Crimean Tatars knives in the 18th century

[ariel]

The presenter specifically stressed that the choice of objects was based on their presence and usage by the military of the Crimean Khanate, NOT on the purported place of their manufacture, Crimea or otherwise.

This was a time-limited oral presentation, not a full manuscript.
It set a well-defined scope of presentation and covered it very well.

When his m/s is submitted for publication, the reviewers will be within their rights and obligations to ask for clarifying points.Provided, of course that they do not resort to ad hominem attacks and crudities expressed by one commentator

[mahratt]

Dear Ariel, perhaps you did not notice my question, which I voiced above? Please tell me, in the United States it is considered normal to make the same scientific report at 2 scientific conferences (that is, the same article will then be published in the same language in two different scientific publications)? Just in Russia, this is considered completely unacceptable ...

And one more question. Please tell me what you consider the “Weapon of the Crimean Khanate”? (this is what the report was called). Is this any weapon that fell into the Crimean Khanate? Can Polish, Russian, and Turkish weapons be called if the Crimean Khanate used such weapons — Crimean weapons?
The presenter was asked a question which, by the way, he couldn’t answer: “If in Russia a Russian will drive a German BMW car, on which he, as the owner of this car, will make inscriptions in Russian, will this BMW car - “Russian car?” I wonder how you answer this question.
Can a Russian Kalashnikov assault rifle and an American M-16 rifle be called "Somali weapons" if these weapons are used by Somali pirates?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Ariel, perhaps you did not notice my question, which I voiced above? Please tell me, in the United States it is considered normal to make the same scientific report at 2 scientific conferences (that is, the same article will then be published in the same language in two different scientific publications)? Just in Russia, this is considered completely unacceptable ...

And one more question. Please tell me what you consider the “Weapon of the Crimean Khanate”? (this is what the report was called). Is this any weapon that fell into the Crimean Khanate? Can Polish, Russian, and Turkish weapons be called if the Crimean Khanate used such weapons — Crimean weapons?
The presenter was asked a question which, by the way, he couldn’t answer: “If in Russia a Russian will drive a German BMW car, on which he, as the owner of this car, will make inscriptions in Russian, will this BMW car - “Russian car?” I wonder how you answer this question.
Can a Russian Kalashnikov assault rifle and an American M-16 rifle be called "Somali weapons" if these weapons are used by Somali pirates?

Long list of questions... I’ll start from the bottom.

We have multiple examples of weapons utilizing foreign-made parts or made entirely in one country and used in another. They sill can be called by the name of the user country, and the name of the manufacturer is added if known.

Indian Firangi is still Indian despite European blades. Caucasian shashkas are still Caucasian despite having Polish, Hungarian and German blades. Russian officers were proud of their German blades.
Cossack Hosts ordered their entire shashkas from Poland and Belgium and they are still Cossack by usage.

AK-47 made in China is not Russian : it is Chinese. There are also Polish, Bulgarian, Philippine etc copies of AK-47 manufactured by license. And salesmen call them as such.

And, as a matter of fact, AK-47 is not Russian either: does the name of Hugo Schmeisser tell you something?

The presenter specifically said that he was not discussing the place of manufacture; he was explicitly referring to the place of usage based on the name of the owner: one of the Crimean Giray khans.

Thus, your criticisms and indignation were out of place.

As to the issue of double publication. Neither in the US nor in Europe are there any restrictions on presenting the same material ( poster or oral) at several meetings. However, there are very severe punishments for publishing the same material as full papers in different journals

For example, you yourself published an article in the Russian journal “ Studies of historical weapons” arguing for the legitimacy of a name “ karud” for straight-bladed pesh-kabz and virtually simultaneously re- published the English translation of the same paper in the Italian journal “Armi Antici”
As a Chief Editor of one medical journal, and Assoc. Editor of another I can assure you that would ban you forever from both journals and from a multitude of others as well. But ... different countries, different customs.

BTW, where is my copy of the English translation of your book? I did buy it from the publisher, after all.
You can send it to my e-mail address. Thanks.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Indian Firangi is still Indian despite European blades. Caucasian shashkas are still Caucasian despite having Polish, Hungarian and German blades. Russian officers were proud of their German blades.
Cossack Hosts ordered their entire shashkas from Poland and Belgium and they are still Cossack by usage.

Well, let's start in order.
Firangi in which only the European blade is used, and the hilt and scabbard will be Indian, will undoubtedly Indian weapons. But the English saber in the hands of the Indian warrior will remain an English saber.

Originally Posted by ariel

AK-47 made in China is not Russian : it is Chinese. There are also Polish, Bulgarian, Philippine etc copies of AK-47 manufactured by license. And salesmen call them as such.

And, as a matter of fact, AK-47 is not Russian either: does the name of Hugo Schmeisser tell you something?

The AK-47 brand is Russian and this is a fact (it didn’t matter if Kalashnikov used someone’s ideas or not). And if we are talking about the AK-47 made in Russia, then in the hands of the Chinese and in the hands of the African - this will be the Russian AK-47, not Chinese or non-African

Originally Posted by ariel

The presenter specifically said that he was not discussing the place of manufacture; he was explicitly referring to the place of usage based on the name of the owner: one of the Crimean Giray khans.

Thus, your criticisms and indignation were out of place.

The problem is that the author of the report does not understand that the weapons were made in Turkey, Poland or Russia and the khans of the Crimean Khanate were only users of these weapons. It was this problem that the Russian weapons experts tried to explain to the author of the report. But, unfortunately, the author of the report did not understand ...

Originally Posted by ariel

As to the issue of double publication and explicit ban on such practice in Russia: that is new to me.

Yes, in Russia it is not customary to report and publish the same study at two conferences. Is it allowed in the USA?

Originally Posted by ariel

You yourself published an article in the Russian journal “ Studies of historical weapons” arguing for the legitimacy of a name “ karud” for straight-bladed pesh-kabz and virtually simultaneously re- published the English translation of it in the Italian journal “Armi Antici”
I have assumed that it was a usual practice in Russia, although as a Chief Editor of one medical journal, and Assoc. Editor of another I can assure you that would b an you forever from both journals and from a multitude of others as well. But ... different countries, different customs.

t's nice that you are so closely following my research. Once you asked, I’ll explain. A Russian magazine asked for my article (Russian version) after I submitted my article to an Italian magazine “Armi Antici”. This can be confirmed by the Mercenary, who is one of the editors of the Russian magazine “ Studies of historical weapons”. So the Russian “ Studies of historical weapons” magazine was aware that my article had already been sent to the Italian magazine. By the way, if the author of the report “Weapons of the Crimean Khanate” sent a translation of his article in English to a foreign magazine, this would not raise any questions, since in that case he would simply attract an international audience to his article.

I hope that now I was able to explain to you a situation that is probably bothering you for a long time?

[mahratt]

By the way, you for some reason (probably just did not notice) did not answer my question about Tatar knives, that were bought by the Tsar himself from a Bakhchisarai knifemaker in 1837. Are these exactly the knives that you brought in the photo?
Or am I misunderstood what you wrote because of my bad English?

Originally Posted by ariel

Especially interesting, IMXO, are two: the sheepherder and the pic of 2 local knives bought personally by the Tsar in Bakhchisarai in 1837.

[mahratt]

Ariel,
So what about my question? If for the first time it could be accidentally missed, it was hard not to notice the second time ... But I have to repeat it for the third time. I am intrigued by your phrase:
"Especially interesting, IMXO, are two: the sheepherder and the pic of 2 local knives bought personally by the Tsar in Bakhchisarai in 1837."

Are you claiming that the photographs you showed in this thread show the knives that the Russian tsar bought in Bakhchisarai in 1837?

[mahratt]

Ariel,
So what about my question? If for the first time it could be accidentally missed, it was hard not to notice the second time and third time... I have to ask a question for the fourth time I am intrigued by your phrase:
"Especially interesting, IMXO, are two: the sheepherder and the pic of 2 local knives bought personally by the Tsar in Bakhchisarai in 1837."

Are you claiming that the photographs you showed in this thread show the knives that the Russian tsar bought in Bakhchisarai in 1837?