As I was discussing scabbard-making with my father earlier he asked : "and why didn't they make them from metal ? Sheet metal would be easy to shape." I didn't know the answer, so here I am asking you, fine myArmoury.com forum members. Did scabbards with a metallic base (not just chapes) exist in the Middle Ages ? If not, why (in your opinion) and when did metallic scabbards start being made ? I know for certain that these existed in the XIXth century (I have one, all-metal with leather inner lining, with an Italian infantry officer's smallsword from circa 1880), so there seems to be no absolute reason for not making such scabbards. But I have no idea when they started to exist and why.

Thanks to anyone who can shed a light on that...

There are Celtic swords with iron scabbards from the last few centuries BC (do a forum search for "celtic sword" to see examples). There may be Roman scabbards, too. I know there are repros of them (which doesn't mean they're accurate). I think they weren't popular during the Dark and Middle Ages because the iron/steel would have more useful as blades than scabbards.

I think it has more to do with economics. From what I understand, in the Middle Ages raw materials were expensive and labor less so. So iron and steel would have been saved for blades, hilts, and armour, partly because of their cost is high and partly because the cost of a scabbard of wood/leather would be labor intensive moreso than materials-intensive.

Also, getting your iron and steel to a consistent sheet thickness is probably something that would be been difficult without some Industrial Age machinery. But that's pure speculation on my part.

And with the consistency of mass-produced blades, you can use Industrial Age machinery to stamp consistent scabbards shapes out. Again, speculation and guesswork on my part.

Salut Simon

Chad had it right : sheet metal was hard to make (and yet the Celts made sheet metal...But they're an exception - masters of Iron, these Celts, they were indeed), and therefore not cheap, while other, more affordable, and - more important - more fashionable materials were available.


Considering the two main families of metallic scabbards that existed in History, we have two extremes :

- the latter, 18th-19th-20th century, using (pre) mass-production methods to create uniform-looking, pattern-abiding models. The will to make huge numbers, and with each and every one of them (with exceptions) looking the same as others fo the same pattern.


- the earlier : Celtic (and, continued later, Roman) scabbards. Using a well-mastered, time-consuming crafsmanship to create elaborate, unique, one-of-a-kind masterworks.


So, yes, economics certainly play a part. But culture has its importance too :)

Cheers

Fab

One reason would be that with metal scabbards in direct contact with swords, you get a lot of wear on the blade, damaging all the hard polishing work. Plus any bit of moist that may get trapped inside, and your sword rusts into your scabbard and in the worst cast may even get stuck (no WD40 yet! ;) ). This can be solved with a wooden core (possibly with fur or textil lining on the inside). But if you're going to use a wooden core, it's just as easy to wrap some textile or leather around it, rather then going through all the effort to make a sheet of metal, and hammering that around.

As mentioned, primarily cost.

Also, weight. That extra pound or so of metal adds up. Leather and wood is lighter.

I really don't think cost was a factor for someone who could afford a SWORD. Aside from the Romans, we're mostly talking aristocrats, right? A few ounces of sheet metal are nothing compared to the work that goes into the blade. EVERY metal-using culture that I know of from the Early Bronze Age onwards was quite capable of producing sheet metal in the amounts needed for a sword scabbard, and in fact you see sheet bronze scabbards in Bronze Age Italy as well as Iron Age Gaul (just for examples). Considering the work that went into the incredible sheet bronze shields that are found in bogs and graves all over Europe, I'm sure they all could have had metal scabbards if they wanted them.

As with most other things, it's all about fashion! If a metal scabbard is stylish, that's what you get. But quite often, the styles ran to wood and leather, sometimes with added bling and sometimes not. It all depended on the fashion of the times.

Matthew

PS: pretty sure that most metal scabbards had wood and/or leather linings, in any case!

Speaking from a La Tene perspective only, but mostly the reason that the metal scabbards stopped being made was more of a social reason instead of any physical problems with the scabbards. I don't know of any La Tene period swords which show wear from the metal scabbards. The fact that we see them putting work into decorating the blades in various ways probably is a good indication that it wasn't a problem. Doesn't seem that the majority of the scabbards had wooden inner cores either. I've made two now at this point and weight really isn't a big deal with these. Probably not all that much difference from wood and leather covered scabbard, the last one was for a larger la tene III and it was under 1 1/2 pounds. When you look at the chain belts and leather belts with several large iron rings, the weight of the scabbard isn't something you are going to notice.

We often joke about there being a cult of iron/steel for the warrior class at this time, but it really might not be that far from the truth. While it might not have been something worshiped or anything like that, it was something of very high significance. While the women of equal status were often wearing around fancy copper alloy and gold jewelery, men often times would be decked out with iron multiple arm rings, bracelets, sometime even leg rings, and large iron fibs. Factor in this status they obviously had for iron and steel with the talents they developed for working it, and their nature to decorate practically everything it makes much more since.

Shane