@@didelphidae5228 Free panning cameras were rare back then. Historical people would be stuck using the shoulder buttons to switch between fixed camera views in cardinal directions. Those must have been trying times.
I always assumed you would just sling it on your back like a rifle with a sling. You can ditch the scabbard and pick it up later or just pop the scabbard back on your back. Can't use a rifle quickly from your back either but it's for the march not for fighting.
Yes, I agree. In Braveheart, he does exactly that. They show him walking around with it on his back, but he takes it off and ditches the scabbard before the battle.
And in the case of the larger swords, this is less of an issue. The art with the larger Japanese swords clearly showed that both the katana and wakizashi were both still worn. The big blade isn't a sidearm, so if one ran into an ambush, they could still use the katana to fight their way out, but in battle they would have plenty of time to unsheath it and sling the scabbard before the fight began.
I agree.. The same argument would say that soldiers would not wear their rifles slung over their backs, but we know they did precisely that. Most of the time a soldier is carrying a sword he isn't expecting to fight, so r is only when he gets to.thr battlefield that he would need his sword ready in an instant.
it is fast to ready a rifle from the back if you sling it properly. it is a bit faster to draw a pistol. This analogy makes sense for those who are carrying blades on the hip and on the back.
Rifles aren't comparable to swords, though. They are never worn on the hip and don't need to be unsheathed and the lashing points are much further apart, facilitating a quick draw. Plus, they are rarely worn in combination with armor. If a sword is worn on the back, the strap will still be tightened, making it more difficult to remove quickly. Especially in full armor the straps could get caught on the shoulder pieces. The only time I've seen such a setup making sense was in Conan the Barbarian, where he just adjusted bis belt to become a shoulder strap when riding. But obviously Conan wasn't wearing armor, so nothing could get in the way (and his sword wasn't very long).
Yes, as with a gun, you may not expect to have it ready for use instantly. Having carried swords overland for quite some distance, almost any hip-level carry is more awkward than carrying on the back.
With a long gun slung on the shoulder it depends on the design and balance of the weapon and how it's slung. Guns with a "traditional' stock (no pistol grip) can, with practice, be deployed quickly if slung over just one shoulder. It's hard to explain, but you grab the butt and pull it up letting the gun swing under your arm. With practice you can deploy a firearm slung on the shoulder in under half a second. Across the back however is a different matter entirely, and it's not so easy with modern pistol grip firearms like the M16/M4 or AKM or numerous others. Personally I prefer "traditional" stocks, as it's what I grew up on.
When I’m hunting I usually carry my firearm in my off hand, making it super is and quick to take a shot. But I carry a sling in my pack to put on for the way too and back.
With the nôdachi, the major reason for back carry was transport - the blade was altogether so long it would drag on the ground if carried on the side. Notably, those that used it (it's even in the woodblock print you've shown) were often armed with *three* blades - field sword (nôdachi), long sword (tachi/katana) and short sword/dagger (tantô/wakizashi). Before using the field sword, one would actually take it off the back to draw it.
That fits what art in Europe shows when back carry is shown. When zweihander landsknecht are shown on the march the swordsman always have katzbalgar short swords that were size roughly akin to the wakizashi at hip for immediate use. Gaels from Scotland or Ireland back carrying claid-morph two-handed swords always appear with dirks in a more convenient location.
Wll G i’ve yet to see a landsknecht depicted with a biedenhaender on the back, they are always depicted carrying them on the shoulder, like a halberd or pike
A late 16th-century Spanish military manual mentions how French arquebusiers didn't carry swords & it was probably for the reasons you note here. Martín de Eguiluz's 1595 manual claims that few arquebusiers from nations other than Spain and Italy carry swords, though it immediately lists the skirmishing Walloon ("el valon escaramuzando") and the Turk who carries the scimitar as exceptions. The text then lists the Germans as another exception, but says that they're better with the pike than the arquebus, and don't use the latter much. This manual identifies French arquebusiers as skirmishing without swords in order to move more lightly/swiftly ("andar mas lijeros"), noting that they do it freely and well ("lo hazen liberalmente y bien"), but that reaching them with the sword would bring Spanish victory.
at 5:10, another hypotthesis for why the Odachi was worn on the back: when we look at European Zeinhander, these swords served a specific function in organized warfare, its purpose was to deal with polearms and spears. no one would use a zeinhander in a one on one fight. they would rather fall back on their backup, most likely an arming sword. Zeinhanders were carried on the back as a way to carry them to the battlefield. They werent drawn in an hurry. most likely, these soldiers were part of a formation. When you look a images of Japanese samurai with a Odachi on their back, you can notice they have a katana as well. This suggest that the Odachi probably had a specific purpose in a formation. It is even likely that they were meant to deal with spearmen. Maybe the Odachi was carried on the back to the battlefield. They would have some time to set up and equip their swords. And if they had to melee individual soldiers, it is very likely that they would fall back on their their katana that is lighter and more nimble than the Odachi.
Sen-Goku Period warfare was similar to 16th century Europe in many ways so I think you're right. By the end Japan had pike and shot warfare very similar to Europe.
I agree with the concept of what you are saying and agree that larger swords are meant as battlefield weapons and katanas/arming swords would be relegated to sidearms, I would like to mention how devastating a Zweihander would be in a one on one confrontation. If we look at some of the scenarios placed for Montante combat, we can see that not just did larger length swords excel at fighting a person who might be at an inferior range, but could also in theory fight off multiple assailants at once. Although the quick explanation of a Zweihander is meant specifically for "countering pikemen" and the sort, I think if someone would find themselves in a small skirmish where they would have to deal with enemy combatants single-handedly they would not give up the weapon that has a range advantage for them. That being said, I think there are two reasons why they would fall back on their shorter sidearm. Either A. They lost their other weapon some how or were disarmed. B. They were in a close space either due to the terrain or their allies near by them so it would make more sense to go to a much shorter weapon. I mean in the end it still makes sense, I was just hoping to expand a bit on your original point.
@El Bearsidente ruclips.net/video/LO-8h9Be54c/видео.html Japanese loved firearms. They mass copied the european firearms. Also, the katana was not the samurai main weapon. Samurai found with spears. The japanese footman used spears. Spears were widely used in Japan. it is the same as europe. The sword was your back up weapon in europe as well.
@El Bearsidente Late Sen-Goku period Japan used firearms in a fashion not much different from first half of the 16th century Europe. If we count the Italian Wars or Tudor wars in Ireland as pike and shot I'd say the Sen-Goku period is as close to pike and shot as anywhere had outside Europe.
The only issue with 1800s and 1900s Japanese pictures is the fact that most of the time those people were actors paid to wear Samurai armors and weapons rather than actual Samurai. It is quite easy to see it because the equipment looks weird and not tailored. But yes there are evidences of Nodachi being carried on the back
This reminds me of today's news showing a guy firing an ak47 and I swear that he never held one before. I've got no training in firearms, but it was blatantly obvious that he can't hit sh!t. He didn't use the buttstock, crouched without putting his elbow on his leg and shot a volley rocking the rifle all over the place trying to shoot across a field...
@@edi9892 , Lindybeige did a video on that one not too long ago. Something about "better gun" or whatnot. I'm not sure how much you can trust him in general, but his conjecture about those "volley bursts" being a psychological thing seemed plausible :^)
@@konstantin.v I've seen that video. However, what I wanted to imply is that journalists found a gun and asked some idiot to stage combat, but that guy clearly had no idea of how to use a rifle... If someone was shooting at me full auto like this from over 200m, I bet I could take aim and shoot from prone without having to fear getting hit. Again, I'm not trained, but it was so blatantly obvious that I cringed so hard...
@@edi9892 , I totally agree with you on such shooting both being ineffective and (hence) looking rather dumb. I'm just not sold on the conclusion about guys doing it holding a rifle for the first time in their lives. Too often we see it on videos from different places of armed conflict, be it Middle East or Ukraine. There has to be something else to it :^)
@@edi9892 so about 25 years ago a friend of mine, a retired US army officer, was hired to go to the middle East and design training cycles for one of the Saudi countries, I forget which one. He accounted to us, that this was a frequent problem with the regulars and the militia soldiers, ( not the decent soldiers the did most of the protecting of the royal families and such, but the guys who were sent out to chase rebels and tribal warlords, etc.) Their standard technique when he got there, was to crouch, raise the rifle, usually a folding stocked ak variant, directly in front of their face, left hand on the forearm, fully extended, right arm on the pistol grip, elbow bent, and fire long bursts, then run forward some more and repeat. Again, there were not the 'elite' of their armies, but they were regulars. He also noted, that the elite troops, who were armed with HK G3's, and used proper stock alignment, were woefully deficient in how to adjust their sights, simply using whatever was set when they were issued the rifle.
my guess would be that it was done purely for transportation if its a sword of a good size. Not unless they had some secret break away belt system where they could pull the entire scabbard off their back (i very much doubt it)
Yeah, also worth pointing out that in Japan at least, the sword worn on the back is usually a nodachi or a nagamaki, which are mostly field weapons, and they would also have a tachi/katana at the waist for self defense.
don't need a break away belt system, just a sling. Sling it over and maybe tighten the strap if one doesn't want it moving much, much like a rifle is done for transport today.
I've read one practical example of oversized swords worn on the back in Japan. In those cases the sword was carried thusly by the actual weilder's assistant to then be drawn on horseback by the user. In essence an assistant carried your battlefield weapon for you at the ready. Picture soldier/officer riding to battle, aid riding at his side. As they near engagement range the helper leans forward and toward him. The mounted swordsman draws the sword from the scabbard and proceeds to enter battle. Might be a fun little experiment for you and Lucy to film with that o'dachi there, Matt. 😉
IIRC, the Nodachi being the rough equivalent to European zweihanders and montantes, they were primary weapons, so when battle approached you likely took it off your back and drew it. Carrying it on your back was just for convenient transport After all, if you needed to draw a weapon quickly, you had your sidearms, the katana and the Wakazashi, on your hips
And we have plenty of artistic evidence of European two handed swords being back carried for long distance travel. Zweihander with swords on their backs with the katzbalgar short swords at hip are shown when landsknect are shown on the march regularly and one of the earliest images of Scottish highlanders based on 30 Years War mercenaries in Swedish service shows one man with claid-morph longsword on his back between two archers with bows slung on the back with all having dirks as immediate weapons from the hip.
Those black clad chinese dudes at 9:12 swords are partly for show, these are executioners swords making clear those guys are authorized to carry out summary executions like a sheriff badge, they are not primarily for fighting (they would definitely scare the shit out of me knowing this).
My personal intuition ia that the back-worm swords probably weren't drawn from the back, like how a rifle carried at the back isn't shouldered directly from the sling.
That may be the case. However sheathing is normally done after action, when safe. Whereas drawing is the one where time is of the essence, and difficulty could lose the combatant's life.
@@Temp0raryName I don't disagree. However, sheathing might be time critical in certain situations too. Climbing, running maybe even swimming etc. and you don't want to lose your sword and enemies are close. I'd rather not have to fumble with that. Anyways I was just pointing out that sheathing is another disadvantage of back drawing. :)
The pictures shown of the Chinese fighters in the boxer rebellion and the later Warlord Era/Second Sino Japanese War are carrying Dadaos (essentially Big Dao) which unlike the typical Chinese Dao, functions more like two handed cleavers than a one handed falchion. It was also less of a "sidearm" for self defense than a full fledged battlefield weapon that was still viable when gun fire was relatively slow. The size of the handles, the center of gravity being far forward and the overall weight of the weapon makes it cumbersome and potentially clumsy to wear on the waist/thigh. More typical falchion-like Daos continued to be worn by the side as seen by many Qing Imperial troops.
Curved swords and shorter sword really seem to make drawing from the back a lot easier. Longer swords that had to be held to draw would be strapped to the back for transport.
Yes. If you wanted to design a large sword to be carried on the back you could make it curved, like the ones shown in the illustration at 5:50 into the video.
I think you touched on a good reason with your mention of not wanting to get your sword in the water. That would seem like a fairly niche scenario, but China and Japan both had massive amounts of rice paddies. And it's not just isolated little paddies, but very widespread irrigation works to flood and drain those paddies, all of which foot soldiers would have to deal with. Wet agricultural defined the landscape in many parts of east asia, which was an important defense in China against horse-riding foreign raiders. So I could definitely see how carrying the sword on the back could become a common part of a soldier's kit, especially in big rice-growing regions.
Could be, but in the specific case of the Chinese soldiers in the pictures, being from the boxer rebellion, they were most likely taken in the north of China where there is no rice paddies at all. But could be one reason among others though...
Chad Falardeau I was joking! Lol hence the pop culture part. Samurai were a class while shinobi b4 1600 ninja after 1600 were a job. So a Samurai were definitely shinobi/ninja. With the coming of the Meiji era the caste system was abolished removing the Samurai class.
ARX 351 no land, just territories to guard. It was you were either born samurai or you weren’t. It’s a social class that placed you above others. So game wise you should have better diplomacy stats!
@@arx3516 They arose in the later Heian period as basically a knightly class: smaller landowners who had enough wealth to afford a horse and their arms and armour, and they served mainly as cavalry and horse-archers. The commoner soldiers, or ashigaru, served as infantry. Up into the Sengoku (Warring States) period, there's not a huge social difference between the two classes of warrior, and it was possible to rise up to the samurai ranks like Hideyoshi did, but by the Tokugawa era class distinctions were codified and strictly enforced. Samurai could no longer own land (though there's not as much need for horses or armour in an era with no major wars), but they're entitled to a stipend/salary from their lord. Mostly in the Tokugawa period samurai act as bureaucrats and courtiers to the daimyo (feudal lords), but had several social perks to their station, including the right to wear two swords, and the right to command respect from commoners to the point of striking them down for any insolence, though how often this happened is a matter of debate.
There’s a split second in braveheart when you see the sword get drawn. Rather than pull it over his shoulder, he lifts it slightly and then swings it around his side. CASIberia used the have a back sheath that had two hooks at the top and a cup near the waist that the blade rested in and ties at those points. The rest of the blade was exposed. Pull the two ties, a small lift to clear the quillions from the hooks and the sword is free. No idea about the historicity of that type of sheath, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he used. Gibson wasn’t ashamed to admit he ignored a tremendous amount of history in the name of movie making.
At 4:58 both images show a setup in which the cords holding the sword on the back end up with the knot/release ending up on the wearer's front. The likely goal is to have it reasonably easy to release the knot, bring the whole assembly off and then draw the sword from the scabbard using both hands. The images show a tight fit, so it's meant to keep the back attachment secure and without the give or slack that would be needed to draw it from the back, so that's not what it's for. It's for storage/transport convenience, for a blade too long to be comfortably worn at the side - and we also see a shorter side arm worn at the side for quick draw if needed.
To be fair, if you have a giant sword only used in a specific context in battle the likelihood of having to quick draw it for a spur-of-the-moment fighting is almost 0, and even then it would probably be tho wrong choice in weapon. It makes total sense to carry the weapon from point A to B on your back, take/leave it off when you're at your destination, and then just leave she scabbard at camp when you carry it to the field.
What I learnt, while studying at Shinobi Kai, was that very long swords were carried on the back on the way to battle and another member of your squad drew the sword FOR you, just before engagement.
Those early 20th century mass-produced dadao with no distal taper were supposed to be used for receiving massed bayonet charges. (Not everyone had a gun to put a bayonet on.) In practice such dadao were used as a symbol of authority and as instruments of capital punishment. In both cases, drawing quickly wasn't so high a priority. In the 1st case, you could see the enemy lining up to do the charge.
Makes a lot of sense that Ninja would favour carrying their swords on their backs. They would logically choose a smaller, shorter blade for use in tight quarters and for greater agility, concealment etc. and their desire to be highly agile, mobile and elusive would lend itself to having their hands and feet unencumbered for things like climbing, clinging to things, etc.
sidearm is a backup weapon. Sidearm is meant to situations when you primary is fubar or unwieldy like full length rifle in very tight quarters. Like if you got long gun as primary and you need to go inside to clear cramped up offices with narrow hallways you might want to draw a pistol.
I don't know if this is based on historical data, or if it was just a movie work-around, but in an old samurai movie, I did see a nodachi drawn from the back. It was worn with a rather loose rope around the body. The entire sword and scabbard was rotated around to the chest, and the sword was drawn down with the right hand while the left hand moved the scabbard up and back. It wasn't particularly quick, but it worked.
I notice that, in the Japanese pictures, at least, the man has a long sword on his back, but also carries two shorter swords through his sash and his hand is on one of the sash swords. It looks like his first choice in combat would be the side sword, and the sword on his back would be drawn only on special occasions when he felt the need for a longer reach.
I definitely favor convenience as a driving reason for a back carry. It makes a lot of sense, especially with an over-sized blade. It's advantageous to get it up and out of the way in order to minimize tangling, and any other inconveniences caused by its bulk. Let's not forget how much the Japanese love cordage and fancy knots. They regularly tied up their sleeves and pant legs up and out of the way for various work, and had a variety of knots designed for a secure hold and quick release.
In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Stories, Uhtred explains that when fighting in a shield wall, he wears his seax (as primary weapon) on his hip and his arming sword on his back so that it can be drawn and slung down to strike over an opponent's shield.
In the drawing, you can see that the part holding the sword in place does have two rings that help in adjusting the placement of the sword and that helps with the unsheathing of the sword.
I always considered carry sword on the back more of a marching thing rather than a battle ready thing. Like if you’re marching on foot carrying a large two handed sword (claymore etc) and don’t have another means of transport like a horse or cart. It’ll be easier to carry it strapped to your back. Once you arrive at the destination you take it off in preparation for the battle not a quick draw and straight into fighting.
I notice that there is an assumption baked into this discussion that the scabbard is fixed at both ends on your back. If it swivels at the top end and the bottom end is on a quick release tie then the scabbard can move easily to an angle where you are drawing more forward instead of straight up. It doesn't change the length of your arm and thus the length of the draw-able blade but it would vastly increase the ease of draw and scabbarding. And the length of arm vs blade issue is always an issue for drawing any long sword from any body mount position. And any other body mount position is very consistently a single point of contact to the scabbard which allow movement not only to the most convenient carry position but the easiest draw angle. Alternatively a scabbard with a point pocket and a hilt ring with a open sided main body would allow far more flexibility in entrance/draw angle and overall length of draw-able blade.
Hey Matt I noticed you have a “patu” hanging up in the back ground a Maori club weapon. I was wandering is that functional or just ornamental? I am hoping to ask a friend in New Zealand to carve me one from ponamu(green stone) one without fault lines in it to maximise its functionality. Being part Maori I’d love to have one in my Whanau(family). The whole ordeal is surrounded in a lot of customs and ceremonies and very costly my questions are what dimensions do you recommend and what weight? I’m 6’1, 115kg hahaha I say that because going off your video’s you’d say it depends on the wielder and their physical capabilities haha also I would love a video about the patu and taiaha if you have any knowledge/recommendations. Cheers mate huge fan👍🏾
Hey Matt, love your videos. I think it makes good sense that they might be worn on the back to be out of the way for travel, or to be out of they way for terrain. particularly when you have other weapons for emergencies. You addressed that they might have a polearm or a bow as a primary weapon and I agree completely, but you don't really need your longer sword to be readily accessible when you have a shorter one and a knife close by. In some of those images the wakazashi or tanto was visible and accessible, and knives are just so universally important that it seemed important to include them in the discussion. Also scouts and messengers seem like the situation where you might choose to make that sort of decision.
In siamese history, there was a drawing of twin swords on the back. It was a picture of an assault on walled settlement with ladders, which makes a lot of sense because who knows which hands you gonna have free at the top of the wall not to mention your hip gonna be too far down. I think a lot of things make sense given context
In Tod's video on the subject he contents that Hollywood loves back scabbards because they're easier to film: They're out of the way of the actor's legs, the audience expect it, they're out the way of furniture and doorways, and it's easy to reset scenes for cuts because the back scabbards dear by move around as much.
You keep holding the scabbard stiffly vertical when you pull out the sword. If you allow the scabbard to pivot as you draw the sword, you can draw a longer blade.
Carrying swords is a pain in the ar5e. If I don't expect to use it soon, I'd probably slingbit on my back too, or attach it to the horse. Especially Katana and swords stuck into the belt or sash keep sliding all over the hod damn place and you can't sit with them, and you bang them against every obstacle in confined spaces. It be a freaking nightmare to carry a longsword in a jungle.
An idea I heard from a friend, great enthusiast about Japan and aikido practitioner, is that nodachi, as a large polearm-like sword, was carried on your back - and beside you, there was another guy with a nodachi on his back. And, when you're about to go into battle, you would draw sword from anothers guy back. So, there's no problem with sword lenght that way
That's interesting because there is evidence this has been done with long Chinese swords as well, except from the hip not the back, in a manual called the Dan Dao Fa Xuan. It's a late Ming dynasty manual about 22 postures of long saber combat, and right in the beginning it shows a position where two men stand facing each other and draw each other's weapon to use.
Minor point: Tachi weren't worn through the belt. The scabbard was hung from the belt on straps, blade down. This is because unlike Katana, tachi were swords meant for use in war, and thus, as you said, for the convenience of drawing from horseback. It also lets the sword rest more comfortably over the top of the armor.
Today in Nippon O Tachi are carried in Saya. Then placed in the Obi before use. Examples are seen in Tenshin Ryu. In the old days anything went, Kamakura and Nambokucho period, the Big O Tachi , the Horse Cutters, were occasionally wrapped in rope part way up the blade from the Habaki. Birth of the Nagamaki.
Most of the awkwardness you demonstrate in drawing is because you are trying to draw it up from the right shoulder with the right hand. If you draw from the left shoulder with the right hand, it appears much easier, especially if you use the left hand to pull the top of the scabbard slightly forward and draw the sword out and down instead of up. I have only seen this done in Japanese movies, but the the movement seems easy and graceful enough, and the entire motion is shown without the cutouts in Braveheart.
The illustrations shown at 4.53 appear to show the sworn worn by way of a piece of string or perhaps leather that is tied at the front. If the knot were tied appropriately (a simple bow would work but there are no doubt better options) then one pull of the string would release the sword. The swordsman could then take the scabbard in one hand and draw the sword with the other. The scabbard could then be discarded and perhaps retrieved later. If this is the case then I'd call this more a method of carrying the weapon rather than wearing it since the scabbard is discarded when the sword is used. Also, in both pictures, the swordsman is wearing a sword at his side in addition to the one on his back. If speed of drawing were an issue then he'd no doubt use the sword at his side.
You point out that o-dachi and other large swords were particular in being carried on the back, as well as that swords are side-arms and thus should always be ready to be drawn. But overly large swords are not side-arms, they serve a function closer to pole arms.
Thaisword (swords for dual wield) may also worn on the back due to high grass and jungle terrain and the short blade length (60-70 cm.) make it very easy to draw and cut. but the sheath, it's easier to move the scabbard to the front. The scabbard is tied by ropes.
Sometimes it was probably for the same reason I do, lol. If I'm gonna take one of my swords to practice for example, especially if it's my miao dao (long Chinese two-handed sabre), I gotta transport it. And since I ain't gonna be drawing it between point A and point B, I don't want it at my side while I do that. So, darn right it goes on my back. 😅
Carrying a long sword on the back would be convenient for transport purposes, like you can carry a long rifle on your back during a march. I expect this was done in other places too. But look at this photos - they are all carefully posed. Perhaps like in films, some of these men put their swords on their back because it looked cool?
If you want a modern example, I had a machete stuffed down the back between my plate carrier and my camelback during peace keeping operations in East Timor in 2010. We were de-escalating our presence so only some of the soldiers were able to carry Steyrs in the capital. Once outside the city limits it was game on though. However at the time gangs were still running around in the city with machetes and other bladed weapons. I was able to pull it out pretty quickly and it was small enough to be mostly concealed (except for the handle). Fortunately didn't have to use it.
actually, in Braveheart, Mel Gibson has it in just a small sheath that only covers the riccoso area of the blade and he swings his bandoleer belt over his shoulder to ready his sword.
The wearing of a sword on one's back was in in China right into the middle of the 20th century, as Chinese soldiers in WW2 were sometimes equipped with a dadao. It seems to have been, as you suggest, for reasons of transport. Their rifle was, of course, their primary weapon, so they likely wouldn't be resorting to their dadao unless they were out of ammunition or planning ahead of time to be engaged in melee fighting. In either case, they'd have the forewarning to get the dadao ready. Also, during WW2, they didn't usually have a scabbard for the sword, so drawing it wasn't an issue. A third thing is that the dadao is a big, wide, heavy weapon. I imagine it would really get in the way, if they carried it at the hip alongside their ammunition, canteen, bayonet, and other gear.
A few points off the top of my head. First as everyone has already said.......if you need to carry a big sword(weapon) on foot for a long march it goes on your back. Plain and simple. Secondly if you DO need your large sword in a hurry you don't just have access to the hilt, you can also grab the bottom of the scabbard and pull it in the opposite direction which will release the sword easily enough, assuming you have ample strap length. Third.......in a formation of soldiers the man beside you CAN easily unsheath the sword in an emergency. Forth, you can just unsling the sword if you feel you may need it soon. It doesn't take a huge amount of time with practice.
The difficulty in pulling the sword is that you pull upward and your arm isn't long enough, isn't it? The reason you pull upwards is because the scabbards is sitting quite rigidly on your back. However, if you are ready to let the lower end of your scabbard flip upward and back, your pulling motion goes forward. So if you wear the scabbard quite losely or bind it to your back so that the knot is untied by the pull, you should be able to unsheath it smoothly.
Japanese cavalry wore their swords low on the hip and reversed curvature . Also - japanese technique implies pulling both hands...so, pulling with your left is a must no matter the position of the sword
some actually tied (especially long sword, can be short with more tighten tied a sheath on the back) tachi behind the back and using the left hand pull the sheath a bit down while the right hand pull out the sword, same technique as normally drawing style but from the different angle instead. it's all about maneuvering as he said in the vid.
In addition to the blade being short, the hilt was often long with the guard riding below the top of the shoulder. That would make it really easy to draw.
You could quick draw Odachi from the hip just like a katana tho.There are schools that developed those techniques,it's not just as fast as quick draw a katana Also i remember legend showed Kojiro did draw his bizen osafune (not an odachi but almost as long) from the back
@Jake The Asian Guy The odachi used in those schools are usually short(er). While technically still odachi, they are not the same lengths as ones that were used on the battlefield. They're about as long as the larger end of longswords at their longest. It's important to note that for the purposes of iaido the average blade length for a katana is only about 26"/66cm, and sometimes less. Combined with the average Asian being shorter than someone of European descent, this can make the larger Japanese swords seem longer than they really are. The deception is often further aided by the increased handle length, which while it does increase the sword's overall length it has no effect on drawing the blade from the scabbard. It's worth pointing out I suppose that a 30"/76cm blade length is considered long for iaido, and is at the longer end of average for katana in general. European longswords typically averaged 36"/91.5cm.
I would think that for the Japanese, the nodachi was worn on their back mainly because they already had a katana and wakizashi on their waist. The Daisho is a samurai's badge of office, after all, I imagine it's common to wear them even if they're already carrying a nodachi. As for drawing the nodachi quickly, my understanding is that the scabbard is usually tied on with an easy to remove knot (such as a slip knot?). If you need to get at it quickly, you pull the entire thing off and discard the scabbard after drawing (or shove it in your obi, if you're being fussy).
5 лет назад
You are missing one historical possibility that has all mixed up: horizontal back waist carrying. What is now called for knives "scout carrying". It has convenience of drawing plus keeping the blade out of the way. It was also Chinese and Japanese historically done. One point: it was done with short blades, wakizashi style type of blades.
Regarding long japanese blades, it's already been said that back scabbards were mostly for transportation rather than worn during actual combat. There's however one point that is seldom talked about though it should be obvious. The bushi who could afford a nodachi that required a back scabbard would have many men who fought for and protect him right at his sides! Typically those swords were drawn with an assistant holding the scabbard while you would take the sword out as those, contrary to what Matt says, were primary weapons. Often, during skirmishes or even battles, some bushi would "take a break" off fighting if permitted and retreat for a brief moment shielded by their men, to either get a slight pause, re-adjust a piece of armor, deploy safely another weapon or get a spare spear by a page or other soldier, this was especially true for samurai who fought on foot. We know that soldiers in Europe were not that different as even archers and crossbowmen had usually one and sometimes even two or three assistants to manage their weapons, horses and gear.
Todd made a good video about why movie depictions are often unrealistic. He pointed out that actors unused to wearing a scabbard bang it into everything, and the exact positioning of the sword is a continuity nightmare. So directors favor the on the back style.
I think that transport purposes is quite likely. Most of the time people carrying swords don’t expect to use them. In the case of very large swords, the sword could be their main battle weapon. In which case they could draw it before battle.
Wouldn't a great word not be a sidearm but a weapon of war (they might be carrying a normal sword as a sidearm). It would also be a pain to wear waist hight or lower. Granted there's a good chance it was actually on a pack animal or riding horse as they were likely an elite weapon, but if you had to carry it to the battlefield wearing it on the back would make sense. Note this is a situation completely unlike a videogame/rpg small squad situation or any movie following such. Just a standard weapon of war where you would expect time to line up in formation.
Parallels I can see to various specialized and man pack crew served weapons in the last century or so like trench mortars and bazooka type weapons. Many armies have created back carry systems for these weapons.
You completely disregard the side of shoulder on which they wore the sword on. In the pictures they often wear them on the left shoulder. That way if you draw it with the right hand it is possible to draw longer blades way more easily.
Just like most of your videos, I like this one too. So thank you, Matt, for sharing your thoughts! I have only one minor criticism: I've seen some videos on the topic of back scabbards and almost everybody who talks about it has no proper suspension for hanging the sword onto their backs. They hold the sword with scabbard against their backs and try to simulate a sword worn on the back or shoulder. So basically they talk about something they never tried for real. I don't mean that they're wrong and I see the same issues with longer blades worn or carried on the back. But why don't try drawing the weapon with a proper back suspension, so we can actually see what you mean? For the sake of context... ;-)
I'd guess a longer sword like a nodachi or greatsword would be carried on the back kinda like you carry a rifle strapped across your back. It's just convenient. It's never intended to be used as a quick draw weapon. And I think Matt hit it right on...The kendo/iaido teachers I'vew known say that the difference between a katana and a tachi was essentially the furnishings and the way they were worn. Tachis were worn low on the belt, blade side down, while katanas were worn tucked in the belt or sash, blade side up. And the reason was simply because tachis were meant to be worn on horseback, and they were easier to draw in that configuration. A lot of nodachis were kind of like the processional swords from europe, though. Riidiculously large, never intended to be actually used. They were often made by master smiths to show off their skill--look how long a blade I can make with no warping or imperfections, with an outstanding polish! Then it might be used to test cut a couple of times to prove its quality, and then spend the rest of the time as a ceremonial item in some warlord's armory or on display in a temple somewhere. The most ridiculous one I saw was well over 7 feet long, and actually had wheels on the end of the scabbard, so it wouldn't be dragged on the ground.
A few days ago I came across evidence that swords WERE worn on the back in western Europe. Unfortunately, I neglected to copy the link. There is a small chalk figurine of a swordsman, features distorted in fury, reaching around his back, sword slung/suspended down the middle of his back. The figurine is in a museum in Reading. It is from the Iron Age.
If you stop thinking of a sword in the context of a sidearm and start thinking of it in the context of a primary weapon of war it makes perfect sense to transport it on your back. It frees up your hands so you don't have to carry a big clunky weapon around every where you go. If you know you are going into battle or even if you think you might go into battle your primary weapon is going to be in your hands ready to go long before hand so the quick draw is not necessary like it is with a secondary weapon or sidearm. Every image you showed depicted the person not in combat and the sword on the back as a primary weapon of war not a sidearm. In most cases it even showed a secondary smaller weapon as a sidearm that was easier to draw. For example the samurai carried the biggest sword, the odachi, on their back as a war sword with the smaller katana on their hip as a sidearm. The modern equivalent would be slinging a rifle across your back while carrying a pistol on your hip. The whole reason the rifle is slung and not carried is because you are not expecting imminent danger. The medieval knight equivalent would be putting a strap on a poleaxe and carrying that on the back while having a sword on the hip. A sidearm has to be drawn quickly because the context it would be used. If you are in the middle of battle and your primary weapon becomes ineffective you need the secondary weapon quickly. Alternatively if you are walking down the street and some peasant is bothering you than you can quickly draw your sidearm (pistol, sword, or dagger) because the primary weapon on your back would just be overkill and isn't needed. Some people might have transported their sword (as a primary weapon) on their back for comfort and not felt a secondary weapon or sidearm was needed. A fantasy adventurer is going to be spending more time adventuring than fighting. In a modern context a soldier or even hunter may sling their rifle on their back and not feel it necessary to carry a sidearm. Likewise, some people use a shoulder holster for their pistol because of comfort even though a hip holster is quicker on the draw. A single point sling that keeps the rifle in front of you would be faster than slinging a rifle across your back but a primary weapon that is going to be in your hands when you are in danger does not have to be drawn quickly. Personal comfort is more important when there is low risk of battle.
Also none of the historical pictures in your video showed anyone drawing the sword from the back. The evidence shows that swords were worn on the back and that is all. Weather or not they were drawn from the back is an entirely different debate and completely irrelevant.
As you can see from the nodachi and the Japanese photo, the back scabbard had the sword hilt on the left shoulder, so when you draw it with your right hand, it gives you a little bit longer space to draw the sword. The oldest text mentioning someone drawing a sword from his back is this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jing_Ke King Zheng has his sword hanging on his belt, but unable to unsheathe it because it is too long, he had to move it to the back to finally unsheathe the sword.(Yes, I have read the Chinese source as well) Which is opposite to what we would expect. Speculatively, this is likely that the king had his sword on the same side he wanted to draw(like the Romans did) as it was rather early in history and swords are shorter because of technological issues, but the sword was too long for it due to his high status and can have the best swords of the time but never tried it out since he went to the extent to ban everyone, including his guards to carry any weapons in his court. If he had a strap hanging from his left shoulder to his right waist to hold the sword, and he pulled the strap around so the sword now locates somewhere near his left shoulder, he might then be able to pull the sword out from his left shoulder with his right hand.
It's possible to wear and draw (unsheath) SHORTER swords on/from the back, something which often isn't mentioned in these discussions. If "spear and shield" were the main weapons carried, why not carry a short sword on your back and a dagger at your hip, obviating the need to wear a long blade on your belt, keeping your legs free, making it easier to walk, run, climb and even ride. Most of the time the sword would remain sheathed, so carrying it on your back was more comfortable and convenient, especially when travelling. If you anticipated needing to draw it quickly it could easily be moved to your hip belt.
So many of those pictures with a back scabbard also have a shorter sword at the hip. The long sword would have been a line-breaker held in reserve and the dueling sword at the hip for ready access.
I imagine there must have been situations where you would want to signal that you had no intension of drawing your sword, so you carried in way where it would be inconvenient to draw.
It seems to me that slinging a huge sword on the back is mainly a transportation solution. And then moving them to a more convenient drawing position would be done as you got to a place where the sword is needed. One of my favourite sword scenes in film is in 7 Samurai where Toshiro Mifune pulls out a dozen or so sword and just sticks them into the ground and when asked by a villager why he's so not careful with the valued weapons, he just grunts, "I can't kill a lot of people with only one sword!" And sure enough, in the ensuing fight he does break swords as he kills raiders and just pulls the next one out of the ground. Now of course his character was more of a Samurai wannabe so he's not as refined as the true warrior class. But I think he does wear a huge sword on the back, but I don't think he ever draws it from there.
I'm not an expert on Asian weaponry, but I do know a thing or two about some Asian custom, culture and history, so here is my take on the matter. The picture of a samurai wearing a nodachi on the back, from what I know, samurai wore nodachi on the back because they cant carry it on their waist, its simply too long, and the nodachi is near impossible to draw out regardless if its from back or waist, so its just a mean to carry the weapon until one wishes to use it, at which point you would just take it off the back, draw it out, often with the help of someone else, and throw away the scabbard before going into battle. The Chinese imitation of the nodachi known as Wo Dao, based on the manual Dan Dao Fa Xuan of Ming Dynasty, state that the soldier would help each other draw the blade in pairs rather than attempting it on ones own. The picture of a samurai posing for a photo with a katana on the back, it looks to me like the person in the picture is a samurai pager, so he is actually carrying that katana on his back for his lord or master, when the master demand his weapon, the pager would knee down which allow the right height for the master to pull the katana out. The picture of the Chinese soldier in a train station is wearing what we call a Da Dao, this is a confusing name because the same name is also used to describe a pole arm length blade. This particular Da Dao design was founded during Anti Japanese War, and its main purpose is to be used against Japanese bayonet, the blade is short and thick, making it easier to draw from the back, it also prevent the blade from dangling around when carried by the waist, unlike a thinner blade such as katana or jian, these blade are too thick to stick through a sashi or belt, and it hinders motion when hung with a robe on the waist. The picture of rebel carrying a similar thick blade on the back, its most likely due to the mobility these rebels requires, the boxer rebels were aimed at killing westerners, whom often has firearms, so the idea although not successful at all, was to run as fast as possible to close the gap so that their melee weapon can get to work, carrying a sword on the waist is not great for running, or climbing or any other form of surprise attack, these ppl were never intended to fight enemy face on like a regular army. Another point, it is actually quite well noted in Chinese historical stories and novels that rogues, thieves etc, what we call 'night walkers' in Chinese, all carry weapon on their back, for easier wall climbing and mobility, they are not going straight into battle or to a duel, instead their intention is to do illegal activities at night, which require them to travel on roof tops, the weapon is only drawn when things go south, therefore easier drawing isn't as important as easier mobility. Some Chinese blades even come with custom scabbard that has a long opening toward the hilt of the blade, so that when the blade is drawn from the back, the blade does not have to be drawn at the exact blade length, the last bit of the blade would exit the scabbard through that opening.
Kind of have partially disagree about "landscape" reasons. Lumbering around a forested area or a swamp with some long object slung on your back - say a surveyor' s stadia rod collapsed in a scabbard - can be lethal. The piece over your head hangs in brush you are trying to duck under, while what's out behind can be really inconvenient if your footing fails and you start to slide backward. We had a crewman fall off a 15-foot road cut when the lower part of the GPS backpack and antenna he was wearing snagged when he sid backward and pitched him around sideways and off the cut. The employer was really happy the equipment wasn't damaged.
There are some chinese manual sources too where soldiers or bodyguards draw the miao daos/da daos/dan daos from each others backs. Might be one plausible use for carrying polearm lenght swords on one's back, too.
I think that there's an important distinction between a sword that is carried on the back, and a sword that is drawn from the back. It seems pretty obvious that in the most of the cases where we see swords on the back, they're in loose fittings that can easily be shifted to the hand for ready use. A huge two-handed sword is not really practical to wear at the hip at all times, and I can easily imagine this being as much the case for Western as well as Eastern variants. If trouble is at had, the scabbard comes off the shoulder and into the hand. But you're unlikely to see this in battlefield art of the period where weapons are readied for use.
and, if you don't have time to take the scabbard off, you still have your sword, at least in the older artwork where both the katana and wakizashi were still worn at the hip.
I've always been of the opinion that the only real reason people wore them on the back was for travel and thats about it. The idea being that when you were prepareing to go into combat you'd take out your sword before hand. and like you said, the sword is a side arm, but a Great sword, or a Nodachi, or any of those really big swords were NOT sidearms. they were pole-arms. and as such were likely the main weapon. so that is the weapon they held in their hands typically. but marching from battlefield to battlefield, having a big ass hunk of metal hanging from your hip is convenient. strap it to your back when marching,. carry it in your hands when you head into battle. lots of those pictures you showed had people with shorter blades, yes, but most of them were also of two handed weapons. meaning they were heavy (or heavier than normal swords anyway) soldiers do not do things to look cool. they naturally do things that have a logical reason. not because they are smart, but because of necessity. If two handed swords were worn on the back, why not spears? because spears, for the most part are just sticks with a pointy metal bit at the end. just as yourself why YOU would walk around with a sword on your back? the first, most logical reason is probably the same reason those people had. i can also almost guarantee you, they almost if ever never tried to DRAW them from the back. They probably unsung them and then drew them. again, because it's just more logical to do that than to try any other way. probably would take about the same amount of time.
As a Chinese by ethnicity and having friends who practice martial art , I shall say there is several reason and state why anyone would wear a sword on the back, and there is a simple reason for that, its the most comfortable way of carrying a relatively heavy piece of tool and most single handed sword of East Asian origin had short enough a blade that unsheathing it from that position post no issue. in fact there are and were sword specifically made so that it can be handled this way vs some that are not good for that. And most Hollywood had not portrait is that a fair portion of the sword wear on the back is worn with the handle pointing down , so if the swordsman is right handed, the sword would be worn with the handle sticking out from the left of the body so he could unsheathe it with one smooth cross the front of the body oblique angle draw. Another seldom noted is that the harness used to fix the blade onto the back .. unlike western or Japanese , Chinese swordsman of those days tend to use Silk binding and the sword is fixed by a simple knot that are tied at the front of the body, if needed , the swordsman can just one handed untie the knot with a single tug on the end of the binding and the whole sword with sheath is free to handle, unlike most latter day portrait, most real historical Chinese sword actually had a fairly heavy build sheath as they are mean to do one more thing, using the sheathed sword or by itself as a mace. There are school of Chinese swordsmanship that specifically ask to use the sword on one hand and the sheath on another hand as a form of defense ( and if presented attack also )
Something very relevant to me, as a person who regularly go camping: I have my 1m. axe, 1m. saw, and my 35 cm sami-knife all on my belt. For longer distances, I chug my saw on my backpack, but you have to remember that space I usually occupied with other things. Your hip is usually free. When I'm actively chopping and searching for timber, having anything on your upper torso is a major hassle. This is because you can't easily mount or dismount your gear from your back, while at the same time keeping it secure for when you're carrying wood back to your camp. Your joint articulation just isn't suited well for it. Most people have major issues just putting on a heavy backpack, an object specifically designed to keep on your back. Are you going to strap a long object on your back? No.
Convenience would be my guess. Carrying anything on your back for extended periods of time is more convenient than carrying it on your waist. Especially since the vast majority of the time you are carrying a weapon you don't need to quick draw them or even draw them at all.
I notice that in the Japanese photos and a couple of the Chinese ones that the hilt of the sword is over the left shoulder. Would this make a practical difference drawing a longer blade? Most of the "see, it doesn't work" holding styles are over the right shoulder or up the spine.
Some of the drawings and photos show people wearing long swords across the back with the hilt behind the LEFT shoulder. If you wear it like that, and you release the scabbard at the lower end, you have the full length of your arm PLUS your width across the shoulders for drawing it. A two-hander goes on your back because that's the only place you have room for it. As for drawing it, you can pull it out by the blade, bit by bit. (Watch Skallagrim hold a sword, by the blade, WITH HIS BARE HANDS and whack a target with its hilt! ruclips.net/video/vwuQPfvSSlo/видео.html)
I sometimes wonder if Hollywood likes back scabbards so much simply because it LOOKS more comfortable. Not that it is, but just perhaps something about its looking like it's up, and out of the way of everything. In any case, I think the baldric is the best universal compromise in the real world!
Todd has a video on the subject. A sword on the back it's simply more stable and doesn't move around as much. It is very helpful for consistency when you are shooting a movie because most of the scenes are not in a direct and sequential timeline so it might create confusion in the viewer
It's worth noting many of the Japanese images with the [n]odachi or okatana they still have the wakazashi on their side. So it may be a situational sidearm, such as against calvary or polearms. If it is slung over the back correctly you could take a moment to pull it off of your back (like a cross slung rifle) and put it in your obi if it looks to be needed. This could be done while on the move, even with one hand and would make it available when nessicary most of the time and out of the way during the rest of the time.
True. And when used as part of a combination word, it becomes dachi... as in nodachi or odachi. But Matt is English, and he's gonna pronounce things with, well, an English accent, lol.
@@zacktoor1591 I'm inclined to believe that it's a British thing, the Brits have this way of butchering even the simplest of foreign. Just watch any video from The Mighty Jingles or featuring Simon Whistler and you'll see what I mean.
What you do is you pull the sword really hard off the back, flinging the scabbard off the blade and at your opponent. You then furiously unscrew the pommel, and the-
Actually there's no need of a roundabout ways with all kind of weird methods or specific scabbards. you can unsheath & sheath a long sword just fine by hanging it on the left shoulder back style (right handed). Attach with the scabbard belt on one center point or a very close one two points that your left hand coud reach up the shoulder. with this now you can unsheath your sword diagonally, just like when you unsheath your sword from the left hip (right handed). Unsheathing also fairly easy by grabbing your scabbard with left hand & guide your sword to scabbard with your right hand (right handed). I guess maybe that's why also some of the paintings & photos (just like in this video) is where the back scabbard attached on the left shoulder instead (in which most likely by a right handed people).
In the case of Odachi, recent Japanese scholarship has concluded that they weren't even really used on the battlefield, and the reason why certain samurai wore them on their back, was to stand out and signify their status of being a great warrior of renown. They also stop being seen worn when Japanese forces begin to develop into what are essentially pike and shotte style armies. Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of Japanese artwork of early period depictions, was done later in the Edo period, and they were generally quite good at depicting armour from previous eras accurately, as opposed to putting individuals in the armour of the time that the picture was made. (i.e. the Japanese didn't really do the whole "David vs Goliath, but in medieval armour" type depiction of scenes from their history. When drawing a scene from the Heian era, they tended to depict the Heian era individuals accurately.) Another thing to make note of, at least in the 19th century photographs of soldiers carrying it on their back, is that while the sword is attached securely to what's essentially a baldric, the baldric isn't strapped tightly to their backs. It might not be as fast as drawing from the hip, but removing baldric, drawing the sword, and tossing the scabbard on the ground in an emergency could be fast enough. There likely weren't too many scenarios where they needed to get their swords out in an absolute instant, in order to defend themselves, otherwise they would die. Additionally, when fighting from a defensive position, the soldier could simply take off their baldric, draw the sword, and place it in front of them on an embankment. When the opposing force gets too close to where you can't reliably use your gun, drop the gun pick up the sword in front of you, and go at it. Too many folks think that everything a soldier carried had to be able to be carried on the body and usable right at an instant in a life or death situation, when that simply isn't the case.
What recent scholarship? Always looking for more info on accounts odachi/nodachi use. Conlan, so far as I am aware, is the best source in English about their use. Any suggestions?
@@StudyofSwords English sources on Japanese history are about a decade behind what's currently available in Japanese. So unless you can read Japanese (even I can't, and I'm just basing that off of individuals that I know who can, and who I trust), there's nothing that I can recommend. Apart from keep reading Dr. Karl Friday's continuing work.
With that said, the idea that there is a decade between scholarly English texts and Japanese ones isn't tenable, as such academics certainly speak and read Japanese and would have access to (if not deeply involved in) contemporary research. Popular texts, perhaps but even then that seems like a stretch.
They were use in battlefront from the Nanbokuchoan period onwards tho after Nanbokuchoan they became a tad bit shorter, there are schools from the 16th century that still teach their usage, sources like from China and Korea mansion the use of Nodachi,the blade and techniques were even adopted in both countries I forget the name for it in Korea but in China it's called the Miao Dao.
To add to the logic for carrying on the back in the case of the chinese blades, some of it may be by convention, due to how the blades were issued. Reading from the very in depth discussion of the Dadao by benjukins, he points out that at times they did not even bear any scabbards: "Genuine Dadao’s are rarely elegant weapons. Their proportions are never perfect, and many look as though they were carved from a block of steel with a dull chisel. They came in many shapes and sizes. Some had wood handles, others were bound only in cloth. ***Most were issued without scabbards and were slung across the back with a length of cord.*** A few others had nicely constructed leather coverings. Many were issued in dull colors, but some sported eye-catching red handle wraps and flowing scarves. All of this reflects the wide assortment of regular and paramilitary forces that employed these weapons for almost half a century. This variety is one of the things that makes the Dadao such an interesting subject of study." No scabbard sounds like it would be mighty uncomfortable to wear at the hip. It's a great read with some good (and frightenting) pictures A Social and Visual History of the Dadao: The Chinese “Military Big-Saber.” chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/11/26/693/
They probably carried swords at the back so that they can see their weapon in 3d person.
No point in getting that cool new weapons without seeing it.
The absolute best explanation I’ve seen yet.
Just pan the camera around smh.
@@didelphidae5228 Free panning cameras were rare back then. Historical people would be stuck using the shoulder buttons to switch between fixed camera views in cardinal directions. Those must have been trying times.
I always assumed you would just sling it on your back like a rifle with a sling. You can ditch the scabbard and pick it up later or just pop the scabbard back on your back. Can't use a rifle quickly from your back either but it's for the march not for fighting.
Yes, I agree. In Braveheart, he does exactly that. They show him walking around with it on his back, but he takes it off and ditches the scabbard before the battle.
And in the case of the larger swords, this is less of an issue. The art with the larger Japanese swords clearly showed that both the katana and wakizashi were both still worn. The big blade isn't a sidearm, so if one ran into an ambush, they could still use the katana to fight their way out, but in battle they would have plenty of time to unsheath it and sling the scabbard before the fight began.
I agree.. The same argument would say that soldiers would not wear their rifles slung over their backs, but we know they did precisely that. Most of the time a soldier is carrying a sword he isn't expecting to fight, so r is only when he gets to.thr battlefield that he would need his sword ready in an instant.
it is fast to ready a rifle from the back if you sling it properly. it is a bit faster to draw a pistol. This analogy makes sense for those who are carrying blades on the hip and on the back.
Rifles aren't comparable to swords, though. They are never worn on the hip and don't need to be unsheathed and the lashing points are much further apart, facilitating a quick draw. Plus, they are rarely worn in combination with armor. If a sword is worn on the back, the strap will still be tightened, making it more difficult to remove quickly. Especially in full armor the straps could get caught on the shoulder pieces. The only time I've seen such a setup making sense was in Conan the Barbarian, where he just adjusted bis belt to become a shoulder strap when riding. But obviously Conan wasn't wearing armor, so nothing could get in the way (and his sword wasn't very long).
It looks like how you sling a rifle or shotgun for travel.
Especially longswords or full sized greatswords.
Yes, as with a gun, you may not expect to have it ready for use instantly. Having carried swords overland for quite some distance, almost any hip-level carry is more awkward than carrying on the back.
Yeah, I did that in the military. It's not really easy and quick to put the the rifle on the back and vice versa.
With a long gun slung on the shoulder it depends on the design and balance of the weapon and how it's slung. Guns with a "traditional' stock (no pistol grip) can, with practice, be deployed quickly if slung over just one shoulder. It's hard to explain, but you grab the butt and pull it up letting the gun swing under your arm. With practice you can deploy a firearm slung on the shoulder in under half a second. Across the back however is a different matter entirely, and it's not so easy with modern pistol grip firearms like the M16/M4 or AKM or numerous others. Personally I prefer "traditional" stocks, as it's what I grew up on.
When I’m hunting I usually carry my firearm in my off hand, making it super is and quick to take a shot. But I carry a sling in my pack to put on for the way too and back.
“They may take our lives... but they will never take... our BACK SCABBARD!!!!!”
With the nôdachi, the major reason for back carry was transport - the blade was altogether so long it would drag on the ground if carried on the side. Notably, those that used it (it's even in the woodblock print you've shown) were often armed with *three* blades - field sword (nôdachi), long sword (tachi/katana) and short sword/dagger (tantô/wakizashi). Before using the field sword, one would actually take it off the back to draw it.
That fits what art in Europe shows when back carry is shown. When zweihander landsknecht are shown on the march the swordsman always have katzbalgar short swords that were size roughly akin to the wakizashi at hip for immediate use. Gaels from Scotland or Ireland back carrying claid-morph two-handed swords always appear with dirks in a more convenient location.
Wll G i’ve yet to see a landsknecht depicted with a biedenhaender on the back, they are always depicted carrying them on the shoulder, like a halberd or pike
@@EmilReiko I've seen at least one Durer showing on the back as part of a marching army.
A late 16th-century Spanish military manual mentions how French arquebusiers didn't carry swords & it was probably for the reasons you note here. Martín de Eguiluz's 1595 manual claims that few arquebusiers from nations other than Spain and Italy carry swords, though it immediately lists the skirmishing Walloon ("el valon escaramuzando") and the Turk who carries the scimitar as exceptions. The text then lists the Germans as another exception, but says that they're better with the pike than the arquebus, and don't use the latter much. This manual identifies French arquebusiers as skirmishing without swords in order to move more lightly/swiftly ("andar mas lijeros"), noting that they do it freely and well ("lo hazen liberalmente y bien"), but that reaching them with the sword would bring Spanish victory.
at 5:10, another hypotthesis for why the Odachi was worn on the back:
when we look at European Zeinhander, these swords served a specific function in organized warfare, its purpose was to deal with polearms and spears. no one would use a zeinhander in a one on one fight. they would rather fall back on their backup, most likely an arming sword.
Zeinhanders were carried on the back as a way to carry them to the battlefield. They werent drawn in an hurry. most likely, these soldiers were part of a formation.
When you look a images of Japanese samurai with a Odachi on their back, you can notice they have a katana as well. This suggest that the Odachi probably had a specific purpose in a formation. It is even likely that they were meant to deal with spearmen.
Maybe the Odachi was carried on the back to the battlefield. They would have some time to set up and equip their swords. And if they had to melee individual soldiers, it is very likely that they would fall back on their their katana that is lighter and more nimble than the Odachi.
Sen-Goku Period warfare was similar to 16th century Europe in many ways so I think you're right. By the end Japan had pike and shot warfare very similar to Europe.
I agree with the concept of what you are saying and agree that larger swords are meant as battlefield weapons and katanas/arming swords would be relegated to sidearms, I would like to mention how devastating a Zweihander would be in a one on one confrontation. If we look at some of the scenarios placed for Montante combat, we can see that not just did larger length swords excel at fighting a person who might be at an inferior range, but could also in theory fight off multiple assailants at once. Although the quick explanation of a Zweihander is meant specifically for "countering pikemen" and the sort, I think if someone would find themselves in a small skirmish where they would have to deal with enemy combatants single-handedly they would not give up the weapon that has a range advantage for them. That being said, I think there are two reasons why they would fall back on their shorter sidearm. Either A. They lost their other weapon some how or were disarmed. B. They were in a close space either due to the terrain or their allies near by them so it would make more sense to go to a much shorter weapon. I mean in the end it still makes sense, I was just hoping to expand a bit on your original point.
@El Bearsidente ruclips.net/video/LO-8h9Be54c/видео.html
Japanese loved firearms. They mass copied the european firearms.
Also, the katana was not the samurai main weapon. Samurai found with spears. The japanese footman used spears. Spears were widely used in Japan.
it is the same as europe. The sword was your back up weapon in europe as well.
@El Bearsidente Late Sen-Goku period Japan used firearms in a fashion not much different from first half of the 16th century Europe. If we count the Italian Wars or Tudor wars in Ireland as pike and shot I'd say the Sen-Goku period is as close to pike and shot as anywhere had outside Europe.
Gato Villano Zweihänder, not Zeinhander.
The only issue with 1800s and 1900s Japanese pictures is the fact that most of the time those people were actors paid to wear Samurai armors and weapons rather than actual Samurai. It is quite easy to see it because the equipment looks weird and not tailored.
But yes there are evidences of Nodachi being carried on the back
This reminds me of today's news showing a guy firing an ak47 and I swear that he never held one before. I've got no training in firearms, but it was blatantly obvious that he can't hit sh!t.
He didn't use the buttstock, crouched without putting his elbow on his leg and shot a volley rocking the rifle all over the place trying to shoot across a field...
@@edi9892 , Lindybeige did a video on that one not too long ago. Something about "better gun" or whatnot. I'm not sure how much you can trust him in general, but his conjecture about those "volley bursts" being a psychological thing seemed plausible :^)
@@konstantin.v I've seen that video. However, what I wanted to imply is that journalists found a gun and asked some idiot to stage combat, but that guy clearly had no idea of how to use a rifle...
If someone was shooting at me full auto like this from over 200m, I bet I could take aim and shoot from prone without having to fear getting hit.
Again, I'm not trained, but it was so blatantly obvious that I cringed so hard...
@@edi9892 , I totally agree with you on such shooting both being ineffective and (hence) looking rather dumb. I'm just not sold on the conclusion about guys doing it holding a rifle for the first time in their lives. Too often we see it on videos from different places of armed conflict, be it Middle East or Ukraine. There has to be something else to it :^)
@@edi9892 so about 25 years ago a friend of mine, a retired US army officer, was hired to go to the middle East and design training cycles for one of the Saudi countries, I forget which one. He accounted to us, that this was a frequent problem with the regulars and the militia soldiers, ( not the decent soldiers the did most of the protecting of the royal families and such, but the guys who were sent out to chase rebels and tribal warlords, etc.) Their standard technique when he got there, was to crouch, raise the rifle, usually a folding stocked ak variant, directly in front of their face, left hand on the forearm, fully extended, right arm on the pistol grip, elbow bent, and fire long bursts, then run forward some more and repeat. Again, there were not the 'elite' of their armies, but they were regulars. He also noted, that the elite troops, who were armed with HK G3's, and used proper stock alignment, were woefully deficient in how to adjust their sights, simply using whatever was set when they were issued the rifle.
my guess would be that it was done purely for transportation if its a sword of a good size. Not unless they had some secret break away belt system where they could pull the entire scabbard off their back (i very much doubt it)
Yeah, also worth pointing out that in Japan at least, the sword worn on the back is usually a nodachi or a nagamaki, which are mostly field weapons, and they would also have a tachi/katana at the waist for self defense.
@@kidthorazine That makes the most sense
don't need a break away belt system, just a sling. Sling it over and maybe tighten the strap if one doesn't want it moving much, much like a rifle is done for transport today.
@@kidthorazine You can see that in some of the illustrations in this video
@@kidthorazine Exactly what I wanted to say.
I've read one practical example of oversized swords worn on the back in Japan. In those cases the sword was carried thusly by the actual weilder's assistant to then be drawn on horseback by the user. In essence an assistant carried your battlefield weapon for you at the ready. Picture soldier/officer riding to battle, aid riding at his side. As they near engagement range the helper leans forward and toward him. The mounted swordsman draws the sword from the scabbard and proceeds to enter battle.
Might be a fun little experiment for you and Lucy to film with that o'dachi there, Matt. 😉
The other thing is in the case of the longer weapons it might be a case of convenience while on march rather than when combat is excepted.
Expected ^^
IIRC, the Nodachi being the rough equivalent to European zweihanders and montantes, they were primary weapons, so when battle approached you likely took it off your back and drew it. Carrying it on your back was just for convenient transport
After all, if you needed to draw a weapon quickly, you had your sidearms, the katana and the Wakazashi, on your hips
exactly!
And we have plenty of artistic evidence of European two handed swords being back carried for long distance travel. Zweihander with swords on their backs with the katzbalgar short swords at hip are shown when landsknect are shown on the march regularly and one of the earliest images of Scottish highlanders based on 30 Years War mercenaries in Swedish service shows one man with claid-morph longsword on his back between two archers with bows slung on the back with all having dirks as immediate weapons from the hip.
Those black clad chinese dudes at 9:12 swords are partly for show, these are executioners swords making clear those guys are authorized to carry out summary executions like a sheriff badge, they are not primarily for fighting (they would definitely scare the shit out of me knowing this).
My personal intuition ia that the back-worm swords probably weren't drawn from the back, like how a rifle carried at the back isn't shouldered directly from the sling.
The real reason was because they knew it looked cool too lol
Probably. :D
Vanity transcends time
That's the most likely reason, I imagine most of them weren't even soldiers but peasants.
@@user_____M The pictures are literally of samurai...
Sheathing it on your back seems even more difficult than drawing it.
That may be the case. However sheathing is normally done after action, when safe. Whereas drawing is the one where time is of the essence, and difficulty could lose the combatant's life.
@@Temp0raryName I don't disagree. However, sheathing might be time critical in certain situations too. Climbing, running maybe even swimming etc. and you don't want to lose your sword and enemies are close. I'd rather not have to fumble with that. Anyways I was just pointing out that sheathing is another disadvantage of back drawing. :)
The pictures shown of the Chinese fighters in the boxer rebellion and the later Warlord Era/Second Sino Japanese War are carrying Dadaos (essentially Big Dao) which unlike the typical Chinese Dao, functions more like two handed cleavers than a one handed falchion. It was also less of a "sidearm" for self defense than a full fledged battlefield weapon that was still viable when gun fire was relatively slow. The size of the handles, the center of gravity being far forward and the overall weight of the weapon makes it cumbersome and potentially clumsy to wear on the waist/thigh. More typical falchion-like Daos continued to be worn by the side as seen by many Qing Imperial troops.
Curved swords and shorter sword really seem to make drawing from the back a lot easier. Longer swords that had to be held to draw would be strapped to the back for transport.
Yes. If you wanted to design a large sword to be carried on the back you could make it curved, like the ones shown in the illustration at 5:50 into the video.
So what you’re saying is that this question could be answered with a little bit of... Context? 🤔
i was literally just about to ask if we really just witnessed a SG-video that did *NOT* include our favourite C-word - or did we?!?
I think you touched on a good reason with your mention of not wanting to get your sword in the water. That would seem like a fairly niche scenario, but China and Japan both had massive amounts of rice paddies. And it's not just isolated little paddies, but very widespread irrigation works to flood and drain those paddies, all of which foot soldiers would have to deal with. Wet agricultural defined the landscape in many parts of east asia, which was an important defense in China against horse-riding foreign raiders.
So I could definitely see how carrying the sword on the back could become a common part of a soldier's kit, especially in big rice-growing regions.
Could be, but in the specific case of the Chinese soldiers in the pictures, being from the boxer rebellion, they were most likely taken in the north of China where there is no rice paddies at all. But could be one reason among others though...
Pop Culture: that is were you are wrong Mat, true Samurai don't use guns n their worst enemy is is the Ninja.
Actually some Samurai were Ninja. They were the Black Ops of the Shogunate.
Chad Falardeau I was joking! Lol hence the pop culture part. Samurai were a class while shinobi b4 1600 ninja after 1600 were a job. So a Samurai were definitely shinobi/ninja. With the coming of the Meiji era the caste system was abolished removing the Samurai class.
@@d.mat.zero6525 i always wondered what were the perks of being in the samurai class, were they entitled to some land?
ARX 351 no land, just territories to guard. It was you were either born samurai or you weren’t. It’s a social class that placed you above others. So game wise you should have better diplomacy stats!
@@arx3516 They arose in the later Heian period as basically a knightly class: smaller landowners who had enough wealth to afford a horse and their arms and armour, and they served mainly as cavalry and horse-archers. The commoner soldiers, or ashigaru, served as infantry.
Up into the Sengoku (Warring States) period, there's not a huge social difference between the two classes of warrior, and it was possible to rise up to the samurai ranks like Hideyoshi did, but by the Tokugawa era class distinctions were codified and strictly enforced. Samurai could no longer own land (though there's not as much need for horses or armour in an era with no major wars), but they're entitled to a stipend/salary from their lord.
Mostly in the Tokugawa period samurai act as bureaucrats and courtiers to the daimyo (feudal lords), but had several social perks to their station, including the right to wear two swords, and the right to command respect from commoners to the point of striking them down for any insolence, though how often this happened is a matter of debate.
There’s a split second in braveheart when you see the sword get drawn. Rather than pull it over his shoulder, he lifts it slightly and then swings it around his side. CASIberia used the have a back sheath that had two hooks at the top and a cup near the waist that the blade rested in and ties at those points. The rest of the blade was exposed. Pull the two ties, a small lift to clear the quillions from the hooks and the sword is free. No idea about the historicity of that type of sheath, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he used. Gibson wasn’t ashamed to admit he ignored a tremendous amount of history in the name of movie making.
I simply cannot give high enough praise. Thank you for your work.
At 4:58 both images show a setup in which the cords holding the sword on the back end up with the knot/release ending up on the wearer's front. The likely goal is to have it reasonably easy to release the knot, bring the whole assembly off and then draw the sword from the scabbard using both hands. The images show a tight fit, so it's meant to keep the back attachment secure and without the give or slack that would be needed to draw it from the back, so that's not what it's for. It's for storage/transport convenience, for a blade too long to be comfortably worn at the side - and we also see a shorter side arm worn at the side for quick draw if needed.
To be fair, if you have a giant sword only used in a specific context in battle the likelihood of having to quick draw it for a spur-of-the-moment fighting is almost 0, and even then it would probably be tho wrong choice in weapon. It makes total sense to carry the weapon from point A to B on your back, take/leave it off when you're at your destination, and then just leave she scabbard at camp when you carry it to the field.
What I learnt, while studying at Shinobi Kai, was that very long swords were carried on the back on the way to battle and another member of your squad drew the sword FOR you, just before engagement.
Those early 20th century mass-produced dadao with no distal taper were supposed to be used for receiving massed bayonet charges. (Not everyone had a gun to put a bayonet on.) In practice such dadao were used as a symbol of authority and as instruments of capital punishment. In both cases, drawing quickly wasn't so high a priority. In the 1st case, you could see the enemy lining up to do the charge.
Makes a lot of sense that Ninja would favour carrying their swords on their backs. They would logically choose a smaller, shorter blade for use in tight quarters and for greater agility, concealment etc. and their desire to be highly agile, mobile and elusive would lend itself to having their hands and feet unencumbered for things like climbing, clinging to things, etc.
worn on the back does make a sidearm a backup weapon?
sidearm is a backup weapon. Sidearm is meant to situations when you primary is fubar or unwieldy like full length rifle in very tight quarters. Like if you got long gun as primary and you need to go inside to clear cramped up offices with narrow hallways you might want to draw a pistol.
@@Korppis you do understand humor?
I don't know if this is based on historical data, or if it was just a movie work-around, but in an old samurai movie, I did see a nodachi drawn from the back.
It was worn with a rather loose rope around the body. The entire sword and scabbard was rotated around to the chest, and the sword was drawn down with the right hand while the left hand moved the scabbard up and back. It wasn't particularly quick, but it worked.
I notice that, in the Japanese pictures, at least, the man has a long sword on his back, but also carries two shorter swords through his sash and his hand is on one of the sash swords. It looks like his first choice in combat would be the side sword, and the sword on his back would be drawn only on special occasions when he felt the need for a longer reach.
I suspect he would get his big swordy out when him and his mates are preparing for battle, and that sword being his first choice
I definitely favor convenience as a driving reason for a back carry. It makes a lot of sense, especially with an over-sized blade. It's advantageous to get it up and out of the way in order to minimize tangling, and any other inconveniences caused by its bulk. Let's not forget how much the Japanese love cordage and fancy knots. They regularly tied up their sleeves and pant legs up and out of the way for various work, and had a variety of knots designed for a secure hold and quick release.
In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Stories, Uhtred explains that when fighting in a shield wall, he wears his seax (as primary weapon) on his hip and his arming sword on his back so that it can be drawn and slung down to strike over an opponent's shield.
In the drawing, you can see that the part holding the sword in place does have two rings that help in adjusting the placement of the sword and that helps with the unsheathing of the sword.
I always considered carry sword on the back more of a marching thing rather than a battle ready thing.
Like if you’re marching on foot carrying a large two handed sword (claymore etc) and don’t have another means of transport like a horse or cart. It’ll be easier to carry it strapped to your back.
Once you arrive at the destination you take it off in preparation for the battle not a quick draw and straight into fighting.
Carrying swords in your back is done strictly for transportation only when there is zero need to use your sword.
I notice that there is an assumption baked into this discussion that the scabbard is fixed at both ends on your back. If it swivels at the top end and the bottom end is on a quick release tie then the scabbard can move easily to an angle where you are drawing more forward instead of straight up. It doesn't change the length of your arm and thus the length of the draw-able blade but it would vastly increase the ease of draw and scabbarding. And the length of arm vs blade issue is always an issue for drawing any long sword from any body mount position. And any other body mount position is very consistently a single point of contact to the scabbard which allow movement not only to the most convenient carry position but the easiest draw angle. Alternatively a scabbard with a point pocket and a hilt ring with a open sided main body would allow far more flexibility in entrance/draw angle and overall length of draw-able blade.
Hey Matt I noticed you have a “patu” hanging up in the back ground a Maori club weapon. I was wandering is that functional or just ornamental? I am hoping to ask a friend in New Zealand to carve me one from ponamu(green stone) one without fault lines in it to maximise its functionality. Being part Maori I’d love to have one in my Whanau(family). The whole ordeal is surrounded in a lot of customs and ceremonies and very costly my questions are what dimensions do you recommend and what weight? I’m 6’1, 115kg hahaha I say that because going off your video’s you’d say it depends on the wielder and their physical capabilities haha also I would love a video about the patu and taiaha if you have any knowledge/recommendations.
Cheers mate huge fan👍🏾
Citizen of Hong Kong here, proud of you to call out the rebel as they were!
Hey Matt, love your videos. I think it makes good sense that they might be worn on the back to be out of the way for travel, or to be out of they way for terrain. particularly when you have other weapons for emergencies. You addressed that they might have a polearm or a bow as a primary weapon and I agree completely, but you don't really need your longer sword to be readily accessible when you have a shorter one and a knife close by. In some of those images the wakazashi or tanto was visible and accessible, and knives are just so universally important that it seemed important to include them in the discussion. Also scouts and messengers seem like the situation where you might choose to make that sort of decision.
the wallhammer is back!
Glad you noticed!
In siamese history, there was a drawing of twin swords on the back. It was a picture of an assault on walled settlement with ladders, which makes a lot of sense because who knows which hands you gonna have free at the top of the wall not to mention your hip gonna be too far down. I think a lot of things make sense given context
In Tod's video on the subject he contents that Hollywood loves back scabbards because they're easier to film:
They're out of the way of the actor's legs, the audience expect it, they're out the way of furniture and doorways, and it's easy to reset scenes for cuts because the back scabbards dear by move around as much.
You keep holding the scabbard stiffly vertical when you pull out the sword. If you allow the scabbard to pivot as you draw the sword, you can draw a longer blade.
Carrying swords is a pain in the ar5e. If I don't expect to use it soon, I'd probably slingbit on my back too, or attach it to the horse.
Especially Katana and swords stuck into the belt or sash keep sliding all over the hod damn place and you can't sit with them, and you bang them against every obstacle in confined spaces. It be a freaking nightmare to carry a longsword in a jungle.
An idea I heard from a friend, great enthusiast about Japan and aikido practitioner, is that nodachi, as a large polearm-like sword, was carried on your back - and beside you, there was another guy with a nodachi on his back. And, when you're about to go into battle, you would draw sword from anothers guy back. So, there's no problem with sword lenght that way
That's interesting because there is evidence this has been done with long Chinese swords as well, except from the hip not the back, in a manual called the Dan Dao Fa Xuan. It's a late Ming dynasty manual about 22 postures of long saber combat, and right in the beginning it shows a position where two men stand facing each other and draw each other's weapon to use.
Minor point: Tachi weren't worn through the belt. The scabbard was hung from the belt on straps, blade down. This is because unlike Katana, tachi were swords meant for use in war, and thus, as you said, for the convenience of drawing from horseback. It also lets the sword rest more comfortably over the top of the armor.
Today in Nippon O Tachi are carried in Saya. Then placed in the Obi before use. Examples are seen in Tenshin Ryu. In the old days anything went, Kamakura and Nambokucho period, the Big O Tachi , the Horse Cutters, were occasionally wrapped in rope part way up the blade from the Habaki. Birth of the Nagamaki.
Darn you context and nuance! It was so simple!
Most of the awkwardness you demonstrate in drawing is because you are trying to draw it up from the right shoulder with the right hand. If you draw from the left shoulder with the right hand, it appears much easier, especially if you use the left hand to pull the top of the scabbard slightly forward and draw the sword out and down instead of up. I have only seen this done in Japanese movies, but the the movement seems easy and graceful enough, and the entire motion is shown without the cutouts in Braveheart.
The illustrations shown at 4.53 appear to show the sworn worn by way of a piece of string or perhaps leather that is tied at the front. If the knot were tied appropriately (a simple bow would work but there are no doubt better options) then one pull of the string would release the sword. The swordsman could then take the scabbard in one hand and draw the sword with the other. The scabbard could then be discarded and perhaps retrieved later. If this is the case then I'd call this more a method of carrying the weapon rather than wearing it since the scabbard is discarded when the sword is used.
Also, in both pictures, the swordsman is wearing a sword at his side in addition to the one on his back. If speed of drawing were an issue then he'd no doubt use the sword at his side.
You point out that o-dachi and other large swords were particular in being carried on the back, as well as that swords are side-arms and thus should always be ready to be drawn. But overly large swords are not side-arms, they serve a function closer to pole arms.
Thaisword (swords for dual wield) may also worn on the back due to high grass and jungle terrain and the short blade length (60-70 cm.) make it very easy to draw and cut.
but the sheath, it's easier to move the scabbard to the front. The scabbard is tied by ropes.
Sometimes it was probably for the same reason I do, lol.
If I'm gonna take one of my swords to practice for example, especially if it's my miao dao (long Chinese two-handed sabre), I gotta transport it. And since I ain't gonna be drawing it between point A and point B, I don't want it at my side while I do that. So, darn right it goes on my back. 😅
Carrying a long sword on the back would be convenient for transport purposes, like you can carry a long rifle on your back during a march. I expect this was done in other places too. But look at this photos - they are all carefully posed. Perhaps like in films, some of these men put their swords on their back because it looked cool?
If you want a modern example, I had a machete stuffed down the back between my plate carrier and my camelback during peace keeping operations in East Timor in 2010. We were de-escalating our presence so only some of the soldiers were able to carry Steyrs in the capital. Once outside the city limits it was game on though. However at the time gangs were still running around in the city with machetes and other bladed weapons. I was able to pull it out pretty quickly and it was small enough to be mostly concealed (except for the handle). Fortunately didn't have to use it.
actually, in Braveheart, Mel Gibson has it in just a small sheath that only covers the riccoso area of the blade and he swings his bandoleer belt over his shoulder to ready his sword.
The wearing of a sword on one's back was in in China right into the middle of the 20th century, as Chinese soldiers in WW2 were sometimes equipped with a dadao. It seems to have been, as you suggest, for reasons of transport. Their rifle was, of course, their primary weapon, so they likely wouldn't be resorting to their dadao unless they were out of ammunition or planning ahead of time to be engaged in melee fighting. In either case, they'd have the forewarning to get the dadao ready. Also, during WW2, they didn't usually have a scabbard for the sword, so drawing it wasn't an issue.
A third thing is that the dadao is a big, wide, heavy weapon. I imagine it would really get in the way, if they carried it at the hip alongside their ammunition, canteen, bayonet, and other gear.
A few points off the top of my head. First as everyone has already said.......if you need to carry a big sword(weapon) on foot for a long march it goes on your back. Plain and simple. Secondly if you DO need your large sword in a hurry you don't just have access to the hilt, you can also grab the bottom of the scabbard and pull it in the opposite direction which will release the sword easily enough, assuming you have ample strap length. Third.......in a formation of soldiers the man beside you CAN easily unsheath the sword in an emergency. Forth, you can just unsling the sword if you feel you may need it soon. It doesn't take a huge amount of time with practice.
The difficulty in pulling the sword is that you pull upward and your arm isn't long enough, isn't it? The reason you pull upwards is because the scabbards is sitting quite rigidly on your back. However, if you are ready to let the lower end of your scabbard flip upward and back, your pulling motion goes forward. So if you wear the scabbard quite losely or bind it to your back so that the knot is untied by the pull, you should be able to unsheath it smoothly.
Japanese cavalry wore their swords low on the hip and reversed curvature . Also - japanese technique implies pulling both hands...so, pulling with your left is a must no matter the position of the sword
some actually tied (especially long sword, can be short with more tighten tied a sheath on the back) tachi behind the back and using the left hand pull the sheath a bit down while the right hand pull out the sword, same technique as normally drawing style but from the different angle instead. it's all about maneuvering as he said in the vid.
chinese swords and cleavers are generally around a short sword lengths, and transporting a odachi on your side would generally be a pain in my opinion
Getting a Nodachi out of the sheath under any circumstances would seem a pain to me.
In addition to the blade being short, the hilt was often long with the guard riding below the top of the shoulder. That would make it really easy to draw.
It seems just as inconvenient on the back though.
You could quick draw Odachi from the hip just like a katana tho.There are schools that developed those techniques,it's not just as fast as quick draw a katana
Also i remember legend showed Kojiro did draw his bizen osafune (not an odachi but almost as long) from the back
@Jake The Asian Guy The odachi used in those schools are usually short(er). While technically still odachi, they are not the same lengths as ones that were used on the battlefield. They're about as long as the larger end of longswords at their longest. It's important to note that for the purposes of iaido the average blade length for a katana is only about 26"/66cm, and sometimes less. Combined with the average Asian being shorter than someone of European descent, this can make the larger Japanese swords seem longer than they really are. The deception is often further aided by the increased handle length, which while it does increase the sword's overall length it has no effect on drawing the blade from the scabbard.
It's worth pointing out I suppose that a 30"/76cm blade length is considered long for iaido, and is at the longer end of average for katana in general. European longswords typically averaged 36"/91.5cm.
I would think that for the Japanese, the nodachi was worn on their back mainly because they already had a katana and wakizashi on their waist. The Daisho is a samurai's badge of office, after all, I imagine it's common to wear them even if they're already carrying a nodachi. As for drawing the nodachi quickly, my understanding is that the scabbard is usually tied on with an easy to remove knot (such as a slip knot?). If you need to get at it quickly, you pull the entire thing off and discard the scabbard after drawing (or shove it in your obi, if you're being fussy).
You are missing one historical possibility that has all mixed up: horizontal back waist carrying. What is now called for knives "scout carrying". It has convenience of drawing plus keeping the blade out of the way. It was also Chinese and Japanese historically done. One point: it was done with short blades, wakizashi style type of blades.
Regarding long japanese blades, it's already been said that back scabbards were mostly for transportation rather than worn during actual combat. There's however one point that is seldom talked about though it should be obvious. The bushi who could afford a nodachi that required a back scabbard would have many men who fought for and protect him right at his sides! Typically those swords were drawn with an assistant holding the scabbard while you would take the sword out as those, contrary to what Matt says, were primary weapons. Often, during skirmishes or even battles, some bushi would "take a break" off fighting if permitted and retreat for a brief moment shielded by their men, to either get a slight pause, re-adjust a piece of armor, deploy safely another weapon or get a spare spear by a page or other soldier, this was especially true for samurai who fought on foot.
We know that soldiers in Europe were not that different as even archers and crossbowmen had usually one and sometimes even two or three assistants to manage their weapons, horses and gear.
Todd made a good video about why movie depictions are often unrealistic. He pointed out that actors unused to wearing a scabbard bang it into everything, and the exact positioning of the sword is a continuity nightmare. So directors favor the on the back style.
I think that transport purposes is quite likely. Most of the time people carrying swords don’t expect to use them. In the case of very large swords, the sword could be their main battle weapon. In which case they could draw it before battle.
Wouldn't a great word not be a sidearm but a weapon of war (they might be carrying a normal sword as a sidearm). It would also be a pain to wear waist hight or lower. Granted there's a good chance it was actually on a pack animal or riding horse as they were likely an elite weapon, but if you had to carry it to the battlefield wearing it on the back would make sense.
Note this is a situation completely unlike a videogame/rpg small squad situation or any movie following such. Just a standard weapon of war where you would expect time to line up in formation.
Spot on, and the pictures were clear that the sidearms - katana and wakizashi - were still worn conventionally at that time.
Parallels I can see to various specialized and man pack crew served weapons in the last century or so like trench mortars and bazooka type weapons. Many armies have created back carry systems for these weapons.
Tod as done a very good explanation of this. Basically it stops the actors tripping over them and causing continuity problems.
Another excellent video!
You completely disregard the side of shoulder on which they wore the sword on. In the pictures they often wear them on the left shoulder. That way if you draw it with the right hand it is possible to draw longer blades way more easily.
Just like most of your videos, I like this one too. So thank you, Matt, for sharing your thoughts!
I have only one minor criticism: I've seen some videos on the topic of back scabbards and almost everybody who talks about it has no proper suspension for hanging the sword onto their backs. They hold the sword with scabbard against their backs and try to simulate a sword worn on the back or shoulder. So basically they talk about something they never tried for real. I don't mean that they're wrong and I see the same issues with longer blades worn or carried on the back. But why don't try drawing the weapon with a proper back suspension, so we can actually see what you mean? For the sake of context... ;-)
I'd guess a longer sword like a nodachi or greatsword would be carried on the back kinda like you carry a rifle strapped across your back. It's just convenient. It's never intended to be used as a quick draw weapon. And I think Matt hit it right on...The kendo/iaido teachers I'vew known say that the difference between a katana and a tachi was essentially the furnishings and the way they were worn. Tachis were worn low on the belt, blade side down, while katanas were worn tucked in the belt or sash, blade side up. And the reason was simply because tachis were meant to be worn on horseback, and they were easier to draw in that configuration. A lot of nodachis were kind of like the processional swords from europe, though. Riidiculously large, never intended to be actually used. They were often made by master smiths to show off their skill--look how long a blade I can make with no warping or imperfections, with an outstanding polish! Then it might be used to test cut a couple of times to prove its quality, and then spend the rest of the time as a ceremonial item in some warlord's armory or on display in a temple somewhere. The most ridiculous one I saw was well over 7 feet long, and actually had wheels on the end of the scabbard, so it wouldn't be dragged on the ground.
A few days ago I came across evidence that swords WERE worn on the back in western Europe. Unfortunately, I neglected to copy the link.
There is a small chalk figurine of a swordsman, features distorted in fury, reaching around his back, sword slung/suspended down the middle of his back.
The figurine is in a museum in Reading. It is from the Iron Age.
If you stop thinking of a sword in the context of a sidearm and start thinking of it in the context of a primary weapon of war it makes perfect sense to transport it on your back. It frees up your hands so you don't have to carry a big clunky weapon around every where you go. If you know you are going into battle or even if you think you might go into battle your primary weapon is going to be in your hands ready to go long before hand so the quick draw is not necessary like it is with a secondary weapon or sidearm. Every image you showed depicted the person not in combat and the sword on the back as a primary weapon of war not a sidearm. In most cases it even showed a secondary smaller weapon as a sidearm that was easier to draw. For example the samurai carried the biggest sword, the odachi, on their back as a war sword with the smaller katana on their hip as a sidearm. The modern equivalent would be slinging a rifle across your back while carrying a pistol on your hip. The whole reason the rifle is slung and not carried is because you are not expecting imminent danger. The medieval knight equivalent would be putting a strap on a poleaxe and carrying that on the back while having a sword on the hip. A sidearm has to be drawn quickly because the context it would be used. If you are in the middle of battle and your primary weapon becomes ineffective you need the secondary weapon quickly. Alternatively if you are walking down the street and some peasant is bothering you than you can quickly draw your sidearm (pistol, sword, or dagger) because the primary weapon on your back would just be overkill and isn't needed. Some people might have transported their sword (as a primary weapon) on their back for comfort and not felt a secondary weapon or sidearm was needed. A fantasy adventurer is going to be spending more time adventuring than fighting. In a modern context a soldier or even hunter may sling their rifle on their back and not feel it necessary to carry a sidearm. Likewise, some people use a shoulder holster for their pistol because of comfort even though a hip holster is quicker on the draw. A single point sling that keeps the rifle in front of you would be faster than slinging a rifle across your back but a primary weapon that is going to be in your hands when you are in danger does not have to be drawn quickly. Personal comfort is more important when there is low risk of battle.
Also none of the historical pictures in your video showed anyone drawing the sword from the back. The evidence shows that swords were worn on the back and that is all. Weather or not they were drawn from the back is an entirely different debate and completely irrelevant.
As you can see from the nodachi and the Japanese photo, the back scabbard had the sword hilt on the left shoulder, so when you draw it with your right hand, it gives you a little bit longer space to draw the sword.
The oldest text mentioning someone drawing a sword from his back is this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jing_Ke
King Zheng has his sword hanging on his belt, but unable to unsheathe it because it is too long, he had to move it to the back to finally unsheathe the sword.(Yes, I have read the Chinese source as well)
Which is opposite to what we would expect. Speculatively, this is likely that the king had his sword on the same side he wanted to draw(like the Romans did) as it was rather early in history and swords are shorter because of technological issues, but the sword was too long for it due to his high status and can have the best swords of the time but never tried it out since he went to the extent to ban everyone, including his guards to carry any weapons in his court. If he had a strap hanging from his left shoulder to his right waist to hold the sword, and he pulled the strap around so the sword now locates somewhere near his left shoulder, he might then be able to pull the sword out from his left shoulder with his right hand.
Well done and great explanation, it makes sense!!👏👏👏
It's possible to wear and draw (unsheath) SHORTER swords on/from the back, something which often isn't mentioned in these discussions.
If "spear and shield" were the main weapons carried, why not carry a short sword on your back and a dagger at your hip, obviating the need to wear a long blade on your belt, keeping your legs free, making it easier to walk, run, climb and even ride.
Most of the time the sword would remain sheathed, so carrying it on your back was more comfortable and convenient, especially when travelling. If you anticipated needing to draw it quickly it could easily be moved to your hip belt.
So many of those pictures with a back scabbard also have a shorter sword at the hip. The long sword would have been a line-breaker held in reserve and the dueling sword at the hip for ready access.
I imagine there must have been situations where you would want to signal that you had no intension of drawing your sword, so you carried in way where it would be inconvenient to draw.
It seems to me that slinging a huge sword on the back is mainly a transportation solution. And then moving them to a more convenient drawing position would be done as you got to a place where the sword is needed.
One of my favourite sword scenes in film is in 7 Samurai where Toshiro Mifune pulls out a dozen or so sword and just sticks them into the ground and when asked by a villager why he's so not careful with the valued weapons, he just grunts, "I can't kill a lot of people with only one sword!" And sure enough, in the ensuing fight he does break swords as he kills raiders and just pulls the next one out of the ground. Now of course his character was more of a Samurai wannabe so he's not as refined as the true warrior class. But I think he does wear a huge sword on the back, but I don't think he ever draws it from there.
I'm not an expert on Asian weaponry, but I do know a thing or two about some Asian custom, culture and history, so here is my take on the matter.
The picture of a samurai wearing a nodachi on the back, from what I know, samurai wore nodachi on the back because they cant carry it on their waist, its simply too long, and the nodachi is near impossible to draw out regardless if its from back or waist, so its just a mean to carry the weapon until one wishes to use it, at which point you would just take it off the back, draw it out, often with the help of someone else, and throw away the
scabbard before going into battle. The Chinese imitation of the nodachi known as Wo Dao, based on the manual Dan Dao Fa Xuan of Ming Dynasty, state that the soldier would help each other draw the blade in pairs rather than attempting it on ones own.
The picture of a samurai posing for a photo with a katana on the back, it looks to me like the person in the picture is a samurai pager, so he is actually carrying that katana on his back for his lord or master, when the master demand his weapon, the pager would knee down which allow the right height for the master to pull the katana out.
The picture of the Chinese soldier in a train station is wearing what we call a Da Dao, this is a confusing name because the same name is also used to describe a pole arm length blade. This particular Da Dao design was founded during Anti Japanese War, and its main purpose is to be used against Japanese bayonet, the blade is short and thick, making it easier to draw from the back, it also prevent the blade from dangling around when carried by the waist, unlike a thinner blade such as katana or jian, these blade are too thick to stick through a sashi or belt, and it hinders motion when hung with a robe on the waist.
The picture of rebel carrying a similar thick blade on the back, its most likely due to the mobility these rebels requires, the boxer rebels were aimed at killing westerners, whom often has firearms, so the idea although not successful at all, was to run as fast as possible to close the gap so that their melee weapon can get to work, carrying a sword on the waist is not great for running, or climbing or any other form of surprise attack, these ppl were never intended to fight enemy face on like a regular army.
Another point, it is actually quite well noted in Chinese historical stories and novels that rogues, thieves etc, what we call 'night walkers' in Chinese, all carry weapon on their back, for easier wall climbing and mobility, they are not going straight into battle or to a duel, instead their intention is to do illegal activities at night, which require them to travel on roof tops, the weapon is only drawn when things go south, therefore easier drawing isn't as important as easier mobility. Some Chinese blades even come with custom
scabbard that has a long opening toward the hilt of the blade, so that when the blade is drawn from the back, the blade does not have to be drawn at the exact blade length, the last bit of the blade would exit the scabbard through that opening.
Kind of have partially disagree about "landscape" reasons. Lumbering around a forested area or a swamp with some long object slung on your back - say a surveyor' s stadia rod collapsed in a scabbard - can be lethal. The piece over your head hangs in brush you are trying to duck under, while what's out behind can be really inconvenient if your footing fails and you start to slide backward. We had a crewman fall off a 15-foot road cut when the lower part of the GPS backpack and antenna he was wearing snagged when he sid backward and pitched him around sideways and off the cut. The employer was really happy the equipment wasn't damaged.
There are some chinese manual sources too where soldiers or bodyguards draw the miao daos/da daos/dan daos from each others backs. Might be one plausible use for carrying polearm lenght swords on one's back, too.
I think that there's an important distinction between a sword that is carried on the back, and a sword that is drawn from the back. It seems pretty obvious that in the most of the cases where we see swords on the back, they're in loose fittings that can easily be shifted to the hand for ready use. A huge two-handed sword is not really practical to wear at the hip at all times, and I can easily imagine this being as much the case for Western as well as Eastern variants. If trouble is at had, the scabbard comes off the shoulder and into the hand. But you're unlikely to see this in battlefield art of the period where weapons are readied for use.
and, if you don't have time to take the scabbard off, you still have your sword, at least in the older artwork where both the katana and wakizashi were still worn at the hip.
Well, that's the other thing. If you've got a huge two-handed sword, it's not going to be your only weapon.
I've always been of the opinion that the only real reason people wore them on the back was for travel and thats about it. The idea being that when you were prepareing to go into combat you'd take out your sword before hand. and like you said, the sword is a side arm, but a Great sword, or a Nodachi, or any of those really big swords were NOT sidearms. they were pole-arms. and as such were likely the main weapon. so that is the weapon they held in their hands typically. but marching from battlefield to battlefield, having a big ass hunk of metal hanging from your hip is convenient. strap it to your back when marching,. carry it in your hands when you head into battle. lots of those pictures you showed had people with shorter blades, yes, but most of them were also of two handed weapons. meaning they were heavy (or heavier than normal swords anyway) soldiers do not do things to look cool. they naturally do things that have a logical reason. not because they are smart, but because of necessity. If two handed swords were worn on the back, why not spears? because spears, for the most part are just sticks with a pointy metal bit at the end. just as yourself why YOU would walk around with a sword on your back? the first, most logical reason is probably the same reason those people had. i can also almost guarantee you, they almost if ever never tried to DRAW them from the back. They probably unsung them and then drew them. again, because it's just more logical to do that than to try any other way. probably would take about the same amount of time.
As a Chinese by ethnicity and having friends who practice martial art , I shall say there is several reason and state why anyone would wear a sword on the back, and there is a simple reason for that, its the most comfortable way of carrying a relatively heavy piece of tool and most single handed sword of East Asian origin had short enough a blade that unsheathing it from that position post no issue. in fact there are and were sword specifically made so that it can be handled this way vs some that are not good for that. And most Hollywood had not portrait is that a fair portion of the sword wear on the back is worn with the handle pointing down , so if the swordsman is right handed, the sword would be worn with the handle sticking out from the left of the body so he could unsheathe it with one smooth cross the front of the body oblique angle draw. Another seldom noted is that the harness used to fix the blade onto the back .. unlike western or Japanese , Chinese swordsman of those days tend to use Silk binding and the sword is fixed by a simple knot that are tied at the front of the body, if needed , the swordsman can just one handed untie the knot with a single tug on the end of the binding and the whole sword with sheath is free to handle, unlike most latter day portrait, most real historical Chinese sword actually had a fairly heavy build sheath as they are mean to do one more thing, using the sheathed sword or by itself as a mace. There are school of Chinese swordsmanship that specifically ask to use the sword on one hand and the sheath on another hand as a form of defense ( and if presented attack also )
One thing I notice from the print is that although the sword is wear on the back they wear it from the left shoulder.
Something very relevant to me, as a person who regularly go camping: I have my 1m. axe, 1m. saw, and my 35 cm sami-knife all on my belt.
For longer distances, I chug my saw on my backpack, but you have to remember that space I usually occupied with other things. Your hip is usually free.
When I'm actively chopping and searching for timber, having anything on your upper torso is a major hassle. This is because you can't easily mount or dismount your gear from your back, while at the same time keeping it secure for when you're carrying wood back to your camp. Your joint articulation just isn't suited well for it.
Most people have major issues just putting on a heavy backpack, an object specifically designed to keep on your back. Are you going to strap a long object on your back? No.
Convenience would be my guess. Carrying anything on your back for extended periods of time is more convenient than carrying it on your waist. Especially since the vast majority of the time you are carrying a weapon you don't need to quick draw them or even draw them at all.
I notice that in the Japanese photos and a couple of the Chinese ones that the hilt of the sword is over the left shoulder. Would this make a practical difference drawing a longer blade? Most of the "see, it doesn't work" holding styles are over the right shoulder or up the spine.
Some of the drawings and photos show people wearing long swords across the back with the hilt behind the LEFT shoulder. If you wear it like that, and you release the scabbard at the lower end, you have the full length of your arm PLUS your width across the shoulders for drawing it.
A two-hander goes on your back because that's the only place you have room for it. As for drawing it, you can pull it out by the blade, bit by bit. (Watch Skallagrim hold a sword, by the blade, WITH HIS BARE HANDS and whack a target with its hilt! ruclips.net/video/vwuQPfvSSlo/видео.html)
I sometimes wonder if Hollywood likes back scabbards so much simply because it LOOKS more comfortable. Not that it is, but just perhaps something about its looking like it's up, and out of the way of everything. In any case, I think the baldric is the best universal compromise in the real world!
Todd has a video on the subject. A sword on the back it's simply more stable and doesn't move around as much. It is very helpful for consistency when you are shooting a movie because most of the scenes are not in a direct and sequential timeline so it might create confusion in the viewer
@@lucanic4328 , Yes, I've seen Tod's video on it too. In fact, I think I remember your being there as well!😁
It's worth noting many of the Japanese images with the [n]odachi or okatana they still have the wakazashi on their side. So it may be a situational sidearm, such as against calvary or polearms. If it is slung over the back correctly you could take a moment to pull it off of your back (like a cross slung rifle) and put it in your obi if it looks to be needed. This could be done while on the move, even with one hand and would make it available when nessicary most of the time and out of the way during the rest of the time.
I have to say that "dashi" is a fish based stock used in many Japanese soups. The word for the large sword that predated the katana is *tachi.*
True. And when used as part of a combination word, it becomes dachi... as in nodachi or odachi. But Matt is English, and he's gonna pronounce things with, well, an English accent, lol.
@@zacktoor1591 That is not an issue of accent, Matt just mispronounced a word. It happens to the best of us.
@@Askorti
Maybe. But I'm inclined to believe it's an accent thing...
@@zacktoor1591 I'm inclined to believe that it's a British thing, the Brits have this way of butchering even the simplest of foreign. Just watch any video from The Mighty Jingles or featuring Simon Whistler and you'll see what I mean.
@@Riceball01
Yeah... and he does sometimes pronounce "China" with an r on the end... "Chinar" lol.
What you do is you pull the sword really hard off the back, flinging the scabbard off the blade and at your opponent.
You then furiously unscrew the pommel, and the-
Actually there's no need of a roundabout ways with all kind of weird methods or specific scabbards. you can unsheath & sheath a long sword just fine by hanging it on the left shoulder back style (right handed). Attach with the scabbard belt on one center point or a very close one two points that your left hand coud reach up the shoulder. with this now you can unsheath your sword diagonally, just like when you unsheath your sword from the left hip (right handed). Unsheathing also fairly easy by grabbing your scabbard with left hand & guide your sword to scabbard with your right hand (right handed).
I guess maybe that's why also some of the paintings & photos (just like in this video) is where the back scabbard attached on the left shoulder instead (in which most likely by a right handed people).
In the case of Odachi, recent Japanese scholarship has concluded that they weren't even really used on the battlefield, and the reason why certain samurai wore them on their back, was to stand out and signify their status of being a great warrior of renown. They also stop being seen worn when Japanese forces begin to develop into what are essentially pike and shotte style armies. Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of Japanese artwork of early period depictions, was done later in the Edo period, and they were generally quite good at depicting armour from previous eras accurately, as opposed to putting individuals in the armour of the time that the picture was made. (i.e. the Japanese didn't really do the whole "David vs Goliath, but in medieval armour" type depiction of scenes from their history. When drawing a scene from the Heian era, they tended to depict the Heian era individuals accurately.)
Another thing to make note of, at least in the 19th century photographs of soldiers carrying it on their back, is that while the sword is attached securely to what's essentially a baldric, the baldric isn't strapped tightly to their backs. It might not be as fast as drawing from the hip, but removing baldric, drawing the sword, and tossing the scabbard on the ground in an emergency could be fast enough. There likely weren't too many scenarios where they needed to get their swords out in an absolute instant, in order to defend themselves, otherwise they would die.
Additionally, when fighting from a defensive position, the soldier could simply take off their baldric, draw the sword, and place it in front of them on an embankment. When the opposing force gets too close to where you can't reliably use your gun, drop the gun pick up the sword in front of you, and go at it.
Too many folks think that everything a soldier carried had to be able to be carried on the body and usable right at an instant in a life or death situation, when that simply isn't the case.
What recent scholarship? Always looking for more info on accounts odachi/nodachi use. Conlan, so far as I am aware, is the best source in English about their use. Any suggestions?
@@StudyofSwords English sources on Japanese history are about a decade behind what's currently available in Japanese. So unless you can read Japanese (even I can't, and I'm just basing that off of individuals that I know who can, and who I trust), there's nothing that I can recommend.
Apart from keep reading Dr. Karl Friday's continuing work.
Thanks anyway.
With that said, the idea that there is a decade between scholarly English texts and Japanese ones isn't tenable, as such academics certainly speak and read Japanese and would have access to (if not deeply involved in) contemporary research. Popular texts, perhaps but even then that seems like a stretch.
They were use in battlefront from the Nanbokuchoan period onwards tho after Nanbokuchoan they became a tad bit shorter, there are schools from the 16th century that still teach their usage, sources like from China and Korea mansion the use of Nodachi,the blade and techniques were even adopted in both countries I forget the name for it in Korea but in China it's called the Miao Dao.
To add to the logic for carrying on the back in the case of the chinese blades, some of it may be by convention, due to how the blades were issued. Reading from the very in depth discussion of the Dadao by benjukins, he points out that at times they did not even bear any scabbards:
"Genuine Dadao’s are rarely elegant weapons. Their proportions are never perfect, and many look as though they were carved from a block of steel with a dull chisel. They came in many shapes and sizes. Some had wood handles, others were bound only in cloth. ***Most were issued without scabbards and were slung across the back with a length of cord.*** A few others had nicely constructed leather coverings. Many were issued in dull colors, but some sported eye-catching red handle wraps and flowing scarves. All of this reflects the wide assortment of regular and paramilitary forces that employed these weapons for almost half a century. This variety is one of the things that makes the Dadao such an interesting subject of study."
No scabbard sounds like it would be mighty uncomfortable to wear at the hip.
It's a great read with some good (and frightenting) pictures
A Social and Visual History of the Dadao: The Chinese “Military Big-Saber.”
chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/11/26/693/