| Author |
Message |
Chuck Russell
|
 Posted: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 8:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
i got a couple pics of this sword too. from a few years ago though.
thanks for sharing
|
|
    |
 |
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: Wow Mac |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | | Thomas McDonald wrote: |
Hi Joel
Thanks, I try ;-)
Seriously, you are most correct about the low lighting in that tower's room and the difficulty in seeing the swords detail !
As I discussed with Vince, I purposely set out to shoot some clearer images of this one as, like you stated, I've never seen any good shots of this sword, nor its details ! So mission accomplished, I hope !
Photos - T. McDonald, 2005. |
Very well done! The detail in the photos is magnificent. And the rest of your trip looked fantastic!
I wouldn't want to burst anyone's balloon, so please understand this a personal opinion. I've long had reservations about the sword. Your photo #20 distinctly shows a weld line I noticed in the sword when I saw it. This blade looks more like a couple plowshares beaten into swords then welded into a giant sword. Thirteenth century Scotland had precious little steel industry and most blades were imported from the Continent. This is nothing like swords of the period, as others have noted. I suspect it was welded up from two broken sword blades by a village blacksmith.
IIRC, the sword was brought to James V's court by two Dumbarton merchants who claimed to have located it at the castle. James bought it (hook, line and sinker) from them. He then sent it to be rehilted in a manner appropriate for such a heroic blade. In its own right, the link to James V is sufficient to make it a national treasure. But I really think its provenance as the sword of William Wallace would make a Victorian arms dealer blush.  |
The sword was known to be broken adn repaired twice over the centuries. So this alone would not disqualify it as an original, though many other factors tend to. So I think our baloons will remain intact The steel of of poor quality so it is probably of local manufacture. Interestingly, the sword was packed up and left Scotland for the first time in 700 years fo ra trip to New York. There was an event held markign the 700th anniversary of Wallace's execution and the sword was part of the display. The article is here : http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...scot31.xml
Hopefully this thing will let me post images this time.
Joe
P.S.S. This thing will simply not let me post 34kb jpegs from my trip to the Monument. Tried gifs and tiffs and nothing works except the one small pic I pulled from the web. 
 Attachment: 8.66 KB
Wallace Sword beign packed up for its trip to New York last spring.
|
|
 |
|
|
Ian W.
Location: Ventura,Ca Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
great pictures of Wallace's sword. The one time I went to Scotland I took pictures of it but....the film disappeared. So i'm glad to see some good quality pictures of it. thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas McDonald
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Real or not, at least their not calling it "The Sword of Mel Gibson" (well okay, maybe some of the tourists do ;-)
'Ol Mel, and the ugly statue, are none to popular with the locals we heard tell !
The thing to remember is .... Sir William would have had, and used, many swords !
To call this one "The Sword" sounds to me like wishful thinking !
Mac
Attachment: 78.22 KB
Attachment: 44.25 KB
'Gott Bewahr Die Oprechte Schotten'
XX ANDRIA XX FARARA XX
Mac's PictureTrail
|
|
 |
|
|
Alan F
Location: Scotland Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Malcolm A wrote: | The schiltron certainly did prove its worth on other occasions, turning the rag tag Scots army in to a real army worthy of that name.
The C4 program Weapons That Made Britain, http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/ , showed quite graphically what could be achieved in one day regarding training ordinary people how to use spears in a schiltron formation.
Many thanks Alan F for the insight!!!! |
The main difference between the armies deployed at Falkirk and Bannockburn was that at Bannockburn, Robert the Bruce had been training his army for an entire month in the use of the schiltron. By the time of the battle itself, it was second nature to the knights and soldiers to be able to deploy from the circular schiltron to the rectangular block. Wallace hadn't had that period of grace to prepare his troops.
Incidentally, do you know who the reserve that came onto the field at the end were? According to some sources it was either the Knights Templar or a host of enraged camp followers. However modern research has led to the conclusion that it was the troops who hadn't been at the training - although they hadn't been present at the formal training, they were able to deploy rapidly into a schiltron, which was enough to deter any English troops from any more heroics.
I re-enact therefore I am
|
|
 |
|
|
Alan F
Location: Scotland Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomas McDonald wrote: | Real or not, at least their not calling it "The Sword of Mel Gibson" (well okay, maybe some of the tourists do ;-)
'Ol Mel, and the ugly statue, are none to popular with the locals we heard tell !
The thing to remember is .... Sir William would have had, and used, many swords !
To call this one "The Sword" sounds to me like wishful thinking !
Mac |
The thing that a lot of people don't understand today Mac is that to the Medieval mindset, a sword was just a tool, in the same way that you or I would see a hammer or a saw today. Once it became badly damaged it was replaced.
As an aside, did you know that the statue of Mel Gibson (which is about 7 miles away from me) is locked up each night? A lot of the locals in Stirling weren't too happy with Braveheart.....
I re-enact therefore I am
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm A
Location: Scotland, UK Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Nov, 2005 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Incidentally, do you know who the reserve that came onto the field at the end were? According to some sources it was either the Knights Templar or a host of enraged camp followers. However modern research has led to the conclusion that it was the troops who hadn't been at the training - although they hadn't been present at the formal training, they were able to deploy rapidly into a schiltron, which was enough to deter any English troops from any more heroics. |
There is to my knowledge very little real evidence and commentary about the Battle of Bannockburn, and hence it is prey to the vagaries of conspiracy theorists, in particular [to my mind] those who wish to promulgate the "myths" about the Templars.
True; the Templars did exist and they did have establishments in Scotland
True; they were subject to prosecution by Philip the Fair in about 1313AD
True; many of them did escape Philip the Fair's men in France
True, I think; Robert the Bruce was at the time under ex-communication at the time so therefore not under Papal authority and hence Scotland would be a good place for Templars to hide up
But!!! If they were so good at fighting [and they were] why were they not in the front line? Even allowing for ideas that The Bruce didn't want them to be seen for fear of Papal retribution, why not have them dress in non-Templar attire? Such good troops would have been a great help even to the trained Scots schiltron men.
It is all a bit suspect to me and I reckon that the reserve mentioned was either:
[a] an actual officical reserve of less well trained troops {and maybe camp followers looking for booty}
[b] some late arrivals who wanted to have a go [though its strange that they turned up just at that precise moment when the rest of the army had been traiing for a month or more; maybe got held up at the local pub?]
Cheers!
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan F
Location: Scotland Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Nov, 2005 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | But!!! If they were so good at fighting [and they were] why were they not in the front line? Even allowing for ideas that The Bruce didn't want them to be seen for fear of Papal retribution, why not have them dress in non-Templar attire? Such good troops would have been a great help even to the trained Scots schiltron men.
|
Mos Templar attire was ditched as soon as they left their Chapter Houses: Why make yourself conspicuous?
However, what is not always looked at is the fact that many leading Churchmen in Scotland supported Robert the Bruce and the would have definitely not have wanted the Knights Templar there - the Churchmen were working on getting Robert the Bruce brought back into the Catholic Church after his murder of the Red Comyn while the Comyn was at prayer. Moreover, had Robert the Bruce sheltered the Knights Templar, it would have been easy for the Catholic Church to lead a Crusade against Scotland, after all the King was excommunicated and if he was harbouring known enemies of the Catholic Church in a Catholic country, then his days would have been numbered.
The simple fact was, that out of those Templars that weren't prosecuted, the majority either went to other Orders (the Knights of Santiago took in many as did the Knights Teutonic and the Knights Hospitaller) where as the rest simply went back to their pre-Templar lives. As many were the first-born son of Nobles, there was little prosecution of them - which king is going to be so foolish as to turn on his own Nobles?
The reason for others not turning up was simple: Many had been garrisoning areas which had declared for King John Balliol. They couldn't be pulled back from these areas until it was certain where the English army was.
I re-enact therefore I am
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Whitmore
Location: Simmesport, LA Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Thu 24 Nov, 2005 12:22 pm Post subject: Edward I and the Tamplars |
|
|
| Malcolm A wrote: | | Quote: | | Incidentally, do you know who the reserve that came onto the field at the end were? According to some sources it was either the Knights Templar or a host of enraged camp followers. However modern research has led to the conclusion that it was the troops who hadn't been at the training - although they hadn't been present at the formal training, they were able to deploy rapidly into a schiltron, which was enough to deter any English troops from any more heroics. |
There is to my knowledge very little real evidence and commentary about the Battle of Bannockburn, and hence it is prey to the vagaries of conspiracy theorists, in particular [to my mind] those who wish to promulgate the "myths" about the Templars.
True; the Templars did exist and they did have establishments in Scotland
True; they were subject to prosecution by Philip the Fair in about 1313AD
True; many of them did escape Philip the Fair's men in France
True, I think; Robert the Bruce was at the time under ex-communication at the time so therefore not under Papal authority and hence Scotland would be a good place for Templars to hide up
But!!! If they were so good at fighting [and they were] why were they not in the front line? Even allowing for ideas that The Bruce didn't want them to be seen for fear of Papal retribution, why not have them dress in non-Templar attire? Such good troops would have been a great help even to the trained Scots schiltron men.
It is all a bit suspect to me and I reckon that the reserve mentioned was either:
[a] an actual officical reserve of less well trained troops {and maybe camp followers looking for booty}
[b] some late arrivals who wanted to have a go [though its strange that they turned up just at that precise moment when the rest of the army had been traiing for a month or more; maybe got held up at the local pub?]
Cheers! |
Edward I paid very little attention to the decree by the French pope. He called in some of the Templars but did not even touch many of them. As a matter of fact Edward got the Templars to fight with him against William Wallace around 1298. Phillip the Fair was heavily indebted to the Templars even for the large dowery of his daughter Isabella, who was to marry Edward II. Phillip worked hard to have Phillip de Goth elected as pope Clement V and mad ehsi plans to get the Templar monies and relieve his debts. Edward II recieved the papal bull but belived teh Templars to be innocent. HE infact wrote several letter to various Christian monarchs stating as much. The English Templar Master Brian de Jay had lost his life fighting the Scots for the English so Edward II was not inclined to abandon them. The papal bull Pastoralis preeminentae was delivered to Edward II on December 15, 1307 ordering him to arrest the Templars and get confessions. Edward waited three weeks before he actually began the arrests in whch time the Templars, and thier treasure, disappeared. Only two fugitive Templars were found in all of England aftr a half-hearted manhunt. When the pope demanded the Templars be "put to the question" Edward II replied that torture was not part of English jurisprudence.
Edward put off the pope for three years saying that he had no experienced torturers and thus had kept the Inquisition out of England and torture out of its legal system. Finally Edward, threatened with excommunication yeilded and Clement sent in Dominicans to begin the torture. Although many Templars reputedly fled to Scotland, now ruled by the excommunicated Robert the Bruce, only a handful openly declared themselves. Many of the Templars who were caught in England pled guilty to the minor charge of having a layman granting them absolution and were given minor penances as punishment. Those who did not were given life sentences but there is no record that those sentence were carried out. As far as I can tell there is no historical, factual evidence that shows conclusively a batallion of Templars fought with the Bruce at Banockburn. Certianly there were former Templars in his army, but there is no evidence that they declared themselves openly on the battlefield.
Joel
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas McDonald
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Sun 27 Nov, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alan F wrote: | | Thomas McDonald wrote: | Real or not, at least their not calling it "The Sword of Mel Gibson" (well okay, maybe some of the tourists do ;-)
'Ol Mel, and the ugly statue, are none to popular with the locals we heard tell !
The thing to remember is .... Sir William would have had, and used, many swords !
To call this one "The Sword" sounds to me like wishful thinking !
Mac |
The thing that a lot of people don't understand today Mac is that to the Medieval mindset, a sword was just a tool, in the same way that you or I would see a hammer or a saw today. Once it became badly damaged it was replaced.
As an aside, did you know that the statue of Mel Gibson (which is about 7 miles away from me) is locked up each night? A lot of the locals in Stirling weren't too happy with Braveheart..... |
Hi Alan
Yeah, we'd noticed those folding gates, behind the statue, and figured they were the first line of defense against someone carting him off :-)
* Even without the animosity, folks will sometimes do strange things to publicly erected monuments ;-) Mac
'Gott Bewahr Die Oprechte Schotten'
XX ANDRIA XX FARARA XX
Mac's PictureTrail
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Burns
|
| Posted: Sun 27 Nov, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thomas, thank you for these awesome photographs, these are photographs and not pictures, very well done!
According to what I have read, William Wallace was at least 6' 8", I always found it kind of ridiculous that Hollywood had a 5' 8" actor play the role of a man 1 foot taller than he is. There is one part in the dialogue before a great battle in the movie in which the word giant is played on so as to attempt to diffuse the fact that William Wallace in fact was physically a giant of a man, especially for his day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic