Arrows are very flexible especially wooden arrows. Arrows will often break on entering the target and stabbing with it would have far less power than just shooting from the bow. It wouldn’t really be practical for a fight.
Yeah he’s full of it. Telling people who have been passing down Archery techniques for thousands of years that they’re doing it all wrong. He is impressive no doubt but he wouldn’t last five minutes against even a lightly armoured opponent.
@SirRod
Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve never personally used a back quiver, but they sure seem highly impractical.
@Ullr
First off, your English is quite understandable. 
Secondly, I agree with your overall point, that each quiver has it’s own advantages and disadvantages, but as an archer who very much enjoys moving, jumping, climbing, and running while shooting, I like belt quivers very much. I think that back quivers would probably be worse for lots of movement than belt quivers, especially when jumping, because the arrows would jostle around quite a bit and some may even fall out completely if you don’t land right, if you bend over to get under something, or even if you just bend down to collect your other arrows. While I agree that the back quiver would probably be better for a longbowman in a fortified position (such as a castle under siege), I doubt that it would appeal to much of anybody else.
Another aspect would be stealth, as you cannot (easily) control the sounds of your arrows in your quiver if they are on your back. With a belt quiver, you can hold the arrows together with your non-bow hand while running so that they make absolutely no noise at all. While this doesn’t work while climbing, it certainly is extremely effective (in my limited experience) for cancelling the noise of your arrows clanking together. Additionally, I think it would be fairly easy to hide a belt quiver under a cloak or similar garment, whereas it seems pretty much impossible to do so with a back quiver.
Just my two cents.
Actually hunters would use back quivers for the purpose of them being quieter. They didn’t have a chance to slap against their leg.
@SirRod is flat out wrong when he claims back quivers were a myth and all these “historians” on the forums were happily agreeing with him.
Like you said it comes down to personal preference.
I suppose if you were stalking prey very slowly, not running or anything, that would be true, but it seems like one could still easily hold the arrows in the hip quiver.
Since I have a hip quiver readily available to me, I decided to do an experiment, and I can walk at a slightly less-than-average pace (about 2 MPH/3KPH) with my aluminum arrows (which I consider to be very loud) making no noise at all, as a properly-fastened (or what I consider to be properly-fastened) hip quiver won’t slap against your leg unless you are running at a fair speed.
Another thing I neglected to point out is maneuverability. It’s very easy to put your hand on your hip quiver and move it around so you may get around obstacles when it’s in the way, or when sitting down, whereas I can’t imagine you can do that with a back quiver.
I also just realized that I use too many parenthesis. Sorry. I hope it’s understandable.
Yes most people take only a few arrows when hunting 1-3 myself included. But back quivers were preferred if the hunter took a quiver.
<img src="/uploads/default/original/2X/7/79e812ce38081f676453cbf2ab311ab0022cbe15.png"
Back quivers are very convenient for traveling long distances. And big game hunters have to trek sometimes 20 miles into the wilderness and 20 miles out. And as i said above hunters with side quivers have said they tend to make more noise than back quivers.
@SirWarriant
I see your point with having to travel very long distances.
That being said, how do we know that hunters, archers, and/or bowmen in medieval times also used back quivers?
@SirWarriant, I am unable to come up with any European illuminations of medieval archers using back quivers, except for this one.
A closer look at the archers on the right side there:
It appears that this one archer has his quiver on his back, even though all his friends use belt quivers. This is the only European illumination that I can find that gives any example of a back quiver. I say European since I have come across a few Asian ones depicting horseman archers with back quivers. If you find other historical European illuminations that have back quivers, please share them with us so we can see.
This is a very unscientific way of going about things.
Now, when it comes to the 14th or 15th century, then I’m afraid there’s little I can do there. But when it comes to back quivers at all, then you have acted poorly, as I have found several images supporting their usage. That said, I don’t think they were the norm, and may have been quite rare for the reasons you had stated (although I highly disagree with the point about it being a really long reach. You’re just reach over your shoulder at head height, what’s wrong with that?)
There is a practical purpose behind the Back Quiver, in that, after shooting, then your hand is already near the arrows.
But keep in mind that there’s pros and cons; that’s how warfare was. Mostly, it’s just personal preference as far as I can see.
How dare you bring this back from the dead!
I just read the thing, and thought “I have to respond to this!”
Just like jumping a fence that says “Restricted Area” 
I’m the Dead Knight. What else were you expecting?
For you to stay dead… 
I read his thing, saw the section on “no artwork with back quivers” and thought “Is that true?” so I checked, and saw all those images with back quivers, and realized that the OP was being lazy.
Also, what’s so bad about reaching behind your head? I mean, I guess the drawing of the arrow might be an issue, especially with the average height at the time, hence why the belt-tied and belt-quivered arrows were so popular, but even so, there is a functional benefit to having a back-quiver.
and most of what you posted is not relevant to the early 15th century in central europe… and much of it have already been posted before… showing that you didn’t even read the topic before posting.
Let’s take a closer look at the examples:
Bayeux Tapestry:
as fas as I can see the person in question does not wear a helmet either. Also the strap sits at a really unrealistic position. Like this the belt would strangle him, when he raises the arm to shoot. It could be shown that this guy is very actively fighting, therefore the lost helmet and weirdly hanging belt. Or it should be a joke (ancient humor is weird, too …), or some very few selected people prefer it that way, but we may never know, because you don’t create rules out of exceptions.
14th century:
This lady doesn’t seem to “wear” the Arrows, they seem to hover over her lower back. The arrows also look rather peculiar. This is clearly the fantasy of the artist and the position looks rather belt-region (waist) than back.
Persian Immortals:
(Different culture, but …) I looked up ancient persian archery and all showed the quivers at the belt, except two reliefs: this and another in the same style, three people in robes and golden circlets with quiver AND Bow over their shoulders. Seeing the robes and everything it strikes me more of a ceremony or representation of gods than real soldiers. The arrow ends aren’t even sticking out from the “quiver” making them nearly impossible to reach - this is clearly not a combat depiction and again: seemingly an exception.
Samurai 1 and 2:
(Again different culture, but …) they don’t even have quivers! It looks like a small bag as protection of the tips and a ring and strap that are tied to the armor directly, holding the arrows together. This is a very different concept and should be completely separated from the discussion.
16th century:
… aah, the time of romantification of ancient greece. It does look more like a cornucopia and the bow is stuck inside with the arrows? I’m putting this in the realm of fantasy, along with those sandals and the totally greek blond hair and the ribbons and buttons on the cloth. Looking at a lot of vase paintings, ancient greek seem to have worn the quivers like the persians: a long strip over the shoulder and the quiver hanging at hip height.
Before Agriculture:
Almost no details, just big splotches of paint left. It does look like back quivers, so I looked up african tribes, where techniques are still pretty much those of the first humans. They seem to have either no quiver at all or a small one with a string attached. When walking normally, they carry it over the left shoulder, when shooting they keep it in the (left) hand holding the bow. Not exactly what I’d call a back quiver.
So, to sum it up: none of these examples would count as a convincing evidence for (fairly) frequent back quiver use in european history. They all seem to be very curious exceptions to the rule of quivers at hip height. It’d be interesting to examine these exceptions and why they came to be, although for some pictures we’ll never know.
As for medieval book illustrations, quite a lot of them are some kind of joke, irony or fantasy that are often difficult or impossible to correctly interpret.
But … ye … now I’m kinda really interested in persian archery 
Aye, only one place did put it on the back, which was englend. But. only at the towers, and front defense of the watch.
so you are claiming that it was done, but only when the soldier was in a tower? or on watch?
please share your source for that rather strange claim.
Nice to see my old post still getting some love, especially as back quivers seems to be what they went with 
