How Do You Sheath A Doppelhander?

[Deacon Blues]

Pretty much sums it up right there.

[Irmo]

I've got no experience with them, but I figure one possible way would be to rest the blade over your shoulder with the handle up, stabilizing it with one hand, and slipping the sheath on with the other. Once you have it in a bit, the rest is child's play: Hold the sheath with one hand, and glide the blade in with the other.

[Blankshield]

Carefully.

More seriously, I suspect most big honkin' swords like this were carried in harness, across the back or on a mount.

[Tash]

I've never seen a sheath for one, but pictures of the Swiss and Germanic troops who originally used them often show the trooper wearing a heavy baldric, so I wound guess they were carried on the back in a half sheath much like that guy with the Claymore in Braveheart wore his blade.

[Malechi]

For some reason I read that as "How do you Stealth[/i] a Dopplehander?"

I was thinking, With great bloody difficulty!

Jason K.

[Salamander]

Pretty much sums it up right there.

Yeah, you don't. You carry it over your shoulder bare bladed.

[Jake Norwood]

Seriously...

Sheathing it, like unsheathing it (if such a thing even has a sheath, honestly) is done in front of the body with both hands while not wearing the thing. The entire idea of drawing or sheathing any weapon longer than 30" on the back is absurd.

Make sense?

Jake

[Tash]

In regards to the character I mentioned before (the guy in Braveheart with the huge Claymore).  He is clearly shown in one scene taking the baldric from over his shoulder, holding the scabbard (which actually covers only the bottom half of the blade) in front of him, and drawing the sword before a battle.

So I have to agree with Jake that this is how you'd sheath a dopplehander, if in fact you do sheath one.  Its entirely reasonable to thing swords that large had to be carried unsheathed at all times given that the tip would be nearly scrapping the ground if worn over the shoulder of many men.

[Irmo]

So I have to agree with Jake that this is how you'd sheath a dopplehander, if in fact you do sheath one.  Its entirely reasonable to thing swords that large had to be carried unsheathed at all times given that the tip would be nearly scrapping the ground if worn over the shoulder of many men.

If it were, I'd say it would be the wrong size for the man ;)

[murazor]

This reminds me of a scene from 'Conan The Barbarian'. When Conan, Subotai and Valeria sneaks into the Mountain of Power to rescue the princess, they carry their swords strapped to their backs. But once they have reached the throne room we see them unstrapping the sheats and reattaching them to their belts, reflecting that drawing - not to mention resheathing - blade from a back-worn sheath is very awkward.

[Jürgen Mayer]

If it were, I'd say it would be the wrong size for the man ;)

Yup, the custom size of a claymore is from the toes of the wielder to his solar plexus, IIRC.

On sheathing/carrying such a sword: I've never seen a sheath for such a big sword, but I know of a carrying device: it's made of leather and carried like a backpack - it has no sheath, only a sturdy broad leather strip. You have to stick the sword in there while not wearing it, then wear it like a backpack. If you want to draw it, you hold the sword at the hilt behind your head with one hand, and the other grabs a long leather cord that is connected to an opening mechanism which sets the blade free. Quick and useful. There's a guy making and selling those things around here.

[Tash]

If you want to draw it, you hold the sword at the hilt behind your head with one hand, and the other grabs a long leather cord that is connected to an opening mechanism which sets the blade free.

Now that sounds just plain cool!

[Starshadow]

Just a note about the lenght of swords mentioned here:

Tash wrote:
So I have to agree with Jake that this is how you'd sheath a dopplehander, if in fact you do sheath one. Its entirely reasonable to thing swords that large had to be carried unsheathed at all times given that the tip would be nearly scrapping the ground if worn over the shoulder of many men.

Irmo wrote:
If it were, I'd say it would be the wrong size for the man ;)

Yup, the custom size of a claymore is from the toes of the wielder to his solar plexus, IIRC.

Remember, the Doppelhander and the Claymore are different types of swords. The Claymore was usually about 50-60" long, while a Doppelhander was usually over 6'.

As an example, take a look at some Great Landsknecht swords.

[Irmo]

Just a note about the lenght of swords mentioned here:


Remember, the Doppelhander and the Claymore are different types of swords. The Claymore was usually about 50-60" long, while a Doppelhander was usually over 6'.

As an example, take a look at some Great Landsknecht swords.

Here's an example of one:
http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/vm_2h_eng.htm

Zweihänders by no means were "usually over 6' " rather, that was at the high end, and 5' 6" is a much more reasonable length. A sword over 6' in length would be barely usable in battle by anyone but a giant of a man. While some weapons up to 78" exist, these are so heavy (12-13lbs) that they are unlikely to be weapons for actual use, but likely purely ceremonial, in my opinion.

Cf. http://www.palus.demon.co.uk/Sword_Stats.html
This lists the stats for all Zweihänders in the collection of the Graz arsenal, and you will see that most are in fact below 72" in length (which would translate to 6')

There is merely a handful of blades that are above 72" and have a weight that I'd consider swingable for any length of time. There are, however, even Zweihänders as short as 57"

[Turin]

Lets also not forget that a middle ages man was somewhat shorter than todays average height.  I think 5'5" was about the norm (not sure where I read it from).  So a 67" blade would be about the height of a man