|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Sep 29 2015, 6:05am
Post #1 of 18
(2651 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Back scabbards
|
Can't Post
|
|
So I have a quick question/observation.
I watched FOTR this afternoon, and it was easy to notice the various ways in which the races carried their weapons.
In TH, the dwarves all have their scabbards/weapons holders on their back, and draw swords and whatnot over the shoulder, much like you'd draw an arrow out of a back quiver (like Kili's and Legolas's).
Humans wear their swords at their hips, as do elves and hobbits.
I wonder why Thorin and Co. carried their weapons on their backs, rather than at the hip (at least the swords). We see Gimli carrying the big axe on his back- I can imagine why- but his smaller axe is in his hand, similar to how Thorin had his axe while crossing the misty Mountains.
Do you think it is because of their height in relation to the length of their weapons? Hobbits are smaller than they are, but their swords (or as Balin calls them, letter openers  ) are worn at the hip, just like humans and elves. Even Bilbo, who was surrounded by dwarves for the vast majority of the quest, had his at his hip rather than on his back like his dwarf friends.
So that makes me curious- does anyone have any idea why the dwarves would have scabbards on their backs, rather than at the hip? Was it for traveling convenience (making it easier to carry while still able to draw it), or was it because it would catch in undergrowth if worn at the hip? Do you think that, if they weren't traveling long distances, dwarf swords would be worn at the hip? Or do you think that at the hip would be for ceremonial reasons and that's it? (I find it hard to imagine the over the shoulder weapons straps during, say, a coronation scene or formal assembly/ceremony).
Any ideas?
|
|
|
Faleel
Rohan
Sep 29 2015, 6:48am
Post #2 of 18
(2611 views)
Shortcut
|
Because Dwarves are Legend of Zelda fans?
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Sep 29 2015, 9:47am
Post #3 of 18
(2548 views)
Shortcut
|
|
because they are too proud to wear smaller weapons according to their size
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if they would have made them smaller they could be able to wear it on the hips like everyone else. But these are dwarves, we know they try everytime to stad above the rest so (appart of their strong nature) I think they allow themselves to wear bigger weapons but it would be ridiculous to wear them on the hilt crawling the loweer end on the floor, so...
LOL crazy theory
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 29 2015, 2:35pm
Post #4 of 18
(2446 views)
Shortcut
|
Two-handed swords and other similarly sized weapons generally cannot be worn at the hip either. Notice that warriors will either have such weapons carried on their mounts or will have some sort of rig to enable them to wear such weapons on their backs.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Sep 29 2015, 4:52pm
Post #5 of 18
(2397 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Pretty sure some of the Orcs do, too
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I recall in AUJ when they are trying to hide and the Orc comes up over the rock they're hiding behind, that his weapon (whatever that thing is) is also back mounted. I suppose it's a matter of convenience, but Dwalin definitely carries his axes on his back, and Orcrist is quite long for Thorin. Can't recall where he had the Raven sword.
About the Elves - Legolas & Tauriel have long daggers instead of swords, which I assume would be easier to carry on the hip. But Thranduil's swords look almost like Katanas to me. I would think you'd carry those on your back, but then again, he's quite tall.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Sep 29 2015, 5:08pm
Post #6 of 18
(2384 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Orcrist I completely understand
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but Fili and Kili also carry their swords on their backs, and at least Fili's twin swords are fairly short, all things considered. But he has so many knives on him that it may have been easier. And Kili already has the quiver, so maybe that was easier to attach the sword sheath there as well (and the knife does sit at his hip on the lower end of the weapons strap).
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Sep 29 2015, 5:17pm
Post #7 of 18
(2377 views)
Shortcut
|
my husband did some research after I asked him and found this screencap of Thorin when he stood alongside Thror in his throne (during Thranduil's visit in the AUJ prologue):
http://screencapped.net/...34#top_display_media
In this shot, the elves are visiting dignitaries, and Thorin has a sword on the hip.
Given that this is an extremely formal situation, if it were a dwarf pride thing as you suggest, now of all times would see it strapped to his back.
Maybe Otaku-Sempai is correct- the dwarves had back weapons straps for the Quest because they were supposed to be mounted on ponies the whole time (the trolls, then Beorn, kinda put a damper on this plan ) rather than walking across Middle-earth.
But this picture with Thorin proves that the swords are also located on the hip. Maybe it was for ceremonial reasons, maybe it is normally that way just not on the quest.
Off to dig around more screencaps! 
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Sep 29 2015, 5:22pm
Post #8 of 18
(2375 views)
Shortcut
|
If I'm traveling through forests and on horseback and all that, I would wear a weapon on my back. For ceremonies and knowing I'm going to be in a fight or battle, I would wear it on my hip.
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Sep 29 2015, 5:35pm
Post #9 of 18
(2369 views)
Shortcut
|
https://heirsofdurin.files.wordpress.com/...0p-mov_000051968.jpg
This one has Kili with a sword seemingly on his hip, but it's hard to tell if it's attached there or if he's simply carrying it.
I am having trouble finding more screencaps, but I suppose these two prove that dwarves do sometimes wear swords at their hips, just not when traveling (for obvious reasons, namely being mounted).
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 29 2015, 5:45pm
Post #10 of 18
(2361 views)
Shortcut
|
What I meant about mounted warriors was that if one had, for example, a two-handed sword then he might have it hanging from his saddle. But, yes, it would probably be worn across his back if he was on foot.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Sep 29 2015, 5:48pm
Post #11 of 18
(2358 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I got what you meant after I'd replied
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My bad 
Aragorn still wore Anduril at the hip though, and it was a two handed sword. But he's a LOT taller than a dwarf...
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 29 2015, 5:54pm
Post #12 of 18
(2356 views)
Shortcut
|
I would call Narsil/Anduril a bastard sword (also called a hand-and-a-half sword; much like the 'Ranger' sword that Aragorn carries through most of the trilogy), not a full-sized two-hander. It could be wielded with either one hand or two. It is long enough, though, to be a bit awkward to wear on the hip.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 29 2015, 5:58pm)
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Sep 29 2015, 5:58pm
Post #13 of 18
(2352 views)
Shortcut
|
I recently watch ROTK with the Director/writer commentary, and they were talking about Aragorn and his two swords. They actually had a problem with Narsil, because it is so long that it actually would've dragged on the ground if he wore it on his hip. But it was also too long to wear on his back comfortably on horseback (when he goes to the Path of the Dead). It was also too long to take it out of the scabbard while on either back or hip. You needed to take it out with one hand on the sword hilt and one on the scabbard, pulling both at the same time. which is how he did it in front of Elrond.
To get around him wearing the long scabbard was to have him tie it to the horse before the Path of the Dead. The only way to get around drawing it out was to only have you see Narsil already out and in his hands. They couldn't show him drawing it out because no one's arm was long enough to actually be able to do it
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Sep 29 2015, 6:02pm
Post #14 of 18
(2347 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What size were the Rohirrim swords then?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm curious, because they seem a lot smaller. Then again, I have tiny hands, so nearly every sword for me is a two hander 
Well, except for Sting 
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 29 2015, 6:06pm
Post #15 of 18
(2346 views)
Shortcut
|
Anduril was awfully long as it appeared in the films--five feet from pommel to tip. The design of the grip gives it away as a bastard sword. It wasn't unusual with longer swords to have to remove the scabbard and draw the blade while holding the sheath in the other hand. Here is a rig for a sword worn on the back:
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 29 2015, 6:16pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Sep 29 2015, 6:23pm
Post #16 of 18
(2334 views)
Shortcut
|
The Rohirrim blades are designed to resemble Viking swords. It is a fairly simple style, basically taking a short sword and just extending the length. Historically, it was derived from the Roman spatha.
Note: By 'grip' in the previous post, I should have more properly written 'hilt'.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Sep 29 2015, 6:27pm)
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Sep 29 2015, 7:03pm
Post #17 of 18
(2315 views)
Shortcut
|
The commentary said they never showed the Narsil scabbard again after the Path of the Dead. Aragorn ties it to the horse, takes the sword out when they reach the door, the horse runs off. We don't see the horse again until the Black Gate, and Aragorn already has the sword drawn.
I'm sure they could've redesigned the scabbard to work more practically, but I'm guessing it was a case of liking the design and not wanting to change it, and then realizing they could work around it by having the horse run off with it, and through editing to simply not show him drawing it from the scabbard.
|
|
|
CamdenMcAndrews
Rivendell
Sep 30 2015, 1:27am
Post #18 of 18
(2254 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Where else to store all that dwarven cutlery?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A lot depends on the design of the weapon and the scabbard; the two need to work together. The back scabbard is much more convenient than a hip carry for both long-distance travel and going about in crowded places, such as busy town markets (or elevators in hotels). It's easier to sit without having to fuss with your weapon, especially if you're sitting on a bench or log that doesn't have a back to it. You can carry a lot more weight in a backpack with a good hip belt without throwing yourself off balance or having your scabbard banging against your legs and tripping you and others.
Another really big consideration is that for a heavy sword or axe, the draw from a well-designed back scabbard is the first move in your most powerful attack. If you draw from the hip, the most you can hope for is a weak uppercut. A real back scabbard will also enable you to draw with one had, while a hip-carry scabbard requires one hand to restrain the scabbard while you draw with the other hand (unless the scabbard is impractically loose).
If you're fighting with a rapier, that's not so important; it will take about the same amount of time to get the lighter weapon out and pointed at the target.
But here's the trick: The back scabbard has to be designed for the weapon. Unless your weapon is very short, like maybe a knife or dagger, you must be able to quickly release the lower restraint on the back scabbard so that the scabbard can rotate as you draw the weapon. Or, have most of the weapon exposed so that the weapon only needs to be draw a short distance before I can rotate freely as soon as the tip is clear.
Of course, if you have plenty of time to draw the weapon, none of that matters; you can just discard the scabbard and get it out of the way. Except in the circumstances where you might be the victim of a completely unexpected ambush or need to change weapons in the middle of a fight, you'll always have plenty of time to discard your backpack and draw your weapon, so the fast draw is really mostly a matter of style. It's showy.
I've never carried my sword with a full pack, but if I did, I'm sure I'd want to use a back carry with the sword close to the pack frame. I only need to undo one buckle and shrug one shoulder to drop my pack, so I'm sure I could design a scabbard that would allow me to just drop the pack and withdraw the weapon as it fell.
The katana and saber solve the problem of drawing a long sword by curving the blade to approximate the arc that the wielder's hand will follow. Katana are traditionally carried in back scabbards, sabers in hip carries.
The Romans had a fun solution to sword management problems with the gladius used by legions. It was worn on the side of the chest with the hilt near the level of the wearer's armpit, out of the way for most everything you do but always at hand, and short enough that even a short Roman guy could draw it quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
