| Author |
Message |
J.D. Crawford
|
 Posted: Tue 01 Sep, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| JG Elmslie wrote: | | The Highalnders were, are, and pretty much have always been the ethnic and cultural minority in scots history. By the time of wallace, the Lords of the Isles were in decline in terms of political influence, and gaelic cultural dominance waned in equal measure. |
Perhaps you need to clarify what you meant by this point. 'Lords of the Isles' is a title generally associated with the chiefs of the MacDonalds, who reached the peak of their political and geographic influence in the 15th century, long after Wallace. And one of my great-great grandfathers had a lowland name but was born near Oban and spoke Gaelic, whereas his wife from further South in Knapdale could only speak Gaelic for her entire life, so I'm not sure things were so cut-and-dry.
Back to the subject...the Wallace, who I'm overly proud to say was kin to the lowland side of my family through his mother, had already turned into the stuff of legend and propaganda hundreds of years ago. I've noticed that Scots from different regions have quite extreme and set opinions of him, running both positive and negative, which I assume relates both to local tradition and modern politics. It's hard to imagine how one could sort through all those 100s of years of optical distortion to get back to the truth of the man and details like his weapons.
Nevertheless, its fun to try. Personally I imagine him making great sweeping cuts from horseback with a 4 foot+ XIII...and regardless of what reason might say, I just can't help but imagine it having the down-sloping quillons of a 15th century gallowglass sword or 'two hand Claymore' (like the Albion Chieftain). His legend epitomizes Scotland, so he needs a legendary Scottish sword.
|
|
   |
 |
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Tue 01 Sep, 2009 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | Am I the only one who thinks that the idea of Wallace fighting mounted when majority of his troops are infantry is a bit weird? I mean, he would be vulnerable as the only mounted figure among foot soldiers... And in his bigger battles cavalry didn't have much part as far as I know? Robert Bruce fought dismounted in a schiltron at Bannockburn during the battle although he came to the battlefield mounted and he was mounted before the battle started (when he fought de Bohun)...
Btw, during the 13th and 14th century it seems that longer XIIIa and XIIa version was more common than XIII or XIIIb. XII and XIV are the single handed swords of the era. |
We also need to keep in mind that Wallace was a minor member of the nobility. Although it certainly wasn't unheard of for knights to dismount, as we all know from earlier and later examples, the fact that he was a nobleman would suggest that he'd probably be mounted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett Hazen
Location: California Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Tue 01 Sep, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We also need to keep in mind that Wallace was a minor member of the nobility. Although it certainly wasn't unheard of for knights to dismount, as we all know from earlier and later examples, the fact that he was a nobleman would suggest that he'd probably be mounted. |
Right, but Wallace wasn't always a noble either, was he? From what I understand, he was more of a "peasant" for lack of a better term at first, and no, I don't get that notion from Braveheart either, though it is a good movie.
Wasn't he later knighted through his feats?
And thanks for the answers about the claymore, it was helpful. I figured the term was misused in the biography.
Learn to obey before you command--Solon of Athens
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Sep, 2009 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | | Luka Borscak wrote: | Am I the only one who thinks that the idea of Wallace fighting mounted when majority of his troops are infantry is a bit weird? I mean, he would be vulnerable as the only mounted figure among foot soldiers... And in his bigger battles cavalry didn't have much part as far as I know? Robert Bruce fought dismounted in a schiltron at Bannockburn during the battle although he came to the battlefield mounted and he was mounted before the battle started (when he fought de Bohun)...
Btw, during the 13th and 14th century it seems that longer XIIIa and XIIa version was more common than XIII or XIIIb. XII and XIV are the single handed swords of the era. |
Luka...
Wallace, at least at Stirling Bridge and Falkirk, does not seem to have been involved in the actual fighting. He was the commander in both instances and except in cases of dire necessity would have been unlikely to draw his sword. At Stirling Bridge at least, the English did not employ their archers and no English cavaly was able to approach Wallace during the battle.
At Falkirk, where he seems to have realized that he was facing a far different foe than he did at Stirling Bridge, he apparently observed from some distance the actions of his troops. He was certainly not in the army that was annihilated during the battle. He is supposed to have killed Brian deJay, the master of the English Templars in a wooded area near Callendar after the battle and, if that did occur, he was most assuredly fighting on horseback.
I do not know of any account which puts The Bruce on foot at Bannockburn. His role in the battle, aside from overall command, was to direct the reserves, the fourth battle, which came to the fight late, although it was on the field at all times. He would have to remain mounted to be an effective commander, and that was the case in all medieval armies. I think you must say that he fought deBohun DURING the battle, as the action took place over two days, and he was, of course, mounted at the time. |
Well, it does change things if wasn't actually engaged in fighting. 
I really don't know any more where I read that about Bruce. Of course, it probably wasn't first hand account so not very dependable.
While we are at this mounted/dismounted thing, is it true that James IV of Scotland at Flodden Field and Maximilian I of Germany at Guinegate fought dismounted with a pike or are those just another legends?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Sep, 2009 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Well, it does change things if wasn't actually engaged in fighting.
I really don't know any more where I read that about Bruce. Of course, it probably wasn't first hand account so not very dependable.
While we are at this mounted/dismounted thing, is it true that James IV of Scotland at Flodden Field and Maximilian I of Germany at Guinegate fought dismounted with a pike or are those just another legends? |
I cannot speak to Maximilian but my references indicate that James IV was mounted when he fought at Flodden. He managed to fight his way to within a few yards of Surrey before he was killed. There are some references to his using a pike in the battle but that may have referred to a lance. If he was dismounted at his death it was certainly because his horse had been killed.
The death of James IV at Flodden is a prime example of why a commander/monarch should not participate in combat. His death threw Scotland into a state from which it struggled to recover for many years. The only thing at stake in the Scots' march into England, was honor. Their alliance with France had brought them to the battle, to comply with their agreement of mutual defense, something that only the Scots truly fulfilled. What a one-sided arrangement that turned out to be.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
David Wilson
Location: In a van down by the river Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 802
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Sep, 2009 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Garrett Hazen wrote: |
Right, but Wallace wasn't always a noble either, was he? From what I understand, he was more of a "peasant" for lack of a better term at first, and no, I don't get that notion from Braveheart either, though it is a good movie.
Wasn't he later knighted through his feats?
And thanks for the answers about the claymore, it was helpful. I figured the term was misused in the biography. |
Not quite. As a landowner, Wallace would have been a "minor" noble, and certainly not a peasant. I believe his father was a knight as well (IIRC, which I may not in this case...).
I'm not sure if he was knighted before or after Stirling Bridge, as in the movie. I do know he was invested with the title of "Gaurdian of the Realm", or something like that because of his leadership at "the brig o' Stirlin'".
BTW we are remiss in not acknowledging the role of Sir Andrew Murray at the battle of Stirling Bridge, who was Wallace's "partner in rebellion" and at least partially responsible for the Scots' victory there. Sadly, Murray fell at "the brig". If Murray was still around at Falkirk, who knows what would have happened...?
David K. Wilson, Jr.
Laird of Glencoe
Now available on Amazon: Franklin Posner's "Suburban Vampire: A Tale of the Human Condition -- With Vampires" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072N7Y591
|
|
 |
|
|
Garrett Hazen
Location: California Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Sep, 2009 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Wilson wrote: | | Garrett Hazen wrote: |
Right, but Wallace wasn't always a noble either, was he? From what I understand, he was more of a "peasant" for lack of a better term at first, and no, I don't get that notion from Braveheart either, though it is a good movie.
Wasn't he later knighted through his feats?
And thanks for the answers about the claymore, it was helpful. I figured the term was misused in the biography. |
Not quite. As a landowner, Wallace would have been a "minor" noble, and certainly not a peasant. I believe his father was a knight as well (IIRC, which I may not in this case...).
I'm not sure if he was knighted before or after Stirling Bridge, as in the movie. I do know he was invested with the title of "Gaurdian of the Realm", or something like that because of his leadership at "the brig o' Stirlin'".
BTW we are remiss in not acknowledging the role of Sir Andrew Murray at the battle of Stirling Bridge, who was Wallace's "partner in rebellion" and at least partially responsible for the Scots' victory there. Sadly, Murray fell at "the brig". If Murray was still around at Falkirk, who knows what would have happened...? |
Ah that makes sense - I read about him over a year ago; I should study up on my facts again. I guess I just got the impression that Wallace was not someone who would have gone down as very well known... It seemed to me from what I read that he spent a lot of his time lingering with and doing the common things -- he didn't exactly live in a castle and do all the noble things did he? I mean, I suppose he got a better education than most with his uncle - the same uncle who probably influenced his "hard core" stance in freedom - but I don't know. To be honest, I just don't know where I got the notion he wasn't of any high reputation or significant standing before his "becoming of an outlaw" after fighting with the English and killing some of their soldiers - and eventually progressing into gaining a following and small "army" you could say.
Or was I right? He wasn't of high stance before, was he? Even if he had "minor nobility" in his blood?
Learn to obey before you command--Solon of Athens
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Sep, 2009 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
One reasonable clue to Wallace's sword (talking history now, not legend) would be to look at the swords of his superiors and the people he admired. He was an adherent to the deposed King John Balliol. Balliol's seal shows the typical view of a knight (with a barrel helm and mail as I recall) holding a sword over his shoulder. The sword is a single hand, and looks to me like an XII, with downsloping quillons and a lobated pommel like those popular in Northern England and Southern Scotland in the centuries leading up to Wallace, dating back to the Cawood sword. (I personally think this is the type that led to the distinctive Scottish style that becomes evident in the 15th century onwards.) It would be pretty close to Albion's Caithness sword of today. Oakshott calls the sword in the seal an XIV, but I think the artist's perspective shortens the sword and exaggerates the profile taper. I also think Oakeshott's description of the pommel is also misleading - it has a definite lobated look.
Anyway, if Balliol carried a sword like that, and it was not just the artist's fancy (which seems unlikely to me since surely the King would have to approve his own seal, and perhaps it was even drawn from life), then it is possible that Wallace used something similar at some point, and thus he did use a sword with a Scottish flair (although not a 'Claymore'). This thought pleases my transplanted Scottish pride.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Sep, 2009 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yep, lobated pommels are very possible for a Wallace sword (at least one of them ). They were popular in the North of Britain where Norse and Danish influence was still being felt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justin King
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Sep, 2009 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aside from the two pitched battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk, most of Wallace's fighting career would have involved raids, skirmishes, and assaults and minor sieges against isolated English garrisons. Most of this would probably have been conducted from horseback, in the function of light cavalry, or "prickers" as they came to be called later. Throughout the Medieval and early Rennaisance periods the arms and armor of these types of troops remained remarkably consistent, and large, two handed swords rarely seem to have been a part of the kit.
Once his fighting career began, it is likely that Wallace would have been able to arm himself as he saw fit from the captured arms of English soldiers. So it is quite possible that he had a number of swords, perhaps even a large bearing sword in connection with his office as Guardian?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 06 Sep, 2009 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | While we are at this mounted/dismounted thing, is it true that James IV of Scotland at Flodden Field and Maximilian I of Germany at Guinegate fought dismounted with a pike or are those just another legends? |
Maximilian did; if I'm not mistaken, Commynes said that he didn't trust his cavalry's ability to match their French counterparts, so he dismounted and fought on foot to bolster the (already) more reliable part of his army.
As for Wallace's social background, it seems that he was always in the knightly social class, if not necessarily a full "knight" as such. The story of his early exploits sound much more like the "knight gone bad" sort rather than the outlaw who rose up from among the hoi polloi to become a knight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan F
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Sep, 2009 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
just going to through this out there i went through this whole thing a few years back and being irish and seeing the gallowglass swords of later on i did presume due to the "wallace" sword now on display from those pesky victorians who did so very much to damage our history. but what i wonder is wallace was a big man now i know irish not the same as gallic but similar. now il just use my understanding of it to try shed light on this. but please if anyone has any other ideas do say. we know claymor translates as basically big sword. is it not an idea that wallace being a fir mhor or big man would have used a big sword well bigger than that used by his country men? i say this because the claymor at least the baskethilt version is only a large single handed sword which he was likely to have used.
as for the horse thing i reckon as a general he would be mouted in order to see the field and give orders. if he did get near combat no way was he still mounted.
and there is one simple reason why ARCHERS he would have been sticking out over his troops and pin cushioned if he was. but thats just my idea really.
for here starts war carrion birds sing, and grey wolves howl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Sep, 2009 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan F wrote: | | and there is one simple reason why ARCHERS he would have been sticking out over his troops and pin cushioned if he was. but thats just my idea really. |
It's not that easy to hit a single man-sized target, or even a single man-on-horseback-sized target from a distance, and trust me, his men will be busy keeping you at a distance if you're an enemy archer. Even a massed volley is going to be such a waste against a single man when you could shoot instead at his much more poorly-armored men (and the Scots were notorious for their lack of armor, at least before they reorganized their pike formations for Flodden).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan F
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Sep, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i know how difficult that shot is i have tried hitting even human sized targets from distance its hard but you would not risk your leader being killed even if the shot was a 100 in 1 chance it does not take long for a goup of longbows to loose that many
for here starts war carrion birds sing, and grey wolves howl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic