[M. Eversberg II]

I am not too familiar with extant scabbards, but maybe they were constructed in such a way that the only "friction" was along the flats? Particularly, the flat near the hilt. That's where most swords (assuming distal taper is present) are thickest.

M.

[Bjorn Hagstrom]

I would suppose a very good reason to cover a scabbard in costly leather, and not having a "wood-only"-scabbard is that animal glue (bone, hide, rabbit etc..) are much more suspect to dissolve when wet than modern pvc-based glue.

And on the subject of fit, I seem to remeber some scandinavian finds of scabbards with the inside stuffed or lined with sheep's wool. Could not a loose fit be compensated by stuffing the scabbard with something soft, and in the case of wool also have the positive effect of adding corrosion protective lanolin?

[Al Muckart]

I think Bjorn raises a very good point, that without some sort of covering around the slats there's going to be very little to hold them together.

As for leather-only scabbards, I can't see them being workable for swords. Relative to the leather, wood wasn't sufficiently expensive to be worth omitting the rigid core that, as Peter pointed out, helps protect the wearer from the sword but also holds the whole thing straight so when you resheath your sword you don't slice through it, your leg, or the hand holding the scabbard. While leather was expensive, labour wasn't so the additional time for a reasonably skilled maker to hollow and shape a scabbard core probably wasn't a major element of the final cost.

Leather was an expensive material in the middle ages. No I don't have exact records showing *how* expensive, but if you look at the way it was treated and recycled and how very very little of it was ever wasted (look at the pictures of scraps from York for example they're all tiny). The same was true of woven fabric, and the frugal recycle-everything attitudes to leather and fabric persisted right up until their production was fully industrialised.

Knives have much shorter edges than swords which makes it much easier to draw them without slicing the sheath than to draw a sword without doing so and means they have much stiffer sections for their thickness than a scabbard will. Even so, I have noticeable cuts on the inside of one of my my main knife sheath and I suspect this was pretty common.

Sheaths without a wooden core needn't be floppy though, medievally-tanned leather is a very different material to modern leather. Modern "vegetable" tanned leather is tanned in an industrial process using highly concentrated chemicals and rarely takes more than 24 hours. Medieval leather was tanned over months in pits of steadily increasing strengths of bark liquor. The result wet forms more easily and dries stiffer than modern leather. I have a small sample of proper pit tanned leather that I wet formed and which ended up stiff enough that it goes "knock" when rapped against a table. It'd make a great knife sheath, but I wouldn't want to use it as a scabbard even if it were twice as thick. There's also the fact that a layer of hide glue between the two layers of leather will add a lot of stiffness for the life of the scabbard but degrade totally over archaeological timeframes even under conditions that preserve the leather almost perfectly.

[Johan S. Moen]

[Chad Arnow]

[Sean Flynt]

Looking again at the Dürer drawing I now think that we're seeing the exposed wooden core of the scabbard, with the leather torn away.

[Sean Flynt]

Here's another--a damaged leather-only(?) messer scabbard that leaves the blade exposed. The image depicts men torturing Jesus. Such figures typically are shown as ugly, coarse, etc. The damaged scabbard is likely part of that tradition.

[I Sam]

Elling addresses an assumption I'd always made that would greatly extend the longevity of a scabbard: Discarding the scabbard before a fight - assuming, of course, one was not jumped or ambushed, but my ken of the chivalric code is that such dastardly tactics were not widely or often used. So then, unless one were set upon suddenly, I would think a scabbard, given proper TLC could have a good, long life-expectancy.

I can't imagine that, given the collective knowledge myArmoury, this next simple point would be over looked, and so I can only assume it's a stupid question, but I have to ask it nonetheless. Wouldn't most folks who carried a sword around with them on a daily bases back in the day be either A) wealthy enough to afford a new scabbard if he scuffed the old, or B) have the skill set necessary to make his own? --maybe not the mad skillz of say, for instance, Brian "The-Scabbard-Genius" Kunz, but at least be able to carve out a couple slats, glue them together and wrap it some leather? My own complete lack of wood- and leather-working skill notwithstanding, I can't imagine it's exactly rocket-surgery or brain-science to cobble together a serviceable scabbard that would protect the wearer, surrounding people, and the blade. But that's pure ignorance speaking and begging to be enlightened. So, enlighten me, if you please.

[Chad Arnow]

[Sean Flynt]

If a fine and pristine sword is a mark of status for one class, maybe a battered scabbard is the mark of status for another. One of the things I've noticed in late 15th/early 16th c. images of the Massacre of the Innocents and arrest and torture of Jesus is that the men depicted in those scenes often have very plain weapons--no decoration on sword or scabbard, sometimes not even a chape. These men are often depicted as being very crude. Maybe such men--thugs and mercenaries-- reveled in that image. Some of the Landsknecht fashions are affectations of campaign-worn clothing--one leg clad, one bare, slashed clothes, etc. Maybe heavy wear on a scabbard was a sign of veteran status and don't-care-how-it-looks-as-long-as-it-works attitude. We do the same thing today. People pay a premium for worn-looking jeans and ball caps. You can't bear to throw away that battered concert t-shirt you've had since you were 18, especially when you see identical new shirts being worn by kids who weren't born when you attended that concert. What soldier wants to show up in combat with pristine kit when all of those around him are filthy and broken-in? Likewise, if you're headed to prison for the first time you might want to shave your head and get some ugly tattoos.

Maybe people who kill for a living like to look like they've been around the block a few times.

[Nathan Gilleland]

Jumping back to address Brian's original question, I think that scabbards were most likely made looser to accommodate likely changes, whether those changes were climate or fight related.

As for the rest of the discussion, it is my uneducated opinion that there was a wide range of different styles, coverings, and finishes according to personal preference. You may have a wealthy lord that wouldn't be seen dead without his wooden cored scabbard, leather covered, with brass or steel fittings. You may just as well have a veteran sergeant who revels in the campaign beaten scabbard that houses his sword. A poorer soldier who is handy with his hands may craft a scabbard solely from wood, deciding to wait on the leather until he can gain access to some (like myself). I seem to remember another post (can't locate it at the moment) where a story was referenced where a duel was about to take place and one of the combatants was intimidated by the slightly rusted, pitted, and obviously used sword of his opponent. (His sword was pristine if memory serves.) It only makes sense to me that the same could be said for scabbards, armour, clothing, and physical appearance. (Hence the bald heads and tattoos in prison . Thanks to Sean for the comparison.)

In other words, whatever made your opponents look like or or would be desirable.

[Steven H]

I seem to remember an all leather scabbard/sheath in Archaeology of Weapons by Ewart Oakeshott. As I recall it was found rolled up like a sock!

I'll have to check the book when I get home.

Cheers,
Steven

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Arne Focke]

Let me get back to the original questions and answer them from an archaeological point of view and a little from the view of a craftsmen, me being one the men working in an open air museum.

Sorry if i may repeat something that may have been said below, i just skimed through them.