|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 1, 2019 16:13:39 GMT
You know I started this post as a joke, if you notice the JOGGING in the title. Who jogs with a sword on their back? But some people just had to turn it into an argument. We need the option of putting a block on people who always do this on this forum. It would be a more peaceful place to communicate.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 1, 2019 16:49:13 GMT
The Vikings discovered it in so far as they landed, left, and never cared about it again. If it was ever actually done in any capacity why don't we ever see it in historical artwork, other than the scant Celtic example. Not sure how often medieval soldiers or even men carrying swords would do acrobatics, or jogging without purpose. The soldier carrying a zweihander on his shoulder doesn't count as backmounted either. The Chinese soldier should be examined a little bit more - evidence of a soldier who is more likely to use his rifle, then charge at an infantry unit with his sword first. The recent trend of trying to theorize ways to backwear a sword and saying "oh maybe they did this" is really just clickbait. Few years back it was "never done", and complaining about video games and TV. Why make two separate rigs for carrying your sword? We live in the age of excess and convenience, not them. Soldiers and civilians alike carried swords at the hip, all across the world for the majority of history (save the WW2 Chinese train guard, the possible Celtic example which we don't know the context of, and the Chinese chariot driver) so why are we trying to make up ways that they carried weapons? "It could have been done this way" does not equal "they did it sometimes". "They landed, left, and forgot about it" should not be regarded at all in the same way as the later discovery and colonization of the Americas. Screw the stupid Vikings WRONG again Jordan. You should spend more time studying history instead of just attacking everything people say. They estimated the Vikings stayed at L'Anse aux Meadows for at least three year maybe as long as ten and they continued to return to North America for 300 year for supplies and trade. The information is out there take the time to look it up instead of just attacking. Gunnar, if you felt my tone was harsh enough to warrant it as an attack then I am sorry, as that wasn't my intent. Humor, tone, and intent are sometimes difficult to convey over text and it appears I read your post wrong. I like looking at things and debating them in a factual light, and figured that was what could happen in your thread. I had known the Vikings stayed for a number of years, but did not know they continued to visit for 300 years after. I still think giving them the title of those who discovered America is a little iffy, because after they leave it it's never mentioned again until much later and they really only explored a small part of the continent. Again, I'm genuinely sorry it felt like I was attacking you. That wasn't my intent.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Feb 1, 2019 16:57:23 GMT
Here's the picture of a viking dressed as a samurai obviously jogging somewhere in the New England states in winter. Hope Gunnar is happy now!
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 1, 2019 17:12:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 1, 2019 17:30:35 GMT
Apology excepted Jordan, I won't put a block on you.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Feb 1, 2019 17:58:18 GMT
Okay so it was more on their shoulder than their back but it was closer to the back than their hip. The point is until we can say everything has been discovered and there is nothing left to be discovered we can't say it was NEVER done. And yes I do see the short sword on their hip. :)
The shoulder-carry solves the problem of back carry in that it allows for an immediate deployment of the blade. It's essentially just carrying the sword in vom tag. And it works well for the super-size blades of the Renaissance.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Feb 1, 2019 18:01:25 GMT
I had known the Vikings stayed for a number of years, but did not know they continued to visit for 300 years after. I still think giving them the title of those who discovered America is a little iffy, because after they leave it it's never mentioned again until much later and they really only explored a small part of the continent. Again, I'm genuinely sorry it felt like I was attacking you. That wasn't my intent. If the definition of "discovering" America was to be the *second* group to colonize it, then that title must go to the Inuits. They migrated into Alaska and Canada after the earlier natives had colonized the new world ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 1, 2019 18:12:00 GMT
I had known the Vikings stayed for a number of years, but did not know they continued to visit for 300 years after. I still think giving them the title of those who discovered America is a little iffy, because after they leave it it's never mentioned again until much later and they really only explored a small part of the continent. Again, I'm genuinely sorry it felt like I was attacking you. That wasn't my intent. If the definition of "discovering" America was to be the *second* group to colonize it, then that title must go to the Inuits. They migrated into Alaska and Canada after the earlier natives had colonized the new world ;-) Those dang colonial eskimos! Always making me look wrong. Piecing this together in my head, I guess the timeline for American settling would be - Original Settlers coming from Asia - Inuits - Vikings for a short period - And then the "New World" settling. pgandy the photo of the Chinese soldier(s) I'll gladly accept as evidence of it being used in history, as I honestly didn't know that they had their dadao on their back. That photo of the soldiers in the trench is a great depiction of that theatre I think. Now, if we can just find some evidence of Europeans doing it. My original comment was, mistakenly almost completely made in a euro - centric mindset.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 1, 2019 18:19:40 GMT
I had known the Vikings stayed for a number of years, but did not know they continued to visit for 300 years after. I still think giving them the title of those who discovered America is a little iffy, because after they leave it it's never mentioned again until much later and they really only explored a small part of the continent. Again, I'm genuinely sorry it felt like I was attacking you. That wasn't my intent. If the definition of "discovering" America was to be the *second* group to colonize it, then that title must go to the Inuits. They migrated into Alaska and Canada after the earlier natives had colonized the new world ;-) True, that's why I said " First Europeans " to discover America or should have said discovered it for themselves.. Some believe all human life started in Africa and slowly spread out from there. I think in reality humans are not as smart as we like to think we are.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 1, 2019 19:32:33 GMT
I now have the correct video for my last post. The URL didn’t change, only the video glitch.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Feb 1, 2019 21:45:15 GMT
The main thing I don't get about back scabbards is why we are so eager for there to be evidence in the first place. It seems kinda odd that we are letting ourselves be reduced to interpreting vague Celtic carvings for some semblance of proof for back scabbards. Is it just cause they look cool and we want some degree of legitimacy when we sling a sword over our shoulder at the local ren faire? Its okay to like back scabbards, think they look cool, and wear them ourselves while also acknowledging they probably didn't exist, or did so on a very limited scale.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 1, 2019 22:51:07 GMT
Yeah I would say it's 90% the cool factor. I think we have Arnold to blame for it, Conan is the first time I saw it done. Now everyone in movies and TV are doing it. Even video games. I have mine rigged up so I only have to pull it up less than a foot and it's free and that's with a 44 inch sword..
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Feb 2, 2019 0:30:50 GMT
The main thing I don't get about back scabbards is why we are so eager for there to be evidence in the first place. It seems kinda odd that we are letting ourselves be reduced to interpreting vague Celtic carvings for some semblance of proof for back scabbards. Is it just cause they look cool and we want some degree of legitimacy when we sling a sword over our shoulder at the local ren faire? Its okay to like back scabbards, think they look cool, and wear them ourselves while also acknowledging they probably didn't exist, or did so on a very limited scale. Right?? I think movies probably first popularized it because its nice to have the sword's hilt in the same frame as the actor and people just really want it to be a thing in reality for some reason
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Feb 2, 2019 2:09:20 GMT
Okay, so what, if any, historical evidence is there for an individual going “adventuring” with a sword?
Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Feb 3, 2019 19:58:30 GMT
Not a peep from Edelweiss after the slew of pictures? Nothing new under the sun. I'm sure at least one dude in the medeival period carried a sword on his back. If we've thought of it, they thought of it. The difficulties with deploying a sword from a scabbard fixed to the back is almost assuredly why we dont see it hardly at all in the historical record, incomplete as it is. I'm surprised at how fiery people can get over this.
It's not as if we are planning before a battle ourselves here...
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 3, 2019 20:11:02 GMT
I guess it's just that when some people attack an idea others will embrace it. It's probably that competitive thing in us. Tell someone they can't have something makes them want it even more. It's like when mom told you to stay away from " that kind of girl " only made you want her more. Okay that may be a different thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 23:27:47 GMT
Not a peep from Edelweiss after the slew of pictures? Nothing new under the sun. I'm sure at least one dude in the medeival period carried a sword on his back. If we've thought of it, they thought of it. The difficulties with deploying a sword from a scabbard fixed to the back is almost assuredly why we dont see it hardly at all in the historical record, incomplete as it is. I'm surprised at how fiery people can get over this. It's not as if we are planning before a battle ourselves here... Peep There is little further need to make my points. "Your" slew of pictures hardly add up to the original precept. Then look a little further in what I had to say. I asked for evidence and so far, see none relating to the original post. None, especially so from those saying they knew of some evidence. Think about that. Then writing it off as a joke in the first place and that is just all so true. In spite of any truth or realities, SBG is more or less determined to be a place to have fun. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, just own up to the facts when presenting history and be prepared to present relevant evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 4, 2019 4:00:39 GMT
I guess it's just that when some people attack an idea others will embrace it. It's probably that competitive thing in us. Tell someone they can't have something makes them want it even more. It's like when mom told you to stay away from " that kind of girl " only made you want her more. Okay that may be a different thing. So is it a joke or an idea you had? No one is telling you you can't have backscabbards, just that for the most part and aside from the scant examples, they didn't exist. Certainly not in medieval Europe, which is where most of the want for backscabbards seems to be focused on. Sure they're cool in fantasy, but that's what they are in regards to much of the world - fantasy. theophilus736We have a lot of medieval art that depicts even very rare examples of weapons and dress that we don't have examples of, if they were used in any measure why don't we ever see them depicted? I'm sure at some point some medieval European slung a sword in a scabbard over their back, but that's not necessarily evidence of backscabbards existing in medieval Europe. I'm probably going to regret posting this comment, but oh well.
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Feb 4, 2019 4:38:44 GMT
theophilus736We have a lot of medieval art that depicts even very rare examples of weapons and dress that we don't have examples of, if they were used in any measure why don't we ever see them depicted? I'm sure at some point some medieval European slung a sword in a scabbard over their back, but that's not necessarily evidence of backscabbards existing in medieval Europe. I'm probably going to regret posting this comment, but oh well. My point is it's a silly thing to get competitive about. The fact that we do it is enough to imply people in the medieval period did it, though from the archeological record it doesnt appear it was common or popular, nor recorded as being used in military conflict. Which makes sense given its lack of practicality. Side note: if we go off of art as depicting things that *definitely* existed without an archeological find that corroborates it, then medieval horses had variously tiny and massively large necks with short and stubby legs. It's silly to think artists were trying to depict weapons with exactitude and not soldiers, horses, or castles. Doubt there were many castle towers that were all of 10 ft high in major sieges as depicted in numerous examples of period art. TLDR calm down folks. He posted a video that explores a concept. It doesnt matter if there is no archeological record of it, because they arent arguing people jogged with their swords on their backs as historical fact.
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Feb 4, 2019 4:42:48 GMT
Not a peep from Edelweiss after the slew of pictures? Nothing new under the sun. I'm sure at least one dude in the medeival period carried a sword on his back. If we've thought of it, they thought of it. The difficulties with deploying a sword from a scabbard fixed to the back is almost assuredly why we dont see it hardly at all in the historical record, incomplete as it is. I'm surprised at how fiery people can get over this. It's not as if we are planning before a battle ourselves here... Peep There is little further need to make my points. "Your" slew of pictures hardly add up to the original precept. Then look a little further in what I had to say. I asked for evidence and so far, see none relating to the original post. None, especially so from those saying they knew of some evidence. Think about that. Then writing it off as a joke in the first place and that is just all so true. In spite of any truth or realities, SBG is more or less determined to be a place to have fun. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, just own up to the facts when presenting history and be prepared to present relevant evidence. The original precept was there was some historical evidence btw. Some statues are just as valid as medieval art that inaccurately depicts numerous details from battle scenes. It's not conclusive or even compelling, but he stated some existed, and there it is. Just as valid as paintings.
|
|