Shattered Kingdoms

Actually, it was usually one swing while on saddle. If that felled the foe, so much the better. If not they put it aside to pull something smaller, usually a bludgeon, if still on saddle.

Now, on foot, they would take one swing with it. if it failed, and they were still alive, they'd throw the damn thing away and pull a dagger or shortsword.

One of their more popular secondary wpns was a pick or a warhammer because it also could penetrate hvy plate. The claymore didn't so much cut through the armor. It was more of a bludgeoning action. It penetrated the armor just because of its force, not really because it was sharp.

There's a reason that the scots lost, ladies and gentlemen. And no, it wasn't because they couldn't understand what they were saying to each other.

No offense, but you nerds need a reality check. This is a game where you shoot fireballs out your butt and conjure the undead -- let's just also pretend that weapons don't have to be 100% realistic and reflective of their respective name history either, mmmkay?

Out of curiosity, why'd you add the "no offense"? I doubt you care if you offend anyone.

I'd do the spreadsheet, but I've never played a melee character past journeyman except for Ghailan, and you can guess how applicable experience with weapons gained on a deep-elf mercenary is going to be to the rest of the races.

Heavy weapons suck unless there's some way that your enemy can't get out of the way. I can tell you from personal experience that it's fairly easy to move your [REDACTED] or even just duck when you have a large, heavy object aimed at you. I mean, they move pretty fast once you get them going, but it's pretty easy to predict where the guy who's straining to swing a big piece of metal at your head is going to try to hit you.

Uhm, old large two handed swords weren't that heavy. They weighed at max 8lbs. -OBVIOUSLY- nobody would use a sword that tired them out after 6 swings. You could easily battle with an 8lb sword for long periods of time. If they were already so tired they couldn't wield their two handed sword, they would be nearly too tired to use a 1 handed weapon. Their arms would quickly grow tired using the 1 handed weapon. A warrior would easily have had enough strength to swing them around with accuracy and speed. Infact its faster and more accurate than 1 handed swords, because your using both your arms to guide and power it. Much of the time the sword wasn't swung in a massive arc, but graspsed on the handle, and partway up the hilt for closer slashing and stabbing.

Also, no they would not throw away their sword if they missed their first swing, that just doesn't make any sense. They wouldn't because if your going to use a 1 handed weapon you damn well better have a shield.


Also, we all know why the scots lost, and it had nothing to do with what they were wielding. It had to do with what the English started wielding, and other massive advantages the English had.

Finally, I -CAN'T- tell you from first hand experience that dodging a long two handed weapon would be hard. Although it sure as hell seems that way. You'd have to be a mega fiend to dodge a long weapon, two handed or 1, to somehow dodge the attack while getting close. I'm pretty sure 99% of people would have to dodge backwards out of range, which doesn't really help. Also, i'd hardly called a 8lb sword heavy.

""Although large, measuring 60-70 in/150-175 cm overall, it was not as hefty as it looked, weighing something of the order of 5-8 lbs/2.3-3.6 kg. In the hands of the Swiss and German infantrymen it was lethal, and its use was considered as special skill, often meriting extra pay.""

I don't know if you've ever lifted a claymore, but even at 8 pounds that's a lot to keep swinging around, and you'd get tired out swinging them very quickly, not only because of the weight, but because of the momentum each swing carries, making you exhert even more energy recovering from your swing. Claymores were often used for demounting riders on horseback, then the wielder would take a few brutal swings at his opponent, before throwing the sword aside and pulling out a one hander. They were also used for breaking up pike formations, despite not being horribly effective at it.

The actual weapons themselves though where to large for close quarters combat, and the soldiers using them usually guarded ballista or catapult formations.

You guys have seen Rob Roy too many times...

The whole point of the claymore in Europe was indeed what everyone is saying - a weapon to break bones through armor. Normally, if you were wielding one, you would ALSO be wearing heavy armor to help defend against your ENEMY'S claymore. Not the best example, but watch the black knight scene from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail. While it's intended to be comic, that really WAS the basic idea behind claymores. The only time you'd ditch it as a weapon is if you had to fight someone who WASN'T wearing heavy armor so you could try to match their speed, at which point a longsword/broadsword or axe usually came into play.

The scottish references don't take into account that during the time you're talking about, the scottish were considered 'barbaric' as far as their idea of warfare was concerned. If you've seen the new King Arthur movie, which is based on historical facts (of all things to come out of Hollywood ), the Waods are, in fact, SCOTTISH.

Now if you're finished pulling all you know of history from Rob Roy, can we get back on topic?

[edit] I purposely did NOT mention a certain Mel Gibson movie because the guy is a .

Who or what is Rob Roy?