Postby Jonathan Scott » Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:59 pm
I'm sorry if this is slightly off topic, but it is a misconception, at least at first glance it seems to be.
I've heard a lot of myths about claymores. I have a friend who agrees that longswords are well designed and balanced, but seems to think claymores (well maybe scottish greatsword is a better term...I'm talking about the two handed ones anyways) are not designed to really cut well. He claims they were left blunt Historically (as opposed to a modern blunt claymore intended for use in the theatrical division or for merely display purposes) and were heavy, not easily wielded, "bashing" weapons.Anyways, I heard "sword" and "heavy and unwieldy" in one sentence and warning lights lit off in my head thinking "sword myth! gotta disprove it!". Because if a sword is barely useable and doesn't hold an edge or taper to a good thrusting point, then what's the point of it Being a sword? (no pun intended) Also, my friend also seemed to think a bashing blow would "hurt" more than a clean cut from a sharp sword...that sounded kinda strange. Like you wouldn't actually feel a blade going through (or not feel it as much as a bludgeoning blow), or have one of those movie invention dramatic pauses before something on a person (equilibrium says it all) falls off.
Aynways, if anyone could enlighten me on some basic general information (some weights, sizes, uses, etc)on two handed scottish greatsword "claymores", I'd highly appreciate it.