The new life of the sabre blade.
 

As African sabres are out of my collection circle I decided to give new life to this blade.
The old handle was in poor condition.

Attachment 239613

Now it's the European sabre.

It was a beat up, but original Algerian nimcha. Now it is a replica.

Sadly true.

Sad to see.

Where did you get the hilt?

Awful decision which will likely mislead future collectors. You were told that you had a pretty rare sword, too. :mad:

A replica tries to reproduce something real. This is just a forgery.

I am with the others, you sadly destroyed a nimcha. :(

+1000%

and changed History !

I regret I must say this, as I think Jacenty meant well, but this venerable old blade was NOT given new life, but placed in a false context with intent to convey a superficial appearance.

For many years there has been a cottage industry of counterfeit Polish sabers being produced, as the proud heritage of Polish cavalry was much admired in the west (myself included as I was fascinated by the 'Winged Hussars').

Many gullible collectors were hoodwinked by often very convincing sabers, typically with old blades (like this one) matched with modern hilts following old styles and carefully 'aged' accordingly. More often they appeared 'cleaned and restored' which is why it is recommended on old swords to LEAVE THEM ALONE.

I once bought a karabela with a hilt in this category, with a very old blade from India (probably 17thc) with wonderful old markings in Urdu and a trisula (which was purported to be a tulip, thus Ottoman). When I finally realized the blade was indeed a very old Indian tulwar blade, and realized the mismatch, I could no longer bear this travesty.
As a weapon historian, I mourned the dismantling of the sword from which the blade was taken.

So what I would say to those out there who simply want a pretty and shiny example of a historic form of sword, there are guys out there making very wonderful shiny reproductions. Actually these are well researched and made to pretty faithful standards.

Leave the REAL historic items to us here, where we see dark old patination as literally history incarnate, which often helps is investigate the true history of the weapon at hand.

It is true that during the working life of many swords, they often became composite as components were replaced to return them to serviceability. However these alterations done IN PERIOD, became part of the swords history itself and did not compromise its historic value. ....that is as far as historians go.
For collectors of course, it is different, as they seek unaltered, pristine condition examples as a rule, and follow various categorization ajendas.

I just wanted to better explain the reaction here, and emphasize the importance of the preservation of historic arms in situ as much as possible.

I made the handle completely by myself.
It is a Polish-Cossack handle with a finger.

The most important element of a white weapon is the blade and it is the blade that proves the historicity of a sabre or sword.
Take a look at the blades of the Japanese katana. On many blade hilts there are two or three holes each. This testifies to the sword handles being replaced.
Many nimchas have captured blades from French cavalry sabres m.1822. Are these nimchas not original?
The blade of my nymcha is of European origin and the installation of a European handle, in the style of the Polish-Cossack saber returned it to its source of origin.

While your argument is understood, you must understand that blades were primarily a trade commodity, and were produced in blade making centers through Europe, with Solingen being one of the largest and most dynamic.

Blades were sent out to be traded, then were mounted by cutlers and armorers into hilts of local fashion. The blade itself can most often be identified by its markings, but often by its character, fullering, point styles, ricasso etc.
The HISTORICITY of the blade begins, and often ends with its assembly of hilt and sword.......until then the blade is simply a component.

Once having been mounted, there are cases in the swords life, where it may have been taken in battle. In these cases, where the BLADE becomes a trophy and might be mounted in a locally favored hilt by the victor owning the trophy.
This has been seen in numbers of cases.

As you mention, many nimchas (as well as swords through west Africa) have French blades indeed, but these were most often traded into local centers where they circulated often for generations. The blades in nimcha and other African swords (takouba, kaskara, Manding, and others) are almost invariably European, but their CONTEXT is historically now AFRICAN.

In England, after the Sudan campaigns 1884-1898, many Sudanese kaskara were taken as trophies and souvenirs. Of these countless numbers, in later years, unscrupulous antique dealers saw the oft noted resemblance of these blades to Crusader broadswords.
As lamented by Ewart Oakeshott in his references, many of these valuable kaskaras were taken apart, the blades mounted in duplications of medieval swords, thus VALUABLE HISTORY OF THESE KASKARAS WAS LOST!

While these were typically Solingen made blades, they were actually made for export to North Africa......the same as Solingen and Wilkinson in England were making blades FOR export to Ethiopia.
So do you think these blades made for export in Germany and England should be returned to those places ?

Japanese katana are heirlooms, and passed down for generations. It is true the blade is the key component, and the mounts are simply dress for certain occasion or use. The blade is often kept in shira-saya mounts when not in use. The daisho of the Samurai included the Katana (large sword); wakizashi (medium) and tanto (dagger). Any number of reasons might account for the variation in the mounting holes in the tang over generations.
I can assure you that no Japanese Samurai blade would end up in other than Japanese mounts......these blades are sacred.
This is NOT the case with blades made for export and trade.

BTW, nice job on the hilt (handle as you say). Very convincing, but while this hilt form is of course in the manner of 17th century Polish sabers...........where does the 'Cossack' come in? While some Zaporoshian hilts (notably from Beretscko) had hilt with open 'L' guard, not sure they had this form . Mostly 'Cossacks' are of course associated with the shashka, they were known to also have Eastern type sabers such as shamshir.

Basically, a blade out of context does nothing to prove its historicity, it might have been used anywhere, any time, over generations if not centuries. Blades circulated in North Africa for centuries after arriving there from their European origin (one Tuareg blade was identified as 14th century European ). Who knows how may times it was remounted....IN THE SAHARA. So should it be sent back to Europe (unsure which center made it) to be mounted in a fake crusader hilt ? WHY?

I would not call it a forgery, because forgery implies an intent to deceive. Jacenty would not post the sword here if he really intended to potentially sell it as a Polish-Hungarian saber.

Anyone can do as they please with their own items - collecting is a hobby, aimed at deriving pleasure and if Jacenty likes the sword the way it looks now, then it is his absolute right to have it that way. Or he may want to use for reenactment - whatever his purpose, it does not matter, as it is his sword.

However, I disagree with a couple of notions:

1) Taking a European blade that has been hilted in North Africa and putting a European hilt on it does not restore it back to its original state. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that this blade was ever mounted on a Polish-Hungarian hilt before it found itself in Algeria - in fact, as Jim has pointed out, it is very probably that it may have been produced for the Maghreb market in the first place. Second, marrying it with a new hilt, or even with an old one does not restore it, but it destroys whatever actual history there was, and the end result is a compilation of parts, which may be esthetically pleasing, but historically never really existed - a sword Frankenstein of sorts. This is true even of regulation military patterns, where people still distinguish between original and parts weapons, for example when it comes to dress daggers, but even more so when it comes to ethnographic arms who by their very nature are all unique.

2) If katana and keris can be re-hilted over and over and it is culturally acceptable to do so, why not this blade? Katanas and keris have their own very specific cultural context, within which refreshing the blade's dress is considered normal and even encouraged. However, other swords do not exist within the same cultural context, especially in the Western world. Besides, a katana in a new saya, with a new tsuba and all the rest of the hilt parts is still a katana. In contrast, when you remove an Algerian hilt and put a Polish hilt on, the result is an attempt at a total cultural transformation of the object, from an Algerian sword to a Polish (or Hungarian, or Cossack) one. It takes an actual, historically correct identity and replaces it with a new, fake one.

This post came way longer than I intended, and it is probably somewhat pointless - anyone can do what he/she wants with their swords. But we just have to be aware that the end result here is something that may look like a Polish-Hungarian saber, but is not even close to being an authentic one.

Thank you TVV, that is an excellent summation of how I feel about this fakery.

As you and Jim mention, it's all about context and much more nuanced than just "it's all about the blade".

It's not, it's about the complete sword, a historical object that is placed in its historical context.

There is a world of difference between an older blade mounted on 'newer' fittings to be carried and used by an officer in his time, and one where parts are put together in the now, because 'they look good'.

Jacentry clearly has metalworking skills, the hilt looks very good to my untrained eye, why not put a newly produced blade on it?

For me, the tragedy was the removal of the original hilt, I would love to have an original Nimcha (at an affordable price) and now there is one less in the World. :(

In all my years of collecting (just a few decades) as much more historian than collector, the swords I acquired were dark, often slightly damaged, but intact and reflected the toll of time and whatever rough handling they experienced.

The most exciting were those with apparent battle damage (one yataghan had taken a ball at the fittings of the hilt), some were clearly battlefield pickups and relics. These I would NOT touch or 'clean up' obviously.
The only care I usually afford a weapon is to stop active rust or corrosion and apply wood and leather care as required to stabilize .

I was often chided for buying these 'dogs dinner' weapons(as they were called by scoffing others often), but these had stories to tell :) and THEY HAVE!
Years of research often revealed amazing details of where and what these weapons experienced.

This would NOT have been possible had they been ' given new life' by being dismantled and hopelessly altered.

In a trip to Athens many years ago, as I walked through the stately ruin of the Parthenon, I quipped, 'a little work here and there, maybe some fresh paint' :).....the gasps around me were telling. Imagine! New life?

All of these swords I acquired were rough (lucky for me with my meager resources)......but honestly.......my EXACT thoughts were that I was rescuing them from the very fate of this old nimcha! They have remained in my charge ever since, safe from being dishonored with the removal of their well earned wear.

Im glad this thread came up, as it is a topic that perhaps need to be more addressed, and again I regret having to do so at Jacenty's expense, as I think he meant well, and not to deceive (but many do).
I rest my case.

Grip wrong. Crossguard badly made. This blade would not have been used on a Central or Eastern European sabre of the 17th century. This Frankensword fits the ethical standards of its owner.

Ahhhhhh 😵*💫😵*💫😵*💫
Why, just why….
Nimcha was nice looking, now it is to throw away in a trash can…

Handle details
 

I am sending detailed photos of the handle of this sabre.
The brass is broken, with hammer marks. The hole in the hilt is too big and someone tried to fit it with a hammer. The hilt must have been from another sabre.
The handle, made of rhino horn, is chipped and cracked. It crumbles easily.
If these parts were in better condition I would certainly not have reworked this sabre.

Attachment 239829

Cossack sabre
 

Original Cossack sabres can only be found on battlefields in Ukraine. They look as in the attached photos.
Attachment 239830

Attachment 239831

Attachment 239832

Attachment 239833

I believe that my adaptation does not deviate from the originals.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, there were hundreds if not thousands of craftsmen in Poland and Ukraine - blacksmiths and sabre makers who made battle sabres and each one was an individual, unique product.
I therefore disagree with your assessment.

No. And those swords are not called Cossack sabres.

You say the following:

And then that :D

So do they look all like the one from your photos? (No) Does yours look like the one on the photos? (No) Can one be sure from the photos that the sabre shown is original (No)

Nevermind, that Nimcha is already trashed - nothing left to argue about.