mamluk khanjar ??

Rivkin · 13th July 2005, 04:16 PM

Dear All,

Recently reading David Nicolle's translation of Farisiyya books, I've found that one extremely important weapon, Mamluk khanjar is constantly referred to, and even more is said to " The khanjar should never be left behind", but in the same time this weapon is completely missing from the sword books I have and from all the many modern statues and depictions of mamluks (example attached). From the text is seems that mamluk khanjar was primary a stabbing weapon, basically a short sword (from the description it seems to be longer than an ordinary dagger), that could even be thrown at short distances.

This is completely inconsistent with jambia and all other similar things, but it's quite consistent with kindjals (circassians indeed used to throw their kindjals). It's also consistent with some central asian kindjal-like daggers.

Could you someone please help me - are there any photographs etc. of mamluks khanjars ? Are they indeed kindjals ?

Sincerely yours,

Kirill Rivkin

M.carter · 13th July 2005, 04:31 PM

"Islamic Weapons; Maghrib to Moghul", Anthony C.Tirri, Page 99:

"After the conquest of North Caucasus by the Russians in the 19th century, over 400,000 Circassians fled Caucasus and re-settled in Jordan, Palestine and other Muslim countries. They brought with them their weapon-making skills and weapon styles"

This could be the link here. This explains why there are Jordanian Shashqas, and Syrian made Kindjals. Also dont forget, most Burji Mamluks were of circassian origin.

Rivkin · 13th July 2005, 05:13 PM

The manual David Nicolle translated I think is from 1412 (it's like totally the most famous one

). It's in turkish, but comes from circassian epoch.
While XIX century events and muhajars (circassian migrants) is a little bit different story,
The problem is that no one depicts mamluks of traditional period - pre 1517 with khanjars, so it's hard to understand what their khanjars actually were. It's strange that you can see mamluk mace, bow, multitudes of swords, but not khanjars.

Marc · 13th July 2005, 05:24 PM

Uh... may I ask for the full reference for the manual in question? I'm very interested...
Thank you

B.I · 13th July 2005, 06:02 PM

very interesting. i know the ottomans had a type of khanjar, which may have descended from this mamluk weapon, if it existed.
remember, you are taking one persons translation of a 15thC writing. david nicolle may have used the term 'khanjar' for want of a better term. maybe the weapon he was describing had no known name, and he used this term out of context. or maybe he did so with the ottoman dagger in mind and assumed they were describing a similar weapon.
just a thought.

Rivkin · 13th July 2005, 08:48 PM

I've found actually a link to this article. Unfortunately during the first reading I skipped all the stuff concerning which manual was translated, erroneously attributing authorship and period (well by a few lousy decades).
Here is the link:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=274

It's a very good point concerning khanjars. I'm also interested in the menaing of the distinction he makes in his translation in between of khanjar and dagger...

13th July 2005, 04:16 PM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	mamluk khanjar ?? Dear All, Recently reading David Nicolle's translation of Farisiyya books, I've found that one extremely important weapon, Mamluk khanjar is constantly referred to, and even more is said to " The khanjar should never be left behind", but in the same time this weapon is completely missing from the sword books I have and from all the many modern statues and depictions of mamluks (example attached). From the text is seems that mamluk khanjar was primary a stabbing weapon, basically a short sword (from the description it seems to be longer than an ordinary dagger), that could even be thrown at short distances. This is completely inconsistent with jambia and all other similar things, but it's quite consistent with kindjals (circassians indeed used to throw their kindjals). It's also consistent with some central asian kindjal-like daggers. Could you someone please help me - are there any photographs etc. of mamluks khanjars ? Are they indeed kindjals ? Sincerely yours, Kirill Rivkin Attached Images

13th July 2005, 04:31 PM	#2
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	"Islamic Weapons; Maghrib to Moghul", Anthony C.Tirri, Page 99: "After the conquest of North Caucasus by the Russians in the 19th century, over 400,000 Circassians fled Caucasus and re-settled in Jordan, Palestine and other Muslim countries. They brought with them their weapon-making skills and weapon styles" This could be the link here. This explains why there are Jordanian Shashqas, and Syrian made Kindjals. Also dont forget, most Burji Mamluks were of circassian origin.

13th July 2005, 05:13 PM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	The manual David Nicolle translated I think is from 1412 (it's like totally the most famous one ). It's in turkish, but comes from circassian epoch. While XIX century events and muhajars (circassian migrants) is a little bit different story, The problem is that no one depicts mamluks of traditional period - pre 1517 with khanjars, so it's hard to understand what their khanjars actually were. It's strange that you can see mamluk mace, bow, multitudes of swords, but not khanjars.

13th July 2005, 05:24 PM	#4
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Uh... may I ask for the full reference for the manual in question? I'm very interested... Thank you

13th July 2005, 06:02 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	very interesting. i know the ottomans had a type of khanjar, which may have descended from this mamluk weapon, if it existed. remember, you are taking one persons translation of a 15thC writing. david nicolle may have used the term 'khanjar' for want of a better term. maybe the weapon he was describing had no known name, and he used this term out of context. or maybe he did so with the ottoman dagger in mind and assumed they were describing a similar weapon. just a thought.

13th July 2005, 08:48 PM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I've found actually a link to this article. Unfortunately during the first reading I skipped all the stuff concerning which manual was translated, erroneously attributing authorship and period (well by a few lousy decades). Here is the link: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=274 It's a very good point concerning khanjars. I'm also interested in the menaing of the distinction he makes in his translation in between of khanjar and dagger...