Annoying Braveheart question...not about kilt

[auld argonian]

In the evolution of sword fighting the point became far more important than the edge. With this blades became lighter and therefore much faster to wield.


Jamie

Well...the difference between one-on-one combat and fighting en mass.

Assuming that those big edged weapons worked better when you were wading into a mass of opponents and swinging it like a scythe although I can see how you'd be leaving yourself very open at the end of each sweep. The anti-armour/anti-cavalry concept sounds much more plausible.

Best

AA

[Panache]

I should have noted that the exception to point vs. edge would be cavalry swords where of course the edge is primary.

Cheers

Jamie

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I should have noted that the exception to point vs. edge would be cavalry swords where of course the edge is primary.

Cheers

Jamie

True, but sadly, with the passing of time, even the cavalry eventually changed to a pointed weapon. The dawn of the 20th century saw both Britain and the United States adopt a cavalry sword better suited to thrusting than slashing as it was realised that cavalry would be used primarily in advance and reconnaissance roles in battle. Gone sadly were the glory days of the mounted soldier, his armes blanch replaced by a glorified knitting needle, and his battlefield effectiveness rendered impotent by the Maxim gun with it's 800 yard range.

Just to keep this (sorta?) on topic, Scottish mounted troops-- officers at least-- wore tartan riding britches in the decades before Great War. Can anyone post a decent picture?

[Ayin McFye]

Not too sound nitpicky here but I don't think that Archie was wielding a rapier (if I remember correctly the hilt was very simple and the blade very thin), so perhaps a small sword or court sword.
Jamie

LOL ok, if we really want to get technical you're probably right that it's either a small sword or a spadroon. Either way it was the lighter and more manuverable sword by far. I'm probably going to go home and watch it tonight, just because it's been a few months since i've seen it last.

[Frank McGrath]

Editorial License. Works for me.

[Nighthawk]

And I want to know how The Kurgan in the original Highlander can have a sword with a blade in two sections that fit together with a "snick" to become a seamless weapon (not to mention being as strong as a regular sword blade ).

In other words, Hollywood often goes with what is cool looking rather than what is real*

Cheers

Jamie




*i.e. Like Woolly Mammoths building the Pyramids of Egypt.

Or Beowulf with a back scabbard... or Vikings living in huge stone castles... Otherwise, Beowulf kicked a whole lot of rear...

[Nick the DSM]

its the movies, guys!!! its magic!!

[Coemgen]

To quote Mel Brooks:

"Don't be square, mon cher! Movies is magic!"

[SportBilly]

Actually I don't think that two handed swords (at least Scottish claymores) were all that heavy. I believe the one that Baxter of Earlshall had was something in the neighborhood of 8 pounds. About the same weight as a Brown Bess musket or a .303 Enfield rifle of WWI/WWII vintage. That being the case, I suppose it would be "wieldy" rather than "unwieldy" and certainly a facile weapon in the hands of a muscular swordsman.

The Wallace broad sword in particular was apparently about 9lb. I've only seen it behind glass (at the Wallace Memorial in Stirling) but at about 5'6" long would almost certainly be too unwieldy to sling on even Wallace's back.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The Wallace broad sword in particular was apparently about 9lb. I've only seen it behind glass (at the Wallace Memorial in Stirling) but at about 5'6" long would almost certainly be too unwieldy to sling on even Wallace's back.

There is some question concerning the authenticity of the sword in the Wallace Monument. As much as I'd like it to be Wallace's sword, a lot of experts think it is more than likely a 17th century bearing sword rather than a 13th century fighting sword.