ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Courtyard => Topic started by: Lord Dane on 2013-05-09, 22:03:24
-
Kind of off topic but ... how time period authentic is a back scabbard for a broadsword fro say a 13th-14th century kit?? :-\
-
Kind of off topic but ... how time period authentic is a back scabbard for a broadsword fro say a 13th-14th century kit?? :-\
If by back scabbard you mean a sword suspended across your back, it's never authentic.
-
but it was in braveheart!!
-
but it was in braveheart!!
lol, and William Wallace was 8 feet tall! Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning... from is arse!!
-
Found this reference regarding suspended swords on the back:
However in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, on page 94 of that book, Professor Cunliffe writes,"All these pieces of equipment [shields, spears, swords, mail armour], mentioned in the texts, are reflected in the archaeological record and in the surviving iconography, though it is sometimes possible to detect regional variations. Among the Parisii of Yorkshire, for example, the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."
-
well being i know of no such animal, and the celts swords were no where near long enough to draw from there i think it's utter rubbish. they used really ornate sword belts.
-
Kind of off topic but ... how time period authentic is a back scabbard for a broadsword fro say a 13th-14th century kit?? :-\
If by back scabbard you mean a sword suspended across your back, it's never authentic.
I agree with Ian, not at all. You need a rather short sword to be able to back-draw to begin with; and then re-sheathing is a whole other world of awkward, and that's doing so in front of a mirror. I don't find it remotely practical for anything but a very short (30" or so) sword.
A back strap for carrying, that would be taken off the shoulder before drawing, similar to a guige strap on a shield, might be plausible for larger swords, but I haven't seen any direct evidence of it.
-
Found this reference regarding suspended swords on the back:
However in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, on page 94 of that book, Professor Cunliffe writes,"All these pieces of equipment [shields, spears, swords, mail armour], mentioned in the texts, are reflected in the archaeological record and in the surviving iconography, though it is sometimes possible to detect regional variations. Among the Parisii of Yorkshire, for example, the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."
As has been said, there's nothing in period to suggest that swords were drawn from the back, other than your reference. With that in mind, I did once own this particular belt, which is cunningly designed so that you can carry your sword across the back for ease of movement- suitable for someone who has issues with a sword hanging at their waist. This sword belt (Ranger Convertible it is called) has a quick release that'll drop the sword down to your waist.
I once wanted such a contrivance but have since been talked out of it by my more period-centric brethren.
http://www.ravenswoodleather.com/index.php?p=product&id=123 (http://www.ravenswoodleather.com/index.php?p=product&id=123)
-
"Among the Parisii of Yorkshire, for example, the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."
I'd love to see a person without 8 foot arms pull of this feat.
-
Agreed. Does seem rather an unlikely feet, if not impractical. I do think it would be feasible for short sword as mentioned by Sir James for drawing up to a specific blade length but Celts broadswords were of considerable length, some up to 36 inches at least.
-
Maybe it was done with a partially open scabbard...you know, maybe the bottom half was enclosed but the rest was open, maybe with a strap at the top to keep the hilt in place. I don't know- there isn't any pictorial evidence to support it (no such relics seem to have come to light as of yet) so that could mean they never existed, or simply rotted into oblivion before they could be found. I could see if they wore it on their backs walking to battle- a scabbard banging against the leg can be bothersome after a while.
I think if you really want one, you should have one- but be careful, otherwise you might accidentally give the back of your head a shave it didn't need.
-
I often wore a blade on the back in my SCA garb - mainly because the larger blades are so much easier to carry, rather than historical accuracy. Indeed I suspect that carrying a blade on the back may have been seen in many time periods for that reason - or to keep the blade up and out of the wet during marches or such.
-
Maybe it was done with a partially open scabbard...you know, maybe the bottom half was enclosed but the rest was open, maybe with a strap at the top to keep the hilt in place. I don't know- there isn't any pictorial evidence to support it (no such relics seem to have come to light as of yet) so that could mean they never existed, or simply rotted into oblivion before they could be found. I could see if they wore it on their backs walking to battle- a scabbard banging against the leg can be bothersome after a while.
I think if you really want one, you should have one- but be careful, otherwise you might accidentally give the back of your head a shave it didn't need.
To the last part Sir William, isn't that why you wore a helmet?? :) lol
-
There's just no real practical reason in period to carry a sword on your back. I don't think it's an accident that there exists zero artistic depictions to date of a period sword being carried on someone's back.
Why would one want to? As an alternative to the hip, it makes no sense since it is impossible to draw a true sword from a scabbard secured to your back, don't believe me? try it! You could draw something like a big knife from your back, but again, this doesn't really lend itself to practicality, especially in harness. Even a knife, do I want to fumble around behind my head to find the grip when I could just put it on my hip and not have to worry about it when the time comes?
The only other reason you would carry a sword on your back is for simple transportation. But I again ask why? When I've got a whole wagon train of junk, why not just toss the big sword in it's scabbard on the wagon with all my other goods, or just strap it to my horse. Since I don't have immediate access to a sword on my back since you can't draw it, then why do I need it on my person at all when on the march? I don't. It is my belief that a sword not secured to the wearer's hip for immediate access would have been carried with all the other weapons on the supply wagons.
-
I actually have carried one on my back Ian. But I don't usually draw it quickly as it is for carrying. I have carried daggers n short swords in a rigged harness but u r right about practicality with larger swords.
-
I actually have carried one on my back Ian. But I don't usually draw it quickly as it is for carrying. I have carried daggers n short swords in a rigged harness but u r right about practicality with larger swords.
I understand that the modern person would find it convenient to carry on their back. We don't have a hundred wagons of crap in tow behind us carrying our stuff. That's precisely why I think it's a modern convenience and invention.
-
I actually have carried one on my back Ian. But I don't usually draw it quickly as it is for carrying. I have carried daggers n short swords in a rigged harness but u r right about practicality with larger swords.
I understand that the modern person would find it convenient to carry on their back. We don't have a hundred wagons of crap in tow behind us carrying our stuff. That's precisely why I think it's a modern convenience and invention.
Yep, this. You probably had somebody to carry your weapons for you. And you probably weren't in armor all the time, either.
-
Only time I did carry it was in armor. Never have anyone to carry my stuff around so it gets put on me or stays in car (least at fair).
-
Actually, Sir Ian,
the gallowglass and Rievers tended to fight lightly from what I've been able to find. I don't think they had wagons to carry their equipment at all. More at most, like a light early US Cavalry unit, if it fit on your horse or person, you could take it with, beyond that, you adapted as it came... or in the case of Custer, he got wiped out.
-
That doesn't mean the gallowglass liked to have swords bouncing of their backs. They would simply strap it to their horse like you yourself have implied. It's dangerous territory to find something modern and try to force it in to the medieval world with the justification of it was 'possible'. That just leads to bad science. In this case not only is there no direct evidence, there's also no indirect or circumstantial evidence, no artwork, no nothing. The notion of a back scabbard is a modern invention, plain and simple. All I'm saying is if you ask a question about historical accuracy we can only go by what we know to be true through the historical record. If it doesn't line up with a desired vision, you just have to accept it until new evidence arises or accept that what you're doing is just not historical. Either is ok.
-
i have friends that reenact that time frame. they just did a set up at mtt in April. no back scabbards for their claymores, they carried everything.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/434550713295109/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/434550713295109/)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/395574_10200642122888814_1869825387_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/558983_10200500394865702_147457678_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/557874_10200500386945504_1829535891_n.jpg)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Gallowglass_-_D%C3%BCrer.png)
-
Wait a second here…what’s with the great kilt in the middle picture? – “Skirting” the very edge of Farbdom isn’t he? – And yes the pun was fully intended! ;)
-
That doesn't mean the gallowglass liked to have swords bouncing of their backs. They would simply strap it to their horse like you yourself have implied. It's dangerous territory to find something modern and try to force it in to the medieval world with the justification of it was 'possible'. That just leads to bad science. In this case not only is there no direct evidence, there's also no indirect or circumstantial evidence, no artwork, no nothing. The notion of a back scabbard is a modern invention, plain and simple. All I'm saying is if you ask a question about historical accuracy we can only go by what we know to be true through the historical record. If it doesn't line up with a desired vision, you just have to accept it until new evidence arises or accept that what you're doing is just not historical. Either is ok.
I do agree with Ian about the need for 'empirical evidence' as proof to support historical significance of claims. Hypothesizing is just theory even if it sounds logical. I will look more into this and see if I can find creditable evidence. The Celts seems a good place to look or start.
-
There was a gallowglass re-enactor at Days of Knights who did a presentation as well. Back scabbards were not mentioned but those nice axes were. The gallowglass "assistant" (Kern? I forget the name) he said were sometimes barefoot (and one is in Sir Wolf's picture). I can't picture going barefoot, but having a back scabbard.
We're also thinking from a modern mind set of "they had to have something to carry it with". In period, that "thing" they'd carry it with would likely be their hands. They were not as lazy as we generally are.