Talk:Wallace Sword

It's Probably Not a Claymore

Claymores, as illustrated in the wiki article on them here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Claymore are Scottish variants of two-handed swords in Europe and originate in the 15th Century. To call Wallace's blade a claymore is an anachronism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.81.108 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Changes to sword dimensions

The dimensions quoted are not credible: "The blade of the sword measures 4 feet and 11.5 inches in length and including the handle 5 feet and 4 inches". This makes the handle a mere 4.5 inches long (less than 12 cm), which is obviously incorrect on two counts:

• it would be impossible to wield such a large sword with such a small handle. 4.5 inches is barely one hand's width for a person with large hands, and it is hard to believe Wallace had dainty hands with such a great sword
• the photograph shows that the handle occupies at least 21% of the total length of the sword. If the total length is 5 feet 4 inches then the handle had to have been at least 13.4 inches long, making the blade no more than 50.6 inches long, which is 4 feet 2.6 inches.

The page at http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/sword.htm gives the dimensions as 52 inch blade (4 feet 4 inches) and 66 inches total (5 feet 6 inches), giving a total handle length of 14 inches, which is 21%. I find these figures much more believable. Andreclos (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sword Weight

Just to add to that, the weight sounds way to light. Whoever heard of a 6 lb claymore? From what I can estimate, that's about the weight of a small cat. I can only think it's an error and they meant to type 60 lbs. 85.211.156.230 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has ever heard of a 60lbs claymore! Such a sword would be impossible to use in combat. 6 to 8lbs is pretty normal for a two-handed sword. --82.128.189.197 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

unattributed bogus height estimation

I am 6 foot 2 inches tall, roughly 200 pounds. I have been involved in sport combat, medieval recreation battles, and various martial arts for 30 years, but I am neither visibly "musclebound" nor unusually strong for a person of my height and weight. I have used and can use a 66 inch or longer sword without any problems. The limiting factor is typically weight and not length. Different form and technique must be used when employing a sword longer than the distance from one's hand to the ground, and there are extreme differences in technique that must be employed when using a sword longer than one's height, but it is not necessary to be extremely tall to use a long sword. (Unsigned comment from 207.27. 178.270 08 November 2008)

I agree the estimated height seems a bit wild and needs to be supported. I added fact templates to that and to the weight - 2.7Kg doesn't seem such a big deal to me - 10Kg maybe, but not 2.7. Andreclos (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You may not be "visibly "musclebound" nor unusually strong" for a modern man, but a person of your height and strength would be quite unusual 900 years ago (think how you'd feel eating nothing but turnips for thirty years!). Wallace would also have been wearing expensive and extermely heavy plate armour while weilding it--not running around in rags like in Braveheart--adding to the massive stregnth and endurance required to be an effective fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.28.30 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out that William Wallace would not have been wearing plate armour, which was developed in the later C14th and which, for what it was worth, was not extremely heavy, requiring no more strength or fitness than a modern infantry soldier. Moreover his diet would have consisted of a good deal more than turnips.

The resistance to Edward 1's in which he took a leading part occurred some 700 years ago, not 900. He was executed in 1305.

And now- back to the sword.

JF42 (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

There is an article about the sword in a recent book about Wallace, whose title I do not have to hand. This is a 2-handed sword, which is only first recorded in Scotland at the start of the 16th century. Also, is is only first mentioned as being in Dumbarton Castle in the 17th century. PatGallacher (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The book is called 'The Wallace Book' and it is a collection of excellent essays by experts on medieval Scotland. There is no question that the 'Wallace' sword at the Wallace monumnent was made long after the death of Wallace.CB, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.184.102 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to get some sources then, hmm? The only source in the "not really his sword" part actually states it might be his, that the dimensions are normal and that the lack of a fuller may be proof of local, manufacture (when the majority of good swords would have been imported from Germany at the time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.16.133 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just removed some unsourced stuff, and negative bias. Look, I'm not saying it is his sword, but be unbiased. An intro like "There is legitimate reason to question the claim that this sword belonged to William Wallace, indeed it is pretty certain that it did not" is not neutral. Just say, it might not have been his. State why, find sources. Make sense with them, don't start comparing it to a sweihander for christ's sake, if your gonna compare it to a big sword, compare it to a bleeding claymore. Excuse what some may consider foul language, I'm just using it for emphasis. Also don't compare it to a longsword, its not one of them either, its a greatsword, the Type XIIIs in Oekenshot.

Also, the source actually makes an allowance for not having a fuller, so don't use it to support that no fuller means its a fake, or at least word it better. And again, real sources, a plus. If you have a real book by real historians, quote it and source it. Properly.

King James IV was confident enough that this was the blade of William Wallace that he spent money to maintain it. The Wars of Scottish Independence were much more recent history for him than they are for us today, so it really comes down to whether or not King James IV (generally regarded as a wise person) was correct that this was the sword of the man who helped put his Great-Great-Great-Grandfather on the throne. Cverlo (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the sword was sold to James IV by two merchants who claimed it was Wallace's sword. Apparently it was in poor shape, necessiting refit commissioned in 1505 so it would be more suitable for display. If the story is correct, it is most probable that it was an old sword which salesmen found somewhere for their swindle.Mikoyan21 (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)