From: awkerr@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Alan Kerr)
Subject: Re: Claymores
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:58:56 GMT

In article <BxIKtC.2oy@nic.umass.edu> dunkelza@titan.ucc.umass.edu (KEITH C MCCORMIC) writes:
>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:

>>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.

I know, just like on *most* of the germanic swords of the 16th and
early 17th centuries.  They were very good at catching other large two
handed swords and polearms.  Very useful when fighting the Swiss.
Damn, the Swiss *love* polearms (halberd and pike mostly).

>>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!

well...... you're mostly right.  The claymore is a very uniquely
shaped sword.  I suppose if you *had* to put it in a catagory of
sword, some people might consider it a *large* broadsword.  But since
a claymore is over 5 feet and less than 6 feet long, it's either a
large broadsword or a small two hander.  But not a zwiehander.  The
zweihander design is rather unique too.  It was with the germanic
peoples mostly but Italy was copying the design by the mid 1500s.

>>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'. 
>>
>   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.

Claymores *could* be considered broadswords.  And they were never
'adapted' by the Scots.  They never had or used a sword of the design
that you drew.  What I drew *is* a claymore and that design has been
basically the same since before the year 1000.

The claymore had 2 very characteristic parts of its design:
1) it's shorter than 6 feet.  that made it quicker to use.  most two
handed swords were longer than 6 feet.
2) it had those straight drooping quillions.  The claymore is one of
the very few swords that do NOT have the quillons mounted at 90
degrees.

sources to back me up:

A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor
in All Countries and in All Times  [library of congress call letters:
U 800 .S8]  This is a 694 page 'encyclopedia' that lives up to its
long title.  It has lots of pictures of "museum collection" examples.
Under "Two-handed Sword", it has 8 pictures.  4 of them look like your
picture.  Of those, 3 are German and one is Italian.  the other 4 look
like your picture but without the second cross-guard.  3 of those were
swiss and one was spanish.
Under "claymore" on page 181 it says: Originally the Scotch two-handed
sword of the 15th and 16th centuries. The claidheamh-mor or
claidhmhichean-mhora.  It had a long, heavy blade with a straight grip
with a small pommel and straight quillons slanting towards the blade.
Usually the ends of the quillons have pierced ornaments of three or
four circles. Fig. 231.  
Figure 231 is just like what I drew as a claymore.

Arms Through the Ages by William Reid [library of congress: U 800 .R4]
On page 97 says:  A claidheamh mor, a two handed sword, the
characteristic drooping quillons with quatrefoil terminals.  Highland
Scottish, 1500-50.
The picture looks like my drawing.

American Heratage Dictionary:
"Claymore"- 2. A large, double-edged broadsword formerly used by
Scottish Highlanders.
There is a picture in the margin.

I don't have your original posts about this, but I do remember you
posting that you had seen (somewhere) swords like you drew labled as
'claymore'.  Is it possible that your "sources" were using 'claymore'
as a *generic* term for **any** big two-handed sword?  This would be
my best bet.  You seem too sure of yourself to be mis-remembering.
What were your 'sources' again?

Also, 'Claymore' is the angisized spelling of the actual gaelic word.
The picture that you drew is of a type of sword that was used all over
the germanic area of Europe.  Why would they borrow a gaelic word?
and if they did, it probably wouldn't have gotten spelled as
'claymore'.  The 'ay' would probably be a different vowel combination.

Alan
-- 
Alan W. Kerr                               awkerr@aoc.nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory       awkerr@nrao.bitnet
Socorro, NM, USA                           uunet!nrao.edu!awkerr
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc