Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Galloglaich]

I would suspect they actually did use the scythe in Japan, they certainly did in Germany, there is a famous section in Paulus Hector Mair where they show scythe fighting, and I think two or three other Renaissance era manuals.

Here is a video depicting Mairs sickle, scythe, and flegel (long handled flail) images.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97neHuFfPLI

Anything that can kill, was probably tried at least once. The scythe was a very ubiquitous tool which could be used to kill; like so many other farm implements, the sickle (kama in Japan) the staff, the flail, I think you see people looking at how to use thesse things seriously.

I know also in Europe it was fairly common to take a scythe blade, harden it and straighten it out and make the weapon into a Glaive.

G.

[Psyx]

rokushakukama

Isn't that a game where we take it turns to.... oh.... never mind...

[Jarrick]

Hmm... Rokushakukama, eh? Rokushaku means 6-shaku or about 6 feet, so that's a pole weapon with a kama head. Sounds like the Katakamayari (Sickle Spear, which is already included) stat-wise, so I dont think I need to add that. As for the two-handed ninja kama, I'd like more information on that if anyone knows where such could be found. Thanks for the responses, btw. I appreciate the help.

[Raum]

The Western scythe was used for wheat and similar grains. I believe Japan's primary crop was (and still is) rice...which won't be gathered using the same methods. Swinging a scythe in a rice paddy probably wouldn't be very effective. In any case, I suspect the different crops caused the differences in tools as much as the poor iron resources.

[MarkusWolfe]

I'm interested in picking up and learning to use a Lowlander Claymore (the model I have my eye one has a blade 4 feet long). Before I go out and pay money for expensive lessons, are there any resources I can check out specifically for claymores, or if that is not possible, greatswords in general?

[Galloglaich]

There is a ton of stuff on longsword, which is a two handed sword about four feet long, there are also several manuals for the larger version of about five feet, and a little bit of material for the 'true' two hander of six feet long.

Your best bet would be to study German or Italian longsword, there are videos and books (both translations and interpretations) and plenty of training equipment etc. It's not an easy or simple thing to learn though, it's equivalent to learning karate or kung fu, or collegiate wrestling or boxing. Takes quite a committment.

G.

[Galloglaich]

And incidentally, fun fact, many Scottish soldiers fought as mercenaries in Germany and also in Italy in the Medieval and Renaissance periods, that is in fact where they got most of the blades for the "Claymores" which have survived.

G.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

With a four foot blade, the overall length of the weapon might put it a bit beyond the realm of a longsword as depicted in period manuals, but the manuals would be no less useful to you.

What is it you hope to use it for?

[MarkusWolfe]

Meh, just want to practice in public and look totally badass doing it, as well as be prepared for the zombie apocolypse.

@G

That's very ironic, considering that when the Romans invaded Britain, they were using gladius short swords while the Celts wielded impressive 3 foot bladed longswords.....

Do those measurements you mention include the handle, or are they the blade alone? And perhaps more importantly, how similar are the techniques for the longswords to the original Britannic techniques? If I'm concerned with historical accuracy, should I be looking at the Doppelsöldner's Zweihänder instead? Who developed these massive swords first, and who developed the best techniques?

[Psyx]

Length of the entire bit of metal, not just the blade.

As regards the original Celt way of using the blade... we have no idea. Nothing was written down or survives. Our knowledge of even Roman fighting techniques is pretty sketchy. Nothing really crops up until the era of medieval fight manuals. We have only a few historical comments and the weapons themselves to base supposition on.

Likewise, we have no idea which techniques are 'best'. But bearing in mind that ones that don't work don't get passed on by dead people, it's safe to say that they all 'work'.

[Galloglaich]

There are manuals which include material for five foot blades, mostly 16th Century; Marrozo has some, Paulus Hector Mair has some very large blades, the Spanish and Portuguese Montanto stuff is all basically in that size category, with the added advantage that it teaches you how to fight against multiple opponents and on ship-board and in alleys etc. But it's not very accessible for a neophyte.

The techniques aren't that different from the (four foot) longsword. The reason I'd suggest studying longsword instead of "greatsword" is that the former is more widely understood now and there are a lot of good resources, numerous books, instructoinal DvDs, hundreds of videos on Youtube, sparing footage, tournament footage, etc. Essentially longsword is the same, there are a couple of different guards but all the same mastercuts and basic timing and footwork principles, the same kind of bind work and tricks, disarms etc.

Zweihander is a little different but that is even harder, most of what little is available hasn't even been translated into English yet. If you can read middle-high German or can read Latin it might be easier. But I don't think the Zweihander is that similar to the Scottish Greatsword actually.

For something like Migration-Era or Iron Age "long" sword (spatha) techniques, we really don't know, the closest you can probably get is the I.33 which is sword and buckler. I know a guy wrote a book on Viking techniques based primarily on I.33 and Talhoffer (which is 15th Century German) and some analysis of the Icelandic sagas. It's basically guesswork but being based on Talhoffer is at least somewhat Martially sound. A lot of re-enactors are doing this kind of thing now.

http://www.amazon.com/Viking-Weapons.../dp/1594160767

Here is a website with basically the same information.

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti..._technique.htm

You could do something similar based on the Irish myth cycle, Ulster cycle or the Fenian Cycle which do include some tantalizing references to fencing training, but that would be a major project indeed. Equivalent to a PhD.

If you worked at it seriously you could probably figure out the basic longsword guards and footwork for either Italian or German fencing tradition in about a month, sufficient to not look like a complete idiot when you are showing off to your friends, and enough to give you an edge in a fight with a complete newby. To get to the point where you could hold your own in sparring will take you three or four months training with a group or at least one partner. To be able to get through the first round of a tournament probably at least a year. But by then you'd be able to win that spontaneous pool-cue fight in the bar next time ... and zombies would be no problem.


G.

[MarkusWolfe]

Wow, information overload.

I have heard that Celtic longswords were used in a manner in which the user kept swinging it around his own body while attacking to maintain momentum. The low/medium/high targets where legs, torso and head respectively.... although that's probably universal. Swings were often made on diagonals, and vertical cuts were (similar to the Vikings) aiming for the area between the neck and the shoulder. Due to similar size and place of origin, I suspect that the original claymore techniques evolved from Celtic longsword techniques. One thing that's getting me right now is 'who developed these techniques first?' I know that the Lowlander Claymore was in service anywhere from 50-100 years before the Zweihänder was in service....although people may have had longswords in general long before that. Did the Britons develop them, and teach them to the Germans and Italians, or vice versa? Or did everyone develop their own techniques independently?

My only 2 sources on the actual claymore itself is the William Wallace episode of Deadliest Warrior (not the most academic source) and this video. The one move which really caught my eye on Deadliest Warrior was the backguard (seen at 0:26 in the youtube video), which the demonstrator said can be used to attack any part of the opponent.

[Spiryt]

Celts didn't have longswords or any other swords held two handed, so claymore techniques couldn't evolve that way, even if they could despite more than 1000 years of years passed.

Techniques of fighting with claymore were most certainly similar to the medieval longsword, taking often different size, length, etc. into consideration, of course, but since swords were obviously diverse in general, it was only normal.

Stereotypical two handed claymores were in use when two handed swords generally disappeared almost everywhere else, so they can be somehow treated as the pretty end to the fabulous story.

Definitely were NOT been used in Wallace times, Deadliest Warrrriur is just being Deadliest Warrriur.

[Psyx]

I have heard that Celtic longswords were used in a manner in which the user kept swinging it around his own body while attacking to maintain momentum.

We simply don't really know. There's anecdotal evidence in some surviving myths and tales, but it's very non-technical. There's not much in the way of surviving armour to see what was protected. We can grasp the essentials of how weapons were used based on their design, and we can see more on how they were used based on human remains. But beyond that and prior to I33, we essentially have nothing. And that covers thousands of years of history.

Swinging a weapon around though is a great way to knacker yourself out though. It's not really viable in open battle for any period of time. And while a weapon is being swung around excessively, it's not really stopping you being stabbed in the gut.

[Autolykos]

Swinging a weapon around though is a great way to knacker yourself out though. It's not really viable in open battle for any period of time. And while a weapon is being swung around excessively, it's not really stopping you being stabbed in the gut.

Exactly. I'd also add that a 3-foot long sword (or any other practical weapon for that matter) is not so heavy that you'd need to constantly maintain your momentum. If you can't get the weapon to "working speed" with a single move, you shouldn't use it at all.
EDIT: I could imagine something like this when charging the enemy while in battle. It's not very effective, but it looks really wild - and might rout less-disciplined enemies even before contact.

[Spiryt]

and might rout less-disciplined enemies even before contact.

Eh, if your opponent is opponent that would rout because of seeing you swinging your weapon around like lunatic, he would also rout from any scary thing, and thus he's not opponent at all.

Seriously, there are thousands more intimidating things around than such guy.

[Galloglaich]

Wow, information overload.

I have heard that Celtic longswords were used in a manner in which the user kept swinging it around his own body while attacking to maintain momentum. The low/medium/high targets where legs, torso and head respectively.... although that's probably universal. Swings were often made on diagonals, and vertical cuts were (similar to the Vikings) aiming for the area between the neck and the shoulder. Due to similar size and place of origin, I suspect that the original claymore techniques evolved from Celtic longsword techniques. One thing that's getting me right now is 'who developed these techniques first?' I know that the Lowlander Claymore was in service anywhere from 50-100 years before the Zweihänder was in service....although people may have had longswords in general long before that. Did the Britons develop them, and teach them to the Germans and Italians, or vice versa? Or did everyone develop their own techniques independently?

My only 2 sources on the actual claymore itself is the William Wallace episode of Deadliest Warrior (not the most academic source) and this video. The one move which really caught my eye on Deadliest Warrior was the backguard (seen at 0:26 in the youtube video), which the demonstrator said can be used to attack any part of the opponent.

You might just be better off joining a LARP group actually.

G.

[MarkusWolfe]

Celts didn't have longswords or any other swords held two handed, so claymore techniques couldn't evolve that way, even if they could despite more than 1000 years of years passed.

Techniques of fighting with claymore were most certainly similar to the medieval longsword, taking often different size, length, etc. into consideration, of course, but since swords were obviously diverse in general, it was only normal.

Stereotypical two handed claymores were in use when two handed swords generally disappeared almost everywhere else, so they can be somehow treated as the pretty end to the fabulous story.

Definitely were NOT been used in Wallace times, Deadliest Warrrriur is just being Deadliest Warrriur.

Ah....you are mistaken.

The Highlander Claymore (which was used on the show, Deadliest Warrrriur just being Deadliest Warrriur) has been in employ circa 1500 to 1700. William Wallace, however, was a Lowlander. Thus he would've used a Lowlander Claymore, which have been employed circa the 1200s.

Now, you may have heard of the Wallace Sword.....it is not William Wallace's sword. Unless he chose to wield a claymore without a fuller for some reason (fullers were typical for the age, unless they were processional swords), it's probably a sword created around 1505 as a (slightly inaccurate) replica of his original sword. However, that does mean that if William Wallace did use a claymore, then the handle should be comparable to modern Lowlanders. I present from top to bottom/left to right, depending on how these stack, a Highlander, a Lowlander, and the Wallace Sword:


Case closed.

[Spiryt]

There are many doubts if any longswords were in use around 1200 at all, so Lowlander style two handers with ring guards and similar stuff are really out of question.

Wallace could certainly have large XIIa XIIIa, maybe XV or XVIa Oakeshott type longsword, but not claymore or Lowland two hander.

The image you provided as "Lowlander" seems to be Hanwei mass produced sword, which as they admit themselves is loosely based on 16th century sword - link

Generally, the earliest period when we can talk about "typical" Scottish swords with unique style is last quarter of the 15th century.

[Galloglaich]

Well Markus, if you already knew all the answers, I kind of wonder why you are asking questions? Perhaps you are having a joke..

Like I said upthread, the blades on most of the actual real historical swords classified as claymores (claidheamh-mor which just means two 'big sword' in Gaelic... which most lowlanders didn't even speak... and was used to refer both to the big two handed weapons of the 16th century and the single handed basket hilts of the 17th-18th Century) turn out to have been made in Germany. Most of the rest are from Italy, Flanders, Spain, and other places in Continental Europe. There wasn't a lot of sword production going on in Scotland in the Middle Ages.

Longswords or greatswords of 'hand and a half' length date from possibly as early as the 11th Century but were not common until the 13th. Swords with four foot blades were extremely rare until the 15th. Six foot zweihanders didn't appear until the 16th.

The rest of your concepts of how to use them are far enough removed from reality that I can only assume you would prefer to indulge in your own fantasies, hence the suggestion to join a LARP group where none of your theories will be challenged.

G.

[Spiryt]

Longswords or greatswords of 'hand and a half' length date from as early as the 11th Century but were not common until the 13th. Swords with four foot blades were extremely rare until the 15th. Six foot zweihanders didn't appear until the 16th.

Actually as far as I heard, four feet blade XIIa or XIII a weren't so unheard of, though certainly they had not much to do with later two handers, obviously, - no ricassos, ring guards, etc.

Although many of them could be bearing stuff, of course. I would love to see more examples of them, because that's interesting topic, and doesn't seem to be easily researchable.

[Avilan the Grey]

And incidentally, fun fact, many Scottish soldiers fought as mercenaries in Germany and also in Italy in the Medieval and Renaissance periods, that is in fact where they got most of the blades for the "Claymores" which have survived.

G.

Well we have a number of Swedish Noble families that are of Scottish roots after all the wars we were involved in, like the Hamiltons.

[Galloglaich]

Actually as far as I heard, four feet blade XIIa or XIII a weren't so unheard of, though certainly they had not much to do with later two handers, obviously, - no ricassos, ring guards, etc.

Although many of them could be bearing stuff, of course. I would love to see more examples of them, because that's interesting topic, and doesn't seem to be easily researchable.

There are some big ones in the typology, quite a few XIIa with blades around 36" I think one or two on the Myarmoury article are up around 42 or 43 inches, like this one



but 48" (four feet) is pretty rare as far as I've seen until you get to the type XX in the 15th Century. I think mainly because the bloomery forges they were using earlier weren't big enough it was hard to make tempered blades that long. But there may be more out there in Eastern Europe or Central Europe which aren't widely known in English speaking realms of the internet.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Well we have a number of Swedish Noble families that are of Scottish roots after all the wars we were involved in, like the Hamiltons.

The Scotts got around. Quite a few of the evidently ended up in Poland as well.

G

[Autolykos]

Eh, if your opponent is opponent that would rout because of seeing you swinging your weapon around like lunatic, he would also rout from any scary thing, and thus he's not opponent at all.

Seriously, there are thousands more intimidating things around than such guy.

Well, yeah, if you're in a bright, open field and run at your enemies like that, you sure look like a lunatic. But when combined with other things (like darkness, unfamiliar terrain, an ambush, hordes of guys with painted faces running screaming at you from all sides and the general confusion of a battle) it might at least add somewhat to the impression. And since the Celts weren't disciplined enough to be scary by that alone, they might as well try to look as wild as possible. At least it wouldn't be as counterproductive as swinging your sword around like a complete nutjob in melee.
I assume the source for this is Roman (they were pretty much the only ones in contact with the Celts of whom we still have lots of written history). So it's also possible that they just wrote it for propaganda purposes (like "look at those barbarians - we need to bring them our culture" or "our brave legions face these wild guys every day - they are the best").

[Galloglaich]

What makes you think the Celts were undisciplined?

The Greeks, the Etruscans, the Persians, and the Carthaginians were among some of the other literate cultures who encountered the La Tene culture tribes people associated with the Celts, in Spain, in North Africa, in Anatolia, in Illyria, as well as in Gaul. We also have Irish literature from the 5th Century AD.

G.

[Karoht]

Meh, just want to practice in public and look totally badass doing it, as well as be prepared for the zombie apocolypse.

As one who teaches swordfighting...
And with all due respect...
I do foresee you hurting yourself or someone else.

You really do want to learn on a smaller weapon first. Something the size of a Gladius, or slightly larger, and then work your way up. Even start with a wooden waster, before you go out and buy a potentially expensive sword, particularly one of the quality to actually practice and or fight with.
Conversely, the other way to go about this is learn how to use a quarterstaff (6 feet) first, then practice 2 handed sword forms with a quarterstaff, and then work on 2 handed sword techniques.

And lastly, swinging around a sword in public trying to look 'totally badass' is a great way to have the cops show up and spoil your fun. I speak from repeated and comical experience. You really do want to learn with a more official group.



========
No really, I do speak from repeated and comical experience. I know all the cops in my neighborhood on a first name basis as a result. They typically play pranks on the rookie cops by sending him down to bust us. They call ahead so we play along. It's great fun. Especially fun because we're all trained to take hits and make them look real too. So the rookie comes and puts one of us in an arm bar and starts to cuff him. And thats when the non-rookie cop comes up and says, "no no no son, you got it all wrong, you're doing that the hard way, it's like this" and then pulls out the baton and clubs someone in the gut with a phantom hit, and then proceeds to cuff us. Good times.

[MarkusWolfe]

There are many doubts if any longswords were in use around 1200 at all, so Lowlander style two handers with ring guards and similar stuff are really out of question.

Wallace could certainly have large XIIa XIIIa, maybe XV or XVIa Oakeshott type longsword, but not claymore or Lowland two hander.

The image you provided as "Lowlander" seems to be Hanwei mass produced sword, which as they admit themselves is loosely based on 16th century sword - link

Generally, the earliest period when we can talk about "typical" Scottish swords with unique style is last quarter of the 15th century.

There are some big ones in the typology, quite a few XIIa with blades around 36" I think one or two on the Myarmoury article are up around 42 or 43 inches, like this one



but 48" (four feet) is pretty rare as far as I've seen until you get to the type XX in the 15th Century. I think mainly because the bloomery forges they were using earlier weren't big enough it was hard to make tempered blades that long. But there may be more out there in Eastern Europe or Central Europe which aren't widely known in English speaking realms of the internet.

G.

Hmm...this is quite an interesting can of worms I've opened here.

I'm going to end this painlessly: William Wallace's sword was large enough to be a claymore. If it did not have the typology to be a claymore, the sources from the 1500's said it was a claymore in reference to its size, and not its typology.

Geez, I might just have to enter a field where I could get to the bottom of this mystery when I graduate in 4 years.....Materials Engineering with a Minor in Archeology, FTW!

As one who teaches swordfighting...
And with all due respect...
I do foresee you hurting yourself or someone else.

You really do want to learn on a smaller weapon first. Something the size of a Gladius, or slightly larger, and then work your way up. Even start with a wooden waster, before you go out and buy a potentially expensive sword, particularly one of the quality to actually practice and or fight with.
Conversely, the other way to go about this is learn how to use a quarterstaff (6 feet) first, then practice 2 handed sword forms with a quarterstaff, and then work on 2 handed sword techniques.

And lastly, swinging around a sword in public trying to look 'totally badass' is a great way to have the cops show up and spoil your fun. I speak from repeated and comical experience. You really do want to learn with a more official group.



========
No really, I do speak from repeated and comical experience. I know all the cops in my neighborhood on a first name basis as a result. They typically play pranks on the rookie cops by sending him down to bust us. They call ahead so we play along. It's great fun. Especially fun because we're all trained to take hits and make them look real too. So the rookie comes and puts one of us in an arm bar and starts to cuff him. And thats when the non-rookie cop comes up and says, "no no no son, you got it all wrong, you're doing that the hard way, it's like this" and then pulls out the baton and clubs someone in the gut with a phantom hit, and then proceeds to cuff us. Good times.

Alright, fair enough. I'll learn to walk before I try running.

[Karoht]

Alright, fair enough. I'll learn to walk before I try running.

Thank you for accepting that in the exact vein it was intended in.

On the suggestion of joining up with a LARP/Boffer group:
They aren't all bad. They won't teach you technique typically, and they'll probably teach you some bad habits as well. But you'll get through the 'developing the muscle stamina and dexterity' growth phase just the same.
Personally, I'd join a LARP/Boffer group before you join a serious instructional/reinactment group. Reason? LARP/Boffer is pretty cheap, if you don't like it you can walk away easily or just change your involvement. Real sword lessons, unless you find a really great group, can be expensive for sword, instruction, and protective gear. Sword alone will probably run you $300, minimum protection standards can be anywhere from $150-$3000 depending on the group and the time period.

Seeing as I don't want to spam the board, if you are looking for a decent sword or other related supplies, PM me. Especially if you're from western canada.

[MarkusWolfe]

Nah, I'm from ON. Same country though, for those who are stateside.

BTW, can someone explain Oakshot typology to me? I've researched it before, but I've never been able to understand it. I was just thinking about the claymore thing again, and if Wallace did wield a Claymore, it may very well have been the first ever. Imagine that! Though if he did wield the first claymore, that might've gone down in history.....but anyways, I'll be talking out of my ass if I don't figure out this Oakshot stuff.