Claymores

[Pertinax]

Longbow -is the Claymore the sword of the Irish Galowglas (again from a latre period)? Also is the term hand and a half sword applicable to the viking weapons you posted a photo of?

 

I notice that in the later 3rd century AD some Legionnaires carried much heavier and longer swords than in previous centuries,( though im not sure how widespread this practice was), and these weapons seem ,superficially at least, to remind me of viking and norman weapons.

[Pantagathus]

There have been Celtic swords found that date as early as the 1st century BC which have blades of about 90cm without the handle. That rivals many great swords from the medieval era. The quality of the iron nears that of steel in some cases.

 

Even in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age the folks of Western Europe were using big, long swords.

 

e.g.: 'Carps Tongue' Sword (~1300BC-~750BC)

[Pertinax]

If a sword is balanced there is no reason why it cant be long or heavy- my practical experience is only with the Japanese Katana and Companion swords,( and practice weapons wooden boktu and bamboo shinai), oddly ive never touched anything other than a viking hand-and -a-half sword from my "native" weapons. The main Japanese sword is around 44" long and though you have to watch the scabbard if turning round in a confined space ,it feels "natural". The Companion sword (Wakizashi) feels really neat and nimble (29" in total length), you can see why people happily walked about indoors with one slotted into the belt. I know these live blades are not massivley built but they weigh heavy if picked up "dead" in an incorrect manner and they have a natural spring and can be easily wielded one handed if needs be. If European swords are "heavy" but balanced I suggest even a 56" blade can be wielded by a trained swordsman to economical effect. The Gladius comes across as a wicked, neat steak knife, no wonder the "Orientals" were horrified by its use to stab into the viscera or face without preliminary flourish.

[longbow]

Longbow -is the Claymore the sword of the Irish Galowglas (again from a latre period)? Also is the term hand and a half sword applicable to the viking weapons you posted a photo of?

 

I notice that in the later 3rd century AD some Legionnaires carried much heavier and longer swords than in previous centuries,( though im not sure how widespread this practice was), and these weapons seem ,superficially at least, to remind me of viking and norman weapons.

 

 

I found this regarding the Galloglas Irish,

From Scotland, in the 13th Century, the Dalriada provided the Galloglas (Gall Og Liagh) Gaels with Norse Viking blood. Fresh from fighting alongside William Wallace, and later Robert the Bruce, they brought the skills of War that had defeated the English. With them came the Sparth Axe as a battle axe or pole axe, a return to chain mail (l

[Pertinax]

thanks Longbow that is new information to me and very interesting as I trace my ancestery to pure ( ie non-irish outer route "norse") Dublin Viking roots.

 

do you know the dead weight of the "viking " swords? I would be interested to compare the weights to my Japanese "pair"? Also Id better mention that carrying the "two swords" does not involve carrying a shield.

Edited November 19, 2005 by Pertinax

[longbow]

Interesting page regarding sword weights

 

This early Vikings in Ireland page might be of interest.

[Pertinax]

Thank you Longbow , the first link confirms what I suspected about perceived "heaviness"and is also a good reminder of why opinions should be questioned , and why practical archeaology is so important