myArmoury.com - Braveheart Claymore

Forum Index » Historical Arms Talk » Braveheart Claymore - real?

Posts: 1,241 Location: NC

Wed 09 Jan, 2008 11:48 am

Jesse Zinn wrote:

And yet you go on to dedicate three more sentences to the sword Tim mentioned... :p

-Jess

P.S. Lin, I'm heading down to Belmont/Mount Holly next week for work. Know of anywhere good to eat around there? I'm all about Bridges BBQ, but it'd probably be a bit far... :D

The three sentences that followed that statement were about the sword housed in the Wallace Monument in Stirling, which Tim had clearly confused with the movie sword. I have some strong feelings about the provenance of that sword, or the lack thereof, which is why I mentioned it when I saw Tim's post.

I spend little time in the Belmont/Mount Holly area but I'm sure there are some good local places to eat. If you venture a little further south and would like some very good BBQ, try R. O. 's BBQ at 1315 W. Gaston Avenue, Gastonia. It can be found on Map Quest very easily. Now, this is drifting way off the subject....

Profile PM

Jesse Zinn

Quote

Posts: 91 Location: NC (USA)

Wed 09 Jan, 2008 1:44 pm

Lee O'Hagan wrote:

The Del Tin one doesnt match the movie one because Simon at Raven Armoury made the pictured sword for the film,if memory serve's,
there are a good few Del Tin swords in the movie though,

Much obliged, Lee. Thanks!

Profile PM

Christopher Gregg

Quote

Posts: 675 Location: Louisville, KY

Wed 09 Jan, 2008 1:52 pm

Wallace Claymore

Funny that the Filmswords web site lists the Del Tin replica as "created by the maker of the film original, Fulvio Del Tin". :confused:

Profile PM

Jonathan Hopkins

Quote

Posts: 1,377

Wed 09 Jan, 2008 2:19 pm

The myArmoury feature that profiles Del Tin verifies that the Braveheart sword was made by Fulvio: http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_deltin.html

Profile PM

Chad Arnow

Quote

Posts: 9,545 Location: Dayton, OH

Wed 09 Jan, 2008 8:17 pm

It may have been made by Fulvio, but i seem to recall it may have been designed by someone else.

Profile PM E-mail Website

Joel Whitmore

Quote

Posts: 342 Location: Simmesport, LA

Wed 09 Jan, 2008 9:01 pm

Braveheart Film sword

Fulvio

Last edited by Joel Whitmore on Fri 11 Jan, 2008 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total

Profile PM E-mail YIM

Glen A Cleeton

Quote

Posts: 1,972 Location: Nipmuc USA

Thu 10 Jan, 2008 11:54 am

Yes, it was a Simon Atherton hilt on a Del Tin blade.
http://swordforum.com/fall99/braveheart-buyers-guide.html

the Ko picture does show a shorter than hilt length ricasso cover but that may well have been variable year to year, even piece to piece.

There is also mention of the prop sword somewhere in the massive Ebay finds thread here.

Cheers

GC

Profile PM

Jonathan Hopkins

Quote

Posts: 1,377

Thu 10 Jan, 2008 12:00 pm

Good find, Glen!

Profile PM

Lin Robinson

Quote

Posts: 1,241 Location: NC

Thu 10 Jan, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Braveheart Film sword

Joel Whitmore wrote:

I have been the Wallace Monument and seent he sword in residence there attributed to William Wallace. The blade is certainly more elegant and refined than photographs show. Did he use it? I have no idea. However, I take issue to people who automatically dismiss the idea on the bases that it is a "bearing sword" or simply because of its size. One must also remember the cross, handle and pommel are not original on that sword. One must be as careful in dismissing an idea as in asserting one.

Joel…

I agree that one should not dismiss this sword on the basis of size alone, although that is a factor. In fact it should not be dismissed at all unless evidence comes along that indisputably pinpoints a date of origin for the sword that is not consistent with its supposed history. However, there is circumstantial evidence that indicates that this was not a sword from Wallace’s time and, if it were in existence then, it was not likely to have been a weapon he would have used.

I think we can all agree that swords this large, although they existed, were not commonly used in the 13th century. This sword was also not likely to have been used on horseback because it was too big. Wallace, at least after he was knighted and became Guardian of Scotland and during his days as a fugitive, undoubtedly spent a lot of time on horseback. As a commander in the field he would certainly have to be mounted. I believe he was far more likely to carry the common sword of the day when mounted.

The royal account books from 1505 call for the sword to be refurbished, including a new belt and sheath. While a belt and sheath could certainly be made for the sword for display, who could have worn it? If Wallace was 6’6” as the legend says, this sword would still be too large for that mode of carry. The account books also don’t provide a detailed description of the sword, as far as I know.

Another interesting fact is that Wallace’s sword was not taken to London along with Wallace, or at least there is no mention of it. Supposedly his sword wound up in Dunbarton Castle where it was stored for 200 years before being pulled out for “remodeling”. Had Wallace been captured carrying a sword like the one in the Monument, one would think that Edward’s minions would have taken it along for display to the masses. Apparently that was not done.

The sword was re-hilted at least three times or at least a sword purported to be the sword of William Wallace was re-hilted. All this monkeying around with the sword means that we simply do not know and will probably never know the original configuration of the hilt, if this is Wallace’s sword. What is certain is that the hilt now resembles something from the 16th century, not the 13th.

My own belief is that the sword in the Monument is not a sword of William Wallace. That view is based on the factors I mentioned above. I think what happened was this; Wallace was captured carrying a nondescript sword, if he was armed with a sword at all. Because the sword was nothing special it was taken to Dunbarton where it was stored with other swords for 200 years. In 1505 it was taken out of storage and refurbished, then put back into storage. Around 1825 the sword that is currently in the Monument was pulled out of storage and sent to London, where it was re-hilted. At some point afterward it was re-hilted a second time, if my memory serves me correctly. The point is, when the sword reappeared in the 19th century, there is a very real possibility that it was not the sword referred to in the 1505 record. Given the Victorian propensity for historical inaccuracy as well as the enthusiasm for all things Scottish, some chap may have looked in the armory at Dunbarton and decided that this had to be Wallace’s sword because Sir William was so large and it was a big sword!

That is my simple-minded view of what may have happened. I base it on some research from secondary sources and I do not have a clue whether this is an accurate depiction of the history of the sword. However, it does make sense, at least to me.

Profile PM

Jesse Zinn

Quote

Posts: 91 Location: NC (USA)

Thu 10 Jan, 2008 2:26 pm

Lin Robinson wrote:

I spend little time in the Belmont/Mount Holly area but I'm sure there are some good local places to eat. If you venture a little further south and would like some very good BBQ, try R. O. 's BBQ at 1315 W. Gaston Avenue, Gastonia. It can be found on Map Quest very easily. Now, this is drifting way off the subject....

Awesome. Much obliged, Lin. Thanks!

Back to the issue at hand - I appreciate all the commentary and insights regarding the leather ricasso covering length(s). Helpful information!

Profile PM

Reply to topic

Page 2 of 2

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