Saifs

[dakary]

Battara, that is not an antique, is it? If it isn't, could share where you acquired it from? Thanks!

[Battara]

Oh it is antique and even has a pattern welded blade.

Got it in an online auction.

[dakary]

I have another set of related questions (although I am still looking for a good production arab/syrian/persian shamshir/saif and would appreciate any help with that, although there doesn't seem any forthcoming...).

I noticed some S shaped guards on some antiques while I was in the Gulf. They seem to be primarily on Turkish shamshirs though. Was this decorative, or functional? When did they decide to do this (if not from the beginning)? Why is it rarer than straight guards?

Thanks!

[ariel]

S-shaped guard is a feature of regulation Ottoman swords from the second half of 19 century or later. They “borrowed” it from the European sabers as a part of “europeanizing” their military. The same was true about Persia.
Their relative rarity is likely explained by the relaively short time span for the use of bladed weapons.

Tulwar, shamshir, kilij, saif, all of them are “sword”, but in different languages.
How to call swords with a mix of different features?
That depends: Russian ( and, I guess, some other) schools would put emphasis
on the blade. Indeed, it is the working part of any sword. Polish school would emphasize the handle: it defines the matter of wielding the weapon.
Russian historians of weapons would call any sword, with any handle, but with a Persian blade a shamshir.
Polish ones would call a sword with a Persian blade and an Indian handle a tulwar, with a Turkish one a kilij and with an Arabic one a saif.

Intriguingly, a straight indian sword with a firangi or khanda blade but with a tulwar handle would be called a tulwar, but same blades with a basket handle would be firangi and khanda.

I do not think we can be categorical. It is a matter of local tradition and who are we to insist the locals are dead wrong and insist on our clearly european point of view ?

[werecow]

I guess this is as good a time as any for my first post here! I've been lurking for a while.

I too love these three-pronged hilts (and, well, the whole package). They remind me of crowned sea horses somehow. I bought the one below last year at auction. Sorry for the bad lighting. It's almost impossible to get a good picture with my phone somehow.

My only gripe with it is that there is movement between the guard and the blade (and there's a bit of minor movement between the scabbard fittings and the leather that has me somewhat worried that the chape will become detached at some point in the future). If anyone knows how to fasten this kind of hilt without major risk of damage, I'm all ears.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by ariel

S-shaped guard is a feature of regulation Ottoman swords from the second half of 19 century or later. They “borrowed” it from the European sabers as a part of “europeanizing” their military. The same was true about Persia.
Their relative rarity is likely explained by the relaively short time span for the use of bladed weapons.

Tulwar, shamshir, kilij, saif, all of them are “sword”, but in different languages.
How to call swords with a mix of different features?
That depends: Russian ( and, I guess, some other) schools would put emphasis
on the blade. Indeed, it is the working part of any sword. Polish school would emphasize the handle: it defines the matter of wielding the weapon.
Russian historians of weapons would call any sword, with any handle, but with a Persian blade a shamshir.
Polish ones would call a sword with a Persian blade and an Indian handle a tulwar, with a Turkish one a kilij and with an Arabic one a saif.

Intriguingly, a straight indian sword with a firangi or khanda blade but with a tulwar handle would be called a tulwar, but same blades with a basket handle would be firangi and khanda.

I do not think we can be categorical. It is a matter of local tradition and who are we to insist the locals are dead wrong and insist on our clearly european point of view ?

As someone from what I suppose you might call the "Indian school", wherein indeed mixtures of blade and hilt-types are common, I personally prefer the more comprehensive, albeit probably more pedantic approach of identifying a sword by both the origin point of its blade and hilt.

In other words, to use the photos Marius posted earlier as an example, I'd "name" (describe) each sword as the following:

A persian shamshir; with a local persian blade and hilt.
A turkish shamshir; with a persian blade and a turkish-style hilt.
An indian tulwar; with a persian blade and an indian tulwar hilt.
A syrian shamshir; with a persian blade and a syrian-style hilt.

This is all assuming, ofc, that the swords in the pictures related indeed have actual persian blades on them, and not locally made blades in persian style

Also I'll explain, because I'm sure someone will notice, why I classified the third "shamshir" as a tulwar and not a shamshir. This is because, in this case, I think the hilt type indeed usurps whatever style of swordsmanship the blade type might normally indicate. This is to say that, because of the restrictive, draw cut-centric style of swordsmanship that the tulwar hilt is based around, you cannot reasonably use a shamshir blade mounted on a tulwar hilt like an actual shamshir. Although typical persian shamshirs can be used for draw cuts, shamshir hilts are also usually open, meaning one is able to physically perform maneuvers other than just draw cuts, unlike tulwars.

[ariel]

Nihl classified sabers according to the Polish school despite officially defining himself as belonging to the Indian one: by the handle:-) And I agree with him 100%.

Historically, all of them stem from South-Central Asian Nomadic tribal curve-bladed swords (sabers).
The earliest contact of any foreign military with them occured in the late 7rh century, when Khazars ( Turkic tribe occupying area berween Caspian Sea and Dniepr river/ Crimea, current proper Ukraine) fought with the Arab inviders trying to enter Europe through the Derbent Pass.

Subsequently, over the next couple of centuries victorious Arabs passed this pattern to the Persians, Khwarizmians, Selcuks, North -Africans Babur brought it to North India whence they spread all over the subcontinent. Mongols in the 13 century broughr it to Eastern Europe.
It became the most frequent blade pattern all over the World down to the current parade swords.

Every country, every ethnicity gave it its local name, that can be easily translated into a generic word “sword”. Arabs call it saif, Persians and Afghanis shamshir, Ottomans kilij, Uzbeks and Tajiks call it Klych, Indians call it Talwar, Poles - Szabla. The blades differ only mildly, some are wider, some are slender, they have different curvatures, some habe yelman, some have fullers etc. That’s all. In each country one could find blades with and without these features.

But the real ethnic difference is in their furniture, mostly in their handles. That is how we know that this one is Moroccan, that one -Indian, those are South Aravian, North Aravian, Persian etc.

The one we are discussing is a hybrid of several styles: it has generic Persian blade, but what pinpoints it to its origin is the Indian Baluch handle with its characteristic pommel and with the Omani silver knot on it.

That’s why I did not include Persian blade as a defining component: they were used all over the Islamic world and the entire Eastern Europe.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by ariel

Nihl classified sabers according to the Polish school despite officially defining himself as belonging to the Indian one: by the handle:-)

Ariel, with all due respect, please do not tell me how I classify things. I found that your comment there rather rubbed me the wrong way.

I think perhaps my system might simply be too nuanced for you; you'll note that I, like I said I did, listed out both the hilt and blade origin when defining each sword, with the exception of the tulwar, for reasons I described in my previous post. Perhaps the shorthand description I gave of each sword (before the semicolon) confused you, but I think even then I was true to my word.

I gave brief descriptions like "turkish shamshir" and "syrian shamshir", which I think is accurate to my beliefs (or my "school"). If I cared more about the hilt, then I would not have included the term "shamshir", which describes the blade. Rather, I would have said "turkish kilij" and "syrian saif". If I had cared more about the blades, then I simply would have described all of them as just shamshirs. The tulwar, like I already said, I feel I have justified in my previous post, but perhaps I should have said "an indian tulwar with a persian shamshir blade" if I had known someone was going to give my post such a vapid analysis. I wanted to keep things brief as I do have a tendency to ramble otherwise.