Shamshir, ID and translation please

ariel · 1st March 2017, 06:37 PM

The very last picture in the Royston's array shows small pieces of handle material inserted by the crossguard and the pommel seems to show discolorations (?) at the inner parts. I cannot be certain whether it is the minor remnant of the inner part of the cattle bone or true ivory: only Royston can tell.
If it is a Mameluke style ( which it is) it cannot date to 18th century. Those appeared only in the 19th, more around the middle of it.
It lacks the precision of British General grade Mamelukes, thus I would suspect native Indian manufacture.

Tim Simmons · 1st March 2017, 09:13 PM

The rough finish bothered me too.

Tim Simmons · 1st March 2017, 09:17 PM

Why is the grip more corroded than the blade? It is usually the other way round.

sfenoid13 · 1st March 2017, 09:25 PM

I know this is not related but why cant I post or respond to posts in the "swap" forum?

ariel · 2nd March 2017, 01:37 AM

Tim,

I think the blade was just cleaned. There is rust under and around the langets. .

I do not think this Mameluke was "re-assembled": IMHO it is 100% genuine. Old, mildly repaired, but genuine.

Gavin Nugent · 2nd March 2017, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

The very last picture in the Royston's array shows small pieces of handle material inserted by the crossguard and the pommel seems to show discolorations (?) at the inner parts. I cannot be certain whether it is the minor remnant of the inner part of the cattle bone or true ivory: only Royston can tell.
If it is a Mameluke style ( which it is) it cannot date to 18th century. Those appeared only in the 19th, more around the middle of it.
It lacks the precision of British General grade Mamelukes, thus I would suspect native Indian manufacture.

Ariel,

Many early Ottoman, Persian and Indian blades have been mounted in the Mameluke "English" dress.
As Delar notes, In 1822, Official sanction was given for the sword type to be included in the dress regulations for the British army....prior to this he notes, that from 1805-1822 there is evidence of use in the elite units of the army. By 1810, the sword type had established itself.
Of note, Swords for Sea service show two Ottoman and one Persian swords presented to Officers...this and what Delar notes about the sacking of various arsenals, it is easy to see the transition of the sword type from regulation hilt styles with earlier non EU blades to the form as it is known today.

Gavin

ariel · 2nd March 2017, 04:21 PM

That's exactly what I had in mind: the "British" handle without the D-guard and with a smaller round pommel became popular toward the mid-19 century. That was a classic Europeanized Mameluke sword. Also, there is a matter of semantics: what do we mean "Mameluke"? Wellington carried what he and others called a "Mameluke" from his service in India, but that was a very Indianized sword, with all-metal brass (?) handle, D- guard and Tulwar-like langets.

The one under discussion is a somewhat crudish copy of the classic British one, 1831 pattern, but without sculpted British cross guard, with Oriental decorations on the strap, Oriental blade, crude lion mark. All together , these features suggest to me a non-Iranian attempt to produce a British type of a Mameluke sword. These were made in India both pre and post Sepoy mutiny, likely mostly for British officers. That's why I vote for its Indian origin and 19 century.

2nd March 2017, 04:21 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	That's exactly what I had in mind: the "British" handle without the D-guard and with a smaller round pommel became popular toward the mid-19 century. That was a classic Europeanized Mameluke sword. Also, there is a matter of semantics: what do we mean "Mameluke"? Wellington carried what he and others called a "Mameluke" from his service in India, but that was a very Indianized sword, with all-metal brass (?) handle, D- guard and Tulwar-like langets. The one under discussion is a somewhat crudish copy of the classic British one, 1831 pattern, but without sculpted British cross guard, with Oriental decorations on the strap, Oriental blade, crude lion mark. All together , these features suggest to me a non-Iranian attempt to produce a British type of a Mameluke sword. These were made in India both pre and post Sepoy mutiny, likely mostly for British officers. That's why I vote for its Indian origin and 19 century. Last edited by ariel; 2nd March 2017 at 04:32 PM.

1st March 2017, 06:37 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The very last picture in the Royston's array shows small pieces of handle material inserted by the crossguard and the pommel seems to show discolorations (?) at the inner parts. I cannot be certain whether it is the minor remnant of the inner part of the cattle bone or true ivory: only Royston can tell. If it is a Mameluke style ( which it is) it cannot date to 18th century. Those appeared only in the 19th, more around the middle of it. It lacks the precision of British General grade Mamelukes, thus I would suspect native Indian manufacture.

1st March 2017, 09:13 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	The rough finish bothered me too.

1st March 2017, 09:17 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	Why is the grip more corroded than the blade? It is usually the other way round.

1st March 2017, 09:25 PM	#4
sfenoid13 Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 134	I know this is not related but why cant I post or respond to posts in the "swap" forum?

2nd March 2017, 01:37 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Tim, I think the blade was just cleaned. There is rust under and around the langets. . I do not think this Mameluke was "re-assembled": IMHO it is 100% genuine. Old, mildly repaired, but genuine.