|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 4, 2019 5:58:40 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. Proportions do not equal items, and one does not need the evolution of art to depict items as one needs to depict proportions. I'm not viewing this as a competition at all, just a conversation where people disagree. I don't think that the fact that we do it really implies anything at all, we are so far removed from people that used swords as weapons. As a sidenote - if having a sword on your back was ever done or was moreuseful for transportation, why don't we see any documentation in later periods of European history? Please don't take this as me trying to shut down the argument of backscabbards in European history, I just like conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 6:01:33 GMT
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. Please read (or re-read) the entirety of my responses to this thread. Start at the beginning of the thread and parse those replies in quotes to me and I will explain my posts if you are having a difficult time with my reasoning. I am replying again as a courtesy. For all intent and purposes, this last post to me is the epitome of redundancy. Instead of offering nothing new, you would rather have me repeat myself.
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Feb 4, 2019 6:46:20 GMT
Sorry Edelweiss, I don't have the time to re-read all of your responses. Jordan, I'm sure we don't even disagree. I don't think that back scabbards have enough archaeological evidence to indicate they were used in any significant amount in the medieval period. However, saying they didn't exist because art doesn't show them A) excludes the statuettes already shown, and B) assumes that the medieval art we have actually records weapons in proportions they were commonly used in. Horses were commonly used and are disproportionate. Really all we can go off of is the archaeological record, and of the tens upon tens of thousands of weapons that existed we have very few remaining. All we can do is go off of what we have, but to poo poo the idea of back scabbards because they aren't shown in art is not as water tight as people are making it. In fact to denounce the idea itself is silly, as many are just exploring it. As I'm sure some did in the medieval period. People reinvent the wheel all the time, especially if they have the general idea for it already. No doubt there were scabbards worn on backs by some individuals in the medieval period. Clearly it wasn't popular or used in any large scale, as it's absent from the historical record other than a few obscure statuettes. Again, I don't think we disagree on the facts, I just thought it was funny that Edelweiss went dark after the statuettes were posted (until my post lured him back in )and that so many seem to think we're diving into scholarly grounds here. It's clear back scabbards weren't used as a common way to take weapons into battle. Possibly not at all. It' silly to try and establish as fact that no one used a back scabbard during the medieval period because we don't see it in a very few pieces of art, that don't represent the reality of proportions anyways, however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 8:00:29 GMT
Sure you do.
Only indicating your continued lack of reading comprehension as to what I wrote. I'll write real slow, as it seems you can't read real fast.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 4, 2019 14:54:03 GMT
Yeah Edelweiss it was a joke, it's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor and would rather dissect every word. First off look at the guy doing the video, who would take him seriously ? It made me laugh seeing him jogging down the street wearing a sword on his back, who can take that seriously ? And that scabbard of his is definitely a joke. You must be real fun at parties.
As for back mounted swords go, if even one person back in the Dark Ages or Medieval times did it then it existed. No one said it was a common practice. So lighten up and have fun, that's what most of us are here for.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Feb 4, 2019 15:31:31 GMT
It's not much use discussing anything with a contrarian. Even if you agree you get disagreed with. Anything to make a person look stupid lol. When disagreements are microscopic, it kinda seems like the goal is to disagree
You can agree with everything everyone says on this forum, but they will only claim you do not know enough to agree or some b*llshit.
photos were provided for back carry of swords. I never claimed that it was common in medieval times. It happening as late as the pictures provided information of is good enough for me.
But at the end of the day you can't win
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 15:41:43 GMT
Yeah Edelweiss it was a joke, it's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor and would rather dissect every word. First off look at the guy doing the video, who would take him seriously ? It made me laugh seeing him jogging down the street wearing a sword on his back, who can take that seriously ? And that scabbard of his is definitely a joke. You must be real fun at parties. As for back mounted swords go, if even one person back in the Dark Ages or Medieval times did it then it existed. No one said it was a common practice. So lighten up and have fun, that's what most of us are here for. Read my first reply to the thread. My humor level is quite intact. I don't see any lack of humor to my rapier wit. Many of the even most serious threads in which you participate are a source of great humor to me. If I seem to wax sardonic and snobbish, I would think it to be some other readers (yourself included) that don't bother to (or are unable to) see the gag. I do fine at parties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 16:24:57 GMT
It's not much use discussing anything with a contrarian. Even if you agree you get disagreed with. Anything to make a person look stupid lol. When disagreements are microscopic, it kinda seems like the goal is to disagree You can agree with everything everyone says on this forum, but they will only claim you do not know enough to agree or some b*llshit. photos were provided for back carry of swords. I never claimed that it was common in medieval times. It happening as late as the pictures provided information of is good enough for me. But at the end of the day you can't win I seem to be a reason for you to disagree with me, instead of actually reading what I am saying. My first reply a bigger joke than the lead post. Early replies asked for those mentioning some evidence to provide it. Whenever was a pointy stick in the eye not funny? In my post Posting seriously, I see two Landschneckt images posted in my simple (tongue in cheek) query as to where one might find evidence. I am rolling in laughter at this point as the OP is acting quite serious and backpedaling as he goes I fully agree that there might be evidence, as yet unfound and refer to where I would begin looking. Taking oneself seriously, you post a video and yet fail to see my humor in regarding Skal's video as fluff. You then finally do go searching, again in all seriousness. I then relate my own fooling around with baldrics. Get it? I guess not So let's sum up a bit. As soon as Timo posts some images, he finds images. Yay, for the serious side. Non show over the shoulder back scabbards ) that I can see. The thread has become serious at this point, despite my own early disinterest in being terribly serious (again note my first reply to the thread ) while pointing out that those two that did start getting serious were lost. note emoji inserted Suddenly a further staccato of images being posted up in serious replies. I could mention to Andi's image shows two longswords being carried and of similar lengths. Gee, maybe decided to look at Japanese longswords. Queued in further seriousness, Chinese swords being transported shown in support of swords being carried on the back. After a video of a katana being withdrawn without difficulty (while not returned to the saya as simply), Arnold appears as "why Hollywood is responsible". Now I am really chuckling because if I were to reference much earlier film use of it, many would be as lost as trying to follow this post. In other words, I find the discourse overall fairly hilarious. There are different types of trolling and every thread posted is meant (or at least hoping) someone will acknowledge it. I did so in humor and to some extent still do. ?8^)~ If all y'all would get over not knowing what wit is, you might actually be enjoying yourselves That in early postings, I used no emoji, I think you just don't get it do you?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 4, 2019 17:51:09 GMT
As for back mounted swords go, if even one person back in the Dark Ages or Medieval times did it then it existed. No one said it was a common practice. So lighten up and have fun, that's what most of us are here for. If there is no evidence for a back mounted Scabbard existing in medieval or dark ages times (are we going to count the Celtic Scabbard that's on a belt around his waist, and having been set at his back ala Chinese chariot?) why make it up? That's really the juxt of what I've been arguing. We know they were used by the Chinese soldiers in WW2, and probably before with the use of the dadao in conjunction with firearms, but why are we trying to make up an object to put it in history? I personally wouldn't count the waist mounted Scabbard, moved around the back as a backscabbard per-say. Usually, when one refers to backscabbard its about a scabbard that is mounted to the back. I think Timo has a real good idea with his comparison to the Chinese chariot driver scabbard set up (Imagine wearing a sword mounted that low anyways, it has to be a result of the art being so stylized). Shad is funny as a joke, but I hope he doesn't try it in the U.K. if he ever visits. We may see him in one of those cringy police tweets. theophilus736I'm not saying they didn't exist only because art didn't show them, that's just one part of my argument albeit imo a big one. Another part is that we never see it in any European manuals, and it's never documented as happening in any account from European history that I've read. I'm looking at this mostly from a European perspective. I'm sure we don't disagree on the facts about it either, I just wanted to make sure I had been clear about my art argument. I agree that art isn't always the most accurate depiction of life, but generally I do think that if an object is represented in old art that's depicting or at least trying to depict reality, than the object existed. That's my opinion at least.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Feb 4, 2019 21:57:46 GMT
Okay, so what, if any, historical evidence is there for an individual going “adventuring” with a sword? Asking for a friend. If "adventuring" includes killing and stealing--see European history.
More traditional D&D type adventures are a bit more obscure. There are references to armed men fighting zombies in various towns (most likely people who' weren't actually dead but got dead pretty quick after waking up from the coma and scaring the hell out of their wives). There's also a tale about a Muslim adventurer who came to a corner of England to use some kind of magic to dispel a demon/worm, after which locals stole the beast's horde.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 22:14:41 GMT
Okay, so what, if any, historical evidence is there for an individual going “adventuring” with a sword? Asking for a friend. Musha shugyo.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 4, 2019 22:23:26 GMT
Okay, so what, if any, historical evidence is there for an individual going “adventuring” with a sword? Asking for a friend. Knight errant? Musashi
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 4, 2019 22:47:47 GMT
Okay, so what, if any, historical evidence is there for an individual going “adventuring” with a sword? Asking for a friend. If "adventuring" includes killing and stealing--see European history.
More traditional D&D type adventures are a bit more obscure. There are references to armed men fighting zombies in various towns (most likely people who' weren't actually dead but got dead pretty quick after waking up from the coma and scaring the hell out of their wives). There's also a tale about a Muslim adventurer who came to a corner of England to use some kind of magic to dispel a demon/worm, after which locals stole the beast's horde.
"Oh dearest brother, I do wish thee well in thine trip to heaven" *wakes up from coma* "BROTHER - DEMON MEET MY STEEL!"
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Feb 4, 2019 22:58:14 GMT
If "adventuring" includes killing and stealing--see European history.
More traditional D&D type adventures are a bit more obscure. There are references to armed men fighting zombies in various towns (most likely people who' weren't actually dead but got dead pretty quick after waking up from the coma and scaring the hell out of their wives). There's also a tale about a Muslim adventurer who came to a corner of England to use some kind of magic to dispel a demon/worm, after which locals stole the beast's horde.
"Oh dearest brother, I do wish thee well in thine trip to heaven" *wakes up from coma* "BROTHER - DEMON MEET MY STEEL!" Source? I need to read more about this....
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Feb 4, 2019 23:47:28 GMT
theophilus736 I'm not saying they didn't exist only because art didn't show them, that's just one part of my argument albeit imo a big one. Another part is that we never see it in any European manuals, and it's never documented as happening in any account from European history that I've read. I'm looking at this mostly from a European perspective. I'm sure we don't disagree on the facts about it either, I just wanted to make sure I had been clear about my art argument. I agree that art isn't always the most accurate depiction of life, but generally I do think that if an object is represented in old art that's depicting or at least trying to depict reality, than the object existed. That's my opinion at least. I think we agree on basically everything but the weight of period art in establishing the reality of various items. I understand you weren't saying that if it's missing from period art it absolutely didn't exist, or that if it's shown it absolutely did exist, I just think it's quite possible that the things depicted in art are embellishments or fun little doodles that aren't necessarily grounded in reality. The Maciejowski chopper for example. It could have existed, but didn't necessarily. Quite like a back scabbard or two could have existed. One point on the manuals though is those are compiled by a very few individuals in specific periods. There is much much more that isn't shown, I'm sure. Of course when you start putting together art, manuals, and the archaeological record, you have great ground to stand on.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Feb 5, 2019 0:41:43 GMT
Here are the details from Thomas Walsingham, reporting on a case from around 1344 where a Saracen physician asked the Earl of Warenne for permission to kill a wyrm/serpent from Wales at Brunfeld. He captured it and left, leaving treasure which was nightly looted until the Earl got wind of it.
It's under "De Quodam Casu Mirabili" for 1344
The medieval historians loved to put these kind of spooky accounts in their histories.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Feb 5, 2019 4:16:54 GMT
Thanks Cosmoline. Makes me want to learn Latin....
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 5, 2019 15:17:50 GMT
Hey Edelweiss look how they stole this thread and went off subject with it. Shame, shame, shame on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 15:24:18 GMT
Hey Edelweiss look how they stole this thread and went off subject with it. Shame, shame, shame on them. I'm not sure if you like calling my name to get a free lunch, but it isn't going to happen. Just make sure your life is all about you, k?
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 5, 2019 15:53:44 GMT
|
|