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

[Kalaska'Agathas]

On the subject of not starting with Longsword, I would ask what would be good to start with? Grosse Messer? Rapier? Dagger?

[Mike_G]

On the subject of not starting with Longsword, I would ask what would be good to start with? Grosse Messer? Rapier? Dagger?

Rapier fighting is probably cheapest in terms of equipment, and easy to find groups. Regulation fencing masks and jackets, and competition Epee blades will work, and they're less expensive and easier to get than reproduction swords and armor. Plus, they are designed and rated for competition, so you don't run the risk of buying a wall hanger that won't stand up to abuse.

Olympic style fencing classes are easy to find, and while it's a sport, not a martial art, it does give you a grounding, and teaches good form and speed. A good sport fencer who subsequently learns rapier style combat will quickly pick up the differences, and his speed and point control will put him ahead of a guy who never competed in foil. Plus, any group of fencers has some people who want to do period rapier, and know a guy who knows a guy in the SCA or some reenactment group.

This is the easiest "gateway drug" for the modern swordfighting enthusiast. Then, if you like it, you can drop tons of cash and spare time on accurate weapons and armor and lessons and travel to find a more authentic group and learn HEMA stuff.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Rapier fighting is probably cheapest in terms of equipment, and easy to find groups. Regulation fencing masks and jackets, and competition Epee blades will work, and they're less expensive and easier to get than reproduction swords and armor. Plus, they are designed and rated for competition, so you don't run the risk of buying a wall hanger that won't stand up to abuse.

Olympic style fencing classes are easy to find, and while it's a sport, not a martial art, it does give you a grounding, and teaches good form and speed. A good sport fencer who subsequently learns rapier style combat will quickly pick up the differences, and his speed and point control will put him ahead of a guy who never competed in foil. Plus, any group of fencers has some people who want to do period rapier, and know a guy who knows a guy in the SCA or some reenactment group.

This is the easiest "gateway drug" for the modern swordfighting enthusiast. Then, if you like it, you can drop tons of cash and spare time on accurate weapons and armor and lessons and travel to find a more authentic group and learn HEMA stuff.

I'm already an escrimateur, as it so happens, fencing epee and foil. Lucky me I guess. I would like to know where to start with HEMA though...

[Autolykos]

What makes you think the Celts were undisciplined?

Uh, Roman propaganda, probably.
I know they had quite a culture (what with the druids and everything), even at the times of Caesar, but I somehow expected them to be small divided tribes, and not quite on the Roman level of architecture and literature. And of course pretty much everyone looks undisciplined next to Romans (or was that also mainly propaganda?). Also they might have learned something between 50 BC and 500 AD...

[Spiryt]

BTW, can someone explain Oakshot typology to me? I've researched it before, but I've never been able to understand it.

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

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.

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.

[Karoht]

I highly recommend anything from the Paul Chen Practical line as your starter sword, be it one handed or not. Their weighting and design are typical of many other swords used in the martial art, and will survive years of rebated combat if you take care it. Price point is decent too.

[Galloglaich]

Uh, Roman propaganda, probably.
I know they had quite a culture (what with the druids and everything), even at the times of Caesar, but I somehow expected them to be small divided tribes, and not quite on the Roman level of architecture and literature. And of course pretty much everyone looks undisciplined next to Romans (or was that also mainly propaganda?). Also they might have learned something between 50 BC and 500 AD...

Personally I'm a little suspicious of the Celts or any other tribal group being something like "Capital One Barbarians".

We tend to think of this



instead of the reality which was probably closer to this


The historical record does not indicate quite the crude roaring beast most people seem to think of these days.






Lets keep in mind, these were the people from whom the Romans acquired the technology of their legions: mail amor, their "coolus" and "imperial-gallic" helmets, their scutum shield, their pilum javelin, their gladius hispaniensis sword.

Saying they weren't as good at literature or architecture is not the same thing as battlefield discipline. The Celts did actually sack Rome in the 4th Century BC after all. I reccomend Julius Caesars war-diaries as an interesting read if you want to get an idea of the military strategies and tactics of the Gauls (even from a Roman propaganda perspective). Pay particular attention to the Nervii. But a lot of peoples go by the label "Celt", over most of Europe from the Ukraine to Spain and the British Isles, from Denmark to Italy, and across something like a 1500 year time period if you include both the Hallstadt and La Tene cultures.

In Spain, an interesting military character from a tribe sometimes associated with Celts is Viriathus the Lusitani. Both he and his sometime ally the 'CeltIberian' City of Numantia are quite interesting from a military / historical perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viriathus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numantia

G.

[Spiryt]

Uh, Roman propaganda, probably.
I know they had quite a culture (what with the druids and everything), even at the times of Caesar, but I somehow expected them to be small divided tribes, and not quite on the Roman level of architecture and literature. And of course pretty much everyone looks undisciplined next to Romans (or was that also mainly propaganda?). Also they might have learned something between 50 BC and 500 AD...

I find such linear comparison pretty strange usually...

They were fascinating culture, haven't reached Roman level of literature, because they didn't have almost any literature at all, in general.

They weren't culture of written world, just like many of other ones in past times.

We treat such things like literature as "natural" because they're obvious too us, especially us nerds in Internet, but that doesn't mean they were always treated like very important stuff.

As far as discipline goes, some could be disciplined, some not, it all depends on chieftain, and particular band of fighters.

Generally, in times of Ceasar, Celts were pretty " fading" military culture a bit "softened up" by living in relative peace, at least compared to their very war like past.

While there certainly were many terryfing warriors still among them, as army they generally couldn't compare to well organized, tactically etc proficient legions of Ceasar.

[Galloglaich]

From the time of the Senones conquest of Rome in 394 BC, and the defeats of Roman armies by the Cimbri in 113 bC, the Gauls (as a subset of "celts") were softened up by 350 years of Wine, slave trade, and Roman political manipulation (establishing Monarchies) before Caesar was able to conquer them.

I think it's pretty clear now that the biggest tactical advantage the ROmans had over Gallic armies was actually armor.

G.

[Spiryt]

Well, those of warrior class probably had respectable mails, helmets, and maybe even more stuff, but not enough, not enough of them... Yoda says.

[Galloglaich]

Well, those of warrior class probably had respectable mails, helmets, and maybe even more stuff, but not enough, not enough of them... Yoda says.

Yes they didn't have the slave labor the Romans had in lieux of the sort of water and wind-powered automation you see in the middle ages. From what I've read though a lot had helmets and almost all of them had shields, very few had mail, maybe 1% at some of the big battles in Caesars time (by obviously very rough estimates or guesses), and these would be distributed on the bases of personal prestige not for example put into the front ranks. I think actually the large size of some of their armies worked againt them too as the less experienced and more poorly equipped warriors were the first to panic (and they all had to be fed).

But when Hannibal invaded Italy he used mostly Gallic troops, and had money to buy many of them armor (which was also systematically stripped from dead Roman soldiers) and he did very well with them. As did the Romans when they put armor on them in Auxillae or Legions like Romes infamous fifth legion.

About whom i found a very amusing article once.

http://www.drunkard.com/issues/55/55...-and-wine.html

If you think about two armies, showering each other with darts, javelins, stones etc. all day before finally closing to a hand to hand fight, as was normally the case in the Iron Age, the side with armor has a huge advantage in "staying power" as Caesar used to put it.

G.

[MarkusWolfe]

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.

[Galloglaich]

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.

I don't think any of this is as mysterious as you seem to be making it, but I'm afraid I'm missing whatever point you are actually getting at here, maybe you can spell it out? Wwe actually know a lot about Medieval and Renaissance swords now days. As I and others have already pointed out in this thread, most Scottish "claymores", lowland or highland, were forged in Germany and given hilts and pommels in Scotland.

The sword purported to be William Wallaces sword that is at Stirling is very likely not his sword at all. All we know about it (from some surviving records) is that it was rehilted in 1505. There are no records of that sword ever belonging to William Wallace. From the weight of the blade it was probably a bearing sword from the 15th Century.

Wallace himself probably wielded an Oakeshott type XIIa or XIIIa

@G

As a man with mostly Celtic ancestors (snip) See, when there wasn't enough resources to go around, we'd all get up

You'll have to forgive me, but believing you have "celtic" ancestry doesn't really equate with speaking about them in the first person plural. It would be a bit like me saying "we indentured servants think slavery is a good thing" or "we bubonic plague victims prefer lower taxes" I don't think you know anything more about "Celts" than anyone else in the forum, and I don't think you are inside their heads ancestry notwithstanding.

chariots (which unlike other civilzations, we used as personnel carriers)

Outside of the British Isles, that ended in the Bronze Age.

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.

The Romans thought their Emperors were Gods. Let me say it again. They thought Caligula, Nero and Tiberius were Gods. And anyone who said they weren't was painfully executed. They also thought they were descended from two men who were weaned on wolves milk, and made slaves fight to the death as public entertainment. None of which made them particularly unusual as a people by the standards of their day.

This is kind of a cartoonish image you are painting, of swords, of fencing techniques, of Romans and "Celts", all fine for an RPG context... but this thread as I understand it is for real answers based on historical evidence, so I hope I'm not out of line in being a little blunt. You appear to have a lot of misconceptions.

G.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The Romans thought their Emperors were Gods. Let me say it again. They thought Caligula, Nero and Tiberius were Gods. And anyone who said they weren't was painfully executed. They also thought they were descended from two men who were weaned on wolves milk, and made slaves fight to the death as public entertainment. None of which made them particularly unusual as a people by the standards of their day.

G.

Not to be pedantic (or perhaps to be pedantic) but they believe they were the descendants of one of two men who were weaned on wolves milk, two Gods, and a Hero of the Trojan War (admittedly from the Trojan side).

Anyhow, back on topic, I was playing through Assassin's Creed II recently, and I was wondering about their classification of the Cinquedea as a knife type weapon. I've always thought they were short swords (and seen them classified as such), being suitable for daily wear by a gentleman. That said, I don't know much about them - why are they "Five Fingers" wide, what purpose does that serve? What sort of techniques would they be suitable for?

Thanks!

[Spiryt]

I've seen someone posting Cinquedea in dimensions of two handed sword once, IFAIR.

Definitely, they're hard to be described as "knives", although some of them probably were pretty small.

Also, it seems that they weren't popular anywhere outside of Italy, and were mainly fashion thing - multi fullered blade was matter of look.

They would be suitable for any techniques of short, broad bladed sword - so particularly short, vicious chops would be deadly.

And, of course, Assassins Creed is as much historically helpful as Diablo, so they might have put many things into it.

[MarkusWolfe]

I don't think any of this is as mysterious as you seem to be making it, but I'm afraid I'm missing whatever point you are actually getting at here, maybe you can spell it out? We actually know a lot about Medieval and Renaissance swords now days. As I and others have already pointed out in this thread, most Scottish "claymores", lowland or highland, were forged in Germany and given hilts and pommels in Scotland.

The sword purported to be William Wallaces sword that is at Stirling is very likely not his sword at all. All we know about it (from some surviving records) is that it was rehilted in 1505. There are no records of that sword ever belonging to William Wallace. From the weight of the blade it was probably a bearing sword from the 15th Century.

Wallace himself probably wielded an Oakeshott type XIIa or XIIIa

No arguments here. He was definitely wielding one of those Oakshotts, and the Wallace Sword definitely isn't his. There is only debate on whether or not it is an accurate replica of his real sword.

Right now, the thing that's getting me is that I can't tell if there's a difference between an oversized longsword and a claymore aside from the handle. If there isn't, the debate is over. If there is....that's another headache.

You'll have to forgive me, but believing you have "celtic" ancestry doesn't really equate with speaking about them in the first person plural. It would be a bit like me saying "we indentured servants think slavery is a good thing" or "we bubonic plague victims prefer lower taxes" I don't think you know anything more about "Celts" than anyone else in the forum, and I don't think you are inside their heads ancestry notwithstanding.

Just showing that I'm not some Celt hater.

The Romans thought their Emperors were Gods. Let me say it again. They thought Caligula, Nero and Tiberius were Gods. And anyone who said they weren't was painfully executed. They also thought they were descended from two men who were weaned on wolves milk, and made slaves fight to the death as public entertainment. None of which made them particularly unusual as a people by the standards of their day.

This is kind of a cartoonish image you are painting, of swords, of fencing techniques, of Romans and "Celts", all fine for an RPG context... but this thread as I understand it is for real answers based on historical evidence, so I hope I'm not out of line in being a little blunt. You appear to have a lot of misconceptions.

G.

.....so, Celts were average?

I'm not saying Romans weren't barbarians themselves to some extent (what with waging wars for profit and gladiatorial areas and all). Hell, most cultures had barbaric aspects. The Celts were nice enough fellows who would turn sword to plowshare in good times....but I think 'collecting a single piece of the human body from those you have slain, preserving it and keeping it around your place, sometimes bringing it out on your war chariot for intimidation because you think it gives you magic powers' combined with 'when resources run low, wage tribal warfare to gain more resources and curb the population' is enough for them to qualify as barbarians. If it doesn't, then could you please show me the new official standards on which we decide whether or not a group is 'barbarian'.

The one thing that I don't about the Romans: Sure, the Emperors were of divine bloodline according to the mythology, but why treat them as infallible, especially when each god of the pantheon had some small, human flaw?

[MarkusWolfe]

Not to be pedantic (or perhaps to be pedantic) but they believe they were the descendants of one of two men who were weaned on wolves milk, two Gods, and a Hero of the Trojan War (admittedly from the Trojan side).

Anyhow, back on topic, I was playing through Assassin's Creed II recently, and I was wondering about their classification of the Cinquedea as a knife type weapon. I've always thought they were short swords (and seen them classified as such), being suitable for daily wear by a gentleman. That said, I don't know much about them - why are they "Five Fingers" wide, what purpose does that serve? What sort of techniques would they be suitable for?

Thanks!

On a related note, what's the difference between a big knife and a dagger? I've suspected that it's that a knife is only sharp on one side, but I'm not sure.

[Matthew]

A good time to define "barbarian", perhaps?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The one thing that I don't about the Romans: Sure, the Emperors were of divine bloodline according to the mythology, but why treat them as infallible, especially when each god of the pantheon had some small, human flaw?

Or, more frequently, multiple, huge, human flaws exacerbated by the powers they wield. In my freshman year at Uni, during one of my classes on the Illiad, one of my classmates decided to compare the Greek Pantheon to a bunch of "Huge, Superpowered Hens" what with all their infighting.

On a related note, what's the difference between a big knife and a dagger? I've suspected that it's that a knife is only sharp on one side, but I'm not sure.

According to Merriam Webster (since I've not got my OED handy) a Knife is: "a: A cutting instrument consisting of a sharp blade attached to a handle
b: A weapon resembling a knife"
A Dagger on the other hand is:
"A sharp pointed knife for stabbing."

So all Daggers are Knives, but not all Knives are Daggers, and a Dagger is a Knife meant primarily for stabbing. Disclaimer: this is from a general purpose dictionary, and may not agree with the technical academic descriptions.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

A good time to define "barbarian", perhaps?

In a literal sense, a bearded person, coming from the Greek βἀρβαρος (Barbaros) meaning "bearded" (Caution: I'm away from my Middle Liddel and so this may not be entirely accurate).

Edit: oh, and sorry for the double post. If they can be merged then please merge them.

[Spiryt]

I'm pretty sure it comes from ancient greek, and meant just someone who was "mumbling". Ergo - anyone who was not able to "speak" or speak greek in this case, of course.

Word like thousands of others, as people pretty much always were dividing themselves to those who they could talk with, and the rest.

This one just made quite a career.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I'm pretty sure it comes from ancient greek, and meant just someone who was "mumbling". Ergo - anyone who was not able to "speak" or speak greek in this case, of course.

Word like thousands of others, as people pretty much always were dividing themselves to those who they could talk with, and the rest.

This one just made quite a career.

I thought that word was the word for Sparrow, which was used as a pejorative for those who could not speak Greek (Clytemnestra calls Cassandra this, because her 'Barbarian' (Trojan) speech sounds like the chirping of a sparrow). Who knows, I'll have to go get my LSJ and check.

[crazedloon]

If I am not mistaken, and I may well be becuase it has been years since my Latin days, but barbarian is derived from a roman word used to describe any non roman citizen. It is the reason that the romans "considered" so many people barbarians. It is actually the latter interpretation of roman propaganda and holy roman empire propaganda which exaggerated the term to the brutish form you now think of as a barbarian.

[Matthew]

You are all almost right about the etymology, though I was looking more for the modern meaning as being used in this thread (which is perhaps closer to "savage" or "uncivilised", from what I can tell)!

As far as I am aware, "barbarian" is originally descended from a Greek term for non-Greek, and supposedly derived from the comical "barbarbar" noise that they may have used to signify a foreign language. It was adopted by the Romans, who were a clean shaven lot, and so came to be associated with beards (hence the English "barber") in the sense of foreigner. An amusing read is the apostate Emperor Julian's criticism of the new Christian mores of the empire entitled "The Beard Haters". Of course, this is just what I was told by my Latin teacher and have since seen repeated elsewhere (on the internet, mainly, so the veracity is based on faith).

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Yes, according to my LSJ βαρβαρος means "Of Barbarous Speech" as their speech sounded like the 'baaing' of the sheep they so often tended.

[MarkusWolfe]

Yes, according to my LSJ βαρβαρος means "Of Barbarous Speech" as their speech sounded like the 'baaing' of the sheep they so often tended.

......

Y'know, I've heard the 'beard' and 'barbarbar' etymologies, but the sheep is a new one. Anyhow, modern definition?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Well, the "Barbarbarbarbar" was the sheep sound. Now, for the modern version (courtesy Merriam Webster, with me still being in a place with no OED handy):
"Barbarian, n, A person lacking refinement, learning, artistic, or literary culture; also, adj., of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people."

[Hades]

OED:
Barbarian

A. Noun. (from French, first recorded use in English 1549).

• 1. etymologically, A foreigner, one whose language and customs differ from the speaker's.
• 2. Hist., a. One not a Greek. b. One living outside the pale of the Roman empire and its civilization, applied especially to the northern nations that overthrew them. c. One outside the pale of Christian civilization. d With the Italians of the Renaissance: One of a nation outside of Italy.
• 3. a. A rude, wild, uncivilized person. b.Sometimes distinguished from savage c.Applied by the Chinese contemptuously to foreigners.
• 4. An uncultured person, or one who has no sympathy with literary culture.
• 5. a. A native of Barbary. b.A Barbary horse.

B. Adjective.

• 1.Applied by nations, generally depreciatively, to foreigners; thus at various times and with various speakers or writers: non-Hellenic, non-Roman (most usual), non-Christian.
• 2. Uncivilized, rude, savage, barbarous.
• 3. Of or belonging to Barbary.

[Galloglaich]

Cinquedeas came in both dagger sized and short sword sized forms. I've got both in my weapon book. Cesare Borgia had one for Boar hunting which was the size of a sword, I think a 33" blade.... it is still around I think it was in Oakeshotts Records of the Medieval Sword. A lot of your Oakeshott type XXI are actually Cinquedeas.

The purpose of the shape is for causing fatal wounds in a thrust, primarily. In that sense it's very similar to the Roman Pugio. A very broad double-edged knife something like a very sharp garden shovel. If it goes in you, it's not going to kill you later, it's going to split your organs, your throat, your major arteries, completely wide open. You'll be dead very quickly. That is the point. It's also the same shape as the Indian katar or punch-dagger which is an armor (mail) piercing weapon designed to kill very quickly.

Skinner daggers can be better for armor-piercing against steel plate, getting into the gaps between plates for example. The ice-pick like stiletto was equally popular to the Cinquedea in fact.

The term dagger specifically refers to a type of large (12" blades were common, 19" blades are not unheard of) double edged knife carried by the knightly class and professional soldiers in Europe during the Medieval period, starting around 1250 AD, and remaining in use until well into the Industrial Age.

But this type of war or military knife with a pointy blade and doubled-edges, is extremely ancient and goes back to the earliest weapons of the Bronze Age and even to neolithic weapons. It's a design that keeps coming back. The Celts had them, the Romans had them (as the Pugio) They were kind of re-invented for British commandos in WW II. In fact the Cinquedea is thought to be a Renaissance copy of an Iron Age design from Spain.

The various debates as to the value of a single edged vs. double edged blade can get rather involved and probably should be skipped here. But lets just say the double-edged, extra tough war-knife is a popular design in human history.

G.

[Galloglaich]

You are all almost right about the etymology, though I was looking more for the modern meaning as being used in this thread (which is perhaps closer to "savage" or "uncivilised", from what I can tell)!

As far as I am aware, "barbarian" is originally descended from a Greek term for non-Greek, and supposedly derived from the comical "barbarbar" noise that they may have used to signify a foreign language. It was adopted by the Romans, who were a clean shaven lot, and so came to be associated with beards (hence the English "barber") in the sense of foreigner. An amusing read is the apostate Emperor Julian's criticism of the new Christian mores of the empire entitled "The Beard Haters". Of course, this is just what I was told by my Latin teacher and have since seen repeated elsewhere (on the internet, mainly, so the veracity is based on faith).

Ah... Julian the Apostate, my favorite Roman Emperor... very amusing link.

G.