Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ALEX
Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.
I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it? 
I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered. |
Hi Alex,
The idea that these huge swords were claimed to be "ceremonial" came from a continuous erroneous build up of information falsely claimed by European historians and early arms and armor "experts". Please let me explain more:
There has always been a misconception that during the Middle Ages (even the early Middle Ages), the Christian European warrior was usually heavier armed and armored than his Muslim counterpart. You'll find that in the writings of Gibbon, Creasy, Lane-Poole, Runciman, Meyer, Dupuy, Regan, Newby, etc. Even Dr. David Nicolle, who tried to refute many of such claims, found himself repeating many of these misconceptions. European historians and arms and armor experts have thought that in the period between 500 to 900 CE, European swords were longer, broader, and heavier than their Arab and Muslim counterparts. The same was believed with the armor, and other military accoutrements. To be frank with you, this had to do with bias, along with anti-Islamic sentiments. If you read a lot in history, you'll always find Western historians giving materialistic explanations to the victories made by the Germanic tribes against the Romans (and later the Byzantines). You'll find them doing the same thing with the victories of the Huns, and later the Mongols. But when it comes to the early Islamic victories of the 7th and 8th centuries C.E., and even the later on victories, these historians shall not give materialistic reasons for the Muslims victories; other than that the Muslims had far more numbers, and that there may have been a "fifth column" within Christian ranks. Others added that the Muslims usually had far more archers, and that the Muslims didn't care about their lives. But you'll find nothing being said about superior Arab and Islamic arms and armor; especially in terms of combat capabilities. This intended ignoring was done despite the fact that the Islamic sources are full of detailed information of how the Arabs and early Muslims were armed and armored; mush more information than that that speak about Germanic and Mongol arms and armor. When, at last, Western students of arms and armor started translating Islamic sources regarding the arms and armor of the Muslim warriors many errors were done, and I do not know why these errors ever happened. For example:
The Arabic word "faris" literally means "knight"...instead, Western scholars erroneously translate the word to "light horseman"!!!
The Arabic word "ratl" literally means "pound" (i.e. 16 ounces, or 453.7 grams). Instead, Western scholars translated it to 0.6 pounds!!!
A "sibr" means "span"...so, 4 "shibrs" (spans) would equal 36 inches (thus 91.44 cm), right? But the Western scholars claimed it would equal 31.5 inches (80 cm) only!!!
...And so on! Via such bias, the erroneous belief that those huge swords in Topkapi were ceremonial swords appeared. Al-Kindi states that while Frankish swords of the 8th and 9th centuries C.E. weighed 1.75 to 2.5 ratls (pounds); and this is what Hank Reinhardt and others (like Oakeshott) have stated in their compositions, he also stated that there were Arab swords that weighed up to 5 lbs were used by the Muslims at that time!
Instead of referring to al-Kindi, and holding the erroneous belief that Arab swords were lighter than their European counterparts, those who investigated the swords of Topkapi came quickly to an unfounded conclusion that these huge swords (some of which weighed as heavy as 5 lbs) were nothing more than ceremonial swords used by the Mamluks and Ottoman Turks for their elite royalty!!!
Now you understand from where the claim that the swords in Topkakpi were ceremonial swords came from??? If you need more clarification, please say so. OK???
Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein