gallowglasses

Been leafing through a book called "Scotland - The Story of a Nation" by Magnus Magnusson. Fun read! Found this description of Scotish arms mixed in with the discussion of William Wallace's sword - thought someone here might get a kick out of it, too.

"Scottish weapons were of notoriously poor quality compared with continental arms, and soon broke or buckled. ('We spent most of our time jumping on our sword-blades trying to straighten them!'); their purpose was to bludgeon rather than to slice, to concuss and opponent and render him vulnerable to a stgabbings stroke to the throat or temple."

...

"Rod McCance does not accept that Wallace's stature can be deduced from the size of the two-handed sword. The weapon was not used 'to the fore', like a short-sword; the wielder whirled it around his head, moving his hips and shoulders as when using a hula-hoop or winding up for a hammer-throw. It was strength, not size, which mattered. 'The lower your point of gravity, the better,' McCance says. 'It could be suicidal for a tall man, because his body was totally unprotected against a lance-thrust when the sword was being brandished.' Moreover, the two-handed sword was never carried slung over the back - it was much too long; nor did it have a sheath or scabbard. ('You would have needed arms fifteen feet long to draw the thing!)


Got an extra kick out of the MTW gallowglasses after reading this -

Best,

Heh... just imagining Mel Gibson as William Wallace whirling a hula-hoop around his waist, shouting "For Freedom!"

thx, fine reading

[there is an `old early/late(?) 50`s movie referring on: Polish boys make it against the evil Teutonics /Tannenberg. while the film is just another "sandales"-movie, there is a image i do remember till today. a shouting teutonic in full armour hurling a big weapon (ax-type) like mentioned above. very impressiv picture.]

So far as I know even very large swords (and some shorter and slimmer polearms) can be right well carried slung across the back - AFAIK that's one of the major selling points of swords. Convenient carry. Anyway, if the Japanese could sling their no-dachis across their backs and wield them on horseback I somehow doubt if the Scottish and Irish tribal warriors had any trouble with their comparatively smaller weapons.

I'm pretty sure even big examples of two-handed swords from around that neck of woods were fairly puny compared to the big greatswords Renaissance pikemen used to chop through opposing pike thickets, and AFAIK those could be carried sheathed too...

Moved to the monastery, place for historical research&co.