Picture of me holding a copy of the William Wallace Sword

**seasaidhlinne** · 21st April 13, 10:10 AM

Sorry folks this is the Wallace sword came to my home town, I JUST stumbled upon the pictures these are several years ago and I'm several pounds lighter

I just thought it was cool and that you guys would appreciate the coolness of it!

**neloon** · 21st April 13, 10:54 AM

A' Sheasaidh,
I normally have no interest whatever in weapons but could you tell us something of the history of this "Rob Roy Macgregor Sword". It is not the usual design of claidheamh mor (claymore = big cleaver) and indeed, as I understand it, the time span of such two-handed swords barely extends into Rob Roy's lifetime. Maybe some of the weapons experts could comment.
Alan

**Jock Scot** · 21st April 13, 11:00 AM

I was wondering the same thing. It may be a copy of Rob Roy's sword, I don't know and I accept it for what you say it is, but it is certainly a larger sword than I imagined he carried.

**seasaidhlinne** · 21st April 13, 11:09 AM

Sorry folks this is the Wallace Sword I had a slip in memory the article is here. I also got to meet Fergus who is involved with the Scottish wool heritage museum

http://www.novanewsnow.com/section/2...apolis-Royal/1

**Jock Scot** · 21st April 13, 11:20 AM

Ah that's better, thank you. Wallace's sword sits better on my mind.

**neloon** · 21st April 13, 11:22 AM

OK, that makes sense now. We should have guessed - it's lying on Wallace tartan (though, of course, that's a bit of an anachronism)!
However, this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Sword
has a lot of "alleged"s and "purported"s in it. Certainly, as mentioned, the hilt is not original.
(Doesn't detract from the nice picture, by the way!)
Would it be possible to change the thread title - ? with moderator help?
Alan

**tulloch** · 21st April 13, 12:42 PM

Wow. Things were scary then! Thanks for sharing the photos. Five and a half feet!

**ThistleDown** · 21st April 13, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by neloon

OK, that makes sense now. We should have guessed - it's lying on Wallace tartan (though, of course, that's a bit of an anachronism)!
Would it be possible to change the thread title - ? with moderator help?
Alan

Done

**ThistleDown** · 21st April 13, 01:04 PM

Seasaidh Linne did say it was a copy and not the original. This is the one in the Wallace Monument.

**TheOfficialBren** · 21st April 13, 01:18 PM

Thank you for sharing, miss. Wonderful photo and very exciting.

DISCLAIMER: No intention of breaking Forum Rules. If necessary I will edit my post upon request. This post is intended ONLY as a legitimate Historical contribution and is rooted in formal and informal academic study.

Fellows, I have some modest knowledge about this particular era and type of sword (the original, not the reproduction that the OP saw) and so I will comment. This area interests me.

1) the whole of the blade was tested and dated to be from ABOUT the period of Sir William Wallace (explained further down).

2) the hilt (as stated before and wiki-cited) is not the original hilt. It was re-hilted during the reign of King James IV and the hilt certainly reflects the style of that period, but that has never been disputed.

3) the hand-and-a-half sword (such as this...it is NOT a claymore of any kind...Wikipedia is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!) was beginning to be seen more on the medieval battlefield during Wallace's time but they were not the most common sword type seen--that was still about 50 years in the future...and very much an Italian and German trend that influenced other nations. It would be a full century before fully two-handed swords began to appear in commonplace. Even then it was another 50-100 years before they claymore was even invented, muchless adopted as "the" Highland weapon of choice.
------(In response to the post above regarding the widespread period of *true* claymore use, they were widely used from about 1500-1689. We can put a date at the end because the last battle that they were used in substantial numbers was at the Battle of Killiecrankie.)------

4) this sword weighs an incredible SIX POUNDS!!! That is MUCH HEAVIER, nearly DOUBLE the weight of similar swords of the era--even other hand-and-a-half swords (the average weight being between 2.5 and 4 pounds). The German Langenschwert (to my knowledge the longest functional Western sword) was about a foot longer and weighed slightly less than his piece.

5) this sword is incredibly long. Men in Wallace's era were generally not very tall and a sword taller than the wielder is generally unwieldy as a sword. Hans Talhoffer and Fiore Dei Liberi would probably have raised an eyebrow at this one. On the other hand, according to legend Sir William was a man of great physical statue but these may be imbellishments handed down from Blind Harry and others of that ilk. I know of only ONE genuine antique claymore with a length exceeding the 6-foot-mark. It is 7 feet long and was wielded by a giant Scottish man whose name and place of origin aside from Scotland has been lost to history but may have been a Maxwell.

6) the absence of a fuller. A fuller is a groove running the length of the blade and was designed to create a biting edge and reduce weight. This sword does not have one at all. All functional swords from Wallace's period have them (refer to the Oakeshott typography XIIIa. For comparison, a sword typical of the First Crusades era would be an Oakeshott Type X).

7) as stated by Wikipedia, this sword's blade is, indeed, pieced together from at least three sword blades that were hammer-welded together. Parts of the blade DO firmly date to Wallace's time and place.

This sword was probably never intended for battle. It was probably always a ceremonial piece, regardless of its age. It lacks many basic features common to functional swords of any sort for this era. Two-handed swords were technological marvels of the period and a real breakthrough in martial arts evolution. I will leave that where it lies to avoid breaking Forum Rules.

This is not to say that Wallace didn't wield a sword similar to this but he may have preferred an arming sword and shield as per his rank considering the era. Who knows...maybe he DID wield a hand-and-a-half sword...maybe even part of this sword once belinged to him. Knights were trained from boyhood and learned to be versatile in all manner of skills, not the least of which were the martial arts.

I hope that this post was helpful and if I have made any errors in my recollection (it's been a while since I've studied ancient weapons of any kind) please feel free to correct me.