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

Timo Nieminen · 3rd May 2013, 08:03 AM

Having used a round handled blade as a machete, I recommend an oval handle. This was a straight blade. Where the handle is round, and the blade is curved towards the back, and the handle follows this curve, then a round handle is OK - hitting something will not tend to make the sword twist in your grip. Even with a straight blade, if you go to draw-cut, cutting with the grip leading and the point trailing, you'll get the same effect (i.e., lack of ill-effect from the round grip). Chopping with a straight blade with round grip is bad.

A lot of single-edged polearms have oval-section hafts. The Japanese naginata and plenty of Chinese polearms come to mind. On European polearms, hafts were often flattened octagonal or rectangular (as noted above).

Round is lighter from the same stiffness in the weakest direction (all directions will be equally weak for a round pole, neglecting effect of grain of wood). Keeping the weight down will matter for long polearms.

Iain · 4th May 2013, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Having used a round handled blade as a machete, I recommend an oval handle. This was a straight blade. Where the handle is round, and the blade is curved towards the back, and the handle follows this curve, then a round handle is OK - hitting something will not tend to make the sword twist in your grip. Even with a straight blade, if you go to draw-cut, cutting with the grip leading and the point trailing, you'll get the same effect (i.e., lack of ill-effect from the round grip). Chopping with a straight blade with round grip is bad.

Interesting point - most of my takouba have pretty much round grips, or some have octagonal grips. From contemporary sword dances and other material it seems the draw cut is what was favored with this type.

A.alnakkas · 4th May 2013, 11:24 AM

Najdi saifs have a squared handle with alittle curved edges for more comfortable grip. I have seen this in both the newly made ones and the old ones.

Syrian saifs are with rounded hilts.

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).

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

3rd May 2013, 08:03 AM	#1
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	Having used a round handled blade as a machete, I recommend an oval handle. This was a straight blade. Where the handle is round, and the blade is curved towards the back, and the handle follows this curve, then a round handle is OK - hitting something will not tend to make the sword twist in your grip. Even with a straight blade, if you go to draw-cut, cutting with the grip leading and the point trailing, you'll get the same effect (i.e., lack of ill-effect from the round grip). Chopping with a straight blade with round grip is bad. A lot of single-edged polearms have oval-section hafts. The Japanese naginata and plenty of Chinese polearms come to mind. On European polearms, hafts were often flattened octagonal or rectangular (as noted above). Round is lighter from the same stiffness in the weakest direction (all directions will be equally weak for a round pole, neglecting effect of grain of wood). Keeping the weight down will matter for long polearms.

4th May 2013, 11:24 AM	#3
A.alnakkas Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Kuwait Posts: 1,340	Najdi saifs have a squared handle with alittle curved edges for more comfortable grip. I have seen this in both the newly made ones and the old ones. Syrian saifs are with rounded hilts.

12th May 2013, 01:19 PM	#4
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	#5
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	#7
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	#8
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).