Not all swords, and certainly not all techniques are created equal...Or should I say, "close to each other". It's apples and oranges. Weapons are designed and developed for specific purposes. And many of them and thier techniques between cultures can appear to be "similar but different"
I'm not going to say combining Japanese sword techniques and European techniques is "wrong", I do agree that to an extent that with any physical martial art, there are only so many ways one can move thier bodies, nevermind with something in thier hands, so there certainly is a bit of "crossover" and similarities in techniques. But, they are similarities. They are comparable. But when you take a little from book A and book B and book C, then you're making a composite technique, you're creating something new using tried and true techniques. That in and of itself is really quite interesting, and I'm sure it's a blast to experiment with, but I personally won't see that as "historically accurate". Again, I'm not saying this is wrong, it's just you're making a whole new technique.
And from what new research has been done, we're not the first to "dabble" and combine techniques. Paulus Hector Mair (mid 1500's) developed and wrote a Fechtbuch combining and borrowing from several manuals/fechtbuch that preceeded him, many of which he collected. It's really quite fascinating to see how he pulls specific technique from [older] manuals and interjects them into his "ideal" systems.
Even Stephen Hand, writing is his book about Sword and Buckler techniques and observations, he even states that he's interjected other sources into his system, which is based on the I.33 Walpurgis fechtbuch.
(there is actually a very good "facsimile and translation" of I.33 which I recommend, if I may sneak in a shameless plug ~ I.33 has given me a number of insights on Roman scuta et gladii possibilities)
But I have to step in with my own 2 cents, I'm not directly bashing the SCA, but to say being "Historically Accurate" while combining Eastern and Western techniques, while using rataan/ductape weapons, to me it just doesn't add up to "accurate". Fun? I'm sure. Insightfiul and thought-provoking? Most certainly. Historical? Ah, no, I don't buy that. I'm not stopping people, I'm just saying...apples and oranges. I also find it rather interesting that some former SCAdians I've talked to tried researching Historical manuals and techniques, tried to use them in SCA combat, and left the SCA completely dissapointed with the inconsistent results....I'm sorry but IMHO, SCA and [Western Martial Arts] are two completely different worlds.
However, on Shield grips, I have to agree with other who pointed out, if having a Horizontal grip was such a disadvantage, then why did they bother using it for [hundreds] of years? There was a reason they did it, and we're probably still trying to figure it out. (and that's why I won't directly dismiss the "dabbling", it can give us insights on possibilities...Note I'm saying possibilities. When we find the long lost Fighting Manual of Roman Legionaries, then I'll shushup and listen..Until then, we just don't know *how* exactly they did it.)
There also has been some terrific experimental work by a fellow reenactor who is into Viking age reenacting. He's been engrossed with working out ideas on "sword and shield" - Spatha length sword and circular shield...which BTW the Romans were using in the later periods! Hmmm! He's been looking at I.33 as well as the Fechtbuchs by Hans Talhoffer as well as "let's try this" work. He's found some incredible stuff.
(
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/article ... #technique )
My own findings, I haven't had much issue handling the scutum, other than suffering Armor Pinch while carrying it around. But, I'd rather hold it horizontally than trying to keep my elbow bent if the grip was vertical.
I've found that when using Sword and Buckler techniques (I.33), I find myself holding the buckler with the grip horizontal, although that's probably just 'bad habit' on my part
but I've found using both vertical or horizontal grips makes little difference in effective technique.
I think I'm starting to ramble here, so I'll try to sum it up.
Truth is, we don't know exactly how the Romans and thier enemies fought, and sadly, we may never know. We do know about some things, like Vegetius; and that thrusting was the primary and preferred attack. Short jabs, within 2-3 inches into the body, was designed to be fatal with 1 [or 2] hits. (interesting to note Rapier combat in the Renaissance concluded the same ideal) Add that ubiquitos "twist" when you're in the enemies' gut, and it's all over...pardon the pun. These were professional, armored, trained soldiers, using close-quarters formations and tactics. They weren't fooling around with this stuff. They used what worked for what the enemies threw at them.
What we can do is continue to research surviving materials, experiment, and even interject composite techniques to figure out educated guesses. But it still remains, as of right now, we don't know what the factual answers are. We also need to make sure we try to have fun continuing to do this stuff.
hock: ... Soldiers in every army in history so far seems to have done so 
