I always felt cool when I got to wear a sword on my back in games. And since Deliverance is really immersive with first-person view and stuff, I would really enjoy wearing a weapon that way. 
Is there at least a chance?
As far as i know, this weapon wearing on the back - thing is fictional, and since this game want to be realistic i don’t think that will be happen.
3 Likes
I bet there was at least one guy in medieval times that wore a sword on his back. Please, let me be that guy! 
It is possible to wear a sword on your back, and be able to draw it quickly. Here is a picture to illustrate: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Mock26/Dragonsfoot/twoHandedBackBaldric_zps6df52eed.jpg~original
What you do is pull it up a few cms then pull it away from your body. The whole blade is not in a sheathe, only the point. It might be easier to have even less of the point in the sheathe than is shown in the picture, but it’s definitely possible.
As for being in the game, probably not. Bastard swords are the longest in the game, and they are worn at the hip. There are always mods though, and this seems like one of the simpler mods to implement.
That is not a thing… That (smart) people did. The problems are just ridiculous. Even if you use a sheath like the one posted above, you still risk cutting yourself if you pull the wrong way (someone jumps you, panic is a thing FYI). However slightly, it is more complicated to have two motions, pull out, then away from yourself, this mental delay could kill you, while offering NO benefits at all.
The sheath shown above makes it possible (completely impossible otherwise), but it can’t offer any protection from the elements to most of the blade, so again, why would you bother? What benefit is there to something that is more complicate, risks cutting yourself, increases chances of death, and is impossible unless you use a sheath that offers no elemental protection?
For the short version, watch the linked video.
3 Likes
I guess I have to put my hopes into modders then. 
That sort of undermine the point of carrying it in a scabbard.
To protect the blade and you (and other people)
As has been mentioned above, wearing swords on the back isn’t a very real thing in the fifteenth century. Very large swords of the sixteenth century (the Zweihander swords of the German/Swiss landsknecht mercenaries, for example, and other very large war swords) were generally just carried; I’ve never seen evidence of a scabbard or suspension system for one. The post-fifteenth century Scottish Claymore swords are sometimes seen worn on the back in popular images, but I’ve never seen one worn this way in any period depictions.
The Middle Ages tended to be a time of practicality. Men in the field tended to wear as little armour as they thought they needed, and only got really dressed up for large battles.
War swords and other swords larger than a riding sword (a typical single-hand sword) were only ever brought out for specific combat, and even then such a large sword really only came about in the age of pikes and other massed formations.
You could strap a long sword to your back, I suppose, but it would be odd, and it would be very hard to draw, and get the way of everything (ask me how I know, lol).
This could easily be modded into the game, but that would tend to break immersion. I’d recommend back-slung swords for more of a fantasy game, personally - but if it’s your thing, then go be that guy with the sword on his back
1 Like
I suppose that executioner could carry his big sword on back.
But I would not expect him to fight with it.
I doubt that executioner would walk around with that blade but to having it only when carrying out his duties, removing someones head from shoulders.
Wouldn’t an executioner use an axe? …
In England, yeah. In the HRE they used executioner swords.
The advantage that a sword offers over an axe for executions were: 1. The iconography of the sword carries more authority 2. the longer cutting edge sliced better and made it harder to miss, and you could make the sword have a similar weight at the center of percussion as an axe, which would make there be no down side to not using an axe, asides from less leverage due to a shorter handle.
The executioner Frantz Schmidt worked from 1573 to 1617 in Bamburg and Nuremberg and recorded an account of his executions in a diary. He recorded 187 executions with a sword, only 4 of these executions required a second stroke, which is a 2 percent failure rate. So as far as I can see, swords worked out pretty good.
Lastly, executioner swords were kept on display in courtrooms, the executioner did not carry it around or even bring it home with him.
3 Likes
Game of thrones style:D
Well, if he did, he must have died quickly.
Or there was only one man at a time that died quickly. Either way this is not recommended.
MODS AWAY!!! 
WHY NOT A MACE???!!!
Just bash their heads XD
I already answered you before you even asked me.[quote=“Skoruligr, post:13, topic:25683”]
- The iconography of the sword carries more authority
[/quote]
So essentially sword is more intimidating than mace? Didn’t know that. Of course we think differently now days…
Medieval=latin for “Middle Age”, medieval times translates to “middle age times”. Medieval times is a restaurant.
1 Like
Well, kinda, because a sword is a deadlier weapon in unarmored combat. The the point isn’t being scary, the sword was an icon for things like authority, chivalry, Godliness, and righteous wrath. Even centuries after anyone could afford one it still carried an air of authority, which is why mainland Europe usually preferred it for executions, except for the British and other cultures that were considered to be backwoods hicks like the British.