I NOTE your article regarding the search for Sir William Wallace's sword (“Wallace sword sparks search”, The Herald, October 3). You may find the following of interest.
In 1888, a sword reputably having belonged to Sir William Wallace was transferred from Dumbarton Castle to the new Wallace Monument at the Abbey Craig in Stirling, after allegedly lying in the castle for nearly 600 years. Despite vigorous attempts by Dumbarton Town Council to prevent it leaving, they were over-ruled by the Secretary of State for War. In the book Dumbarton Castle,by John Irving, printed in 1915, there is an appendix of six pages on the authenticity of the sword. The main points are:
1. The Wallace sword, scabbard and belt is first mentioned in the books of the Lord Treasurer dated December 8, 1505 during one of several visits to Dumbarton by King James IV. A two-handed sword would not have a scabbard and belt, but a baldric hanging from the shoulder. This would indicate a smaller weapon than a 5ft 6in two-handed sword.
2. The inventories of the castle in 1571 by Captain Crawford and in 1696 by Governor Montgomery make no reference to the sword of Wallace. However, the 1644 inventory by Provost Sempill includes an "auld twa-handed sword" but with no reference to Wallace.
3. In 1825 the sword was sent to London for repair and exhibited in the Tower of London.
The Duke of Wellington – the Master General of the Ordnance – directed an expert opinion, which concluded that the sword was of a later period – the 15th century – and could never have been wielded by that great Scottish patriot.
4. The two-handed sword was a ponderous weapon and not the weapon of choice for a leader and horseman.
It is perhaps interesting to speculate that sometime between 1505 and 1571, someone could have acquired the real sword, either as a souvenir or to prevent it falling into the wrong hands.
David Wilson,
11 Fraser Avenue, Dumbarton.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel