... 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.’
It's funny; i still don't interpreter it that way but, being you spanish speaking, i will not presume i am right and you are wrong. I even think there is a problem of punctuation in the text 
.
And, I’m sorry again, Fernando, but I personally find your source with insuficient credentials, with all due respect.
Maybe yes, maybe not. I wouldn't diminish him so quickly. I am only citing parts of the work, with my interpretation and translation limitations. Besides, every now and then he quotes people that are certainly within the subject, presupposing that he is not 'inventing' the whole thing; guys like Pompeo Gener, Cobn-Wiener, Raimundo Koechlin ... who ever they are 
.
Your quote from this person does not add much light on the subject of the scimitar (the subject of the present thread),
If i well remember, my post was an evolution on the probability of curved swords, scimitars or other, appearing in the peninsula, handled by Arabs (or Muslims) at such early stage, after being said (by you at least) that curved swords appeared a good couple centuries later.
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.
I am aware that the gineta was produced in Granada by the XIII century and copied by the christians by the XV century in Toledo, and was later westernized; but this doesn't avoid peoples to use more than one type of sword in the same period of time, as frequently occurs ... right ?
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.
Maybe we are shortening time spans. The romanized sword like in figure 1 was on between the IX and mid X centuries. The reconquest went on for seven centuries;certainly things changed whilst it lasted. Figure 2 pretends to represent the sword used during XI, XII and XIII centuries; this was the model with the greatest credits. Certainly an European design, with pommels having the knights crests engraved which, besides heraldic representation, were used as seals to press on the wax of parchments.
Most of the medieval swords in your illustration are germanic long swords (from diverse origins: visigothic, viking, saxon, frankish, etc.)
Maybe 'most' is a strong term, but no wonder; swords in the peninsula alternated their influence from Perso-Arab, Mozarab and European ... in a random sequence and returns.
The first sword from your illustration, looks like late roman, and not frank, but I can be completely mistaken.
Naturally this is the illustration of the sword evoluted from that quoted of Roman tradition, used by the locals against the Arab invaders, appearing in the IX century with Mozarab influences. I guess the author uses the term frank in a different meanning than that of it having Frankish origins... sort of free, like in free style, or the like; he even puts frank sword between " ".
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.
The Arabs with whom Tarik invaded the Peninsula in 711 included Sirians, Egiptians, Persians and Berberes.
To make a personal verification of the arab swords, please see:
I already decided that i will soon order a couple Nicolle works.
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.
So it appears that the term terciado (terçado in portuguese) was (also) one of those atriibuted to various types of sword throught time.
So, we find here an hypotheses: that the terciado and the scimitar could be the same weapon.
At least the Portuguese chroniclers often mention the terçado as a weapon ( also?) used by the Moors.
In the future, I will respond a little late, but I will respond.