Greetings,
So again, this is one of my more formal discussions on a subject. This means that it is long-ish. The subject of the broadsword is one which has been of interest to me for a while now, and was prodded along more recently by studying the smallsword, and also the workshops at Swordplay 2016 given by Keith Farrell. There are various arguments that you will find going through this post, some of which will be of interest and some, I hope, will clear some of the myths away.
Thanks goes to Keith Farrell for his editorial assistance with this piece and correcting me on a few things.
Cheers,
Henry.
Abstract
Most
curatorial examinations of weapons are dry and give little detail as to their
origins or development. What follows examines the origins and development of
the broadsword along with some of the issues which have accompanied this weapon
through history to this era. This examination is a close look at the broadsword
to demonstrate that previous methods of classification need to be corrected and
that the history of a weapon is important as is its development. Only through
the assembly of all the data about a weapon can a person have any idea about
how the weapon would handle.
Introduction
What follows
is an examination of the broadsword. It is indicated by the title that this
will be a curatorial examination, but this will be a little broader than most
curatorial examinations as they are most often concerned with hilt
construction. This has often led to this misclassification of weapons. Thus
this investigation will concern itself with the entire weapon, but also more
than that.
To begin with
there is the question of what is and is not a broadsword, to this point a
definition will be examined and argued for and against, then another proposed.
Following this will be a brief history of the development of the broadsword.
The word “development” is used here and not “evolution” as it was a process
which was affected by external and internal factors, and also had an effect
upon other weapons of similar make. Next will be a discussion of the broadsword
and the backsword, two weapons which are often confused, usually as a result of
one or both not having a clear definition. Getting even more specific there is
the question of the claymore and what is and is not one, a question which has
been argued to and fro for many years.
After all these preliminary
arguments have been established and some of the background has also been
established. Then the weapon will be examined. The previous is necessary so
that both writer and reader understand what is being discussed. The broadsword
will be discussed in order of hilt, blade and then the weapon in general. This
will give the differences in different nationalities of broadsword,
specifically, English, German and Scottish and the differences between them.
There will be mentions of other
weapons of similar classification. The backsword has already been mentioned
above, and will feature in different placed in the investigation. The sabre
will also be mentioned in the discussions, but more in passing rather than in
any sort of detail. Finally, with regard to use considerations, this can only
come from the knowledge of the weapon as a whole. This discussion will only
barely scratch the surface of that and give some very vague indications. The
focus of this investigation is more about the form, origins and development of
the weapon.
Definition
“a broad-bladed sword used for
cutting rather than stabbing. Also called
backsword” (Collins English Dictionary, 2016)
The
definition supplied by the Collins English Dictionary (2016) is rather broad
and covers quite a few weapons, it could even cover some forms of medieval
sword as well, especially as the definition above does not in any way take into
account the form of the hilt. What this means is that the definition needs some
refining. The broadsword is most easily defined as a straight-bladed,
double-edged, relatively broad-bladed sword with a basket-hilt that protects
the hand. What needs to be noted here is that the previous definition did not
take into account the hilt of the weapon which is a mistake often made in the
curatorship of swords in that often all the weapon is not taken into account.
The change in
hilt is significant where the cross-guard was changed to a basket-hilt and is
similar to that which is found with regard to the development of the rapier,
and for similar reasons. The civilian rapier’s hilt developed to protect the
unarmoured hand of the civilian. The more military broadsword hilt developed as
armour declined as a result of the introduction of effective firearms to the
battlefield.
The Broadsword Story
“they [basket-hilted broadswords]
are most closely associated with the 18th-century Scottish
Highlander.” (Holmes, 2010:106)
When the
broadsword is thought of, it is the Scottish Highlander which is first thought
of wielding the weapon. The history of the weapon will reveal that they were
not the only people to use the weapon, and indeed it could be claimed that they
were not even the first. The discussion which follows will follow the
development of the broadsword, for the most part, in chronological order. It
will start with a more general introduction to the history and then examine the
three important centuries of development, the sixteenth, seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. While this is not really designed to be a curatorial
discussion, there will be curatorial elements present.
To begin
there must be a brief examination of the weapon which came before, and to
understand that this was primarily a military weapon, rather than a civilian
one, even though it found its way into civilian hands. Its history starts with
the knightly sword of war, as armour was lessened the hilt had to develop to
protect the hand. These developments are primarily noted in England, the result
being that the English hilt is the common ancestor of the basket-hilted claymore
and English military pattern (Oakeshott, 2012:176). More of this much-argued
weapon will be discussed later on.
There is a
lot of argument about the dating of weapons and where they came from. This is
for a multitude of reasons firstly weapons are difficult to date due to
similarity in design and references found for the pieces themselves (Oakeshott,
2012:177). To accurately date something a design needs to be in print in some
form to compare to and when the designs are common across an expanse of time
this makes the dating even more difficult. This situation can be complicated
even further in the case of many swords not just the broadsword with regard to
the idea of re-hilting. In the case of the broadsword re-hilting was common, an
old blade would be placed in a new hilt, or rarer old hilt and new blade would
be put together (Oakeshott, 2012:179). Needless to say, this results in a
weapon, if it manages to date both parts with a date for one part and a date
for the other.
Sixteenth Century
Previously it
was noted that the broadsword was primarily a military weapon. It was also
noted that it was a modification of the knightly war sword, answering the need
to protect the hand. After 1520 the knightly war sword acquires a more complex
hilt, changes at end of the sixteenth century to the proto-typical forms of
broadsword of 17th and 18th centuries (Oakeshott,
2012:126). These developments were in answer to a changing situation on the
battlefield where armour was being reduced in answer to its lack of effect
against firearms. The speed of which the development came is impressive.
One of the earliest basket-hilted swords was recovered from the wreck
of the Mary Rose, an English warship lost in 1545. Before the
find, the earliest positive dating had been two swords from around the time of
the English Civil War. At first the wire guard was a simple
design but as time passed it became increasingly sculpted and ornate. (Wikipedia, 2016)
In a
relatively short amount of time, the hilt of the weapon became more and more
complex resulting, by middle of century hand protected and surrounded by
plates, bars lined with leather or fabric (Coe, 1996:73). This is not a simple
operation as can be told by anyone who has assembled a sword of such complex
parts. What needs to be noted here is that the earliest hilt here is not
Scottish, but English.
Rather than
being nationalistic about where it was invented at this point in time, the
important thing to note here is that, the ancestry of broadsword hilts found in
those that evolved by 1570s and survived (Oakeshott, 2012:156). It was this
pattern of basket-hilt which was spread around and resulted in developments in
other places. It should be noted that the beginnings of broadswords of 18th
and 19th centuries in German experiments of c.1600 can be seen
(Oakeshott, 2012:156).
What is most
interesting is that the weapons which were developed by the English would have
to wait until toward the end of the century to cross over the borders of the
closest neighbours, and thus would gain a new name, and not the one expected.
As in the last years of the sixteenth century basket hilts associated with
Highland Scots, known as ‘Irish hilts’ in early seventeenth (Oakeshott,
2012:176). More to the point many of these would be sourced from Continental
swordsmiths.
Seventeenth Century
In a typical
Victorian fashion many have attempted to classify the broadsword hilts of the
seventeenth century to try and see if there are any patterns of development,
but not with much success, “Any attempt to specify prototypical patterns for
the broadsword hilts of the seventeenth century would be doomed to failure,”
(Oakeshott, 2012:173). This is for two clear reasons the first of which is that
the broadsword hilt spread to different nations and was thus changed and
developed as according to their own requirements. The second is that, “Basket
hilts underwent various changes during the course of the [17th]
century.” (Coe, 1996:74), and when these two are combined, there are too many
variables to be tracked.
What is known
is that, “Basket hilts continued to be used during the seventeenth century,
especially in England and Scotland” (Coe, 1996:74), which is of little surprise
due to the origins of the hilt itself in the sixteenth century as indicated
above. More to the point it is also here where most of the fame for the
broadsword is found. While the Scottish hilt seems to dominate in popularity
and in form and construction, English hilts of same period are often of fine
construction (Coe, 1996:74). The other thing that should be noted with regard
to this is that with regard to the origins of this weapon, it has a
distinctively English heritage.
“Scottish it was, even in the
seventeenth century, and exclusively
Scottish it became, but England has good a claim to it, for it originated in
that country. However, since it is always called the ‘Scottish’ sword ... it is
necessary to observe the distinctions.” (Oakeshott, 2012:170)
One of the
most useful things about the popularity of an item in the historical record is
that sometimes it makes it easier to track through the historical record
because it was more likely to be recorded, and also because it was more likely
to be researched and thus the information brought to light. In the case of the
Scottish broadsword both are the case.
“The 1881 Ancient Scottish Weapons had this to say: The broadsword first
appears in formal record in Scotland in 1643, when, along with the Lochaber axe
and the Jedburgh staff, it constitutes part of the equipment of the levies then
called out by the Convention of Estates, From 1582 to 1649 a "ribbit
gaird" often appears as the "essay" of the armourers of
Edinburgh, but in 1649 it was changed to "ane mounted sword, with a new
scabbard and an Highland guard."” (Scottish Tartans Authority, 2016)
This clearly
dates the first official record of the appearance of the “Highland guard”,
clearly what was to be known as the Scottish hilt later on, and fills in
another piece of the puzzle of the history of the broadsword which otherwise
would have remained unfound. The seventeenth century served as a kind of
formative years for the Scottish hilt in which it developed and took its shape.
Needless to say that there were many variations of hilt through the period, as
a curatorial discussion will find, but eventually will settle on a single one.
“The Scottish basket hilt, with
its traditional heart-shaped piercings and large square plates, seems to have
appeared in the second half of the century [17th] and remained in
use for over a hundred years.” (Coe, 1996:74)
Eighteenth Century
"During the 18th century,
the fashion of dueling in Europe focused on the lighter smallsword, and fencing
with the broadsword came to be seen as a speciality of Scotland. A number of
fencing manuals teaching fencing with the Scottish broadsword were published
throughout the 18th century." (Wikipedia, 2016)
While the
Wikipedia (2016) is not the most reliable source the information presented
above is accurate. Most of the Continent was focused on the use of the
smallsword and thus most of use of the broadsword was left to military matters.
Being a more “native” weapon to the Scots, manuals for the use of the
broadsword were also published alongside those for the smallsword.
In the case of the broadsword,
the stage of full development had arrived, “The basket-hilted sword, in which
the entire hand was protected by a leather-lined cage of bars was made in many
variations throughout the eighteenth century.” (Coe, 1996:85). The complete
hand was protected and the weapon was established. In the end, the broadsword
would serve more as a military sword rather than a civilian sword and, “The
variety of basket hilts found on eighteenth-century military swords is
enormous,” (Coe, 1996:86). One thing that can be said is that the Scottish type
was the more dominant form later due to its developmental stages.
“As for the ‘Scottish’ sword, in
its earliest forms it as uncompromisingly English, and remained a standard
English pattern far into the eighteenth century; only very late in the century
did it become exclusively Scottish.”
(Oakeshott, 2012:170)
The Scottish
form of broadsword was to dominate in form and function and became the more
dominant form of hilt for the military. Even in the backsword form, the
“basket-hilted backsword of about 1766. Swords of this pattern were fashionable
for officers in the last quarter of the eighteenth century.” (Coe, 1996:86).
The effect of the popularity of this form of hilt type can be seen in popular
culture as for the most part when a basket-hilt is seen it is compared to the
Scottish form. Instantly the broadsword is associated with the
eighteenth-century Scottish Highlander, and also the Highland Regiments of the
British Empire which followed.
Broadsword or Backsword?
To delve into the question of the
broadsword is also to come up against all sorts of different questions and be
confronted by different weapons which may claim to be the same thing when in
fact they are not, and sometimes they are. One of the first stops along this
path is the backsword. This is the first question that must be answered, what
is the difference between the broadsword and the backsword, where is the line
drawn between the two, or is there one to be drawn? The answer to this is
actually relatively simple, but some other things have to be taken into
account.
“The Basket hilted sword was also
called the Scottish Broad Sword. There was also a version called the claidheamh
cuil which means back sword. The back was blunt with just one sharp edge.”
(Watterott, 2016)
What can be seen here is that the
concept of the backsword is actually quite found quite far afield. In this case
there is Scottish Gaelic for the term backsword meaning a weapon which has only
one sharp edge, so in essence the idea stands on firm ground. When it comes to
the broadsword it is the Scots who would seem to be the experts, as for
questions about the “claymore”, they will be answered later on. In our contemporary society ideas of curatorial differences in weapons based on form rather than function still hold true, “Where
the blade has only one cutting edge it is known as a backsword.” (Akehurst,
1969:8). This does not take into account the use of the weapon merely the form
of the weapon.
One of the
more interesting discoveries which came out of this research is that the
weapons, both the broadsword and backsword were claimed as cavalry weapons
(Wagner, 2004:20). This is most interesting as it is the Scots Highland
Regiments which were primarily infantry units where the broadsword is most
known from, not to mention all of the evidence from manuals which points to
using the weapon on foot. Further in the same discussion he claims that the
weapon, “had a straight blade, originally two-edged, later only one sharp edge.
These weapons were uniform in character,” (Wagner, 2004:20). What should be
noted is that it is the two-edged broadsword, of the infantry version which
will be the primary focus of this study and that in the sources which describe
the use of the weapons both terms were used to describe the same weapon meaning
the difference is more a question for curators, rather than those interested in
its use.
What is a Claymore?
When the word “claymore” is said
two weapons are immediately thought of, a two-handed weapon of medieval origin
and also the basket-hilted broadsword more associated with a later period. The
question remains as to which is the “claymore”. Of course it would be simple
just to use a modern definition.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines a “claymore” as “a large 2-edged sword formerly used by Scottish
Highlanders, also their basket-hilted
broadsword” (Merriam-Webster, 2016). This is rather confusing as it actually
indicates two weapons a large one and also the basket-hilted broadsword. What
this means is that the common confusion as to what a claymore actually is
continues. The aim of what follows is to bring some of this discussion out and
find a solution to this question.
“Perhaps the most famous version
of the broadsword is the Scottish claymore. Though claymores were originally
two-handed swords usually with simple cruciform hilts, their most famous
incarnations were fitted with basket hilts, these swords became iconic weapons
of the Highland Regiments that fought for the British Empire.” (Soud, 2014:53)
Soud (2014)
would indicate that both were named “claymore”, both the two-handed version and
also the basket-hilted version, and that the name was carried through from one
weapon to another. Thus for this author it would seem that it is not a matter
of naming convention which is the problem, merely that it is a problem with
naming the correct era which is being spoken about. For him there would be a
“medieval claymore” and a “basket-hilted claymore”. Unfortunately, this does
not take into account the origins of the word or where the weapon came from.
“The long two hander was called a
claidheamh dà làimh, translated it literally means two handed sword. … In the
romanticised period after the Jacobites the term Claymore was then applied to
the long medieval sword.” (Watterott, 2016)
Watterott
(2016) examines the native language from which the term “claymore” came from,
Scottish Gaelic, presenting the name of the two-handed sword in the language
and giving the reason that it was changed to the more familiar one in the later
period. This would seem to give more evidence than the previous explanation of
giving both weapons the same name. Further to this he explains why the
basket-hilted weapon is correctly named “claymore” using similar evidence.
“The Scottish version [of the basket-hilted
sword] was broader than similar swords of the time. This sword was called a
claidheamh-mór. This is Gaelic and translates into Great Sword due to its
larger size than its contemporaries. It is well accepted that Claymore is
derived from the Gaelic claidheamh-mór.” (Watterott, 2016)
Watterott
(2016) uses the original language and demonstrates through history the naming
conventions of why the basket-hilted weapon should be called “claymore” and the
two-handed weapon ...
The rest of this article can be found in
Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:
Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470XBooktopia:
https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.htmlAmong other places...
It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from:
https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV... or direct from the author.
Bibliography
Akehurst, R. (1969) Antique
Weapons for Pleasure and Investment, Arco Publishing Company Inc., New York
Burton, R. (1987) The
Book of the Sword, Dover Publications Inc, Mineola, New York (originally
published 1884)
Coe, M. (et. al.) (1996) Swords
and Hilt Weapons, Prion Books Ltd, London
Holmes, R. (2010) Weapon:
A Visual History of Arms and Armour, Dorling Kindersley, London
Oakeshott, E. (2012) European
Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution, The
Boydell Press, Woodbridge
Soud, D. (2014) The
Illustrated History of Weapons: Swords, Spears & Maces, Kingsford
Editions, Heatherton, Victoria
Wagner, E. (2004) Swords
and Daggers: An Illustrated Handbook, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, New
York
When a weapon is lying on the ground away from anyone touching it is safe. This is when a weapon is safe, as soon as a person is involved there is an element where safety is reduced. The safety is reduced both for the person who is picking up the weapon and also for anyone who is around the person wielding the weapon. This is regardless of whether it is a sword, an axe, a mace, an assault rifle, a handgun or even a missile launcher, the same applies.