Shamshir ?

S.Al-Anizi · 8th December 2006, 07:07 PM

Well, literally, shamshir means sword in Persian, so how does a curvature classify whats to be called a shamshir and whats not??

Rivkin · 8th December 2006, 07:45 PM

I meant shamshir as in collector's slang shamshir, i.e. highly curved persian sabre. I do not share the sentiment that we need to use names consistent with local persian attributions.

Emanuel · 8th December 2006, 08:35 PM

Hello,

If it is Persian and it is not a shamshir and definitely not a kilij, what other kind of sabre can it be? Are there other types/names?
I had thought the name applied to persian sabres with a relatively thin curved blade...thinner than a tulwar for example. There are some tulwar with extreme curvature as well no?

Emanuel

Jim McDougall · 8th December 2006, 09:04 PM

Once again, getting into colloquial terms, especially 'collectors terms' causes certain problems in trying to classify weapons. For example the well worn term 'scimitar' used consistantly in Victorian romanticism has virtually no place in describing any particular weapon, and the term evolved actually from loose transliteration of the term 'shamshir'. I agree that trying to determine which sabre is a shamshir and which is a tulwar or kilij can be maddening.

It seems to me that a shamshir blade is of wide range of curvature from quite shallow to fully parabolic, and I have seen deeply Parabolic Persian blades mounted with the typical Ottoman hilt seen on kilij. I cannot decide whether this should be called an Ottoman shamshir or Persian kilij!

It seems most likely to call it a shamshir in Ottoman mounts.

The Indian tulwars are also frustrating. While typically mounted in what collectors term 'Indo-Persian' hilt, there are examples that seem to come from regions in Sind, that carry a solid steel Persian type 'shamshir' hilt.
Would this be a tulwar or a shamshir? Since the hilt carries distinctive 'tulwar' elements (the langets and the characteristic quillon terminals) it seems it should be classified tulwar with Persian form hilt.

It seems with many hybrid forms it is virtually impossible to escape more detailed wording in classifying them.Often even when new research has revealed a term to be incorrectly used (such as in the case of jemadhar vs. katar) it is difficult to unseat terms that have become imbedded in the long established vocabulary used in discussion (i.e. collectors terms).

Best regards,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 8th December 2006, 09:43 PM

Then tell me, what is this?
Is it a tullwar or is it a shamshir?
Learned members of the forum

spiral · 8th December 2006, 10:14 PM

Well in kukri we also run across this western need for single word pigion holing & naming labels,

But as always a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,

As long as we have the ability to use a sentace rather than one word to describe a weapon or tool I think thats the option I generaly prefer.

So many of them are highly individual & would escape round any exact catergerisations we imagined the label should match & Photos always help for clarity of discusian to of course!

Thats a nice heavily curved shamshir or perhaps more killj type blade with a lovely & ornate tulwar grip & typical Indian riccaso you have there Jens.

Spiral

Emanuel · 8th December 2006, 10:18 PM

Hello again,

How about the broad characteristics of the blade? A long ricasso area and wide blade exemplifies the tulwar, while the yelman is a kilij feature. Does the classical Persian shamshir have either of these? Did Persians commonly use wide blades with yelmans?
I understand these cannot be generalized to all pieces, but do they at least apply to the majority?

Regards,
Emanuel

8th December 2006, 09:43 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Then tell me, what is this? Is it a tullwar or is it a shamshir? Learned members of the forum Attached Images

8th December 2006, 10:18 PM	#7
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	[confused emoticon] Hello again, How about the broad characteristics of the blade? A long ricasso area and wide blade exemplifies the tulwar, while the yelman is a kilij feature. Does the classical Persian shamshir have either of these? Did Persians commonly use wide blades with yelmans? I understand these cannot be generalized to all pieces, but do they at least apply to the majority? Regards, Emanuel

8th December 2006, 07:07 PM	#1
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	Well, literally, shamshir means sword in Persian, so how does a curvature classify whats to be called a shamshir and whats not??

8th December 2006, 07:45 PM	#2
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I meant shamshir as in collector's slang shamshir, i.e. highly curved persian sabre. I do not share the sentiment that we need to use names consistent with local persian attributions.

8th December 2006, 08:35 PM	#3
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Hello, If it is Persian and it is not a shamshir and definitely not a kilij, what other kind of sabre can it be? Are there other types/names? I had thought the name applied to persian sabres with a relatively thin curved blade...thinner than a tulwar for example. There are some tulwar with extreme curvature as well no? Emanuel

8th December 2006, 09:04 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Once again, getting into colloquial terms, especially 'collectors terms' causes certain problems in trying to classify weapons. For example the well worn term 'scimitar' used consistantly in Victorian romanticism has virtually no place in describing any particular weapon, and the term evolved actually from loose transliteration of the term 'shamshir'. I agree that trying to determine which sabre is a shamshir and which is a tulwar or kilij can be maddening. It seems to me that a shamshir blade is of wide range of curvature from quite shallow to fully parabolic, and I have seen deeply Parabolic Persian blades mounted with the typical Ottoman hilt seen on kilij. I cannot decide whether this should be called an Ottoman shamshir or Persian kilij! It seems most likely to call it a shamshir in Ottoman mounts. The Indian tulwars are also frustrating. While typically mounted in what collectors term 'Indo-Persian' hilt, there are examples that seem to come from regions in Sind, that carry a solid steel Persian type 'shamshir' hilt. Would this be a tulwar or a shamshir? Since the hilt carries distinctive 'tulwar' elements (the langets and the characteristic quillon terminals) it seems it should be classified tulwar with Persian form hilt. It seems with many hybrid forms it is virtually impossible to escape more detailed wording in classifying them.Often even when new research has revealed a term to be incorrectly used (such as in the case of jemadhar vs. katar) it is difficult to unseat terms that have become imbedded in the long established vocabulary used in discussion (i.e. collectors terms). Best regards, Jim

8th December 2006, 10:14 PM	#6
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	Well in kukri we also run across this western need for single word pigion holing & naming labels, But as always a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, As long as we have the ability to use a sentace rather than one word to describe a weapon or tool I think thats the option I generaly prefer. So many of them are highly individual & would escape round any exact catergerisations we imagined the label should match & Photos always help for clarity of discusian to of course! Thats a nice heavily curved shamshir or perhaps more killj type blade with a lovely & ornate tulwar grip & typical Indian riccaso you have there Jens. Spiral