"Why are you smiling?" "Because I know something you don't know" "And what is that?" "I am not left handed"

Before I was given any formal tuition, I switched hands with swords on many occasions and found it very effective. I have won fencing bouts using this technique, and have also been disqualified for doing this. People find it intimidatingly disconcerting even if it create little mechanical advantage. As you change, your grip is weaker, so a hard clash might make you drop your weapon if it is timed well. With a two-edged longsword, when following a treatise that assumes that your opponent is unarmoured, a cut with the false edge is powerful enough, and might be quicker to deliver without a change of hands. Certainly, when using a quarterstaff, I change hands all the time. Some bastard sword techniques involve going from two hands to one in ways that resemble the effect of changing hands.

I couldn't help but smile when Matt referenced the "Bolognese sauces"

In baseball, it is not uncommon to find batters that can switch hit, but it is very rare to find switch-pitchers. I suspect that the fine motor control needed for pitching is harder to mirror than the relatively gross motor skills involved in batting. Maybe a similar thing is going on with regard to polearms vs swords?

One of the guys at my club does change grip regularly with the Longsword/Feder. He even changes in wich hand he weilds his sabre. He is not ambidexterous, but has trained to do so very hard. This pretty much gives him an edge.

Two main theories as to why switching sword hands might not have been practiced in period: 1. Sword attacks come much quicker and at closer measure than polearms, so the moment it takes to switch hands on a longsword would likely create a tempo into which an astute opponent could attack (whereas, you have more time and distance to do this with a polearm); 2. The relatively shorter length of the longsword grip increases the risk of fumbling the weapon when trying to switch hands, especially if you are wearing gloves or gauntlets and if you are trying to do this WITHOUT looking down at your hands (which would invite an attack). Polearm shafts can be braced against your upper leg, body or the ground, providing a third point of contact, making it easier to switch grips without looking down at your hands. Also, due to the length of a polearm, you have more room to shift/slide your hands up or down without looking down at what you are doing (the wood helps, being less grippy than leather).

Icy Mike over at Hard2Hurt has actually talked about something like this regarding modern knife crime. When practicing with knives in sparring people will regularly swap which hand the knife is in because it's a useful thing to do, but in real cases of criminal violence almost nobody ever does this. The explanation seems to be that when you're in a high stress fight your first priorty is to not drop your weapon (or have it taken from you), and since switching your hands involves having a less effective grip on your knife for half a second, it just feels like the wrong thing to do. This may also apply to swords, where switching the grip feels easy to do in practice or sparring but then is never even considered once the adrenaline turns on.

I recently started practicing with my left hand specifically to change hands in sparring

Fun fact! There’s a youtube channel called „Let’s ask Shogo” that is made by a japanese guy who practices iaido. I’ve been at his dojō in Kyoto and his fencing school actually teaches, at least how to draw and strike with katana using the left hand. I’ve seen some presentations of some attacks, but weren’t allowed to film it. So you have it in Japan also, although it is a „secret technique” that is kept in secret to then surprise enemies

I dont have a theory to offer. But I do know an interesting parallel. In ice hockey, you hold your stick with a spread out grip, much like a poleaxe, swinging from one side or the other. If you hold your right hand closest to the blade, you shoot right, if your left hand is closer, you shoot left. Despite 90 per cent of people being right handed, ice players are basically 50-50 on shooting right or left, its basically whatever is more comfortable for you. Im right handed, but I shoot left. This is partially because, if you have to play one-handed on occasion its better to have your right hand back. So if I were to take up a pole arm, id natually put my left hand higher. But with a sword, where my hands are closer together, Id natuarally put my right hand higher, like with a baseball bat. Anyway, I as I said, I dont have a theory.

Thanks for the video Matt! Cross dominant here: (write and fence left, right arm is stronger, and I box orthodox) What I have noticed is that changing hands gets more clunky the shorter the handle that you use (hands get in the way of each other) There are also small adjustments that need to be made with how you set your shoulders and how you generate power from footwork.

I think it may be a combination of things like most things are. The first poit involves hilt length but not because the sword hilt is shorter, but because the polearm haft is longer, long enough that if you dont change grip you can tie yourself up. The second reason i can think of would be speed and distance. Polearms tend to have more space between their users and so losing a half second or so isn’t fight ending, but sword wielders are closer together and any weakening of the guard can give the opponent that split second opening they need. These are just theories from a non-practicioner.

changing hands in sword fighting? dang it! i left my spare hands at home today! xD

Switching grips is actually common in the sword when we equate it to how it's done in pole weapons; it's done in the same way it's done in pole weapons with the same style of grip switching, in sword it becomes half swording because of the sorter hilt when moving your off hand forward. There is also the "gripping over" in Meyer 1570 which can often have you end up fighting with the pommel(butt end) forward and the left hand on top. Thus all of the pole weapon techniques can be employed in similar ways with the sword by grip switching your off hand forward into a half sword. Including halberd and poll ax hooks if you keep the pommel forward and employ the crossguard.

I practice Kenjutsu for many years now and I personally switch hands and find it pretty useful in combat... yes it has pros an cons but when you get used to switching hands, it becomes a very useful tool to confuse and trick your opponent. Especially if he/she is fighting against you for the first time.

I'm a right handed guy and managed to train myself to... not massively suck with my left. My theory is that it comes down to diminishing returns. A polearm, grappling and a dagger, you have to learn ambidextrously. Daggers are grabbed when in grappling range from your own or opponent's belt and only circumstances will dictate which hand you will be able to get on it. Polearms are frequently flipped over to fight with the butt end, at which point you are pretty much fighting mirrored to your preferred way, and it happens whenever someone wants to close with you, which is all the damn time. Grappling is, I would hope, self-explanatory. One handed swords are a bit different. Being ambidextrous is an advantage, but you need to put tremendous amount of time into your non-dominant hand to be any good with it, and your dominant one will still be better. From the fights I've had, switching mid-fight could be effective as a shock factor, but the entire fight? I don't think I was better off switching against any opponent that was near or above my skill level. Still, from a contemporary point of view, it is a useful skill to have if your dominant hand is occupied or injured. Sword and shield and two-handed sword, though, have all the issues of sword alone, and what is worse - if one of your hands is occupied or injured, you can't use them anyway. You have the massive training time in exchange for no utility whatsoever and questionable advantage in fighting. So, from my experience, it comes down to prohibitive training time to get to a good enough level where the left-handed advantage will overshadow the non-dominant disadvantage. You need to learn grappling, dagger, polearm, sword in one and two hands, anti-armor fighting, riding a horse, mounted fighting and a ranged weapon of your choice as it is (not to mention political, administrative, diplomatic, tactical and judicial skills) - almost doubling the time necessary for some of those might not be the best of ideas.

As a non-practitioner, it seems edge alignment is both more important and harder to get right with a sword than a polearm. I suspect the finer motor control needed to use a sword is at least part of why switching hands wasn't generally done. I've occasionally had to use a hammer left handed. It's clumsy, but I can make it work if I'm careful. I wouldn't even bother to play tennis left handed.

I like your videos that are more about asking questions than giving answers. The study of history is more about answering questions than having the answers.

I have two hypotheses. One is that a sword being a more complex system than halberd or Spear, and with edge alignment mattering a lot more, it just takes a high degree of training specificity to get it down even on one side of the body. Reversing it will make a more awkward cut unless you dedicate a lot of time to practicing opposite-handed. Similar to in unarmed combat sports, a boxer matrian for a good while before working on their southpaw stance. Or a grappler May favor certain submissions right? Or left-handed until they have an extraordinary amount of mastery. So perhaps the advantages to be gained Bogdan opposite-handed on the sword or mitigated by the amount of extra training time in the law of commissioning returns. The second hypothesis is just that with a little less extra room on the hilt, the risk of dropping the sword might be considered greater than the advantages of switching. Switching. Furthermore, when you switch a pole arm, you can drastically alter the range, bringing it in tight, and then switching and going forward. With the shorter hilt of the longsword you don't really get this effect.

It much easier to swing from both sides when your hands are close together. Once they are far apart on a long staff weapon, you need to switch your grip to attack from the other side.

I took up the two-handed sword during my brief stint in HEMA because there were no right-handed shields in the loaner gear. Just being the mirror image of what people were used to was probably my greatest asset.

Thanks for doing a video on this subject, I think earlier I also made a comment suggesting this subject and it's nice to see a video on this now.

I must admit, you are better than I am. Then why are you smiling? Because I know something you don't know. And what is that? I am not left-handed!

I know something you don't know. I'm not left-handed.

When it comes to Spears and polearms, as many others have said including yourself they are simply easier weapons to be effective with. The reach advantage makes it safer for people to use in conflict but the added advantage of more nimble point control without having to alter too much about your grip makes it a more accessible weapon to novice users. It is easier to train a group of spearmen than it is a group of swordsman. Not that spearmen would not have a sword but Spears were just so dominant on the battlefield and the same can be said about polearms. You could say they were the primary weapon on the field. This probably lead to the development of more techniques to deal with opponents with the opposite dominant hand for the more common weapons. In Asia, I've noticed they are generally more strict about right handed dominance. I was born in Japan, I am Filipino and Scottish (I know, odd mix) but I did have many Asian friends and alot of them were left handed like me but their parents always forced right handed dominance on them sometimes even aggressively. I can't speak on every asian culture but it seemed to he the same experience with Vietnamese, Filipino and Japanese parents. I am not sure this is as common as I am implying because I see this in all cultures. Just my own experience. Maybe in Asia they were much more strict about people learning to use their right hand in all things and they did not want that sentiment to deviate in the art of warfare.

The consensus in my Fiore group was that the moment of switching leaves you weak and vulnerable for an instant. An alert opponent can take advantage of that.

I don't have a full theory, but I think it may also have something to do with how swords are drawn in different ways than polearms. I also think it could have to do with how we wear them when they are not drawn. Japanese swords have an additional reason for not being left handed. Having your sword sticking out the otherside made the chance for your scabbard to hit other samurai scabbards when walking by them in the opposite direction. If this happened often, it would cause unnecessary trouble for some people. As for why it is extremely uncommon to switch grips mid combat, I think it could also be the fact that people want stick to what they know when their life is threatened. You would have to have a lot of confidence in your left handed grip to be able to switch when you could be killed, even if you're thinking of it as a tactical decision. You have to still be good enough in that grip to use it successfully. In sparring today, nobody is worried about dying very much, so I can see it being more common nowadays compared to back then.

Switching hands with sword and shield or polearm can offer a big advantage, but in my experience, the shorter grip of a long sword doesn't provide enough variation to make switching hands worthwhile. There is really not a shot I can throw left-handed that I can't also throw right-handed, with a variation of my stance and foot work. If I want to attack from a different angle, I can just do it from a closed guard. I feel switching which leg is forward is more important. I really think the advantage of keeping your dominant hand on top for one-handed use really outweighs any slight benefit you would get from switching hands.

Aldo both sides are diferent, the sword can make a decent job at using the weaker side. While spear and axes are stuck with strike side and trust side. Perhaps club fighting would be a better conparason, since clubs are light enought to be held by the tip.

Possible ideas: You don't only have opponents but sometimes people you fight alongside, as in battle formation. It might be safer for the other fighter if the handling is uniform. (Is there any report about left-hand fighters in the Roman army for example?) It might be a thing about how fights are structured. The other thing is that there is a certain bias as soon as horses were involved. To this day, we mount a horse on the correct side = the one where your sword won't get in the way when you wear it. (Only guesses, please don't roast me.)

Now you need to do a video with sword and shield with left handed vs right handed. That would be interesting. Great Video!!!

I fully expect to see hand swapping in the matt easton longsword treatises.

In Chinese advanced fencing, both hands are conditioned. Some Chinese sword set also have flying sword moves in which the sword leaves both hands and stay in the air for some time before connecting to a hand again. Some Japanese fencing schools also have left hand technique. But there is no time to switch hand. Their kata would not therefore show a change of hands within the same kata. The reason that people do not usually change lead hand and lead foot is because(I do know the answer. This is not a theory. I experienced in real life as well.) it takes time to switch and in that moment the opponent is waiting to flash you with his sword. In the majority of situation there just is not the time to switch lead hand or lead foot. So, unless you are far from your opponent/s allowing you time to switch hand and foot, you just cannot do it in time without being flashed or attacked. Polearms are slower than a lot of swords, allowing for time to switch hands and feet.

Something I've noticed by being left handed, is that although it might be easier to get strikes in from odd and unusual angles sometimes, it can also make for awkward defending.

Nice dramatic intro today! The reason why I think it isn't done so often with swords is due to the time to perform the move and dexterity required by your hand. With a polearm, switching your hands (and the head) is a part of many moves you can do, so switching up your lead hand is kind of already in the books. And because you have two hands far apart on the shaft, you already have solid control over the point, so you're not really striking ineffectively. With a sword however, switching hands is a very punishable as you're vulnerable and can absolutely be struck while you let go of the handle as you're not resisting or able to really catch an attack well during the process. Additionally, because your hands are choked up close together near the handle, your lead hand has a much more disproportionate effect on how effectively you wield the sword, with factors like edge alignment, point control and precise movements to catch or deal blows. Like if a polearm's effectiveness is 60% main hand and 40% off hand, then a sword's effectiveness is probably something more like 85% and 15%. Makes it much less efficient and not worth the risk outside of certain scenarios, have done it plenty before in sparring and the risk tends to outweigh the benefits.

Grip would feel completely different, possibly worn or grooved in with a sword vs the pole arms which are basically just wooden poles to grip

My godbrother was a 6'8, left-handed fencer. So, luckily, I got experience with that. He also taught me to fence left-handed. I do switch hands, once I moved to SCA. It really throws people off.

Great video Matt! Can you do a further video on which hand powers the cut?

Our Sensei made us practice Kata with both hands and sometimes with one hand alone. Not because we would ever fight that way, but because, he said, it made you think more about your footwork and your posture. He didn't do it often. He also made us practice the Kata with our eyes closed.

As a lefty who hand matches so I change hands often i find changing hands seems more of an advantage when working around the environment, other fighters, and their equipment. Some examples. Going up/down a spiral staircase, the last person on the left or right of a line or a bridge, Working around around Shields, etc

I just wanted to add another data point to the discussion. In Jogo do Pau, the Portuguese staff fighting martial art that has several similarities with longsword and montante fighting, the traditional grip is dominant hand closer to the "pommel". Not sure why but I hear that it's to be able to generate more speed in the swings and faster attacks.

The technique of holding the top of the grip with the left hand exists in some Japanese martial arts schools (such as Shinkage-ryu and Yagyu Shinkan-ryu). It is called "左太刀"(left tachi) or "槍構え"(spear stance) and was mainly used when fighting against spears. However, this did not seems that the hand was switched during the fight, but it was common to take that stance before the fight began.

Yes, it was still interesting, thank you for the video.

Fiore, Vadi and others in the Italian tradition have guards, cuts, thrusts and defences from the left side for a right-handed swordsman. They're not all as good as those from the right, but they do exist. So perhaps the question should be: Is it more effective for a right-handed swordsman to become skilled in attacks etc from the left than it is for a right-handed swordsman to train as a left-hander, i.e. with his left hand closest to the guard? A possible clue comes from Liechtenauer who says that a right-handed swordsman should attack from the right and a left-handed swordsman from the left. Liechtenauer doesn't provide much guidance for a right-hander attacking from the left (or a left-hander from the right). So perhaps there is a hierarchy of efficacy that looks like this: 1. Most effective: Attack etc from your dominant side (Fiore et al and Liechtenauer et al) 2. Second most effective: Attack etc from your less dominant side but your dominant hand nearer the guard (Fiore et al) 3. Least most effective: Attack etc by switching hands, i.e. a right-hander as a natural lefty would, and a left-hander as a natural righty. Why there should be this hierarchy is probably explained - as others have in these comments - by the fine motor control required nearest the guard.

Indeed I was out with my long handed slasher today and I was changing the lead hand according to what and where I was cutting.

Maybe b/c it’d be a high risk strategy (you lose quite a bit of strength and precision switching from your dominant hand) so it’s fine for us in low stakes situations but in a fight to the death, you might stick to less risky gambits

My dad was right handed. When he played hockey, he played with what would be called a left handed stick today. The advantage is, your power is generated from the had closest to the end of the grip. The hand closer to the middle is a fulcrum and the power and control come from the hand closest to the end of the grip. I am also right handed and I played baseball. From my experience, I had more power batting left handed with my dominant hand closer to the end of the grip. If I was learning to fence with a 2 handed sword, I’d start out left handed.

I switch hands mid-fight when I do longsword. But mostly left dominant. Can get confusing sometimes because as you mentioned, everything flips round for me too 😂😂

We were discussing this only last week in our fighting group, and it was my belief that you don't see it in treatises because it is something it was assumed people already knew how to do.

My thought is that in a two-handed sword,'change up' (from right hand on top, to left hand on top), the wielder risks losing their cutting edge.

I think it might be about how uncomfortable the crossed position is. If your hands are close together you can easily cross your wrists, but on a longer handle with the hands apart you'll have to put your shoulders in an awkward position.

Maybe it has something to do with drawing your sword? You wear it on your left, grab it with right hand close to the guard, put a left hand on empty space on a hilt and you are ready to fight. And you want to grab a hilt closer to guard, because: 1. if you want to grab it by the end of the handle and unsheet it - it would make blade seems longer and more harder to pull out 2. your point of balance would be off P.S. I don't have a sword, so I used logic and broomhandle to test this hypothesis of mine :) Cheers!

@scholagladiatoria The answer can be found in modern manual of arms. Primary weapons (assault rifles) which get the vast majority of use are taught to be used both left and right handed, particularly to take advantage of angles around cover. Secondary weapons (pistol) which are worn in a holster and are rarely used will be drawn with a particular hand. Once used, the preference would be to transition back to a primary weapon as soon as possible. Secondary weapons are just not used very often, and even rarer still is the situation where it would be used with the non dominant hand. I would assume in a military context where most swords are used as a secondary weapon and fill a similar role to a pistol, it would make just as much sense to train primary weapons from both sides, but secondary weapons only from the side you would be drawing it with.

With a pole weapon you can slide both hands up and down the shaft in opposition to each other with a relatively small cross over and you're usually guiding the heavy end in a broad arch from shoulder to shoulder. I think in this switch the length of the shaft stabalises the weapon, a bit like a kite tail. Because with a sword that head to handle ratio switches the longer blade has more pulling power which makes such a slide switch more difficult and less stable. Also, as the hands loosen and slide past each other, where the shaft is longer they have more time to position in a way they aren't going to tangle when passing each other on a longer shaft. There's just less room for manouver on a longsword hilt. There's also more potential positions for the hands to end up in on a longer shaft and this will, i think, give more options for the body to instinctively restabalise the weapon. If you aren't doing a slide exchange, because of the free space on a longer shaft, there's more places to put your hands, both because the other hand isn't in the way, but also because changing the position of the one hand gripping the weapon, briefly during the exchange, won't have such a big effect on the balance of the weapon over a longer shaft, verses a small longsword hilt. All these are kind of guesses as to why, but i do know from experience, doing a slide shift on a pole weapon can feel very satisfying, feeling the weight shift from side to side. Doing it on a longsword it just feels like you're going to fumble it.

I find it easier to switch hands with a polearm because I can quickly place the bottom hand above the top hand, and the slide the old top hand (now the bottom) down the shaft. If you do that with a sword you'd be gripping the blade/ricasso.

In comparison to polearms we do use left-hand forward grips: when halfswording! This isn't exactly the same what we're really talking about, but you are still using your left forward.

I've been doing this for years off of any overbind of their blade. Let go with right let left slide up into a thrust against cross and it immediately changes the direction of the force so typically even if they'd normally parry the thrust back they parry into themselves...Can't say I typically have swapped outside of binds though but I'm sure switching up your engagement every time could definitely throw off them off as well if you're capable of it. I think the spear thing probably plays into exactly how I've used it in practice as its a quicker "swap" during a thrust to let your back hand slide up and become the front hand in the middle of an attack so there's no window for a response / gaining extra reach /better angle of attack etc.

I've been wondering this for a while.

Suio ryu has techniques for reversed hands (specifically for drawing, when your sword in next to you, when it's impossible to draw with the right hand). In this case, it is a matter of always being able to defend yourself. For naginata, I can only suppose that it's more efficient/practical to exchange the hands for power and speed when the guards change than for swords (there are some awkward cuts in iaido, but apart from the Suio ryu example above, almost everything can still be done with the right hand near the tsuba). It also helps that the naginata has a small spike at the bottom, so even swinging it around, there is always the option of offense.

In kenjutsu styles and even modern kendo, it is actually advantageous for left handed people to wield their weapons in the right handed grip because the bottom hand is used to generate power in the cut while the top hand is for guiding/directing the path of the sword when cutting. Also, an interesting tidbit of information is that It was said that miyamoto musashi may have been left handed but this is disputed.

I've been thinking about this subject, and I think I have a solid reason that I wouldn't ever want to try switching grips on purpose: defense. As tempting as it may be to go for a neat trick like this in competition, doing so in a lethal encounter makes me shutter. In any serious bladed fight, we know that the goal isn't to kill the other person outright. The goal is to bleed less than the other person. Switching hands for a surprise attack in this context is tempting only until you consider that a fraction of a second later, you're going to be stuck defending your life with an off-hand grip.

I believe it's because using the longsword might require more fine motor control than a spear or a pollaxe. Sparring with the spear I often find myself switching hands naturally, especially to improve my reach in different situations. But I just tried swinging my longsword with opposite hands and it feels very sluggish.

It's quite difficult, it's like learning the basics all over again, but I do like to practice switching dominant hands every now and again. It REALLY throws off right handed opponents to face a lefty, which often does make up for the disadvantage of me being worse with my other hand. It's a nice tactic to throw in mid fight to mix things up. It is significantly easier to do with a polearm - with your hands close together (ie on a sword) it feels quite unnatural to have your hands in the "wrong" position, whereas on a polearm with your arms quite wide apart, that feeling is reduced a lot. Maybe this is why it's talked about in polearm sources but not longsword.

"...particularly in the Bolognese sources..." I will never not snigger at that.

Excellent video, Matt! Could use more rhymes! (everyone else went right to Inigo Montoya or Vizzini, so I thought Fezzik needed some love XD) ♥

FYI, they do teach hand switching in some of the Shinkage Ryu katana teachings that I have seen, so your "not taught anywhere" statement is a little off. But this is a really good point of observation. We see so much variation in the sources that the fact that any reasonable idea doesn't show up somewhere is odd, and I personally now mostly believe that I would rather fight a left handed person as a left hander myself, than as a righty (which is what I am) because it is easier for me to conceptually flip technique ideas this way easier than adapting the righty ones to situations for which they weren't intended.

Using my left hand of doom(tm) to thumb this up, Matt!-, as a lefty martial artist who(they hated me in competition) who had to go righty for some arts, it is difficult(especially as a grown up) to learn to use the "awkward" side of your body to fight, in security or real life fight situations(unfortunate amount of experience in both down the years), people definitely go back to basics ( basically in a REAL fight, where someone is genuinely out to hurt you, if you know how to fight, the stress of the moment "forces your hand" so to speak)... training people to "pull a fast one" doesn't work as well,militarily speaking as training everyone to use a standard maneuver , I would imagine there were expert swordsmen who DID use both sides of their body in an ambidextrous mode(switching grip, moving the legs etc.), I've done it, with swords...but never in a situation where someone was GENUINELY trying to kill me!, maybe the treatises didn't want to clog up their students minds with esoteric knowledge they would rarely use?

Hi Matt, first of all apologies for my bad english... looking back in middle ages, the right hand was the hand of the "right" (droit in french) and so called "dextre", or the hand for god (dieu=dextre), and was to compare with the left hand ,the hand of evil called senestre (senestre=sinistre=evil...) long story short, if you are in your right, you're going to fence right handed... plus, in medieval castles the stairs turn on the left, so if attacked, the defender would be able to use the right hand to defend,hitting opponents down , while the attackers would be forced to use the left hand, which means a hand they are not used to, and trying to reach an opponent up...all this in a curved space. for religious reasons, it was not well accepted to fight left handed with the sword, wich is a symbol of God, in form of the cross... for the symbolic in Japan, I assume it is due to other reasons, but my guess is that it could be more practical than religious... best to all, cheers!

In archery, it’s all about eye dominance. Right eye dominant people do better with right handed bows, left eyed people with left handed. I guess this isn’t a thought on why grips aren’t shifted, but this video sparked a thought about whether or not a good instructor cares about the dominant eye? And I don’t know, but I’ve often wondered if baseball switch hitters have cross dominance.

I once read a collection of jokes and funny stories and there was one about a right handed fencer who was taught to use the left hand because that would give advantage against majority of opponents. Then came the tournament and most of the fencers there were using their left hand. I have no idea if that was a true story, but it certainly seems plausible.

Samurai walked on the left hand side of the street, swords carried away from the street. This means when they pass each other on the street, the swords don't bump into each other. So they always have to draw with their right hand.

In our Viking reenactment I know it is advantageous to fight left-handed with a spear during shieldwall combat. Easier to strike to your right, and find a gap between shields, while also being better protected yourself from attacks. In addition, sometimes 2-handed Daneaxes are used to extend shieldwalls. While on the left flank having a lefthanded grip allows you to make better attack angles on the opposing flank. I suppose because of this those weapons would have been used in opposite hands for many years, whereas 2-handed swords may not have been used in a similar manner as this in the later period?

If anyone did start adopting this in actual sparing, and it worked, it would have to be dubbed "The Princess Bride Gamble." If it failed it could just be called "The Princess Bride Fallacy."

Switching hands is also encouraged in the french stickfighting. With one-handed swords, you often have another thing in your other hand, be it a buckler or a dagger, so you can't really switch. With two-handed swords, that is not an issue, but you don't have enough space to switch hands so comfortably.

So I have basically no experience with HEMA or any combat sport for that matter. But if I had to guess its for several reasons. 1. Edge alignment. Its probably much harder to align your blade edge when the techniques are mirrored. This is easier to do with blunt or heavier blades which can cleave through without perfect edge alignment. 2. The purpose of swords. Swords are not designed to be a battlefield weapon. Usually if you're on a battle field and you have to draw your sword, the situation is pretty dire. Its easier to stick to a defensive stance which you are use to and let a buddy finish them off. 3. Training and whom these scripts are aimed at. I'd imagine people whom participated in fencing for non battlefield purposes had more bias against left-handers than people writing for warfare where life and death matters. As for why it wouldn't be written for soldiers, ignoring the other two points. Not everyone on the battlefield had a lot of time to train. It was probably much more valuable to train them with weapons of warfare than learning to offhand a sword. Which is a lot more risky when your life is on the line.

All physics. You're the fulcrum point of a lever. I would imagine the reason the offhand is never on top is recovery time, accuracy, and the fact that you can still cover the same area without having to change hands. You're not increasing the range of attack. High risk, No reward. Also, love your channel sir.

I keep hearing 'in mayonnaise bolognaise' 😂

My theory is that with a polearm you have space on the grip to move your hands one at a time and therefore it is more likely that you won't just drop your weapon.

Good question, I figured out I'm right-eye dominant, and have a bit of a 'unmotivated' right-eye. This weekend for the first time I fired my bb gun, and found out I shoot better lefty. -Wondering if it'd be the same with bow, or crossbow. -Melee not possible with a compromised sternum. Thanks for the video and channel. (ed.) -I heard somewhere the Dread Pirate Wesley could fight just as well with both hands.

I was out with my long handled slasher today, and indeed I changed lead hand according what and where I was chopping.

Back when I used to practice in a bit of a mixed group there was a guy who would go shield and short sword and I struggled to with my longsword. Until I realised that left handed grip mixed things up enough that I was no longer at a disadvantage.

In my experience with HEMA fights, I picked up switching hands on a two handed sword from a fellow fighter. It's useful in a fight, especially if you're having trouble getting past someone's guard. Just release your dominant hand, and let the blade slide/settle down into the other hand. At that point, reapply your dominant hand to the pommel, and you've switched it up. Time and time again, doing this has let me throw off my opponent's rhythm, and score points.

One of my friends does do this when sparring with swords

It could even just be convention to some or a large extent. When I was taught to drive a car, I was taught to always use my right foot for the pedals, and to switch it between pedals. Theoretically, you could drive with both feet, but I don't know anyone who does. I was told that it would be possible to press both pedals at the same time and this would be bad, so focusing on one hand/side may also have been a concern for them. This could be another reason for it, because to learn all the techniques twice, mirrored, would be more effort than sticking with what would have been sufficient.

This is very interesting, i have just recently entered into a HEMA academy but ive been solo training with a wooden sword for 5+ years but because of the weight of it i naturally got used to changing dominant hand mid training so at this point am as good with the right as i am with the left, i didnt even think about fencers not doing that, havent even discussed it yet with my instructors so i dont even know if its allowed on tourneys

May years ago my karate sensei kept trying to "correct" my stance whenever I swapped ulterior foot forward. He simply could note defend against it. So much so that i ended up sweeping my 3rd dan sensei as a brown belt. I declined further instruction in that dojo shortly after.

I agree with your suggestion it is to do with hilt length. I have practiced Germanic longsword and pollaxe and I have tried using certain longsword techniques with a pollaxe. In principle they should work, in practice not. I found the separation of the hands became an issue creating more twist than my arms/shoulders could accommodate. This necessitated a switch of the grip position for biomechanical reasons. A decending cut from the left is ok with a sword (slightly awkward) with a pollaxe it becomes near impossible, the arm cross over is to great.

Southpaw here, I may be strange but I use a two handed sword left handed (Left hand forward, left foot to the rear). With single handed swords; ALL single hand swords I fence right handed. What is the same in the posture I have described? The stance. My single hand right hand grip is almost universally the same as my two hand left hand grip and with swords if one changes hands they must also change feet. Changing feet and hands in an unarmed fight is easy enough & can give you a temporary advantage. Changing hands & feet with something in your hands (In my experience) is slower & more awkward. As I wrote in the beginning, I am a little strange & I know no one else whose stance & right/ left orientation depends on one vs two hand swords (And I know nothing about polearms) but it's just what's always felt natural to me.

Edge alignment tends to be poorer from the non-dominant hand. That is less of a problem with poleaxes because the shaft is oval or faceted, and the back hand can do the aligning.

There are some tidbits about this in sword as well. Iirc Monte describes a similar tactic with the one hand sword saying that one should (if one is trained) begin with the left hand on the sword and if it is tired use the right hand to deliver powerful blows to overrun the opponent. Im not sure if he also describes something like that with the longsword. IIrc some of meyers plate do show one or two figures with a left hand grip and d'alessandrao and alfieri although with the spadone do depict such grips. Alessandro says the reason is so one can deliver even more powerful blows with the spadone. Maybe they sometimes did it but we just dont have any big evidence on it. My theory is that maybe in Formation left handers and their blows or their arms could get in the way of others. I may misremember but some treatises actually talk about left handers and their problems. Maybe it was also seen as a problem when having other weapons such as handguns, crossbows and realoading.

Aikidoka do all their empty-handed techniques on both sides all the time. Some dojos practice their basic bokken suburi on both sides, changing hands, but most keep the bokken in the same grip and just change the feet. Some do both.

Gauntlets, perhaps? More room to switch hands on a polearm, whereas it may be awkward to quickly change grips with the limited space on a sword's handle. This is magnified with bulky hand protection. So perhaps it was just too risky? Also, you can place one hand above or below the other on a polearm and still maintain control of the weapon with an appropriate grip, then slide your hands into place accordingly to change grip. With a sword grip, you may have to grip the handle awkwardly while in the process of changing grip.

Bolognese sauces (sources)… That will never get old.

I am right handed. And do Longsword right handed. Recently started practicing messer and am intentionally learning it left handed.

Funny thing, two left-handed members of my club actually fence longsword "right-handed" because one has a history in kenjutsu and the other just felt more comfortable that way, and one right-handed member switches to the "left-handed" grip a lot since there was a time he hurt his right hand and had to practice left-handed. I think the reason for not switching historically is probably like you said just the length of the handle. With a two-handed sword, it's relatively easy to throw any blow without changing hands, but with pole weapons it gets way more unwieldy so switching the grip is more advantageous.

Having trained in Longsword and Rapier, and having fought (similar to SCA style) with sword & shield, longsword, and polearm, here is my take on the switching. On a sword, to swap handiness, you have to either grip the blade with the other hand, or try somehow to slide the sword down into your hand, which is always risky in a fight. Since you always HAVE to have a hand at the uppermost point to the crossguard. (theoretically with a zweihander you could slide your top hand down into the open hilt, then move the other hand above it, but risky) For a polearm or spear, your primary grip is with the rearmost hand, as it provides your thrusting energy. So you can let go of one hand and move it to the other position as you don't have to worry about position as much, and you always have a firm grip on the weapon. The polearm/spear is also interesting in that in a stabby stabby method, you are sliding the weapon in your forward hand, and thrusting with the rear (with many techniques even letting go of the forward hand for more reach and stepping through), but when you are using it like a staff/hammer/axe, it is your forward hand which provides the primary grip, as it is your pivot point. So you are switching which hand needs to be firm. Thus you could do this in transition. A right handed thrust brings your right hand right next to your sliding left, at which point you move the point over, let go with the loose left hand, then grip firmly behind the right and slide it back, or you grip firm with the left and move your right in front of the left, keeping a loose grip with the right (and you are likely using the left to retract the spear already, moving it an even smoother move).

Could it be that the polearm techniques/treatises maintained more of their military pedigree than the "sword fighting" ones? I've had the privilege of learning some of the old Japanese ryuha that were dated back to a time when swords were used in a military rather than dueling context, and those insisted you practice both sides. Apparently injuries happen in close combat, and you weren't allowed to just give up because your dominant hand was wounded.

I agree with @smithryansmith about the flexibility provided by a spread out grip on a longer weapon (or hockey stick). The sword, having a closer space for holding, means you'd have to create an opportunity to change hands that your opponent would use to widen your smile.

Switching grips on a Dane Ax or a long spear mid fight is very useful, but I think that the shorter space for hand placement on a sword makes it more difficult.

My two cents on this is some anecdotal observations. I have specifically practiced doing just that and have found it to be a effective strategy on two conditions, I do it quick enough, and I do it smoothly. With gauntlets it's pretty awkward to shift your hands smoothly and efficiently on that short of a handle (relative to a polearm) and maintain a good flow of movement. The only times it's worked well for me have been conditional and most of the time it makes more sense to just do a set of movements that flow more naturally. With a longer shaft on a polearm it's faaaaaar more condusive to setting up a natural flow that sets your hands up for a quick shift