From: awkerr@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Alan Kerr)
Subject: Re: Claymores
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 01:57:09 GMT

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.

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

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