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. |
Welcome back, Alex!
A quick correction: It's "shibr" and not "sibr" that means "span" (i.e. 9 inches or 22.86 cm).
Among the other erroneous translations:
"Sayf"; which means "sword", was erroneously translated to "short sword" instead!!!
When al-Kindi said that some sword blades were "4 fingers wide"; thus their width (immediately after the hilt) was 3 inches, the Western scholars explained that to a much slimmer width (can't remember exactly what their calculations were, but it was considerably less than 3 inches, anyway), and so on.
As for testing the cutting ability of the blade of the sword now preserved in Topkapi under inv. no. 2/3775, I don't think anyone will EVER be allowed to do so...so, I can't really get your point from what you said regarding that. Do you mean to say that the answer to this sword shall remain vague forever? Please explain more.
BTW, the Ottoman curved hilt (referring to the 16th century CE) for this straight double-edged broad and heavy blade makes it almost impossible for one to wield the sword; except by two hands; one gripping the grip, and the other holding the blade from its middle, or near the blade's point.
No, this sword is not the largest sword referring to the 7th century CE. There's a sword attributed to Ja'far ibn Abi-Taleb (d. 629 CE) that has a longer and heavier blade than the sword of my article.
BTW, do you have any references...or have you read some of these references that deal with the history of the passing of the Prophet's relics from one ruling dynasty to another?? I believe Ahmed Taymour Pasha's work regarding this issue is top notch. His book even explains why the Prophet's relics were not lost when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258 C.E.
Again, it would be much more logical if one were to compare the 7th century Arab swords preserved in Topkapi with what al-Kindi, al-Kateb, al-Biruni, and the countless 7th-9th century Arab poems said about the Arab swords back then, and see if they coincided (and actually they did very precisely!); rather than to make a quick and unfounded claim that these swords were ceremonial swords manufactured between the 14th and 17th centuries CE, just because of their immoderate dimensions and weights, along with their excessive decorations and ornamentation. Now the latter procedure would be nothing more than repetitions of repetitions of erroneous beliefs based on false information that was passed without any revision, correction, or even questioning.
Hope this helps!
Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein