Fencer Archive
Thread: Longswords vs Rapier Cutting vs Thrusting
Yetimann wrote:
I guess I need to speak in more specific terms... It seems as though I have caused an argument with my post last week...
The idea that I was presenting was this...
Long swords to me are the English longswords...not hand and a half weapons of other origin these are shorter wider at the base and heavier that any rapier blades but have a bloodletter in the blade and a threaded pommel... the rapiers that I speak of are the light blades of the 16th and 17th century with either very wide tangs or basket hilts... I never said that you CANNOT slash with them but a long sword in the advanced stages of combat cannot be used like a rapier and vice versa.. with the long sword (12 to 16 lbs) you would become fatugued very quickly if used like a rapier... A rapier of the style described (NOT a foil) would bend or break under the same abuses you would use a longsword for partucularly if used against a heavily armored opponant... you can yell and scream that I am wrong but remember this I study weapons on a historical reference NOT on a personal combat reference and alot of general description of weapons (longsword, broadsword, twohanded sword, rapier etc.) ARE opinions to describe a CLASS of weapons... rapiers (even the widest of blades IE a musketeer style blade) are generally lighter and quicker5 to 10 lbs, used PRIMARILY (not exclusively) for thrusting...
Oh and as a side note, I repeatedly referenced the 16th and 17th century styles in my post (movies were princess bride etc) and also said twice that that was MY idea of a fencer... that is all I have to say but, if you must, flame away that I am a stupid uneducated idiot and should not ever post anything unless I know how to use, construct, name and die by the subject that I am making a reference to....oh I forgot this is JUST A GAME...
Otica (the wookiee with the most)
MAW Industries
(Intrepid galaxy: 4660 -3545 Moenia, Naboo)
First Wookiee
"YES, I AM a yeti, and I AM from Yavin 4"
Master Artisan
Brawler 4/4/0/0
Fencer 0/0/0/0
Marksman 0/4/0/0
Scout 4/0/4/0
Smuggler 0/0/0/4
Creature Handler 1/3/1/1
Just FYI:
A "Longsword" in historical references refers to what is more commonly known as the "**edit** Sword" (what a horrible term), or "Sword of one and a half Hands".
The sword types you mean were just called "Swords".
Dogg
Lurimoose wrote:
I understand you are referring to the braveheart type Claymore, however (and correct me if i'm wrong), i've seen pictures of what was refered to as a Claymore that had a very fancy bird cage looking guarded hilt. From the description the Claymore evolved from what you described to what i've described. Yes i understand that what i've described is a one hander. I tend to like the two handed version better, anda replica looks very nice hanging on my wall with the Buchanan tartan draped from it.
The Blade you describe is referred to as a "Basquet Hilt" and commonly used together with a buckler. It is a scottish weapon of the late 15th century/early 16th century.
Some sources falsely describe it as claymore, but the correct term would be "Basquet hilt"
I hope that helps clarify the issues,
Dogg
Lurimoose wrote:
Outa curiousity, how would you guys classify the Claymore?
And btw, Seena would you marry me? LOL
Heheh well Cad, I'll be honest- I'm really not the 'marrying' type - I'm more of a "serial monogamist" 
As for classification of the Claymore - The classification of historical weaponry is not a "sure thing". As you can see from reading the forums, there is little consensus - and thissort of bickering occursamoung arms curators as well. 
I've seen some categorize it as a broadsword, but, as I've stated before, broadsword has pretty muchbeen made into a catch all term for any medieval or long, heavy, wide, double edged military weapon. Some of my references identify a "true" broadsword as a actually being a type of short cutlass. Others list the broadsword specifically as a close hilted military swordfrom the late 1600s. It's a debate that will continue for a long time. As long as people continue to be interested in historical weapons anyway!
I can tell you that Claymore is derived from the gaelic "claidheamh-more" which means great sword. This name was originallygiven to"Braveheart's" sword (used by the Scottish Highlanders against the English in the 16th century).By the 1700s, the name Claymore was alsogiven to the Scot'sweapon you describe- which is actuallya cousinto theSlavic schiavona, and, as Inquisitor said, goes by the name of basket-hilt broadsword as well.
Seena
Seena
Either way - I bet it looks awesome with the tartan!
Seena
KaliMirchi wrote:
I can tell you that Claymore is derived from the gaelic "claidheamh-more" which means great sword. This name was originallygiven to"Braveheart's" sword (used by the Scottish Highlanders against the English in the 16th century).By the 1700s, the name Claymore was alsogiven to the Scot'sweapon you describe- which is actuallya cousinto theSlavic schiavona, and, as Inquisitor said, goes by the name of basket-hilt broadsword as well.
Seena
I can understand this guy!I am about to fall in love as well!
But thanx for the insight into the gaelic origins. I had read the origins about a century ago, but my brain tend to forget too many things....
Thanxx for bringing that knowledge back to the surface.
With the Gaelic origin it should be obvious, that they meant only the Large blade by the term Claymore.
I will use that knowledge in my next big discussion about that toppic
Thanx,
Dogg
InquisitorPayne wrote:
But thanx for the insight into the gaelic origins. I had read the origins about a century ago, but my brain tend to forget too many things....
Thanxx for bringing that knowledge back to the surface.
Well .... don't be giving me TOO much credit - that wasn't on the tip of my tongue, I couldn't recall the Gaelic name; I had to look it up.
I've found that my ability to recall minutiae has been halved - but, thankfully, I *do* remember where to find the info when I need it! : )
Seena
It does look nice with the tartan. The Buchanan tartan isnt as colorful as blackwatch or any of the other well known tartans, but thats the Clan thats associated with my family name, so I display it proudly. It's nice looking in it's own right though. I'm not sure on the weight of the Claymore I have, but I can tell you that it would take a helluva man to charge into battle and swing that thing around. One can deffinately understand the evolution into smaller lighter weapons after hefting that monster.
I'm not so much into the weapons as I am the history of the era, however they go kinda hand in hand so it's interesting to me to talk to people that have some knowlede of the subject. The weapons i'm most familiar with are modern weapons. Especially Armor. After 4 years of blowing up tanks in the USMC it's hard not to know a bit about them lol.
BTW, I'm not the marrying type either, but we could **edit** sure have some interesting conversations over dinner! lol
heheheh over dinner ? 
You know, with respect to the weapon's size and weight. The other day I read somewhere that the Scottish Highlanders were the tallest race in Europe prior to WWI, when their average height dropped nine inches.
Seems that they were simply makin' the sword to fit
Seena
Well, considering mine is probably pushing 60 inches overall, it would take a pretty good sized guy. I'd guess the weight at close to 5 pounds as well. Thinking back on what someone said in a previous post, I can deffinately see where this is more of a bashing weapon than cutting, and it's **edit** sure not a thruster!
Aye dinner. Being the bachelor that i am, we'd have to go out though, pretty sure you wouldnt go for hungry man TV dinners and luke warm beer!
Additional INformation on the Claymore:
Weight of an actual fighting Claymore: 1,800 g
Balance point: roughly one hand above the hilt
Edges: 2, sharp
Fighting technique:
The Claymore utilizes a combination of Thrusting and Shlashing Maneuvers. It does not utilize Cuts. Thrusts are used in defense, followed up by wide slashing movements, interwoveninto an economilcal series of swings. A well trained soldier (factoring in adrenaline) can swing a claymore continually for about an hour during battle.
Claymore fighters are either blockade runners or shock troops, used in the front lines and supported by sword and shield fighters. It is important to notice the difference tothe German Bidenhander wich was used primarily as a Thrusting and cutting weapon. The only time a Bidenhander utilized Slashes was to shatter Pikes.
My personal style favour the Claymore, buta well trained Bidenhander fighter is nigh unstoppable in a Formation. But it is also a time issue. The Claymore existed a long time befre the Bidenhander.
Dogg
Lurimoose wrote:
Aye dinner. Being the bachelor that i am, we'd have to go out though, pretty sure you wouldnt go for hungry man TV dinners and luke warm beer!
LOL well, you can always add ice to lukewarm beer hehehehehehehe
Seena