Posts: 4,194 Location: Northern VA,USA
Tue 03 Jan, 2006 8:39 pm
| John Cooksey wrote: |
| I may be weird, but I hate having both hands locked up a sword (or a gun). |
I'll tell you, two hands aren't "locked" up on having one sword. As an avid longsword fencer, my hands are already doing two different things just in regular techniques, never mind when I have to let go with the off hand for controlling my opponent's arm or any number of other off hand techniques. Having another sword means, even if you're ambidextrous, still means that you lessen the ability of each sword.
Besides, I'd rather have a shield than another sword. MUCH more practical. :)
(And Addison gave one of the reasons why you don't shoot with a gun in each hand, ambidextrous or no. There's also the fact that your eyes are only so far apart, and you lose much of your ability to aim.)
As for the plausibility of back scabbards, I think Nathan gave the best reason against it: They're awkward. Walking, sitting, running, etc. If you're carrying it against your shoulder (which, incidentally, is more comfortable in the long run then the stress on the shoulder and back created by a back scabbard), you can always put it down if you need to do something else.
| W. R. Reynolds wrote: |
| Has anyone ever done a lot of walking with a sword belted around the waist? Most of the stuff I do is mounted but when I do get off the horse and walk around, the sword can sometimes become a nuisance, at times requiring a hand on the hilt to keep it from hitting things. |
I used to think this, until I got a proper, historically accurate belt made for one of my swords. It's amazing how comfortable and easy to wear swords are if the rig is done correctly. Most modern made rigs hold the sword so it pulls on the back and bounces and swings around a lot. That said, yes, they are still a nuissance to walk around with compared to not wearing one at all. :)
Posts: 450 Location: Montreal,Canada
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 1:56 am
I've been reading this back harness debate with interest as I never got a handle on where the Braveheart movie people got the notion that a proper knight would run around with a big thing like that strapped to his back. Maybe they figure it looks good with a kilt. I have looked through different illustrated histories and am still at a loss to find a portrait of some form of back harness for the two handed greatsword. Maybe someone out there has such a print that could be posted.
If these harness existed, they should pop up somewhere as the great sword is a fairly late devellopment, pretty near that time that Nuremberg got the presses rolling, which had the effect of greatly multiplying the documents available. Durer's work has been referred to, and thanks again for the illustrations. It seems plausible to think that Durer would show the back harness if it was of any interest at that time as his work is quite extensive with regard to the landsknecht, and I think it safe to say that the landsknecht were the best known and documented proponents of the greatsword. As I said, I really never figured out where the Braveheart people got a lot of their stuff, so please point me in the general direction to look it up. Cheers.
Posts: 630 Location: San Diego, California
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 4:14 am
| Addison C. de Lisle wrote: |
| John Cooksey wrote: | | One for each hand, just like guns. |
Try reloading. :D |
I don't want to steer the topic to guns, but in addition to not being able to reload, you're far less likely to hit what you're aiming at. Combat shooting--especially with a pistol--is not as easy as Hollywood makes it look. Without the off hand to steady the weapon, you'll probably pull your rounds off to one side or the other at least a foot or two from where you want them to go. You could honestly empty an entire magazine at a person standing 25 yards away and miss every shot if you lack a steady weapon and a good sight picture. I'd rather have two hands on my weapon and know that my rounds are far more likely to go where I want them to, even if I'm sending fewer downrange. If either you or your target are moving at the time, the equasion becomes a good deal more difficult and a steady muzzle becomes that much more vital to an accurate shot. Also, a skilled person can drop an empty magazine, pop a fresh one in and be back on target in less than three seconds with two hands to work with, so there's really no disadvantage.
To take it from another angle, try shooting skeet with only one hand on the shotgun.
Posts: 1,576 Location: Bergen, Norway
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 6:03 am
| W. R. Reynolds wrote: |
Has anyone ever done a lot of walking with a sword belted around the waist? Most of the stuff I do is mounted but when I do get off the horse and walk around, the sword can sometimes become a nuisance, at times requiring a hand on the hilt to keep it from hitting things.
|
I've spent whole days running around with the sword as backup sidearm, or milling around markets.
I have a Lutel type G suspention, now redone after it fell appart from wear...
[ Linked Image ]
The secret about running with these is to tighten them up until they lay securely against the hip, to keep them from dangling. Some later suspensions, like the Lutel E have aditional straps, to keep the sword level, near horisontal against your hip. These are more prone to hit stuff, but are far better for longswords and the like. The angle also means that leather scabards don't dangle into your feet as much when empty.
Quite a few high medieval pictures show the scabbard carried in hand, with the belt wrapped around it. This might be more comfortable for extended travel, though marching with the scabbard at the hip isn't a big problem, or, more likely, because moving around indoors or in a crowd with a sword in the belt can be quite awkward. Especially when sitting down, and the like.
Liberi has drills for fighting with the sword and scabbard if attacked suddenly. But only two techniques or so...
Posts: 630 Location: San Diego, California
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 8:49 am
| Marcos Cantu wrote: |
| As Hank mentioned earlier, until fairly recently, combat handgun training was done one handed with no problems in accuaracy. If you took at WWI/WWII training footage for either Americans or Germans, all shooting was done with one hand...and for the US soldiers, it was with a .45 |
The 1911 is a wonderful weapon, and I'd take one over the M9 any day. But as far as CQB goes, where we are now is so far beyond where they were then that I'm not sure any valid comparison can be made. Like in the past, we changed our way of doing things because one way works significantly better than another way.
In any event, the single hand argument was only half of it. There are times when it's necessary to shoot with one hand; all I said was that your accuracy will not be what it is with two, especially on the move. The other half was having a pistol in each hand. I still think that would be a silly way to go into an extended fire fight. Addison's observation about reloading is spot on.
Anyway, this still isn't a gun topic. If you'd like to continue this, we should probably either do it with PMs or start another thread. :)
Posts: 3,646 Location: Midwest
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 8:49 am
| Edward Hitchens wrote: |
Russ is right. A man carrying his sword strapped on his back was extremely rare. Even the huge 2-handed zweihanders that the Landscknecht used during the Renaissance period were either carried by hand or put on a cart and towed by horse. Even an above-average size longsword (i.e. 50") was usually carried in a scabbard mounted on the wearer's hip. Why? Likely because it was easier to draw and easier to put back in the scabbard. On horseback, your longsword would be stowed in a scabbard attached in front of you on the horse's saddle, and on your hip would be your shorter 'arming' sword (or 'riding' sword).
I, for instance, wear my A&A Schloss Erbach on my back; I have to take off the attached baldric just to put her back in the scabbard. Not that it takes a tremendous amount of effort to do that. In fact, that's my preferred method of carrying around a large sword. Now if I was actually fighting alongside Prince Edward at Poitiers, then I would prefer my blade to be at my hip where I can draw it easier and quicker. :) |
Late to this thread, but in my limited WMA experience, drawing from the hip transitions immediately into a guard from which you can threaten or defend. Drawing from you back immediately opens you to an attack and does not allow you to quickly present a threat to your adversary. Unless you know the fight is coming and can array yourself before engaged, this is a significant issue.
Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 9:11 am
Twohanded pistol shooting wasn't used because originally a lot of it was from horseback and tradition made using two hands seem odd or just something you just wouldn't do.
Not matter how steady you are with one hand you are going to be steadier with two.
Shooting with one hand can be as accurate as twohanded shooting if you can take your time about it and have a lot of practice. For that first shot the difference could be minimal but recoil recovery will be much slower.
At bad breath range where accuracy only needs to be point and shoot onehanded shooting should be practised as the other hand will have to leave the gun to open doors or hold a flashlight, pickup something etc...
At long pistol range over 25 yards hitting a static target is not as easy as it seems and against a moving target very difficult.
At very close range a trained and untrained shooter will both be able to hit their target just pointing the gun, at longer ranges
the trained shooter like a police officer ( If he / she practices often enough ) will have a much better chance of hitting.
The T.V. trained Gang member holding his firearm sideways will only hit you by accident except at that bad breath range again.
Not a cop or military but I have been shooting handguns for 24 years since 1982 and I have been reading about the subject since that time. Also took a " Stressfire " course with Massad Ayoub in 1990.
( Edited: Oh, I agree, maybe this should be a topic of it's own. Submited before I read one of the previous replies dealing with the same thing. :eek: )
Posts: 5,981 Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 10:45 am
I'm not sure we're seeing scabbards on those large swords depicted by Dürer. Many swords of this size have a leather covering over the ricasso that allows the user to shorten/strengthen the weapon by gripping it there as well as the grip. Viewed in a line drawing, this secondary grip can look like the mouth of a scabbard. Nathan made an excellent point about polearms–i.e., that we don't see scabbards or sheaths on other weapons of this length or longer.
Posts: 2,608
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 11:12 am
| Sean Flynt wrote: |
| I'm not sure we're seeing scabbards on those large swords depicted by Dürer. Many swords of this size have a leather covering over the ricasso that allows the user to shorten/strengthen the weapon by gripping it there as well as the grip. Viewed in a line drawing, this secondary grip can look like the mouth of a scabbard. Nathan made an excellent point about polearms–i.e., that we don't see scabbards or sheaths on other weapons of this length or longer. |
You may very well be right, it may simply be the ricasso we are seeing (making my bidenhander scabbard far fetched again).
Posts: 5,981 Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 11:46 am
On the other hand, didn't some of those enormous bearing swords have elaborately decorated scabbards. I also recall seeing a contemporary illustration showing a headsman drawing a typical execution sword from a scabbard (held, not worn). Neither of these types swords was meant to be worn.
Posts: 700 Location: Bourgas, Bulgaria
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 12:07 pm
Hi all!
I have a picture (actually a drawing maybe made on the basis of an original picture) of a Japanese asigaru (light infantryman) carrying a no-tachi on his back. From the other hand, in the old Japanese field manuals (in modern words) was recomended the sword to be carried on the back when the samurai was climbing walls during sieges.
So, carrying the sword in this manner was something normal at least in Japan.
Regards!
Boris
Posts: 322
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 12:38 pm
| Sean Flynt wrote: |
| I'm not sure we're seeing scabbards on those large swords depicted by Dürer. Many swords of this size have a leather covering over the ricasso that allows the user to shorten/strengthen the weapon by gripping it there as well as the grip. Viewed in a line drawing, this secondary grip can look like the mouth of a scabbard. Nathan made an excellent point about polearms–i.e., that we don't see scabbards or sheaths on other weapons of this length or longer. |
Here's a bigger version of that pic. These swords are definitely sheated.
[ Linked Image ]
Posts: 2,608
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 9:14 pm
Yay! Suddenly not so far fetched again... :)
Posts: 180
Wed 04 Jan, 2006 9:54 pm
I'm certainly more comfortable carrying mine over my shoulder in the scabbard Russ made than I would have been walking with such a large bare blade.
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