[Christopher Johnson]

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

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Kerry G. Neuls]

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

[Neil Langley]

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.

[Elling Polden]

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.

[Eric Myers]

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.

[J. Bedell]

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

[Lin Robinson]

[Henrik Bjoern Boegh]

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

[Jean Henri Chandler]

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

[Christopher Johnson]

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

[Eric Myers]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Lin Robinson]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

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

Regards

[Jean Henri Chandler]