From: dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC)
Subject: Re: META: Swords, etc
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:29:26 GMT

In article <92309.085051IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Solipsist at Large <IK20001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>
>>    Have you ever seen a claymore?  They average between 6 1/2 and 7 1/2 feet
>>long.  Know your facts before you respond.  Have a nice day.
>>
>
>Well, I don't know about the person who originally responded, but I've seen
>lots of Claymores.  They average between 4 1/2 and 5 1/2 feet.  The
>occasional six footer tends to be unwieldy as Hell.

  The short claymores of which you speak are not true "Claymores".  These
short things were made during the renaissance, when smaller weapons were
in fashion.  Also, many swords are called claymores but do not have a
claymore configuration.  For example on Star Trek, in "Day of the Dove",
Scotty finds a sword which he calls a "Claymore" but is actually a much
smaller, much later weapon.
  A claymore looks like this:

                          /\
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                          ||
                        \-||-/
                         -||-
                          ||
                          ||
                     *    ||    *
                      \___||___/
                          ()
                          ()
                          ()
                          ()
                          ()
                          /\



>I gave one as a birthday/christmas present last year, to a *very*
>powerful man.  It was a five footer, and he was *astounded* at how
>hard it is to wield one -- which is one reason their use died out.
>
>>>Swords are heavy. You don't swing a rod of metal around that's taller than
>>>you are and hope to hit anything with it.
>>
>>      Tell that to the Scotsman who wielded them in battle.
>
>These Scotsman normally wielded them against formations, not people.
>Claymores are impressive looking, but the Scots were more likely
>to use a good axe or a shorter weapon, against people.  The reason
>for this is simple -- if you swing a Claymore and miss, the momentum
>turns you back to your opponent, and he kills you.

   It is true that the claymore was a FIELD weapon, not an individual
combat weapon.  The facts remain though, that they averaged over 6 feet
in length.  I never said that they were designed as man to man weapons.
I merely said that they were HUGE and had been effectively employed as
lawnmowing weapons by the Scots.

>The Germans *did* have six and a half foot two-handed swords.  They
>used them to cut the heads off of pikes, and disrupt tight formations.
>Only a dead fool used a two-handed weapon against an opponent in
>a combat situation.  Sorry to be the one to tell you.
>--

    Pepin the Short carried a six-footer.
    Oh, and the SCOTS were used to disrupt tight formations.  They charged
in, swinging ungodly huge swords, cleaving their foes in half, never once
having to actually recover, because the enemy bodies took off enough of
the momentum.

>Eric Alfred Burns                        "Life is full of decisions
>Solipsist at Large                        but you never get to make any."
>"It's all in your mind"
>IK20001@maine.maine.edu                           --Linus Van Pelt

Dunkelzahn

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc