Turkish Shamshir
10 Attachment(s)
Hi Everyone,
I think that I may have what I believe to be a 19thC Turkish Shamshir and would welcome your confirmation or other wise and any comments you may have. Thanking you in advance Miguel |
1 Attachment(s)
Forgot to include Armourers stamp.
Miguel |
You are correct: definitely Ottoman and 19th century. I do believe this is one of the early military regulation patterns in the Ottoman army. It would appear that officers were allowed to keep heirloom blades and re-hilt them, as I have seen all kinds of blades with this hilt pattern.
Sincerely, Teodor |
Yes, it's a beautiful Turkish officer sword, called also Turkish military sword.
I have one too that I'll post later. But yours is better, with the stamp... This kind of sword is from 1890-1910...Maybe yours is slightly early from 1870-1890... I like the old and funny try to fix the guard. Last point, it's not a shamshir, but a kilij in Turkish or a saif in Arabic. Best, Kubur |
Agree with Teodor, many of these have all kinds of blades, European and/or earlier blades. I saw a few with early wootz blades.
Do you think this blade is Persian, Caucasian, or could be Armenian(?). Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree, but to complete your post Kilij is a sword in Turkish, no more. "Pronounced curve and yelman", I guess you describe a pala Best, Kubur |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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, |
Quote:
:D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. :cool: |
Quote:
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 :) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
But my point is: it's wrong to call Indo-Persian sword an Arabian sword, don't you disagree? :) :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The word saif predates this hilt design by well, quite alot of time. The Arabs called swords "saif" (I emphasize that saif simply means sword) even when sword hilts are of a different design. So how come this type of hilt became 'saif' ?
|
exactly my point, Lotfy. I also did not understand how something would become something else all of the sudden) thank you for making it so clear.
|
Quote:
Regards Miguel |
I think the sword discussed in the link bellow http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...european+blade fits in the discusion! It has a european blade with a pala hilt.
|
Quote:
Regards Miguel |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.