Claymores

In reading The Annals, I cam across this reference but am unsure whether it's just my translation (AJ Woodman) or if in fact the Claymore as we know it and the Claymore mentioned would look alike or be one in the same:-

"...if they tried to resist the auxiliaries they were mown down by the swords and javelins of the legionaries, and, if they turned toward the latter, by the claymores and spears of the auxiliaries."

Tacitus, The Annals, 12, 35.3.

Any idea ? Does the Claymore as a weapon have this long a history ?

First thing I thought was a Claymore fragmentation mine. ( Seriously)

Let's see what I learn:

Main Entry: clay

My translation by Moses Hadas says

"...When they faced the auxiliaries, they were felled by the swords and javelins of our legionaries; if they wheeled round, they were again met by the sabres and spears of the auxiliaries."

So it appears to mean sabres.

I've seen claymores in action, they're a Vietnam-era piece of ordinance with the famous "Front Toward Enemy" label on them; you give me about six well-placed claymores and I'd cause carnage in any ancient armies ranks!

My translation by Moses Hadas says

 

 

QUOTE

"...When they faced the auxiliaries, they were felled by the swords and javelins of our legionaries; if they wheeled round, they were again met by the sabres and spears of the auxiliaries."

 

 

So it appears to mean sabres.

Thanks, I wonder what the actual Latin word is in the original manuscript. I'm sure it's not Gladius, as he translates that as Sword in many other places. Guess I can look it up...

If it is not a gladius, then I wonder where these auxillaries are from?

I did find this: Scottish Claymore Sword. This and other google returns seem to show it's the Scottish sword Flavius described and used in the 14th - 16th centuries. Learn something new everday.

"...if they tried to resist the auxiliaries they were mown down by the swords and javelins of the legionaries, and, if they turned toward the latter, by the claymores and spears of the auxiliaries."

 

Tacitus, The Annals, 12, 35.3.

Perhaps the Claymore does have this long a history as we traditionaly know it. The Vikings had them, so I wouldn't put it beyond. Perhaps people from germania and northern braitannia moved into the roman areas at some point and brought with them. Or it could be refering to sabres, but I'm in doubt as to that this was different from the ones we know today becuase its unlikely, but possible, that a word would change so much over a period of time.

The vikings were relitively close to the romans time wise and since the vikings had them, I'm sure the roman definition must have been the same. Auxiliaries probley brought with them thier culture and military knowledge upon moving into the roman empire or being conquered by it. I'm sure the romans could see the advantage of a large, slashing, hacking, and bashing sword wielding by a ripped german in their forces. So It might be the same thing.

Claymore looks just like any other longsword or bastard sword. Is there suppose to be anything special about it that sets it in its own class?

"...if they tried to resist the auxiliaries they were mown down by the swords and javelins of the legionaries, and, if they turned toward the latter, by the claymores and spears of the auxiliaries."

 

Tacitus, The Annals, 12, 35.3.

A google of AJ Woodman shows that he was a prof at University of Durham in northern England near the border with Scotland. I suspect that influenced his choice of the word claymore, it may be more commonly used there then here. Anyone from that island want to chime in?

I got your answer( I think). During the Roman occupation of Britannia, Latin words found their way into prehistoric Welsh. Therefore, claymore is not a derivative, but it is a cognate. Just for you to understand, cognates are just words related in ancestral roots or origins.

Therefore:

Cleddy( the Scottish word) cognates from the word

gladius( sword)--->Scots clay(more) -- 'big sword'

So if you were Scottish(I'm not), you would see how the word gladius becomes the cognate claymore. I suppose how you pronounce it is the answer. You see how the beginning sound of gladius like gladdy or gleddy, well the scottish version is cleddy, get my drift.

Extra stuff:

My latin dictionary gives me these options for the word sword or designating one:

1)gladius(obviously), ferrum, mucro, and ensis.

2)knife: culter, culratus, falx, scapellus

3)words for dagger: sica, pugio, cultelus, cludo, pugiunculus, sicula

There have been Celtic swords found that date as early as the 1st century BC which have blades of about 90cm without the handle. That rivals many great swords from the medieval era. The quality of the iron nears that of steel in some cases.

That would be an absurdingly heavy sword. I doubt it would be put to good use in a pitched battle again the legion, unless in a skirmish or ambush.

Claymore looks just like any other longsword or bastard sword. Is there suppose to be anything special about it that sets it in its own class?

There's a description here

The reason I was surprised was that I've read about their use in Scotland at much later dates, where as the reference in Tacitus is describing Caratacus defeat in the 40s AD in Britain.

I got your answer( I think). During the Roman occupation of Britannia, Latin words found their way into prehistoric Welsh. Therefore, claymore is not a derivative, but it is a cognate. Just for you to understand, cognates are just words related in ancestral roots or origins.

Therefore:

 

Cleddy( the Scottish word) cognates from the word

gladius( sword)--->Scots clay(more) -- 'big sword'

This is interesting, and seems some way to explain why a Scotting Proffessor (Thanks Virgil61) would describe it as such thanks, but your next comment:-

That would be an absurdingly heavy sword. I doubt it would be put to good use in a pitched battle again the legion, unless in a skirmish or ambush.

Is not so good - 90 centimetres - less than a metre. That aint that strange for a sword Flavius, and it would not be "Absurdingly heavy" as you put it.

The Claymores just a Scottish Longsword or Broadswoard,the earlier types have the cross guard facing up to the sword tip like in one of the pictures earlier.The later designs have a basket hilt,The earliest positive date for a basket hilt is 1545, from a sword found under the wreck of the Mary Rose.

I've never heard of the Vikings (Viking is an activity not a tribe or people,to go viking meant to go raiding)using Claymore swords at the time of there occupation of Britain,the Claymore is a much later weapon.

Viking swords

Highland Claymore,blade length 56 inches,15th century.

This is interesting, and seems some way to explain why a Scotting Proffessor (Thanks Virgil61) would describe it as such thanks, but your next comment:-

hey Germanicus,Durham isnt in Scotland you know.

hey Germanicus,Durham isnt in Scotland you know. cool.gif

Yeah, I know m8, I just shortcut from saying :-

prof at University of Durham in northern England near the border with Scotland

Can't believe I said "Scotting"