Turkish Shamshir

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by ALEX

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(?).



Kubur, as you know Kilij and Saif mean "sword" or "saber" in their respective languages. in a conventional sense, "Kilij" has more pronounced curve and yelman, and generally wider blade. Miguel's sword is variation of both, but is a shamshir nevertheless.

Hi Alex, Thanks for your comments, I am not sure where the blade was made I have been trying to match the stamp but without success so far.
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by ALEX

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(?).



Kubur, as you know Kilij and Saif mean "sword" or "saber" in their respective languages. in a conventional sense, "Kilij" has more pronounced curve and yelman, and generally wider blade. Miguel's sword is variation of both, but is a shamshir nevertheless.

Hi Alex, Thanks for your comments, I do not know where the blade was made and have been trying to match the stamp without success so far.
Regards
Miguel

[Kubur]

I have seen some stamps like that on Persian qaddara.
One member said that these Persian blades are from Caucasus, but he's a not a reliable source on Persian weapons. But I come back to your blade, the question stays open, it could be from Persia or Caucasus (because of the groves similar to some shashqa).

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Miguel, nice example, thanks for posting, its hard to tell from the photos but do the fittings have a gold tint?

Hi Estcrh, Thanks for your comments, much clearer pics than mine I am afraid that I am no very good at taking photos due to vision problems. The tint you can see is brass which must have been originally silvered.
Regards
Miguel

[estcrh]

A few different saif/sayf references. The top left image is from George Stones book, he shows an Indian sword and a sword from Java as being saif, Stone mentions saif as having a "hooked pommel". The top right image from the "Official Report of the Calcutta International Exhibition, 1883-84" mentions two types of Indian swords as being "saif-i-janubi" and "saif-i-halbi". The third image is from "Oriental Armour" by H. Russell Robinson, he calls Mamluk swords "saif". The bottom two images are from Artzi, they show two completely different types of swords being called "saif".

[ALEX]

All these swords are Arabian saifs. What is your point?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

All these swords are Arabian saifs. What is your point?

Originally Posted by ALEX

Saif is an Arabic word for "sword", and represents Arabian/Bedouin sword type with (usually) straight blade. The one pictured above is Indian.

The point is that saif can be curved as well as straight and they can be Indian in origin.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

The point is that saif can be curved as well as straight and they can be Indian in origin.

You're trying to prove a point without completely understanding it. Noone said saif cannot be curved, although it is usually straight(ish). But saif is not Indian in origin, period. the descriptions in Stone's book are inaccurate and you're repeating them without considering other reliable sources). These are Arabian swords, not Indian or Javan!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

You're trying to prove a point without completely understanding it. Noone said saif cannot be curved, although it is usually straight(ish). But saif is not Indian in origin, period. the descriptions in Stone's book are inaccurate and you're repeating them without considering other reliable sources). These are Arabian swords, not Indian or Javan!

Alex, maybe your the one who is not understanding, where did I say that the saif was Indian in origin....no were. I am not "proving" any point, I am explaining why some collectors and dealers etc may consider swords to be saif that you may not. Were are your "reliable sources", I have posted some maybe you can show some references that back up your statements. If a sword was made in India (or Java) in the manner of a saif then it can be called a saif. What is your proof that Stone (and Artzi) are wrong?? Where is your proof that a saif is usually straight(ish)? Lets see some references or is this all from our personal knowledge.

[ALEX]

Estcrh, you may call every sword a Saif... and you'll be right. But please do not manipulate and misrepresent my words! I did not say that Artzi was wrong, and I did not say that Saif is always straight. I said it is (usually) straight. look, out of all Saifs pictured only a few have curved shamshir-like blades, most are almost straight, very slightly curved, this is what I meant by straigh(ish), and this may be wrong term. and also that there's a mistake in Stone's description, even though he stated that Saif is an Arab sword (not Indian), the mistake is in Indian and Javan description of 2 Arab swords. Based on it, you concluded that Saif: "can be Indian in origin" (I quote your own words). I am afraid I cannot help if you need more proof and evidences of said.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Estcrh, you may call every sword a Saif... and you'll be right. But please do not manipulate and misrepresent my words! I did not say that Artzi was wrong, and I did not say that Saif is always straight. I said it is (usually) straight. look, out of all Saifs pictured only a few have curved shamshir-like blades, most are almost straight, very slightly curved, this is what I meant by straigh(ish), and this may be wrong term. and also that there's a mistake in Stone's description, even though he stated that Saif is an Arab sword (not Indian), the mistake is in Indian and Javan description of 2 Arab swords. Based on it, you concluded that Saif: "can be Indian in origin" (I quote your own words). I am afraid I cannot help if you need more proof and evidences of said.

Let me enter in the "dance", I vote for Alex! But I would like to add something:
Saif is the Arabic word for sword, no more. It can be - and not should be - apply to Arabic swords.
Another point a kilij has not necessary a yelman. It's a sword in Turkish, point.
I have a kilij with no yelman.
I never saw a tulwar with an Ottoman hilt. But I'm sure that's exist somewhere, true or fake... I have seen a lot of strange combinations since the lats years...
And again the origin of the blade doesn't define a sword.
An Arabian sword with a Persian blade is an Arabian sword, called sometimes saif sometimes Arabian shamshir by collectors...
Kubur

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Alex, maybe your the one who is not understanding, where did I say that the saif was Indian in origin....no were. I am not "proving" any point, I am explaining why some collectors and dealers etc may consider swords to be saif that you may not. Were are your "reliable sources", I have posted some maybe you can show some references that back up your statements. If a sword was made in India (or Java) in the manner of a saif then it can be called a saif. What is your proof that Stone (and Artzi) are wrong?? Where is your proof that a saif is usually straight(ish)? Lets see some references or is this all from our personal knowledge.

Every sword can be called a saif if you are using Arabic. Just like how every sword can be called sword if you are using English.

The swords you have posted are all Arabic, so naturally an Arab who probably used that sword would still call it 'saif'

As for saifs being straight or straight-ish there are elements of truth in it but I do not know any reference that mentions Arabs using only straight or straight-ish examples. All was used, but mildly curved swords were favoured.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Estcrh, you may call every sword a Saif... and you'll be right. But please do not manipulate and misrepresent my words! I did not say that Artzi was wrong, and I did not say that Saif is always straight. I said it is (usually) straight. look, out of all Saifs pictured only a few have curved shamshir-like blades, most are almost straight, very slightly curved, this is what I meant by straigh(ish), and this may be wrong term. and also that there's a mistake in Stone's description, even though he stated that Saif is an Arab sword (not Indian), the mistake is in Indian and Javan description of 2 Arab swords. Based on it, you concluded that Saif: "can be Indian in origin" (I quote your own words). I am afraid I cannot help if you need more proof and evidences of said.

Here are Artzi's words, sounds to me like you are saying he is wrong if you insist that saif are usually straight, and while you are complaining about me "misrepresenting" your words maybe you can stop misrepresenting mine. I always love it when someone says that they can not provide any references to back up what they are saying but you just have to believe that they are right and you are wrong...humm.

The word Saif in Arabic is a general name for a curved sword

[A.alnakkas]

While you are replying to Alex here I must say that I find Artzi's description of saif meaning curved sword is incorrect.

Saif does not translate to curved sword. Nor were curved swords the only swords called 'saif'

Every sword, be it curved or not, is called saif in Arabic.

[A.alnakkas]

Btw Eric,

Usamah ibn Almunkidh is an Arab, not 'saracenic' whatever that means.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Here are Artzi's words, sounds to me like you are saying he is wrong if you insist that saif are usually straight, and while you are complaining about me "misrepresenting" your words maybe you can stop misrepresenting mine. I always love it when someone says that they can not provide any references to back up what they are saying but you just have to believe that they are right and you are wrong...humm.

Estcrh, it is meaningless to play the game of words and discuss nuances of "usually" and "straight-ish", while failing to see the big picture - the differences between Arabian and Indian swords! I am out of this "discussion".

going back to original topic, anyone can translate this:

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

While you are replying to Alex here I must say that I find Artzi's description of saif meaning curved sword is incorrect.

Saif does not translate to curved sword. Nor were curved swords the only swords called 'saif'

Every sword, be it curved or not, is called saif in Arabic.

Since no one here can seem to find any references to back up what they are saying I will provide a few more.

I was sent this quote supposedly from "The Arms and Armour of Arabia in the 18Th-19th and 20th Centuries", Robert Elgood, 1994. Since I do not have the book I can not verify it this is correct, if anyone does have it maybe they can check and see if it is.

The curved sword or sabre, known as a saif was usually locally made and derived from Persia from where it was imported or from Egypt, Iraq and Syria. These countries imitated the Persian blade form and adopted the technology.

The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration, William Irvine, 1903.

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Since no one here can seem to find any references to back up what they are saying I will provide a few more.

I was sent this quote supposedly from "The Arms and Armour of Arabia in the 18Th-19th and 20th Centuries", Robert Elgood, 1994. Since I do not have the book I can not verify it this is correct, if anyone does have it maybe they can check and see if it is.



The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration, William Irvine, 1903.

Do I need to reference using my own language? Saif is a word much older than the 18th, 19th and 20th century and Elgood here is referring to saifs with Persian blades. And saifs could have curved, straight, shallow curved blades from Europe to India, it will still be called a saif.

Also, he mentioned the term 'sabre' which is the key term here, rather than curved which can be confusing. The arab swords with a shallow curve are still considered sabres.

As for the word 'Tegh' being Arabic, I believe thats completely wrong. Its a Persian word.

It has nothing to do with a hilt type, I am afraid. It has to do with the object as a whole.

Yes, the tulwar hilted sword will be called a saif, by an Arab using the Arabic language. So is the many other types of swords.

[Kubur]

It is amazing that you talk to each others and you don't give a shit to what i wrote previously. If you take in consideration the others you will learn something. I can understand that people are leaving this forum with such a low level. And I talk about you three guys!

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by Kubur

It is amazing that you talk to each others and you don't give a shit to what i wrote previously. If you take in consideration the others you will learn something. I can understand that people are leaving this forum with such a low level. And I talk about you three guys!

Hey Kubur, Eric, and everyone else,

Apologies to anyone I may have offended. Kubur, we are basically on the same line, thus I did not see a necessity to respond to you. Would it count if I nodded as I read your comment?

Eric; the issue is that local terms are being confused with 'collector' terms. There should be a post dedicated to what collectors should call items and what the locals and users of those items (historically or contemporary) called said items.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

Eric; the issue is that local terms are being confused with 'collector' terms. There should be a post dedicated to what collectors should call items and what the locals and users of those items (historically or contemporary) called said items.

I agree completely, this is what I have been saying in my posts. I personally am not making anything up, I am just showing references that may have influenced past uses of the word, whether they are accurate or not. Local armor and weapons terms and use have always been subject to the whims of visitors, not just in Arab countries.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by Kubur

It is amazing that you talk to each others and you don't give a shit to what i wrote previously. If you take in consideration the others you will learn something. I can understand that people are leaving this forum with such a low level. And I talk about you three guys!

I don't agree with you about the term "to learn"... these are your words from previous post, Kubur But seriously, the problem here is that people arguing about terminology and picking minor differences in descriptions and words based on what they saw or read somewhere. It is meaningless to argue what sword to call a sword, and to not know the difference between them I think you know the difference, but getting drugged into semantic.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Hi Estcrh, Thanks for your comments, much clearer pics than mine I am afraid that I am no very good at taking photos due to vision problems. The tint you can see is brass which must have been originally silvered.
Regards
Miguel

Thanks for your answer Miguel. Your photos are good, I just used an editor to crop them and to make a panoramic image which makes it easer to see all of the photos at one time.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

It is amazing that you talk to each others and you don't give a shit to what i wrote previously. If you take in consideration the others you will learn something. I can understand that people are leaving this forum with such a low level. And I talk about you three guys!

Kuber, do you have any references to back up your views?

Originally Posted by Kubur

Let me enter in the "dance", I vote for Alex! But I would like to add something:
Saif is the Arabic word for sword, no more. It can be - and not should be - apply to Arabic swords.

And again the origin of the blade doesn't define a sword.
An Arabian sword with a Persian blade is an Arabian sword, called sometimes saif sometimes Arabian shamshir by collectors...
Kubur

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Kuber, do you have any references to back up your views?

By references, do you mean:

- catalogues like Pinchot or Hales?

- or scientific references like Elgood?

Yes I have "The Arms and Armour of Arabia in the 18Th-19th and 20th Centuries".

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

Btw Eric,

Usamah ibn Almunkidh is an Arab, not 'saracenic' whatever that means.

Robinson was relaying a quote from Usamah's memoirs, he was describing the equipment of an Emir in Ayyubid times

Saracen
[sar-uh-suh n]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
History/Historical. a member of any of the nomadic tribes on the Syrian borders of the Roman Empire.
2.
(in later use) an Arab.
3.
a Muslim, especially in the period of the Crusades.
adjective
4.
Also, Saracenic [sar-uh-sen-ik] (Show IPA), Saracenical. of or relating to the Saracens.

From Wikipedia.

Majd ad-Dīn Usāma ibn Murshid ibn ʿAlī ibn Munqidh al-Kināni al-Kalbi[1] (also Usamah, Ousama, etc.; Arabic: أسامة بن منقذ‎) (July 4, 1095 – November 17, 1188[2]) was a medieval Muslim poet, author, faris (knight), and diplomat from the Banu Munqidh dynasty of Shaizar in northern Syria. His life coincided with the rise of several medieval Muslim dynasties, the arrival of the First Crusade, and the establishment of the crusader states.

During and immediately after his life he was most famous as a poet and adib (a "man of letters"). In modern times he is remembered for his Kitab al-I'tibar ("Book of Learning by Example" or "Book of Contemplation"), which contains lengthy descriptions of the crusaders, whom he interacted with on many occasions, and some of whom he considered friends, although he generally saw them as ignorant foreigners. He died in Damascus in 1188, at the age of 93.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

By references, do you mean:

- catalogues like Pinchot or Hales?

- or scientific references like Elgood?

Yes I have "The Arms and Armour of Arabia in the 18Th-19th and 20th Centuries".

Any written/printed reference (right or wrong) that helps explain why somone may have certain views on the topic of saif.

Since you have Elgoods book can you verify the quote I posted, does he have anything else to say on the subject ?

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Robinson was relaying a quote from Usamah's memoirs, he was describing the equipment of an Emir in Ayyubid times



From Wikipedia.

Yep, but the key point is that Usamah ibn almunkidh is an Arab from the Banu Munkidh tribe.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Any written/printed reference (right or wrong) that helps explain why somone may have certain views on the topic of saif.

Since you have Elgoods book can you verify the quote I posted, does he have anything else to say on the subject ?

I will, do you have the page number? Or I have to look at the whole chapter?
I suggest to read also Alexander and Zaki.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

Hey Kubur, Eric, and everyone else,

Apologies to anyone I may have offended. Kubur, we are basically on the same line, thus I did not see a necessity to respond to you. Would it count if I nodded as I read your comment?

Eric; the issue is that local terms are being confused with 'collector' terms. There should be a post dedicated to what collectors should call items and what the locals and users of those items (historically or contemporary) called said items.

Ralass Ustaz, the case is closed!