Ah, lovely! The video accurately describes his sword, which is rare. It does, however, fall into the usual trap of implying that only used a sword and bow. In reality, of course, he mainly used modern (for the time) weapons. His uses of bow and sword weren't weirdly eccentric and rather foolish anachronisms. They were appropriate, if unorthodox, and served practical and psychological purposes. Guns are noisy. Bows aren't. Arrows in war were brutally unexpected in WW2 and thus had a peculiar psychological impact. A silent killer is somewhere nearby, no way of telling where, and people near you are dying with arrows stuck in them. Arrows! In 1940! WTF? Or it's a bit later in the war and you're on guard duty and suddenly a figure appears apparently from nowhere with a sword at your throat demanding your surrender. A sword? WTF? It's the 1940s, not the 1490s! But the important thing is that a lot of sharp thing is saying "surrender" to the more primitive parts of your brain, the parts below thinking.
Ah bugger! The narrator later refers to the sword as "a claybeg", which is a modern neologism that's fictional, an anachronism and simply wrong. "claybeg" is an Anglicised version of two Scottish Gaelic words which would translate into English as "smallsword". But those Gaelic words were not used to describe a sword, the Anglicised version is a modern made-up word and a basket-hilted broadsword is most definitely not a smallsword.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.