# Drawing a two-handed sword from your back



## Brian G Turner (Feb 2, 2013)

A research question on the use of the 2H sword.

The question is, how would a two hander be drawn from its sheath, especially if worn at your back?

It's just that I figure the sword would need the sheath adapting for drawing sideways from the back, and I'm not sure that's going to be very practical. 

In which case, would the sheath be removed from the back first, and the sword then drawn?

Just trying to figure how it's usually done.


----------



## Mouse (Feb 2, 2013)

I only know how to draw a katana, and that cannot be done from your back because the sword's too long and your arm's too short. I imagine it's the same for a two-hander broadsword (?) depending how long the blade is.

Don't know if you ever watched Farscape, but D'Argo had this massive sword he wore at his back, but in interviews the actor has said that it was impossible to draw it like that, and there was always someone at his back, handing it to him so it looked like he had drawn it.

If the sheath's sideways at your back, that'd work, but you'd have to twist - which'd work quite nice if there was someone close by you wanted to cleave in half!


----------



## HareBrain (Feb 2, 2013)

Not sure how historically accurate it is (my guess, not very) but here is a practical solution -- only the end of the blade is sheathed, with the hilt-end being held in place by hooks around the guards.


----------



## The Judge (Feb 2, 2013)

It isn't only drawing a sword from your back which is next to impossible -- how would you re-sheathe the sword afterwards?!

I'm pretty sure the zweihander of the Landsknechte didn't have a scabbard, not one which was worn, anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Landsknecht_with_his_Wife.jpg

I visited the Wallace Collection last year and they had a fair few longswords, but I don't recall seeing any scabbards for them, though there were scabbards for other, smaller, swords.  It might be worthwhile contacting the Royal Armouries and seeing what information they have.

In my fantasy, I've got the longswordsmen carrying the blades against their shoulders, in the same way pikemen would carry their pikes.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 2, 2013)

My husband says there are pictures of landsknecht's and Scots going into battle simply carrying their two-handed swords unsheathed on their shoulders.  He's also seen pictures of landsknechts holding sheathed swords horizontally in front of them.

So in between encounters a character could wear his two-handed sword in a sheath over the back (which is the only way to wear it without tripping over it).  If he were taken by surprise during a scene, he would either have to take off the strap and the sheath to draw the sword -- presumably, the strap would be constructed in such a way that it would come off easily -- or do what John has seen people do live: wearing their swords with only the bottom third sheathed, a ring at the top, and with practice they can pull the sword out of the little sheath, which allows them to change the angle and pull it over the shoulder and in front of them, so that they can then pull it out of the ring.  He doesn't know if the last way is really in period, but it does work.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 2, 2013)

The only thing that concerns me about the 1/3 scabbard is this is going to expose the weapon to the elements, so it may not be practical for general wear - only short-term wear, ie, before a battle. However, the problem is that if I put it a 2H in a full scabbard, with fur at the top to stop the rain leaking in, it is going to be undrawable, unless I set up some kind of hinged release - which would work, but may be far too modern. 

I guess I was kind of hoping there was an authentic solution for drawing two handed swords quickly, but I suspect that was never an intended part of their use.


----------



## Kylara (Feb 2, 2013)

You could always strap it to the side of a saddle on a horse and then you could probably pull it out if you were riding or wandering along by the side...?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 2, 2013)

I said:


> The only thing that concerns me about the 1/3 scabbard is this is going to expose the weapon to the elements



Coincidentally (but not so much, because Miles has people out in the garage armoring much of the time) someone who would know just stopped by the house.  He says that he thinks the pulling the sword over the shoulder thing wasn't done (although he acknowledges that it is _possible_ with the 1/3 scabbard and ring).  If a sword were carried in the shorter scabbard, for travelling it would be wrapped in something like waxed wool or wool with lanolin in it.

Since these swords were often not carried in a scabbard at all -- they weren't sharp, so there was no worry about that -- they were greased to keep them from rusting.  Also, they had to be maintained, using something like a whetstone to scrape off any rust.


----------



## The Judge (Feb 2, 2013)

You know, I wish I'd thought to ask this flaming question, and 18 months ago -- it would have helped me no end (and saved a lot of time!).  


Teresa Edgerton said:


> My husband says there are pictures of landsknecht's and Scots going into battle simply carrying their two-handed swords unsheathed on their shoulders.  He's also seen pictures of landsknechts holding sheathed swords horizontally in front of them.


When you say horizontally, do you know mean one hand gripping the hilt, and the other holding the sheathed blade ie across the body? I wondered whether as a longer term measure it would be more comfortable with the blade resting against the other arm, eg in the crook of the elbow, as the body would be taking some of its weight.

I also wondered about what would happen to any scabbard (of whatever size) as and when they fought -- they couldn't continue to hold it, so presumably would have to dump it and then try and find it (or someone else's) afterwards.  Or would it be left with the wagons following behind, perhaps?



Teresa Edgerton said:


> If a sword were carried in the shorter scabbard, for travelling it would be wrapped in something like waxed wool or wool with lanolin in it.
> 
> Since these swords were often not carried in a scabbard at all -- they weren't sharp, so there was no worry about that -- they were greased to keep them from rusting.  Also, they had to be maintained, using something like a whetstone to scrape off any rust.


Scribbling fast to make notes here!  Thank you!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 2, 2013)

Excellent, as I've already got the oiling regime mentioned.

The curious pointer is them not being sharp - I come across all kinds of conflicting stories about 2H sword use. I guess there are different needs and styles, so the weapon is built accordingly.

Here's the sort of thing that's leaving me thoughtful - it's supposedly an historical replica, and comes with scabbard - but is the scabbard authentic or made up?
http://www.theknightshop.co.uk/catalog/english-twohand-sword-p-1539.html

I'll be detouring to the Royal Armouries at Easteron so I can ask directly.

Much obliged for your answers, btw, Teresa - I know living history is part of your background.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 2, 2013)

The Judge said:


> When you say horizontally, do you know mean one hand gripping the hilt, and the other holding the sheathed blade ie across the body? I wondered whether as a longer term measure it would be more comfortable with the blade resting against the other arm, eg in the crook of the elbow, as the body would be taking some of its weight.



John doesn't remember because he's only seen one picture with the blades held horizontally, but your way makes sense.  The swords weigh five or six pounds, so they aren't the heavy monsters that people think they are, but still ...

In by far the most pictures he's seen, the swords are held resting against their shoulders like someone carrying a rifle.



> I also wondered about what would happen to any scabbard (of whatever size) as and when they fought -- they couldn't continue to hold it, so presumably would have to dump it and then try and find it (or someone else's) afterwards. Or would it be left with the wagons following behind, perhaps?



In an emergency, if they were taken by surprise, they'd have to toss it aside, but, when possible, things get left behind in camp or with the wagons.


----------



## TheTomG (Feb 3, 2013)

My thinking is that two handers are not weapons of convenience or of self-defence. They were to be used in battles that you knew were coming up, and you just had the sword out and ready.

If you were marching from point A to point B, it was stored away. For defending yourself along that journey from surprise attackers you'd most likely have a dagger or shorter sword about your person.

I'd say it might be kept "handy" but again for fights you could see coming, giving you a minute or two to retrieve it and unwrap it. You could carry it on your back for intimidation and show, but that would probably be the worst place for getting to it right enough and you'd REALLY need to see the fight coming to be ready in time.

Unless you have Stormbringer with its tendency to jump out of its scabbard pretty much by itself


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Feb 3, 2013)

Oh, and TJ and Brian, I will pass your thanks on to the appropriate persons.  I am sure they will tell you that the pleasure was theirs (the menfolk around here do like to talk about arms, armor, and armed combat whenever they get the chance).


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 3, 2013)

TheTomG said:


> My thinking is that two handers are not weapons of convenience or of self-defence. They were to be used in battles that you knew were coming up, and you just had the sword out and ready.
> 
> If you were marching from point A to point B, it was stored away. For defending yourself along that journey from surprise attackers you'd most likely have a dagger or shorter sword about your person.


 
I agree, I've got a short history of _Galloglass's_ - Gaelic mercenary warriors - here at home (I love dipping into those Osprey books!) and they fought battles with two-handed weapons, although because they have nordic origins it tended to be double headed axes. But they also carried side arms, ranging from dirks, hunting bows to scabbarded broadswords - as TomG points out for immediate use if required. The two-hander would be brought up when a battle was about to start. 

For that purpose, although the book is not 100% clear, it seems to be more or less given that each galloglass had at least one attendent/knave. And it would be the attendents responsiblity to store (and sheaf if it had a sheaf!) and then bring it to his master when required, I guess. 

I don't know how expensive the weapons themselves are - compared to other smaller versions, but the actual soldier who would be wielding it _was_ expensive to train and to use these big weapons well (He'd have to big and strong and so be built up from childhood), hence these were higher status troops. And so I'd expect he'd have a retinue to service his needs, as he was a more valuable asset. 

You see them same thing with knights - they would have gone into battle with a retinue - who would look after his armour, bring him new horses, etc...Obviously the richer you were the bigger the retinue you could bring.


----------



## Vertigo (Feb 3, 2013)

My understanding is that someone wielding a two handed sword generally had a normal single handed sword as well. The problem with a two handed sword is that in a close melee it is pretty much useless; too unweildy and long. I believe the two handed sword was typically swung in a horizontal figure of eight (wrapping around to your sides). Once sufficient 'contacts' had been made that the momentum of that swing was lost it was simply dropped and the broadsword drawn and used.

As Teresa mentioned the scabbard is more about prtecting you (and your friends) from the blade. Keeping it protected from the elements was the job of grease. Incidentally this was also the case in recent times. My father's naval dress sword was always kept coated in vaseline.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 3, 2013)

Vertigo said:


> My father's naval dress sword was always kept coated in vaseline.



Did it have a scabbard, though?


----------



## Vertigo (Feb 3, 2013)

Absolutely, but remember this was a dress sword designed to be worn on parade. However if just left for months in the scabbard without greasing it, it would start to rust. And that could ruin it as a dress sword; trying to remove the rust without leaving scratches and pitting in the polished finish of the blade was very difficult.


----------



## TheTomG (Feb 4, 2013)

Cue the Elastica song.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 8, 2013)

Just to update, I dropped the idea of drawing from a backscabbard.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 22, 2016)

Skallagrim does a decent piece about carrying two-handed swords:






He agrees that wearing at it at the back is practical for carrying, but not for drawing. Interesting to see it could be carried like a rifle, though.


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 23, 2016)

Hah looks like I was right as well @Brian Turner If you look at those pictures at around the 2 minute mark, each one of them also has a shorter sword worn at the waist.


----------



## Juliana (Jan 23, 2016)

Perfect timing seeing this pop up on 'new posts' as I'm getting ready to work on some of the sword scenes in my Urban Fantasy. Yesterday I started historical fencing lessons (German school) which uses a two-handed longsword. I was impressed at how long a longsword actually is – you see them on TV/movies but don't actually appreciate the length until you hold one. I can see that I'll have to revise several scenes (including one – yes, guilty – where my jeans-clad protagonist is carrying his sword in a backscabbard) taking the length into account!


----------



## Idealect (Feb 7, 2016)

Not a specifically historical answer, but

it could be worn on the shoulder like a rifle (I saw that same video).

have a special rig of some sort (e.g. it could click open with a button, or be a half pipe with a covering on one side that is released by a string and then the sword comes out of that side, some kind of release so the sheathe falls off through gravity, etc

One could twist it over the shoulder and throw the sheathe off by momentum (might have to have a release on the sheathe from the body, or one could bring it over their head first) (and presumably one would usually have reason to step back while doing it if it's necessary to draw it so quickly)

the wearer could be flexible/long armed and pull it over their shoulder (perhaps holding it at the best angle with their other hand. this might have to be all the way over so that the sheathe could be pulled up and the sword down, or left and right. If it didn't have to be far then perhaps the wearer could lean forward to draw the sword forward and the scabbard back),

it could be worn with a destructible sheathe that is just a covering (perhaps it could be sown closed or something, to reuse it), or worn without a sheathe (something else to keep rust off? certain types of metal?).


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 28, 2018)

And Shadiversity has an adapted scabbard that makes it this work:






I also think it makes an awful lot of sense - certainly in some circumstances. Historically, a 2H sword could be expected to be carried with the baggage. But if you're a lone adventure having to carry everything, then strapping a 2H sword over your shoulder makes total sense to me.

However, the caveat is that in his video he seems to be using a longsword, rather than a full-length 2H sword.


----------



## -K2- (Oct 28, 2018)

Late to this conversation, I'm forced to ask regarding _'drawing the sword from a scabbard,'_ if perhaps people are not mistaking a true 'two handed sword' or Zweihänder for a 'hand and a half' like a ******* Sword, or perhaps shorter bladed two handed types such as _some_ early Claymores?

In any case, I have seen (how historically correct debatable), situations wherein the longer bladed swords are simply carried on the back for transport (if a sheath of scabbard is used), then lowered to the opposite side of the drawing hand about the waist, then 'cross-drawn' when in combat areas.  That cross draw increases the draw length anywhere from 12-24", a significant amount.

Though ignorant to sword use, I'd guess that a cross-draw for any sword is the standard anyway.

K2


----------



## Joshua Jones (Oct 29, 2018)

Full disclosure; I don't know much about the historical use of swords on one's back and how they were drawn/what scabbard adaptations were made to allow for this. That said, if I were planning on stowing a sword on my back and needing to get to it quickly, I would plan to take apart the strap across my chest, either at the buckle or by modifying it with a button or half hitch. At that point, the whole thing is free, and the scabbard could be swung on the sword in defense if needed, or if swung correctly, flung at the attacker as a distraction while you start attacking. Or, it could be used as a secondary weapon, especially if there is metal or a sharpened end.


----------



## Cathbad (Oct 29, 2018)

In a D&D game, my character wore a 2-handed sword on his back - in a "break-away" scabbard, in case I had to draw it quickly.  Tying it (the scabbard) back up took too much time to be the normal method of drawing it (I also carried a shorter sword).


----------



## Vertigo (Oct 29, 2018)

As far as I'm aware (I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread - it was a long time ago) a two handed sword is not the kind of weapon that would be used 'in a hurry'. They were unwieldy and in a melee only really of use whilst they still had a good swinging momentum going. If you needed a sword in a hurry it is unlikely to be your first choice. I believe you would have been far more likely to get it ready whilst the two sides are squaring off against each other and be ready to ditch it in favour of a shorter sword once the fight became really close. So actually drawing it from your back is something that would probably have been more the exception even if you actually carried it there.

@Joshua Jones's solution is, I think, far more practical. some sort of quick release on the strap holding it and then draw the sword and ditching the scabbard, hopefully only for the time being.

I always hated the way Utred, in the Last Kingdom TV series, carried his sword on his back. Cornwell was very explicit in the books that he carried both his swords, long and stabbing, at his waist.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 30, 2018)

Vertigo said:


> As far as I'm aware (I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread - it was a long time ago) a two handed sword is not the kind of weapon that would be used 'in a hurry'. They were unwieldy and in a melee only really of use whilst they still had a good swinging momentum going. If you needed a sword in a hurry it is unlikely to be your first choice. I believe you would have been far more likely to get it ready whilst the two sides are squaring off against each other and be ready to ditch it in favour of a shorter sword once the fight became really close. So actually drawing it from your back is something that would probably have been more the exception even if you actually carried it there.
> 
> @Joshua Jones's solution is, I think, far more practical. some sort of quick release on the strap holding it and then draw the sword and ditching the scabbard, hopefully only for the time being.
> 
> I always hated the way Utred, in the Last Kingdom TV series, carried his sword on his back. Cornwell was very explicit in the books that he carried both his swords, long and stabbing, at his waist.



Exactly. Double handed swords would have been used in specific circumstances, for example for cutting the heads off pikes when attacking spear formations or against fully plated knights (Although they would have been used more like spears and gripped on the blade so that they could be jabbed and thrust at weak points; slashing was pointless against full plate).

Both of these circumstance suggest you'd know what was happening beforehand and therefore would have time to prepare yourself! Plus you'd should be supported with lots of friends, with pikes, in formation, making swings less vulnerable.

In a one to one, against a shorter sword, a two hander might be effective because of it's reach, and again using it to jab, but if you swung and missed or your opponent managed to get in close you'd be finished.


----------



## Joshua Jones (Oct 30, 2018)

There is one other application for a two handed sword I can think of; anti-cavalry. With the superior chopping power of a heavier weapon combined with the added length, chopping off the unarmored or lightly armored legs of horses becomes a practical move, leaving the knight formerly on the horse vulnerable until or unless he can get on his feet, and probably from underneath his newly tri or bipedal equine. But, again, it is unlikely that someone will be unexpectedly run down by a knight and horse in full armor, so it is unlikely that someone would have to draw off the back in that context either. 

I am not convinced, though, that there is no utility in striking a knight in full plate with a slash from a two handed sword. Yeah, you probably won't slash through the armor, but with enough force, you could dent it to the point that it injures the torso behind the plate, or at minimum makes it unusable in the future and another hit at the same point would likely go through. Not to mention the concussive effect on the tissues behind the plate. I remember having a nice bruise on my chest after being hit with a wooden replica of a claymore while in plate, so I can imagine the damage the genuine article could do. And, that is the real advantage of a heavy sword in combat; the wielder doesn't necessarily need to penetrate the armor to wound or even kill the opponent.

All that said, there is a reason the halberd is a deadly weapon in the hands of a skilled user. It combines the advantages of a polearm and a heavy sword and gives them a highly unpredictable attack pattern. I would much rather go against a two handed sword than a halberd, but I think I would fight either over a skilled rapier, or worse saber, user. But, I digress... 

So, yes, I agree that there probably aren't many situations where a back slung two handed sword would need to be drawn from the back.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 30, 2018)

That's an interesting point about the use against cavalry, but if two-handers were mainly used in schiltrons/pike squares, the pikes themselves would have stopped any horsemen from getting close to a sword!

Re: hitting knight's armour with things. 

I'm sure there is some utility in what you say, but it will depend on what part of the blade makes contact with what part of the armour. You may be lucky and get a clean hit, but for less random concussive damage against plate I'd guess you'd rather want that poleaxe or warhammer/mace; all things that should focus and concentrate most of the force of your blow against the body of the enemy.

However, I'd guess that, in the heat of the battle, loads of medieval fighters didn't follow their manuals and practice and went for show-stopping slashes and sweeps.


----------



## Joshua Jones (Oct 30, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> That's an interesting point about the use against cavalry, but if two-handers were mainly used in schiltrons/pike squares, the pikes themselves would have stopped any horsemen from getting close to a sword!
> 
> Re: hitting knight's armour with things.
> 
> ...


Oh, no doubt regarding the pikes being the primary anti-cavalry weapon in that context. That said, the pikes and two handed swords have different applications in fighting cavalry. The former is designed to stop a charge, and is incredibly lethal against horses at full gallop, especially if you plant the end in the ground before they hit. But, they don't have much use against a stopped horse, especially heavy cavalry in full plate, except to keep them from charging again. True, you may be able to knock a knight off, but it will be hard (though not impossible) penetrate their armor without the force of the charging horse being used against them. A two handed sword, however, is of little use in stopping a charge, but becomes vastly more effective after the horse is stopped, because of the aforementioned chopping of limbs. So, the two weapons would probably be two phases of the fight; pikes to stop the charge and swords to maim the horses and dispatch knights once stopped. 

And, what you say about impact is unquestionably true; weapons that are designed for concussive damage are surely going to be superior to weapons which get it as a bonus. I was intending to say the two handed swords have this as an advantage over one handed swords, which basically reflect off plate with little more than dings. But, good grief, getting hit by a warhammer sounds like the definition of a bad day...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 30, 2018)

I believe He-Man (Conan) has no trouble.

What worries me is how they stop doing a damage to themselves.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 31, 2018)

Joshua Jones said:


> ... But, good grief, getting hit by a warhammer sounds like the definition of a bad day...



Interestingly Mrs Tein and I had a go at axe throwing at the Fringe this year. They were small two pound thing with short handles. More difficult than you would think and very few stuck in the plank and most bounced back. However, it was noticable that even without gouging out half a head of your enemy, being hit by a two pound axe is going to give you a serious need for paracetamol, Well that's what the plank said.

By the way, everyone should give it a try - Especially if they write about such things - because it's a damn good fun day out, They're springing up all over the place now - And no I have no involvement.


----------



## Joshua Jones (Oct 31, 2018)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Interestingly Mrs Tein and I had a go at axe throwing at the Fringe this year. They were small two pound thing with short handles. More difficult than you would think and very few stuck in the plank and most bounced back. However, it was noticable that even without gouging out half a head of your enemy, being hit by a two pound axe is going to give you a serious need for paracetamol, Well that's what the plank said.
> 
> By the way, everyone should give it a try - Especially if they write about such things - because it's a damn good fun day out, They're springing up all over the place now - And no I have no involvement.


Yeah, I am sure getting hit with a two pound flying anything is going to leave you hurting, of not leave you with a concussion. I mean, just think about how much it hurts getting hit in the head with a baseball or cricket ball, and that ways about a 6th of what that axe weighs.

I was never very good at throwing things; my skills were more in melee than ranged combat. If you ever want an easy torso hit in a bout, spend a couple bouts bashing through people with feats of strength, then come in for a diagonal slash, knowing full well your opponent will block it in front of their body, and as rigidly as possible. Right before impact, let your top arm go a bit slack as you let out a shout and come down to a knee. Do it right, and the tip of your blade will slide off your opponents blade and be pointed right above his/her hip, ready for a quick stab before they know what is happening. It is great fun because everyone expects that a bruiser lacks finesse, so when you suddenly and unexpectedly switch to a skill technique like that, they are caught off guard. Just make sure your opponent has armor there, unlike one of my poor victims who had a nice bruise on his side for some time. Oh, and it will probably only work once in a while, so I wouldn't recommend overusing it...

All that to say, I absolutely agree that if you are going to write about swordplay, there is a great advantage in doing it yourself. But, there is no reason you can't enjoy winning in the process...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 31, 2018)

Joshua Jones said:


> Yeah, I am sure getting hit with a two pound flying anything is going to leave you hurting, of not leave you with a concussion. I mean, just think about how much it hurts getting hit in the head with a baseball or cricket ball, and that ways about a 6th of what that axe weighs.
> 
> I was never very good at throwing things; my skills were more in melee than ranged combat. If you ever want an easy torso hit in a bout, spend a couple bouts bashing through people with feats of strength, then come in for a diagonal slash, knowing full well your opponent will block it in front of their body, and as rigidly as possible. Right before impact, let your top arm go a bit slack as you let out a shout and come down to a knee. Do it right, and the tip of your blade will slide off your opponents blade and be pointed right above his/her hip, ready for a quick stab before they know what is happening. It is great fun because everyone expects that a bruiser lacks finesse, so when you suddenly and unexpectedly switch to a skill technique like that, they are caught off guard. Just make sure your opponent has armor there, unlike one of my poor victims who had a nice bruise on his side for some time. Oh, and it will probably only work once in a while, so I wouldn't recommend overusing it...
> 
> All that to say, I absolutely agree that if you are going to write about swordplay, there is a great advantage in doing it yourself. But, there is no reason you can't enjoy winning in the process...



Joshua, yes, I'll be sure to remember that next time I'm wading through mud up to my boll--ks wielding a dirty great lump of iron toward someone's head.   

Useful everyday stuff I say


----------



## Joshua Jones (Oct 31, 2018)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Joshua, yes, I'll be sure to remember that next time I'm wading through mud up to my boll--ks wielding a dirty great lump of iron toward someone's head.
> 
> Useful everyday stuff I say


Absolutely. Also helpful against your unfriendly neighborhood rampaging orc hoard, who frequently disguise themselves as trick or treaters....


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 16, 2019)

Interestingly enough, I've just found a reference to chalk figures from late Iron Age Yorkshire carved with swords at the back:


----------



## Parson (Aug 17, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> Interestingly enough, I've just found a reference to chalk figures from late Iron Age Yorkshire carved with swords at the back:
> 
> View attachment 55316


If that's anything to scale, and if the sword has a sharp edge, you'd almost have to have someone draw it for you. It certainly couldn't be done in anything like a quick manner. ---- I've thought of one more .... It could hinge so that you'd actually draw it from the side, not the best, but would seem doable.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 17, 2019)

I suspect at the back could be a practical way to carry a sword - but not for quickly drawing.


----------



## Pyan (Aug 17, 2019)

Perhaps it was only carried this way during a pre-battle ritual or similar, seeing as the figure appears to be naked apart from the harness and sword...


----------



## Overread (Aug 17, 2019)

Prebattle travel is something that I think a lot of people overlook. Films and games don't help since they often show armies travelling in full armour, its also where you get horses cantering day and night without trouble. The logistics of war are often heavily overlooked even in major films. Look at the Charge of Rohan - the film gives the impression that they rode day and night, camping only once before riding out at a full gallop to arrive at the battle rested and fully ready to charge head long into the fight. No support carts, no camp followers, no sense of how far they had to actually travel etc... 

Then again ,as one or two youtube videos show, sometimes fantasy can give a new idea to an old method of war and travel. A side swinging scabbard for a back fitted sword might never have been thought of before; but now is and might be shown to have enough advantages to be beneficial to some adventures to consider.


----------



## Overread (Aug 17, 2019)

pyan said:


> Perhaps it was only carried this way during a pre-battle ritual or similar, seeing as the figure appears to be naked apart from the harness and sword...



It might also only be representative or artistic. Much like how knights and soldiers in chess sets might not accurately depict real life equipment or stances. The sword on the back might not be showing where it was worn but is just symbolic and serves a function based off what the item was used and designed for. 

Scale might also be WAY off. Even today many models for wargames are not made with everything in perfect real scale, in fact smaller models often have oversized weapons to make them easier to see when viewed at arms length on the tabletop. A sword might appear as big as a longsword, but might only be representing a shortsword in the game itself.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 17, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> I suspect at the back could be a practical way to carry a sword - but not for quickly drawing.



I suspect it depended how rich and powerful you were. If you had a 'squire'* and other retainers _they _would have the problem of how to transport such swords, armour etc... between battles (probably using a horse). A poor swordsman would have to find his own solutions, perhaps like above.  

---------------------------------------------------

* I'm putting squires in inverted commans, because I'm not suggesting that such warrior is necessarily a knight. For example the gallowglasses of Ireland in the medieval period were heavy infantry with double handed swords and battleaxes, not knights, who fought on foot, but were highly esteemed at the time. They were known to travel with a squire and a kern (a light infantryman, either on horseback or on foot who might use darts or javelins.)


----------

