European Military Patterns- Ethnographic or not?

S.Al-Anizi · 7th January 2007, 08:03 PM

Hello,

Another one of my 'useful' (?) topics. Something that I really did not understand, ever. Many threads over here, including one recently, featured european military issue blades, raised the issue whether they are suitably discussed here or not. I am wondering the same thing, why couldnt these swords and bayonets, or lets call them daggers if you want to sound ethnographic

, be labled and discussed as European ethnographic? Just as so called 'islamic' weaponry is very similar in dimensions, and styles, these swords, used from Russia, to Spain and Portugal, and later America, had very similar designs and origins, which I believe where eastern European (am I correct here?)

Jim McDougall · 7th January 2007, 09:57 PM

Interesting topic

I think this is reaching a bit though and stretching the ethnographic denominator to these dimensions would severely inhibit reasonable and effective classification of weaponry. It is however a thought that has crossed my mind and I'm sure others many times, for example Scottish basket hilts...these clans were tribal highlanders much the same as Caucasians; or Southeast Asians in Laos, Vietnam, Assam etc. In studying the famed American Bowie knife, here is an indiginous weapon form that developed in the U.S. although undoubtedly influenced by knives from the Meditteranean, and curiously mostly later produced by English makers, Yet I am not certain that the term ethnographic would properly apply here.

In my opinion, and as I have noted, many military regulation pattern weapons may be considered 'associated' with the ethnographic weapons we study and typically are best discussed under appropriate heading. I have noted that in many instances the 'association' becomes more direct when components of these pattern weapons become mounted in or the form influences native weapons. Instances of this are of course in India, where many tulwars were mounted with British blades; in Africa where Manding sabres etc. are mounted with French or German regulation blades, with of course many other instances in many colonial spheres.

There are also of course instances where an ethnographic weapon form has become a regulation military form, where the kukri is a classic example.

I think the course of weapons study can function well within the existing perameters without further delineation as it serves well to focus on the weapon being discussed without such concerns.
Still an interesting view though

Best regards,
Jim

Rivkin · 8th January 2007, 03:24 AM

I can just give my opinion - why not, but most of pattern weapons are not truly ethnographic weapons. "Pattern" community is very different; a big thing there is to have a sword typical for some high class and relatively small unit (like light brigade), especially with good provenance or even decorations. They have completely separate books, gatherings and forums that for example I do not know much about. It is just historically a different community.

Concerning sabre's origins - well it certainly not China (my unacademic and unguric opinion), even though they had sabres under Han dynasty, they just disappeared with no consequence.
In my opinion sabre appeared in VIIth century in Khazar Empire, essentially a little bit to the north of Dagestan. Khazars had a very diverse population, which somewhat artificially can be split by burial customs into settled "alanics" (catacombes), "turkic" (kurgans) and unknown (cremation). The division is highly speculative since turks also did use catacombes and iranics did use kurgans, so it is more cultural than language-related thing.
Concerning cremation-users, they were strange people, sort of shock-troopers. The only nation where you very often see full set of arms and armour - mail, spear, sabre, bow etc. Additionally you often see a lot of healed wounds on these soldiers. They also did not have infantry, only cavalry. There are many theories concerning who were these people (khazar nobility, avars and so on and so on, russian fashits obviously believe they were ancient russians), but they used sabres, i.e. weapons with initially small but noticable curvature. The sabre then spread both to the west and to the east (interestinly enough mongols per se, i.e. the tribes of eastern syberia were actually one of the last to hold on to straight swords) and curvature grew. Strangely it grew very extensively among circassians (something like twice the rate of any surrounding nation), so it is quite possible in my opinion that "shamshir"-like sabres appear in XIIIth century circassian areas, later to be replaced in these areas by a circassian sabre (which was actually designed for stabbing due to its peculiar points. I do not believe in hooking stabs made with shamshirs, never read about it. With a circassian sword - it was designed for it).

In Europe the sabre sort of stagnates until the "revival" of its popularity in XVIIth century (one can say due to the polish influence, or one can say due to tatar influence, often transmitted through the poles).

ShayanMirza · 8th January 2007, 03:47 AM

Wow, that's a great summary of saber history!

Regarding shamshirs, the writings extant in English have little to do with practicality, with some even speculating they were solely for hunting animals. However, my martial arts instructor (32 years experience studying and teaching numerous martial arts) demonstrated hooking thrusts to me with it while blunt steel sparring, and they were spectacular. I put far more stock in hands-on practicality in the world of weapons than I do on writing when it comes to technique.

Rivkin · 8th January 2007, 04:15 AM

It is your call. I believe that medieval training manuals/accounts should be consulted when one is interested in medieval fighting techniques; I do not believe in middle-eastern martial artists - most of them can't half-decently ride a horse, which brings into question whether they really understand the use of horse-based weaponry (which is what the east is all about) neither they ever killed someone in battle, i.e. they don't really know how the real use of the weapons look like.

ShayanMirza · 8th January 2007, 04:17 AM

Well that's interesting that you don't believe in the martial capabilities of hundreds of millions of people, but he's not Middle Eastern to begin with.

Just curious, where are you from?

Jim McDougall · 8th January 2007, 04:20 AM

Exactly

Rivkin · 8th January 2007, 04:22 AM

Has nothing to do with their capabalities... It is just that I never seen a "middle eastern style" artist who would have known the middle eastern weapons well enough to be qualified as an expert, never mind knowing things that are completely essential to the eastern combat - horsemanship with all its attributes, traditional archery, armour, tactics, navigation, the use of terrain, performance on horses in formation, djigitovka and so on and so on. Well, neither do I, therefore I refer to people who actually served in old armies and actually did kill someone.

ShayanMirza · 8th January 2007, 04:32 AM

The shamshir was also fully capable on foot according to contemporary accounts, and though I work in a barn on weekends, riding them with a sword might get me fired and void my insurance...his demonstration was on foot, although he has actually taken classes in horseback combat (in which the graduating test was putting 5 men and 5 horses in a small ring with blunted weapons, and whoever stayed on longest won.) Anyways, he's an expert on Chinese dao techniques and learned escrima in the Philippines (he is in fact half Filipino, of a family that used edged weapons in combat in the last century), both of which use extensive slashing and hooking thrusts. In short, he is a killing maching with anything you put in his hand. I trust his knowledge of the principles of combat far more than I would trust any written source, unless it be a contemporary manual by a universally celebrated swordsman. And I trust my own eyes. His hooking thrusts were efficient and practical.

Rivkin, are you perchance from anywhere near Georgia (the country)?

Rivkin · 8th January 2007, 05:12 AM

I will be honest - I do not know the man you are talking about; what I do not believe is that the word of martial artist should be held over the word of contemporary (i.e. medieval) manual or source, not nessesaraly written by a universally recognized swordsman, since we do not really know who was the top of the cream in 1657.

5 with blunt weapons is a good djigitovka, however I would suggest giving them real weapons (since it is a graduating test) and asking to chop off plums from each other's helmets (this is more historically accurate). However this would not qualify him (I am sorry) to be a middle eastern warrior, just best out of five. There are such things as mamluk manuals, and the level of mamluks was sort of good upper level; when they would slack a little bit, they would be beaten mercillesly by arab bedouins, so we must assume that good armies composed of arab beduins, mongols, turks and others had somewhat similar performance standards, a little bit better, a little bit worse.

I can not imagine anyone remotely approaching the level of mamluk _regular_ soldier. Chopping sheets of paper, where you are told exactly at which layer to stop (i.e. 4th out of 50) ?? Sustaining the rate of aimed fire - 2 shots per second ? Chopping sticks put up into ground 1 yard or so from each other, on alternative sides, at a full gallop from the horseback ? I am not mentioning a great range of other things, but it is staggering. Not to mention that until the middle of XXth century most archery standards held in the medieval middle east where considered in Europe to be pure fantasy, since no one can come close to such feats. But that's what training 24/7 under a guidance of a prominent warrior, since the age of 7 will do to you.

And this is exactly why I am very sceptical concerning martial arts. There are some martial artists who read manuals, research accounts, interact with tribesman who still use weapons or research native sports, that very often contain traces of old military traditions. I respect their research (I honestly do). But when it is told "shamshir was used for hooked stabbing", I am not saying it is not possible, or it is not so, I just do not believe in it. The reasons - no one mentioned it and geometry of the point is different from typical "armour piercing" points one sees.

Concerning my origins, which greatly interest the swordforum community, I have decided to become an isareli-backed turkist or may be even a jew. Makes people madder

!

katana · 8th January 2007, 12:17 PM

Hi,
I am one of those guilty of posting some British military pattern swords....but I feel there is some relevence to the topic of Ethnographic edged weapons.

Colonial rule by European powers introduced Africa , India, SEA etc.to external influences in weapon design and manufacture.(and of course the other way round) The trade in European blades to the local inhabitants increased the creation of 'Hybrids' of manufactured blade with local hilting styles and local modification.
It also helps to put into context the weapons faced by the defending local people with their ethnic edged weapons, armour and tactics.
Could it be argued that the Tulwar, even with the variation in blade design, curveature etc. is a 'pattern' sword?

I have tried to acquire some 'Colonial' period swords to 'balance' those Ethnographic ones of the same period. For instance I acquired a Wilkinson light cavalry sabre and a Sudanese Kaskara from the same source. It is quite likely that the Sabre and Kaskara 'met' in the Mahdist Sudan. (further research, hopefully will confirm this) To me that makes them a 'pair' and relavent to my Ethnographic collection.

Alan62 · 8th January 2007, 12:41 PM

Very interesting thread,
Please help a novice understand,does the term ethnographic define an ethnicity or a region as it seems to be a word defining both and to this very new guy would seem to describe anything that is of a people or culture and from a region or specific geographic location.I guess I should go look the word up in a dictionary since i have not done that yet,but I will.
Again very good thread
Thanks for the information

Emanuel · 8th January 2007, 03:25 PM

Interesting thing, the hooking thrust. It reminds me of the Abyssinian shotel, designed to reach opponents around their shields. Wouldn't the shamshir's handle be an obstacle to a hooking strike...one has to twist the fist which feels awckward. TO produce a powerful thrust I image a wide swing is needed, again awckward with the rotated hand. Can your teacher hit a target hard enough to cause hard damage?

I think one of the problems presented by Rivkin is that present fighting styles may not reflect actual use centuries ago. It seems to me that something as extraordinary-looking (to an European) as a hooking thrust would have been mentioned in written accounts by many sources and not just in English.
I can imagine what the motion would look like, but a video/clip of it would be nice...

About ethnographic weapons and European military patterns...I had thought it to refer firstly to weapons created within one specific culture and more or less unique to that culture, and secondly to represent weapons not resulting from industrial processes. As European pattern swords were mass-produced, the sense of cultural craft is maybe lost a little. It is regained when an individual in another land takes the mass-produced blade and alters or refits it to suit his culture - in that action manual craft is involved and each resulting weapon is different from any other.

Also realized something quite simple which I thing was true until quite recently: ethnographic would mostly represent something non-European resulting from manual craft...but then what about the puukko? So I'll stick to the non-industrial bit

Regards,
Emanuel

RhysMichael · 8th January 2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

I do not believe in middle-eastern martial artists - most of them can't half-decently ride a horse, which brings into question whether they really understand the use of horse-based weaponry (which is what the east is all about) neither they ever killed someone in battle, i.e. they don't really know how the real use of the weapons look like.

I understand your being skeptical but I do not know how many middle eastern martial artists you have seen. I know my sampling would be very small but I would not dismiss it as not having true matial arts practicioners. If you were to come to my home town you could go from matial arts school to maritlal arts school and depending on luck of the draw never go to a school where the instructor had actually been in a fight or done contact sparring. Does that mean there are no true eastern matial artists here? No, it does not. There are many good schools here, but they often are not the best marketed or the ones with the fullest classes. I can remember when FMA were virtually unknown outside their country of origin. They were not comercialized and publisized but they were there. It difficult to find a true Bando or Thaing school now. But I do not believe these martial arts are dead. How long ago was it that SCA sparring was considered a true representation of WMA ? If you had looked at them would you have said there were no true WMA martial artists? or just that they were a rarity ?

I agree to you that many of those who tout themself as experts of middle eastern matial arts ( or any other martial art ) are not and we should look at them with a "show me" attitude but that does not mean they do not exist

Jim McDougall · 8th January 2007, 05:03 PM

Excellent post Katana! Exactly what I was trying to point out!

What we have been trying to say here, and the original topic of the thread, is that military patterns in some degree 'effect' ethnographic weapons and thier development typically in colonial situations. However, I am not sure that such association warrants thier reclassification. In the case of the 'hybrids' we have noted, I believe that they need to be adequately described rather than reclassified.

The diversion to martial arts, the grim practical details of the weapons purpose etc. while interesting, seems counterproductive to this discussion. Although I think we all know that the primary function of a weapon is to inflict injury or death to an enemy or adversary, I cannot see how that effects the classification of a weapon in its study, in terms of whether it is 'ethnographic' or not. I must admit that my perspective on weapons is more from a culturally artistic standpoint in studying typology, symbolism and influences in design. I honestly prefer to avoid the unfortunate details of thier practical use, although naturally such details often must be considered in degree in looking at design application in blade forms etc.

I do think the original topic is interesting and hope we can focus on that while continuing martial arts, equally interesting, on another thread. I am always amazed at the tremendous core of knowledge on these topics held by the membership here!

All best regards,
Jim

RhysMichael · 8th January 2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I do think the original topic is interesting and hope we can focus on that while continuing martial arts, equally interesting, on another thread. I am always amazed at the tremendous core of knowledge on these topics held by the membership here!

All best regards,
Jim

Good point, Jim thanks for the reminder It should have been on a different thread

Paul Digard · 8th January 2007, 06:31 PM

Here's some pics to illustrate blurring of the boundaries between early C19 regulation British military swords and ethnographic weaponry. Evidence of information flows both ways!

Top to bottom:

1) A rehilted (and reshaped at the point) P1796 light cavalry blade. The blade is unquestionably such as it still has the maker's name of WOOLEY SARGANT and CRANE (c1818-20) and its government inspection stamps.

2) A P1803 grenadier officer's sword. The hilt is the regulation pattern with a GR cypher in the knucklebow but the blade is what I would call a shamshir. I've no reason to think it's a dealer's fantasy put together in recent years as although the scabbard is unfortunately broken, enough survives to show that it fits quite well.

3) A late Georgian cavalry officer's mameluke sabre. This one has no markings at all that I can find but I've seen twins marked to London and Dublin cutlers so i think it's of entirely British manufacture. Clearly inspired by non-European sources though!

Paul

Jim McDougall · 8th January 2007, 08:13 PM

No problem RhysMichael ! My note was not directed specifically at your post, which was nicely done BTW, just at the course the discussion was taking.

Paul,
Excellent post and fantastic sabres!!!!!

The subject of the influence of ethnographic swords on European military swords has long been a topic fascinating to me, and I have often been drawn to it in varying research. I have seen Georgian light cavalry sabres that have clearly British made blades with yelman, Georgian cavalry troopers sabres with fully parabolic blades distinctly recalling the shamshir curve although having the pipeback rib the full length etc. Clearly these are blades that reflect the influence of these much admired Eastern sabres.

It is well known that during the campaigns in Egypt led to Western admiration of the sabres of the Mamluks, and the subsequent adoption of not only the distinctive Mamluk Ottoman form hilt by both Great Britian and France, but certainly the fascination with the curved and yelmanned blades.

The development of the use of sabres, as discussed by Rivkin, clearly influenced the swords used by Eastern European armies as evidenced by those of Poland and Hungary and eventually all of Europe.

In the development of the famed M1796 light cavalry sabre for Great Britian, LeMarchant the following excerpt is of interest:

"...the Turkish sword, or kilij, had much impressed LeMarchant. The Ottoman cavalry were regarded as being among the best in Europe, and he felt that their superiority was not entirely due to thier brilliant riding and dash. Their blades, short and strongly curved in fine, watered Damascus steel, were essentially cutting weapons made to suit the natural slashing tendancy of a swordsman in a melee. In direct contrast was the British heavy cavalry broadsword, two edged, designed purely for thrusting, some 35" long and ungovernably heavy. "without a doubt", wrote LeMarchant, "the expertly used scimitar blades of the Turks, Mamelukes, Moors and Hungarians have proved that a light sword, if equally applicable to a cut or thrust. is preferable to any other".

"Scientific Soldier:A Life of General LeMarchant", R.H.Thoumaine, 1968, pp43-44.

LeMarchant worked closely with British sword maker Henry Osborn, to develop what has been called by many one of the finest cutting weapons ever forged, the British M1796 light cavalry sabre. These were used for the next 20 years and were regarded by French commanders in the Peninsula as being 'too effective, and barbarous causing terrible wounds', a rather obtuse compliment.

Ironically, in later years when these sabres were becoming obsolete and being replaced or discarded, it became a concern of British forces in India that the native warriors were incredibly deadly in their use of the sword. The British were stunned when they discovered that the effectiveness of the swords used by the warriors was primarily in the sharpness, and that the warriors were actually using the discarded or captured M1796 blades!
The Indian armourers were rehilting these blades in their own hilts.

In another ironic note, I own a tulwar which carries a M1796 blade which is clearly marked 'Osborne' ! who was of course instrumental in developing the British blades influenced by Eastern sabres.

I think as Paul has noted, these are considerations well placed in the diffusion of ethnographic vs. pattern in the development of swords.

All best regards,
Jim

katana · 8th January 2007, 08:42 PM

Hi Jim and Paul,
Excellent posts and information, thanks

Paul Digard · 12th January 2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

[Regarding the British P1796]

Ironically, in later years when these sabres were becoming obsolete and being replaced or discarded, it became a concern of British forces in India that the native warriors were incredibly deadly in their use of the sword. The British were stunned when they discovered that the effectiveness of the swords used by the warriors was primarily in the sharpness, and that the warriors were actually using the discarded or captured M1796 blades!
The Indian armourers were rehilting these blades in their own hilts.

Jim, when searching through my notes for something else I came across this letter to the Times from 1855. I'm sure you've already seen it (I think I lifted it from a post on SFI in 2001) but it's worth repeating I think.

Paul

The Times 5.4.1855 p 6

Letter

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

Sir, - 'Jacob Omnium' has quoted from a work by Captain Hartmann, of the 15th Hussars, upon cavalry and cavalry tactics. Allow me to draw attention to the work
of an officer of the same regiment (published not long before his death), the late lamented Captain Lewis Nolan, who was the bearer of the order to advance to Lord
Lucan, and who was killed in the memorable charge at Balaklava - a work which merits the attention of the authorities.

Captain Nolan makes known a most extraordinary circumstance in respect to the effectiveness of the weapons used in cavalry of various nations.

He relates that at the battle of Villiers en Couche, in the Low Countries, his regiment, the 15th Hussars (now in India) distinguished itself in collision with a
superior body of French cavalry, then considered the best in Europe. Three squadrons of the 15th charged twice through the enemy - once in advancing, and then
again in retiring. They left in these two collisions but three men killed on the field, and four were wounded, of whom one was the officer then commanding the
regiment, the late Sir James Irskine. The regiment now bears 'Villiers en Couche' on its standards for its distinguished conduct there. But mark the difference
between European and Asiatic encounters of cavalry! At the battle of Goojerat, the last great battle fought and won by Lord Gough in India, Lieutenant-Colonel
Unett (then Captain Unett) was ordered to advance and attack a body of Sikh cavalry with two squadrons of his regiment (the 3d Dragoons), supported by two
native cavalry regiments on his flanks. They charged; but the two flank regiments, not liking the fire of some matchlock men into which they got, turned and fled.
The two squadrons of the 3d went on, and cut their way through the enemy's cavalry! When they returned, the Sikhs opened out, and let them through, so that they
did not come into collision in retiring; but how many men out of these two squadrons were left upon the field in that one collision with the Sikhs, think you? 46!

Captain Nolan asked himself how this could be, that at Villiers en Couche three squadrons of English Dragoons, charging through a body of European cavalry, lose
but seven men, four of whom were only wounded; while against Asiatic cavalry two squadrons coming into collision with the enemy but once only lose 46 men.

He determined to see what sort of cavalry these were that had shown such prowess, and had caused us so remarkable a loss; and he took the first opportunity that
offered of visiting an encampment of them. He found them small, mean-looking men, mounted upon small, mean-looking horses, and armed, to his great surprise,
with our much-abused sabres of the old pattern - the old regulation Light Dragoon sabre - of which it was said, I recollect, when they were in use in our service, that
they never cut at all, but only bruised an enemy. The Asiatics, however, considered them (when sharpened as they had them) as the best weapons in the world.
They had altered them in some respects, however. They had accommodated the size of the hilt to their smaller hands; and there was this remarkable change from the
original shape of the hilt, - that whereas when used by us they had a round grasp, the Sikhs had substituted a square one, which not only enabled them to hold the
weapon more firmly, but enabled them to apply the edge of the blade exactly to a nicety; so that in this way, they (literally) lopped off, at one shave, heads and
arms, wherever they struck, the blades being as sharp as a razor, and kept so by being, when not in use, thrust into a close-fitting wooden sheath, instead of the
rattletrap steel thing we use, which turns every blade. Let us have some such cavalry light men as 'Jacob Omnium' recommends, armed with swords with
square-hilted grasps, and sharpened as a razor, upon horses from 14 hands 2 inches to 15 hands high, and as near the Arab as possible, and they will give a good
account of the enemy's heavies, you may depend upon it, except, it may be, in a confined space, as in a street, where weight will tell, as it told before Waterloo, in
the charge of the French Cuirassiers against the gallant 7th Hussars, which were brought up against them, perhaps unadvisedly, by Lord Anglesey, when the army
retired from Quatre Bras to Waterloo.

I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant

OMNIBUS

katana · 12th January 2007, 02:44 PM

Thanks Paul,
excellent post,...........and MORE proof that smaller hilt size (Indian weapons) was attributable to their 'smaller' hands.....

David

Mark · 12th January 2007, 03:18 PM

We have discussed from time-to-time whether certain weapons qualify as "ethnographic" for the purposes of this forum (by the way, the name has changed to "Arms & Armour," so we are allowed to discuss non-edged weapons as well

).

What is ethnic to one person is cultural to another. From our Western point of view weapons such as tulwars and keris are "ethnic" because they come from other cultures. On the other hand, our Indian, Malay and Indonesian colleagues would rightly view a US Civil War sabre, a rapier, or a Viking sword as "ethnic."

My view is that any weapon that is specific to a culture meets the definition of "ethnographic." This basically excludes fantasy weapons, or weapons so generic that they are not identifiable as belonging to any particular culture. A switchblade, or a modern machete or handgun could fall into the latter category, for example.

As a practical matter, we don't see much discussion here of Western military weapons, medieval and earlier European weapons, or nihon-to, because collectors of these weapons tend to form a distinct group apart from the collectors of other weapons.

Philip · 13th January 2007, 02:06 AM

Mark,
I made a suggestion for a "sticky" pertaining to the definition of ethnographic, and put it on that thread about the Wehrmacht dagger. Rather than repeat it here, could you check it out and see if it's worth implementing?

Jim McDougall · 16th January 2007, 03:09 AM

Thanks very much Katana

!

Mark, very well explained on the 'ethnographic term' and I'm glad that the arms and armour heading was added to widen our scope. It is of course the nature of studying weapons that there will always be instances where a topic exceed subject guidelines, but it seems one never knows where important data pertinant to our studies may turn up!!~

Paul,
Thank you very much for posting that data on the use of the old M1796 blades, exactly the reference I was thinking of!!!! I really appreciate you posting it, and BTW, its great seeing your posts here!!

With all best regards,
Jim

Mark · 16th January 2007, 04:31 PM

The moderators have been kicking around the idea of defining the meaning of "ethnographic" for this purposes of this forum.

Personally, I hate to give the impression that we are imposing a bright-line exclusion of any one group of collectors. On the other hand, rather by definition this forum is directed to a particular sub-group of weapons & armor.

Anyway, Lee pointed out that he has provided a definition on the main page of the Ethnographic Edged Weapons Resource site page. I have added a sticky note at the top of the General forum, providing this definition.

We are not going to create any particular class of "prohibitted" weapons/armor, though. I think that the natural flow of the forum will be away from discussion of things that do not fit this definition of "ethnographic," so the definition I put up in the sticky post should not be taken as a strict prohibition against any discussion of things falling outside that definition. As several people have pointed out, often there is a direct relation between more standardized weapon and tool patterns and what can be considered "ethnographic," so some discussion of things like military pattern weapons can be enriching to the overall discussion.

The tastes and interests of the forum membership naturally control the type and extent of discussion of weapons and armor on the forum. If a topic has some relevance to our interests, discussion will obviously continue as long as that interest lasts. My guess is that in many cases, a post on a pattern European sabre will be met largely with indifference.

Of course, a post on the latest fantasy offering from Museum Replicas, or a Paul Chen Practical Katana is going to be met with a polite "wrong forum" message from the staff.

7th January 2007, 08:03 PM	#1
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	European Military Patterns- Ethnographic or not? Hello, Another one of my 'useful' (?) topics. Something that I really did not understand, ever. Many threads over here, including one recently, featured european military issue blades, raised the issue whether they are suitably discussed here or not. I am wondering the same thing, why couldnt these swords and bayonets, or lets call them daggers if you want to sound ethnographic , be labled and discussed as European ethnographic? Just as so called 'islamic' weaponry is very similar in dimensions, and styles, these swords, used from Russia, to Spain and Portugal, and later America, had very similar designs and origins, which I believe where eastern European (am I correct here?)

8th January 2007, 03:25 PM	#13
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Interesting thing, the hooking thrust. It reminds me of the Abyssinian shotel, designed to reach opponents around their shields. Wouldn't the shamshir's handle be an obstacle to a hooking strike...one has to twist the fist which feels awckward. TO produce a powerful thrust I image a wide swing is needed, again awckward with the rotated hand. Can your teacher hit a target hard enough to cause hard damage? I think one of the problems presented by Rivkin is that present fighting styles may not reflect actual use centuries ago. It seems to me that something as extraordinary-looking (to an European) as a hooking thrust would have been mentioned in written accounts by many sources and not just in English. I can imagine what the motion would look like, but a video/clip of it would be nice... About ethnographic weapons and European military patterns...I had thought it to refer firstly to weapons created within one specific culture and more or less unique to that culture, and secondly to represent weapons not resulting from industrial processes. As European pattern swords were mass-produced, the sense of cultural craft is maybe lost a little. It is regained when an individual in another land takes the mass-produced blade and alters or refits it to suit his culture - in that action manual craft is involved and each resulting weapon is different from any other. Also realized something quite simple which I thing was true until quite recently: ethnographic would mostly represent something non-European resulting from manual craft...but then what about the puukko? So I'll stick to the non-industrial bit Regards, Emanuel Last edited by Manolo; 8th January 2007 at 03:45 PM.

8th January 2007, 06:31 PM	#17
Paul Digard Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 13	Crossover swords Here's some pics to illustrate blurring of the boundaries between early C19 regulation British military swords and ethnographic weaponry. Evidence of information flows both ways! Top to bottom: 1) A rehilted (and reshaped at the point) P1796 light cavalry blade. The blade is unquestionably such as it still has the maker's name of WOOLEY SARGANT and CRANE (c1818-20) and its government inspection stamps. 2) A P1803 grenadier officer's sword. The hilt is the regulation pattern with a GR cypher in the knucklebow but the blade is what I would call a shamshir. I've no reason to think it's a dealer's fantasy put together in recent years as although the scabbard is unfortunately broken, enough survives to show that it fits quite well. 3) A late Georgian cavalry officer's mameluke sabre. This one has no markings at all that I can find but I've seen twins marked to London and Dublin cutlers so i think it's of entirely British manufacture. Clearly inspired by non-European sources though! Paul Attached Images

13th January 2007, 02:06 AM	#23
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	suggestion for a sticky Mark, I made a suggestion for a "sticky" pertaining to the definition of ethnographic, and put it on that thread about the Wehrmacht dagger. Rather than repeat it here, could you check it out and see if it's worth implementing?

16th January 2007, 03:09 AM	#24
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Thanks very much Katana! Mark, very well explained on the 'ethnographic term' and I'm glad that the arms and armour heading was added to widen our scope. It is of course the nature of studying weapons that there will always be instances where a topic exceed subject guidelines, but it seems one never knows where important data pertinant to our studies may turn up!!~ Paul, Thank you very much for posting that data on the use of the old M1796 blades, exactly the reference I was thinking of!!!! I really appreciate you posting it, and BTW, its great seeing your posts here!! With all best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 16th January 2007 at 03:21 AM.

7th January 2007, 09:57 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Interesting topic I think this is reaching a bit though and stretching the ethnographic denominator to these dimensions would severely inhibit reasonable and effective classification of weaponry. It is however a thought that has crossed my mind and I'm sure others many times, for example Scottish basket hilts...these clans were tribal highlanders much the same as Caucasians; or Southeast Asians in Laos, Vietnam, Assam etc. In studying the famed American Bowie knife, here is an indiginous weapon form that developed in the U.S. although undoubtedly influenced by knives from the Meditteranean, and curiously mostly later produced by English makers, Yet I am not certain that the term ethnographic would properly apply here. In my opinion, and as I have noted, many military regulation pattern weapons may be considered 'associated' with the ethnographic weapons we study and typically are best discussed under appropriate heading. I have noted that in many instances the 'association' becomes more direct when components of these pattern weapons become mounted in or the form influences native weapons. Instances of this are of course in India, where many tulwars were mounted with British blades; in Africa where Manding sabres etc. are mounted with French or German regulation blades, with of course many other instances in many colonial spheres. There are also of course instances where an ethnographic weapon form has become a regulation military form, where the kukri is a classic example. I think the course of weapons study can function well within the existing perameters without further delineation as it serves well to focus on the weapon being discussed without such concerns. Still an interesting view though Best regards, Jim

8th January 2007, 03:24 AM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I can just give my opinion - why not, but most of pattern weapons are not truly ethnographic weapons. "Pattern" community is very different; a big thing there is to have a sword typical for some high class and relatively small unit (like light brigade), especially with good provenance or even decorations. They have completely separate books, gatherings and forums that for example I do not know much about. It is just historically a different community. Concerning sabre's origins - well it certainly not China (my unacademic and unguric opinion), even though they had sabres under Han dynasty, they just disappeared with no consequence. In my opinion sabre appeared in VIIth century in Khazar Empire, essentially a little bit to the north of Dagestan. Khazars had a very diverse population, which somewhat artificially can be split by burial customs into settled "alanics" (catacombes), "turkic" (kurgans) and unknown (cremation). The division is highly speculative since turks also did use catacombes and iranics did use kurgans, so it is more cultural than language-related thing. Concerning cremation-users, they were strange people, sort of shock-troopers. The only nation where you very often see full set of arms and armour - mail, spear, sabre, bow etc. Additionally you often see a lot of healed wounds on these soldiers. They also did not have infantry, only cavalry. There are many theories concerning who were these people (khazar nobility, avars and so on and so on, russian fashits obviously believe they were ancient russians), but they used sabres, i.e. weapons with initially small but noticable curvature. The sabre then spread both to the west and to the east (interestinly enough mongols per se, i.e. the tribes of eastern syberia were actually one of the last to hold on to straight swords) and curvature grew. Strangely it grew very extensively among circassians (something like twice the rate of any surrounding nation), so it is quite possible in my opinion that "shamshir"-like sabres appear in XIIIth century circassian areas, later to be replaced in these areas by a circassian sabre (which was actually designed for stabbing due to its peculiar points. I do not believe in hooking stabs made with shamshirs, never read about it. With a circassian sword - it was designed for it). In Europe the sabre sort of stagnates until the "revival" of its popularity in XVIIth century (one can say due to the polish influence, or one can say due to tatar influence, often transmitted through the poles).

8th January 2007, 03:47 AM	#4
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	Wow, that's a great summary of saber history! Regarding shamshirs, the writings extant in English have little to do with practicality, with some even speculating they were solely for hunting animals. However, my martial arts instructor (32 years experience studying and teaching numerous martial arts) demonstrated hooking thrusts to me with it while blunt steel sparring, and they were spectacular. I put far more stock in hands-on practicality in the world of weapons than I do on writing when it comes to technique.

8th January 2007, 04:15 AM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	It is your call. I believe that medieval training manuals/accounts should be consulted when one is interested in medieval fighting techniques; I do not believe in middle-eastern martial artists - most of them can't half-decently ride a horse, which brings into question whether they really understand the use of horse-based weaponry (which is what the east is all about) neither they ever killed someone in battle, i.e. they don't really know how the real use of the weapons look like.

8th January 2007, 04:17 AM	#6
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	Well that's interesting that you don't believe in the martial capabilities of hundreds of millions of people, but he's not Middle Eastern to begin with. Just curious, where are you from?

8th January 2007, 04:20 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Exactly

8th January 2007, 04:22 AM	#8
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Has nothing to do with their capabalities... It is just that I never seen a "middle eastern style" artist who would have known the middle eastern weapons well enough to be qualified as an expert, never mind knowing things that are completely essential to the eastern combat - horsemanship with all its attributes, traditional archery, armour, tactics, navigation, the use of terrain, performance on horses in formation, djigitovka and so on and so on. Well, neither do I, therefore I refer to people who actually served in old armies and actually did kill someone.

8th January 2007, 04:32 AM	#9
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	The shamshir was also fully capable on foot according to contemporary accounts, and though I work in a barn on weekends, riding them with a sword might get me fired and void my insurance...his demonstration was on foot, although he has actually taken classes in horseback combat (in which the graduating test was putting 5 men and 5 horses in a small ring with blunted weapons, and whoever stayed on longest won.) Anyways, he's an expert on Chinese dao techniques and learned escrima in the Philippines (he is in fact half Filipino, of a family that used edged weapons in combat in the last century), both of which use extensive slashing and hooking thrusts. In short, he is a killing maching with anything you put in his hand. I trust his knowledge of the principles of combat far more than I would trust any written source, unless it be a contemporary manual by a universally celebrated swordsman. And I trust my own eyes. His hooking thrusts were efficient and practical. Rivkin, are you perchance from anywhere near Georgia (the country)?

8th January 2007, 05:12 AM	#10
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I will be honest - I do not know the man you are talking about; what I do not believe is that the word of martial artist should be held over the word of contemporary (i.e. medieval) manual or source, not nessesaraly written by a universally recognized swordsman, since we do not really know who was the top of the cream in 1657. 5 with blunt weapons is a good djigitovka, however I would suggest giving them real weapons (since it is a graduating test) and asking to chop off plums from each other's helmets (this is more historically accurate). However this would not qualify him (I am sorry) to be a middle eastern warrior, just best out of five. There are such things as mamluk manuals, and the level of mamluks was sort of good upper level; when they would slack a little bit, they would be beaten mercillesly by arab bedouins, so we must assume that good armies composed of arab beduins, mongols, turks and others had somewhat similar performance standards, a little bit better, a little bit worse. I can not imagine anyone remotely approaching the level of mamluk _regular_ soldier. Chopping sheets of paper, where you are told exactly at which layer to stop (i.e. 4th out of 50) ?? Sustaining the rate of aimed fire - 2 shots per second ? Chopping sticks put up into ground 1 yard or so from each other, on alternative sides, at a full gallop from the horseback ? I am not mentioning a great range of other things, but it is staggering. Not to mention that until the middle of XXth century most archery standards held in the medieval middle east where considered in Europe to be pure fantasy, since no one can come close to such feats. But that's what training 24/7 under a guidance of a prominent warrior, since the age of 7 will do to you. And this is exactly why I am very sceptical concerning martial arts. There are some martial artists who read manuals, research accounts, interact with tribesman who still use weapons or research native sports, that very often contain traces of old military traditions. I respect their research (I honestly do). But when it is told "shamshir was used for hooked stabbing", I am not saying it is not possible, or it is not so, I just do not believe in it. The reasons - no one mentioned it and geometry of the point is different from typical "armour piercing" points one sees. Concerning my origins, which greatly interest the swordforum community, I have decided to become an isareli-backed turkist or may be even a jew. Makes people madder !

8th January 2007, 12:17 PM	#11
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi, I am one of those guilty of posting some British military pattern swords....but I feel there is some relevence to the topic of Ethnographic edged weapons. Colonial rule by European powers introduced Africa , India, SEA etc.to external influences in weapon design and manufacture.(and of course the other way round) The trade in European blades to the local inhabitants increased the creation of 'Hybrids' of manufactured blade with local hilting styles and local modification. It also helps to put into context the weapons faced by the defending local people with their ethnic edged weapons, armour and tactics. Could it be argued that the Tulwar, even with the variation in blade design, curveature etc. is a 'pattern' sword? I have tried to acquire some 'Colonial' period swords to 'balance' those Ethnographic ones of the same period. For instance I acquired a Wilkinson light cavalry sabre and a Sudanese Kaskara from the same source. It is quite likely that the Sabre and Kaskara 'met' in the Mahdist Sudan. (further research, hopefully will confirm this) To me that makes them a 'pair' and relavent to my Ethnographic collection.

8th January 2007, 12:41 PM	#12
Alan62 Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 164	Very interesting thread, Please help a novice understand,does the term ethnographic define an ethnicity or a region as it seems to be a word defining both and to this very new guy would seem to describe anything that is of a people or culture and from a region or specific geographic location.I guess I should go look the word up in a dictionary since i have not done that yet,but I will. Again very good thread Thanks for the information

8th January 2007, 05:03 PM	#15
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Excellent post Katana! Exactly what I was trying to point out! What we have been trying to say here, and the original topic of the thread, is that military patterns in some degree 'effect' ethnographic weapons and thier development typically in colonial situations. However, I am not sure that such association warrants thier reclassification. In the case of the 'hybrids' we have noted, I believe that they need to be adequately described rather than reclassified. The diversion to martial arts, the grim practical details of the weapons purpose etc. while interesting, seems counterproductive to this discussion. Although I think we all know that the primary function of a weapon is to inflict injury or death to an enemy or adversary, I cannot see how that effects the classification of a weapon in its study, in terms of whether it is 'ethnographic' or not. I must admit that my perspective on weapons is more from a culturally artistic standpoint in studying typology, symbolism and influences in design. I honestly prefer to avoid the unfortunate details of thier practical use, although naturally such details often must be considered in degree in looking at design application in blade forms etc. I do think the original topic is interesting and hope we can focus on that while continuing martial arts, equally interesting, on another thread. I am always amazed at the tremendous core of knowledge on these topics held by the membership here! All best regards, Jim

8th January 2007, 08:13 PM	#18
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	No problem RhysMichael ! My note was not directed specifically at your post, which was nicely done BTW, just at the course the discussion was taking. Paul, Excellent post and fantastic sabres!!!!! The subject of the influence of ethnographic swords on European military swords has long been a topic fascinating to me, and I have often been drawn to it in varying research. I have seen Georgian light cavalry sabres that have clearly British made blades with yelman, Georgian cavalry troopers sabres with fully parabolic blades distinctly recalling the shamshir curve although having the pipeback rib the full length etc. Clearly these are blades that reflect the influence of these much admired Eastern sabres. It is well known that during the campaigns in Egypt led to Western admiration of the sabres of the Mamluks, and the subsequent adoption of not only the distinctive Mamluk Ottoman form hilt by both Great Britian and France, but certainly the fascination with the curved and yelmanned blades. The development of the use of sabres, as discussed by Rivkin, clearly influenced the swords used by Eastern European armies as evidenced by those of Poland and Hungary and eventually all of Europe. In the development of the famed M1796 light cavalry sabre for Great Britian, LeMarchant the following excerpt is of interest: "...the Turkish sword, or kilij, had much impressed LeMarchant. The Ottoman cavalry were regarded as being among the best in Europe, and he felt that their superiority was not entirely due to thier brilliant riding and dash. Their blades, short and strongly curved in fine, watered Damascus steel, were essentially cutting weapons made to suit the natural slashing tendancy of a swordsman in a melee. In direct contrast was the British heavy cavalry broadsword, two edged, designed purely for thrusting, some 35" long and ungovernably heavy. "without a doubt", wrote LeMarchant, "the expertly used scimitar blades of the Turks, Mamelukes, Moors and Hungarians have proved that a light sword, if equally applicable to a cut or thrust. is preferable to any other". "Scientific Soldier:A Life of General LeMarchant", R.H.Thoumaine, 1968, pp43-44. LeMarchant worked closely with British sword maker Henry Osborn, to develop what has been called by many one of the finest cutting weapons ever forged, the British M1796 light cavalry sabre. These were used for the next 20 years and were regarded by French commanders in the Peninsula as being 'too effective, and barbarous causing terrible wounds', a rather obtuse compliment. Ironically, in later years when these sabres were becoming obsolete and being replaced or discarded, it became a concern of British forces in India that the native warriors were incredibly deadly in their use of the sword. The British were stunned when they discovered that the effectiveness of the swords used by the warriors was primarily in the sharpness, and that the warriors were actually using the discarded or captured M1796 blades! The Indian armourers were rehilting these blades in their own hilts. In another ironic note, I own a tulwar which carries a M1796 blade which is clearly marked 'Osborne' ! who was of course instrumental in developing the British blades influenced by Eastern sabres. I think as Paul has noted, these are considerations well placed in the diffusion of ethnographic vs. pattern in the development of swords. All best regards, Jim

8th January 2007, 08:42 PM	#19
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi Jim and Paul, Excellent posts and information, thanks

12th January 2007, 02:44 PM	#21
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Thanks Paul, excellent post,...........and MORE proof that smaller hilt size (Indian weapons) was attributable to their 'smaller' hands..... David

12th January 2007, 03:18 PM	#22
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	We have discussed from time-to-time whether certain weapons qualify as "ethnographic" for the purposes of this forum (by the way, the name has changed to "Arms & Armour," so we are allowed to discuss non-edged weapons as well ). What is ethnic to one person is cultural to another. From our Western point of view weapons such as tulwars and keris are "ethnic" because they come from other cultures. On the other hand, our Indian, Malay and Indonesian colleagues would rightly view a US Civil War sabre, a rapier, or a Viking sword as "ethnic." My view is that any weapon that is specific to a culture meets the definition of "ethnographic." This basically excludes fantasy weapons, or weapons so generic that they are not identifiable as belonging to any particular culture. A switchblade, or a modern machete or handgun could fall into the latter category, for example. As a practical matter, we don't see much discussion here of Western military weapons, medieval and earlier European weapons, or nihon-to, because collectors of these weapons tend to form a distinct group apart from the collectors of other weapons.

16th January 2007, 04:31 PM	#25
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	An "official" definition of sorts The moderators have been kicking around the idea of defining the meaning of "ethnographic" for this purposes of this forum. Personally, I hate to give the impression that we are imposing a bright-line exclusion of any one group of collectors. On the other hand, rather by definition this forum is directed to a particular sub-group of weapons & armor. Anyway, Lee pointed out that he has provided a definition on the main page of the Ethnographic Edged Weapons Resource site page. I have added a sticky note at the top of the General forum, providing this definition. We are not going to create any particular class of "prohibitted" weapons/armor, though. I think that the natural flow of the forum will be away from discussion of things that do not fit this definition of "ethnographic," so the definition I put up in the sticky post should not be taken as a strict prohibition against any discussion of things falling outside that definition. As several people have pointed out, often there is a direct relation between more standardized weapon and tool patterns and what can be considered "ethnographic," so some discussion of things like military pattern weapons can be enriching to the overall discussion. The tastes and interests of the forum membership naturally control the type and extent of discussion of weapons and armor on the forum. If a topic has some relevance to our interests, discussion will obviously continue as long as that interest lasts. My guess is that in many cases, a post on a pattern European sabre will be met largely with indifference. Of course, a post on the latest fantasy offering from Museum Replicas, or a Paul Chen Practical Katana is going to be met with a polite "wrong forum" message from the staff.