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.

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.

“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.

It looks like how you sling a rifle or shotgun for travel.

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sheathing it on your back seems even more difficult than drawing it.

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.

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.

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.

The real reason was because they knew it looked cool too lol

In the Army, when you sling your weapon on your back, it's called "Chow-sling". The vast majority of the time it is slung like that because you are in "safe area" and combat is HIGHLY unlikely. Sometimes soldiers will.do this while out in sector, but that would usually mean they are involved in an immediate task where having a rifle at your front would be an impediment, ie while carrying a casualty on a litter, or something.

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.

Citizen of Hong Kong here, proud of you to call out the rebel as they were!

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.

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).

Carrying swords in your back is done strictly for transportation only when there is zero need to use your sword.

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.

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 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.

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.

the wallhammer is back!

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

So what you’re saying is that this question could be answered with a little bit of... Context? 🤔

Pop Culture: that is were you are wrong Mat, true Samurai don't use guns n their worst enemy is is the Ninja.

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.

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.

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.

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

worn on the back does make a sidearm a backup weapon?

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.

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.

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.

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👍🏾

I simply cannot give high enough praise. Thank you for your work.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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. 😅

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.*

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.

Shad will love this good news,

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 )

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.

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 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.

Tod as done a very good explanation of this. Basically it stops the actors tripping over them and causing continuity problems.

One thing I notice from the print is that although the sword is wear on the back they wear it from the left shoulder.

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.

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.

Ninja wore swords on their backs due to their profession and that is spying. For them to move in confined places and hiding, the sword would have to be out of the way of the body movement and small spaces they were in and wore on the back. They also had a particular way to draw the sword and sheathing it; it was tricky.

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.

Another excellent video!

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-

Well done and great explanation, it makes sense!!👏👏👏

Might wear it on back when bot expecting combat or when need it out of the way and on hip in a battle scenario. Movies do show that with ninjas in particular and that when carried on back its with a scabbatd that can flip up for drawing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If a scabard were attached, (in the back-scabard configuration to a belt worn cross-wise over the shoulder), solely at the top of the scabard (i.e. just below the hilt of the sword); would the pivot around the attachment point increase the length of blade you could effectively draw with one hand from that? If so, would that be helpful, or just be even more awkard? (biomechanics are really not my strong point...)

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember even The Witcher (books likely? I can’t remember) mentioning the uniqueness of the Witcher’s wearing their swords on their backs.

I think if you're ninja running you wouldn't want the handle above your lowered head otherwise you would catch it on everything.Then it also can't like out from the side for same reason. So think for normal use its for storage. Love your vids. You're so close to getting shot centered. ThankQ. TkEZ

Pulling a sword out of a back scabbard just LOOKS so much cooler than from the waist. Nice and slow while you stare down your opponent. Why would anyone put practicality before appearance? It’s kinda like how action heros always cock their guns multiple times because it’s just cool to do that when you face an enemy. Coolness is super important! Thanks to Hollywood!

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.

how important is it to be able to put your sidearm away quickly. I am contemplating a scabbard or sheath that is held secure by the sword. as soon as you draw the sword only a few inches the scabbard lets go of the full length of the blade. possibly hinging open like a clamshell or disconnecting from its harness and falling to the floor behind you. this would deliver all the mobility advantages of a back scabbard and a quick and easy draw at the expense of a slow process for putting the sword away. but by the time your putting the sward away is suspect you can spare a few minutes to reassemble its quick-release system.

I would agree with out of battle situations where you'd carry gear and weapons on your back. But in battle situations... it would be an easy kill to run at someone with your sword on your side against an opponent with theirs on their back as you draw and up swing slash while they fumble to draw their sword from over their head and come down to block. No solider would ever have put themselves at that kind of disadvantage.

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.