Talk:Claymore/Archive 1

Where does the theory that Claymore is the anglicization of "Claidheamh dà Laimh" originate? Given the lack of similarity between the two words, especially compared to the almost identically pronounced "Claymore/Claidheamh Mhòr" i dont see how this can be given much credence. An Siarach

Maybe Sword Forum Inernational is the source of the theory? Search for the word "Claymore". --Claymore 20:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ultimately cognate with Latin gladius"... how does this change whether the title claymore should be applied to the two handed sword? Whoever wrote that must be thinking that gladius means the kind of sword you see in Gladiator. In fact, the word gladius is borrowed from the Celtic or Celtiberian word for sword, and even in Latin never meant just that certain type of sword. So, really claidheamh is cognate with the continental Celtic word, not with the Latin.

Suggestion

How bout a picture? people have problems envisioning swords... even a refernece to popular media would be nice, such as Braveheart perhaps? but then again that wasnt a true claymore, though it would give them a good ideaf1r3r41n 18:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not being able to find a public domain picture of either type, I linked the Braveheart image (as right) some weeks ago. However, it was removed by User Allenj. He did not include a note on why he removed, so if no objections I may "re-add". Guliolopez 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Given no objection, am moving image to article proper. Guliolopez 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

They really used 2-handed claymores during the Napoleon era?

That sounds doubtful, especially if one follows the logic of the article that the Scotts were using the basket-hilted broadsword dubbed a "claymore" by the 18th century.

Ihavenoheroes 14:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That does seem unlikely. What we may have here is a confusion between the 2handed incarnation, and the basket hilted sword. That said, it may be accurate - however, without a source/citation, it may be worth removing until "proven". Guliolopez 15:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of British officers using two handed swords in the Napoleonic period, this piece of information should be removed immediatly. (unsigned - User:Scotaidh)

Removed per apparent consensus and lack of source or ref. Guliolopez 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Change

I changed the image for several reasons: 1) This seems to be a better image of a claymore, the focus of the artical, than the low-res box cover could provide (which only showed part of one anyway and 2) I don't think that image is covered under fair use if it is used in this article - fair use (as I undersand it) would allow the box cover of Braveheart to be used to illustrate the artical "Braveheart" but not articals somewhat related to it. --Douglas Whitaker 04:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of Article

I do believe this article should be renamed to its proper spelling, Claymor. Arctic Warfare 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? This is English Wikipedia, and in English it's always spelt with the final 'e'. -- Necrothesp 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup - I agree with Necrothesp - the common English name should be used. (Besides which, I don't think that "Claymor" *is* the proper spelling - in any language). Guliolopez 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Claymore at Normandy

I find the idea that anyone carried a basket-hilt broadsword ashore on D-Day a bit preposterous. Unnecessary kit in the first place and totally useless in the second. Col. Churchill may have had one with him in Europe, but I doubt that he carried it into combat. As I recall he was captured at some point and held until almost the end of the war.

Claymore Did Not Apply To Two-Handed Swords

Recent research, notably by Claude Blair and Stuart Maxwell, has shown that the term claidheamh-mor did not actually appear in the Gaelic lexicon until the late 19th Century. In other words, it was not applicable to the two-handed Scottish swords during the period they were in use. Further, there is ample evidence that the term applied only to the basket-hilt swords of the 16th - 18th centuries and at that time the word was "claymore" and not rendered in the Gaelic. It appears that the link between the term and the two-handed sword was actually forged some time in the late 18th century by James Boswell and Samuel Johnson after their grand tour of the Highlands. In other words, most of what is written in this article, at least as it regards the use of the word, is incorrect. If one is to write an article on the claymore sword, it should be confined to the basket-hilt sword, with a nod to the later, incorrect connection between the word claymore and the two-handed sword. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lin Robinson (talk • contribs) .

OK - Not having read the reasarch you reference, I'm not able to comment fully on your suggestion that the article is (partially) mis-labelled, but do messrs Blair and Maxwell offer an alternative name for the two-handed highland sword? Guliolopez 10:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The name for the two-handed sword is "Claidheamh Da Laihm" or "Claid Da Lav Mor", the former being the correct spelling, the latter more of a pronunciation. This info can be found at the Weapons and Armaments of the Wild Highlander page. --~Kenzal Hunter 02:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the same thing, but could not remember where it was cited so I with-held the information from Wikipedia. Thank you for citing the source. Xiliquiern 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That same site also claims that the two-handed sword in question weighed 6- 9 pounds, was carried by William Wallace and that the down-turned quillons were an explicit advantage in combat. As all three of these statements are demonstrably false I question the accuracy of anything on this site that is not properly referenced. Mercutio.Wilder 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Source

The information can be found in "Scottish Weapons and Fortifications 1100 - 1800" by David H. Caldwell. This is a compilation of articles written by a number of well-know experts on these subjects. It is very interesting and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the military history of Scotland. It is in and out of print regularly and can probably be found through any of the online booksellers.

In answer to your question re: an alternative name for the two-handed sword, the authors do not mention one. My guess would be that it was referred to as a "two-handed sword", which just about says it all. There is no compelling need to call something anything other than what it is, especially in ancient times when obfuscation was eschewed.

Period of use for two-handed variety

I've asked for a citation on the period of use of the two-handed variety since all the sources I've encountered state its use beginning in the 15th century. However, my references are not good enough for me to be certain so I won't delete it. Mercutio.Wilder 19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ww2 citation

[1] gives Churchill in the article as using a claymore in ww2. Its the best I can find if people are happy for that to be the citation. Alci12 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

weight and mass

basic concept here: grams is not a unit of weight. i changed it to newtons. i'm fine with it being changed back as long as it says a mass of n kg.

Units of mass

I have come across two entries with this 'correction' made: replacing kg with newtons. These edits were made by 72.85.214.147

According to wikipedia newton is a unit of force not weight. As mass is a highly relevant unit of measure for a device used for generating force, it is appropriate to list its mass. If you wish to be more precise than change weight to mass instead of chaning units of mass to units of force.

And sign your actions. Mercutio.Wilder 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Width

I have noticed that although this article mentions the length and weight of the sword, it does not say anything about the base blade width. Shouldn't this be included as well? Repku 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Style of the Claymore & its effectivness?

Was there a definitive way of using the Claymore in combat? Or was it just a case of swinging the sword around the field? And how effective was it in combat. Its a clumsy wepon at the best of times. Did the clans have a specific training system in using the Claymore. Or was it just a ceremonial weapon used for display on special occasions?

Two part answer -

The single-handed, basket hilted claymore most definitely had a distinct style. Around ten manuals on the use of these swords survive from the 18th century.

No information survives on the use and style of the two handed claymore. We know that a tremendous number of Scotsmen served as mercenaries on the Continent so it is reasonable to assume that, if nothing else, they used a style similar to continental longswords.

It was not just swinging the sword around. And the swords were quite effective in the opinion of the English who fought against them. No weapon used for combat can really be called clumsy

I do not know of clan specific training either for or against but little tricks specific to a clan seem likely.

There are always practical and decorative versions of weapons. Mercutio.Wilder 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)