Claymore = ? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Claymore = ? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Malchi
12-14-06, 10:06 PM What would be the equivilent? Greatsword? Bastardsword? what do you think?
Druid_of_the_storm
12-14-06, 10:07 PM we talking big nordic claymore here?...me thinking greatsword
Artector
12-14-06, 10:08 PM Either. Depends on what you want. I'm sure the historians will come in here in a minute and say its one or the other. But from the bit I know I think that a greatsword is the closer equivalent.
Malchi
12-14-06, 10:08 PM OKay, thats kinda what I was leaning towards
Batshido
12-14-06, 10:10 PM Yeah, the Claymore was kind of the quintessential Greatsword. Off hand, I can only think of one or two other types of weapon that even come close to the description given in the PHB.
Chrono Nexus
12-14-06, 10:15 PM Yes, Greatsword seems to be a closer example of Claymore in DnD. The only problem I have with greatswords is the lack of a ricasso in the picture of the phb.
draconic_swine
12-14-06, 11:15 PM Greatsword's definitely the best fit. Some claymores were on the short side for two-handed swords, which would be a bastard sword, but I've never heard of claymores being used in one hand.

Yes, Greatsword seems to be a closer example of Claymore in DnD. The only problem I have with greatswords is the lack of a ricasso in the picture of the phb.

Don't worry, the fact that it doesn't have a ricasso doesn't matter. Don't trust the PHB pictures. Ever.
Waterhammer
12-15-06, 12:04 AM Actually if you are Scottish you can call just about any kind of sword a claymore. It's tradition.
Basket-hilted backswords were called claymores. In D&D these are the equivalent of the longsword.
Watchman
12-15-06, 01:42 AM Anything from a Longsword to a Greatsword, depending on the exact time period. I've read Scottish (and for that matter Irish) two-handers were for a long time noticeably lighter than was the norm among weapons of equivalent size elsewhere (presumably due to the scarcity of decent armour in these poor off-the-way regions, and hence little need for heftier blades to "crack" such) though, make what you will out of that.
Fencerboy
12-15-06, 09:17 PM Greatsword, but braveheart must have monkeygrip or something as such :P
InterSilva
12-15-06, 09:40 PM I've never heard of claymores being used in one hand.

Ever play Diablo II? ;)
Stolide
12-15-06, 10:06 PM Or you could make it a masterwork bastard sword that must be used in two hands.
Aryxbez
12-16-06, 08:31 AM In the arms and equipment guide it says they are a greatsword

also since greatswords are long big swords, and claymores are long and big
It makes sense for a claymore to be greatsword
Thunder Dragonbane
12-16-06, 10:16 AM Typical claymore has a 4' blade and a 2' hilt. Yes it would be light enough to use in one hand because of it being made from light metal, but I think that using the weapon two handed would be more realistic. Not to mention that controlling this weapon one handed would be diffacult at best.
savant_warlord13
12-17-06, 05:20 PM we talking big nordic claymore here?...me thinking greatsword

claymores were actually from scotland (and maybe ireland), they were not norse.
savant_warlord13
12-17-06, 05:23 PM Typical claymore has a 4' blade and a 2' hilt. Yes it would be light enough to use in one hand because of it being made from light metal, but I think that using the weapon two handed would be more realistic. Not to mention that controlling this weapon one handed would be diffacult at best.

Swords are not made from light metal.
savant_warlord13
12-17-06, 05:25 PM Yes, Greatsword seems to be a closer example of Claymore in DnD. The only problem I have with greatswords is the lack of a ricasso in the picture of the phb.

According to wikipedia, many early greatswords did not have ricassos.
Solo_Phoenix
12-17-06, 11:02 PM Swords are not made from light metal.

Due to lack of armour that needed to be cut through, Claymores were much lighter than a greatswords of similar length.
draconic_swine
12-17-06, 11:35 PM Due to lack of armour that needed to be cut through, Claymores were much lighter than a greatswords of similar length.

And how, exactly, would a steel sword be significantly lighter than another steel sword of a similar length?
Waterhammer
12-18-06, 01:53 AM And how, exactly, would a steel sword be significantly lighter than another steel sword of a similar length?

It would be made of al-yoo-meeny-umm, of course. :D
Chimera245
12-18-06, 02:27 AM If it helps, I heard the word "Claymore" comes from "Claid Mor" which literally means "Greatsword" in Scottish or in an old version of Scottish.
frankthedm
12-18-06, 02:43 AM And how, exactly, would a steel sword be significantly lighter than another steel sword of a similar length?A thinner blade.
Solo_Phoenix
12-18-06, 03:42 AM Exactly
draconic_swine
12-18-06, 11:26 AM A thinner blade.

Thus sacrificing structural strength and cutting ability ... so because the Scots faced foes in little to no armour they settled on using inferior blades?
Behaigo
12-18-06, 02:57 PM Claymores also had blunt edges and a sharp point (the edge was used to "knee-cap" horses and the point was used to administer stabby death to the downed rider) so I would have them deal either bludgeoning or piercing damage depending on how your using it.
Ustauk
12-18-06, 03:23 PM According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore), a claymore can be either a two handed sword or a one handed sword, depending on the historical period.

Claymore is a term used to describe two distinct types of Scottish swords.

Name
The name claymore is thought to be from claidheamh mòr—a Gaelic term meaning "big sword". However, another theory suggests it comes from claidheamh da lamh, literally "two-hand sword." Claidheamh is ultimately cognate with Latin gladius. As such the use of the term 'claymore' for the two-handed sword is considered debatable.

Two-handed (Highland) claymore
The two-handed claymore was a large sword used in the Medieval period. It was used in the constant clan warfare and border fights with the English from circa 1300 to 1700.[citation needed] The last known battle in which it is considered to have been used in a significant number is Battle of Killiecrankie in 1689. It was somewhat smaller than other two-handed swords of the era. The two-handed claymore seems to be an offshoot of Early Scottish medieval swords which had developed a distinctive style of a cross-hilt with downsloping arms that ended in spatulate swellings. The spatulate swellings were frequently made in a quatrefoil design. Claymores sometimes had a ricasso to facilitate half-sword usage.

The average claymore ran about 55 inches (1.4 m) in overall length, with a 13-inch (33 cm) grip, 42-inch (1.07 m) blade, and a weight of approximately 5.5 lb (2.5 kg), the blades are most similar to the type XIIIa, using the Oakeshott typology. Fairly uniform in style, the sword was set with a wheel pommel often capped by a crescent-shaped nut and a guard with straight, down-sloping arms ending in quatrefoils and langets running down the center of the blade from the guard. Another common style of two-handed claymore (though lesser known today) was the "clamshell hilted" claymore. It had a crossguard that consisted of two downward-curving arms and two large, round, concave plates that protected the foregrip. It was so named because the round guards resembled an open clam.

Basket-hilted claymore
The second, later, sword to be designated "claymore" was a much shorter, one-handed, basket-hilted broadsword popular with Scottish troops and some English officers from the 18th century onwards, even seeing limited combat during World War II; a claymore was carried in World War II by Lt. Col. Jack Churchill DSO, MC & BAR. The basket was designed to protect the hand in combat. The Scottish basket-hilt sword is often distinguished from others by the velvet liner inside the basket (often in red), and also sometimes by additional decorative tassels on the hilt or pommel. This latter form of "claymore" (unrelated to the first) can be seen in some forms of highland traditional dance, as well as on the dress uniforms of British Army regiments drawn from the region.

Duncan McLeod in the Highlander series used a two handed claymore when he first became an immortal in the 17th century, and would later use a one-handed, basket hilted claymore while fighting at the side of Bonnie Prince Charlie in the 18th.
Watchman
12-18-06, 03:56 PM Thus sacrificing structural strength and cutting ability ... so because the Scots faced foes in little to no armour they settled on using inferior blades?I take it you don't know too much about swords, then. Right, essay time. If you're making a straight sword and only intend to cut bits off people with it, what you want is a thin flexible blade. Thin, note, in profile; such weapons are normally fairly wide (in the interests of that selfsame structural strenght and necessary rigidity). Anyway the thinner the profile the less the mass of the weapon itself "drags" when cutting into target - thin as a razor would as such be preferable in this regard, but it'd also compromise too many other traits. Feel free to read more educated observations on the topic here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm) and a short in-depth analysis (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm) on the matter.

Recall also that thin, wide cutting swords tended to be the norm wherever good armour was not much of an issue, something the Celtic Fringe most certainly qualifies for. The rather isolated Ireland and the dirt poor and likewise somewhat out of the way Scottish Highlands in fact managed to preserve surprising amounts of the antediluvian Celtic "heroic warfare" system right until the Early Modern period, and one facet of this was that metal body armour, expensive as it was, was scarce and only encountered on nobility and elite warriors (the same folks would be the ones most likely able to afford a sword, mind you, but then they'd have little trouble taking a couple of more armour-piercing weapons along for backup...). Ergo, the average swordsman would mostly be fighting nimble, unarmoured opponents - the perfect target for a light, quick cutting sword, and the blade would not have needed to be particularly robust as it wouldn't normally be meeting anything tougher than organic materials. A heavier sword better suited to brute-forcing its way through mail and helmets, such as were popular among the continental Celts of Antiquity and the better warriors of the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages, would really be rather overkill most of the time as well as a little on the clumsy side, but no doubt some senior warriors preferred having such for dealing with other well-equipped champions. Although the two-handed versions (most of which would have been regarded as being on the very light side elsewhere) may have filled that function as well, with no loss of agility and more reach and leverage.

I've incidentally read that the heftier blades of the Vikings were a bit of a shock to the Irish when they first ran into them, and probably prompted redesigns of some defensive gear such as shields.
clannagh
12-18-06, 06:13 PM i have been told that in practice the scottish two handed Claymore was wielded more like a bludgeoning weapon than slashing :)
draconic_swine
12-18-06, 06:45 PM I take it you don't know too much about swords, then. Right, essay time. If you're making a straight sword and only intend to cut bits off people with it, what you want is a thin flexible blade. Thin, note, in profile; such weapons are normally fairly wide (in the interests of that selfsame structural strenght and necessary rigidity). Anyway the thinner the profile the less the mass of the weapon itself "drags" when cutting into target - thin as a razor would as such be preferable in this regard, but it'd also compromise too many other traits. Feel free to read more educated observations on the topic here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm) and a short in-depth analysis (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm) on the matter.

Recall also that thin, wide cutting swords tended to be the norm wherever good armour was not much of an issue, something the Celtic Fringe most certainly qualifies for. The rather isolated Ireland and the dirt poor and likewise somewhat out of the way Scottish Highlands in fact managed to preserve surprising amounts of the antediluvian Celtic "heroic warfare" system right until the Early Modern period, and one facet of this was that metal body armour, expensive as it was, was scarce and only encountered on nobility and elite warriors (the same folks would be the ones most likely able to afford a sword, mind you, but then they'd have little trouble taking a couple of more armour-piercing weapons along for backup...). Ergo, the average swordsman would mostly be fighting nimble, unarmoured opponents - the perfect target for a light, quick cutting sword, and the blade would not have needed to be particularly robust as it wouldn't normally be meeting anything tougher than organic materials. A heavier sword better suited to brute-forcing its way through mail and helmets, such as were popular among the continental Celts of Antiquity and the better warriors of the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages, would really be rather overkill most of the time as well as a little on the clumsy side, but no doubt some senior warriors preferred having such for dealing with other well-equipped champions. Although the two-handed versions (most of which would have been regarded as being on the very light side elsewhere) may have filled that function as well, with no loss of agility and more reach and leverage.

I've incidentally read that the heftier blades of the Vikings were a bit of a shock to the Irish when they first ran into them, and probably prompted redesigns of some defensive gear such as shields.

Thanks for the information. Much better than the usual responses you get to historical weapon queries (my response included). I was actually thinking about something else (and even what I was thinking about was wrong), not that it really matters.
Watchman
12-19-06, 04:27 AM i have been told that in practice the scottish two handed Claymore was wielded more like a bludgeoning weapon than slashing :)Virtually quaranteed to be bollocks, that. The only swords that weren't made and kept sharp are some very specialized thrusting-only armour-piercers that weren't designed for any cutting to begin with (not counting chronic negligence on the part of the owner, naturally). There would be very little point in wielding a sword in the first place otherwise, as if you want to pummel the enemy to death a mace or hammer is both cheaper and by far better suited for the purpose.

'Sides, all you really need to make and keep the blade sharp is a whetstone.

Sounds mostly like the commonplace and entirely false myth about Medieval swords "being blunt and brittle devices for clumsy bashing" to me.
Yokomohoyo
12-19-06, 04:45 AM Heres a great site with lots of information on the great swords
Clicky (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html)
And heres some info on claymore's
Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore)

Judging by the pictures in the first and pages I would dare to say that the great sword and the claymore are two diffrent types of blades.

Wile the claymore would be a bastard sword a great sword may be also a sword that is heavyer.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Malchi 12-14-06, 10:06 PM	What would be the equivilent? Greatsword? Bastardsword? what do you think?
Druid_of_the_storm 12-14-06, 10:07 PM	we talking big nordic claymore here?...me thinking greatsword
Artector 12-14-06, 10:08 PM	Either. Depends on what you want. I'm sure the historians will come in here in a minute and say its one or the other. But from the bit I know I think that a greatsword is the closer equivalent.
Malchi 12-14-06, 10:08 PM	OKay, thats kinda what I was leaning towards
Batshido 12-14-06, 10:10 PM	Yeah, the Claymore was kind of the quintessential Greatsword. Off hand, I can only think of one or two other types of weapon that even come close to the description given in the PHB.
Chrono Nexus 12-14-06, 10:15 PM	Yes, Greatsword seems to be a closer example of Claymore in DnD. The only problem I have with greatswords is the lack of a ricasso in the picture of the phb.
draconic_swine 12-14-06, 11:15 PM	Greatsword's definitely the best fit. Some claymores were on the short side for two-handed swords, which would be a bastard sword, but I've never heard of claymores being used in one hand. Yes, Greatsword seems to be a closer example of Claymore in DnD. The only problem I have with greatswords is the lack of a ricasso in the picture of the phb. Don't worry, the fact that it doesn't have a ricasso doesn't matter. Don't trust the PHB pictures. Ever.
Waterhammer 12-15-06, 12:04 AM	Actually if you are Scottish you can call just about any kind of sword a claymore. It's tradition. Basket-hilted backswords were called claymores. In D&D these are the equivalent of the longsword.
Watchman 12-15-06, 01:42 AM	Anything from a Longsword to a Greatsword, depending on the exact time period. I've read Scottish (and for that matter Irish) two-handers were for a long time noticeably lighter than was the norm among weapons of equivalent size elsewhere (presumably due to the scarcity of decent armour in these poor off-the-way regions, and hence little need for heftier blades to "crack" such) though, make what you will out of that.
Fencerboy 12-15-06, 09:17 PM	Greatsword, but braveheart must have monkeygrip or something as such :P
InterSilva 12-15-06, 09:40 PM	I've never heard of claymores being used in one hand. Ever play Diablo II? ;)
Stolide 12-15-06, 10:06 PM	Or you could make it a masterwork bastard sword that must be used in two hands.
Aryxbez 12-16-06, 08:31 AM	In the arms and equipment guide it says they are a greatsword also since greatswords are long big swords, and claymores are long and big It makes sense for a claymore to be greatsword
Thunder Dragonbane 12-16-06, 10:16 AM	Typical claymore has a 4' blade and a 2' hilt. Yes it would be light enough to use in one hand because of it being made from light metal, but I think that using the weapon two handed would be more realistic. Not to mention that controlling this weapon one handed would be diffacult at best.
savant_warlord13 12-17-06, 05:20 PM	we talking big nordic claymore here?...me thinking greatsword claymores were actually from scotland (and maybe ireland), they were not norse.
savant_warlord13 12-17-06, 05:23 PM	Typical claymore has a 4' blade and a 2' hilt. Yes it would be light enough to use in one hand because of it being made from light metal, but I think that using the weapon two handed would be more realistic. Not to mention that controlling this weapon one handed would be diffacult at best. Swords are not made from light metal.
savant_warlord13 12-17-06, 05:25 PM	Yes, Greatsword seems to be a closer example of Claymore in DnD. The only problem I have with greatswords is the lack of a ricasso in the picture of the phb. According to wikipedia, many early greatswords did not have ricassos.
Solo_Phoenix 12-17-06, 11:02 PM	Swords are not made from light metal. Due to lack of armour that needed to be cut through, Claymores were much lighter than a greatswords of similar length.
draconic_swine 12-17-06, 11:35 PM	Due to lack of armour that needed to be cut through, Claymores were much lighter than a greatswords of similar length. And how, exactly, would a steel sword be significantly lighter than another steel sword of a similar length?
Waterhammer 12-18-06, 01:53 AM	And how, exactly, would a steel sword be significantly lighter than another steel sword of a similar length? It would be made of al-yoo-meeny-umm, of course. :D
Chimera245 12-18-06, 02:27 AM	If it helps, I heard the word "Claymore" comes from "Claid Mor" which literally means "Greatsword" in Scottish or in an old version of Scottish.
frankthedm 12-18-06, 02:43 AM	And how, exactly, would a steel sword be significantly lighter than another steel sword of a similar length?A thinner blade.
Solo_Phoenix 12-18-06, 03:42 AM	Exactly
draconic_swine 12-18-06, 11:26 AM	A thinner blade. Thus sacrificing structural strength and cutting ability ... so because the Scots faced foes in little to no armour they settled on using inferior blades?
Behaigo 12-18-06, 02:57 PM	Claymores also had blunt edges and a sharp point (the edge was used to "knee-cap" horses and the point was used to administer stabby death to the downed rider) so I would have them deal either bludgeoning or piercing damage depending on how your using it.
Ustauk 12-18-06, 03:23 PM	According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore), a claymore can be either a two handed sword or a one handed sword, depending on the historical period. Claymore is a term used to describe two distinct types of Scottish swords. Name The name claymore is thought to be from claidheamh mòr—a Gaelic term meaning "big sword". However, another theory suggests it comes from claidheamh da lamh, literally "two-hand sword." Claidheamh is ultimately cognate with Latin gladius. As such the use of the term 'claymore' for the two-handed sword is considered debatable. Two-handed (Highland) claymore The two-handed claymore was a large sword used in the Medieval period. It was used in the constant clan warfare and border fights with the English from circa 1300 to 1700.[citation needed] The last known battle in which it is considered to have been used in a significant number is Battle of Killiecrankie in 1689. It was somewhat smaller than other two-handed swords of the era. The two-handed claymore seems to be an offshoot of Early Scottish medieval swords which had developed a distinctive style of a cross-hilt with downsloping arms that ended in spatulate swellings. The spatulate swellings were frequently made in a quatrefoil design. Claymores sometimes had a ricasso to facilitate half-sword usage. The average claymore ran about 55 inches (1.4 m) in overall length, with a 13-inch (33 cm) grip, 42-inch (1.07 m) blade, and a weight of approximately 5.5 lb (2.5 kg), the blades are most similar to the type XIIIa, using the Oakeshott typology. Fairly uniform in style, the sword was set with a wheel pommel often capped by a crescent-shaped nut and a guard with straight, down-sloping arms ending in quatrefoils and langets running down the center of the blade from the guard. Another common style of two-handed claymore (though lesser known today) was the "clamshell hilted" claymore. It had a crossguard that consisted of two downward-curving arms and two large, round, concave plates that protected the foregrip. It was so named because the round guards resembled an open clam. Basket-hilted claymore The second, later, sword to be designated "claymore" was a much shorter, one-handed, basket-hilted broadsword popular with Scottish troops and some English officers from the 18th century onwards, even seeing limited combat during World War II; a claymore was carried in World War II by Lt. Col. Jack Churchill DSO, MC & BAR. The basket was designed to protect the hand in combat. The Scottish basket-hilt sword is often distinguished from others by the velvet liner inside the basket (often in red), and also sometimes by additional decorative tassels on the hilt or pommel. This latter form of "claymore" (unrelated to the first) can be seen in some forms of highland traditional dance, as well as on the dress uniforms of British Army regiments drawn from the region. Duncan McLeod in the Highlander series used a two handed claymore when he first became an immortal in the 17th century, and would later use a one-handed, basket hilted claymore while fighting at the side of Bonnie Prince Charlie in the 18th.
Watchman 12-18-06, 03:56 PM	Thus sacrificing structural strength and cutting ability ... so because the Scots faced foes in little to no armour they settled on using inferior blades?I take it you don't know too much about swords, then. Right, essay time. If you're making a straight sword and only intend to cut bits off people with it, what you want is a thin flexible blade. Thin, note, in profile; such weapons are normally fairly wide (in the interests of that selfsame structural strenght and necessary rigidity). Anyway the thinner the profile the less the mass of the weapon itself "drags" when cutting into target - thin as a razor would as such be preferable in this regard, but it'd also compromise too many other traits. Feel free to read more educated observations on the topic here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm) and a short in-depth analysis (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm) on the matter. Recall also that thin, wide cutting swords tended to be the norm wherever good armour was not much of an issue, something the Celtic Fringe most certainly qualifies for. The rather isolated Ireland and the dirt poor and likewise somewhat out of the way Scottish Highlands in fact managed to preserve surprising amounts of the antediluvian Celtic "heroic warfare" system right until the Early Modern period, and one facet of this was that metal body armour, expensive as it was, was scarce and only encountered on nobility and elite warriors (the same folks would be the ones most likely able to afford a sword, mind you, but then they'd have little trouble taking a couple of more armour-piercing weapons along for backup...). Ergo, the average swordsman would mostly be fighting nimble, unarmoured opponents - the perfect target for a light, quick cutting sword, and the blade would not have needed to be particularly robust as it wouldn't normally be meeting anything tougher than organic materials. A heavier sword better suited to brute-forcing its way through mail and helmets, such as were popular among the continental Celts of Antiquity and the better warriors of the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages, would really be rather overkill most of the time as well as a little on the clumsy side, but no doubt some senior warriors preferred having such for dealing with other well-equipped champions. Although the two-handed versions (most of which would have been regarded as being on the very light side elsewhere) may have filled that function as well, with no loss of agility and more reach and leverage. I've incidentally read that the heftier blades of the Vikings were a bit of a shock to the Irish when they first ran into them, and probably prompted redesigns of some defensive gear such as shields.
clannagh 12-18-06, 06:13 PM	i have been told that in practice the scottish two handed Claymore was wielded more like a bludgeoning weapon than slashing :)
draconic_swine 12-18-06, 06:45 PM	I take it you don't know too much about swords, then. Right, essay time. If you're making a straight sword and only intend to cut bits off people with it, what you want is a thin flexible blade. Thin, note, in profile; such weapons are normally fairly wide (in the interests of that selfsame structural strenght and necessary rigidity). Anyway the thinner the profile the less the mass of the weapon itself "drags" when cutting into target - thin as a razor would as such be preferable in this regard, but it'd also compromise too many other traits. Feel free to read more educated observations on the topic here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm) and a short in-depth analysis (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts.htm) on the matter. Recall also that thin, wide cutting swords tended to be the norm wherever good armour was not much of an issue, something the Celtic Fringe most certainly qualifies for. The rather isolated Ireland and the dirt poor and likewise somewhat out of the way Scottish Highlands in fact managed to preserve surprising amounts of the antediluvian Celtic "heroic warfare" system right until the Early Modern period, and one facet of this was that metal body armour, expensive as it was, was scarce and only encountered on nobility and elite warriors (the same folks would be the ones most likely able to afford a sword, mind you, but then they'd have little trouble taking a couple of more armour-piercing weapons along for backup...). Ergo, the average swordsman would mostly be fighting nimble, unarmoured opponents - the perfect target for a light, quick cutting sword, and the blade would not have needed to be particularly robust as it wouldn't normally be meeting anything tougher than organic materials. A heavier sword better suited to brute-forcing its way through mail and helmets, such as were popular among the continental Celts of Antiquity and the better warriors of the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages, would really be rather overkill most of the time as well as a little on the clumsy side, but no doubt some senior warriors preferred having such for dealing with other well-equipped champions. Although the two-handed versions (most of which would have been regarded as being on the very light side elsewhere) may have filled that function as well, with no loss of agility and more reach and leverage. I've incidentally read that the heftier blades of the Vikings were a bit of a shock to the Irish when they first ran into them, and probably prompted redesigns of some defensive gear such as shields. Thanks for the information. Much better than the usual responses you get to historical weapon queries (my response included). I was actually thinking about something else (and even what I was thinking about was wrong), not that it really matters.
Watchman 12-19-06, 04:27 AM	i have been told that in practice the scottish two handed Claymore was wielded more like a bludgeoning weapon than slashing :)Virtually quaranteed to be bollocks, that. The only swords that weren't made and kept sharp are some very specialized thrusting-only armour-piercers that weren't designed for any cutting to begin with (not counting chronic negligence on the part of the owner, naturally). There would be very little point in wielding a sword in the first place otherwise, as if you want to pummel the enemy to death a mace or hammer is both cheaper and by far better suited for the purpose. 'Sides, all you really need to make and keep the blade sharp is a whetstone. Sounds mostly like the commonplace and entirely false myth about Medieval swords "being blunt and brittle devices for clumsy bashing" to me.
Yokomohoyo 12-19-06, 04:45 AM	Heres a great site with lots of information on the great swords Clicky (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html) And heres some info on claymore's Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore) Judging by the pictures in the first and pages I would dare to say that the great sword and the claymore are two diffrent types of blades. Wile the claymore would be a bastard sword a great sword may be also a sword that is heavyer.