(History) One SERIOUS chunk of steel!!

alsih2o

First Post
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/31/nscot31.xml

I wish I was nearer New York. Will someone please go for me? :)

Wallace's sword is sent to do battle in America


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.


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 hung, drawn and quartered.

Five feet four inches long (Approx. 1.5 meters) and 6 lbs. (2.7 kilos). By weight that makes it a bastard sword per the PHB. :)
 

Attachments

  • wallace.JPG
    wallace.JPG
    43.3 KB · Views: 305

log in or register to remove this ad

Holy crap, that's sweet! I had no idea the sword existed. I wonder if there are better pics out there? Caught the "6lbs" and immediately thought of the DnD bastard sword, too, but are bastard swords normally that long?
 




alsih2o said:
For sclae-

Goodness gracious, that's one small man.

There is an ongoing argument at another website I frequent about erroneous weapon weights in DnD and this helps illustrate one side of the debate. I tend to agree that this sword would have to be termed a greatsword.
 

I just wonder if that's REALLY Wallaces sword. I'd need to do some research, but the hilts look like they might be from a later period than the very early 14th C/lave 13th C.

Damon.
 


It's actually well agreed-upon by sword historians that the 'Wallace sword' is much more likely to be the 'Wallace blade' with a more recent hilt, probably from the 15th or 16th century.

On a side note, the D&D weapon weights include scabbards, belts, and other carrything stuff that goes along with a weapon...and scabbards usually had a fairly bulky wooden core (under the leather and metal parts), so it isn't too unreasonable to assume that a bastard sword has ~2-2.5 pounds worth of belt and scabbard, or that a longsword has ~1-1.5 pounds of belt and scabbard with it. Greatswords, though, more often had little more than a leather sheath and a baldric to carry it on your back between fights, and those things wouldn't reasonably weigh the two or more pounds they'd have to make up for, when you consider that 5-6 pounds was average for a greatsword, and D&D says that the whole sword-and-kit weighs 8 pounds.

Anyway, it should also be noted that Wallace's sword is actually longer than what people called a 'greatsword' back then, putting it in the 'zweihander' or 'two-handed sword' category, which is what D&D calls a Greatsword. An actual greatsword was usually just an extra-big bastard sword, which was beefed up to better survive contact with armor. The Wallace sword is more along the lines of what you use to counter pike formations or cavalry.
 


Remove ads

Top