Yi saber

ariel · 13th June 2007, 08:48 PM

Just a bit of legalistic quibbling:
Why saber?
Usually, saber is defined as a ( mostly) single-edged, curved blade ( shamshir, Kilij).
Palash ( or any other spelling) has a straight blade that is single edged. Sword is a straight blade that is double-edged.
At least, that is how they are defined by the Russian weapon specialists ( Miller, Astvatsaturyan, Trubnikov, etc).
Thus, Tibetan swords are , strictly speaking, palashes. No?

Many weapons ( Kora, sossun patah etc, mostly Indian) cannot be classied according to that principle. Also, what to do with straight, but partially double-edged blades ( Khanda, for example) or even fully double-edged ( firangi)?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

13th June 2007, 08:48 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Just a bit of legalistic quibbling: Why saber? Usually, saber is defined as a ( mostly) single-edged, curved blade ( shamshir, Kilij). Palash ( or any other spelling) has a straight blade that is single edged. Sword is a straight blade that is double-edged. At least, that is how they are defined by the Russian weapon specialists ( Miller, Astvatsaturyan, Trubnikov, etc). Thus, Tibetan swords are , strictly speaking, palashes. No? Many weapons ( Kora, sossun patah etc, mostly Indian) cannot be classied according to that principle. Also, what to do with straight, but partially double-edged blades ( Khanda, for example) or even fully double-edged ( firangi)?