"Braveheart's" sword is sent to do battle in America

Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
4,187
Wallace's sword is sent to do battle in America
By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent
(Filed: 31/03/2005)

One of Scotland's national treasures, the sword wielded by William Wallace in battles against the English, left the country yesterday for the first time in 700 years.

The double-handed weapon will form the centrepiece of an exhibition in New York during the city's annual Tartan Day celebrations, which begin today.

nscot31.jpg


It may be the only time the sword leaves Scotland

The sword, which is 5ft 4in long and weighs 6lb, was used by the Scots patriot in his famous victory over Edward I at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297.

It was kept at Dumbarton Castle for 600 years after his execution in 1305, and was later moved to the Wallace Monument at Stirling, where it overlooks the scene of the battle.

This week, the sword was removed from its case and lowered down the monument's narrow spiral staircase before being taken under police escort to Glasgow Airport.

The National Museum of Scotland decided it was fit to travel across the Atlantic, at a cost of £1,400. It was encased in protective material inside a special case.

It will be under guard at the Vanderbilt Hall in Grand Central station in Manhattan as part of a promotion for Stirling.

The weapon should be back in Scotland by April 11.

Colin O'Brien, the provost of Stirling, said it may be the only time the sword leaves Scotland.

"This is an historic moment," he said. "It is the first time in 700 years that a relic of this importance has left these shores."

Craig Mair, a local historian, said the sword was the strongest remaining link to the patriot.

"It is the sword he used when he waded into battle with the English in 1297, and is responsible for creating an important part of Scotland's history," he said.

"The sword itself tells us that Wallace was a giant of a man, most likely standing more than 6ft 6in tall."

Its first departure from Scotland coincides with the 700th anniversary of the execution of Wallace, whose deeds were celebrated in the film Braveheart.

He was defeated by Edward at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298.

Seven years later he was betrayed and captured.

In 1305, the Scottish nobleman was tried for treason and dragged through the streets of London before being hanged, drawn and quartered.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...cot31.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/31/ixhome.html

maximus otter
 
Oh man I have got to be there. My eyes are big as saucers right now and the thought of even touching it would be exciting to say the least. WOW. :) :) :)
 
I saw it at the Wallace memorial. It is very impressive, go see it if you can.
 
<> Am I to understand that a sword of this size wieghs only 6lbs.? That is incredible. <> Is Wallace's sword in original condition, or has their been any restoration over the past 700 odd years? Although the photographs do not show lots of detail, it sure looks to be in wonderful condition, especially the fancy quillions. I would love to see some nice clear close ups of this marvelous edged weapon!
 
shaldag said:
Cindy, Cindy, it's just the sword.
:D
I know, I know, it's a female thing...swoon. If me Mel Gibson would show up with his mullett hairdo I think I'd pass out.
 
That's pretty cool, the sword looks like it is of mainland Europe design, not a claymore. Got any other pics of it?
 
I don't know if this is true or not, but in the movie, supposedly his uncle took him under his wing and taught him, and his uncle had been all over Europe. Is that sword his uncles? I was expecting a large claymore, but Wallace was somewhat of a nobleman, I'm gonna read up on his history, I only have an old Classics Illustrated and the movie to go on for history.
 
nenofury said:
That's what I was thinking. Can you elaborate?

According to information from reliable people living in the UK, this sword is not old enough to be used by Wallace. I'm trying to find out more about where it came from, but I'd guess it was made sometime in the past 200 years. It's also too heavy to be very practical, IMO.

Edit: The current hilt was constucted and fitted in the 19th cnetury, the blade is at least 500 years old. The sword was noted in the inventory of King James Of Scotland as early at 1505, so it was probably attributed to Wallace as a sentimental and patriotic gesture. I saw this sword in Scotland (they have a huge staue if Wallace and a tall tower, and the sword is in a little room at the top of the tower), and it's not all very impressive.
 
sunnyd said:
<> Am I to understand that a sword of this size wieghs only 6lbs.? That is incredible. <> Is Wallace's sword in original condition, or has their been any restoration over the past 700 odd years? Although the photographs do not show lots of detail, it sure looks to be in wonderful condition, especially the fancy quillions. I would love to see some nice clear close ups of this marvelous edged weapon!

It says it was re-hilted to be "fit" for a scottish hero.

I have to say, before I read that I did think it looked a bit akward.
 
"From the top of the pommel to the point of the blade this great weapon measures 5 ft. 4 ins., and it must be remembered that the blade (which is still 4 ft. 4 ins. long) has been reduced by fracture and re-welding.

The leather binding of the hilt is not original. It was added in the Tower of London in 1825, when the sword was sent for repair.

In London, at the request of the Duke of Wellington, the sword was examined by the celebrated authority, Sir Samuel Meyrick, who pronounced it late 15th century. This opinion, which at first seemed to doubt the authenticity of the weapon, rather seems to confirm it.

In the accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, dated 5th December, 1505, is an entry of a sum paid, at the command of James IV, for “the binding of Wallas sword with cords of silk” and providing it with “ane new hilt and plommet,” and also a new scabbard and a new belt.

So that the trappings really did belong to the period fixed by the expert, while the blade itself is shown to be of much more ancient date. The sword reposes in the Hall of Heroes in a shrine bearing on one end the inscription “Battle of Stirling Bridge, fought 11th September, 1297,” and on the other “Sir William Wallace died for his country, 23rd August, 1305.” Along the front of the casket runs the well-known quotation given:

“The sword that seemed fit for archangel to wield was light in his terrible hand.” "

http://homepages.tesco.net/~scotlandweb/wallace/wallacesword102.html

maximus otter
 
the sword was examined by the celebrated authority, Sir Samuel Meyrick, who pronounced it late 15th century. This opinion, which at first seemed to doubt the authenticity of the weapon, rather seems to confirm it.

Sir William Wallace died for his country, 23rd August, 1305

Nobody doubts that this is an old sword, but there is no reason to believe it was used by William Wallace. Most likely it was produced after he was dead.
 
bithabus said:
Nobody doubts that this is an old sword, but there is no reason to believe it was used by William Wallace. Most likely it was produced after he was dead.

Okay, got any links for evidence? I'm opent to it either being used or unused.
 
The burden of proof is on the "Wallace actually used it" side. And, there's the opinion of experts that the blade is not old enough.

I don't believe anything without evidence, and there's no evidence that this sword belonged to Wallace.
 
bithabus said:
I don't believe anything without evidence, and there's no evidence that this sword belonged to Wallace...

Bet you're an athiest too... MMM?
 
Back
Top