Annoying Braveheart question...not about kilt

[haukehaien]

Wouldn't he cut off fingers or something? sounds painful!

Well, it's the Kurgan. He'd probably enjoy it. (Although, depending on who you read, he should have a bronze or iron battle-axe rather than a sword anyway.)

[Pleater]

Ah - that explains something that puzzled me ages ago - my mother's mother loved to go to auctions and she had a house full of books, bookshelves stood in all the nooks and corners of the house.

One of the stories was about the travels and adventures of some disposessed nobleman's son and he has a huge great sword with a name like Heigel or Hegling - and he had a faithful retainer who carried it for him, in a leather case, with straps.

I tried to visualise it, as some sort of suitcase, but it could be pulled out from one end because the faithful retainer ran up to the hero riding bare back on his horse and the hero pulled out the sword and brandished it (yea, right - not slowly slid off the horse sideways under the weight) and then hero gallops off to use sword in single combat, on foot, with the villainous blackguard holding his beloved prisoner.

This case could be opened up lengthways so the sword could be placed in it on show - but must have been open at the top for it to be pulled out. The sword in its case was also carried by a pony and over the shoulders of the faithful retainer when mountain climbing.

[Ronusan]

If you can catch the episode of Modern Marvels on the History Channel called "Swords, Knives & Axes" they have an excellent reenactment of zwiehander combat. It's faster than I would have imagined and involves a lot of interesting locks and twists, as seen in the medieval and rennaisance instructional manuscripts. It's more Renaissance era than Braveheart era but still worth seeing. It's actually kind of scary! They also have the episode available on the History Channel website.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Actually I don't think that two handed swords (at least Scottish claymores) were all that heavy. I believe the one that Baxter of Earlshall had was something in the neighborhood of 8 pounds. About the same weight as a Brown Bess musket or a .303 Enfield rifle of WWI/WWII vintage. That being the case, I suppose it would be "wieldy" rather than "unwieldy" and certainly a facile weapon in the hands of a muscular swordsman.

[emolas]

Another thing which tends to be overlooked is that the large claymore was not an anti-person sword for man to man combat, it was an anti horse sword used to take out the legs of calvery. The edges of the blade were not infact very sharp, and in use it was more of a blunt trama weapon with a sharp point on the end. A fight might go like this 1) brace the sword with two hands and get into position facing oncomming horsemen 2) sidestep to avoid getting trampled, with the sword to the side to cut out the front legs of the horse, using the horses own momentum, so your'e not actually swinging something that size 3) drive the point through the chest of whoever was riding the horse as they should now be on the ground

Although I have no idea what I am talking about, I would tend to believe this. I can't see how any large weapon (even 8 pounds) with any amount of inertia would be able to defend themselves against someone with a lightweight weapon such as a dagger or rapier.

I've managed to walk around with a copy of a Blade (vampire) sword under my trench coat. It IS possible, though not easy. Highlander didn't show him sitting, did it?

In the beginning, he was sitting down at the boxing match and then walked into the garage and met the other guy. I was curious as to how he carried it as well so I did a frame-by-frame of the sequence where he pulls the sword out of his trench coat and it looks to be at least a foot shorter than the actual sword that he fights with. I also did a frame-by-frame of him sitting at the match and the sword is nowhere in evidence.


I read somewhere that it's easy to ask moviegoers to accept the impossible but harder to get them to accept the improbable. This is evidenced by the fact that we accept that they are immortal and swordfighting throughout history but gripe about where they hide their swords not being realistic.

[davedove]

Actually I don't think that two handed swords (at least Scottish claymores) were all that heavy. I believe the one that Baxter of Earlshall had was something in the neighborhood of 8 pounds. About the same weight as a Brown Bess musket or a .303 Enfield rifle of WWI/WWII vintage. That being the case, I suppose it would be "wieldy" rather than "unwieldy" and certainly a facile weapon in the hands of a muscular swordsman.

Exactly, except for ceremonial pieces where often bigger is better, in combat weapons you don't want the weapon any heavier than necessary. A certain amount of weight is required to do a certain job; any more just tires you out faster, not a good thing on the battlefield.

[Panache]

Exactly, except for ceremonial pieces where often bigger is better, in combat weapons you don't want the weapon any heavier than necessary. A certain amount of weight is required to do a certain job; any more just tires you out faster, not a good thing on the battlefield.

See Archie's and Rob Roy's big duel at the end of "Rob Roy" for a great example of this.

Cheers

Jamie

[Ayin McFye]

See Archie's and Rob Roy's big duel at the end of "Rob Roy" for a great example of this.

Cheers

Jamie

Dangit, you beat me to it Panache. I was going to say the same thing. The duel between Archie and Rob Roy is awesome. It does demonstrate though how the rapier took less strength and was way more agile, and in the right hands a more effective weapon for 1 on 1 fighting.

and the concept behind how you would fight a dagger using a claymore or scottish basket hilt, or any long sword weapon would be to maintain the distance between you and your opponent and use the reach you have to slay them.

[Streetcar]

Exactly, except for ceremonial pieces where often bigger is better, in combat weapons you don't want the weapon any heavier than necessary. A certain amount of weight is required to do a certain job; any more just tires you out faster, not a good thing on the battlefield.

At this risk of dancing on a "weapons discussion" warning, I would submit that it is the skill and dedication of the wielder, not the weapon itself that will have the most impact. To continue Panache's example of the Rob Roy duel, the rapier should have been the perfect weapon for that engagement. It was lighter and faster than the broadsword. Yet it was the dedication of the wielder that won that fight.

Regarding the Wallace's two-hander, remember that you are talking about fighting armoured opponents. A longer, heavier blade would be a more effective can-opener. I hesitate to believe the blade was intended only as some sort of "anti-cavalry" option.

[Panache]

Not too sound nitpicky here but I don't think that Archie was wielding a rapier (if I remember correctly the hilt was very simple and the blade very thin), so perhaps a small sword or court sword.

In the evolution of sword fighting the point became far more important than the edge. With this blades became lighter and therefore much faster to wield.

As someone who has had a somewhat willowly build for most of my life I take perverse joy in slender Archie beating the stuffing out of burly Rob Roy...well until the end bit anyway

Cheers

Jamie