Hi all,
I've done due diligence by using the Search function back through 2003, and wasn't able to find an answer. So I'm turning to the other experts around here.
Like many, I love the design of the Scottish claymore. It's truly a work of art.
However, as I've been learning more about swords, I'm starting to run into a conundrum:
I've seen drawings of the Zweihanders of the Holy Roman Empire, swinging those gigantic swords as they wade into massed pikemen. The key is that usually they're armored in plate to protect themselves - i.e. they're wearing their shield, leaving both hands free to wield the zweihander.
The claymore was used by the Scots between the 1400s and late 1600s/early 1700s. I've always heard that plate armor was rare among the Scots, particularly in the clan warfare and border warfare with the English.
So if I'm a relatively unarmored Scot (leather, mail), how was the Claymore used? It seems that without a suit of plate, the Claymore just leaves you too open to attack. You might get one great swing at the beginning of battle, but when the opponent (or his buddy next to him) ripostes with a one-handed sword, you're hopelessly exposed.
So how WAS the claymore used by the Scots? Were they far more heavily armored than I've been led to believe?
Thanks!
Chris
| Christopher Johnson wrote: |
| Hi all,
I've done due diligence by using the Search function back through 2003, and wasn't able to find an answer. So I'm turning to the other experts around here. Like many, I love the design of the Scottish claymore. It's truly a work of art. However, as I've been learning more about swords, I'm starting to run into a conundrum: I've seen drawings of the Zweihanders of the Holy Roman Empire, swinging those gigantic swords as they wade into massed pikemen. The key is that usually they're armored in plate to protect themselves - i.e. they're wearing their shield, leaving both hands free to wield the zweihander. The claymore was used by the Scots between the 1400s and late 1600s/early 1700s. I've always heard that plate armor was rare among the Scots, particularly in the clan warfare and border warfare with the English. So if I'm a relatively unarmored Scot (leather, mail), how was the Claymore used? It seems that without a suit of plate, the Claymore just leaves you too open to attack. You might get one great swing at the beginning of battle, but when the opponent (or his buddy next to him) ripostes with a one-handed sword, you're hopelessly exposed. So how WAS the claymore used by the Scots? Were they far more heavily armored than I've been led to believe? Thanks! Chris |
I don't know much about the Scots but you are wrong about two important things:
1) A greatsword, or a claymore, is hardly the clumsy weapon you are thinking of, to the contrary, it's very effective in hand to hand combat. All things being equal, one guy with a 'normal' sized arming sword, and another with a greatsword, it's the latter who is generally less likely to be hit due to his reach advantage. Get the idea of these weapons being so clumsy out of your mind, clumsy weapons didn't get used for long.
2) Mail is not 'relatively unarmored', it's actually very effective protection particularly against cuts and thrusts. Do some searching on the forums on that subject.
3) Most of the 'Dopplesoldners' who wielded the Zweihanders in continental Europe didn't wear cap-a-pied harness actually, the most you were likely to see in most cases is three quarters plate which often left the face and lower legs exposed. Many didn't have any armor at all.
J
Hello
Have to agree with Jean on this one. Granted I've been accused of being a large lad but I've never found that a claymore was all that cumbersome (except getting it into a mazda).
And in a pitched battle shouldn't your buddies be keeping the other opponents occupied. Not that you can't charge them all by yourself if your so inclined :D
Have to agree with Jean on this one. Granted I've been accused of being a large lad but I've never found that a claymore was all that cumbersome (except getting it into a mazda).
And in a pitched battle shouldn't your buddies be keeping the other opponents occupied. Not that you can't charge them all by yourself if your so inclined :D
The two handed sword will be at an advantage over the single hander because it has the superior length.
The key thing is that, although big, a two handed sword is not heavy enough so that the point needs to be taken away from your opponent at the end of a cut – thus leaving you open to a counter attack. If your opponent is wearing plate there is no point in swinging anyway, you need to take them on with the point of the sword and thrust through a weak spot. If they are wearing less armour then any cuts should not need to be overextended so far that they take your point out of line if they fail.
BTW: Note that Zweihanders are specifically designed to be griped beyond the crossguard to enable half-swording, so allowing the point to be used against opponents in armour – a lot like a short spear. Again, no big swings to take the point of the sword away from your opponent.
Neil.
Edit to add – I suspect that if used against massed pikes the idea with a Zweihander is to ‘stand off’ and use its length to keep you safe rather than ‘wade in’. However this is simply conjecture on my part.
Neil.
The key thing is that, although big, a two handed sword is not heavy enough so that the point needs to be taken away from your opponent at the end of a cut – thus leaving you open to a counter attack. If your opponent is wearing plate there is no point in swinging anyway, you need to take them on with the point of the sword and thrust through a weak spot. If they are wearing less armour then any cuts should not need to be overextended so far that they take your point out of line if they fail.
BTW: Note that Zweihanders are specifically designed to be griped beyond the crossguard to enable half-swording, so allowing the point to be used against opponents in armour – a lot like a short spear. Again, no big swings to take the point of the sword away from your opponent.
Neil.
Edit to add – I suspect that if used against massed pikes the idea with a Zweihander is to ‘stand off’ and use its length to keep you safe rather than ‘wade in’. However this is simply conjecture on my part.
Neil.
It is my impression that by the 17th century, swords where no longer primary weapons anyway. A typical highland warrior would carry a musket and a brace in pistols in addition to his broadsword.
As such the two handed claymore could be compared to the partisans carried by infantry officers of the time. It's primary function is to show the authority of the wearer.
It might also be handy for killing people, but this is secondary.
As such the two handed claymore could be compared to the partisans carried by infantry officers of the time. It's primary function is to show the authority of the wearer.
It might also be handy for killing people, but this is secondary.
A good two-handed sword should be almost as maneuverable as a longsword, and gives you a reach advantage. When they were used against pike, the pike had the reach advantage, so armor makes sense there.
I don't know much about Claymores but to add to what Elling said, Zweihanders were often used by guards and not seen as often in battle as you would think. They were for show and guards mostly, and being a very long sword they were effective for keeping opponents away from the person to be guarded. It is my impression that they were for encounters with small groups of people or a one-on-one fight but did not see widespread use in battle. They were of course used but not as a main fighting force. Most of this is second hand knowledge so please take it with a grain of salt.
hope I could help
-James
hope I could help
-James
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| It is my impression that by the 17th century, swords where no longer primary weapons anyway. A typical highland warrior would carry a musket and a brace in pistols in addition to his broadsword.
As such the two handed claymore could be compared to the partisans carried by infantry officers of the time. It's primary function is to show the authority of the wearer. It might also be handy for killing people, but this is secondary. |
In the Highlands at least, the sword remained the preferred, if not a primary, weapon until the early 18th c. There is a misconception that by Culloden the average Highlander possessed a sword and would attempt to use that weapon to the exclusion of others. However, the number of swords captured after Culloden compared to the number of muskets indicates either a preference for the firearm or a scarcity of swords by that era. Apparently in the time between 1715 and 1745 there was a shift in armament away from the sword as a primary weapon. Lord George Murray drilled the Lowland troops in the art of musketry and may have tried to do the same for the Highlanders, which I suspect would have been a waste of time. The Highlanders, during the three major battles and the minor skirmishes fought in the '45 used their one tactic, the Highland Charge as opposed to the type of linear tactics used by the British regiments. Certainly troops armed primarily with swords were at a distinct disadvantage when fighting a veteran regiment of the British line armed with the latest muskets and bayonets and firing by ranks.
Another misconception is that all Highlanders carried a brace of pistols, musket, dirk, broadsword and targe. Pistols and swords were expensive and the average Highlander, who was neither a tacksman nor a chieftain, could not afford them. Behind the front rank Highlanders who did possess the full compliment of arms were men with muskets and fowling pieces, dirks, Lochaber axes and assorted farming tools. This would be true in the 17th c. as well as the 18th. The front rank Highlander, after firing his musket would have certainly closed on the enemy with his sword but, if the enemy stood fast, the chances of him getting close enough to use it were slim, as reported after Culloden.
I am sure that by the time of Killiecrankie in 1689 the two-handed sword was on its last legs as a preferred weapon, although some may have been present. Most historians view the era of the first Jacobite Rebellion in 1689 as the height of power for the clans.
Well put, Lin.
No two-handed claymores were used in battle in the 18th century. It is repeated time and again that they saw their last action during the battle of Killiecrankie, but every single historian that I've read fails to produce evidence for this. Personally I think the twa-handit swerdies were so much out of fashion by the time that they would be hung upon the walls in castles on display rather than being brought to the field... But I don't doubt their effectiveness in battle, as it is described that mercenaries from the West Highlands and the Isles used two handed weapons like the claydhemh-da-laimh and large axes during the Irish wars.
It should be noted that only about a fourth of the men who came out to fight for the chief would bear a sword, and these were the wealthy ones considered to be Gentlemen.
Cheers,
Henrik
No two-handed claymores were used in battle in the 18th century. It is repeated time and again that they saw their last action during the battle of Killiecrankie, but every single historian that I've read fails to produce evidence for this. Personally I think the twa-handit swerdies were so much out of fashion by the time that they would be hung upon the walls in castles on display rather than being brought to the field... But I don't doubt their effectiveness in battle, as it is described that mercenaries from the West Highlands and the Isles used two handed weapons like the claydhemh-da-laimh and large axes during the Irish wars.
It should be noted that only about a fourth of the men who came out to fight for the chief would bear a sword, and these were the wealthy ones considered to be Gentlemen.
Cheers,
Henrik
Don't forget by the 18th and 19th centuries many of the old two handed claymores (claid de laimh?) would have been worn out so much that they were re-ground into basket hilt types or even dirks or skein dubh. IIRC this has been documented in several cases, some very late pieces with 15th century blades....
J
J
Thanks all for the informative replies. I really appreciate the level of discourse in this forum compared to many others on the Net!
Several here have stated that the claymore was quite a bit more maneuverable than many think. OK, fair enough.
However, there's also the argument that a man with a long two-handed sword should always have the advantage against a man with a shorter sword.
That doesn't sound right. An unarmored man with a long two-handed sword should have the advantage against a man with a one-handed sword and shield? I thought that the whole reason the long two-handed swords appeared in the late Middle Ages (the German long swords, the claymore, ultimately the Zweihanders) was because there had now been the development of effective plate body armor.
IOW, you no longer needed to carry a shield, you were WEARING the shield. If it's only a question of length, then why didn't many fight that way for hundreds of years before the development of plate armor? The appearance of effective plate armor and the historical appearance of two-handed swords seems too close to be a coincidence.
The only other explanation I can think of is possibly the issue of metallurgy. That steel hadn't been developed to the stage that it could support such a long blade with sufficient flexibility and resilience? So you didn't need plate armor to wield a two-handed sword effectively, the swords just hadn't been available.
Bottom line, in a fight between an unarmored or light-mail equipped Scot with a claymore, and a similarly skilled and lightly armored man with one-handed sword and shield, I'd bet on the sword/shield combo.
Thoughts?
Chris
Several here have stated that the claymore was quite a bit more maneuverable than many think. OK, fair enough.
However, there's also the argument that a man with a long two-handed sword should always have the advantage against a man with a shorter sword.
That doesn't sound right. An unarmored man with a long two-handed sword should have the advantage against a man with a one-handed sword and shield? I thought that the whole reason the long two-handed swords appeared in the late Middle Ages (the German long swords, the claymore, ultimately the Zweihanders) was because there had now been the development of effective plate body armor.
IOW, you no longer needed to carry a shield, you were WEARING the shield. If it's only a question of length, then why didn't many fight that way for hundreds of years before the development of plate armor? The appearance of effective plate armor and the historical appearance of two-handed swords seems too close to be a coincidence.
The only other explanation I can think of is possibly the issue of metallurgy. That steel hadn't been developed to the stage that it could support such a long blade with sufficient flexibility and resilience? So you didn't need plate armor to wield a two-handed sword effectively, the swords just hadn't been available.
Bottom line, in a fight between an unarmored or light-mail equipped Scot with a claymore, and a similarly skilled and lightly armored man with one-handed sword and shield, I'd bet on the sword/shield combo.
Thoughts?
Chris
| Christopher Johnson wrote: |
|
That doesn't sound right. An unarmored man with a long two-handed sword should have the advantage against a man with a one-handed sword and shield? <snip> Bottom line, in a fight between an unarmored or light-mail equipped Scot with a claymore, and a similarly skilled and lightly armored man with one-handed sword and shield, I'd bet on the sword/shield combo. Thoughts? Chris |
As long as the 2-hander swordsman is mobile, the shield man really doesn't have much of an advantage, if any. The extra reach of the longer sword means the shield man can be hit at a distance where he can't reach his opponent with either sword or shield. Also, the shield relies on crowding the opponent for some of it's effectiveness, and the 2-hander lets you stay far enough away that you just aren't crowded by the shield. The shield still closes a line, but you are in a much better position to get around it.
| Christopher Johnson wrote: |
|
Bottom line, in a fight between an unarmored or light-mail equipped Scot with a claymore, and a similarly skilled and lightly armored man with one-handed sword and shield, I'd bet on the sword/shield combo. Thoughts? Chris |
You might want to look at the thread on longsword freeplay, to get an idea what a claymore might look like in a real fight.
The claymore would have a reach advantage at long range (making it easy to for example cut the legs of the sword and targe guy), and if the wielder knew how to use it which you would assume he did, at closer range would still be every bit as quick, as effective in defense, and as effective at close-in range as a sword and targe.
I've sparred hundreds of times with longsword against a sword and shield, I haven't found it difficult. The skill of each fighter is more important.
Couple of facts to consider.
1) Two handed swords of some kind have existed since at least the 12th century,
2) Cap-a-pied (full harness) plate armor didn't really arrive until the late 14th
3) Some swords may have been designed to cope with plate, but few could apparently penetrate it at all. Modern tests seem to indicate that few swords could even penetrate mail.
4) In fact many two-hand or hand-and-a-half swords had edge geometry unsuitible for cutting armor at all
5) very large greatswords like Zweihanders appeared after the decline of full plate, at a time when most combattants wore either partial armor (3/4 harness), a breastplate and helmet, or nothing at all. I.e. in most cases it was possible to cut around the armor.
For penetrating armor, specialized weapons were used, the only kind of sword I'm aware of really designed to go through armor is the edgeless estoc or tuck type, which is a sort of a giant chisel. More commonly, halberds, flails, awl-pikes, axes, picks, hammers and maces were used for this purpose. A zweihander could quite possibly penetrate armor particularly with a thrust, but as I mentioned, by the time they came on the scene armor was already in decline. You are probably closer to the mark with the metalurgy thing actually..
By the way, what is light mail? How much does it wiegh?
Jean
| Eric Myers wrote: | ||
As long as the 2-hander swordsman is mobile, the shield man really doesn't have much of an advantage, if any. The extra reach of the longer sword means the shield man can be hit at a distance where he can't reach his opponent with either sword or shield. Also, the shield relies on crowding the opponent for some of it's effectiveness, and the 2-hander lets you stay far enough away that you just aren't crowded by the shield. The shield still closes a line, but you are in a much better position to get around it. |
Exactly. And remember two other things, a claymore could cut up a targe pretty quickly, unless it was made completely of iron which most were not. if you are able to keep moving and cut more or less at your leisure, you can eliminate the shield altogether in short order. Second, assuming the claymore guy knows half-swording and ringen techniques, the close-in fight could be very dangerous for the sword and shield guy.....
J
| Christopher Johnson wrote: |
| Several here have stated that the claymore was quite a bit more maneuverable than many think. OK, fair enough.
However, there's also the argument that a man with a long two-handed sword should always have the advantage against a man with a shorter sword. That doesn't sound right. An unarmored man with a long two-handed sword should have the advantage against a man with a one-handed sword and shield? I thought that the whole reason the long two-handed swords appeared in the late Middle Ages (the German long swords, the claymore, ultimately the Zweihanders) was because there had now been the development of effective plate body armor. IOW, you no longer needed to carry a shield, you were WEARING the shield. If it's only a question of length, then why didn't many fight that way for hundreds of years before the development of plate armor? The appearance of effective plate armor and the historical appearance of two-handed swords seems too close to be a coincidence. The only other explanation I can think of is possibly the issue of metallurgy. That steel hadn't been developed to the stage that it could support such a long blade with sufficient flexibility and resilience? So you didn't need plate armor to wield a two-handed sword effectively, the swords just hadn't been available. Bottom line, in a fight between an unarmored or light-mail equipped Scot with a claymore, and a similarly skilled and lightly armored man with one-handed sword and shield, I'd bet on the sword/shield combo. |
Well, I do think the argument makes no sense if it's phrased in the form of "a man with a long two-handed sword should always have the advantage against a man with a shorter sword." It would be more accurate that longsword/two-hander fighting and sword-and-shield fighting are two distinct styles, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Should the two fighters be of equal skill, then a fight between a longswordsman and a sword-and-shield man would be quite an even match--but the fact is that there is no such thing as two fighters of equal skill, and we can't even bet on two fighters of equivalent skill coming face-to-face against each other in a real-world combat situation. In this case the advantage lies with the more skilled fighter regardless of which weapon he/she is wielding.
If you want to put things into perspective, though, let's look at the landscape of warfare in Scotland in the 15th to the 17th centuries. The man with a two-handed claymore and a knee-length coat of mail or quilted cloth might look lightly armored by Continental standards, but the enemies he was likely to face on his own native battlefields tended to be even more lightly armored. Highlanders in particular often went totally unarmored, while Lowlands pikemen started out very much unarmored and never went very far (if at all) beyond a short coat of mail. And, of course, the introduction of gunpowder led to a progressive abandonment of armor which meant that their enemies became more lightly armored as time went.
Let's also look at the wider context. I don't know of any instances of the two-handed claymore figuring prominently in Scottish warfare as such. Instead, it seems to have been most popular among the galloglaich in Ireland and the Isles--where the general run of warriors was just as lightly armored as (or more so than) in Scotland. Here we come to the caveat that a massed combat situation can work out very differently from single combat. Why do I mention it? Because up there the galloglaich did not go around waving their big weapons like mad as Hollywood would have it; instead, they were meant to form some sort of a defensive core to the battle-line, "a wall of bone instead of stone." In such a situation weapons don't matter much. What really counts is the men's ability to maintain a tight array and not break before a determined assault. A two-handed sword (or the sparth axe) can actually function very well in this kind of tight array when wielded like a very short spear with one hand gripping the middle of the blade. (And yes, that's the same as halfswording, but for a different purpose.)
Have a look at these two articles on Irish warfare. Their focus is a bit earlier than the period you have in mind, but they may still give some useful insights:
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/crecymohacs.htm
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/simms.pdf
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| (snip) |
Mr Curtis,
I always enjoy your posts and usually agree with you on most subjects, but here i do not.
Yes, the skill of the individual combattants is critical, but if you assume that to be equivalent as you say, the outcome of a fight between a man armed with a (two-handed) claymore vs. a man with a sword and targe (remember, you don't have a lot of very large shields at this point) basically depends on the amount of space available for the fight.
Assuming both men are experienced and knowlegable of period fighting techniques, in an open area, the guy with the claymore has a big advantage, simply because he can control the pace of the fight. He can cut, or thrust, from outside of the range of the sword and targe guy, and recover before the guy can come in. The reach advantage also means that in many cases he can countercut faster, this is something that you can't really understand unless you have done a lot of realistic sparring. This makes it very dangerous for the sword and targe guy to bind and rush, which is pretty much his only gambit. Every time he tries a cut or a thrust the Claymore guy can step back and cut his hand, and his blade will get there quicker in many cases due to the reach advantage.
I realize some people cannot grasp the concept of how a greatsword or any two-handed sword can cut and displace (or parry) effectively with speed and agility, unless of course it's a curved single-edged two-handed saber with a tsuba and a ray skin grip ;). But the fantasy that the Claymore is some lumbering slow thing, especially in the cut, is perpetuated in Hollywood like in Highlander or with that 15 pound sword-like-object in the Conan movie. It's a myth. Look into it. Challenge your assumptions here if you have them, it's interesting to find out how far beyond the horisons of your imagination reality can actually be :).
EDIT: I will film a demonstration of a greatsword vs. sword and targe in a full-contact sparring match this weekend to show you what I mean here.
Perhaps some folks aren't aware for example that even the huge zweihander type weapons were used as individual dueling swords, they were considered excellent one on one weapons as well as on the battlefield. This thing which keeps coming up that they were being carried around all over the place just as symbols of authority like some oversized swagger stick is something I don't buy. I think this comes from the existence of those huge procession swords.
I reccomend a look at some of the later Fechtbuchs which include fencing techniques for these weapons, or read Sydney Anglo's Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe.
Of course, on the other hand in a very tight enclosed space like in the woods or in a narrow ravine the shield guy has more of a chance to bind and rush in.
I also do not believe the Galloglass used their greatswords in tight formations, I'm willing to look further into that (per my own advice above!) but it goes against everything I know of these weapons. From what I have read the Galloglass were essentially heavy shock infantry. The mail hauberks and iron helms they wore was medium to heavy armor by the local standards, their weapons, greatswords and sparth-axes, gave tactical advantages to the trained fighter.
Finally, I'm not sure i agree with the assertion that there weren't a lot of greatswords in Scotland, there seem to have been a fair amount of surviving examples with the various unique scottish types of hilts on them. Again, something to look further into and I'd welcome any further information anyone could contribute on this. I'd tend to agree that swords were fairly rare prestige items, but in the earlier period, it seems like the larger greastswords did have a lot of popularity in this region. My understanding was that many Scots had fought on the continent in mercenary companies including Landsknecht units, and had actually brought the greatsword back with them having learned it's value on the battlefield.
Jean
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | ||
I also do not believe the Galloglass used their greatswords in tight formations, I'm willing to look further into that (per my own advice above!) but it goes against everything I know of these weapons. From what I have read the Galloglass were essentially heavy shock infantry. The mail hauberks and iron helms they wore was medium to heavy armor by the local standards, their weapons, greatswords and sparth-axes, gave tactical advantages to the trained fighter. Finally, I'm not sure i agree with the assertion that there weren't a lot of greatswords in Scotland, there seem to have been a fair amount of surviving examples with the various unique scottish types of hilts on them. Again, something to look further into and I'd welcome any further information anyone could contribute on this. I'd tend to agree that swords were fairly rare prestige items, but in the earlier period, it seems like the larger greastswords did have a lot of popularity in this region. My understanding was that many Scots had fought on the continent in mercenary companies including Landsknecht units, and had actually brought the greatsword back with them having learned it's value on the battlefield. Jean |
Jean…
I agree that a tight formation makes it difficult to use a two-handed sword effectively. The Romans understood this and equipped their troops with short stabbing swords – the gladius – when in the fighting line. The idea of using the two-handed sword as a spear in close quarters is understandable, but if your main formation is a compacted one, why not use a spear in the first place. I don’t know much about the fighting tactics of the Galloglass, but their heavier armor would seem to allow them to fight in loose formation rather than having to rely heavily on their comrades to protect their sides. But, that is just based on observation and reasoning, not on any particular contemporary references.
As far as the Scottish two-handed sword is concerned, there are quite a few examples of these swords in Scotland, although nothing on the order of the basket-hilt swords, of course. There are undoubtedly good reasons for this; cost, hard use with resultant salvaging of the blades for smaller swords, etc. And, I don’t think it is possible to say that the two-handed sword played any larger role in history than other swords. To affect history significantly a weapon must, in my opinion, be something new and well outside convention so as to make the ubiquitous weaponry of the era nearly obsolete.
Finally, regarding the Scots who went to the continent as mercenaries, I think that while it is possible they introduced or at least popularized the two-hander in Scotland, it is more likely that the Scots at home made the decision to begin using these swords. For one thing, a large percentage of the Scots who went abroad to fight on the continent did not come home. They died in Europe or married into the local population and stayed there. Central Europe is home to quite a few of their descendants and my own clan, the Clan Gunn, has recently determined by DNA testing of descendants, that one of the German-born Gunns who moved the US and founded a large family, was indeed of Scottish descent.
Any way, those are just some rambling thoughts. Interesting topic.
Last edited by Lin Robinson on Wed 23 May, 2007 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Quote: |
| 5) very large greatswords like Zweihanders appeared after the decline of full plate, at a time when most combattants wore either partial armor (3/4 harness), a breastplate and helmet, or nothing at all. I.e. in most cases it was possible to cut around the armor. |
I don't know about that. You don't see a decline of the full harness until fairly late in the 16th century. Perhaps foot soldiers were less likely to have complete armor; if so, that was only because knights and men-at-arms fought mounted more than they had in the 15th century.
Either way, there are plenty of big two-handed swords dating back to the 15th century. You also have Vadi's manual. His two-handed sword was certainly meant to be used in full armor.
Jean,
As usual in the 'this vs. that' discussions, I think it will be very difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.
I agree that free-sparring can offer us some insights, and is certainly a valuable training tool as well, but in this case I think it's almost impossible to ensure that both fighter have an equal level. In as much as it is possible to define 'level' at all in martial activities...
The thing is that we are all pretty much students in those arts, and that not all arts share the same level of documentation or interest. I get the impression, from looking at books and the Internet, that longsword fencing is somewhat more devellopped right now as a discipline than sword and targe. And also that longswords manuals are more discussed, maybe more numerous as well. From longsword to greatsword, maybe the gap is not that big. Converting from longsword to sword and targe seems more difficult (though some basis are certainly common).
So I think that the sword and targe guy is at a slight disadvantage nowadays, because his learning process is more difficult. As to how it went back then, that's another question...
Aside from that issue with sparring, another thing that disturbs me in these discussions, is the fact that once we want to defend our favourite weapon, it suddenly acquires all the qualities a weapon can have. From reading what you wrote, it seems that the claymore will have the advantage in reach and power, but without any sacrifice in control or speed (I'm not talking about the speed of cuts, but more about maneuvering here). To me, there has to be a compromise somewhere, otherwise all swords would have evolved into claymores or the like. I personally think that the claymore appeared in a context where power and reach was favored. Either that, or they were designed to be impressive and scare the enemy, which can be an effective technique as well.
I don't have any experience in fighting with great swords (I don't count my kenjutsu training here, because katanas are really quite different, if only because of their length). But I know at least one master that tells us that the one-hander can fare quite well: Girard Thibault. Without even a targe... Obviously, one could think that he was overly optimistic about that. But then he likely had plenty more connections with skilled great sword fencers than what we have today. Honestly I lack two important things to try that out: rapier skills, and someone skilled with greatsword in front of me ;)
I believe we should acknowledge, in this kind of discussions, that everyone has their own preferences (having to do with physical build, artistic style, brain functioning and whatever :) ), and try to abstract that as much as possible. In other words, it's not us with our "best sword" vs. another fighter with a weapon we don't really like, it's two other fighters with the weapons they each like and trust. Each time I do that it helps me putting things in perspective a bit. Leaving mostly the intended context of use of the weapons... In the case of claymore vs. sword and targe, I'd say it's a draw as well, on average.
Oh, for the record, I was talking with a fellow kenjutsu student about the infamous "rapier vs. katana" the other day, and was guilty of many things that I said here should be avoided :D
Regards
As usual in the 'this vs. that' discussions, I think it will be very difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.
I agree that free-sparring can offer us some insights, and is certainly a valuable training tool as well, but in this case I think it's almost impossible to ensure that both fighter have an equal level. In as much as it is possible to define 'level' at all in martial activities...
The thing is that we are all pretty much students in those arts, and that not all arts share the same level of documentation or interest. I get the impression, from looking at books and the Internet, that longsword fencing is somewhat more devellopped right now as a discipline than sword and targe. And also that longswords manuals are more discussed, maybe more numerous as well. From longsword to greatsword, maybe the gap is not that big. Converting from longsword to sword and targe seems more difficult (though some basis are certainly common).
So I think that the sword and targe guy is at a slight disadvantage nowadays, because his learning process is more difficult. As to how it went back then, that's another question...
Aside from that issue with sparring, another thing that disturbs me in these discussions, is the fact that once we want to defend our favourite weapon, it suddenly acquires all the qualities a weapon can have. From reading what you wrote, it seems that the claymore will have the advantage in reach and power, but without any sacrifice in control or speed (I'm not talking about the speed of cuts, but more about maneuvering here). To me, there has to be a compromise somewhere, otherwise all swords would have evolved into claymores or the like. I personally think that the claymore appeared in a context where power and reach was favored. Either that, or they were designed to be impressive and scare the enemy, which can be an effective technique as well.
I don't have any experience in fighting with great swords (I don't count my kenjutsu training here, because katanas are really quite different, if only because of their length). But I know at least one master that tells us that the one-hander can fare quite well: Girard Thibault. Without even a targe... Obviously, one could think that he was overly optimistic about that. But then he likely had plenty more connections with skilled great sword fencers than what we have today. Honestly I lack two important things to try that out: rapier skills, and someone skilled with greatsword in front of me ;)
I believe we should acknowledge, in this kind of discussions, that everyone has their own preferences (having to do with physical build, artistic style, brain functioning and whatever :) ), and try to abstract that as much as possible. In other words, it's not us with our "best sword" vs. another fighter with a weapon we don't really like, it's two other fighters with the weapons they each like and trust. Each time I do that it helps me putting things in perspective a bit. Leaving mostly the intended context of use of the weapons... In the case of claymore vs. sword and targe, I'd say it's a draw as well, on average.
Oh, for the record, I was talking with a fellow kenjutsu student about the infamous "rapier vs. katana" the other day, and was guilty of many things that I said here should be avoided :D
Regards
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
|
I believe we should acknowledge, in this kind of discussions, that everyone has their own preferences (having to do with physical build, artistic style, brain functioning and whatever :) ), and try to abstract that as much as possible. In other words, it's not us with our "best sword" vs. another fighter with a weapon we don't really like, it's two other fighters with the weapons they each like and trust. Each time I do that it helps me putting things in perspective a bit. Leaving mostly the intended context of use of the weapons... In the case of claymore vs. sword and targe, I'd say it's a draw as well, on average. Oh, for the record, I was talking with a fellow kenjutsu student about the infamous "rapier vs. katana" the other day, and was guilty of many things that I said here should be avoided :D Regards |
Hi Vincent,
You raise a lot of valid points here, and I can't of course speak about the actual abilities of people in the era in question, and as you say, there is a subjective side to all of this. I can only make an educated guess about any of this and I'm coming across as stating FACT (tm) then i apologize.
I would like to address a few points.
1) There is a reason why longswords and greatswords were so ubiquitous on the battlefields of Europe in the Medieval and Renaissance periods. In that time, they were clearly considered the preferred weapon by many of those who fought. After a couple of hundred years of the pre-eminance of the longswords, the smaller single-swords (which never went away) return to prominence as either civilian weapons or military side-arms, i.e. secondary weapons. The pike, the bill or halberd, the war flail, the war-hammer, the longbow, the heavy arbalest, the hand gonne and the arquebus led to the downfall of the two-hand sword, because they led to the downfall of the sword as a primary battlefield weapon, except in some backwaters like Scotland and Ireland :D where they clung to prominence until a bit later. (In earlier times it was a similar dynamic, the principle weapons were really the javelin and the spear, the sword was an important sidearm)
2) I can only give you my word on this, and you are very correct to bring it up, but I'm not emotionally invested in any one weapon here. To be honest I may have a little residual bias (which I try to fight against) for European weapons overall as compared to say, Katanas ;) if only due to the balance of public perception being a bit out of whack right now. But even there I can see pretty clearly both sides of the various arguments and I'm really interested in finding out the truth more than advancing any 'pet' ideas as you often see people doing. I really like 'em all. I even watch those Kirosawa films over and over ;) Also, I don't like to use greatswords very much, I prefer the smaller Oakeshott XVa Spadona types.
3) In our little fencing group one of our core members is principally a student of Marozzo, Italian singlesword and / or early transitional rapier. I myself was a 'sword and board' guy in a sitck-fighting group before I learned HEMA. So we do have some knowlege on the sword and shield side and the opinion I was advancing is based on that. Do either my friend or I qualify as a good fencer? probably not, but the advantage I was speaking of does seem to become apparent at the interemediate levels of skill within the context of our group; i.e. the good longsword guys do seem to have an advantage in bouts with the good sword and buckler guys when each are armed with their relative weapon of choice, at least in my opinion. Actually we haven't done one of these matches in a while so it will be interesting to see how it plays out this weekend.
I feel that the physics of it are difficult to dismiss, but I could very well be missing something.
4) The claymore does have some inferior qualities to a singlesword of course, it's not as quick in cuts from the hand for example, it's not as fast with a quick thrust or 'jab'. But they seem to have worked out ways of effectively counteracting this which I believe is why two-handed swords of various types seemed to be so prevalent on the European battlefields for so long. I assume you have seen some advanced halfsword techniques but if you have not, have a look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y
He doesn't start doing some half-swording until fairly late, but starting at about 1:29, you will notice a series of standard half-sword counters and disarms. These don't even incorporate many of the more advanced kamfringen or wrestling techniques, and are obviously intended for longsword vs longsword, but you can kind of extrapolate
These types of options, in my opinion, make the longsword, or the claymore, much more effective than you might think at close range.
All of that said, sword and shield can be extremely effective, a good sword and shield fighter will defeat a bad longsword fighter nine times out of ten. The principle advantage of the larger sword is definately going to be at the longer range, and that is why I would give the longer sword the edge in our hypothetical scenario, but if you take away the ability to move (like due to the terrain) then things become more equal or possibly advantageous to the sword and targe. Also you have to know enough longsword technique to be able to prevent that bind and rush the first time you strike the other guys shield, you have to be able to twitch or wind or half-sword to react to the inevitable counter. I have no idea of the actual skill of the Highlanders, say. Did they have equivalent technqiues to what you find in Lichtenauer or Fiore? I really don't know.
Jean
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum