Turkish Shamshir

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Irrespective of what the different terms mean/meant in different times, countries and cultures "saif" and "kilij" now refers to two different types of swords. Kilij refering to the strictly Ottoman sword with a distintive grip, while saif refers to the sword with the type of grip pictured below, of course people can use whatever term they choose but why use any other term besides kilij for the Ottoman sword with the distinctive kilij grip? If it has a "karabela" grip it is a karabela, if it has a "kilij" grip it is a kilij, if it has a "saif" grip it is a saif.

Right, that was exactly my point about the Kilij)
Also, the grip alone does not define the type of sword. it's a whole sword that does, and primarily the blade. The grip (and the sword on it) that you pictured above is not saif. Saif is an Arabic word for "sword", and represents Arabian/Bedouin sword type with (usually) straight blade. The one pictured above is Indian.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

The grip (and the sword on it) that you pictured above is not saif. Saif is an Arabic word for "sword", and represents Arabian/Bedouin sword type with (usually) straight blade. The one pictured above is Indian.

I and many other people would consider it to be a saif, maybe an Indian saif but still a saif, you certainly would not call it a tulwar. As I said, it does not matter what the origin of the term is, how it is used in our times can and does differ from its original meaning. The term "saif" for many people in our times has come to describe swords from many different cultures with this distinctive hilt. As I said people can use terms whatever way they want but when I hear the word "saif" this is what I see in my mind, just like when I hear "kilij" I picture the distinctive Ottoman hilt, while the blades may differ the hilt is a very static item.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I and many other people would consider it to be a saif, maybe an Indian saif but still a saif, you certainly would not call it a tulwar. As I said, it does not matter what the origin of the term is, how it is used in our times can and does differ from its original meaning. The term "saif" for many people in our times has come to describe swords from many different cultures with this distinctive hilt. As I said people can use terms whatever way they want but when I hear the word "saif" this is what I see in my mind, just like when I hear "kilij" I picture the distinctive Ottoman hilt, while the blades may differ the hilt is a very static item.

Hi Strech,

I agree for the end of what you wrote.

I think that the blade is Caucasian or Persian. But some members will tell.

Anyway it's a pure Turkish / Ottoman sword.

Best,

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I and many other people would consider it to be a saif, maybe an Indian saif but still a saif, you certainly would not call it a tulwar. As I said, it does not matter what the origin of the term is, how it is used in our times can and does differ from its original meaning. The term "saif" for many people in our times has come to describe swords from many different cultures with this distinctive hilt. As I said people can use terms whatever way they want but when I hear the word "saif" this is what I see in my mind, just like when I hear "kilij" I picture the distinctive Ottoman hilt, while the blades may differ the hilt is a very static item.

and many people call it wrong! Saif is an Arabic word for Arabian sword type. Calling an Indian tulwar Saif because it has non-tulwar hilt is like calling indian sword Kilij because it has yelman. The "Origin of the term" does matter! and dismissing it in favor of how it is used in "our time" is simply not correct as it defies history)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

The "Origin of the term" does matter! and dismissing it in favor of how it is used in "our time" is simply not correct as it defies history)

Just like "katar" and many other terms, its good to know the origins, history and the original meanings but you also have to adjust with the times, armor and weapons terms are fluid and they do change over time.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Just like "katar" and many other terms, its good to know the origins, history and the original meanings but you also have to adjust with the times, armor and weapons terms are fluid and they do change over time.

..sorry, I do not understand what this means.
Katar is katar and will remain katar over time. why would any term change for the same type of weapon? Why all of the sudden some call an Indian sword Saif? the term is used inadvertently by many but it is not good reason to "adjust". Also, where did you see this handle type being associated with or called Saif?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Katar is katar and will remain katar over time. why would any term change for the same type of weapon?

Are you sure, not everyone agrees with you.

The katar originated in South India where its original name was kattari before being altered to katara (romanized as "katar" by the British)

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Are you sure, not everyone agrees with you.

this is semantics, really. it is essentially the same term and I am not arguing about the spelling, dialect or pronunciation of the same weapon type.
But my point is: it's wrong to call Indo-Persian sword an Arabian sword, don't you disagree?

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Right, that was exactly my point about the Kilij)
Also, the grip alone does not define the type of sword. it's a whole sword that does, and primarily the blade. The grip (and the sword on it) that you pictured above is not saif. Saif is an Arabic word for "sword", and represents Arabian/Bedouin sword type with (usually) straight blade. The one pictured above is Indian.

I don't agree at ALL.
It's the GRIP who defines the sword.
The blades are traded, captured or whatever.
A kattara or a Kaskara with German blades, are they German swords?
No they are Omani and Sudanese...
To be more precise, the DNA of the sword are the GRIP and the SCABBARD.

Best,
Kubur

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I don't agree at ALL.
It's the GRIP who defines the sword.
The blades are traded, captured or whatever.
A kattara or a Kaskara with German blades, are they German swords?
No they are Omani and Sudanese...
To be more precise, the DNA of the sword are the GRIP and the SCABBARD.

Best,
Kubur

I mean the HILT not the grip!

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I don't agree at ALL.
It's the GRIP who defines the sword.
The blades are traded, captured or whatever.
A kattara or a Kaskara with German blades, are they German swords?
No they are Omani and Sudanese...
To be more precise, the DNA of the sword are the GRIP and the SCABBARD.
Best,
Kubur

It really depends. There's no single rule. However, the blade is usually gets re-hilted, not the hilt gets re-bladed Ideally, the blade would match the hilt at least ethnographically. If not, that is of no argument. if an Indian tulwar blade gets Ottoman handle, it would not become Ottoman sword! it'll remain indian tulwar blade with Ottoman handle. granted, some people will be quick to call it Ottoman, but that's another story)

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ALEX

It really depends. There's no single rule. However, the blade is usually gets re-hilted, not the hilt gets re-bladed Ideally, the blade would match the hilt at least ethnographically. If not, that is of no argument. if an Indian tulwar blade gets Ottoman handle, it would not become Ottoman sword! it'll remain indian tulwar blade with Ottoman handle. granted, some people will be quick to call it Ottoman, but that's another story)

I see your point and I respect your opinion.
But I don't agree at all.
Let me give you another example:
- a pistol or a long gun made in the Balkans during the Ottoman rule with an Italian barrel and a French lock. What is it for you?
For me, it's an Ottoman pistol or a pistol from the Balkans.
It's the same for the swords, if your tulwar is reused and re-hilted by the Ottomans, it's an Ottoman sword.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I see your point and I respect your opinion.
But I don't agree at all.
Let me give you another example:
- a pistol or a long gun made in the Balkans during the Ottoman rule with an Italian barrel and a French lock. What is it for you?
For me, it's an Ottoman pistol or a pistol from the Balkans.
It's the same for the swords, if your tulwar is reused and re-hilted by the Ottomans, it's an Ottoman sword.

this is why I said it all depends. I agree, the pistol is Ottoman because it was made in the Balkans during Ottoman rule, I assume by a common/known design.
The tulwar blade on Ottoman sword would not be as such.... but Persian blade would. Ottomans used Persian blades on some of their swords by design. This is why there are general terms such as trade blade, as well as Indo-Persian, Indo-Arab, multi-cultural, etc. it was a mix, but the blade would (generally) come or considered first, by design! As I said, the blades were re-hilted, not hilts re-bladed. and this was my point
If tulwar is occasionally rehilted by the Ottomans, i.e. with Ottoman hilt (which would be quite uncommon, and I think does not even exist), that would be a composite, Indo-Ottoman piece, not by design but by accident