the word "claymore"

[AllenJ]

I just wanted to offer this as a bit of information for those who are interested in the appropriate terminology for scottish swords. I tried to search and see if this has been discussed yet but could not find anything.
The bulk of my words are gathered from historian Claude Blair and the research of Paul Wagner & Christopher Thompson who have a fantastic article on this topic in a book called SPADA II (http://www.revival.us/index.asp?Page...ROD&ProdID=251)
There seems to be evidence of both the two handed sword and the basket hilt being referred to as “claymore”. Many know that the word ‘claymore’ is an anglicized version of the Gaelic word claidheamh-mor which translates to ‘great sword’. The first instance we see a written usage of the English word ‘claymore’ is after the beginning of the 1715 rising—and coming into much wider use during the ’45. During this time, two handed swords were not used so it had to be referring to the basket-hilt sword. The aforementioned document states that men were armed with rifles, pistols, dirk, targe (shield) and “a sturdy claymore by his side”. Anyone who has seen a correctly proportioned Scottish two handed sword knows that it would be very awkward to carry that large of a sword at your side. (These swords generally are between 4 ½ to 5 ½ feet long.)

There is a later document (July 11th, 1747) describing the Prince’s escape through the Highlands following Culloden that uses the term ‘broadsword’ and ‘claymore’ synonymously. Again, it is obvious that the swords in use at this time are the basket hit variety.

The correct Gaelic word for the large, two handed weapon is “claidheamh da laimh”. This word is only seen in reference to the two handed weapon. A document from 1772 tells of a man seeing a “Cly-more (sic.) or great-two handed sword”. This man was a stranger to the Highlands and is possible he reported the name inaccurately. There is another journal from 1773 that definitely describes a two handed sword as a “Glaymore (sic.)”. It is interesting to note that earlier documents (pre-1750) make a distinction between swords and two-handed (or twa’ handit) swords. It wasn’t until later documents (and often times written by Englishmen) that we see ‘claymore’ being used to describe a two-handed weapon.

Even then, during the end of the 18th century and into the dawn of the 19th when we have the incorporation of Scottish regiments into the British military we see them using the same word ‘claymore’ to describe basket hilt broadswords issued to officers. So it seems that somewhere through the years and translation from Gaelic to English that the term was blurred into use for both weapons. So where does that leave us? In my opinion the most correct terms would be using the Gaelic word ‘claidheamh da laimh’ for the two handed variety (or just 'Scottish two hander) and the anglicized word ‘claymore’ for the basket hilt variety.

[Retro Red]

Hey, great timing, Allen. I can probably use this information in a presentation this weekend at the Flagstaff Celtic Festival.

Just one request - Could you please type the phonetic pronunciation of 'claidheamh da laimh' & 'claidheamh-mor'?

Thanks!

.

[An t-Ileach]

Using the scheme "lie" pronounced as in 'falsehood', claidheamh da laimh would be 'clieyev da lie' (some people pronounce it more like 'clieya' with a nasal sound at the end); and claidheamh mor would be 'clieyev moor' (or 'clieya moor').

I've had a thought for some time that maybe there's a much older usage hidden here. Could the 'claymore' be 'mor' with reference to a smaller sword - such as the Roman gladius which acquired widespread use at the end of the Roman Occupation and its descendants carried on a while in Britain. So, could the dirk (biodag) be the 'small sword', as it is traditionally worn in the same way as the gladius - and so the claymore would thus be bigger than it? And so, the two-handed sword would be a mediaeval oddity and not the great sword.

[Woodsheal]

I've had a thought for some time that maybe there's a much older usage hidden here. Could the 'claymore' be 'mor' with reference to a smaller sword - such as the Roman gladius which acquired widespread use at the end of the Roman Occupation and its descendants carried on a while in Britain. So, could the dirk (biodag) be the 'small sword', as it is traditionally worn in the same way as the gladius - and so the claymore would thus be bigger than it? And so, the two-handed sword would be a mediaeval oddity and not the great sword.

I don't think a dirk would ever have been considered a "sword." The Scottish dirk as we know it evolved from the common European ballock-dagger between ca. 1590 and ca. 1650, and initially had a blade length only in the 10-12 inch range. Such a knife is hardly a "sword." Longer bladed dirks made from cut-down sword blades was a later development.

Finally, the two-handed great sword was always a "specialty" sword, being wielded by big strong guys who could handle them, usually for the purpose of breaking opposing pike staffs....

[AllenJ]

I have only the smallest understanding of the Gaelic language but I have heard it pronounced more like 'clay-eww moor' and 'clay-eww da liv' but it certinaly could be an accent thing, inccorect source or fuzzy memory.

Woodsheal is right that the dirk (biodag) didn't exist anywhere near the Roman time period and thus wouldn't have likley pick up any real relation.

However, there really isn't any clear, evidence that I am aware of that documents the CDL's (claidheamh da laimh) being used for the purpose of breaking pikes.

With proper instruction (and more importantly, an accurate replica), Scottish two-handers are not as hard as most people think to weild. Remember that these weapons were not much more than 5-6 lbs. And anyone who has handled antique weapons can testify that they often feel much, much lighter than their actual weight, due to their expertice at weight displacement. Im not a 'big strong guy' and have no problem using one when using historically accurate techniques (or near enough as we can figure).

As a side note:
I spend alot of time researching and training in historic European Martial arts. Which means I study lots of different types of swordplay from alot of different cultures. Most of the historic manuals show certain techniques for defeating someone with a pike or spear if you have a longsword. None that I have seen ever teach the cutting off of the pike head. Even if you do, a staff with a probable sharp end is still a very formidable weapon. Usually what is best is to displace the thrust to the side and rush in- usually seizing the haft of the weapon as you rush in. Many times this is also done in the half-sword which is were you grip the blade portion of your sword to gain more speed and leverage. See several methods on this here: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Gladi...ladiatoria.htm

[Graham]

Very interesting thread, especially since I recently bought a (cheap, Indian made) copy of a Claymore.
Tho' this sword is poorly balanced and not the correct weight, it still gives an idea of how hard these swords would be to swing.

I've seen a copy of Wallaces' sword in Stirling, it's a heck of a big sword pointing to the great stature of the man himself.
I'm on the lookout for a basket hilted broadsword (copy) at present.

[AllenJ]

The Wallace Sword is a whole other can of worms. Basically, many to most people in the know, seriously doubt that this sword was ever used by Wallace. Main reasons being that there is no other sword on record ever resembling anything close to that thing at that point in time. It is, however, very similar to some 16th century designs. It really isnt even clasified as a 'claymore' (or CDL) as it dosent fit the defenition or the time period of when the CDL's were in use. They were a late 15th? -early 17th century weapon. Way past Wallaces time. I dont know of the exact weight of it but it looks to be much heavier than the 5-7 lbs average for other swords of it's type.

My personal, un-documented opinion is that someone somewhere in the 16th century decided to make the "Official Commemorative William Wallace Sword". Over time it would just be called "The William Wallace Sword" and possibly shortened to "the Wallace Sword" by the Victorian time period when all the rage was all things Scottish, it's not hard to believe that it could easily have been mistaken as 'the sword actually used by William Wallace'. But I cant back that up

Here is an article along similar lines: http://swordforum.com/fall99/sword-o...m-wallace.html

EDIT:
Graham- I have lots of info and links to good baskethilts at most price ranges. Are you looking for a specific hilt style? time period? Are you going to be using it or just to wear to Games? etc.

[An t-Ileach]

I have only the smallest understanding of the Gaelic language but I have heard it pronounced more like 'clay-eww moor' and 'clay-eww da liv' but it certinaly could be an accent thing, inccorect source or fuzzy memory...

It's probably dialect variation; there's some distinct variations between Argyll and the southern islands, the northern islands, and the mainland up to Inverness.

Thanks for clearing up that thing about the dirk.

[AllenJ]

oh yeah, just for the record...
the Gaelic for a baskethilted backsword (a single edged broadsword) is 'claidheamh cuil'. The name was different from that of the two edged variety.

[David White]

Interesting thread, thanks Alan. Is that you AlanJ? How was Grandfather Mt. games?