|
-
12th February 09, 08:36 AM
#1
 Originally Posted by Jack Daw
As far as I'm concerned, this is the way to go. Now, my gaelic is a bit rusty; so, the two-handed sword would be pronounced roughly as, 'clay de lay'?
By my reckoning, the "da" (meaning two) should really have an accent and be pronounced as "daw" with the d sound made with the tongue at the back of your teeth (a kind of softer d, halfway to a "th"). At least that is how it is done in Irish, although we would pronounce it "Clive daw law-v", our "mh" almost always being sounded as a v......
-
-
12th February 09, 09:07 AM
#2
 Originally Posted by Woodsheal
The National Trust for Scotland has determined that the following are the correct terms for Scottish swords:
"claidheamh mor" - basket-hilted broadsword or "Claymore"
"claidheamh cuil" - basket-hilted backsword (single edged)
"claidheamh da laimh" - two-handed sword, often incorrectly called Claymore
The term "claybeg" is modern; there is no evidence of historic usage of "claybeg"....
The above nomenclature was (arbitrarily?) assigned to swords by the staff of the NTS, and is at variance with the terminology used by the majority of sword collectors and historians, admittedly in English. In this instance I believe the NTS was trying to be "all things to all people" and was using Scots Gaelic in the literal sense, rather than following the accepted names used for identifying Scottish swords. Claybeg was used by Scots to describe (often in a disrespectful way) the small swords worn by 18th century gentleman.
-
-
9th February 09, 09:13 PM
#3
 Originally Posted by Tullibardine
There are purists out there who insist that the Claymore is a hand-and-a-half sword approx. 60" long, worn on the back, and was actually only in common usage for about 100 years.
There are those who insist on calling a basket-hilted sword, either broadsword or backsword, as 'claybeg.' These swords have been in use for almost 500 years.
In Scotland, basket-hilts are commonly referred to as claymores, to differentiate them from other common military swords of the 1550-present day era.
Call it what you will, it's stil a Scottish sword, although there are Irish and English basket hilted swords, as well as the Venetian Schiavona, another basket-hilt variant of the 17-18th century.
And don't ever try to cut at a tree with a sword. It's meant for cuttin g people, not foliage. I've seen a beatuful 17th century katana DESTROYED by an idiot trying to cut brush with it.
Thank you Thank you! I cringe whenever I hear someone speak of striking a tree with a sword. That's not what a sword is for!!!!
-
-
9th February 09, 06:14 PM
#4
Well
It seems Jamie and I had the same idea, so I will simply say
-
-
9th February 09, 09:04 PM
#5
More on claymores....
Sir Robert is very close to the actual truth of the matter. Claymore means simply "big sword" and at various times in Scottish history the "big sword" was held in either one or two hands. The Scots also had a "little sword"-- sometime referred to as a "claybeg", but usually as merely a sword. (There is also the word tuck which refers to a small sword.)
The Gaelic word for sword, claiomh, rendered in English as "clay" derives from the Latin word gladius, meaning a sword. So a Gaelic speaking Scot might, or might not, refer to a "big sword" as a claymore.
I have a copy of "The Swords and the Sorrows", and while it is pretty good, most serious sword historians question some of the "academic" statements it contains.
If anyone is really interested in Scottish swords then I'd refer them to "Highland Dress, Arms, and Ornament" by Lord Archibald Campbell, and to the relevant chapters in Sir Richard Burton's "The Book of the Sword".
Last edited by MacMillan of Rathdown; 10th February 09 at 09:40 AM.
-
-
10th February 09, 12:42 AM
#6
 Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown
... (There is also the word tuca which refers to a clerics small sword.)...
Tell us more, please. What did it look like? How small was it? Larger than a modern highland dress dirk?
I Googled tuca and came across tuck, a longer or usual sized sword with no edges but a sharp point, related to the rapier. Was the tuca similar to this?
-
-
10th February 09, 09:32 AM
#7
The Scots Tuck
 Originally Posted by gilmore
Tell us more, please. What did it look like? How small was it? Larger than a modern highland dress dirk?
I Googled tuca and came across tuck, a longer or usual sized sword with no edges but a sharp point, related to the rapier. Was the tuca similar to this?
Actually, I meant to type "tuck" not "tuca", but the type of Scottish sword in question would be different than the "tuck" or estoc" referred to on Google-- that sword had a long, stiff blade and was designed for piercing plate armour. It was a thrusting weapon, through and through.
The Scottish tuck was different in its intended use and construction. I believe the name (as applied in Scotland) may come from the Scots verb "tuck" meaning to shorten. That being the case, then it would refer to something longer than a dirk, but shorter than a sword, in all likelihood made from a discarded sword blade. If that is so, I would venture the opinion that the blade length might have been something in excess of 24 inches, but probably not more than about 30 inches.
A true cut and thrust weapon, it would have been the "pillow sword" of all classes of society, male and female alike. It also would have been the "short sword" carried by foot soldiers and used against dismounted knights, and in melees with other massed infantry formations. The tuck would have been blacksmith made, so the shape was probably of the simple cruciform pattern, although it could have had some sort of rudimentary "knuckle bow" as seen on examples of some cultellus and later falchions (unlike the falchion favoured by archers the blade of the tuck would have been straight and double edged as opposed to curved with a single edge).
I seem to recall a conversation with Earlshall twenty plus years ago, in which he opined that few tucks had survived as they were probably recycled into dirks, or discarded and used as farm implements, etc. as the blades wore out.
Hope that answers your questions.
-
-
10th February 09, 03:14 PM
#8
You may have been on the right track originally.
"Ireland, like modern Central Africa, would receive all her civilised weapons from her neighbours. The Picts of Scotland would transmit a knowledge of iron-working and of the Sword to the Scotti or Picts of the north-east of Hibernia. This is made evident by the names of the articles. CLAJDEAM or CLAJDJM, the Welsh kledyv, is simply gladius; and TUCA is ‘tuck,’ or a clerk’s Sword."---http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Book_of_the_Sword.htm
-
-
11th February 09, 10:40 AM
#9
 Originally Posted by gilmore
You may have been on the right track originally.
"Ireland, like modern Central Africa, would receive all her civilised weapons from her neighbours. The Picts of Scotland would transmit a knowledge of iron-working and of the Sword to the Scotti or Picts of the north-east of Hibernia. This is made evident by the names of the articles. CLAJDEAM or CLAJDJM, the Welsh kledyv, is simply gladius; and TUCA is ‘tuck,’ or a clerk’s Sword."---http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Book_of_the_Sword.htm
That guy is... joyfully free from the restrictions of logic. The Irish word Claiomh (sword) has much closer etymological links with the older Gaulish word (which he mentions higher in the same article!) "Claidab". Many examples of Bronze swords and knives (made with copper from Irish mines) have been found in Ireland, so knowledge of the sword predates the iron age. I was diving with a guy in the Shannon once when he found a perfect example of a bronze dagger. It was cool.
Aside: I went to that website out of interest.... Wow, truly nasty. Heavy pinch of salt advised. The paragraph previous to the one you quoted is....
"The modern Irish, who in historical falsification certainly rival, if they do not excel, the Hindús, claim for their ancestry an exalted grade of culture. They found their pretensions upon illuminated manuscripts and similar works of high art; but it is far easier to account for these triumphs as the exceptional labours of students who wandered to the classic regions about the Mediterranean. If ancient Ireland ever was anything but savage, where, let us ask, are the ruins that show any sign of civilisation? A people of artists does not pig in wooden shanties, surrounded by a rude vallum of earth-work. "
For those who don't know enough about Ireland to realise that this is purely viciousness, the illuminated manuscripts s/he refers to, such as the book of Kells etc., were often found in or near ruins like Clonmacnoise and (many) others. Ireland also has what is reputed to be the oldest engineered building in the world in Newgrange and a continuum of ruins eg Dun Aonghus exist between these two extremes of age. But I guess actual evidence just stands in the way of this guy's preconceptions...
-
-
11th February 09, 10:49 AM
#10
Wow, this thread is amazing! Keep it up!
The Barry
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis;
voca me cum benedictis." -"Dies Irae" (Day of Wrath)
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks