Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok slightly long title, but I couldn't think of a short snappy title at this hour..

However behold, someone has made a working back sheath that actually allows you to easily remove and replace a sword from your back - the video even references several others who have done similar things, and in the comments there's a note on how it can be combined with a backpack




Honestly kind of nifty - now we just have to convince computer game designers to actually put swords in sheaths and also actually attach them to the back of characters (Soo soo many games they are just hovering in empty space behind the character)

I saw it. I also want to say I had exactly the same idea of how you could make a back-drawing scabbard possible (okay, not exactly, but at least I had the idea with a scabbard opening on the side)

Anyways, it is still ahistorical, so I don't want to see any swords on anyone's back (that is for carrying backpacks, tents, shields etc. and other stuff you can't carry on your belt) in a game or movie that has a historical or semi-historical setting. Swords in a historical setting should be carried on a dedicated sword belt as was common in the historical Middle Ages, or from a shoulder strap as the Ancient Greeks and Romans did.

But carrying a sword on your back is fine imo for fantasy settings where you have a character that isn't carrying a lot of gear (which is usually abstracted away in fantasy games in favour of an invisible, magical "inventory"). Because it looks really cool and as the guy in the video points out, it would make stuff like sprinting, climbing or crawling more comfortable.

But can he do it with two swords? Steel for humans, silver for monsters, you know.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I saw it. I also want to say I had exactly the same idea of how you could make a back-drawing scabbard possible (okay, not exactly, but at least I had the idea with a scabbard opening on the side)

Anyways, it is still ahistorical, so I don't want to see any swords on anyone's back (that is for carrying backpacks, tents, shields etc. and other stuff you can't carry on your belt) in a game or movie that has a historical or semi-historical setting. Swords in a historical setting should be carried on a dedicated sword belt as was common in the historical Middle Ages, or from a shoulder strap as the Ancient Greeks and Romans did.

But carrying a sword on your back is fine imo for fantasy settings where you have a character that isn't carrying a lot of gear (which is usually abstracted away in fantasy games in favour of an invisible, magical "inventory"). Because it looks really cool and as the guy in the video points out, it would make stuff like sprinting, climbing or crawling more comfortable.

Out of curiousity, then, just how DID the dopplesoldiers carry their zweihanders? They certainly didn't hang a six-foot sword off their belts...

 Vulcan wrote:
Out of curiousity, then, just how DID the dopplesoldiers carry their zweihanders? They certainly didn't hang a six-foot sword off their belts...

I think in their hands, like a spear… more or less. You have a scabbard or something like that and just carry it over your shoulder while marching around and then you use it without one for combat. It's not a weapon you'd go for when ambushed.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I saw it. I also want to say I had exactly the same idea of how you could make a back-drawing scabbard possible (okay, not exactly, but at least I had the idea with a scabbard opening on the side)

Anyways, it is still ahistorical, so I don't want to see any swords on anyone's back (that is for carrying backpacks, tents, shields etc. and other stuff you can't carry on your belt) in a game or movie that has a historical or semi-historical setting. Swords in a historical setting should be carried on a dedicated sword belt as was common in the historical Middle Ages, or from a shoulder strap as the Ancient Greeks and Romans did.

But carrying a sword on your back is fine imo for fantasy settings where you have a character that isn't carrying a lot of gear (which is usually abstracted away in fantasy games in favour of an invisible, magical "inventory"). Because it looks really cool and as the guy in the video points out, it would make stuff like sprinting, climbing or crawling more comfortable.

Out of curiousity, then, just how DID the dopplesoldiers carry their zweihanders? They certainly didn't hang a six-foot sword off their belts...

Yup, and he points out in the video as well - Highlanders, Celts, even a few Japanese artworks do depict it. So it might not have been common, or applicable to every culture, but it's not inherently "ahistorical", just "setting specific". But with historical stuff, everything is "setting specific", so I don't know why people are trusted to know that you don't show up to a Roman Legion reenactment wearing a Confederate uniform with a musket, but carrying swords on the back has to be discounted out of hand just in case someone selectively forgets they're attending a Middle Ages event only when deciding how to sheathe their sword.

EDIT: And before someone does the "oh but they wouldn't make a functional scabbard" - really? They wouldn't? So people who used swords routinely, who fought with them, who presumably thought about the practicalities of their use often wouldn't or couldn't conceive of something a bloke on youtube managed to figure out in a couple of afternoons? This really dodgy "if we haven't found a specific example of it yet, it never happened and is stupid to think it might have" attitude in the history field really grinds my gears sometimes.

If the Ancient Greeks could manage something approaching clockwork, it's the height of arrogance to assume nobody ever managed to figure out that carrying & drawing a sword from the back can be situationally useful before it became a fantasy fiction trope in the last handful of decades.

 Vulcan wrote:

Out of curiousity, then, just how DID the dopplesoldiers carry their zweihanders? They certainly didn't hang a six-foot sword off their belts...

Large two handed swords would be carried by hand or in a wagon, and would be wrapped up in cloth to protect them from the weather. They could possibly have a sling for carrying them from your shoulder or back, but they did not have a 'scabbard' as we know it in that such a thing was intended for immediate ease of use. Drawing 6 foot of steel out of a scabbard on your back would be far too much work in the even of an ambush and be an expensive addition to an already expensive weapon.

Now of course as the video shows you CAN make a functional back scabbard, but its not something that happened historically. If you had a 6ft sword, you'd carry it around in your hands as a general rule if you expected to possibly use it, and if not you'd have it in a wagon or on your horse if you had one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
This really dodgy "if we haven't found a specific example of it yet, it never happened and is stupid to think it might have" attitude in the history field really grinds my gears sometimes.

We can think of it like this.

The time period when lots of two handed swords were in common use was the late Middle Ages early Renaissance. A time period which has a lot of historical artifacts and records. If back scabbards had been a thing, it is highly unlikely that we wouldn't have good evidence of their existence. Paintings of soldiers carrying their big swords with them on their backs, actual surviving examples of said scabbards, and literary mentions of them. We are only talking a few hundred years ago.

Its possible that someone did try out some back scabbards, but they must not have been very good at what they did because otherwise they would have become popular. Especially since its quite clear that historically large two handed swords were almost exclusively carried by hand wrapped in cloth when they were transported by each individual soldier.

We can't say they never existed at all, but we can say they were virtually non-existent since if they had had anything beyond nominal "lets try this out" use we would have found something.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I saw it. I also want to say I had exactly the same idea of how you could make a back-drawing scabbard possible (okay, not exactly, but at least I had the idea with a scabbard opening on the side)

Anyways, it is still ahistorical, so I don't want to see any swords on anyone's back (that is for carrying backpacks, tents, shields etc. and other stuff you can't carry on your belt) in a game or movie that has a historical or semi-historical setting. Swords in a historical setting should be carried on a dedicated sword belt as was common in the historical Middle Ages, or from a shoulder strap as the Ancient Greeks and Romans did.

But carrying a sword on your back is fine imo for fantasy settings where you have a character that isn't carrying a lot of gear (which is usually abstracted away in fantasy games in favour of an invisible, magical "inventory"). Because it looks really cool and as the guy in the video points out, it would make stuff like sprinting, climbing or crawling more comfortable.

Out of curiousity, then, just how DID the dopplesoldiers carry their zweihanders? They certainly didn't hang a six-foot sword off their belts...

In their hands. Zweihänder swords were of a size similar to polearms (and served a similar role on the battlefield) and were carried in the same way. I don't think there is any evidence they had sheaths of any kind. On the march they were just carried over the shoulder like any polearm.

We have the same brains as they had back then (more or less); what we might have today is wider spread ideas. Whilst trade was very extensive in the past, there was still a higher chance of ideas and concepts being developed that were niche or only existed in certain areas for certain blocks of time.Plus a scabbard made of wood and leather might well break down in many digs and not be found, so there's selective bias in what survives in the record.

As for carrying long weapons, I think one thing many games, books and films overlook is that warriors of the past didn't go marching from battle to battle fully equipped at all times. The baggage train that follows many armies often gets totally forgotten about and yet it would have had carts upon which you'd have put the heavier armours and weapons that were just not practical to carry. Why wear your warriors out on a long march by making them carry weapons they didn't need to hold on the march. You'd have scouts ranging around the army to give warning and position troops near to their weapons in the column so they could reach them, but you'd not want them marching in full plate armour all the time.

It's just not sensible

 Yodhrin wrote:
This really dodgy "if we haven't found a specific example of it yet, it never happened and is stupid to think it might have" attitude in the history field really grinds my gears sometimes.

We also get oddities, like the ball and chain. A weapon that, if memory serves me, has only ever been seen in a few artistic depictions and could represent other things and which they've never actually found in the real world. Yet in many films/games/books a ball and chain does feature.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
But can he do it with two swords? Steel for humans, silver for monsters, you know.

Nonsense! Stabatha is a Silver Sword, and she stabs up monsters and humans equally well. Spesh if it's a Were!

Also, back scabbard. No ta. I'll stick with the hip draw, if it's all the same. That way, even if I can't fully draw by the time you take a swing at me, I've got at least two or three foot to block with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if it's that easy to draw - it's even easier to steal. Sneak up behind you, grab the hilt, leg it.

Can't do that with a traditional scabbard.

Remember. Don't think like a fighter. Think like a complete git!

Yeah but a good thief can steal anything!

Even the sword at your hip!


Though seriously a skilled pickpocket or couple of them can steal some amazing amounts of things from people without those people realising!

As to the Art thing, why should we assume that the artists of yesteryear were any better at depicting the soldiers and weapons of their age than the artists of today? Even in an age where you can google AR15 and get a thousand images of what one looks like you still have people reporting anything dark and longer than a pistol as an AR15 and popular media is littered with inaccuracies about combat and soldiers.

So when an artist depicts something in 1500 and someone says “well it’s obviously possible some people drew from their backs” my response is “and clearly it’s possible that dragons actually existed. They drew those too.”

There is zero reason to presume that artistic depictions of events and persons are accurate. It’s a minefield of caveats, and at best can only be taken as an accurate depiction of contemporary culture and contemporary culture is always littered with untruths.

Shad has a lot of good information, but I just can't get through his videos. I get really annoyed with the arrogance/hypocrisy. The entire premise is around faulting the writers of fantasy settings/games for not being experts in historical technology when he clearly hasn't bothered to obtain any understanding of writing settings or game design. I prefer Skallagrim because he is non-judgemental about it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Shad has a lot of good information, but I just can't get through his videos. I get really annoyed with the arrogance/hypocrisy. The entire premise is around faulting the writers of fantasy settings/games for not being experts in historical technology when he clearly hasn't bothered to obtain any understanding of writing settings or game design. I prefer Skallagrim because he is non-judgemental about it.

Skallagrim also does his research better. Shad sometimes gets things really wrong. I like his enthusiasm though. Skallagrim always seems a bit bored.

Its also not like this video really discredits the people who rant about back scabbards, because they're ranting about putting a traditional scabbard on your back(which is what ALL of the fantasy offenders portray). One that goes the full length of the blade like what a regular sword carried on your hip would have. Of course a purpose built scabbard meant to be carried on your back would work, because you built it with that in mind. Now you're still going to run into issues with moving about with 6' of steel hanging from your back. Good luck sitting down anywhere or not knocking stuff over all the time when you turn around.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now you're still going to run into issues with moving about with 6' of steel hanging from your back. Good luck sitting down anywhere or not knocking stuff over all the time when you turn around.

Getting stuck in doors would also suck. ;-)

 Overread wrote:
We also get oddities, like the ball and chain. A weapon that, if memory serves me, has only ever been seen in a few artistic depictions and could represent other things and which they've never actually found in the real world. Yet in many films/games/books a ball and chain does feature.

Like this?
https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-1589.html
It's not exactly the ball-on-a-chain, but nearly there.

Everyone knows the dire flail was the most effective medieval weapon.

Flails were actually used as weapons, though they appear to have been rare. For evidence there are a number of rather clear depictions in 15th century art, a few archaeological finds and a handful authentic ones that survived in private collections. It appears it was a weapon that was introduced to Europe from the east, since Eastern Europe is where we find the earliest examples and similar weapons are known from Asia. But just like with swords, axes and warhammers, flails in fantasy often get exaggerated to ridiculous sizes and proportions because it looks cool.

Like this.

 Grey Templar wrote:


We can't say they never existed at all, but we can say they were virtually non-existent since if they had had anything beyond nominal "lets try this out" use we would have found something.

Strongly disagree, because to make a statement that definitive, we would have to assume that human beings make only rational decisions based purely on utility. In reality fashion, economics, ideology, mindless traditionalism, and a host of other factors can conspire to make human beings discard objectively useful things and act completely opposite to their own interests.

A period in which weapons that would have benefitted from a back-scabbard existed could easily coincide with a period in which different weapons were more fashionable, or in circumstances where an uncommon item like a back-scabbard was prohibitively expensive for the section of the market who would want one, or during a time when combat styles and teaching methods revolved around drawing from the waist and hidebound adherents of the status quo rejected alternatives, etc etc etc.

Historians speak with a level of authority that the strength of the evidence from their studies often simply cannot support. "Not common enough that we can find them in every midden, dung heap, and burial mound" is not equivalent to "basically never existed".

I could have sworn I read a few blog whatsits talking about the flail never existed - perhaps I missremember or it was just one of those very tight viewpoints that ignored other evidence or was referring to a very specific type of flail.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Strongly disagree, because to make a statement that definitive, we would have to assume that human beings make only rational decisions based purely on utility. In reality fashion, economics, ideology, mindless traditionalism, and a host of other factors can conspire to make human beings discard objectively useful things and act completely opposite to their own interests.

Indeed and we know this because there's usually evidence left behind, often with multiple points of verification including art, literature, and physical objects. Even a lack of evidence has contrary to the idiotic adage produce interesting results, like the disappearance of the wheel in the Near East post Rome. Damn Bedouins ruining basic technological achievement with their "low tech" Camels.

A period in which weapons that would have benefitted from a back-scabbard existed could easily coincide with a period in which different weapons were more fashionable,

Quasi-Serious question, what benefit? I always see people insist there is one, but it's always either a vague statement or a non-sensical piece of arm-chair swordsmanship from the "rule of cool" camp. Outside of having a significantly easier time walking around as you travel from point a to point b, something that doesn't require any specialized scabbard, I fathom zero use for having a weapon on your back. To be sure ease of travel is a great benefit and one probably engaged in all the time that may have led to back draws, or the use of daggers/short arming swords for personal defense in a pinch, I don't see why drawing for your back would be a first choice in a fight.

And never mind the awkward stabbing and cutting of your shoulder or bizarre rotating of the waist needed to put the damn thing back. Outside of epic aesthetic appeal I've never seen a convincing reason for why anyone would want to draw from their back.

Historians speak with a level of authority that the strength of the evidence from their studies often simply cannot support.

Indeed, the faux-intellectual "prove me wrong bro" is a much stronger rhetorical position than making use of what evidence exists and asking for fringe nerds to provide more than sophism as a contemporary basis for modern fantasy.... I say fringe because I don't think most people give a gak about this issue one way or the other. Either you're a historical reenactor in which case you don't do this simply because it isn't historical, or your engaging in fantasy in which case who cares it isn't historical? Rule of cool triumphs.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


We can't say they never existed at all, but we can say they were virtually non-existent since if they had had anything beyond nominal "lets try this out" use we would have found something.

Strongly disagree, because to make a statement that definitive, we would have to assume that human beings make only rational decisions based purely on utility. In reality fashion, economics, ideology, mindless traditionalism, and a host of other factors can conspire to make human beings discard objectively useful things and act completely opposite to their own interests.

A period in which weapons that would have benefitted from a back-scabbard existed could easily coincide with a period in which different weapons were more fashionable, or in circumstances where an uncommon item like a back-scabbard was prohibitively expensive for the section of the market who would want one, or during a time when combat styles and teaching methods revolved around drawing from the waist and hidebound adherents of the status quo rejected alternatives, etc etc etc.

Historians speak with a level of authority that the strength of the evidence from their studies often simply cannot support. "Not common enough that we can find them in every midden, dung heap, and burial mound" is not equivalent to "basically never existed".

Again, the period where there were a LOT of two handed swords was the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance. The doctrine of the day was to have massed formations of Pikemen and Crossbow/arquebus armed troops, which were effectively immune to cavalry charges, and the only real option other than artillery was to send in swordsmen to break the pike forest.

This was a period of which there is a lot more physical evidence and written records than we have for previous areas. This isn't a period for which we have next to no information about.

Sure, people don't always make purely rational decisions. But this isn't something that fashion, economics, or traditionalism would get in the way of. Its a simple utility object. Nor would combat styles revolve around drawing from the waist, as again you would NEVER draw a 6' sword from your waist. Plus this isn't an 'objectively useful' object either. It has little to no practical application, its only for cool factor.

 Overread wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few blog whatsits talking about the flail never existed - perhaps I missremember or it was just one of those very tight viewpoints that ignored other evidence or was referring to a very specific type of flail.

It's an ongoing debate. Personally I've always gotten the sense the flail is kind of like the war scythe. There's the image of what people think the weapon is (a scythe) and then there's the actual weapon (which looks more like an inverse glaive, which is itself a weapon that looked completely different from what some people think it looks like).

Flails were used as a weapon, improvised like many weapons before it from common non-weapon tools. The one handed ball and chain however has many detractors because there's a lack of contemporary examples of the weapon, and artistic depictions of it both come from later periods and seem impractical. This is however specific to western Europe. Such weapons have been recorded in the East in various forms with contemporary examples suggesting they were actually used by someone. The Kama and chain evolved from such weapons, and like the European flail originated as improvised weapons derived from farming tools. Those weapons however are much more "modern" than a lot of people think they are. Kusarigama's are often attributed to the 14th century, but no evidence for them in use exists before the 18th. Three sectional staffs have been cultural attributed to the 9th or 10th century in China, even though the weapon doesn't seem to have existed at all before the 19th.

Even then the common idea of how the weapons were used is often crap. Like large two handed swords flails were specialist weapons with a specific use (fething up the opposing line in battle by disrupting it's ability to hold formation) and not something you'd likely find someone using in one on one combat.

 Overread wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few blog whatsits talking about the flail never existed - perhaps I missremember or it was just one of those very tight viewpoints that ignored other evidence or was referring to a very specific type of flail.

There are still blogs and reports from history experts who say that, but what limited proof that exists, it seems to get dismissed or ignored
The huge spiky ball on a chain-stick? Still no sign of one of those so far.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few blog whatsits talking about the flail never existed - perhaps I missremember or it was just one of those very tight viewpoints that ignored other evidence or was referring to a very specific type of flail.

There are still blogs and reports from history experts who say that, but what limited proof that exists, it seems to get dismissed or ignored
The huge spiky ball on a chain-stick? Still no sign of one of those so far.

Well, they were not particularly huge, but spiky balls on chains have been found:

This one apparently dates to the 15th century.

And looking at artwork from the period, it appears they were indeed attached to some sort of stick:



But for some reason, I am having trouble finding quality information on these weapons in English. There is loads of stuff on them in Russian though, which may reflect the fact that these weapons were much more common in Russia and the East than in Western Europe. Note that the image is about Armenians being defeated by Mamlukes, so the fact that a Western artist chose this specific weapon (along with the curved swords) to represent 'Eastern' warriors also could indicate that this weapon was seen as typical of the East, further reinforcing the notion that it was a rare weapon in Medieval Europe but more common elsewhere.

I seem to remember something somewhere about ball and chain style weapons existing in Central Asia which might expand into Russian history.

Those look like Middle Eastern soldiers. 15th century it’s either Ottomans or Mumluks. The Mumluks didn’t use such a weapon far as I know but the Ottoman’s did come from Central Asia and might have picked it up?

EDIT: Ah you ninja'd. Ottoman's then. Make's sense. Once the Ottoman's took over the ME Armenia ran out of parties to play against the middle (didn't fall until the 1500s though and got split with Iran). That however is definitely not what an Armenian soldier dressed like (they're style was more akin to that of the Byzantines, lots of mail and light plate). While Christian-ruled the Armenian's didn't quite adopt European armor styles. My guess would be the artist came in at the beginning of Europe's "Ottoman Hysteria" depicting the fall of a generally friendly and Christian ruled Kingdom to Muslims. The armor isn't accurate. Maybe the weapon is or isn't. The Ottomons came from a part of the world where such weapons are recorded.

 Vulcan wrote:


Out of curiousity, then, just how DID the dopplesoldiers carry their zweihanders? They certainly didn't hang a six-foot sword off their belts...

Like so. . . If you look at pictorial records of bidenhanders, flamberges and the style of greatsword they carried (sorry. . . Zweihander is an ahistorical name as well), there is a bit of leather above the hilt on the blade side, and they had pretty long handles as well.

While the picture I linked to here is just one, I do have a book at the house (search on amazon for "Landsknecht Woodcuts: Kriegsvolker im Zeitalter der Landsknechte" and you can find it) with a decent number of other examples of this shoulder carry for marching business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few blog whatsits talking about the flail never existed - perhaps I missremember or it was just one of those very tight viewpoints that ignored other evidence or was referring to a very specific type of flail.

There are still blogs and reports from history experts who say that, but what limited proof that exists, it seems to get dismissed or ignored
The huge spiky ball on a chain-stick? Still no sign of one of those so far.

What I've seen on the subject of flails at the end of a "long" chain would strongly imply that it was basically an "oh gak!!!" type weapon. There was a show some time ago where the host demonstrated why. . . he took a good whack at a ballistic gel mannequin in plate armor, and they replayed it a few times showing that, after you've hit, youve lost all that momentum and fighty-ness in the flail, which then leads some to the conclusion that it was something akin to a swordbreaker. . .only in that the user was ultimately trying to "level the playing field" by disarming their opponent of their sword.


FWIW, I happen to think that flails did exist, were a bit more like Iron-Captain's example (small ball on the end of a mid length chain), but that we ultimately don't know precisely how they were "meant" to be used, and we may never know unless new and different documentation surfaces. However, IF they existed in western europe, they undoubtedly were held in similar regard to the warhammer, pick, maces and anything not a sword: sure it works in a fight but it isn't the "honorable" thing.

On the eastern end, meteor hammers were definitely a thing. But that's a bit different.