well, most tiems a person would draw their sword in advance of the engagement...elaving scabbard behind to eb retrieved. Ever tried walking about for a while with a sword on your leg? gets blasted heavy.

pardon spellings

I just have to comment about there can be only one......Since I didn't make the comment I can only say that I would be ashamed to have made it....and if you believe that I have a magic sword for sale....But done thing really bothered me about Highland and all of his ilk. They had to be monumentally stupid. Not a single one wore a mail collar....Hank

Here's my tuppenceworth on the difference between "wearing" and "carrying" a sword across the back.

This quote comes from Growing up in 13th Century England by Alfred Duggan. Granted it's a kid's book, or at least YA, but you can read a bit more about him here and draw your own conclusions about his accuracy, allowing for subsequent research; I just wish this little book had a bibliography or footnotes, but he confesses in his own introduction that "For forty years I have been reading about the Middle Ages, and I cannot now acknowledge the sources for everything I have said." Even so, what he suggests here makes (to me, anyway) a great deal of sense.

(Sir William is making a formal appearance at the shire court; work prevents his head groom from being his usual attendant and horse-holder, so his eldest son fills in...)

Quote:

Sir William is at a loss. A respectable knight cannot ride unattended,as though he were a vagabond; and when he gets to court he cannot simply leave his horse tied to a tree. He decides to take Ralph with him. The boy is fourteen, old enough to act as a squire. His manners are adequate for any company, and it is time he began to learn the duties which will fall on him when his father is dead. Delighted by the unexpected change in routine, Ralph changes into riding boots... Best of all, he is to carry his father's sword. He comes down from the tower with the long leather scabbard hanging diagonally across his back, the hilt appearing behind his left shoulder. This proves that the sword is carried as luggage, not his personal weapon; the neighbours might grumble if a young boy went about wearing the sword of a knight. When Sir Willliam dismounts at the end of his ride he will buckle the sword-belt around his waist. His gilded spurs display his rank, but when acting officially in his capacity as knight he ought to have a sword about him.

(My italics.)

Once again, I'd love to know his source for this, since it's the only description I can recall from far too many books of a Medieval European sword being back-slung for any reason at all. But at least this reason has a social function beyond just "looking cool".

I don't understand the ill references to two weapon fighting. I may have miss read it as only against twin large weapons, but it seems to me that rapier combat has a fancy for a left hander.... not to mention Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu. I have seen the whole block with one while simultaneously striking with the other work wonders. I would imagine with the proper training one would transfer the skill into various weapons: Kama, sai, druss, bill hooks... ok, that last ones a joke, but the idea is sound. However, back carry, dual pistols, wearing the scabbard into a battle, or other nonsense is beyond my interest in this thread.

Last thought as I type, I have a friend that is over 6" who I could easily imagine wielding two fairly large swords competently, so I just can't rule that out either. Though, of course, I have never seen him try it for 30 minutes straight. ;) Oh, and medium sized shield ftw thank you very much ;)

This is an interesting thread for the amount of territory it covers, and I have some thoughts to add.

In regards to the back slinging, quickness of employment into a bout isnt a factor as to if this was ever done. We are talking about a campaign carry. There are a few questions which need to be answered and items which could be looked up in reference materials..........and even an experiment we could try.

I understand that we are talking about numerous nations over a great period of time with this question. But how long did the typical medieval/renaissance army spend out on campaign, how far would they move from their base city, and how far would they move per day. Coupled with this, we need to know how they carried supplies as individuals and units.

If we could find out what a certain unit carried, and what pace they moved at, it would not be a bad experiment to put on the same load and "see what happens." If one ends up slinging the scabbard over the shoulder in order to increase the pace over the road, I would bet the same thing happened historically.

There is also an aspect of maintainance - what was the "field cleaning" of arms in Med/Renn times, esp. crusades. Ive been to the desert, and if you just look at a weapon wrong, you have to clean it.

Compare to modern firearms........concealed carry holsters are made for rapid access and immediate presentation to target, but in the military examples..........they put a sling on the damn thing for a reason, you know.

Here's my attempt at a backscabbard design. Comments are welcome. ;)

---

 Attachment: 65.54 KB
[ Download ]

I remember a book by rick shelly called "Varayan Memoirs", and the hero had a two handed sword on his back held there by a spring loaded "c" clamp-like thing. Eventually he ended up having two of these 6' monstrosities on his back (how I don't know), but the reference to a clamp being the only aspect that catches the blade makes more sense than a whole scabbard to me. A diagonal strap (Baldrick style) secured at the waist with two "L" hooks to rest the sword on might be logical, but I assure you, your calfs will dislike being impaled...

Kyro, its been many years since I've read the origininal Landeschnekt book from Osprey's Man-At-Arms series and don't really know upon what sources they relied but I recall it stating that Landeschnekts were required to provide their own arms and this seems in keeping with the scourge unemployed mercenaries were viewed as being in the 15th cent. However, large orders for infantry armours throughout the 16th cent. imply that armour, replacement arms or augmentations were provided by employers.

I think that if back scabbards of any kind were common, we would be aware of extant examples and inconographic eveidence of them. Especially since this is a topic that periodically gets beaten to death in one forum or another.

The simple fact is, that in quite a few discussions over quite a few years, I do not recall seeing a historical example of a back scabbard. I freely admit that my frame of reference is limited by my experience in this, but when we start aggregating the experience of other collectors and practicioners in these debates and still come up with no examples, I think it begins to become increasingly safe to assume that back scabbards were rarely if ever used to carry swords in Europe.

Still there seems to be a constant trickle of folks who insist that back carry must have been used. They always say people do it today. It just makes sense for load balancing. There is nothing specifically saying it was not used. Modern militaries use similar carry methods so ancient militaries must have. It was something so common that nobody bothered to document it. I don't like carrying a sword on my hip. Its always the same things. Opinions, not verifiable references.

In the end if you think back carry was used in the west, if you are passionate about it, and if you really want to prove your point, you will have to find some kind of archeological evidence to support your position. Arguing for European back carry without supporting historical evidence is just an exercise in the creation of more hot air.

A regular sword belt slung across the shoulders when just transporting it when travelling could be considered, in a limited way, as a temporary back scabbard but is different in intent from a dedicate back scabbard meant to be drawn from quickly.

Looks cool, but with anything longer than a Gladius length blade not very practical unless one has arms long enough to have one's knuckles dragging on the ground. ;) :lol:

As far as history is concerned there is little or no evidence of it being a common practice: At least as far as I can tell as I have never seen a period picture of it. ( At least I can't remember seeing one now. )

This may have already been mentioned, but if I had a sword that was too long or cumbersome to carry on my hip, I might just hold it in my hand -- make it double as steel-bladed walking stick. :!: Or just toss it in the baggage train with everyone else's stuff if I'm with a large of people group like, say, an army.

In point of fact, if I'm carrying/wielding a weapon of such length (say 55" or longer), I'd rather it be a halberd, a bill, or a quarterstaff; something of that sort. :)

Ted