Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
Hi Gonzalo
I browsed on this article. Do i see it differently, or have i read a different passage ?
"Relacionada con esta tenemos otra arma de origen árabe, como es la cimitarra. A pesar de que Covarrubias diga que es igual que el alfange, eso si remarcando la curva de su hoja, al decir que es una espada vuelta a manera de hoz (Covarrubias, op. Cit. 283 r). Esta tipología se corresponde a los shamsires turcos, que resultaban algo más largos que los alfanjes, con hojas más estrechas y curvadas."
Isn't it Beraiz, opposing Covarrubias, who defines that a scimitar, like a samshir, is larger than an alfanje, with narrower and more curved blades?
Or am i confusing things?
Fernando
|
No Fernando, I am sorry, but It is just that I think you read wrongly the same passage. Let me first translate, to the benefit of the forumites:
‘In relation with this, we have another weapon of arab origin, which is the scimitar. Although Covarrubias says that the alfanje is the same that the scimitar, but more curved, when states that it is a sword bended as a sickle (Covarrubias, op. Cit. 283 r). But this typology is related with the turkish shamshirs, longer and heavier than the alfanjes, with blades more narrow and curved.’
OK, Fernando, based on this description, can you say Beraiz has defined or described the scimitar? I don’t think so. At the best, you can infer that the shamshirs are longer and heavier than the alfanjes, with blades more narrow and curved. In other words, Beraiz says that the alfanje and the scimitar are not the same weapons, and also enumerates some differences among the alfanjes and shamshirs. But it says nothing about the scimitar itself.
I call the attention to the point that even two spanish specialist in swords do not agree if alfanjes and scimitars are, or are not, the same weapon, and with the lack of trustable illustrations about this kind of swords. Also, the lack of records among available authentic swords existing to the present day, mentioning arab ‘scimitars’ and ‘alfanjes’. In my opinion, those terms were used vaguely and imprecisely to refer to other curved weapons from the Middle East and the near Orient, and there are not swords we can call today scimitars and alfanjes, but the european Renaissance weapons already mentioned. I believe it is not a mere coincidence nobody can show today any arab, turkish or persian authentic alfanje, but only references and illustrations of weapons made in Europe.
And, I’m sorry again, Fernando, but I personally find your source with insuficient credentials, with all due respect. You have to have knowledge of the swords, far more than the traditional descriptions you can find on old books and museographic references, so full of mistakes and gaps. Your quote from this person does not add much light on the subject of the scimitar (the subject of the present thread), but it does make me think about the nature of the author’s approach. First, I can tell you that there are many references in this forum from Jim McDougall and others, stating that the early islamic swords (the time of the arab conquest) were straight and not curved. But there are more specialists on the subject, whom I will enumerate latter as suggested readings, as I don’t like very much quoting out of context. First, we don’t know when and by whom curved swords were carried into Europe. It seems that the avars, who invaded Hungary, were the first ones. It is said that the saber of Charlemagne, according with some sources, comes from his wars against the avars. The oldest known saber from islamic procedence, was unearthed in Iran, and it seems to belong to a 9th Century turkish slave warrior. Latter, maybe carried by central asian turkish groups, this type of blade had more diffusion into actual Iran, Middle East and North Africa, but it came very late into Spain. Just take on account that Spain was the far-west islamic dominion with respect to Iran-Persia, and the curved sword had to travel in some way to the Iberian area. It seems that even early mamelukes or mamluks used straight swords. The arabs which invaded Europe used straight swords. The latter invasions from North Africa into actual Spain used straight swords. If you know the Gineta or Jineta sword, carried by the berber zenetes, you will know what I mean. The preserved swords from the late nazarid period, also were straight. The men el Cid fought to, used straight swords. This is the reason the Tizona, which is a straight sword, is been called as ‘andalusian’, meaning an arab weapon, independently if it is not from El Cid. Also, the Gineta swords illustrated in your post, are straight. We will not question in this moment why these swords are classified as ‘ginetas’ by some spanish scholars.
You have to take on account, also, that the words ‘saif’, ‘kiliç’, and ‘shamshir’ only designate a ‘sword’ of no specific form in their original languages, and that those swords also came with straight blades. In the case of the shamshir, it seems that still under the arab rule it has a straight blade, and it was until latter, before or after the mongol invasion, but probably not under the arab dominion over Persia, it took the curved form. This is a subject yet not clarified satisfactorily, but at least the curved shamshir seems to have not predominated under the arab rule. So, the great development of curved shamshir comes from a turkish or a mongol period, and not arab, as a result of central asian influences.
As from other parts of your quote, I find them very questionable. Of course, Roman and Arabs belonged to different cultural environments…and timelines…maybe the preislamic arabs or other semitic nomads (in the nabatean and the yemenite kingdoms, or the numids, for example) used roman style swords, or at least straight swords reminiscent of the roman. But I cannot characterize the mass of christian swords from the Reconquest as ‘roman’, though some of the spanish peoples could use some kind of short sword in the roman style. Most of the medieval swords in your illustration are germanic long swords (from diverse origins: visigothic, viking, saxon, frankish, etc.) And the germanic swords do were decorated, if in a different way than the arabic. I don’t think the islamic art influenced the romanic swords, but instead the germanic ones. The first sword from your illustration, looks like late roman, and not frank, but I can be completely mistaken. As I don´t have much knowledge of the frankish swords. In fact we don’t know to which degree romans decorated their swords, as we have but few examples, mostly in very bad shape, and maybe from common soldiers. Decoration was determined by the rank and richness of the sword owner, so many swords from common arab and berber soldiers were also ‘absent of artistic attires’. You have to take on account also the availability of decoration techniques on the arab empire and in the european kingdoms, which seem to be more primitive in their technologies. The technique of damanascening was unknown outside the arab area in the Iberian Peninsula for a long time.
And, what does it mean the statement: ‘submitted to Christian power the Persians and Arabs of the center and north of the Iberian peninsula’? I don´t know id I undertood well, but it seems that your author believes that there were persians and arabs alongside in the Iberian Peninsula…another questionable point, to say the less. And, finally, there were muslim units during the arab conquest which used the straight short sword blades, roman style.
To make a personal verification of the arab swords, please see:
‘Some issues in the studv of the pre-Islamic
weaponry of southeast Arabia’
by D. T. Potts, in Arabian archaeology
and epigraphy, Denmark, 1998
Early Islamic Arms and Armour, by David Nicolle,
Instituto de Estudios sobre Armas Antiguas, 1963
‘The Sword in Islam’, by Zaki Abd al R., in Studies in Honour of Prof. K. A. C. Creswell, El Cairo, 1965
‘Jihad and Islamic Arms and Armour’, by David Alexander, in Gladius, Vol. XXII, 2002
‘La Espada de Protocolo del Sultán Nazarí Muhammad V’, by Virgilio Martínez Enamorado, in Gladius, Vol. XXV, 2005
‘Las Armas en la Historia de la Reconquista’, by Ada Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, in Gladius, Vol Especial 1988
‘Swords and Sabers During Early Islamic Period, by David Alexander, in Gladius, Vol. XXI, 2001
‘Una Espada de Época Omeya del Siglo IX D.C., by Alberto Canto García, in Gladius XXI, 2001
El Cid and the Reconquista 1050 . 1492, by David Nicolle, Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 200), 1996
The Moors - The Islamic West 7th - 15th Centuries A.D., by David Nicolle, Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 348), 2001
Armies of the Muslim Conquest, by David Nicolle and Angus McBride (or is Jim McDougall?), Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 255), 1993
Saladin and the Saracens, by the same authors, Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 171), 1996
Also, you can search images in the web from the swords of the ayubids (the dynasty of Saladin in North Africa and part of the Middle East), the Gineta swords, the nasrid swords, and so on. They are real swords from the time period.
I want to bring here another reference to the scimitar from the article by Dueñas. On pages 10 and 11, he writtes: ‘One type of weapon, less known and fabricated in Spain on the 16th Century, was the terciado. According with Covarrubias (Covarrubias, op. Cit. pág. 85), it´s name was originated on the fact that the length of the blade was smaller than the third part of the marca. If we take on account that the marca was of five quarters of a vara, equivalent of 83 cm, the terciado should have a length of 50 cm approximately. Furthermore, he says that it was a short and wide sword , but does not mention if it was curved or straight, or if it had one or two edges. This widthness is confirmated in several texts from this time, like this:
The giant arosed the cane to Marcelino, but he tilted his body and the cane hitted the floor, and the cane jumped off the hand of the giant. Then he took a terciado, which was very wide and strong, and tried to hit Marcelino destroying part of his shield, but Marcelito hitted him back’.
‘Another possible synonym of this type of weapon is the machete. Which was defined in this time same as the terciado, who was not as long as the sword, nor as short as the puñal or the daga (Covarrubias, op, Cit. pag? 531r). It is possible that the only difference was that the machete, more than being a weapon, was a tool, a knife of great proportions useful in agriculture and cattle raising. From other references it can be deducted that the term terciado was used as a synonym of the expression scimitar. Maybe it was the term in Castilian to refer to this arab weapon.
He fell upon the weapons of a soldier,
Taking his quiver and a terciado.
Which now used over a less strong shoulder,
Of the wide scimitar he ornated the narrow band.
(Oña, 1596: 251)’
So, we find here an hypotheses: that the terciado and the scimitar could be the same weapon. Also, that the terciado and the machete could be the same weapon, being the only difference the working purposes of the machete. There is no specification to the form of the blade, if it was straight or curved. We have to take on account that the machetes were not only a working tool in those times, but also a weapon used in the 19th Century in place of the sword and the saber by the non mounted soldier and specialist of the spanish army, meaning all the infantry, artillery, grenadiers, engineers, musicians, etc., and their blades varied drastically along the time. So, we have to precise what kind of machetes Dueñas Beraiz is referring to, but the most common type of machete had a straight blade and a curved edge. So, it was not a curved type of sword or working tool. It is also possible that the terciado was the direct ancestor, or the same weapon than the espada ancha.
Regards
Gonzalo
PD: Fer, I apolgy for my delayed response, but I previously said in other thread, I have problems with internet connection. In the future, I will respond a little late, but I will respond.