Can someone tell me if the style of the Claymore used by Mel Gibson in "Braveheart" is an authentic design. I have an inexpensive replica of it (there are of course many available on the Internet), but I can't find any examples of this style in books or on-line articles -- including this site -- as a real/historic sword style. It's not in Oakshott's typologies (i.e., "Record of the Medieval Sword," which is the one I have). I thought it was an authentic design, with its distinctive leather covering down over the ricasso. But I would like to see a picture of a real one--even a drawing?--not just those photos of the replica being sold by modern sword sellers. Thanks. -- Paul

Paul,
Greetings. Welcome aboard! It is my understanding that the sword was an original design by Fulvio Del Tin,
http://filmswords.com/alsostarring/alsostarring.htm

Cheers,
-Jess

P.S. One thing I'd appreciate getting others' opinions on is the discrepancy I feel exists between the prop sword depicted in the film, and the Del Tin replica, regarding the length of the leather ricasso covering. The one in the film appeared to be quite long, perhaps at least as long as the handle grip (there seemed to be nice balance and symmetery of leather both above and below the crossguard). The replica, however, appears to exhibit a much shorter leather ricasso cover. I'm curious as to the opinions of those that have owned or handled the DT replica. Thanks much!

I always thought it has more of a German flair myself... its kinda out place in time.

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/ne...rolean.htm

That is close right?

I remember reading this at some point and was able to dig it up quickly for ya,

http://swordforum.com/fall99/sword-of-william-wallace.html

Though as stated in the article there is not solid proof the sword was ever owned or used by William Wallace, it is the sword that has been given that privilege due to it's history, ect. seems like it might as well be :)

Anyway, as you see its really not a very fantastic looking blade in spite of the history surrounding it, probably why a more charismatic blade was thought up for the film.

In response to Jesse's question about the length of the Del Tin Wallace Claymore replica: having just come from Del Tin's web site, it does appear that the ricasso covering is shorter than the grip. However, I seem to remember watching the battle scenes in "Braveheart" and noticing that in at least one shot of Mel Gibson holding the sword after heavy use, the leather covering seemed to slip down the blade a bit, perhaps a few inches, making it appear to be longer. It was definitely lower on the blade, at least! I have not handled the Del Tin replica, but I could guess that the leather ricasso covering might slip off the blade, if it was subjected to sufficient lubricant (i.e. blood), and had enough force applied.

In any case, I'm sure the Del Tin replica is the best version of this sword available on the market, not counting any custom pieces. :)

The type of sword used in the movie is considered by many to be a later (15th or 16th century) type that is of continetal origin, I don't think the basic design was invented by Mr. Del Tin.
I have yet to see an original sword of this type or even a clear period depiction of one that I recall, however, the description given on Albion's Tyrolean page gives about as much info on this type as I have seen anywhere, which isn't much. Perhaps Peter Johnsson can comment since I believe he did the conceptual drawings for the NextGen line and has probably researched this type if it does exist.

I read somewhere here that there are more swords similar to that repaired museum blade claimed to be Wallace's from 13th or early 14th century and that it could really be Wallace's blade, just rehilted of course... I think mr. Arnow posted it in a topic similar to this one... I'm sorry if I remembered it wrong... I will search for it.

Wow . . . Thanks to all of you for your helpful replies on the "Braveheart" sword. I am delighted by the number of responses, even more than the info itself. I am so happy to discover this website. My interest in swords (I still resist calling it a "collection" because that sounds so shallow compared to the depth of feeling and historic/mythic interest that draws me to swords), and I have 35 now, has been a very solitary pursuit. My girlfriend is repulsed. My male friends think it is cool, but admire the idea from an ignorant distance; and I don't practice any martial art or Renaissance reenacting, so I don't have people who can share a knowledgeable or heartfelt appreciation of swords. And I definitely don't see myself in the same category as those who collect knives and guns....

So thanks for the community, and to the people who created and manage this site. I never knew there were so many "ordinary" sword enthusiasts out there!

While we're on the subject . . . "Braveheart" was in many ways a compelling and certainly well-made film; but among its many sillinesses and historical inaccuracies was the scene early in the film when he takes vengeance for the murder of his wife. There is no way someone could draw the oversized Claymore up from behind his back and slice someone's head off in one stroke, in the manner of drawing a Japanese katana from the waist. The (normal) human arm just isn't long enough, let alone the small likelihood that one could HIDE such a large sword strapped to the back.

Ah, sorry i guess my mind wondered more towards the William Wallace connection, rather than the sword style used in the film as a style seen in history :confused:

From the look of your picture, the ricasso cover is the same length as the grip cover. However, the ricasso cover on the production Del Tin sword seems shorter (sorry, don't know how to imbed a link). It goes without saying that the movie sword(s) may not have the exact specifications as Del Tin's production model. :)

The Del Tin one doesnt match the movie one because Simon at Raven Armoury made the pictured sword for the film,if memory serve's,
there are a good few Del Tin swords in the movie though,