History
Scottish History
Scotland
William Wallace
Swords

Where did the Wallace Sword come from?

A public domain historiography

Dana T Williams

15 min readMar 20, 2019

So I’ve re-branded or you might even say just branded. I’m broke and don’t really have money to spend on books anymore so my new focus is learning and sharing as much as I can for as little as possible. Now that I’ll be drawing on primarily free and online sources, I’ve been thinking a lot about credibility and what it means to declare a historical account true or untrue. As an exercise in this (and in recycling) I want to take a deeper dive into the subject of the Wallace Sword. That mysterious item in the National Wallace Monument which I covered in another post where I focused more on its symbolism than the sword itself. It’s pretty easy to find out online that the sword is not for real but it’s just as easy to find out that it is. Check, for example, the Wallace Monument’s official page on the subject. Buy a ticket while you’re over there, the view from the top is fantastic. What I think the internet is missing is a consolidate examination of the historiography of the sword. To provide this (because that’s my idea of a good time) I’m going to proceed with what I believe scholars call the Socratic Method. I’ll lay out arguments both for and against the Wallace Sword and let you make up your own mind; after I tell you what to think. It’s not genuine, there I said it, now let’s drink this poisoned well dry.

Part One: A Sword Called Wallace

*Wallace Sword by Glenn J Mason*
*CC-BY-2.0*

So take a look at that sword, really take it in. That’s William Wallace’s sword, once used to fight for Scotland’s freedom. Maybe it was with this very sword he proved, at Stiling Bridge in 1297, that Scotland could still stand up for itself as a nation. Shortly before allegedly making a belt from his enemy’s skin; a faux-pas even by the standards of medieval warfare. The famous patriot was born sometime around the late 13th century, fought two major battles, lost the second one and after a short exile was executed in 1305. Despite playing a significant role in Scottish history he didn’t leave much evidence behind. Maybe because he was so good at guerrilla warfare. The most telling verifiable artefact from William Wallace’s life is a fairly business like letter, bearing his personal seal, to the Hanseatic League. It not an object which screams “FREEDOM” and as a letter really belongs to the recipients in Lübeck. As a consequence the sword remains Wallace’s primary relic in Scotland; narrowly edging out the Wallace Chair and the Wallace Oak (s).

The Wallace Sword, if it’s genuine, is an awe inspiring artefact. You can’t really get a sense of scale from this CC-BY-2.0 Wikimedia jpeg but it’s about 163cm (64″) from top to tip and a little over 3/4 of that is blade. It has been in the National Monument since 1888; moved from Dumbarton Castle where it had been on display from around 1800. Before that it seems to have been languishing unknown in the castle’s armoury. That’s the line taken by the National Wallace Monument and I wouldn’t expect them to declare their prize attraction a fraud on their own website. That’s why I’m here.

Proponents of the sword have made a good case, probably the best possible case, so let’s go with it. Reverend Charles Rogers, one of the founders of the Wallace Monument and a keen advocate for the Wallace Sword, laid out the general theory of it’s origins. An appendix to his 1889 Book of Wallace gives a transcript of the speech he gave when receiving the sword for display in said monument. He explains how the sword might have arrived at Dumbarton Castle. He provides records of the Wallace Sword being repaired in 1505 and again in the 1820s which might explain it’s unusual arrangement. Proving, he hoped, that the item he had insisted on acquiring was authentic and not just a tourist trap.

The sword’s connection to Dumbarton Castle is via Sir John Menteith, then Sheriff of Dumbarton, who was responsible for the arrest of William Wallace in 1305. The actual role he played in the arrest is not clear. It seems he was payed a bounty and it’s reasonable to conclude that he was, as the local sheriff, at least responsible for the operation. Presumably he disarmed his prisoner and sent the sword to his castle armoury for safekeeping or maybe even as a trophy. Though his capture of Wallace earned him favour with King Edward I, Menteith later had a change of heart. He defected to the cause of Robert the Bruce and returned Dumbarton Castle to its original owners the Earls of Lennox.

In the following century the old Lennox family went extinct and Dumbarton Castle passed to the Stewarts of Darnley, collateral relatives of Scotland’s royal family. After some familial infighting and patricide/regicide the castle was brought back under royal control by the close of the 15th century. King James IV subsequently visited the castle many times and could well have learned of the Wallace Sword still housed there. In 1505, the bicentennial year of William Wallace’s death, the Wallace Sword was repaired at the King’s expense. This fact can be confirmed by inclusion in the Accounts of The Lord High Treasurer of Scotland. I’ve linked an edition of those accounts that was published in 1901. The editor, Sir James Balfour Paul, cites Rogers’ conclusion that the Wallace Sword is clearly named in reference to William Wallace and that this is the same sword that was later moved to the Wallace Monument. Since the sword was repaired in 1505 it now bears fittings of that era, rather than Wallace’s, causing modern historians to misdate it. It’s unfortunate that James IV’s love for the sword might have led him to have it over restored. However being once the property of Scotland’s last warrior king certainly adds to the sword’s mystique.

Part Two: Doctor Meryick, I Presume

In 1819 the Duke of Wellington was appointed as Master-General of the Ordnance which, among other duties, put him in charge of the royal armouries. At this time the Wallace Sword was following in the footsteps of its namesake and enjoying a stay in the Tower of London and so it fell (figuratively speaking) onto the Duke’s desk. Facing claims that this was a very important artefact — and perhaps in fear that the squaddies at Dumbarton shouldn’t be messing about with it — Wellington decided the sword ought to be looked at by an expert. He invited one Dr Samuel Meyrick to give an opinion of the sword. Meyrick was committed to careful analysis of historic arms and armour; determined to sort such objects by age and type so that they could be properly identified. Overwriting the previous systems employed by sword historians, which included making stuff up and believing absolutely everything they were told. By comparison with other pieces Meyrick decided that the Wallace Sword looked like it dated from the second half of the 15th century. The sword was sent back to Scotland in disgrace.

We’ve heard this argument already though, this was the precise analysis Rogers’ was responding to in his 1888 defence of the sword. Meyrick’s pronouncement, according to Rogers, was made without knowledge of the 1505 refurbishment. That may be correct but I have an issue or two with this line of reasoning. All that survives of Meyrick’s opinion is a single sentence in his discussion of 15th century English swords that reads:

“The two-handed sword shown at Dunbarton Castle, as that of Wallace, is of this [Edward IV’s] period, as will be evident to any one who compares it with that of the earldom of Chester, in the British Museum.
A critical inquiry into ancient armour vol ii by Samuel Meyrick, 1824

Rogers’ counter-argument is based on the assumption that Meyrick only looked at the handle and guard of the Wallace Sword when determining its age. However Meyrick seems to have reached his conclusion by comparison with this sword belonging to one of the Princes of Wales (also the Earls of Chester by this time). That might have been Edward IV prior to his coronation or his son Edward who, like the Wallace Sword and Sir William himself, also suffered an unfortunate stay in the Tower of London. If you clicked the link up there (if not do it now!) you’ll notice that the handle of that sword looks nothing like the Wallace Sword. The Earl of Chester’s sword has a fairly simple cross guard, an engraved copper alloy grip and flat pommel emblazoned with the cross of St George. The Wallace Sword has a curved guard with large side rings, a plain leather bound grip and spherical pommel. To my knowledge there are no symbols or engravings to be found anywhere on the Wallace Sword.

The similarity between the two swords is in the general size and shape of their blades and hilts. So either the good Dr Meyrick who devoted his career to swords was very bad at telling them apart or his statement is being misinterpreted. If you take time to read some of the surrounding words in Meyrick’s book he seems to be suggesting that the tell-tale features of a 15th century sword are the wide flat blade and long hilt. For comparison here’s a large sword from around William Wallace’s time. It’s still a a large sword at 121cm but that’s not even as long as the blade of the Wallace Sword. You can do your own googling if you like but you’ll find that before 1305 swords just didn’t come in such huge sizes; at least not those made for warfare.

15th century sword as pictured in Samuel Meyrick’s book

Pictured to the left is part of a plate from Meyrick’s book on medieval armour in which he brings up the Wallace Sword. It shows a style of two-handed sword that he believed to be in use from the reign of Edward IV to Henry VIII (1442–1547). While the Wallace Sword is a unique item it certainly looks more like it belongs more to the time of James IV than the time of Wallace. In fact it’s uncannily like this sword which happens to date from the 16th century. Typology is often right about this sort of thing.

It’s worth your while reading on in Meyrick’s book as, after the Wallace Sword, he describes another sword — which quite confusingly belonged to a different Earl of Chester — with an 11th century blade but a 16th century hilt. To add further confusion a more recent assessment casts doubt over that verdict as the sword blade seems to bear a 17th century mark belonging to King James II. While this does prove that Meryck was capable of making mistakes it also shows he is capable of realising that a new hilt could be put on an old blade. This is somewhat contrary to Rogers’ suggestion that Meyrick would have judged the Wallace Sword only by its furnishings.

Part Three: Who’s Sword is it Anyway?

There is a belt and bracers aspect to Rogers’ argument which I still have to cover. He claims to have evidence from the War Office that after Meyrick’s negative assessment the Wallace Sword was fitted with a plain 15th century handle before its return to Dumbarton Castle. Therefore we can’t draw any conclusions from the appearance of the current hilt. Those records were subsequently lost and I’m willing to take Rogers at his word. The problem is that he argues Meyrick’s conclusions were based on a configuration of the Wallace Sword that is now lost. That means his verdict can’t be falsified by looking at the sword now. It also means that no trace of the work done in James IV’s time survives either since Rogers’ gives no hint as to where the original hilt and pommel ended up. As a result we can never prove or disprove the claim that this is the sword repaired at the expense of James IV; let alone whether or not it belonged to William Wallace. Rogers’ argument amounts to this being the definitive Wallace Sword precisely because it doesn’t look like it is. At its core his argument is also impossible to falsify; a hypothesis that will only be proved wrong if it is proved correct and vice-versa (I’m not saying it was aliens). I respect you Charles Rogers and it’s because of that respect I feel I have to tell you that your ass is kind of showing.

Get Dana T Williams’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

The gaping hole in Rogers’ theory is the unproven assumption that the Dumbarton Castle Wallace Sword and the James IV Wallace Sword are the same object. He could not, nor can anyone else, provide evidence for the existence of the Wallace Sword at or near Dumbarton Rock for the 300 years between 1500 and 1800. The first clear record of anyone seeing William Wallace’s sword at Dumbarton is in Dorothy Wordsworth’s memoir of her visit to Scotland in 1803. While absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence there is in this case an extraordinary failure to notice the presence of the (hardly inconspicuous) Wallace Sword during all that time.

*Dumbarton Castle by William Miller, as it would look around 1800 when the Wallace Sword was rediscovered*

Charles Rogers’ history of the sword is very similar to that which appears in the 1879 Book of Dumbartonshire by Joseph Irving. While Irving appears agnostic to the authenticity of the Wallace Sword he presents a brief but comprehensive background. He also presents, for the sword’s defence, a 1644 inventory of Dumbarton Castle which mentions the presence of an old two-handed sword. Appropriately enough it was reported to be kept in the castle’s Wallace Tower. Irving suggests that this is the same weapon we now know as the Wallace Sword. I’m happy enough to assume this was the same rusty old weapon that Wordsworth saw at the start of the 19th century and which Rogers acquired for display at the Wallace Monument. Strangely enough Irving gives different dimensions for the Wallace Sword so unless there’s some kind of mistake it’s grown by about four inches during its stay at the monument. Rogers was certainly adamant that the sword had been shortened to bring it into scale with normal people — as opposed to giants like William Wallace. It’s really very unlikely that he had it altered though. The sword now is otherwise so similar to Irving’s 1879 description — even down to the same two weld points on the blade — it’s really just another mystery.

It might be best to construct a theory with as few swords as possible and accept that the current sword is the same one seen by Meryick, Wordsworth and which was present in the Wallace Tower in 1644. All these sources describe an old two-handed sword which was kept at Dumbarton Castle and I think it’s reasonable to assume that they all refer to the same weapon. I could extend that assumption and say this is also James IV’s Wallace Sword and the 13th century original but I’m not quite convinced of that. I think at minimum there are two different swords in this story; the Wallace Sword of Dumbarton Castle and the Wallace Sword of James IV. All that these swords have in common is an unclear connection to the name Wallace from which a circular proof has been cultivated. This sword was in the Wallace Tower therefore it must be William Wallace’s Sword; James IV had a Wallace Sword it must be the same one and that proves it’s genuine. Does it though?

If we put on our sceptic hats we have no reason to conclude that the current Wallace Sword was even in the castle during the previous inventory in 1581. The 1505 account does not explicitly place James IV’s Wallace Sword at Dumbarton Castle either and since the King moved around a lot he could have picked it up (and dropped it off) almost anywhere. The 1644 inventory also notes absence of a scabbard which has never since turned up. The particular features of the James IV Wallace Sword were a scabbard, belt, hilt, pommel and silk bindings. Rogers’ and others have happily made a big deal about the hilt but very little of the missing elements. They could have been lost over the years but the current Wallace Sword only matches the James IV Wallace Sword in two regards: It has a hilt and pommel that can’t be ruled out as being added by King James IV in 1505 or alternatively by the War Office in the 19th century. Since (to my knowledge) hilts and pommels are near universal features of swords I would call that evidence pretty thin.

Even allowing that the current Wallace Sword is James IV’s only brings another weak link into the theory. The provenance of the James IV sword amounts to just a few words in an account book written 200 years after William Wallace died. There’s no description of the sword blade, no explanation of how the King acquired it and no mention of the name William. The same account book shows numerous payments to people called Wallace for various services (particularly vessel carrying). It’s a boring explanation but it’s possible that James IV was just doing a favour for someone in his entourage; throwing their sword in for repair along with a couple of his own. The entry written in the ledger as Wallace Sword so that the King’s servant could prove the work had been paid for. Some historians, like Charles Rogers, have enthusiastically endorsed the possibility that the Wallace named in the accounts must refer to William Wallace; it could refer to anyone by that surname. The exciting prospect that James IV owned William Wallace’s sword can’t be ruled out either but that explanation being more alluring doesn’t make it more likely. Those few words in James IV accounts provide only a very tenuous link to the current Wallace Sword and to William Wallace. Presenting them as provenance is audacious to say the least.

Part Four: Onus Probandi

One of the things I can find out for free is that this phrase means: “Burden of Proof”. As in the responsibility for providing evidence where there is doubt. The common stance in academia is that doubt is everywhere and if you make a claim you have to prove it. That means when it comes to something like the Wallace Sword the sceptics can all just go home victorious because it’s not their job to prove that it didn’t belong to him. Unfortunately when historians do that they leave the field open to anyone who’ll have it. In the case of the Wallace Sword arguments against have languished in footnotes and appendices while the arguments for have been all but shouted from the rooftops (in addition to inclusion in footnotes and appendices). From the history scholar’s viewpoint all that elaborate connection making looks weak but from the non-indoctrinated viewpoint it looks like a strong case. The adage is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that is extraordinarily convoluted can look, from a distance, like it qualifies. It therefore seems right to side with the fringe theorists.

When it comes to the authenticity of the Wallace Sword my earnest attempt to disprove it hasn’t led to a clear conclusion; I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t his. I also can’t fully answer my initial question as I think the sword is only traceable to 1644 by which time it was already considered antique. I don’t have the resources to undertake rigorous fact checking and I don’t know enough about swords to draw my own conclusions. I hope that, despite wearing my opinions on my sleeve, I have at least demonstrated a willingness to accept all arguments and evidence in good faith. I think the case for the sword fails to stand up in its own right. Even if every claim is correct their is no tangible link to William Wallace himself but only to his legend. If I was completely comfortable in saying that those making the assertion bear the greater burden then I would be happy to say the Wallace Sword is a fake. I’m not really happy with that way of doing things though and I’m more comfortable saying that, on balance, I think it’s pretty unlikely that the sword we have now is or ever was William Wallace’s. I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence that it belonged to James IV either. It’s probably just a big old sword that ended up in Dumbarton Castle then much later — coinciding with the romantic movement — was given a new lease of life with an inspiring backstory as a hero’s long lost blade. Even though that connection to greatness can’t be proved the Wallace Sword retains a disparate nature which defies simple explanations. I can say a lot about what it isn’t but almost nothing about what it is; for that reason I don’t expect the legend will be laid aside any time soon.

Sources: