Could a man carry a two-handed sword on the hip?

>it's really heavy and you have to carry in on your back
"Really awkward" was more the point I was trying to make in . It's like how trying to carry a really big, yet very light thing is awkward, like a couch.

Carrying it on your hip would throw off your balance but is doable. The real reason people never did it is that you can't draw a fucking massive straight sword from the hip. That's one of the advantages of curved swords.

technically yes, but for most people it's going to be awkward, especially if you try moving at more than walking pace.

If you're a a tall person, than this is easier to pull off.

Though 'big freaking sword' is kind of a subjective thing relative to the user's size when you think about it. I mean just because it's a big-ass sword for you doesn't make it less of a knife to the half-giant in the party.

Carry it on a mule guarded by your servants, while you go with something smaller inside town. A two-handed sword is pretty much a tool of warfare.

Curved.
Swords.

You literally can't draw a sword from your back. Also swords are really light

Alright, Veeky Forums historians:

>I'm 6'8"
>average arm length relative to body size

What's the biggest sword I could reasonably use? Clearly a pike or a halberd is a better choice, but logistically, what's the ratio of sword to man for reasonable combat?

Whatever kind of two handed sword is available in your specific time period and region.

And being fuck huge wouldn't mean you should use a bigger sword. It means you'd hit harder, faster, and with longer reach with the swords already available. And you don't really wanna give up that advantage for the sake of using some over sized chopper.

Actually no one carries the sword in the back, it's a very stupid idea, gets stuck in the grip when trying to pull

Might as well ask here instead of making a new thread.
Would a viking imagine Thor as wearing armour?
I now he got the hammer belt and gloves, but what about a mail shirt?

A Germanic renessance two handed sword is likely around the biggest swords that saw serious military use, though a person that large could make effective use of some of the larger swords that were created for display and parade use.

There were a lot of Vikings and Northmen. Danes would picture him as a wealthy and successful noble they were familiar with and likely go with fur trim on a colorful tunic with geometric decorations. Hunting giants, he'd be kitted out in mail halburk.

Northern Scandinavians would go for more fur, Armor was more rare with people more poor and you might see him more as a wildman going into battle in nothing but a decent shirt.

Thanks.

Well, you could easily pull the sword from the OP image from your back.

More historically accurate would be a sword on the back in a sheath, the whole sheath removed from the back then the sword drawn and sheath discarded when the weapon was needed, like carrying a rifle in a range bag now.

>you can't draw a fucking massive straight sword from the hip
Two-handed swords tended to be about 5-7 pounds.

Contrary to what anime and dark souls might tell you, real handheld weapons are designed to be light enough to be used with agility by reasonably-fit soldiers, including those who are exhausted or even lightly injured. They aren't some unwieldy man-sized slabs of metal.

Don't attach big ass weapons to your body, as a usual rule

A two-handed sword?
Yes, very easily

But I assume you mean a sword more like a Claymore then no, you'd carry it on your shoulder

He was talking about length, not weight you dumbass
Swords were still long as fuck, everybody knows they didn't weigh 40 pounds

>Carrying a sword on your back is cumbersome and slow to draw and will get you killed.
Depends on how it's sheathed.
The full scabbard across the back is *unslung* first, then drawn, often by just throwing the scabbard aside. It's about as difficult to remove as a backpack or messenger bag.

There are also Fastened scabbards, such as the one in OP's pic, where only the tip of the sword is in a proper scabbard, but the grip is held in place by a clasp or simple tie that can be quickly and easily removed. Drawing one of these is akin to untying a shoelace, something that you learn how to do as a single action when drawing your greatsword.

That said: Greatswords are not weapons of immediate self defense: for that, a scotsman has between 3 and 5 knives (a dirk at either ankle, or the shirt, or the hip, and one or more concealed in the kilt, or some combination of all those places) If he was attacked in the hills, he's at good odds to either see his foe early enough to draw his sword, or, if ambushed, able to create enough space with a few well placed dagger slashes to draw at speed.

if he's got really tiny hands and is really tall.

It was pretty common, so no.

Can you lift 10 Kg? Are you comfortable with a weapon 2.24 meters long? If So: Clan Maxwell of Scotland has the weapon for you! fuilteach-mhuirt is a 15th century claymore in the possession of the National War Museum of Scotland.

Exactly this. The sheath in OP's image is completely usable, untie the top, pull it slightly up and then bring your arm down, using your shoulder as a fulcrum. If you have a weapon on your back and want to use it with any speed, that's how to do it.
A messenger bag is not uncomfortable, and neither is a large sword / other weapon in the same position. There is a bit of clearance needed on the side depending on angle / size of the weapon, but you would probably get used to that. In fact it may be slightly more comfortable due to a large sword on a hip sheath getting in the way, waving around, while it being on the back is pretty tight in.
Unless it's a dagger though no one can draw a blade out of a true sheath from that angle though, no doubting that.

youtube.com/watch?v=YB3q0WvHVJE

1/2 height + 6" + hilt

>takes an eternity and a half to draw
I guess they had smaller swords as sidearms that are quicker to draw and used the big sword if some dude charged at you on horse.

>pike or a halberd is a better choice
When will this meme end

Some time after my pointy friend and I get popular.

PUT A WINDSCREEN ON YOUR MIC THEY'RE LIKE A THOUSAND YEN AT MOST!

Katanas are kind of two-handed swords, and they're traditionally worn on the side. More the waist than the hip.

Why don't you put an actual legit school?
youtube.com/watch?v=qWtEBW8cmAo

>Greatswords are not weapons of immediate self defense
depends.
it was typical to just carry the sword unsheathed if you anticipated a fight as at all likely

even european two handed swords were plenty short enough for hip wearing, the classic cruciform longsword went down to only ~85cm blade length.

Why don't one of you two post someone actually using a sword instead of dancing with one?

Wasn't Montante advertising his style (of "wave around a fuckhuge sword and never, ever stop") saying it's the ultimate in defense of self and others?

Not him, but it's not about weight. It's simply impractical as fuck to draw from a scrabbard something this fucking long, especially if it's on your hip. The easiest way is to throw away the scabbard once you draw it, which also makes it viable for carrying like odachi was carries. Not behind a belt or something, but having a fucking STRING on your scabbard in two places and said string tucked to your belt. So by drawing the weapon the scabbard was in the same time untied from your belt and you could fight.

The real question is - why would you want to have a sword or any other bladed weapon that is not a polearm this fucking long. It's simply impractical and comes from lenght, not weight.

Its not about it becoming popular, pike and shot was a thing, the problem about the bayonet is that actually fixing it to the gun was a problem until someone finally came up with the bayonet ring.

yes, it was done all the time. Longswords were two handed. Read a book.

Yes you could, longswords were two handed, they were designed to be carried on the hip.

Id wager not, since its never described in any sagas. Thor wasnt really a warrior, he was more of a benevolent trickster, more of a foil to Loki than anything else. Tyr would probably wear armor.

You actually dont even use a smaller sword. You use a punching dagger and grapple a dude then pin-cushion his ass through the armpits.

Two handed swords are good for two things.

They're good for single-combat because its basically a bladed crowbar to knock your enemy down with so you can finish them with a rondel.

They're also good in pike formations because you can use them fairly deftly to swat pikes, make an opening, and fuck with the enemy. Pikes are balanced all wrong for really getting fancy and batting other pikes away. A good longsword or greatsword is enough of a threat to make it viable, and pikemen cant just grab it and push it away cuz blade.

I'd disagree, as he was a warrior patron. He'd need not be described as wearing armor, it would be assumed out of hand.
That said, many of the norse gods were tricky, getting the upper hand on someone via wit and guile were mightily respected.

Its really impossible to pin that shit down for lack of primary sources, but Thor's role as a warrior is more as a protector OF warriors.

Truth, but such things in many mythologies are garbed as warriors are.
It makes sense to assume Thor is little different.

The sources describe the use of the large two-handed sword as a bodyguard's weapon. Good for 1-vs-many, protecting banners, officers, drums and the likes.

Smaller two-handed swords were just use in the place of an arming sword, no more no less.

Thats because that is the most common use of them, but Ive had a lot of people much more informed than me say that they played a role in the front of pike blocks.

>straightouttacontext.jpg

Last time I checked, the zweihander vs pike block theory only had some images to back up its claim, which is pretty freaking slim.
While their use as a defensive and interdiction weapon is well proven.

To be clear, Im not questioning their use as bodyguard and self defense weapons at all. Hell, all Ive ever trained to do with a longsword is single combat.

>To be clear, Im not questioning their use as bodyguard and self defense weapons at all.
But I am questioning their use as a regular anti-pike weapon...

>Being this fucking stupid

Alright.

Yeah. It's basically a series of rotations that gets more and more complicated as you go on. It's a fair style I guess, as they were used for many protection services.

>A two-handed sword?
>Yes, very easily

>But I assume you mean a sword more like a Claymore then no, you'd carry it on your shoulder

Can you give me some examples of other two-handed swords? All I know is claymore, zweihander and grossmesser/langes messer

It's either going to drag on the ground or stick out enough to be annoyingly cumbersome.

If it's short enough not to do either, it's fine.

I should probably mention, when I say "two-handed sword", I don't mean a sword that can be wielded in two hands. In this system, it's a type of sword that can ONLY be wielded (effectively) in two hands.

...

longswords are two handed swords.

though thisnisnthe historians definition. The dnd longsword is really an Arming sword, while the dnd bastardsword is a longsword.