Deccan tulwar

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

I see. It is very similar to the case of the translation of Jahangir-name and the term of "phool-katara". There is nothing in Adab al-habr wa'l-shaja'a (by Fakr-i- Mudabbir in Delhi early 13th century) about trade from Europe to China. Moreover, there is nothing about the superiority of European blades. On the contrary, the author of the manuscript calls Indian swords the best of all kind of swords. Where did you find "several examples of Indian preference of European , including English , blades" in the 13th century?

Yes, the author of the manuscript names some kind of swords known to him: Sinhalese, Khazar, Byzantine, Yemeni, Kashmir, Chinese and even Russian. But, firstly, the manuscript itself is largely a fantasy text (the sword was invented by Jamshid), and secondly, as it is usually in the case of medieval Persian-language manuscripts, it conveys not actual and reliable information, but retells the beliefs and legends of the past or information from previous manuscripts.

Besides, how does this prove that in the 16th century there were Chinese swords in the Deccan or, for example, Russian or Khazar ones? A cherry on top

Indeed, Fakr-i-Mudabbir's m/s does not extol the superiority of Indian or Chinese blades. Please read carefully: Elgood simply quotes Digby's interpretation of Mudabbir's text as indicative of trade of Mosliem societies with China. Elgood mentions Indian preference for European ( and, after 16 century, British) blades in several other places of his chapter. Elgood's chapter or other sources do not even address the issue whether there were Chinese swords in Deccan in the 16 century. But we just have enough evidence of direct Chinese-Indian trade well before that. Did it include swords or just decorative elements is not well known and deserves investigation by professionals. Neither I nor you can claim this title. Professionalism requires full-time immersion in the subject, adherence to the facts, ability to admit one's errors and respect for the real "gurus". Without the first, one is just a dilettante, but lack of the latter 3 characteristics implies fakery and arrogance that are incompatible with true professionalism.

Please pay attention: in my first post I just asked a very simple question: was the sword of Qutb Quli Shah influenced by Chinese examples? I expected a professional answer. Regretfully, your unsupported and unsupportable pronouncements were quite unhelpful.

One is entitled to his opinions, so please feel free to present them. However, they better be based on facts to be taken seriously.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Professionalism requires full-time immersion in the subject, adherence to the facts, ability to admit one's errors and respect for the real "gurus". Without the first, one is just a dilettante, but lack of the latter 3 characteristics implies fakery and arrogance that are incompatible with true professionalism.

Originally Posted by ariel

One is entitled to his opinions, so please feel free to present them. However, they better be based on facts to be taken seriously.

I agree with you completely.But I'm still trying to understand the quote you provided:

According to Simon Digby, the evidence given by Fakr-i-Mudabbir in Delhi in the early thirteenth century suggests "a trade in arms extending through the medieval Islamic world from Europe to China" with European blades usually being considered sharper and better than Indian ones

Is it correct?

So I have a question. How from the text of the source, which clearly says that of all the existing swords, the best are Indian ones, someone brings out that the best are European (!) and at the same time you add "including English"? The manuscript told about Firangi swords, and there is no mention of "English swords".

But Russian swords are mentioned there (Rusi swords). Then can I conclude, if the rules of science are the same for everyone, that Russian swords were known in India of the 13th century (the author of the manuscript testifies that all the swords he mentioned are good enough), and that in the 13th century a trade of Russian swords was extending through the medieval Islamic world from Europe to China?

[ariel]

Rus has nothing to do with the current definition of Russia: Rus were Normans .
In the 13 century “ Russia’ as a state did not even exist: there were smal solitary city-states ruled by local princes who were all ( except the North) vassalls of the Golden Horde. Local swords were Norman , changed to Mongol sabers, and Peter I tried to convert Russia into a part of Europe and tried to rearm his army with European weapons. The Cossacks armed themselves with Ottoman and Persian sabers. In the early 19 century,as a result of Russo-Caucasian war, shashkas were introduced: aristocracy, royal family included, were prone to carry real Caucasian shashkas, but for the unwashed masses a saber was created and called
“ shashka” despite having nothing common with the original one.
Thus, Russia as such never had a truly national, original sword. Even in the 13 century:-)
As to the sentence you ask about, open the Elgood’s chapter and re-read it. Hopefully, it will help you clarify its meaning.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Rus has nothing to do with the current definition of Russia: Rus were Normans .
In the 13 century “ Russia’ as a state did not even exist: there were smal solitary city-states ruled by local princes who were all ( except the North) vassalls of the Golden Horde. Local swords were Norman , changed to Mongol sabers, and Peter I tried to convert Russia into a part of Europe and tried to rearm his army with European weapons. The Cossacks armed themselves with Ottoman and Persian sabers. In the early 19 century,as a result of Russo-Caucasian war, shashkas were introduced: aristocracy, royal family included, were prone to carry real Caucasian shashkas, but for the unwashed masses a saber was created and called
“ shashka” despite having nothing common with the original one.
Thus, Russia as such never had a truly national, original sword. Even in the 13 century:-)
As to the sentence you ask about, open the Elgood’s chapter and re-read it. Hopefully, it will help you clarify its meaning.

You change the topic every time and run away from the discussion. It's not serious. If you want to discuss all the scientific theories of the origin of the Rus, and not just the Wikipedia article, let's go to the relevant forums, here it's offtop.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

You change the topic every time and run away from the discussion. It's not serious. If you want to discuss all the scientific theories of the origin of the Rus, and not just the Wikipedia article, let's go to the relevant forums, here it's offtop.

I am not changing the subject: it was you who mentioned “Russian” swords of 13 century. I just clarified that while we can legitimately speak of swords manufactured in Russia after ~ 15-16 century, we cannot speak of original Russian national swords at all. Rus of pre-Christian era or around referred to Norman ( or Viking, if one prefers) people. Throughout history, people of what is now called Russia always used swords that either came to them from elsewhere or were modeled on foreign ideas and examples.
That was all. Just let’s be more precise in our definitions.

After all, we clearly distinguish purely Hindu weapons from the imported Islamic or the European ones even though the latter two were ubiquitous throughout the subcontinent. AFAIK, no Hindu citizen of India has any inferiority complex about it.
Weapons moved and the vanquished or just subjugated adopted the weapons of the victors. The only exception that I can come up with is the popularity and adoption of Caucasian arms by the victorious Russian Empire.

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by ariel

Rus has nothing to do with the current definition of Russia: Rus were Normans .
Local swords were Norman
Thus, Russia as such never had a truly national, original sword. Even in the 13 century:-)

In the 13th century, the Normans were the people of the Channel Islands off the coast of France.
Perhaps you called the Normans the ruling class of the English kingdom? Then you can really speculate about English swords in 13th century India

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

In the 13th century, the Normans were the people of the Channel Islands off the coast of France.
Perhaps you called the Normans the ruling class of the English kingdom? Then you can really speculate about English swords in 13th century India

Serge, let's say that Normans are Varangians, what will change from this?
Have you already found a solution to the problem with the old 500-year truth that does not fit into a convenient system? In whose favor is your decision?

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by Saracen

Serge, let's say that Normans are Varangians, what will change from this?

Firstly, when talking about the swords mentioned in the treatise of the 13th century, it is completely incorrect to use the concepts of "Normans" or "Varangians". By this time, the Normans and Varangians had already gone down in history for 200 years. Therefore, when discussing the treatise, the only correct solution would be to use the term that the author used (of course, if there is no goal to mislead the interlocutors).

Secondly, neither the Normans or the Varangians, nor any of the inhabitants of the North of Europe invented any special sword design. The design of their weapons belongs to the Carolingian sword. In addition, as modern research shows, most of the swords used in Northern Europe were made in the Lower Rhine region (on the territory of modern Germany), where metallurgical and weapons production flourished since the time of the Roman Empire.
Today, researchers of ancient weapons are unanimous in their opinion that the Carolingian sword is a direct descendant of the spatha, the long sword of the cavalry of the Roman Empire. In turn, the design of the spatha was borrowed by the victorious Romans (Attention! Drum roll!!!) from the Gauls they defeated! This is indisputable, it is possible to discuss only the moment in time at which the borrowing occurred.

Originally Posted by Saracen

Have you already found a solution to the problem with the old 500-year truth that does not fit into a convenient system? In whose favor is your decision?

Arthur, thank you for not forgetting about the complexities of my choice. But now the truth is different - you asked this question not because you want to help me (if you did, you would have asked me this question in another thread and on another forum), but because Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Firstly, when talking about the swords mentioned in the treatise of the 13th century, it is completely incorrect to use the concepts of "Normans" or "Varangians". By this time, the Normans and Varangians had already gone down in history for 200 years. Therefore, when discussing the treatise, the only correct solution would be to use the term that the author used (of course, if there is no goal to mislead the interlocutors).

Secondly, neither the Normans or the Varangians, nor any of the inhabitants of the North of Europe invented any special sword design. The design of their weapons belongs to the Carolingian sword. In addition, as modern research shows, most of the swords used in Northern Europe were made in the Lower Rhine region (on the territory of modern Germany), where metallurgical and weapons production flourished since the time of the Roman Empire.
Today, researchers of ancient weapons are unanimous in their opinion that the Carolingian sword is a direct descendant of the spatha, the long sword of the cavalry of the Roman Empire. In turn, the design of the spatha was borrowed by the victorious Romans (Attention! Drum roll!!!) from the Gauls they defeated! This is indisputable, it is possible to discuss only the moment in time at which the borrowing occurred.

I don't know why you needed to write such a long text about the origin of the Carolingian sword with well-known information. But thanks for that.
The question was, what would change in the meaning of Ariel's message if we used any of these terms, including the term used by the author of the treatise?

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Arthur, thank you for not forgetting about the complexities of my choice. But now the truth is different - you asked this question not because you want to help me (if you did, you would have asked me this question in another thread and on another forum), but because Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

This question was related to the first one. I wanted to say that by juggling terms whose time boundaries are somewhat blurred, you are not completely honest here. Just as you are not completely honest in another thread on another forum. It was an analogy, not a question.

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

You flatter yourself too much here.
But at the same time you flatter me, so I have absolutely no complaints about this part

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

I always appreciate constructive help. That’s the main reason I come to this site.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

In the 13th century, the Normans were the people of the Channel Islands off the coast of France.
Perhaps you called the Normans the ruling class of the English kingdom? Then you can really speculate about English swords in 13th century India

Yes, post 1066 Normans became the ruling class in England, and that is still felt by the double definitions of certain things in the English language.
There were no Brits in the 13 century India, so it is a moot point.