Hey Zac! This is a great topic. So when we look at the various pommels on early period cavalry sword this makes a lot of sense. (The Brazil nut family of pommels) I know years ago because it allowed the second hand to grip the sword was the leading idea but this makes way more sense
Ah! interesting, kinda makes what some say sound nonsense, but this makes such good sense. would mean the "cavelry sword" i bought, posibly never was caverly, it has spike of an inch and a half on the back, which i thought was for closer quarters, though i was told it was to keep it in place in a hoop, so it didnt slip into the way. im ok with being confused
I'm not sure what sword design you're talking about, so I can't say whether it's a cavalry sword or not, but you should keep in mind that many cavalry swords were designed primarily for cutting. Just because a sword doesn't allow its grip to be braced against the palm doesn't necessarily mean it was unsuitable for mounted combat, just less suitable for use as a mini-lance.
You never cease to provide points that I would have never considered, and haven't heard anywhere else.
Thanks Zac. I've learned something new, which I appreciate. Also, gotta feed the algorithm. 😉
Hey Zac! This is a great topic. So when we look at the various pommels on early period cavalry sword this makes a lot of sense. (The Brazil nut family of pommels) I know years ago because it allowed the second hand to grip the sword was the leading idea but this makes way more sense
I noticed you naturally moved your thumb on to the top of the grip (where the chequering would be on a late model cavalry sword).
Absolutely. There's even a depression on top of the late era grip
Ah! interesting, kinda makes what some say sound nonsense, but this makes such good sense. would mean the "cavelry sword" i bought, posibly never was caverly, it has spike of an inch and a half on the back, which i thought was for closer quarters, though i was told it was to keep it in place in a hoop, so it didnt slip into the way. im ok with being confused
I'm not sure what sword design you're talking about, so I can't say whether it's a cavalry sword or not, but you should keep in mind that many cavalry swords were designed primarily for cutting. Just because a sword doesn't allow its grip to be braced against the palm doesn't necessarily mean it was unsuitable for mounted combat, just less suitable for use as a mini-lance.
How do the different grips feel after impact when riding past a target? Not sure I'd want my finger in a ring while I try to extract a sword.
👍🏻
Good "point"s 😆