Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
Getting back to koummyas, well pointed out that ethnographic weapons in general indeed follow traditional styles and forms, and are worn as elements of status and fashion. With many forms, there has yet to be proven that they were ever intended for combat or use in defense.
The fact that a number of specific forms were ceremonial or associated as rite of passage elements for young men as they enter adulthood seems also well established. Naturally, as recalling many discussions over the years, these perspectives on certain weapon forms are often notably varied and typically not universally shared by the arms community. Such disparity in views is to be expected, and often brings interesting philosophically oriented discourse, as seen in much of this discourse.
One case in point in analogy is the flyssa of the Kabyles in Algeria. This form has remained indiginous to these tribes in Algeria, and the origin and development of the form has long been disputed but it seems agreed that it is a relatively recent one from early 19th c.
Naturally the question....was it used in combat has been an issue.
As far as I have seen, there are no viable records or accounts of these in use, nor manner of use.
Here it goes to the unusual but distinctive hilt, and terrible balance of the long examples (blade length seems varied).
It seems these fall mostly into the rite of passage category, as well as personal status weapon, and often the characteristic decoration is embellisged with certain individual symbols.
The point is..if the flyssa was actuallu used as a weapon, how so? The blade is long, unwieldy, needle point and poorly balanced.
If for thrusting, there is no guard whatsoever to stop the hand from sliding downward...if for slashing why the needle point etc.
So there again is the lack of guard elements conundrum. Would the back of the blade extending be deemed a stop for the hand?
|
I don't doubt they were used in combat. Thrusts could be problematic due to the risks of the hand sliding up the blade, but it is not an issue if you don't thrust with it and just use it to cut. A chop with a flyssa would be quite devastating for an unarmoured targets, which were basically all of them in their context. "Balance" is a very relative word. Flyssas tend to have a point of balance quite up the blade, like many historical swords, which makes cuts with them more powerful. Sure, you can't really use it well like a contemporary military saber, but you can't use a Migration Era sword like a saber either.
Khyber knives have a similar weapon profile and yet British accounts are adamant in that the Afghans only used them for cutting, and those are safer to thrust with. Many yataghans suffer from the same and we know they were widely used for combat nonetheless.