![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 44
|
![]() Quote:
If this is not an experimental weapon altogether, than I think the handle/hilt is a later addition. One of the reasons it could have happened, as you said, the original (kilij type) handle broke and since the smith, who was fixing the sword (not necessarily the one that made it initially), did not have enough tang to put a kilij handle, just replaced the handle and put something that would work just as fine with a shorter tang. P.S. The reason I think that the handle/hilt has been replaced, is quality of the crescents on it. They differ a lot from the quality of the workmanship of the cross-guard. I think the original handle had crescents on it, which were lost as well, and that the (new)owner just wanted to have them. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
![]()
Conversely, in this conundrum, are the number of kilij (pistol grip Ottoman style) swords which have the crossguard removed, and seem to have been worn or used in this way. I cannot offhand recall the dates, but we have discussed them here, and I think some have been seen in references.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,189
|
![]()
Yes!!! ) Well done!
While some of these are the intended form as in the Indian short sword and dagger hilts, some of these seem to be Ottoman hilts sans guard, and left that way by intention. Thank you so much. Your skills at finding these illustrations are uncanny, and superb ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|