Tartans.com Article
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. -- By BW February 2000

Stats (according to Björn's SFMO article)
OL - 167.6 cm (66")
BL - 132 cm (52")
BW - 57 mm (2.25")
Weight - 2.72 kg (6 lbs.)

All Photos - T. McDonald, 2005.

---

 Attachment: 54.95 KB



 Attachment: 52.67 KB



 Attachment: 51.52 KB



 Attachment: 33.07 KB



 Attachment: 49.26 KB



 Attachment: 46.57 KB



 Attachment: 49.19 KB



 Attachment: 57.87 KB

A few more, including Mr. Vince Evans next to it, taken at the Wallace Monument, Stirling.

Photos - T. McDonald, 2005.

---

 Attachment: 35.67 KB



 Attachment: 31.11 KB



 Attachment: 51.3 KB



 Attachment: 58.5 KB



 Attachment: 58.81 KB



 Attachment: 58.25 KB

These are the best photos of the sword I have ever seen. As a matter of fact, having seen the sword in person, these photos let you see the sword better than the low lighting in the room. Did Peter get to take the sword out and document it? That would have been awesome! I have the MacCallan Armouries and it is a real clunker compared to the real thing. When you see the sword up close, you can notice the distal taper. It is a HUGE sword and I cannot say it is a 13th-14th century but it sure looks as if it were made to be used. Makes me wonder if Albion or Peter plans to replicate this one? Shhh I won't tell ;) Thanks for the photos Mac.

Joel

It looks REAL thin to me for its size!!! How many mm at the base by your estimation, Thomas? :)

If it is as old as 1300, the lack of a fuller is quite stange.
A contemporary Type XII a or XIII a would both have pronounced fullers, and where seldom longer than 100 cm..

Also, a sword of this size would be a primary weapon. In a spear/pole arm dominated battlefield, it would be quite unpractical.
But then again, not as much as smilar sized claymores on the 17th cent. Pistol and Musket dominated battlefield, and that didn't prevent them from being made... ;)

If the blade is original, my guess is that it was a "presentation sword", which might have been owned by Wallace, but hardly used in battle.

Heights above 180cm/ 6 feet would not be that uncommon in northern Europe. The average height was about 1,75cm /5'10".

Wonderful set of photos Mac! I've been enamored with that behemoth for some time and am glad to finally see some good pics. Would love to have someone do a real usable reproduction. Hope to see it in person next year. *keeping fingers crossed*

Mac I have a pic of that reproduction, albeit not a great one. From what I have seen, the blade is not unusually thin for a sword if its size. Although I didn;t take measurements, the sextion near the hilt is quite beefy and it has an oval crossection. Lemme see if I can post that pic. This morning, I could not post any.

Joel

P.S. it will not let me attach any photos.

Mac, this is a great series of photos. thank you. I'll post more later, but I have to stop reading/posting and get to work. You guys have to stop posting interesting things. ;)

I have this amusing theory that the first schitron would be inspired by about 300 norwegians, with kites and spears, surrounded by some 3000 Scottish levvies, plus few hundred knights at Largs, 1263 ;)

More likely, but less amusing to yours truly. :D

A few thoughts and comments from myself, a Scot who lives about 37 miles away from the Wallace Monument.

#1 The photos are really awesome and do great justice to the sword on show. Big applause etc!!!!

#2 Is it the actual sword used by Wallace? Personally I doubt it; I suspect that the king who said it was, was using it as a bit of PR / spin. Without real evidence to the contrary I would say it was not the real thing. [Though it would be GREAT if it was!]
I suspect that the same is true of the Stone of Destiny; would Edward 1 actually been able to get the real thing? Wouldn't some canny wee Scot have legged it into the Highlands with the real thing?
It's all good stuff for conspiracy theorists I'm sure.

#3 Was Wallace a big man? Almost certainly given how much has been said etc. True, we Scots do use poetic licence at times [but only during the hours we are awake]. Good example is:
- Rob Roy McGregor was once described as having arms so big and long he didn't have to bend to tie his shoes!

Wallace was also not shy of being a bit of a brute / vengeful man. It is recorded, apparently, that the skin of the English commander at Battle of Stirling was removed and part of it made into a belt for Wallace. Nice.....
On another occasion, when promised soldiers did not turn up to assist Wallace, he took the time to go from central Scotland all the way up to Aberdeen area to, how shall I put it, have words with the man who promised them.
He was certainly a hero but certainly not a "perfect "one.

#4 The schiltron; a great idea for fighting against mounted men but less so against archers. When Wallace used the tactic at the Battle of Falkirk he actually grouped the men into schiltrons with ropes around the outside of the group to help keep the formation shape. This effectively immobilised them and laid them out neatly for the English army's archers to use as target practice. Robert the Bruce [aka The Bruce] developed the idea in that he got the schiltrons trained up to move en masse which proved very effective at the Battle of Bannockburn.

That's my tuppence worth; some of it is not backed up with actual history / evidence so please do not think I am correcting / damning anyone else's statements.