Annoying Braveheart question...not about kilt

[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

[auld argonian]

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.


Jamie

Well...the difference between one-on-one combat and fighting en mass.

Assuming that those big edged weapons worked better when you were wading into a mass of opponents and swinging it like a scythe although I can see how you'd be leaving yourself very open at the end of each sweep. The anti-armour/anti-cavalry concept sounds much more plausible.

Best

AA

[Ayin McFye]

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.
Jamie

LOL ok, if we really want to get technical you're probably right that it's either a small sword or a spadroon. Either way it was the lighter and more manuverable sword by far. I'm probably going to go home and watch it tonight, just because it's been a few months since i've seen it last.

[SportBilly]

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.

The Wallace broad sword in particular was apparently about 9lb. I've only seen it behind glass (at the Wallace Memorial in Stirling) but at about 5'6" long would almost certainly be too unwieldy to sling on even Wallace's back.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The Wallace broad sword in particular was apparently about 9lb. I've only seen it behind glass (at the Wallace Memorial in Stirling) but at about 5'6" long would almost certainly be too unwieldy to sling on even Wallace's back.

There is some question concerning the authenticity of the sword in the Wallace Monument. As much as I'd like it to be Wallace's sword, a lot of experts think it is more than likely a 17th century bearing sword rather than a 13th century fighting sword.

[sharpdressedscot]

'Fraid we'll never know for sure. I guess that's the thing about history...

[Vafuth]

from what I know of those types of swords...Claymores...

They served only two REAL functions:

1. to break bones through chain armor

and 2. to break the legs out from under charging horses.

As far as "hollywood" swords....LotR did a good job with most of their swords keeping them funtional while looking good... not really historical but close to historical forms..

oh wait...LotR wasn't Hollywood....it was Kiwi duh

[Frank McGrath]

Editorial License. Works for me.

[Coemgen]

To quote Mel Brooks:

"Don't be square, mon cher! Movies is magic!"