Back Scabbards: was: inspiration and reference I:33

[Lord Dane]

Kind of off topic but ... how time period authentic is a back scabbard for a broadsword fro say a 13th-14th century kit?? 

[Ian]

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.

[Sir Wolf]

but it was in braveheart!!

[Ian]

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!!

[Lord Dane]

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."

[Sir Wolf]

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.

[Sir James A]

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.

[Sir William]

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

[Ian]

"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.

[Lord Dane]

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.

[Sir William]

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.

[Corvus]

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.

[Lord Dane]

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

[Ian]

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.

[Lord Dane]

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.