Wearing your sword under your armour

[Cantabrigian]

https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/swords-worn-beneath-the-mail-in-11th-and-12th-century/

Has anyone seen this?

[Duncan Head]

I hadn't seen that before; interesting, thanks. A lot of the source illustrations are probably well known, but there are certainly some in there that are new to me.

[Imperial Dave]

for me it makes sense. As someone who has tried to run with a 3-foot sword-in-scabbard hanging from a belt it isnt easy!

[Erpingham]

Interesting.  Certainly a few there I hadn't seen.

[Nick Harbud]

Now, just to find the figures to update my Norman and Anglo-Danish armoured types....

BTW, I feel that Uhtred's method of slinging his scabbarded sword across his back is probably even more practical for running.

[Cantabrigian]

Ah Uhtred...  If you look carefully in the early episodes you'll see that he has the scabbard before he gets the sword to go in it. That's what I call forward planning...

[evilgong]

I wonder if it's to keep the belt inside the armour / clothes to deprive the enemy of a belt to grab in melee or to avoid having an exposed belt that might get tangled up in your kit, or perhaps the guy standing beside you.

One for the re-enactment people to comment on.

David F Brown

[Erpingham]

What is interesting is not everybody does it.  Most images show the sword hanging outside the armour.  So, presumably, the balance of pros and cons was not such that everyone leapt on the "new" style.

[Peter Bone]

There is a very good reason why no contemporary manuscripts show anyone carrying a sword across their back, like Uhtred: it is wildly impractical. To draw a sword with a realistic blade length you would have to have arms like an orang-utan.
And uhtred's sword is not even a good copy: hilt too long, blade distinctly poor quality, and the amber pommel is fantasy. I have a number of much better 9th century sword copies.