Weighting in on Handle Cross sections: Round vs Oval/ Rectangular

Gavin Nugent · 12th May 2013, 01:19 PM

Hi Nathaniel,

I know we have discussed this a little in email but I wanted to share more of my thoughts for discussion.

IMHO grip shape alone does not dictate how effective a sword is in combat. Hilt cant, hilt length, blade curve, blade length, weight etc all play a part too and I hope those versed in training of arms chime in further too.

I have no preference but I have noted that round grip on say a Dha or Darb do offer a larger surface area of contact within the palm which I am sure has some benefits.

Spear and polearms as you note do not require as much orientation as much as a sword/sabre does.

Timo, I am interested in seeing oval poles on Chinese pole arms.
All antiques I own and have sold, are/were round or faceted and in a couple of instances, faceted leading to round.

Again, I am really interested in hearing from re-enacters and those who train in weapons of antiquity for sport, you guys will be able to tell us a lot about how things feel with metal banging on metal.

Gavin

fearn · 12th May 2013, 04:41 PM

Here's the way I see it:

--Round has a huge advantage: it's natural. It's difficult to find a straight piece of timber or bamboo with an oval cross section. You need a curving branch to get an oval. If you're building with bamboo or if you want to use a long handle, round is a very good way to go. The downside, of course, is that it can be hard to keep the blade oriented properly for a cut. One solution (used only in Indonesia, to my knowledge) is to cut a small groove down one side, so you can align with the groove. Others like to change circles into octagons, with is complicated (I've tried doing it), but possible with the right tools and/or skill.

--Elliptical or oval has a huge advantage: it fits into people's hands and helps align the blade. It is also naturally available in curved pieces of wood from branches. More often, though, it needs to be cut to shape, and that takes a bit of skill. This is a good option for handles on cutting blades or impacting heads, where alignment is critical. There aren't a lot of round axe handles out there, for example.

--Rectangular has a huge advantage: alignment and realignment. Not counting cooking and pocket knives, I have two square-hilted blades: a western fencing saber (flattened on the back for the thumb) and a replica bronze age leaf sword. The squared hilt on the bronze sword is particularly illuminating, because it is formed by an H-shaped bronze piece (in line with the blade) holding two slabs of wood on the sides. At first, this may seem backward. Wood is worse at transmitting shock than is metal, which is why you typically want the wood hilt meeting your hand, not the metal tang (this is the reason for rat-tail tangs on things like kukris, incidentally. The solid wood hilt is supposed to act as a bit of a shock absorber). However, bronze has a problem: it's softer than steel, and the blade is designed for cutting and slashing. It will get dull. The great thing about that square hilt is that you can quickly rotate it 180 degrees (the corners make it easy to spin), and the metal ribs tell your hand exactly where the edges are without you having to look. I think rectangular hilts are a great idea in double-edged blades, where you need to be able to flip from a dull edge to a sharp edge quickly. So far as I know, this was best implemented in bronze-age leaf swords. The problem, of course, is that sharp corners are lovely for raising blisters, and it's annoying how many modern knife makers have forgotten this in their quest to make flat pocket knives and such.

My 0.002 cents,

F

Timo Nieminen · 13th May 2013, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebooter

Timo, I am interested in seeing oval poles on Chinese pole arms.
All antiques I own and have sold, are/were round or faceted and in a couple of instances, faceted leading to round.

Oval or pear-shaped section was standard for ge. I don't believe that many hafts have been found, but socketed heads usually have oval or pear/tear-drop section sockets, and the same for butts. The only two hafts I've seen described were oval and pear section. Some sockets I've seen in photos look round, but I haven't seen them end-on. These are the tubular sockets.

A nice article, with plenty of pictures, including butts and one haft, is available online: http://www.grandhistorian.com/kennet...e_Halberds.pdf

There are also oval-socketed bronze spearheads. Whether these were to mount with ge, or for use alone as spears I don't know. It also doesn't mean that the whole haft was oval-section. The only spear hafts I know of that age have been round (and composite, a round hardwood centre with bamboo slats glued around it).

For more recent polearms, the shorter sword-on-a-stick dao are often oval-section hafted. Long-handled dao or dadao, or pudao, or whatever one calls it. Whether these are classified as long-handled swords or as polearms is a matter of definition.

I saw a tantalising photo of MIng polearms, very much like naginata. Would be interesting to know the cross-section of them.

Gavin Nugent · 13th May 2013, 05:18 AM

Great detail thanks Timo.

These bronze age pole arms, I had never personally ventured down the rabbit warren of obtaining any due to the lack of provenanced examples in the market place but the article puts a lot of perspective on arms from that period....a months of week ends will be needed to be put aside for me to digest this excellent presentation, thank you.

All pole arms and sockets of heads that have gone through my hands, from the Qing Dynasty, have all thus far, been more round than oval with the exception of one that is round but has a slight medial ridge, much like Malacca cane but it is the manner in which it is hand formed that leaves this effect and the position of the small ridge is not placed in a manner that makes it any easier to hold.
My Tiger fork is round from the socket, partially down to an octagonal half....My spear however is round at the butt and tapers to an oval form, but this is because it is on a natural forming piece of timber, no doubt a sapling cut for the purpose.
The Monk's spade is attached to a perfectly round half.

But for swords, there is much variation in my collections, round, oval and rectangular all serve well in form and function, some hilts have an element of two types.

Thanks

Gavin

Timo Nieminen · 13th May 2013, 09:57 AM

Yang Hong's "Weapons in Ancient China" also has lots and lots of detail on bronze age weapons. (The book covers up to Ming and early firearms, but the early stuff is covered in most detail. Partly this is because bronze survives time better than iron/steel.) Oval-section socketed spearheads look quite common, and I see that a lot (most?) of the tubular sockets are oval section, not round.

I suspect that an oval haft is important for ge, since the point is so far forward. If one hits imperfectly, the weapon will tend to twist in one's hands. I should mount a repro head on a round pole and hit things!

For recent stuff (i.e., Qing, 19th century Korean, Vietnamese, Tibetan), I've only seen round hafts, or regular polygonal hafts, for socketed polearms. All oval/rectangular hafted ones have been "sword-handled". Reproduction "sword-handled" ones are usually oval-hafted. These are comfy and easy to wield, but are heavier than they would be if they were round (and of the same thickness as the thinnest thickness of the the oval).

Nathaniel · 15th May 2013, 05:49 AM

Hey Guys,

Thanks for sharing all your thoughts. Something quite interesting to ponder. With Dha/Daab it's interesting because there is quite a range in blade shapes from quite straight to more heavily curved. I was thinking that in some ways maybe that with curved blade the centripetal force would help to naturally orient the blade??? This would not help explain things with a more straight blade. Perhaps it just a matter of what you get use to...and with practice you learn to control edge orientation? Or perhaps given the fact that most of the armies composed of conscribed men of the city state who wore little to no armour this was not as big of an issue as it might be otherwise? Aside from swords, we've mentioned polearms and I can think of the Mak, which blade orientation would seem to be important but also has a round shaft...perhaps with the weight of the blade off center from the shaft this also acts similar to the curved sword blade in the the centripetal force helps to orient the blade?

Timo Nieminen · 15th May 2013, 07:52 AM

It's not the centripetal force, but just where a straight line through the grip, perpendicular to the motion, lies in relation to (a) the centre of mass of the weapon, and (b) the point of contact with the target.

(a) If the line through the grip is forward of the centre of mass, then starting a swing will tend to align the weapon properly. No need to worry about it twisting in your grasp.

(b) If the line through the grip is forward of the point of contact, then the weapon will tend to stay aligned after contact. This is the same reason why bicycle stability depends on "trail", and why trailers are stable when towed, but unstable when pushed.

In the picture, a straight sword chopping is a little unstable, for alignment, since it strikes a little forward of the line. A straight sword used to draw cut, where the grip leads in the cut, and a curved sword, have the point of contact (yellow circles) behind the line, and will be more stable.

David R · 24th May 2013, 08:24 PM

In the Mary Rose Museum, and in a collection in Edinburgh ( I think in the Castle) they have original hafts for Bills and Jedburgh Axes, and they are branch wood. Natural, cut branch of round section, with discernable shoots cut flush to the stave. Probably favoured 'cos of the continuous grain and natural spring.
Many of the shafts in Museums are 19th and early 20thC replacements, and so can not be used as exemplars.
Yari shafts are round, but Naginata's are oval...
Just my two pennyworth!

15th May 2013, 07:52 AM	#7
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	It's not the centripetal force, but just where a straight line through the grip, perpendicular to the motion, lies in relation to (a) the centre of mass of the weapon, and (b) the point of contact with the target. (a) If the line through the grip is forward of the centre of mass, then starting a swing will tend to align the weapon properly. No need to worry about it twisting in your grasp. (b) If the line through the grip is forward of the point of contact, then the weapon will tend to stay aligned after contact. This is the same reason why bicycle stability depends on "trail", and why trailers are stable when towed, but unstable when pushed. In the picture, a straight sword chopping is a little unstable, for alignment, since it strikes a little forward of the line. A straight sword used to draw cut, where the grip leads in the cut, and a curved sword, have the point of contact (yellow circles) behind the line, and will be more stable. Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12th May 2013, 01:19 PM	#1
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Hi Nathaniel, I know we have discussed this a little in email but I wanted to share more of my thoughts for discussion. IMHO grip shape alone does not dictate how effective a sword is in combat. Hilt cant, hilt length, blade curve, blade length, weight etc all play a part too and I hope those versed in training of arms chime in further too. I have no preference but I have noted that round grip on say a Dha or Darb do offer a larger surface area of contact within the palm which I am sure has some benefits. Spear and polearms as you note do not require as much orientation as much as a sword/sabre does. Timo, I am interested in seeing oval poles on Chinese pole arms. All antiques I own and have sold, are/were round or faceted and in a couple of instances, faceted leading to round. Again, I am really interested in hearing from re-enacters and those who train in weapons of antiquity for sport, you guys will be able to tell us a lot about how things feel with metal banging on metal. Gavin

12th May 2013, 04:41 PM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Here's the way I see it: --Round has a huge advantage: it's natural. It's difficult to find a straight piece of timber or bamboo with an oval cross section. You need a curving branch to get an oval. If you're building with bamboo or if you want to use a long handle, round is a very good way to go. The downside, of course, is that it can be hard to keep the blade oriented properly for a cut. One solution (used only in Indonesia, to my knowledge) is to cut a small groove down one side, so you can align with the groove. Others like to change circles into octagons, with is complicated (I've tried doing it), but possible with the right tools and/or skill. --Elliptical or oval has a huge advantage: it fits into people's hands and helps align the blade. It is also naturally available in curved pieces of wood from branches. More often, though, it needs to be cut to shape, and that takes a bit of skill. This is a good option for handles on cutting blades or impacting heads, where alignment is critical. There aren't a lot of round axe handles out there, for example. --Rectangular has a huge advantage: alignment and realignment. Not counting cooking and pocket knives, I have two square-hilted blades: a western fencing saber (flattened on the back for the thumb) and a replica bronze age leaf sword. The squared hilt on the bronze sword is particularly illuminating, because it is formed by an H-shaped bronze piece (in line with the blade) holding two slabs of wood on the sides. At first, this may seem backward. Wood is worse at transmitting shock than is metal, which is why you typically want the wood hilt meeting your hand, not the metal tang (this is the reason for rat-tail tangs on things like kukris, incidentally. The solid wood hilt is supposed to act as a bit of a shock absorber). However, bronze has a problem: it's softer than steel, and the blade is designed for cutting and slashing. It will get dull. The great thing about that square hilt is that you can quickly rotate it 180 degrees (the corners make it easy to spin), and the metal ribs tell your hand exactly where the edges are without you having to look. I think rectangular hilts are a great idea in double-edged blades, where you need to be able to flip from a dull edge to a sharp edge quickly. So far as I know, this was best implemented in bronze-age leaf swords. The problem, of course, is that sharp corners are lovely for raising blisters, and it's annoying how many modern knife makers have forgotten this in their quest to make flat pocket knives and such. My 0.002 cents, F

13th May 2013, 05:18 AM	#4
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Great detail thanks Timo. These bronze age pole arms, I had never personally ventured down the rabbit warren of obtaining any due to the lack of provenanced examples in the market place but the article puts a lot of perspective on arms from that period....a months of week ends will be needed to be put aside for me to digest this excellent presentation, thank you. All pole arms and sockets of heads that have gone through my hands, from the Qing Dynasty, have all thus far, been more round than oval with the exception of one that is round but has a slight medial ridge, much like Malacca cane but it is the manner in which it is hand formed that leaves this effect and the position of the small ridge is not placed in a manner that makes it any easier to hold. My Tiger fork is round from the socket, partially down to an octagonal half....My spear however is round at the butt and tapers to an oval form, but this is because it is on a natural forming piece of timber, no doubt a sapling cut for the purpose. The Monk's spade is attached to a perfectly round half. But for swords, there is much variation in my collections, round, oval and rectangular all serve well in form and function, some hilts have an element of two types. Thanks Gavin

13th May 2013, 09:57 AM	#5
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	Yang Hong's "Weapons in Ancient China" also has lots and lots of detail on bronze age weapons. (The book covers up to Ming and early firearms, but the early stuff is covered in most detail. Partly this is because bronze survives time better than iron/steel.) Oval-section socketed spearheads look quite common, and I see that a lot (most?) of the tubular sockets are oval section, not round. I suspect that an oval haft is important for ge, since the point is so far forward. If one hits imperfectly, the weapon will tend to twist in one's hands. I should mount a repro head on a round pole and hit things! For recent stuff (i.e., Qing, 19th century Korean, Vietnamese, Tibetan), I've only seen round hafts, or regular polygonal hafts, for socketed polearms. All oval/rectangular hafted ones have been "sword-handled". Reproduction "sword-handled" ones are usually oval-hafted. These are comfy and easy to wield, but are heavier than they would be if they were round (and of the same thickness as the thinnest thickness of the the oval).

15th May 2013, 05:49 AM	#6
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Hey Guys, Thanks for sharing all your thoughts. Something quite interesting to ponder. With Dha/Daab it's interesting because there is quite a range in blade shapes from quite straight to more heavily curved. I was thinking that in some ways maybe that with curved blade the centripetal force would help to naturally orient the blade??? This would not help explain things with a more straight blade. Perhaps it just a matter of what you get use to...and with practice you learn to control edge orientation? Or perhaps given the fact that most of the armies composed of conscribed men of the city state who wore little to no armour this was not as big of an issue as it might be otherwise? Aside from swords, we've mentioned polearms and I can think of the Mak, which blade orientation would seem to be important but also has a round shaft...perhaps with the weight of the blade off center from the shaft this also acts similar to the curved sword blade in the the centripetal force helps to orient the blade?

24th May 2013, 08:24 PM	#8
David R Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,161	In the Mary Rose Museum, and in a collection in Edinburgh ( I think in the Castle) they have original hafts for Bills and Jedburgh Axes, and they are branch wood. Natural, cut branch of round section, with discernable shoots cut flush to the stave. Probably favoured 'cos of the continuous grain and natural spring. Many of the shafts in Museums are 19th and early 20thC replacements, and so can not be used as exemplars. Yari shafts are round, but Naginata's are oval... Just my two pennyworth!