Well folks I just spent a week in Edinburgh and the surrounding countryside. Of course, I had to make out to Stirling and the Wallace monument. A couple of years ago I bought a copy of the sword that hangs there and is attributed to William Wallace. Without arguing about the truth of this, I must say the sword is impressive. I am 6'4" and the original has a blade of 52" . Supposedly it weighs just about 6lbs.

Now my copy, made by Ian Macallen, is supposedly spot on the original. The accompanying literature Ian sent said he spent a couple of days measuring the sword. Well, if he did, then he is nearly blind and cannot measure for crap. The hilt and handle are exactly as the original (minus the bent rings). What is way out of wack is the blade. The Macallen reproduction has no distal or any other kind of taper. Having believed his story and heard the blade was "crude" , I figured this was the way the original was. because of this, I too had the sword as a ceremonial bearing sword that was attributed to William Wallace for sentimental reasons only. Now having seen the original, I can really believe this was a sword that could have actually been used.

The blade is not overly thick and is of slightly oval cross-section. In the picture I took below, you can clearly see the taper in the blade to the point. That sword would definitely NOT be so blade-heavy as the reproduction I bought. The blade is "crude" but I have my doubts that it was originally made this way. This sword, if it is truly of 13th century make, has been though a lot. The low light levels make things difficult and I have seen only Viking originals, but the patina on the blade just "looked" old and I think may account for some of the "crude" look. Also, the lines of the blade were not clean and crisp, but it makes me wonder why this is so ( poor manufacture or sharpening?).

It is obvious from my writings here that I was both impressed and that I want to believe that this was a sword Wallace used. I think that the 16th century hilt and handle, which if severely overly big, lead people to think too quickly that this is a later bearing sword and dismiss it's rumored original too quickly. Surely, this is a sword that begs for more serious study given it's importance and providence.

Anyway, I am pissed now with my Macallen reproduction and I am willing to sell it for MUCH less than I bought it for. Here is one of the few good pics I got of the original. Craig Johnson over at Arms&Armor made a custom version of the sword used in the movie Braveheart. That blade was much more like the original than the Macallen sword was. anyway those are my original impressions and here are the pics of the two swords. First, the original:

---

 Attachment: 41.77 KB

The Sword of William Wallace in the National Wallace Monument, Stirling, Scotland

Here is the reproduction by Ian Macallen:

---

 Attachment: 19.21 KB

Scottish History and Culture: The Sword of William Wallace

Posted by: maintenance on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:28 PM EST


Little is known about the origins of the sword that sits on display. The weapon carries no maker's mark, and has no inscriptions. The quality of the metal is poor, as the sword was made in Scotland and not in Germany or Flanders. Its great length has been repaired twice, and the weapon was rehilted many times. But this sword has a history, and its stature is said to be equal to the man who carried it: none other than William Wallace, Scotland's national hero, Guardian and Knight.

That William Wallace himself is a man of legend there is no doubt. Even when he was alive the rumors said that he was nine feet tall, breathed fire and could kill with a look. Obviously, the stories are a wee bit of Scottish exaggeration, but the size of the sword on display at the Wallace National Monument in Stirling gives an indication of Wallace's true physical size.

The two-handed sword is approximately five foot six inches in length overall, while the blade itself is around 52 inches long. It may have been longer or shorter originally, as two repairs over the centuries could have changed the sword's length. But these repairs would not have shortened or lengthened the blade dramatically. Therefore, from the size of the weapon we can determine that William Wallace was, in all probability, well over six feet tall. A shorter man could have wielded it, but the sword would have been very difficult for him to control effectively in battle.

The weapon itself weighs in at around six pounds (2.72 kg) and is a reminder that, today, we barely know about the art of swordmaking. Most would guess the weight of a weapon this size at closer to ten pounds, and since this is not a quality weapon it could weigh considerably less if it had been crafted by a master swordmaker. The blade has no fuller, which was not typical of weapons of the time, and slowly tapers down its entire length almost to the point. The handle of the sword has a pommel of iron, and the grip is padded in brown leather.

By now, some of you are wondering; how can this be the sword of William Wallace? The man died some 700 years ago! There is no proof that this is Wallace's actual sword, although it certainly has a history that lays a significant claim to the honour.

The legend of the sword begins with William Wallace's capture and execution in 1305, when the sword was taken to Dunbarton Castle. There it remained until 1505, when none other than King James IV ordered the weapon rehilted. It was given bindings of silk, a new hilt, a new scabbard and belt. The sword then returned to Dunbarton Castle and remained there until 1825, when it was sent to the Royal Armories in the Tower of London for repair. At his time the sword was examined by an expert, Sir Samuel Meyrick, who did not think the hilt matched the age of the weapon. He apparently did not know of the rehilting ordered by King James IV in 1505. The new hilt was removed and an older (15th Century) hilt was added in its place.

In 1888, the sword was transferred from Dunbarton Castle to the new Wallace Monument. Some time after this, it was again refitted with a hilt that was a copy of the one placed in 1505. During its stay at the Wallace Monument, the sword was stolen twice: once by suffragettes and another time by a man who hid it in a chimney.

Sir Walter Scott supposedly once described this sword as "Fit for archangel to wield, Yet light in his terrible hand". Even if this is not William Wallace's sword, it is still of immense historical value. The fact that the King recognized it as Wallace's sword in 1505 greatly increases the probability that it is the weapon used seven hundred years ago by Scotland's national hero, William Wallace.

For further information on the Sword of William Wallace, and where you it can be viewed at Stirling, please follow the links below.

By BW February 2000

http://www.tartans.com/modules.php?op=modload...mp;sid=113

Thomas,

can we perhaps infer as to what the original hilt might have looked like? would there be maybe... typical examples of hilts from that time period and suitable for a sword of that length?

it would be interesting to see a truer reproduction of that sword. I thought Ian made swords that were rather heavier than normal.

At the risk of sounding stupid, this sword looks nothing like the one in the movie, except that it is really big.
Can we infer from that the Del Tin or who ever made the one for the movie did not make it a based on the actual sword?

Hi Guys

I'm of the opinion that Wallace's sword hilt would have been very typical of war swords of the 13th century !
More along the lines of what Macallan calls his Robert The Bruce sword ( pictured here).

Nothing fancy , just a good simple fighting sword of the times ! Mac

[ Linked Image ]

you guys keep mentioning Ian Macallen. I have only heard of him once before at the Scottish games here in Oklahoma. Who is this guy? is he any good? does he have a site?

yeah, that seems to be pretty accurate with what i saw. The thing was dinky, and heavy.

I am sure this is obvious but according to Blind Harry, Wallace had/used many swords. At times he used his own blades and then took weapons from those he slew. An interesting section from Hamiltons* translation about how he changed weapons clarifies this matter. I will paraphrase the text until I can access the electronic version again...

Just after Wallace had been imprisoned in Ayr and left for dead, he was literally nursed back to health by a woman. Upon recovering, looked around for a weapon and only found a rusty sword. He took it and left Ayr, but he bumped into Longcastle and two of his yeomen. Longcastle sneered at his Scottishnes and suspected Wallace of being a spy. He drew his gleaming sword and said come with us. Wallace drew his rusty piece and cut Longcastle's collarbone in two. The yeomen jumped off their horses, Wallace cut one's throat...the other started to run because he was "scared of blood." Wallace chased him down and disembowled him. He went back and took their horses, armour, weapons and money.

Here is the snippet:
...
"When they were gone, no weapon could he find
There that would suit and please his anxious mind,
Except a sword, that in a nook did stand,
O'ergrown with rust, which he took in his hand.
He drew the blade, and found it could well bite,
Which pleased his fancy to a very mite,
Then blythely said, "Faith thou shalt go with me,
Till with a better I provided be."
To see his uncle, good Sir Ranald, then,
Fain would he go, but that the English men,
Who cunningly for him bad laid the snare,
He feared might catch him in his journey there.
At Richardtown then longed for to be,
To get some horse and armour quietly.
With all precaution Wallace venture fair,
Yet met three South'rons, riding into Ayr,
Longcastle bold, and with him yeomen two;
Wallace drew back and would not with them go.
At him they ride, and said despitefully,
"Thou Scot abide, for sure thou art a spy,
Or else some thief, that does not show thy face."
But Wallace answer'd with a modest grace,
"Sir, I am sick, for God's love let me be."
Longcastle said, "By George that shall not be;
Thy countenance prognostics something odd,
To Ayr with me thou shalt travel the road,"
Pull'd out a sword, that was of noble hue;
His rusty sword good Wallace also drew.
Then with a single, but fearfull blow,
He clave his neck bone cleverly in two,
The yeomen, then in haste soon lighted down,
The first miss'd not a clink out o'er the crown,
Which to the craig, a clean incision made,
A brave performance by the rusty blade.
The other fled, and durst no longer stay,
He scar'd at blood, that was the reason why;
But Wallace quickly brought the culzeon back,
And the give him the whistle of his plack.
Along his ribs he gave such a rout,
Till all his entrails and his lungs hung out;
Then took their horses, and their armour bright,
Their noble weapons, clever, clean, and tight,
And all their coin, syne on his horse he cocked,
With gold and money jingling in each pocket."
...(Book IV, pp 20-21)

--Pardon any typos, I couldn't wait for the electronic version to come online again--

Thus, I suspect Wallace went through many swords.

*By the way, the fact that Hamilton had to translate Blind Harry's Wallace in 1722 into English (with only some Scots vocabulary) out of the original Scots is ironic. A poem about a Scottish hero translated into the language of his foes by none other that a Scot (i.e. Hamilton). It is a testament to the rapid decline of Scots that followed the Union of Crowns (1603), the King James version of the Bible (1611) and the Act of the Union (1707). I still enjoy Wallace, but I would prefer to have the poem in the form that Duncan followed for the translation of The Bruce (i.e. original text with facing page translation).

Martin

Oakeshott doesn't have any pics of 13th century two-handers in Records, but he does mention their existence, noting that some type XIIIa swords were true two-handers. This is what I picture when I read of Wallace or Robert Bruce using "two-handed swords": a very large XIIIa...

Oakeshott has a few more words on the subject in Sword in Hand. In the chapter on the big swords of Germany, he mentions two XIIIa's, one (IIRC in the Royal Armouries) with a 41" blade, 8" grip, overall 51". The other, which was in some unspecified private collection, was "7 inches longer"! Alas, no other detail is given. Now, a 58 inch sword qualifies as a two-hander, at least for me.