From: dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC)
Subject: Re: Claymores
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:00:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.015709.7642@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> awkerr@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Alan Kerr) writes:
>In article <BxGL6M.5o6@nic.umass.edu> dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:
>
><<< a *bunch* of stuff deleted>>>
><<< and a bunch of attributions lost>>>
>
>>>|>   A claymore looks like this:
>>>|> 
>>>|>                           /\
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                         \-||-/  <--#2
>>>|>                          -||-
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                           ||
>>>|>                      *    ||    *
>>>|>                       \___||___/
>>>|>                           ()
>>>|>                           ()
>>>|>                           ()
>>>|>                           ()
>>>|>                           ()
>>>|>                           /\
>>>|> 
>>>|> 
>>>|> 
>>>That is exactly the type of Bastard and Two Handed Sword that is _NOT_ a Claymore
>>>It is a Flamberge or Zweihaender with a Dull Part called "unschaerfe" between
>>the hand bar and the #2 above
>>
>>   No, a Flamberge has a kris blade.  I can not be sure about the Zweihaeder,
>>because I study English and Celtic stuff primarily.  However, I assure you this
>>is a claymore, or at least a bad picture of one.
>
>That is **NOT** a claymore. not even close.  That *IS* a zweihander.
>No question about it.  That is a *text-book example* of what a
>zweihander looks like.  A flamberge is just a type of zweihander with a
>kris blade.  Early versions of claymores bagan appearing around the
>year 1000 or so.  The design had not changed much since then.
>
>Claymores *never* had a secondary cross piece (#2 in the picture).
>not a wide cross piece like in the picture or even a small diamond
>shaped one that appears on other germanic swords.

   Actually #2 is a bad rendition of two forward pointing horns coming off
the side of the blade.


>Claymores never had a guard like the picture has.  The guard was
>always straight and tilted toward the tip.  Later claymores had a
>various number of rings at the end of the guard (usually 5) and
>earlier claymores had fewer rings or just ended in a blunt tip.
>
>Picture of a claymore:
>                             O
>                              \
>                               \           _
>/-------------------------------\---------/ \
>\-------------------------------/---------\_/
>                               /
>                              /
>                             O

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHH HA HA HAAH HAH AHA HA HA AHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That's a fucking broadsword!


>Later claymores were around 5 to 6 feet long, tending toward 5 foot.
>Earlier claymores were as small as 4 feet.  The blades really couldn't
>get much longer.  The swords would become too clumsy to use.  This was
>because Scottish metalurgy was not as good as elsewhere so the blades
>had to be thicker.  Zweihanders could be longer (7+ feet) because the
>blades were thinner but made of better quality metal.   Note:
>'thickness' is the dimesion that you can't see in the picture above.
>You can see the 'length' and the 'width' of the blade, but not the
>'thickness'. 
>
>What you believe is a claymore, is not...  but in your defence, you
>mentioned that you've studied English and Celtic stuff mostly.  The
>type of sword that you describe (zwiehander) *was* used by mercenaries
>that england had hired to use *against* the Scots....  You must be
>mis-remembering who had the zweihander swords.
>
>Alan
>
>
>-- 
>Alan W. Kerr                               awkerr@aoc.nrao.edu
>National Radio Astronomy Observatory       awkerr@nrao.bitnet
>Socorro, NM, USA                           uunet!nrao.edu!awkerr

   I will admit that it is possible that the swords are one and the same.
However, what I attempted to draw is the sword called a claymore.  It may have
been adopted by the Scots after such weapons were ineffectively used against 
them (How else would they have gotten them?  They were not swordsmiths.).
But, nonetheless, the sword is at least a claymore, and is most commonly
known as such rather than as a Zweihaender.  Claymores were NOT broadswords.

   Blade width of a Claymore:    |           |


   Blade width of a Broadsword:  |                     |


  And yes, I've seen broadswords too.

Dunkelzahn
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.forsale.computers,misc.forsale.computers.d