| Author |
Message |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
 Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bryce Felperin wrote: | | However I'm with Nathan, plenty of historical material is available for a good story line. Along with that I'd say that you can use historical models for how gear and equipment was carried and used in your fantasy novels and it would give your work a more realistic feel than if you used unrealistic conventions for a character's use of their weapons. Just a suggestion mind you, I'm not criticizing. :-) |
That's actually a much better way to say what I was trying to say. I would never try to dissuade authors from using the fantasy elements (such as a blade that glows blue or generates a black hole type of thing as you mention), but would encourage authors to add historical elements in for the "functional" aspects and small details such as how to carry a weapon, etc. Generally speaking, these types of tried-and-true methods survived throughout history because they worked--and they would certainly work within a fantasy world, too, even if modified with fantastical details for flare.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
    |
 |
M. K. Presson
Location: Sherman Oaks Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm the farthest thing from a swordsman you'll ever see since my depth perception is less than par. In fact, my weapon of choice to use at the fairs is a bow with a quiver. At least if you aim right, you'll hit something. The sword is dramatic and looks good on my back, however, I can actually string and fire a bow. Thank you very much for your reponses. I'm doing the research so I can at least have some historical background to draw from even if I do alter it a bit. The back sheath is a staple for the main character. After reading all the posts here, I've come to a workable conclusion that'll allow me to keep the reality of having a back sheath, and have it fit into the story.
My research will continue. Thanks again. 
And God said, "Where hast thou taken mine burrito?"
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Morwood
Location: Co. Wicklow, Ireland Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since fantasy fiction's being mentioned, I can feel justified in describing another made-up form of back-carry; this one's from the Book of Years, written by me. 
I gave the warrior-class who carried "longswords" (hand-and-a-halfers) a sort of Sam Browne type belt: the kind with a broad belt round the waist and a narrower diagonal one over the shoulder. I was aware that the cross-belt on a "real" Sam Browne only reaches to the waist-belt and then attaches to it with clips or hooks; what I did for fantasy fiction purposes was to extend said cross-belt into a full-length affair passing through a ring on the waist-belt.
The longsword scabbard was attached to this diagonal belt at the top, locket, end with a swivel, and there was also a small ring-and-thong halfway down to the chape. The entire cross-belt was able to slide, and had a couple of hooks at the appropriate positions to engage with the waist-belt's ring.
When the character carried his sword in peace position, the cross-belt was hooked to the waist -belt's ring so that the sword was slantwise across his back, hilt visible above and behind his right shoulder, lower end of the scabbard secured with the ring-and-thong both to maintain the slant keeping the "peaceful" (i.e impossible to draw) hilt visible, and to stop the scabbard bouncing and pivoting from a single attachment point, the swivel now at the top of the right shoulder-blade.
Ready position was with the cross-belt and sword (thong released, of course) slid, or allowed to slide under its own weight, down from the shoulder and re-hooked to the waist-belt, with the sword now in a much more accessible position at the hip; with a few seconds to spare, the thong could be reattached to hold the scabbard at a comfortable angle, but the sword could at least be drawn.
I even came up with a rather good threat gesture while I was playing around with this design: the act of unhooking the cross-belt and letting the sword drop down from peace to ready positions while glaring at someone or after an exchange of significant dialogue is Not Considered Friendly. That sort of thing is of course a direct lift from any number of similar moves in film: Westerns gave me the business of pulling your coat back from your holstered Colt, or flicking off the strap (does this have a proper name?) that secured the pistol's hammer-spur to the holster; samurai drama emphasised thumb-easing the katana off its locking-collar prior to an iai draw; and I suppose nowadays in modern thrillers there's the epidemic of ka-chik cocking noises every time any sort of gun is pointed with intent - even a semi-auto that's just been fired... (I won't get started on "Weapon Errors in Movies"; it's all been said before.)
I have no idea how well all of this sliding-crossbelt stuff would work in the real world, but it got enough explanation (spread out over several pages, not an info-dump like this post) that it made sense in its fantasy location. And if you can make sense with small practical things, I've found that readers are willing to cut more slack for those times when the fantasy gets Really Outrageous.
"I care little for your Cause; I fight not for your Crown, but for your half-crown, and your handsome women!" - Capt. Carlo Fantom (from Aubrey's "Brief Lives")
|
|
|
|
|
Bryce Felperin
Location: San Jose, CA Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | Generally speaking, these types of tried-and-true methods survived throughout history because they worked--and they would certainly work within a fantasy world, too, even if modified with fantastical details for flare. |
Also, despite a lot of movie and bad media trash out there, the human body performs the same mechanics and has the same range of motion (with a few individual exceptions) for all humans. So drawing and using a sword for all cultures and humans is the same body mechanic. There are only a limited number of ways things work. If you think this discussion was "tiring" try debating holster draw locations with a bunch of fellow gun nuts. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
John Cooksey
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Morwood wrote: | | That sort of thing is of course a direct lift from any number of similar moves in film: Westerns gave me the business of pulling your coat back from your holstered Colt, or flicking off the strap (does this have a proper name?) that secured the pistol's hammer-spur to the holster; |
In "western" literature it is usually just called the "thong", or the "hammer thong".
I like your use of the social convention of "threat".
I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Toton
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Sep, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Morwood wrote: | | Westerns gave me the business of pulling your coat back from your holstered Colt, or flicking off the strap (does this have a proper name?) that secured the pistol's hammer-spur to the holster; |
On modern holsters I've generally heard them referred to as "retention straps", though in this case the purpose is to retain the whole pistol in the holster and not lock back the hammer.
| Peter Morwood wrote: | | and I suppose nowadays in modern thrillers there's the epidemic of ka-chik cocking noises every time any sort of gun is pointed with intent - even a semi-auto that's just been fired... (I won't get started on "Weapon Errors in Movies"; it's all been said before.) |
No kidding... a great example is at the beginning of The Matrix, and the cops come in and aim at Trinity with the typical Hollywood sounds. The problem is that they're all Glocks with internal hammers.
One that always makes me laugh, and it may be at least partially intentional, is the representation of shotguns in The Simpsons. They're always pump-action double-barrels.
But one of the points I like to bring up when discussing where to draw the line between fiction and reality is how the phasers were designed in Star Trek: Enterprise. Yes, I realize this is science-fiction, but my point is this-- When creating a fictional system, often you may feel like there's little need to follow historical reality, and maybe even have a strong desire to invent something completely different. The problem arises when what you're avoiding is something that was done with a very good reason, and the result is something that is noticeably awkward. In the case of the Phasers in that last Star Trek incarnation, they designed the grip to be precisely vertical with regards to the barrel. It had no ergonomics, and it was obvious that the weapon pointed downward relative to the user's arm in nearly every episode in which they used them.
Modern firearms, in contrast, have well developed ergonomics.
And as such, period sword and weapon use was, in most cases I would think, well optimized since their lives depended on it, and they had centuries to refine the methods they used. Granted, some aspects are going to be stylistic or aesthetic choices, but a lot will be based purely in the practical.
I think it's a bit of a modern conceit to expect that we know better. So I think it helps to think about which aspects really were done a certain way because it needed to be done that way, versus what was just traditional style.
-Ed T. Toton III
ed.toton.org | ModernChivalry.org
My armor photos on facebook
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Parker
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Sep, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
hey everyone, just a couple of things i'd like to say.
Ive attempted to use my sword (classification as yet unknown) with a baldric doesnt work well, its only an average sized sword 840mm in length could not get it to work for me to clear the scabbard it needs to be hanging about midway down my back, at which point i cant reach the hilt i'm still gonna try and create a functional one soon though.
Secondly it was mentioned a while ago the pointlessness of using two swords, i have several friends from the same reenactment group as I who train in dual sword wielding, versing me with a shield and sword combo 9/10 they win using my need to block with the shield or sword and their ability to attack twice in rapid succession to their advantage and get past my guard, I see it as being very effective
Just my 2 cents
-Ben
Hey just because the rules don't say i can't punch my opponent to win doesn't mean i will
|
|
 |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Sep, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M. K. Presson wrote: | | After reading all the posts here, I've come to a workable conclusion that'll allow me to keep the reality of having a back sheath, and have it fit into the story. |
Well, the one method that worked for me was to design the back sheath such that it could be unlaced or loosened very quickly as it was brought to a hip-draw position. A much better proposition, of course, is to unsling the scabbard, draw the sword, and leave it with a squire/servant/assistant/whatever before the fight begins in earnest.
| Ben Parker wrote: | | Secondly it was mentioned a while ago the pointlessness of using two swords, i have several friends from the same reenactment group as I who train in dual sword wielding, versing me with a shield and sword combo 9/10 they win using my need to block with the shield or sword and their ability to attack twice in rapid succession to their advantage and get past my guard, I see it as being very effective |
Try using a hanging guard and/or holding your shield out edge-on rather than face-out towards your enemy. And try to avoid static blocks as much as possible--make sure that all your attacks are accompanied by either a simultaneous counterattack or is a counterattack in itself. That'll baffle the two-sword man faster than anything else. At least it did for me when I tried to spar with two swords against a friend wielding a longsword and got whacked each time, almost without being able to get in a single hit. I must admit that my two-sword technique was all wrong at that time, though, and I'd probably like to test it again some time with my (currently) better understanding of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Morwood
Location: Co. Wicklow, Ireland Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Sep, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed Toton wrote: | | ...the purpose is to retain the whole pistol in the holster and not lock back the hammer. |
I'd actually presumed that the Old West strap was a retention device, which is why the act of thumbing it free fell into my category of threatening gestures.
As for the ubiquitous ka-chik noise, I have this overpowering suspicion I also heard it when watching Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest on TV a couple of weeks ago. What made it worse was that the flintlock "making the noise" was (a) just being levelled at someone; (b) visibly at only half-cock; (c) the character doing the levelling didn't move any of the pistol's working parts to cause the noise. (Besides which, the Foley sound was unmistakeably a semi-auto slide being operated...) I may have got all this mixed up with something else, and if so, I apologise to the entire crew of the film, but I don't think so.
Much more sinister - not quite on the back-carry topic yet, but sort-of in period - was Oliver Reed (Athos) threatening Faye Dunaway (Milady) in the 1973 Four Musketeers, where she defies him, he pulls out a wheel-lock, growls "Have you ever seen a woman shot in the stomach," gives its spanner a turn and takes aim at her midriff. No need for mechanical clicks and rattles to enhance the threat: this is Olly Reed playing a hard man, and you know he'll do what he has to do.
| Ed Toton wrote: | | ...about Star Trek and the ergonomics of phasers... |
I'm an ex Trek writer, but I feel no need to leap to the franchise's defence (there are plenty of Trekkies who'll do that) - but maybe, just maybe, the designer of the ST: Enterprise "phase pistol" was trying to make it look a bit old-fashioned. Borchardt, Roth-Steyr and various other early semi-auto pistols also had near-vertical grips. Of course it's far more likely that said designer had no such "realistic" intention at all... Certainly this design shared with all the others the lack of any sort of trigger-guard, which in a weapon fired by some sort of minimal-movement pressure-button always struck me as something more rather than less necessary.
Back on the actual topic of the thread, I would very much like to see evidence, in the form of actual equipment held by a museum, or images from artwork of the period (let's say 1450-1745) which show the Swerde-of-Warre, Greteswerde, biden- or doppelhander, claymore or indeed any other European sword being worn in a scabbard across someone's back.
In addition, the sword must be in an arrangement that's as clearly intended for its purpose as waist-belt, baldric and rapier hanger are for wearing a sword at the hip. Period art represents these so clearly that there's no question where the sword is meant to be worn; I think it's only fair that the proponents of historical (rather than modern movie and re-enactment) provide visual proof that back-carry existed before Hollywood or the SCA.
Come on, folks, there has to be at least one 15th-century picture out there to justify all the enthusiastic support for back-carry (though two pictures, or five, or a dozen - and not all from the same artist - would be even better) - so let's see it!
"I care little for your Cause; I fight not for your Crown, but for your half-crown, and your handsome women!" - Capt. Carlo Fantom (from Aubrey's "Brief Lives")
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles T.
Location: East Kingdom Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sat 21 Feb, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: Back Slings |
|
|
Lets look at things in the lens of reality once more please?
Most all military units had a "support" caravan of some sort that traveled with them and carried weapons, equipment, armor, effects and the like whether it was of the lowest pike, up to the commander. Given this fact, is it likely that any "oversized" weapon (i.e. anything 4+ feet long) would be carried in a quick draw holster. Highly unlikely, especially for any length of time. given that, a sheath of sufficient size would encase and protect the blade while it traveled with the rest of the weaponry as stated above.
Now lets look at a mounting battle where over-sized equipment would be carried. All methods of carrying a weapon would require a quick readiness. As has been stated numerous times in earlier parts of this post, a sheath would require extremely long arms as a full draw for a blade longer than 30" is impractical. If a back sheath were implemented it would be more likely that it would be something that cupped the tip, and only hooked in the weapon, allowing for a 4-6 inch draw then a paddle like lift over the arm. If this was used at all, however unlikely, it would minimize the "draw time" for the weapon, making it akin to readying a pole-arm or a spear. More likely the weapon would be hoisted to the shoulder like the pole-arm or spear, and a sheath/sling/holster, of any kind would not be used.
As far as protecting the blade during carrying, One is not worried about protecting one's blade amidst battle. Your more concerned with keeping yourself protected than your weapon. It would make more sense that on long travels where the weapon would not be used on a regular basis, the weapon would be in a well made sheath, cleaned and sharpened regularly. However if a sling/sheath/holster of sorts was needed, for whatever reason, the blade being exposed for a "short period" (6-8) hours, would not make a permanent effect on the blade, much akin to mud or blood-stains that could be cleaned up later. An exposed blade would be likely if such a thing were needed.
So in conclusion, is it likely that a Back Sling/Sheath/Holster was used. - No
Was it possible, with historical backing for materials, techniques of the period, and customs? - Quite.
Always remember though to keep in context the most important part of battle, You Living. Despite arguments about what could have happened, or whether it did or not for every item of history we see, there were a thousand more by simple extrapolation that we have missed. If an idea could have been made practical, someone may have used it. However it only takes one mistake, or impractical idea in the heat of battle to get you killed.
Support your local SCAdian
There are two kinds of light, the Glow that Illuminates, and the Glare that Obscures.
|
|
  |
|
Vincent C
Location: Northern VA Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Oct, 2010 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Could it be possible that for the sources in Scotland saying that the the islander highlander wore the two handed sword on the back, could this be used like carrying a flag around as identification?
On many tombs in the highlands and islands, when the sword is depicted it's typically not alone, there's almost always either a shield or a rather long sgian dergh present. Though typically the sword depicted is a halflang and not a great sword. (Though some halflang swords were very large)
So assuming that it was a great sword and knife worn instead of halflang, the great sword could be to show everyone who he is in order to discourage any trouble, and then unslung and used if any trouble was in the air. Otherwise, if he needed to defend himself more immediately he had a knife with 12-15" blade and/or possibly another smaller sword, as I've read that short swords were actually well used in the highlands and in Ireland well into the medieval period.
The short swords had a specific name, but off the top of my head I can't remember it.
I'm dubious as to the authenticity of this rather modern sketch but...
http://www.claymore-armoury.co.uk/ltd_ediitio...rints.html
I noticed their back-scabbards have the intersecting waist-belts mentioned earlier in this post concerning British back-slingers.
Honor, compassion, knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
James Anderson III
|
| Posted: Mon 25 Oct, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wearing on the back for comfort during travel is about the only thing I would find practical. The size of the sword makes it nearly impossible to draw, especially in armor. Carried over the back, then pulled in front to unsheath seems plausible. I think I've seen mention to similar in a samurai book talking about a No-Dachi, which is a Japanese equivalent sized sword to a European great sword.
With a short sword, it becomes MUCH more practical. I can see a historical ninja wearing one, because the lack of armor restriction and the freedom of not having a sword swinging about when climbing, hiding around a corner, etc, would be of great benefit. Take a sword around 35" or less, and attach it so that reaching behind you, your hand can barely reach to grip the hilt at the tsuba/cross guard. As you hold the hilt with your dominant hand, use your off hand to grab the bottom of the scabbard and to tug it down gently while drawing the blade. I've been able to do this quickly and you can strike directly from a draw, just as a normal belt-hung katana would. Safety says to attach a Japanese-style blade with the sharpened edge facing away from your back.
With a double edged sword it seems less practical. And with a larger sword, even less practical.
Sable, a chevron between three lions statant Argent
Knight, Order of the Marshal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anton de Vries
|
| Posted: Mon 25 Oct, 2010 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another issue to consider: it is extremely easy (proverbially and literally) to singlehandedly immobilise persons who are wearing a sword on their back, just by pulling the grip backwards towards the floor.
Mind you, it's not just that possible adversaries might try that trick, but also and foremost your "friendly" compatriots, just to make fun of you. (God knows there are untold multitudes of those...yes I'm ex-military. :-) )
A single exposure to that kind of fun can and will make you avoid back scabbards forever. (That possibly sounds like personal experience. Ouch.)
They might be useful/handy on solo-ish missions (oops I almost said "ninja") but walk into a rowdy bar wearing one and you'll be on your back staring at the ceiling with everyone laughing at you in a minute or so. The next minute might be a lot less pleasant.
I seriously believe that's the real reason historical back scabbards are kind of rare.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 25 Oct, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anton de Vries wrote: | Another issue to consider: it is extremely easy (proverbially and literally) to singlehandedly immobilise persons who are wearing a sword on their back, just by pulling the grip backwards towards the floor.
. |
Interesting idea and probably more effective if the back scabbard is solidly attached to one's back but as a transporting option I see a back scabbard ( If such a thing was actually used with long or great swords ) might be just a simple thing like a rifle sling just on one shoulder, and as mentioned somewhere I'm sure in this very long Topic thread, just a carrying method if the sword needed to be self carried rather than just transported on a baggage cart or pack animal.
With a simple on the shoulder sling just slipping it off the shoulder and then discarding the scabbard if a fight was imminent might be practical but it wouldn't be anything as fast as a " quickdraw " thing.  Much better to have a short sword or a large dagger on one's belt and draw that if attacked by surprise at close range ...... if the enemy comes to one's awareness 50 feet away then there is time to use the shoulder slung great sword.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Melville
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 4:58 am Post subject: wearing a sword on one's back |
|
|
I've only just come across this topic, but here's my bit of info. Glasgow Museum (Kelvingrove) has a scabbard for a two-handed sword (inv no. A.1960.42) with a 3 inch steel hook fastened into one side. I imagine this would have hooked into a loop or slot in a baldric or shoulder belt for carrying on the move. The whole thing, sword and scabbard, could be easily unhooked, the sword drawn normally and the scabbard then discarded or left with a follower while the warrior wielded his sword with both hands. I have examined the scabbard and it seems genuine for 16th century. made of wood slats covered in parchment and then thin leather. Since, as everyone has said, it is impossible to draw a large sword directly from a back-scabbard this seems a reasonable solution.
Neil
N Melville
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
More likely, the hook is for hanging the sword from your saddle. I say more likely because there's plenty of actual direct evidence that this was done in period and, as far as I can tell, none for wearing a sword on one's back in whatever kind of suspension system.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | | More likely, the hook is for hanging the sword from your saddle. I say more likely because there's plenty of actual direct evidence that this was done in period and, as far as I can tell, none for wearing a sword on one's back in whatever kind of suspension system. |
I agree that there is little or no proof of wearing a sword on one's back historically in the European context and the discussion could end there, although this seems like a topic that won't die. 
If one is just talking of practical, theoretical use and it's possibilities and impossibilities in a fantasy context the subject has pretty much been covered.
No evidence of anything but just for carrying around it's impossible to say that someone didn't at some point improvise the use of a piece of rope as a sling on a scabbard of a very long sword as just a way to carry it as baggage but as normal tactical carry of a sword again it's a no historically.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
S. Jansone
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
And what about those ancient, kopis style swords?
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| S. Jansone wrote: | | And what about those ancient, kopis style swords? |
Historical or not I'm not sure about back carry of a Kopis but the blade on those are much shorter so at least drawing one from one's back is not an impossibility.
The main source for this idea are Movies, computer games, fictional historical novels, co mic books, ninja inspired stuff.
When we become very skeptical about the practicality of back carry it's when the blades get longer than 24" or more and certainly a huge twohander can't be drawn from the back unless one has arms 4 feet long.
Anyway, if someone takes the time to read all the pages of this huge topic thread one will find all the arguments and speculations repeated numerous times: I'm only bothering with this topic to summarize from memory the highlights of what people have concluded about the notion, but before adding more posts or ask more questions just reading it all would probably answer almost every possible question.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| S. Jansone wrote: | | And what about those ancient, kopis style swords? |
All the period depictions I've seen show them worn at the left hip.
PS. Now, of course you can carry a short sword at your back. It can be made to work. It can be made practical, even. But carrying it at your waist would still be far more practical and convenient in the vast majority of conceivable situations. There's simply no pragmatic reason to carry a sword on your back when you could carry it at your waist or in your hand (ren-fairs notwithstanding). Analogously, you can wear an M16 in a thigh holster, those rigs are commercially available and work alright (I used to have one for airsoft), but how often do you see actual soldiers doing that?
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic