Famous swords are wrong

Swords that are claimed to have been owned by famous people are not necessarily those swords. In most cases, only the blade, or at least a fragment of it belonged to the person. This is because the hilts tend to be replaced for maintenance and aesthetics of the period.

Sword of Attila

This sword first appeared and was claimed as Attila's in the 11th century. The design is no earlier than 10th century while the gold seems to date to Attila's time via a Hungarian goldsmith. It is also claimed to be tied to Joyeuse.

Joyeuse

This sword may not have any trace of the original as some think Napoleon may have replaced the blade with a replica. Assuming this is not the case, the blade is the only thing that dates to Charlemagne's time. The pommel is the only hilt component that keeps to the original aesthetic, albeit about a century later than the blade. The guard and scabbard are several centuries later.

Sword of William Wallace

This sword has been hotly debated. The hilt is clearly dated to the Tudor period. The blade was definitely repaired three times. The debate is that some believe the whole blade is original, while others believe only a fragment is original and has be welded into newer pieces.

Eastern Asian swords

Swords from places like China and Japan were designed to be rehilted in that they are assembled via one or two pegs. They emphasize the blades as being originals.

Conclusion

Legends cloud history. In many cases, these weapons should be called the blade of [person] rather than the sword of [person].