Quote Originally Posted by Spiryt View Post
Oakeshott typology is the way to divide existing medieval blades based on their general shape, dimensions, properties.

It generally can be applied to the swords from ~ 1000 - 1500 period.

It's very popular, and while ancient people didn't really care about any divisions like that so much, it still allows to categorize sword based on their overall function pretty neatly.

Link

He is quick, neat presentation.

Here some description



To best of my knowledge "claymore" is more modern english version of gaelic word that was used to describe traditional scottish swords. Baskethills like that actually, not two handed swords.

Later, it began to be also used to describe two handed (claidheamh da laimh), mostly cut oriented swords with characteristic guard - sloping towards blade, with characteristic quatrefoil ending.

And it's pretty much it - here is page about reproduction of early two handed claymore, with nice explanation of what they were - pretty classic XIIIa blades mounted in characteristic fashion.

So while Wallace could theoretically have longsword, looking like that, he could have claymore. But since all signs on heaven and earth indicate that such style developed much later, he most certainly would just longsword like many other longswords in 14th century.
Funny you say that, since one of the (very helpful) links you gave me told me that both the XIIa and XIIIa models (the only 2 models that a claymore could be) were in use during much of the High Medieval period, 13th and 14th c and the middle of the 13th c to the latter half of the 14th c respectively. Wallace was born in 1272 or 1273, his official military actions started in 1297, his unofficial ones are rumored to start in 1291, and he was executed in 1305. That puts his lifetime smack dab in the middle of the era of XIIa and the early part of the era of XIIIa.

Now, since the quatrefoil handles are only found on Highlander Claymores (and Wallace would've used a Lowlander), we've reached a point where we can't go any further in this debate. Unless there are some specific features other than blade and handle sizes (ratio, or perhaps something else) that separate longswords and claymores the you can tell me about, or you can disprove me by explaining where the blade designs started and how quickly they spread to the different parts of Europe, I think we should probably stop this here. Until we get a little more evidence, anyways.

@G

As a man with mostly Celtic ancestors, I'm not going to lie: 'Barbarians' is a fitting description. Sure, we had our own culture, with our own religion and holy men, our own styles of clothing, agriculture, etc. We also developed good iron swords and chainmail before anyone else, for 2 reasons: 1. Because we were smart and 2. Necessity. See, when there wasn't enough resources to go around, we'd all get up and engage each other in tribal warfare. We were dedicated head hunters; we'd hang severed head we collected from our chariots (which unlike other civilzations, we used as personnel carriers) and take them home, preserve them, and bring them out at festivals because we thought it would give us magical powers. Let me say it again: we thought taking a human head, preserving it and keeping it around the house gave us MAGICAL POWERS. The Romans were pompous, arrogant and sometimes hypocritical, but they were right in calling Celts barbarians.