Scottish Swords

[Sir Robert]

Two problems.

1. The Gaelic "claidheamh mor" is best translated into English as "Big Sword" which could legetimately be either, niether or both.

2. The weapons in question could be one in the same. Start with a two handed broadsword and rework it into a shorter basket hilt sword as sword fashon changes. The blade from one could be the exact same as the other so that the name stays the same too.

For example the Germans called their WWII helmet a "Stahlhelm 35", today collectors see each little change as a new different helmet such as M-35, M-40, M-42, M-45. The modern names would have been quite confusing to the original wearers. Is this the case?

[michael steinrok]

I am a big fan of the Basket hilt claymore. There is an Irish Basket hilt? Really? Does anyone have a picture of this or a link?

[Woodsheal]

Here's an image of a 16th century "Irish Hilt." The name is misleading. These were early type basket hilts that were used in Scotland. To lowlanders and the English, all things Gaelic were "Irish", including those "wild Irish" who lived in the mountains - who are more commonly referred to as the Highlanders...!

[Andrew Green]

Yeah, really...
to all those of Scottish (highland) descent, your ancestors were merely misplaced Irish.
Not that I have anything against Irish folk, but umm... I'm Scottish, and I have Scottish heritage. Ha ha ha. Had to poke fun at that issue. Of course, when you break it down into tribal migrations, there is a bit of a connection to be made. But the cultures emerged as fairly distinct from each other I believe.

Sir Robert:
The issues you pointed out are, to the best of my knowledge the reason's why the term "claymore" is still widely disputed among blade scholars.

[switchblade5984]

well i had a post here but its gone........

[Dave K]

"Broadsword" is a modern term that does not refer to any particular sword or style of sword. In the Renaissance, many terms (like “Medieval” and “dark age”) were used to describe events and items in the past. Its my understanding that “Claymore” was retroactively used to describe a wider range of swords in Scottish history but should only refer to the basket-hilt style.

Now on to the problem I have with the idea of William Wallace lugging around a massive sword; In the middle ages, two edged swords were either "swords" used with one hand and a shield, or "long swords" which were used with two hands. Long Swords were called different names like "great swords" "war swords" or "bastard swords" depending on length and use. Later in the Renaissance even larger swords, called "two-handed swords," were used. These terms are not set in stone and there are some subcategories of swords that make things more confusing, like “arming sword” “riding sword” and others.

So what sword did Wallace have? Longer swords were around before 1305, the year Wallace died, but I doubt he would have used one. The reason for this is simple, a (one-hand) sword is used with a shield and maille, while longer swords were used plate and no shield. Plate was not common before 1305 and longer swords were not common either. The chance Wallace would have plate and a long sword or, long sword and no plate and plenty of guts to go without a shield are low. Don’t forget that a long sword requires new techniques to attack and defend and training to use it effectively. All the facts I have used here are from various books I’ve collected on swords and my own research I did years ago in collage. If you disagree or have any corrections please feel free to post them.

[Panache]

Dave,

First off

Second, just FYI, this thread is well over 2 years old so there are probably newer views to be found on XMTS concerning blades (we have Howard Clark as a member after all )

Enjoy the forum

Cheers

Jamie

[McMurdo]

Well
It seems Jamie and I had the same idea, so I will simply say

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Sir Robert is very close to the actual truth of the matter. Claymore means simply "big sword" and at various times in Scottish history the "big sword" was held in either one or two hands. The Scots also had a "little sword"-- sometime referred to as a "claybeg", but usually as merely a sword. (There is also the word tuck which refers to a small sword.)

The Gaelic word for sword, claiomh, rendered in English as "clay" derives from the Latin word gladius, meaning a sword. So a Gaelic speaking Scot might, or might not, refer to a "big sword" as a claymore.

I have a copy of "The Swords and the Sorrows", and while it is pretty good, most serious sword historians question some of the "academic" statements it contains.

If anyone is really interested in Scottish swords then I'd refer them to "Highland Dress, Arms, and Ornament" by Lord Archibald Campbell, and to the relevant chapters in Sir Richard Burton's "The Book of the Sword".

[Bigkahuna]

There are purists out there who insist that the Claymore is a hand-and-a-half sword approx. 60" long, worn on the back, and was actually only in common usage for about 100 years.

There are those who insist on calling a basket-hilted sword, either broadsword or backsword, as 'claybeg.' These swords have been in use for almost 500 years.

In Scotland, basket-hilts are commonly referred to as claymores, to differentiate them from other common military swords of the 1550-present day era.

Call it what you will, it's stil a Scottish sword, although there are Irish and English basket hilted swords, as well as the Venetian Schiavona, another basket-hilt variant of the 17-18th century.

And don't ever try to cut at a tree with a sword. It's meant for cuttin g people, not foliage. I've seen a beatuful 17th century katana DESTROYED by an idiot trying to cut brush with it.

Thank you Thank you! I cringe whenever I hear someone speak of striking a tree with a sword. That's not what a sword is for!!!!