Photo thread: ROYALTY SWORDS , ARMS & ARMOUR from around the world

[Radu Transylvanicus]

Photo thread: ROYALTY SWORDS , ARMS & ARMOUR from around the world

Its been a while now since I wanted to start this thread.
To what some might seem too discriminate or too snobbish, I would think to most of us would seem like a wonderful challenging idea that only good visual joy and education could exude. Since for these pieces finances were not problematic at all, most times they are creme de la creme as one would expect employing the best armorers, the best techniques and the best materials creating supreme pieces, most times not so forged by the battle but the quintessential example of representative weapon for the nation in cause worn by its ruler.
In some cases like vassal nations, tribes, unrecognized independence or satellite states some arguments may raise but I hope we can overcome and acceptance will prevail...
Lets find the most wonderful pieces of swords, arms and armour that once or still belong to royalty and expose them to our and the public eye.
Guidance lines: IMAGE with the name of the king, sultan, emperor, shah, czar, monarch and so on or royal house and times of reign and area where it belonged to.
Example: Sword of Maximilian, Emperor of Mexico 1832 – 1867 – photo by Leiden Library from Museo Nacional de Ciudad de Mexico.

[Radu Transylvanicus]

And I guess I have the honor to start:

The early Ottoman yatagan (yataghan) made in 1526 by the armorer Ahmed Tekelu for the sultan Suleyman I the Magnificent ( Süleyman Kanuni in Turkish, the ,,Lawgiver,, 1494 - 1596 ) dimensions : 66 cm and is resting now inside the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul.

Photo 1. The yataghan
Photo 2. Hilt detail
Photo 3. Blade detail
Photo 4. Ricasso detail
Photo 5. Portrait of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent (could that be the yataghan on his sash ? )

Credits: The Age of Suleyman the Magnificent by Atil Esin, Library of Congress , 1987

Note: To give an example of forgiveness and to discourage any nationalistic comments on any further postings, I should give an example and say that the sword I am posting now belongs to the man that invaded and conquered my country in 1526... no further comments.

[Mare Rosu]

This is a link to an article from the India Tribune news paper.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/200...trum/main2.htm

[Jens Nordlunde]

Click on the headline and you will get more text.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,705,00.html

[Radu Transylvanicus]

An imperial khanjarli belonging to Mughal Shah Jahangir (1569-1627)

This khanjarli (a type of Hindustani curved/recurved dagger with knuckle guard) belonged to one of the greatest Mughal emperors, Shah Jahangir. It was likely given to him around year 1619 as a gift by one of the court potentates and after him story says it was passed on to his even more famous son, legendary Shah Jahan, constructor of the Taj Mahal; this dagger was even mentioned in Jahangir's written memoirs.
Visually extremely opulent, with the exception of the very functional blade it is completely covered in lavish decoration (a horror vacui* phenomenon comparable to the French Rococo) with geometric, floral, and zoomorphic (tiger and horse, as Jahangir loved hunting in his early days before giving into heavy opium and alcohol in late years) motifs carved. The gold hilt and scabbard of this dagger are engraved and set with rubies, emeralds, diamonds, agate, enamel, glass, and ivory of which only diamond are left in natural state, large and uncut.
Today this dagger rests in the "Al-Sabah collection" of the Kuwait National Museum, insituted 1983, from where it tours the world regularly.
Dimensions: length 35.5 cm (14 in.) width 11.6 cm (4. 5/8 in.)
Photo credits: Islamic Art and Patronage, treasures from Kuwait 1990

Radu Transylvanicus

* horror vacui - obsession of filling every little part of an art object with decoration, as encrusted, painted but mostly with carvings. It is to be observed particularly in Italian Renaissance, French Rococco, Thai sculpture, Islamic arts and Latino neighborhood cars

[tom hyle]

That pommel reminds me of the plate guard on a khanda. Could this be an indication the dagger is intended for "underhand" use?

[M.carter]

I do have a pic of Ibn Saud's sword, but its too tiny to post anyway. As for that Yataghan, while I hate Yataghans, I would say THAT is what I call a royal sword.

[erlikhan]

Picture of Topkapi dagger from Topkapi Palace Museum. Was ordered and made in Istanbul in 1730 ,intended as a gift of Sultan Mahmud 1 to Nadir shah of Iran. On the way to Iran, the couriers received the news that Shah was killed in a rebellion and they returned back with the dagger. The hilt is emerald and all those on the scabbard are diamonds.

[erlikhan]

.

[Lee]

Which of course leads me to remember a fictional movie from 1964 about a complex plot to steal same dagger, entitled Topkapi

[B.I]

again, from elliot and snowden, the dress shashqua of nicholas 2nd, czar of russia. ivory panel on the scabbard is inlaid with the czars personal monogram.

[Radu Transylvanicus]

Nice ones B.I. ! The Czar was quite the ,,foster dad,, looking at the inlayed caligraphy along the blade, its definatelly not cyrilic...

[Montino Bourbon]

Please notice the parasol on the blade of Shah Jahan's dagger, a classic symbol of royalty; Songs from the Moghul court sometimes refer to the emperor in wording such as "Shelter us under your parasol", implying the supreme protective power of the emperor.

[B.I]

the sword of ranjit singh from the wallace collection. i lifted this information from a website -

'This magnificent sword or ‘shamshir’ is one of the greatest Sikh treasures in Britain. It was acquired in Paris at some time prior to 1865 by Lord Hertford, the father of Sir Richard Wallace, founder of the Wallace Collection. He exhibited it in Paris at the ‘Musée Rétrospectif’ exhibition in that year, describing it as having belonged to ‘Runjet Sing’… an attribution that has never been doubted. It is a particularly fine and rare example of its type, the mounts being of solid gold rather than gold-damascened iron as was more usually the case with such weapons; only the most important and prestigious of swords were as richly mounted as this. The condition throughout is truly wonderful; the sword even retains its original scabbard, carrying belt and straps, all similarly mounted in pure gold. The grip is carved from exotic and highly-prized walrus ivory, probably imported at vast cost from northern Europe, while the blade is of ‘watered’ steel, a cast-crystalline crucible steel highly prized for its ‘watered’ pattern, still clearly discernable on the blade’s surface.'

an interesting point to note, this sword is item 1404 in the catalogue of 1916. laking was thorough in his appraisal, using all the accession notes (what very little there was seeing as the mojority of the pieces came from a handful of parisian auctions), his own scant knowledge of oriental arms and an apparant expert from bombay. i've tried finding more info on this 'expert' but there isnt much, although i have one more good avenue to look into. from what i gather, his 'expertise' was in the languages and terminology. this is, of course, up for debate as there are many mistakes within the catalogue. as i said, besides the mistakes, laking was thorough in including all the information he had at the time. so, why was ranjit singh never mentioned in the catalogue, which described the sword as an abbasi shamshir. another point of note. in the catalogue it describes the blade as having the 'finest qara khorassan watering'. i have no interest in terminology, nor in the many names of watering. as a collector, i know the ones that reflect the price and this is the only thing that interests me. and so, the blade holds a good strong, darkened pattern, but it is colloquelly known as 'sham' watering and this is of the lowest (commercially and finantially) grade. whether anyone would agree on the term 'sham' for this type of watering is by the by. my point is that collectively, in this day and age it would not be considered too highly (in comparison to other more striking patterns). its strange how tastes and opinions change. either way, the blade is of no consequence as the solid gold mounts and a ranjit singh association is enough to bolster the esteem of this sword were it in auction.
i've no interest in sikh pieces, as they normally are relatively late but may try and find more info on this as it would be good to know when and why the ranjit singh name was attached. although widely published, not much more info has been offered on this sword, unless anyone knows differently. hertfords knowledge and interest in oriental arms was surprisingly passing and more in the line of victorian orientalism, or 'something to hang in the billiards room'. so, if he did offer the ranjit singh attribution (which i kind of doubt due to its ommision in the catalogue) he must have had the information from the sale catalogue. i've seen many of the oriental catalogues that he owned and saw nothing of note. they are not much use as they mostly describe not much more than 'a persian sword'. an interesting point, is that when lady wallace donated the collection to the nation, she sold of his library which included the original sale catalogues. these were brought back (supposedly complete) some 30 years later from a well known aniquarian bookseller in london. there is scant handwritten notes as although hertford bought from auction, in many cases he used 'buyers' like spitzer to do the bidding for him.

[ksbhati]

Hi B.I.

Nice post with an interesting connection. Just a thought....The dagger in the painting does not have the top scabbard mount whereas the actual dagger does....?? Do you think the painter could have made a mistake like that considering that he was doing a painting with so much realistic detail...that too for the emperor of India...where mistakes could mean the loss of your head...?? Must admit though that it does look like the emperors dagger .

Regards,

Karni