|
"Often weren't even sharpened - you were supposed to break the horses legs, then kill its rider who would be pinned to the ground by the weight of his own armor."
Erm, not quite. Any period, and any battlefield, that saw a two-handed claymore in use would've also had cavalry wearing perfectly worthwhile armour that was easily maneuvered in on the ground. The rider was more likely disabled by his mounts violent fall than the weight of his kit. Insofar as the claymore being designed to kill horses, that's debatable. I would say that it was designed to kill the English, be it horse, man, whatever =)
|