Attachment: 13.73 KB
There is a sword on display in Falkirk that is attributed to Sir John de Graeme, who was killed at Falkirk in 1298. To me this sword looks like a Lowland two hander, circa 1530. When I told them that on the facebook page in question - https://www.facebook.com/scotdrone/posts/1618484894940801?comment_id=1620117941444163&reply_comment_id=1620452681410689¬if_id=1532643156779348¬if_t=feed_comment_reply - they got a little irritated with me and intimated that I was crazy. But it sure doesn't look like a late 13th century sword to me. What do you people think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpfJY5Inuoo
Attachment: 13.73 KB
Attachment: 13.73 KBI'd say you're definitely right. I have heard that some later swords which are claimed to have belonged to someone in a much earlier time had been examined and found to have been made of much older steel that was forged together with then modern steel, though. Thus, in a weird way, someone could claim to be fighting with some ancient hero's sword and it still be modern and new. I doubt very seriously this is the case here, but it is a possibility.
Clearly a later sword. It's so obvious I can only wonder who they had 'authenticate' it....
Also agree with you Roger. The hilt appears to be that of a 16th century lowland claymore. The blade could be older, but also doubt that. The type and size of such a blade would not be from an earlier period.
Did you note what appears to be the remains of a broken part of the guard, a second ring, of which only only a couple of stubs remain.
Don't enjoy "raining" on anyone's parade, but had to voice my opinion.
Dan
Did you note what appears to be the remains of a broken part of the guard, a second ring, of which only only a couple of stubs remain.
Don't enjoy "raining" on anyone's parade, but had to voice my opinion.
Dan
I'm no expert but all the reference material that I have would put a sword of those dimensions to be well after the 13th Century.
Doug
Doug
Personally..rather than say it ISN"T his sword..I'd be throwing the burden of proof onto those who are claiming it IS de Graeme's sword. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. How many times have we heard claims that "such-and-such an item" belonged to some historical character without a single shred of proof other than some old wives tale ? It's a bit like saying I have the axe George Washington chopped down the cherry tree with..it's been in my family since before the revolution..we've only replaced the handle three times and the head twice. we GUARANTEE it's genuine ! :)
Well the replies to your comments on that Facebook page were a bit painful to read. "It's authentic coz someone says so and we meet your reasoned logic with disdain." One of your detractors was possibly giving over to your way of thinking until the other one revved him up again.
| Houston P. wrote: |
| I'd say you're definitely right. I have heard that some later swords which are claimed to have belonged to someone in a much earlier time had been examined and found to have been made of much older steel that was forged together with then modern steel, though. Thus, in a weird way, someone could claim to be fighting with some ancient hero's sword and it still be modern and new. I doubt very seriously this is the case here, but it is a possibility. |
The so-called "Wallace" sword blade is said to be made from three blade forge welded together. Perhaps o of those blades was original to Wallace, but at that point, it's just grasping at straws. I'd prefer these pieces be presented honestly. There is nothing wrong with relaying a traditional association or attribution while honestly describing the weapon as being in the style of a 16th century lowland Claymore.
| Michael P. Smith wrote: |
|
The so-called "Wallace" sword blade is said to be made from three blade forge welded together. Perhaps o of those blades was original to Wallace, but at that point, it's just grasping at straws. I'd prefer these pieces be presented honestly. There is nothing wrong with relaying a traditional association or attribution while honestly describing the weapon as being in the style of a 16th century lowland Claymore. |
The Wallace Monument sword was "refurbished" several times after its discovery, much of the work concentrating on the grip, which was was replaced at least once since it was labeled as Wallace's sword. My feeling, having studied the darn thing for quite awhile, is that the blade is probably cobbled together and the grip and guards are late Lowland type. IOW the only thing that might have belonged to Wallace is the blade and there is no proof of that either! Certainly if you look at Wallace during his brief time as Guardian of Scotland, he was undoubtedly equipped and armed as a heavy cavalryman which means that a sword the size of the one in the Monument would have been impractical. The same holds true for the John de Graeme sword. Those on the FB page supporting that notion are either very gullible or completely unaware of the history of the two - handed sword in Scotland.
I agree.
It seems much of it is driven by Scottish nationalism. So many Scottish weapons enthusiasts only identify Scotland with those big swords, or the basket hilts. Since the Lowland swords don't quite look like the Highland Claymore, they internally justify them as "early" Claymores. I had a guy argue with me for a half hour that the Braveheart sword was an "authenttic early Claymore." It's a shame too, because even during that period, Scotland had some unique sword types.
It seems much of it is driven by Scottish nationalism. So many Scottish weapons enthusiasts only identify Scotland with those big swords, or the basket hilts. Since the Lowland swords don't quite look like the Highland Claymore, they internally justify them as "early" Claymores. I had a guy argue with me for a half hour that the Braveheart sword was an "authenttic early Claymore." It's a shame too, because even during that period, Scotland had some unique sword types.
| Michael P. Smith wrote: |
| I agree.
It seems much of it is driven by Scottish nationalism. So many Scottish weapons enthusiasts only identify Scotland with those big swords, or the basket hilts. Since the Lowland swords don't quite look like the Highland Claymore, they internally justify them as "early" Claymores. I had a guy argue with me for a half hour that the Braveheart sword was an "authenttic early Claymore." It's a shame too, because even during that period, Scotland had some unique sword types. |
One thing you can tell the guy is that the two-hander was not referred to as a "claymore" until well after they fell out of use. Thank you Sir Walter Scott et al. Claymore refers to the basket hilt not the two-hander.
Learn something new every day. For some reason, I thought it was the other way around.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum