154 replies to this topic

[nephron]

Occasionally I see some little detail in a movie or illustration or something that seems stupid, and try as I might to ignore these little things, well, they're still there.

I was looking at the Solomon Kane poster today, and he's wearing his sword on his back. While I have read that occasionally bigass swords like the zweihander or claymore were sometimes slung over the back en route to the battlefield, this wasn't exactly standard practice. Note: I read the aforementioned factoid in a Museum Replicas catalog, which is only slightly more reliable than a Dungeons & Dragons manual, so I take that claymore/zwiehander assertion with a grain of salt.

Swords were worn at the hip. We all know this. All the illustrations show it. How many swords-on-backs do we see in the Bayeaux tapestry, or in illuminated books, or hear about in historical sources? I don't know of any.

Why don't people who make this stuff bother to do a little homework? It'd only take about 5 minutes of research on swords and swordsmanship to know better, and you'd think anyone who's making a movie with swordfighting (one of the coolest things you can put in a movie!) would show some interest in learning about it. Seriously, with a modicum of research there needn't be swords-on-backs, edge-on-edge parrying, or any of the other numerous cliche mistakes movie-people make over and over and over again.

Anyone else notice any other recurrent mistakes in movies, books, etc.?

Edited by nephron, 23 September 2008 - 05:30 AM.

[amster]

The first time I recall ever reading about a character who carried his sword on his back was Karl Edward Wagner's Kane stories (Carsutyal style). Aragon in The Lord of the Rings films carries his sword the same way. Honestly, that's what I'd consider a minor detail, and it doesn't really bother me. What really bothers me are what I consider the big things, like giving Solomon Kane an "origin story" that REH would never have wrote, as opposed to just starting the series with Red Shadows, like they should have.

[Eli]

Warhammers. I can't tell you about how many times I've seen guys fighting in movies with 20-30 pound warhammers.
Also in most video games mauls/2 handed hammers are also carried on the characters back...and upside down.

[?sir]

Parrying an edge against your edge is often prefferable. Parrying an edge against the flat of your blade carries with it a high risk of your blade breaking. Much higher than if parrying with the edge.

[John Maddox Roberts]

The sword-on-the-back thing may have started with the Musashi Trilogy, in which Kojiro Sasashi carries his extra-long sword across his back and actually draws it from that position. Many people thought that looked really cool. The Japanese O-dachi was carried across the back, but it wasn't drawn from that carry. Like the claymore, the whole rig was taken off and the sheath discarded before action. A Chinese princess describes a Mongol army riding through town "each man with his sword upon his shoulders." This may be because like other steppe ppeoples, the Mongols wore the cased bow and quiver at the belt and didn't have room for the sword there, too. Or it may be a mistranslation and she meant the sword was worn slung from the shoulder on a baldric.

But, yeah, it bugs me too.

Edited by John Maddox Roberts, 23 September 2008 - 06:03 PM.

[Sharn]

Piggy back swords truly annoy me...that being said, there is no historical basis for the wearing of or drawing of swords from that position. Zweihander may have had sheaths/scabbards, but primarily to protect them from the elements and unintentional lacerations, damage, etc. Most of not all images showing true zweihander are carried on the shoulder like any other large weapon (i.e. halberds, pollaxes, spears, pikes, muskets).

During the advent of the longsword, starting more or less in the late 14th on into the 16th century, the weapon was carried at the hip and were talking sometimes almost 50" of steel. Japanese O-dachi are shown to be transported by tying the sageo around the shoulder and torso, otherwise it was carried in the hand or resting , once agian, on the the shoulder of the carrier like a pole arm. These large swords were never carried tied to ones back if battle was plainly eminent. They were typically carried unscabbarded and ready for action. The notion that a normal sized human being could even draw a weapon longer than perhaps 18" from a back position is impossible or at best ineffecient and ultimately slower than drawing from the hip.

The Mongols may have been being desribed as carrying there swords 'resting' on their shoulders, as in unbelted for ease as opposed for some tactical reason. Wearing a sword with the bow case and quiver was pretty much the standard practice throughout the whole history of stepe warriors. From the Skythians to the Cossacks the sword was worn with all the the other gear at the hip. typically period illustrations show the sword running under the bow quiver as the bow is drawn from the left hand and the arrow from the right. Still there are some bow cases that incorporate the quiver with it and it is all worn on the right.


Amsterdamage you said:
" Aragon in The Lord of the Rings films carries his sword the same way. Honestly, that's what I'd consider a minor detail, and it doesn't really bother me. "

I can't recall where this takes place in the movie, Aragorn usually has his longsword at his hip, like everyone else in the movies except the metro-sexual elves of course and Gimli, Dwarf Lord of a Dozen Axes. He had ONE damn axe in the books. Aragorn's sword was broken for the first half of Fellowship the book and it was the same one he carried from start to finish. Legolas only had ONE damn knife and didn't know how to snowboard(I mean STEPBOARD!!!!) and wasn't double jointed either. Anyhow....I'll be just fine.

[Sharn]

There is no right answer in the edge or flat parry debate......

[Reaver]

My pet peeve: People making mountains out of molehills.

Seriously, in fantasy, I don't have pet peeves. I look at it as fantasy. Just because something wasn't done in reality, doesn't mean it can't be done in fantasy. Personally, I think the sword on the back thing just looks cool.

Now, when people write the military wrong...well, that's a topic for another forum.

[Kortoso]

There is no right answer in the edge or flat parry debate......

Yes, there is: Keep the other guy's edge out of your hide.

I used to laugh at the Ren Faire types with their claymores strapped to their backs. If h tried to draw his sword, he'd cut off his own head!

But weapons were not always carried for instant use: bows, for instance, are commonly carried unlimbered. Perhaps if you are dealing with chivalrous foes then you can expect to have time to prepare for battle.

The fact of the matter is, if you are carrying your gear any further than the Ren Faire parking lot, it's usually best to keep the weight next to your hips, rather than up on your shoulders.

[Sharn]

My pet peeve: People making mountains out of molehills.

Seriously, in fantasy, I don't have pet peeves. I look at it as fantasy. Just because something wasn't done in reality, doesn't mean it can't be done in fantasy. Personally, I think the sword on the back thing just looks cool.

Now, when people write the military wrong...well, that's a topic for another forum.

What...........ever.

[budgie]

my pet peeve - two words and theyre Conan related..

fur undies

damn, I cant stand those things..

Budgie

[PaulMc]

Anyone else notice any other recurrent mistakes in movies, books, etc.?

Horned Viking helms and Vikings ships with below decks.

[Kortoso]

Anyone else notice any other recurrent mistakes in movies, books, etc.?

Horned Viking helms and Vikings ships with below decks.

Until the next excavation where they discover both! To our endless chagrin!

[Belisarius]

British characters with American accents (thank you Kevin Costner).

[nephron]

My pet peeve: People making mountains out of molehills.

Seriously, in fantasy, I don't have pet peeves. I look at it as fantasy. Just because something wasn't done in reality, doesn't mean it can't be done in fantasy. Personally, I think the sword on the back thing just looks cool.

Now, when people write the military wrong...well, that's a topic for another forum.

That's cool if you're able to disregard little things like that and still get into a story, but my thinking is that, just because something falls into the category of fantasy it doesn't get a free pass on everything. Good fantasy still has to be grounded for it to work.

Example: Schumacher's Batman vs. Nolan's Batman

Why were Shcumacher's movies so terribly stupid while Nolan's were so very awesome? Both were fantasy, and no matter how you slice it, the idea of a rich guy dressing up like a bat and successfully fighting crime is pretty unrealistic. The difference is that Schumacher didn't give a **** about realism at all - it was all about what looked cool. Nolan's films, despite the ludicrous premise of rich-guy-in-batsuit-fights-crime paid attention to realism in the details. The end result was an awesome film.

Stories, even fantasy stories are simply better when they get the details right.

[Reaver]

I suppose you're right. I just don't look too much into details such as where people wear their swords. I mean, before this thread, it never occurred to me how "unrealistic" that is.

Is it physically possible for someone to carry their sword on their back? Sure. He did it in Braveheart, though it was a specially designed scabbard just for that purpose. So, even in fantasy, if it's physically possible to do something, then it's a bit easier to accept it for me, even if it's not historically accurate.

But as I said, that's just my take. I'm firmly in the camp of "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

Edited by Reaver, 26 September 2008 - 10:41 PM.

[Dragon Girl]

That always bugged me, too, because I could never figure out how, exactly, one can draw such a long weapon from a scabbard on the back. If it's a short blade, it would be easy, but a really long one would be hard to pull free if it's longer than your arm can stretch.

my pet peeve - two words and theyre Conan related..

fur undies

damn, I cant stand those things..

Wouldn't they be itchy? Also, scantily-clad people in snow-covered terrain. I'm pretty sure even barbarians got frostbite if their skin was exposed too long to below-freezing temperatures. I know it looks bad-ass in cover art, but it still gives me a chuckle.

Then there was that one story where Conan strangled a guy with a snake. I kept thinking, "Is that even possible?? Wouldn't the poor snake tear in half?" Yeah, I can accept demons, dragons, gods, and magical talismans, but for some reason, that detail made me go

Edited by Dragon Girl, 30 September 2008 - 05:09 AM.

[PainBrush]

I really , really hate when dragons speak English ! Smaug can kiss my butt ! Eragon too . That smart-aleck Sean Connery dragon also . I mean , everyone knows their heyday was aeons before modern man even learned to speak , much less 'English' , which as we know it today has only been around for wha ? 4 , mebbe 5 hunnert years ? MAN DO I HATE ENGLISH DRAGONS ! They really need to do their research and find out exactly what a dragon talks like .

[Sharn]

HEY, yeah, Pain is right! Dragons speaking English is just stupid...

[amster]

My pet peeve is so called "Warrior Women" wearing next to nothing. I mean, its just stupid. There's no historical precedent for it. And its totally impratical. A chain mail bikini??? What's the point? It offers absolutely no protection at all!!!

No, wait a minute. I actually like it, on second thought. Have naked warrior women rule!