The Wallace Monument

**Livingston** · 12th February 07, 11:15 AM

Mike, as I figured, my system here at work allows me to see your pics and it SHOULD be locked down tighter than at home. Go figure.

Great pics. I'm starting again to get the bug to take a trip that way.

**Mike1** · 12th February 07, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Livingston

Great pics. I'm starting again to get the bug to take a trip that way.

I'm well over-due, myself. It's been 7 months since I was last across, so I am certainly ready to go back.

**Jimmy the Celt** · 12th February 07, 12:47 PM

For posting such beautiful photos, I think we can all forgive ya for wearing jeans.

**Pour1Malt** · 14th February 07, 04:53 AM

guid yins!

ta Mike....

whit? no piccies o' the brill statue o' the "real" Braveheert a' the bottom o' the monument???

**Pour1Malt** · 14th February 07, 05:09 AM

here ya gae Mike...

sorted that pic o' ya in troosers!

**McClef** · 14th February 07, 05:49 AM

At last! A piccie ai can see!

An tae think ai'll be there mahsel taemarra!

(ps wonder what Derek did whilst his kilted half was miraculousy transported tae Stirling!)

**AllenJ** · 14th February 07, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Panache

Another great photo series Mike.

Ok this is a dumb question, but that is Wallace's actual sword right? Or is it one similar to one he would have wielded?

Cheers

Panache, the probable answer is no. There is mountains of debate over the Wallace sword. The highlights of the debate are these:
First off, Wallace never used a "claymore" (there is a whole other debate on the term claymore in general...I think it was discussed in a thread here some time ago...). The sword held aloft by Wallace on the statue of him on the outside of the monument (pictured above) is a product of the 16th century and not earlier. You MIGHT be able to stretch really hard and get it into the 15th century but certainly not the end of the 13th.

The sword shown in the case inside the monument (I too have been there and examined it for quite some time) is doubtfully a product of the 13th century. There is no known swords that come anywhere close to it's likeness from that time period. The one in the case more closley resembles 16th century lowland weapons.

If you examine weapons common to the 13th century you will find they are much shorter with less complex hilts. Also the vast majority of swords that we still have from that time period are much more corroded than the one seen in the Wallace monument.

So in short- its very unlikley that this was actually Wallaces sword or even a similar type to the one he used. There is a theory out there that the blade is original and then it was re-hilted in the 16th century- but the blade is still pretty long for the time period.

My personal theory is that some one at some point in years past made a sword to commemorate William Wallace- they dubbed it 'The William Wallace Sword'. From there it would be easy to see how it could have been shortened to 'The Wallace Sword' and then just 'Wallace's Sword'...to where we are today. Or we could all be mistaken and this sword really is genuine and everything we have thought about 13th century Scottish weapons is wrong... but I doubt it.

**AllenJ** · 14th February 07, 09:28 AM

Here is the prior thread I mentioned:
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/s...light=claymore

more about Scottish weapons in general than specifically the Wallace sword.