Deccan tulwar

[ariel]

Rus has nothing to do with the current definition of Russia: Rus were Normans .
In the 13 century “ Russia’ as a state did not even exist: there were smal solitary city-states ruled by local princes who were all ( except the North) vassalls of the Golden Horde. Local swords were Norman , changed to Mongol sabers, and Peter I tried to convert Russia into a part of Europe and tried to rearm his army with European weapons. The Cossacks armed themselves with Ottoman and Persian sabers. In the early 19 century,as a result of Russo-Caucasian war, shashkas were introduced: aristocracy, royal family included, were prone to carry real Caucasian shashkas, but for the unwashed masses a saber was created and called
“ shashka” despite having nothing common with the original one.
Thus, Russia as such never had a truly national, original sword. Even in the 13 century:-)
As to the sentence you ask about, open the Elgood’s chapter and re-read it. Hopefully, it will help you clarify its meaning.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Rus has nothing to do with the current definition of Russia: Rus were Normans .
In the 13 century “ Russia’ as a state did not even exist: there were smal solitary city-states ruled by local princes who were all ( except the North) vassalls of the Golden Horde. Local swords were Norman , changed to Mongol sabers, and Peter I tried to convert Russia into a part of Europe and tried to rearm his army with European weapons. The Cossacks armed themselves with Ottoman and Persian sabers. In the early 19 century,as a result of Russo-Caucasian war, shashkas were introduced: aristocracy, royal family included, were prone to carry real Caucasian shashkas, but for the unwashed masses a saber was created and called
“ shashka” despite having nothing common with the original one.
Thus, Russia as such never had a truly national, original sword. Even in the 13 century:-)
As to the sentence you ask about, open the Elgood’s chapter and re-read it. Hopefully, it will help you clarify its meaning.

You change the topic every time and run away from the discussion. It's not serious. If you want to discuss all the scientific theories of the origin of the Rus, and not just the Wikipedia article, let's go to the relevant forums, here it's offtop.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

You change the topic every time and run away from the discussion. It's not serious. If you want to discuss all the scientific theories of the origin of the Rus, and not just the Wikipedia article, let's go to the relevant forums, here it's offtop.

I am not changing the subject: it was you who mentioned “Russian” swords of 13 century. I just clarified that while we can legitimately speak of swords manufactured in Russia after ~ 15-16 century, we cannot speak of original Russian national swords at all. Rus of pre-Christian era or around referred to Norman ( or Viking, if one prefers) people. Throughout history, people of what is now called Russia always used swords that either came to them from elsewhere or were modeled on foreign ideas and examples.
That was all. Just let’s be more precise in our definitions.

After all, we clearly distinguish purely Hindu weapons from the imported Islamic or the European ones even though the latter two were ubiquitous throughout the subcontinent. AFAIK, no Hindu citizen of India has any inferiority complex about it.
Weapons moved and the vanquished or just subjugated adopted the weapons of the victors. The only exception that I can come up with is the popularity and adoption of Caucasian arms by the victorious Russian Empire.

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by ariel

Rus has nothing to do with the current definition of Russia: Rus were Normans .
Local swords were Norman
Thus, Russia as such never had a truly national, original sword. Even in the 13 century:-)

In the 13th century, the Normans were the people of the Channel Islands off the coast of France.
Perhaps you called the Normans the ruling class of the English kingdom? Then you can really speculate about English swords in 13th century India

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

In the 13th century, the Normans were the people of the Channel Islands off the coast of France.
Perhaps you called the Normans the ruling class of the English kingdom? Then you can really speculate about English swords in 13th century India

Serge, let's say that Normans are Varangians, what will change from this?
Have you already found a solution to the problem with the old 500-year truth that does not fit into a convenient system? In whose favor is your decision?

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by Saracen

Serge, let's say that Normans are Varangians, what will change from this?

Firstly, when talking about the swords mentioned in the treatise of the 13th century, it is completely incorrect to use the concepts of "Normans" or "Varangians". By this time, the Normans and Varangians had already gone down in history for 200 years. Therefore, when discussing the treatise, the only correct solution would be to use the term that the author used (of course, if there is no goal to mislead the interlocutors).

Secondly, neither the Normans or the Varangians, nor any of the inhabitants of the North of Europe invented any special sword design. The design of their weapons belongs to the Carolingian sword. In addition, as modern research shows, most of the swords used in Northern Europe were made in the Lower Rhine region (on the territory of modern Germany), where metallurgical and weapons production flourished since the time of the Roman Empire.
Today, researchers of ancient weapons are unanimous in their opinion that the Carolingian sword is a direct descendant of the spatha, the long sword of the cavalry of the Roman Empire. In turn, the design of the spatha was borrowed by the victorious Romans (Attention! Drum roll!!!) from the Gauls they defeated! This is indisputable, it is possible to discuss only the moment in time at which the borrowing occurred.

Originally Posted by Saracen

Have you already found a solution to the problem with the old 500-year truth that does not fit into a convenient system? In whose favor is your decision?

Arthur, thank you for not forgetting about the complexities of my choice. But now the truth is different - you asked this question not because you want to help me (if you did, you would have asked me this question in another thread and on another forum), but because Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Firstly, when talking about the swords mentioned in the treatise of the 13th century, it is completely incorrect to use the concepts of "Normans" or "Varangians". By this time, the Normans and Varangians had already gone down in history for 200 years. Therefore, when discussing the treatise, the only correct solution would be to use the term that the author used (of course, if there is no goal to mislead the interlocutors).

Secondly, neither the Normans or the Varangians, nor any of the inhabitants of the North of Europe invented any special sword design. The design of their weapons belongs to the Carolingian sword. In addition, as modern research shows, most of the swords used in Northern Europe were made in the Lower Rhine region (on the territory of modern Germany), where metallurgical and weapons production flourished since the time of the Roman Empire.
Today, researchers of ancient weapons are unanimous in their opinion that the Carolingian sword is a direct descendant of the spatha, the long sword of the cavalry of the Roman Empire. In turn, the design of the spatha was borrowed by the victorious Romans (Attention! Drum roll!!!) from the Gauls they defeated! This is indisputable, it is possible to discuss only the moment in time at which the borrowing occurred.

I don't know why you needed to write such a long text about the origin of the Carolingian sword with well-known information. But thanks for that.
The question was, what would change in the meaning of Ariel's message if we used any of these terms, including the term used by the author of the treatise?

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Arthur, thank you for not forgetting about the complexities of my choice. But now the truth is different - you asked this question not because you want to help me (if you did, you would have asked me this question in another thread and on another forum), but because Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

This question was related to the first one. I wanted to say that by juggling terms whose time boundaries are somewhat blurred, you are not completely honest here. Just as you are not completely honest in another thread on another forum. It was an analogy, not a question.

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

You flatter yourself too much here.
But at the same time you flatter me, so I have absolutely no complaints about this part

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

I always appreciate constructive help. That’s the main reason I come to this site.

[ariel]

Going back to the original topic of discussion: any consructive thoughts about potential Chinese influence on the construction of the “ quillon”?

[Ren Ren]

I immediately rejected the version of the direct borrowing of Chinese design with the help of Zheng He's flotilla. This version is so weak that it is not worth wasting time even explaining the reasons for its weakness.

Even a quick review of the overland part of the Great Silk Road gave much more promising results. Although this line of contacts operated continuously for more than 2500 years, the nature and intensity of the interaction changed significantly over different periods of time.
The most interesting for me are the 14th-16th centuries, when the state of Moghulistan existed on the territory including modern Xinjiang, the southeastern part of Kazakhstan and part of Kyrgyzstan. This state had outstanding opportunities for interaction with China, Mongolia, Tibet, the states of Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, using its geographical position, the unique composition of the population and the dynastic ties of its sovereigns.

It is especially important for us that the mother of Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, was the daughter of the sovereign of Moghulistan, and many relatives on the maternal side became associates of Babur. They were the descendants of the Mongols who converted to Islam and the Turkic language, but at the same time retained a significant part of the ties with Mongolia.

Very little is known about the Mongolian weapons traditions of the 14th-16th centuries. But thanks to the excellent research of Donald LaRocca, we know that the conservative traditions of Tibet have preserved much of the common heritage of the Mongols, Tibetans, Chinese and Manchus.
Therefore, I once again looked at the historical weapons of Tibet and, in order not to waste more words, I have prepared for you a small overview of the most characteristic items.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

In the 13th century, the Normans were the people of the Channel Islands off the coast of France.
Perhaps you called the Normans the ruling class of the English kingdom? Then you can really speculate about English swords in 13th century India

Yes, post 1066 Normans became the ruling class in England, and that is still felt by the double definitions of certain things in the English language.
There were no Brits in the 13 century India, so it is a moot point.