"This is the thread that never ends. . It just goes on and on my friend. . . Someone started typing it not knowing what it was and folks just kept on feeding it forever just because. . . . this is the thread that never ends. . . " :wtf: :lol:
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
|
Exactly. Except that these guys were sword-andtarget men, not sword-and-buckler men. They had big shields strapped to the arm rather than small fist-gripped bucklers, and that was a distinction constantly maintained and stressed by contemporary authors. |
My bad. :) Didn't mean to mix up my shields there.
| Joe Fults wrote: |
| From the description you have provided I'm more inclined to interpret this as a loop over the should hanging high under the arm, and to the side, than something hanging down the back. Just can't visualize the sliding and tilting on the back, but then again, I'm not reading the book or looking at the illustration in question. On another note, I'd be very careful about interpreting a chalk drawing...mucho potential for wishful thinking there. |
A drawing of said chalk warrior figurine is posted on the Kelticos forum (in a thread on back-scabbards). The one Loades discusses in the one on the upper right. As you can see from the figure, the attachment is way down low on the scabbard, perhaps distortion to make it fit (as Loades notes).
Very stylised figure, and with "legs" less than 1/10 of the total height in length, it's possible that this was just the only place to fit the sword. No room low, since the legs are so short, and the arms occupy the sides. Only the back is left.
As far as I can tell, this figurine is almost the sole foundation of stories of Celts, Parisii, or Iron Age Britons wearing swords on the back. Loades also mentions the Kirkburn sword, which was behind the back in the grave.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | ||
A drawing of said chalk warrior figurine is posted on the Kelticos forum (in a thread on back-scabbards). The one Loades discusses in the one on the upper right. As you can see from the figure, the attachment is way down low on the scabbard, perhaps distortion to make it fit (as Loades notes). Very stylised figure, and with "legs" less than 1/10 of the total height in length, it's possible that this was just the only place to fit the sword. No room low, since the legs are so short, and the arms occupy the sides. Only the back is left. As far as I can tell, this figurine is almost the sole foundation of stories of Celts, Parisii, or Iron Age Britons wearing swords on the back. Loades also mentions the Kirkburn sword, which was behind the back in the grave. |
Wow...
it's like looking at a photo for detail. :wtf:
I wouldn't put too much stock such a vague figure...
Cheers,
David
| Connor Ruebusch wrote: |
| In fact, it'd be far more likely to have some grungy fellow climbing up a slippery latrine chute, most likely without a sword at all, as those do tend to get in the way when one is trying to scramble through a sewer. |
You sound like you're speaking from experience... :p
| David Teague wrote: |
|
it's like looking at a photo for detail. :wtf: I wouldn't put too much stock such a vague figure... |
Loades has a much clearer photo, but it doesn't add anything useful beyond what can be seen in this tiny little drawing.
Even if Loades' interpretation is correct, it's a chariot-warrior thing, accepting a general-case inferiority for a specific-case superiority. Without the specific case being applicable - that is, not having to jump into and out of chariots on the regular basis - it would be stupid. (Btw, how come they didn't have chariots in Braveheart?)
The other side of the issue is that a sword worn with a scabbard slide doesn't flop around and get in the way of your legs. OK, on the figure, if interpreted as being of realistic proportions, the scabbard slide must be extraordinarily low. But the figure clearly isn't of realistic proportions unless it depicts a warrior with 10" legs, so this can be safely discounted as an artifact of artistic stylisation. Assuming a normal position for the scabbard slide - perhaps a little above the mid-point of the sword-in-scabbard - and the normal position of the scabbard slide on the outside (i.e., sword between belt/baldric and body), the sword just isn't in the way of the legs. Since this is usual for Chinese, Central Asian, Viking, and late Roman scabbard slides, I don't see that it should be so remarkably different for this Celtic case.
I've seen it mentioned that Celtic scabbard slides (in some particular part of Europe?) were mounted lower on the scabbard than elsewhere. First, this would keep the sword away from the legs even more, and second, the claim might well be based on this very same figure.
Loades seems to be pretty convinced that the Kirkburn sword was worn the other way, with the scabbard slide against the body, and comments on such an "invisible" part being so finely decorated. I think the simpler solution is that the scabbard was worn with the slide on the outside, just like the Romans, Vikings, and various other users of the scabbard slide.
Loades gives a positive report on the basis of re-enactment/experiment, so it isn't biomechanically impossible, but I can't say I believe it.
| Tim Ormsby wrote: | ||
You sound like you're speaking from experience... :p |
Yeah, well... I don't like to talk about it. ;)
It's such an abstract figure I really don't think you can make any credible conclusions based on it. You might as well look at it and decide that Celtic warriors did not wear pants.
| David Teague wrote: |
|
Wow... it's like looking at a photo for detail. :wtf: I wouldn't put too much stock such a vague figure... |
(Figure on upper right)
For a much less vague version of what might be the same thing, a Qin charioteer with sword at back.
(I saw a drawing of this figure in I. Lebedynsky, "De l'épée Scythe au sabre Mongol". Nice book, lots of drawing, some photos, from Eastern Europe through to China. In French.)
Attachment: 23.52 KB
Rear view of Qin charioteer
Yes but this looks as if it's on the back but with a belt at the waist and the throat of the scabbard is still fairly low on the back so that even a longish sword might be drawn from this position without having the long arms of a gorrila. ;) :lol:
Having just tried this, a sword can be drawn from this position - reach under the left arm, grab handle, and draw. I didn't like this; I prefer to hold the scabbard with my left hand, and trying to do that here puts my arm right where the blade comes out. Re-scabbarding in this position is a mystery to me. It's also easy enough to just grab the scabbard and pull it forward enough so it comes to the more usual position for a (Chinese) scabbard-slide sword, pommel on left side of chest.
The sword is quite out of the way, and seems secure enough. I think this works for a charioteer or a chariot archer (or an infantry archer) who doesn't want a pommel in the vicinity of the left nipple.
You'd have to be a quite serious mutant to draw over-the-shoulder.
The sword is quite out of the way, and seems secure enough. I think this works for a charioteer or a chariot archer (or an infantry archer) who doesn't want a pommel in the vicinity of the left nipple.
You'd have to be a quite serious mutant to draw over-the-shoulder.
I think I could summarize this entire Topic about back carry:
A) Viable as a carry option of an extra weapon ( The sword on shoulder ) keeping the hands free for another primary weapon or just a traveling with sword as" baggage option.
B) Not viable as a quickdraw " I need it yesterday option " for any sword longer than a short sword.
The dead horse here as been skinned and BBQ(ed) and eaten In addition to being flogged. ;) :p :lol:
C) Looks cool in movies. ;) :p
A) Viable as a carry option of an extra weapon ( The sword on shoulder ) keeping the hands free for another primary weapon or just a traveling with sword as" baggage option.
B) Not viable as a quickdraw " I need it yesterday option " for any sword longer than a short sword.
The dead horse here as been skinned and BBQ(ed) and eaten In addition to being flogged. ;) :p :lol:
C) Looks cool in movies. ;) :p
Hello Jean T.
Being the chap that started this thread initially [a long time ago, in a galaxy...... you get the idea], I must say I like your summary a lot.
Cheers
Malcolm
Being the chap that started this thread initially [a long time ago, in a galaxy...... you get the idea], I must say I like your summary a lot.
Cheers
Malcolm
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| I think I could summarize this entire Topic about back carry:
A) Viable as a carry option of an extra weapon ( The sword on shoulder ) keeping the hands free for another primary weapon or just a traveling with sword as" baggage option. B) Not viable as a quickdraw " I need it yesterday option " for any sword longer than a short sword. The dead horse here as been skinned and BBQ(ed) and eaten In addition to being flogged. ;) :p :lol: C) Looks cool in movies. ;) :p |
To the point and in my opinion accurate summation. The dead horse is buried! :-)
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| I think I could summarize this entire Topic about back carry:
|
Not bad, but longer than it needs to be, at a cost in accuracy. I think you should have stopped with
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| I think I could summarize this entire Topic about back carry:
A) Viable as a carry option of an extra weapon ( The sword on shoulder ) keeping the hands free for another primary weapon or just a traveling with sword as" baggage option. B) Not viable as a quickdraw " I need it yesterday option " for any sword |
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | ||||
Not bad, but longer than it needs to be, at a cost in accuracy. I think you should have stopped with
|
Probably right about dropping (c) but isn't C" MOVIES/FICTION ( Books ..... whatever ) the main reason the Topic exists in the first place. ;) :p :lol: :cool:
And I couldn't resist the joke. :( ;) :lol:
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
|
Probably right about dropping (c) but isn't C" MOVIES/FICTION ( Books ..... whatever ) the main reason the Topic exists in the first place. ;) :p :lol: :cool: |
Why yes, but whether or not it is cool is in the eye of the beholder. About as cool as pirouetting in combat, or less, IMHO.
But dropping the end of (b) is a matter of function, being about the slowest place within reach where you could put a short blade. Slow, and gives a close opponent a nice armpit as a vulnerable target in the process.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
| [
But dropping the end of (b) is a matter of function, being about the slowest place within reach where you could put a short blade. Slow, and gives a close opponent a nice armpit as a vulnerable target in the process. |
Oh, now I get your meaning: B) Marginally usable for a short bladed sword but the worse possible carry option.
So we can shorten it to (A) i.e. merely a slow carry option with no tactical advantages if one needs the weapon quickly. ;) :D :cool:
Oh no I may have revived the dead horse with all my replies. :eek: :p :lol: :cool:
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| So we can shorten it to (A) i.e. merely a slow carry option with no tactical advantages if one needs the weapon quickly. ;) :D :cool: |
I think we have a winner!
Page 9 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum