the hands, grip the pommel to get a lever of the ideal length.

I can't think of any other manuals off-hand that were definitely illustrated by the fencing master in question, but if we're looking for detailed and reliable art, we might also consider a different sort of master. Albrecht Dürer, greatest master of the German renaissance, and Maarten van Heemskerck, one of the great masters of the Dutch renaissance, both left us stunningly-detailed sketches of fencers. Interestingly, Dürer's fencers all grip the pommel, while Heemskerck's do not. Which returns me to my original thought, that there existed no consensus about this in period.

* Of course, the same could be said for the text of the manuals--how competent were the scribes? How do we know that small transcription errors haven't completely altered the meaning of phrases, especially in the more confusing passages that are the most difficult to interpret? Even common terms like Schielhau are open to question--it's spelled "Schilhaw" in the 15th century, and as early as 1523 Hutter interpreted that spelling as being "Schilthaw" (the Shield Hew), not "Schielhaw" (the Squint Hew). Small textual errors have the potential to make big differences, just as small iconographic errors do.

[Mike Edelson]

Meyer shows some wonky finger positions (look at the man on the left in the image you linked...should we hold the sword like we're doing fingertip pushups on it?).

Are you referring to the apparent "lightness" of the pommel grip (the distance between the fingers and the pommel) or the hand position itself (hands with their backs facing)?

I'm referring to what appears to be a depiction of gripping with the finger tips with the fingers super tense and pressing hard into the hilt. However, I don't for a second think this is anything other than an artistic artifact.

Of course, the same could be said for the text of the manuals--how competent were the scribes? How do we know that small transcription errors haven't completely altered the meaning of phrases, especially in the more confusing passages that are the most difficult to interpret? Even common terms like Schielhau are open to question--it's spelled "Schilhaw" in the 15th century, and as early as 1523 Hutter interpreted that spelling as being "Schilthaw" (the Shield Hew), not "Schielhaw" (the Squint Hew). Small textual errors have the potential to make big differences, just as small iconographic errors do.

Of course you're right, which is why I don't believe that the complete answers lie in the texts. The texts are pointers that give us basic instructions. For example, you strike the zornhau into the oncoming strike with the long edge onto his sword with your strong (44 A 8). Okay, that's nice, but how do you do that? The texts do not contain this information, only those very basic instructions.

Also, you have a very fair point about Fiore. Gripping a hilt that is too short for you with two hands off the pommel may be more of a hindrance than gripping the pommel itself. As for the 16th century artwork, gripping the pommel may actually be beneficial for delivering quick strikes in sporting competitions when you don't have to worry about cutting through your target, getting stuck, or any of the other considerations of ernstfechten. This is of course guesswork on my part, but it does, for me and my goals, render all 16th C material suspect.

[Jon Wolfe]

Joachim Meyer was not simply a sport fencer of the 16th century. He was involved in military actions, commanding men in battle. I don't have the specifics, maybe Kevin Maurer can chime-in with some, but given that his manual depicts gripping the pommel of the longsword and since I don't think he would have allowed such an error as improper gripping be depicted in his work, when he goes into such detail as to which bone in one's forearm that you pommel should be pressing against in the guard Einhorn. I don't mean to sound like a Meyer fan-boy, it just that his work is the one with which I am the most familiar that covers the longsword, and from what I've heard of his bio, such an error would strike me as out of character for him.

Proper edge alignment is important for more than just striking with the sword, so I find the idea that simply because I haven't test-cut yet, that I'm not training to use the weapon as I would in an earnest encounter. What about the systems for weapons other than the longsword? Would you say that because they don't test-cut that those systems would not train one for an earnest encounter as well?

[Mike Edelson]

Proper edge alignment is important for more than just striking with the sword, so I find the idea that simply because I haven't test-cut yet, that I'm not training to use the weapon as I would in an earnest encounter. What about the systems for weapons other than the longsword? Would you say that because they don't test-cut that those systems would not train one for an earnest encounter as well?

I don't want to get into a debate on Meyer. I don't use Meyer as a source for various reasons, so it matters very little to me.

As to your question above, I'm not implying that you are not training to use the longsword in earnest combat (how would I know?). I'm saying that an understanding of the physical realities of using a sword cannot be gleaned from cutting air. Cutting alone may not be enough to give you that understanding either. I cut for years without having it. What did it for me is getting training from someone who does understand it so that I could put the simple act of cutting stuff (which by itself is fairly meaningless) into the proper context and use it to further my understanding of the realities of combat.

As to other weapons of the system, if you ask me my opinion, then I'll say that I think striking physical targets is extremely important there also. Can you really understand how a poleaxe is supposed to work until you've struck an armored target with it? How do you know if your strike is powerful enough, if your grip is good enough to keep the weapon from skidding off, etc.?

Finally, here's the real question...do I think you have to cut/strike real targets to learn to use a weapon in earnest combat? I actually don't. What I think is that it helps tremendously, but is not necessary. I can learn to kill by cutting air with proper edge alignment. Sure, I may fail to get through my opponent's clothes, or my sword may get stuck in his body, and I may get killed for it, but that could happen to anyone, even someone who knows how to cut, it's just a lot less likely. There are no absolutes in combat. No "if you do this you will succeed, if not you will fail." You do the most you can, and hope for the best.