[Michael R. Black]

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.

[Russ Ellis]

[Hank Reinhardt]

The Ayda Kata was usually worn on the back, but the blade is only about 14-16 inches in length. The Scots often carried the big slaymore on their back in a scabbard, when it was to be used the whole thing was taken off and left. If you survived, fine, you could find it, if you didn't, well, you didn't need it. The Ninja often slung the swords on their back while climbing, etc. Other than that its all Hollywood, because it looks neat. Have you ever noticed that they never show the guy drawing the sword? Amrs aren't long enough. How about trying to sit down with a big sword on your back.......I also do a lot of shooting, and I have seen guys trying to shoot two guns and turning them upside down......this isn't bad, I'm sure a few cops are glad they tried that nonsense.

[Chuck Wyatt]

This topic has for the most part discussed western arts, how about Krabi Krabong from Thailand?
The system teaches wielding two dha swords, smaller swords than the western broad sword or long sword.
As far as carrying swords on their backs, I’ve seen it done frequently in Thai historical movies, but nothing historically documented.

[Gordon Frye]

[Hank Reinhardt]

There are two reasons why Hollywood likes to show swords being worn on the back. One, it looks good. I can't say when it got started, most of the old movies when I was growing up had the guys wearing the sword around the waist. I suspect that it might have something to do with the Ninja craze. Since then movies has show it being worn on the back so much that many people think that is the way they were carried. The second reason is that a sword swinging from a belt around the waist can be something of a nuisance unless you're used to it, and most actors aren't. It also swings about and whacks people and can spoil scene shots. Remember that in the movies the Director is the boss. The choreographer may know that its wrong, but the Director rules.

[Nate C.]

As to "historically" carrying a sword on the back, I have no real info from a european standpoint. However I remember reading that certain tribes/groups in the Kris wielding parts of the world wore the Kris on their back for traditional reasons. As I recall, it was not universally practiced and only certain regions practiced carrying them this way. Keep in mind that these were larger Kris but still smaller than most european swords. Hope that helps.

Regards,
Nate C.

[Jean Thibodeau]

As to swords scabbards on the waist whacking into things or people I think it caused a lot of duels in the 16 th to 18 th centuries when over touchy young hot-headed nobles would go at it after taking a whack by someone's scabbard as a deliberate insult.

A bit the same today when some moron shoots or stabs somebody in a club over some trivial thing taken as a DIS
( Disrespect. )

Stupid young hot-heads then and now are somewhat the same in attitude.

One could almost say that gang culture is a warrior culture without the class and honour ( Little to do with low self estime ! ): In the past a young hot-head might become a warrior, a soldier, mercenary or brigand. The truly antisocial ones mostly got killed due to being too stupid, reckless, dangerous to everybody even their friends and would usually die young.

A "RUDE " young bravo in a warrior culture will either die young or become a leader if he has superior skills and cunning. The uncontrolled psychos with no social skills or smarts will soon be taken care of by better fighters they have annoyed. ( Darwinism at it's best ! )

Back to swords and scabbards: If I remember correctly over long rapiers were frowned upon or made illegal due to all the bumping / whacking was causing too many fights and duels.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Bill Grandy]

[Russ Ellis]

[John Cooksey]

[John Cooksey]

[John Cooksey]

[Jean Thibodeau]

John;

With a pistol in each hand one doesn't always fire both together but alternates between each one: With single action revolvers I would guess that as one is recoiling back one shift attention to the other one to aim and shoot.

With two high capacity it could be used with one in each hand if dealing with extreme close quarter fighting against numerous opponents: Mostly movie stuff and great when playing Halo on the X-Box with a needler in one hand and a plasma rifle in the other. O.K. I brought this last thing up because these two handed stuff can be fun and effective in theory, I just have my doubts that in a real fight using two handguns would be better than concentrating on shooting one gun well and staying tactically aware would be more important.

Swords / guns / knives / barehanded the details vary but they all share the same core skills and are all martial arts: The first best weapon is a calm and trained mind.

[John Cooksey]

[Gordon Frye]

John;

I personally have never been very good at "Two Gunning It" as it were, thus the "Border Shift" (after emptying the first revolver, you toss it in the air while then transfering the second from your left to your right hand for firing. Then the first revolver is supposed to drop nicely into your left hand. Practice this over a bed... )

There's a cool old book that I think has been reprinted by Barnes and Noble called "Triggernometry" by Eugene Cunningham, first published in 1940. He was in on the last of the serious gunfighter stuff as a kid (his Brother-in-Law was a Deputy Sheriff in El Paso in the 1890's) so he actually knew and talked to a lot of the less well sung gunmen of the day. Most said that they said that they never saw anyone actually use two guns at once, though they had heard about a few who could. But it mostly died off with the introduction of cartridge revolvers, since it made a rapid reload an possiblility, rather than just a fanciful wish. But with caplocks it was, as you note, done (though not many of the Southern Cavaliers had the means for two-gunning it: revolvers were, despite the mythology, still rather hard to come by. The Missouri Ruffians are another matter, of course!)

There is though a nifty story that I once read about Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Charles I's nephew and Cavalry Commander. After the Restoration, he was merrily walking down the streets of London when he was beset by hoodlums. He drew a brace of turn-off pistols, dispatched the first two with them handily with two quick shots, and then drew his sword. The remainder left with some rapidity. He was the sort who would have done well in any century, I think!

Cheers!

Gordon

[Hank Reinhardt]

Since this seems to have shifted over to two hand fighting, let me make a couple of comments. In any fight its somewhat stupid to use one hand, however fashion has great influence, also convenience plays a role. Why esle woudl they have shifted to small sword when sword and dagger, even small sword and dagger, is better. I think a lot of objection is the type who pride themselves on fighting with two swords, but under strick rules that favor them. Also a lot seem to fail to understand that two rapiers are clumsy, and once you break past the points, the guy is defenceless, which is why the dagger was preferred. Also a shield offers much better protection. Parrying a cut with one sword while cutting with the other is tricky. Not only does it tear up your sword it requires a great deal of skill and finesse. As for shooting with two hands, 've done, but not very well. However I plan on going back to give it another try in the near future. I can throw a tomahawk (used to be heavier axes, but hell, I'm old now) in each hand at two different targets at the same time. The targets are about 4 feet apart. I can hit it about 3 out of five right now, and when it warms up I think I can improve on it. Plan on putting it on my website when its up and running, anything to impress the yokels.Of course these throws are at one turn, and this summer am going to try for two.Actually, when I learned how and what to do, it was rather simple. Cheers, Hank

[John Cooksey]

[Bill Grandy]