Posts: 55
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 2:13 am
| James Barker wrote: |
| Ciaran Daly wrote: | | Practitioners of many Phillipino styles might disagree strongly with you on that one, Nathan (as might many of the katana or spadroon-wielding fellows they fought). |
Do Phillipino combats use 2 swords or 2 sticks? Apples to oranges.
Two rapiers were used historically but there is not evidence of 2 broad swords used at once, ever seen it used in the SCA? It looks clumsy even in a game with round sticks instead of swords. |
I'm a little surprised that anyone would think the Philipinos fought their wars with sticks.
To be sure, they knew (and know) how to use both the short cutting and thrusting sword and for training (and casual carry) a length of rattan. Three guesses as to which implement they preferred to take to battle against the Chinese, Conquistadors, U.S. Marines & Imperial Japanese Army?
To clarify: they used (among other weapons) swords singly and in pairs - short swords, later on machetes in WW2 and the Pineapple Rebellion, but they also practiced with sticks or the shortsword version of what we might call wooden wasters (they dueled formally with these as well), and often capped walking sticks with small pointed pieces of brass to better utilize the thrust should they find themselves in a violent confrontation away from their war gear. The Spaniards wore half armor, and many of the techniques I was taught reflected this: overhead stabs into the gorget, slices at the vulnerable legs or hands, etc.
Posts: 365 Location: Ashburn VA
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 5:33 am
Again it is still apples to oranges, there is no evidence of the medieval broadsword being used two at a time it was impractical for their style of warfare.
Posts: 39
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 5:53 am
[quote="Joe Fults"]
| Kyro R. Lantsberger wrote: |
Does North cite a souce(s) for this and does he explicitly say or show back scabbard in this context? Does he give a list of the contemporary sources he is drawing information from? As is, its hard to evaluate the merit of the statement, and what it really refers to. |
This book has different authors for each Chapter. Anthony North is listed as Senior Research Assistant , Department of Metalwork, Victoria &Albert Museum.........Good question as to what that might mean.
Each Chapter has an enormous bibliography with no footnotes. I would probably guess that the vagueness of the reference and imprecise use of terms might point to this describing a baldric.
Always fun to speculate.
Posts: 55
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 5:36 pm
| James Barker wrote: |
| Again it is still apples to oranges, there is no evidence of the medieval broadsword being used two at a time it was impractical for their style of warfare. |
Perhaps not in Europe, but the Moros used 36 inch or so swords, and double weapon use has been very common in the Phillipines throughout their history. I'm not going to argue about whether such a style would be practical in Medieval Europe, lest I see more references to fruit, but at the very least I can say that it was practical in the time & place the style developed to use two pretty good sized blades. Krabi Krabong was also very big on using two fairly large saber-like blades at once. The common denominator seems to me to be that in stinking hot jungle countries where armor is minimal, turning yourself into a human cuisinart worked just fine.
Now if facing a gentleman in full tournament plate who can barge through your singlehand cutters like a tank and bash your brains in with a mace... maybe not such a great call. But many of these styles were very good at striking at hands and vulnerable points in armor, so one might be surprised. Again, the Spanish certainly were, and they had plenty of plate armor. It's worth noting that mostly they managed to hang on to a few square blocks of Manila, and little else.
I could easily be wrong, but it seems to me that at least part of the question on people's minds in this thread seems to have been: "is there an effective fighting style that utilizes two broadsword-sized blades at once?" The answer is "yes, but perhaps not in Europe." The history of martial arts being what it is however, I would not be too surprised to see some obscure European style that did use them come to light eventually.
Posts: 552 Location: San Jose, CA
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 6:40 pm
| Ciaran Daly wrote: |
| James Barker wrote: | | Again it is still apples to oranges, there is no evidence of the medieval broadsword being used two at a time it was impractical for their style of warfare. |
Perhaps not in Europe, but the Moros used 36 inch or so swords, and double weapon use has been very common in the Phillipines throughout their history. I'm not going to argue about whether such a style would be practical in Medieval Europe, lest I see more references to fruit, but at the very least I can say that it was practical in the time & place the style developed to use two pretty good sized blades. Krabi Krabong was also very big on using two fairly large saber-like blades at once. The common denominator seems to me to be that in stinking hot jungle countries where armor is minimal, turning yourself into a human cuisinart worked just fine.
Now if facing a gentleman in full tournament plate who can barge through your singlehand cutters like a tank and bash your brains in with a mace... maybe not such a great call. But many of these styles were very good at striking at hands and vulnerable points in armor, so one might be surprised. Again, the Spanish certainly were, and they had plenty of plate armor. It's worth noting that mostly they managed to hang on to a few square blocks of Manila, and little else.
I could easily be wrong, but it seems to me that at least part of the question on people's minds in this thread seems to have been: "is there an effective fighting style that utilizes two broadsword-sized blades at once?" The answer is "yes, but perhaps not in Europe." The history of martial arts being what it is however, I would not be too surprised to see some obscure European style that did use them come to light eventually. |
I would like to point out another factor in both two sword fighting styles and carrying a sword on your back. Namely that wearing plate armor restricts your movement to some extent and simply doesn't allow you to even reach behind your back! I have seen and asked questions of the the guys in our group who wear armor and they have demonstrated that they couldn't reach up above shoulder level with their hands, much less reach something on their back. This is while wearing a breastplate, spalders/paldrons and full arms.
Likewise wielding too weapons in a fight is difficult, though probably not totally impossible, wearing plate armor. No one I know has even conceived of doing so in their plate armor. They do train using Rapier and Dagger though not when armored.
This would seem to indicate that wearing plate negates the possibility of carrying a sword over your shoulder and I would be very surprised to learn of an historical example of a knight who used too weapons at once.
For those of you who wear chain, can you guys reach for things on your back over your shoulders? Can you guys conceive of using two weapons wearing chain aside from a shield?
Posts: 506 Location: South Bend, IN
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 9:45 pm
In I.M. Stead's latest book British Iron Age Swords and Scabbards, he address low scabbard suspension and the wearing of the sword on the back in Northern Britain and Scotland.
"Another Source of information relevant to the suspension of the northern scabbards is provided by a series of chalk figurines found in East Yorkshire (Stead 1988). Some may well date from the first century AD, but they depict a native rather than a Roman tradition. Twelve of the figurines represent warriors, all with scabbards. Two of the scabbards are slung on the right side, with the sword handle at the waist , the typical position in the south and on the Continent, and indeed in Roman times (Bishop and Coulston 1993:74 figs 3 and 4). But the other scabbards are definitely worn on the warriors' backs. Each of these scabbards is depicted vertically in the centre of the back, with the sword handle at the shoulders; towards its centre the scabbard crosses a clearly defined belt at the waist. The Group F sword found in burial 107 at Rudston (212) was under an extended skeleton, as if it had been worn on the back. (Stead 1988: fig.10; 1991a: fig. 55).
Shane
Posts: 5 Location: Perth, Western Australia
Thu 14 Dec, 2006 9:57 pm
I'm no expert on medieval stuff, but just a modernish parrelel to the 'it's impractical for combat' argument. During the First and Second world war the Germans always used to sling their rifles diagonally, either on their back or on their front (front in WW1 only). Now i've tried this while wearing a German helmet and unslinging it tends to be difficult, and i've even knocked the helmet off once or twice :D
This way of carrying isn't certainly practical for a battlefield but it does distrbuite the weight a lot better and would be much more comfartable for carrying long distances, something to think about.
Posts: 365 Location: Ashburn VA
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 4:52 am
| Ciaran Daly wrote: |
| The history of martial arts being what it is however, I would not be too surprised to see some obscure European style that did use them come to light eventually. |
Well nothing is obscure about using a case of rapiers (2 full blades at once). It is a perfect unarmored dueling style when the blades become smaller and lighter.
Posts: 55
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 1:26 pm
| James Barker wrote: |
| Ciaran Daly wrote: | | The history of martial arts being what it is however, I would not be too surprised to see some obscure European style that did use them come to light eventually. |
Well nothing is obscure about using a case of rapiers (2 full blades at once). It is a perfect unarmored dueling style when the blades become smaller and lighter. |
Which is why everyone here already knows about it.
Using two broadsword-type blades at once would be obscure though, huh? I can just imagine some contemporary of Liberi's or Lichtenauer's teaching such an odd style. Given the outlandish requirements of judicial duels and the like, it's certainly conceivable. But that's only speculation obviously.
Posts: 9 Location: Barnwell, SC
Thu 21 Dec, 2006 8:45 am
So, wearing a sword on your back is very hard, but not impossible to do. That's what I'm thinking y'all are saying. In many stories I have read, such as The Savage Caves by T.H. Lain (it's a book published by Wizards of the Coast and uses the D&D characters), there are characters who wear swords, especially two-handed swords on their backs. In addition, the characters draw the sword using their dominant hand (i.e. if they are right-handed, they draw the sword with their right hand, although this has been stated already in this thread). While this may in fact be done to look cool, it is not impossible to do this. I am surprised that wearing full plate armor would in fact hinder you in drawing a sword on your back.
Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Thu 21 Dec, 2006 10:23 am
| Brenton Hudson wrote: |
| So, wearing a sword on your back is very hard, but not impossible to do. That's what I'm thinking y'all are saying. In many stories I have read, such as The Savage Caves by T.H. Lain (it's a book published by Wizards of the Coast and uses the D&D characters), there are characters who wear swords, especially two-handed swords on their backs. In addition, the characters draw the sword using their dominant hand (i.e. if they are right-handed, they draw the sword with their right hand, although this has been stated already in this thread). While this may in fact be done to look cool, it is not impossible to do this. I am surprised that wearing full plate armour would in fact hinder you in drawing a sword on your back. |
I think the key word here is " characters "! With a standard full scabbard and not some tricked up skeletonized scabbard holding just at the tip of the sword and near the guard the range of motion of the hand won't be enough to clear the lip of the scabbard to pull a long sword out. A short one maybe?
Just do a test: Take a tape measure and hold it up with your hand as high as you can over your head now measure to a point a few inches below your shoulder where the mouth of the scabbard would be and see how long that is !.
I just did it myself and I get 30" maximum and this is holding the tape measure with the very tip of my fingers: Now if it was a sword take away at least 4" for handle length there remains an optimistic 26" for blade length.
Any blade longer than this will not fully come out of the scabbard. A 26" blade is fairly short but still swordlike in length but nowhere near the 35" to 40 " of a LONGSWORD or a true twohander that can be 46" or more.
So unless it's a fairly short sword around 24" to 26 " long, or if you have VERY long arms this is the maximum length you could pull out over the shoulders. ( And it very debatable that even carrying a sword this way has any advantages. )
As far as I'm concerned, and not from a historical perspective, I would carry a sword on my back the same way I would carry luggage and drawing it fast wouldn't even be an option: I would draw another much shorter weapon from belt carry if surprised and if not surprised would have taken the long sword in hand and ditched the scabbard.
I have limited experience wearing armour but raising your hand high over your head or touching you own shoulder with the tip of your fingers takes some effort and is not very favourable to using a scabbard on one's back with ease.
Now I'm sure some who wear armour often can confirm or contradict me with a better level of certainty.
Just don't put too much stock in stuff seen in movies or read in fiction as being accurate to reality and this for just about anything and not just swords.
Posts: 552 Location: San Jose, CA
Thu 21 Dec, 2006 10:29 am
Something else I have noticed for this topic.
I have often seen modern machetes that have a sheath that is split down one side and attached by one or two snaps or velco. I believe this for ease of draw when attached to a backpack or rucksack. So I was thinking, you might be able to draw sword from such a sheath over and around your back, but it wouldn't be very well protected in a scabbard if your carrying it this way. May work, may not. I don't have the means to test this at present.
Posts: 365 Location: Ashburn VA
Thu 21 Dec, 2006 11:47 am
Historically speaking raising ones arm up and over the shoulder in full plate armor would be a dumbass move. The most vulnerable part of full plate is the gaps covered by
maille like the underarm. The underarm in s favored place to attack in the harness fighting sections on medieval combat manuals.
I own a fantastic copy of the Churburg 1390s arms in spring made by Jeff Hedgecock at Historic Enterprises and I can tell you there is no chance in hell I could reach a sword handle on my back with those on. You do loose a little flexibility in full armor.
Posts: 3,646 Location: Midwest
Thu 21 Dec, 2006 5:13 pm
| Brenton Hudson wrote: |
| So, wearing a sword on your back is very hard, but not impossible to do. That's what I'm thinking y'all are saying. In many stories I have read, such as The Savage Caves by T.H. Lain (it's a book published by Wizards of the Coast and uses the D&D characters), there are characters who wear swords, especially two-handed swords on their backs. In addition, the characters draw the sword using their dominant hand (i.e. if they are right-handed, they draw the sword with their right hand, although this has been stated already in this thread). While this may in fact be done to look cool, it is not impossible to do this. I am surprised that wearing full plate armor would in fact hinder you in drawing a sword on your back. |
Try taking a broom handle and looping some cord around it. Sling the contraption accross you back. Now try to draw the broom handle quickly out of the contraption. I supect that you will find that your arms are inconveniently short.
Now cut the broom handle in half and repeat the process. It may be easier to draw this time, but its probably less comfortable to move about. If its comfortable now, gain some weight and try it again in ten years. :-)
Now try both tricks with a very heavy winter coat on. Its a very poor approximation of plate, but it adds some bulk to your attire which is something plate will do too.
Wearing the sword at your hip neatly avoids all of these annoyances.
Posts: 462 Location: Northern VA
Thu 21 Dec, 2006 7:31 pm
Personally, I can see using a back-sling or back-scabbard as a means of transport only. I find it impractical from the standpoint of having it easily within reach, as you are all pointing out. I have a back-sling that I've attached to the scabbard for one of my longswords, and fully expected it to be impractical, if not impossible, to draw without first removing the whole thing. I wasn't let down. :)
| Quote: |
| I am surprised that wearing full plate armor would in fact hinder you in drawing a sword on your back. |
It does. I know my pauldrons make it difficult to lift my arm at the shoulder higher than horizontal. I can, but the further I go, the more the lames compress together, and eventually you reach a point that you're just not going to pass. My armor isn't 100% historically accurate, but I can see how this would be limiting regardless.
Posts: 2,698 Location: Indonesia
Mon 06 Aug, 2007 10:20 pm
| Nate C. wrote: |
| 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. |
What I know of my own native Javanese customs show that the keris was not worn on the back with the hilt protruding over the shoulder--rather, it's worn on the small of the back with the hilt at around waist level. This is not a strange position to use with a dagger-length weapon like the keris. Even so, I seem to recall some mentions that this method of carrying the weapon had two original purposes: first, to hide the weapon from the sight of anybody coming from the wearer's front, and second, to make the weapon rather more difficult to draw than an ordinary sword or knife. Both of them for reasons of politeness.
And note that even the largest keris are still well within the dagger size range...
Posts: 114 Location: Beijing, China
Sun 02 Sep, 2007 8:48 am
I think that an important thing also to note here is the task of sheathing the sword. In a back mounted scabbard this is more or less impossible (no matter how easy the Legend of Zelda games make it seem). You would be forced to remove the scabbard from your back in order to sheath your sword.
On the other hand, if there is no need for fast sheathing and unsheathing, then I guess the idea isn't too far-fetched. (The point made about transport is pretty good).
Posts: 2 Location: Sherman Oaks
Wed 19 Sep, 2007 12:57 pm
Back sheath practicaltiy.
This topic has helped some in my research for wearing a sword on one's back. I own one for the celtic fairs, and I'm writing a novel where the main character carries a one-and-a-half hand sword on his back. In the art of fiction writing, would it be plausible to keep the sword this way, and if so, what is the most logical direction to wear the sheath for easiest draw for a right handed person? --with the pommel over the right, or left shoulder? Should this fail to be practical for the Fantasy world, is it possible to have the sheath come with attachments to a belt in the case of combat for much easier draw while running down a battle field?
Thanks to anyone who answers. :)
Posts: 11,553 Location: San Francisco
Wed 19 Sep, 2007 1:13 pm
Re: Back sheath practicaltiy.
| M. K. Presson wrote: |
| This topic has helped some in my research for wearing a sword on one's back. I own one for the celtic fairs, and I'm writing a novel where the main character carries a one-and-a-half hand sword on his back. In the art of fiction writing, would it be plausible to keep the sword this way, and if so, what is the most logical direction to wear the sheath for easiest draw for a right handed person? --with the pommel over the right, or left shoulder? Should this fail to be practical for the Fantasy world, is it possible to have the sheath come with attachments to a belt in the case of combat for much easier draw while running down a battle field? |
Many people believe it's not dramatic enough to write about things that actually were done historically. Others are simply unwilling to research what was done. I'd encourage you to look into the things that history has brought us. I'd wager that you, and other authors, would find that these things provide ample material for dramatic license. In so many cases, reality shows itself far more fantastic than fantasy. Believe it or not.
Posts: 552 Location: San Jose, CA
Wed 19 Sep, 2007 2:10 pm
I have read two fantasy series where this problem (using a sheathed sword carried on the back) was utilized and overcome.
In one, the Morgaine Saga by C. J. Cherryh, one of the lead characters Morgaine carries her sword on her back in a baldric, but shifts it down to waist carry if fighting seems imminent. Of course her sword generates a black hole at the tip when drawn that sucks in enemies to their doom...so having the extra safety mechanism of shifting its carry to draw it out might be a good thing. ;-)
The other series, the Bahzell books by David Weber, the author uses magic by having the lead characters holy/magical/divine great sword "magically" appear in the characters hand when he wishes to draw it. Hey its fantasy, anything is possible. ;-)
However I'm with Nathan, plenty of historical material is available for a good story line. Along with that I'd say that you can use historical models for how gear and equipment was carried and used in your fantasy novels and it would give your work a more realistic feel than if you used unrealistic conventions for a character's use of their weapons. Just a suggestion mind you, I'm not criticizing. :-)
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
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