Help pls. on 15th-17th C. cutlass & scimitar

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Miguel, nicely done on the excellent work by Mr.Clements, those groupings of profiles really help in the discussion and looking at the development annd comparisons of types. Thank you for posting them for those of us who do not have this reference at hand.

Also, well placed digression to the Philippine versions of these, as it is always to see the widespread diffusion of many European influences into other cultures, and if none directly exists, the similarity regardless.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the comments!

The European influence on Asian blades is indeed one big factor. And hundreds of years even before Magellan and crew landed in southeast Asia (the present day Phils., Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.), Portuguese, Italian, and other European explorers and traders had already been frequenting Asia as we all know.

And am sure it was a two-way street -- Asian craft for sure was influencing European blade designs as well.

Going back to Spanish conquistador weapons, we see the illustrations below from one of Osprey's conquistador titles, for commentary as usual:

[migueldiaz]

Would appreciate more help and comments, please!

[And by the way, thanks again to Gonzalo for referring me the LINK from where the book Spanish Arms & Armour, which is now in the public domain, can be downloaded (a 45 mb download).]

So I found in the book this image of a 16th century cutlass (the rightmost sword). May I inquire from anybody please as to the cutlass' country of origin, as well as any other info about the same?

Thanks in advance!

[Gonzalo G]

Looks italian, and I wouldn´t call it a "cutlass".

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the comments!

The European influence on Asian blades is indeed one big factor. And hundreds of years even before Magellan and crew landed in southeast Asia (the present day Phils., Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.), Portuguese, Italian, and other European explorers and traders had already been frequenting Asia as we all know.

And am sure it was a two-way street -- Asian craft for sure was influencing European blade designs as well.

Going back to Spanish conquistador weapons, we see the illustrations below from one of Osprey's conquistador titles, for commentary as usual:

Well, Augustus (Cesar Octavius) sent an embassy to the chinese court through Southeast Asia. The relations are not ignored. The mutual influences are still to be established based on scientific grounds.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Looks italian, and I wouldn´t call it a "cutlass".

Thanks for the comment!

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Well, Augustus (Cesar Octavius) sent an embassy to the chinese court through Southeast Asia. The relations are not ignored. The mutual influences are still to be established based on scientific grounds.

Don't know about that one in particular, but thanks for the info.

Other explorers who for sure were "agents" of the phenomenon of the West influencing the East (and vice versa) would be Marco Polo (1254-1324) and Ibn Battuta (1305-1377). The latter is supposed to have even reached the Philippines.

And then there's the Italian Niccolò de' Conti (1395–1469) and Ludovico di Varthema who both reached what is now present day Malaysia and Indonesia.

Thus I think it would be safe to assume that Asia had been influencing Europe (and vice versa) even way back then. The only thing that would be hard to pinpoint would be the magnitude of each one's influence over the other.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... Which is your source? I don´t have much confidence in literary sources. They must be revised carefully ... But you are not speaking of Cervantes, so, which is your source? ...

Well Gonzalo, what can i say ? The guy is certainly more an intelectual than an arms technician; but he appears to have some lights in arms evolution.
His name is Alfredo Guimarães (1882-1958); Museum Director, member of the Academy of Fine Arts.
In the first part of the book prologue, he says:
The peninsular subsoil, rich in mineral species like silver, copper, tin and iron, was celebrated by the antiquity geologists and, upon it, Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians , Romans, Visigoths, Persians and Arabs developed their industrial activity, until the politic religious unification which crystallized, in the occident, the triumphs of the reconquest.
Giving the Phoenicians a notable activity in the works of argent and copper matters, exercised above all in the peninsular coast, and to the Visigoths a certain personality in the works of goldsmithery and numismatic, in reality, on what concerns the construction of defence weapons conceived in terms of art, we only possess notice of Roman and Persian-Arabic production, occidental, being in this way able to establish, under influence of the two peoples, the path that drives us in this matter, until the beginning of our national life.
Roman and Arabic armoury are however two kinds of under the artistic point of view, determine, in the form as in the technique, the domain of two civilizations fundamentally heterogeneous. One being Latin and the other Oriental, marking therefore poles opposed in character and development of their respective workshops, Roman civilization left us a sword model of vertical disposition, short and solid, but absent of artistic attires, whereas, under designation of peoples to which decorative arts were always an indispensable attraction, Oriental civilization impregnated us with inflexed armoury, damascened and sometimes enamelled, under active effect of artistic faculties. Therefore, in the military combats that took place after the 711 Arabic invasion, Asturians and Leonese used their (straight) swords of Roman tradition, in contrast to Persians and Arabs that exhibited the re curved models of their country of origin. The Reconquest fights intensified and submitted to Christian power the Persians and Arabs of the center and north of the Iberian peninsula, there can be no doubt that Muslim arts soon exercised certain influence spirit is western armoury and is by influx of the same that, in Mozarab artistic activity, of vertical sword, which was supported, as said before, in the Roman model, suffering t5he effects – at least in the superior part of the pieces – of the aptitude and elegance of the artists of neo-christian workshops. From where logically, the specimens appeared by mid IX century, in Spain, Portugal and the French Midi, and which development in European territory can not be denied.
Then the author weaves considerations on the evolution of the sword, mainly on their artistic side, which i roughly sinthetize here:
Figure 1. The so called Frank sword, on which setup we can still see a a Roman architectural trace, but also exhibiting Mossarab innovations, in the pommel, grip and guard.
Figure 2. The shape of the XI, XII and XIII centuries, to which we owe a lot.
Figure 3. The so called Gineta.
Figure 4. The evolution of “Passot” and “Gavilanes” (quillons).
Figure 5. The so called fallen cross sword.
Figure 6. The Carlos V (Spain) “Espadão” (large sword), dedicated to chiefs of the Lansquenets.
Figure 7. Another Espadão, with various innovations like, for the hand protection, thick flocks of silk, which also served as decoration.
Figure 8. The Mandoble (two handed), of dimension prolongated to two and half meters, with a blade of Arab artistic expression (XV century).
Figure 9. A sword of highly decorative values, XVI century.
Figure 10 and 11. Lace swords, for Aristrocacy dressing, but ending up being used for combat in Africa, Asia, America and Oceania.
Figure 12. The Lighthouse or Eslavona sword, particularly esteemed in Italy and Spain, and here, in a special manner in Cataluñia and Valencia.
Figure 13,14 and 15. The Cazoleta, Concha (shell) and Taza (cup) swords; provenient from Spain, mainly after the usurpation period (Filipes), with the most perfect and complete influences of Oriental art.
Figure 16. The sword of King Dom joão I, Mestre de Aviz (XIV century).
Figure 17. The sword of Nuno Alvares Pereira (the hero of Aljubarrota – XIV century).
So sorry if i went much off topic; hoping some of this material has the minimum interest.
Fernando

.

[katana]

Hi Fernando ,
is it me, or is figure 1, a Model 1831 French Infantry Short Sword

Regards David

[fernando]

Hi Gonzalo

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... In the article about the tipologic study of spanish weapons, German Dueñaz Beraiz denies that alfanje and scimitar are the same thing, but he does not explains what a scimitar is ... According with Beraiz, the description of a scimitar in the way Covarrubias explains, corresponds with a shamshir, and this is the reason he does not accept Covarrubias description, because the scimitars were "more short" than a shamshir from his point of view ...

I browsed on this article. Do i see it differently, or have i read a different passage ?

"Relacionada con esta tenemos otra arma de origen árabe, como es la cimitarra. A pesar de que Covarrubias diga que es igual que el alfange, eso si remarcando la curva de su hoja, al decir que es una espada vuelta a manera de hoz (Covarrubias, op. Cit. 283 r). Esta tipología se corresponde a los shamsires turcos, que resultaban algo más largos que los alfanjes, con hojas más estrechas y curvadas."

Isn't it Beraiz, opposing Covarrubias, who defines that a scimitar, like a samshir, is larger than an alfanje, with narrower and more curved blades?
Or am i confusing things?
Fernando

[fernando]

Hi David,

Originally Posted by katana

... is it me, or is figure 1, a Model 1831 French Infantry Short Sword ...

I understand one instinctively thinks so.
But maybe the idea is to consider that the French glaive is inspired on the IX century Frank sword ... says my innocent self .
Remember the Gladius Hispaniensis and all that?
The grip of this sword could be in ivory, bone or wood, sometimes damascened; the blade, enlarging in its width, still preserves the pointed form of the Romanized exemplars.
Fernando

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by fernando

... Then the author weaves considerations on the evolution of the sword, mainly on their artistic side, which i roughly sinthetize here: ...

Hi Fernando,

Many thanks for continuously sharing to us your knowledge and your materials on the subject! All I can say is "super!"

This sure puts the swords we are talking about in a much much better perspective.

Best wishes and thanks again,

Lorenz

[celtan]

Hello all, I’m just back from dealing with literally explossive issues. And here, waiting for my arrival, Gonzalo left me another.



Again, I think this is something to be addressed outside of the forum, as I have repeatedly said before. But since Gonzo’s post was published, I believe I have the right to answer same in kind. My heartfelt apologies to those not interested in the subject.



And it goes:



English says the same thing about India...but I seriously doubt anybody should be grateful for being invaded and subjugated by anybody, at the cost of lost of many human lifes, the destruction of cultures and civilizations (spaniards destroyed cultures, english did not, or at least not in the same measure)



Spanish incorporated native cultures into their own, and doing so, exposed them to interactions with the one they brought. In the end, the americans themselves decided which one was better and more useful. The less popular and useful simply faded away, just like arameic. Its called evolution.



and the expoliation of their economy and natural resources, to benefit a colonial metropoli and a bunch of spanish parasites, who were empoverished by their richness because they did not produce anything



Parasites like the Incas and the Aztecs..? No, I don’t think so. Spain became an administrative center, and while this model eventually became outdated, it did all right for several centuries. No small feat.



and used their gold to enrich France, England and Holland purchasing there all the goods they were incapable to manofacture, and so the spanish empire began it´s decadence as soon as it started....



Actually Gonzo, most of the Spanish Gold ended up in India, of all places.



Everything decays, living per force also entails dying. Which does not mean that we should avoid living in order not to die…



frankly, I don´t see the need to glorify spanish imperialism, of dubious greatness and gone MANY years ago, at the expense of the countries of origin of the rest of the forumites.



I have never done that, your words are a rather childish attempt to antagonize me to other posters, by default enlisting them on your “side”, whatever that is….



Specially when many belong to a really powerfull empires which ripped the poor spanish empire into pieces and ate them calmly.



Oh Really..? What I have learned from studying post grad History is that Spain destroyed itself from the inside, right after the Napoleonic wars, albeit the beginning of the end may be found at the Battle of Rocroi vs the French gallant Duc d’Enghien, with the destruction of most of the veteran Tercios and the military teachers cadre. All this out of a mere Royal whim...



Ate? : ) Seems like little ol’ Spain was a tough bone to gnaw. It took three centuries for the combined powers of England, France and Holland to bring Spain down, and this as low as Mexico has ever been able to raise itself. : )



Or expeled the spaniards two centuries ago into the sea in their wars of independence before the impotence and incompetence of the whole spanish armed forces and their government.



Yeah, yeah. Curiously, it was the criollos, the American born descendants of the Spanish who managed that (in a very, very close call that left both Mexico and Venezuela virtually uninhabited )not the local rebels. In fact, most of the native populations fought beside the Spanish against the oppression of the criollo landholders. An even the criollos required massive unofficial assistance from the British, and reinforcement from Spanish Regular army expatriates.



The latter were regular soldiers from Riego’s republican armies, who left the Peninsula evading Ferdinan VII absolutist forces and the 100,000 French Sons Of Saint Louis. In sum, the Spanish Empire was actually brought down by Ferdinand VII’s francophyllia, his return to absolutism, and his abolition of the popular Cortes.



Curiosly, the few great men Spain had in it´s Golden Age, all them deeply depicted the spanish government and the spanish status quo...or establishment, as we say in modern times.



Do you meant “despised” perhaps? Mexican Spanglish is a tad difficult to understand sometimes, although understandably so, in view of its post-Iturbide’s History.



So? The Spanish have always been their own most acerbic critics, like today's USA. And yet, this does not detract the slightest bit from our pride in ancestry and love-of-country.



Heck, the few well educated men in 21st C. Mexico despise far more the Mexican government, than the Spanish ever disliked their own!



What common enemies did the conquered peoples had with Spain? The United States and England? Did they were the enemies of the meshica (aztecs) or the philipine moro?...ridiculous...



Nopey, I meant the Aztecs, who were hated and despised all over 15th C. Mexico, and their like. The Chinese who wanted to conquer Filipinas. The Cambodians who wanted to conquer Thailand, etc…



Well, at the end, we are grateful of the spanish opression...we could easily

shake it off...


Remember the Spanish stayed in Veracruz for as long as they wanted? Heck, they even w returned along with French and British, to recover unpaid debts, defeating everything the Mexicans threw at them When both Brits and Spans realized that the French planned to stay, they both left Mexico because they refused to saddle themselves with the unholy mess you made, of what once was the wealthiest part of America...
.
C’mon, Gonzo. There’s nothing that the Mexicans can shake off, in fact, you guys got nothing to shake! You are the most despised nationality in all of America, so much so, that you can’t even stand yourselves!

You Mexicans are your own worst enemies, creating storms within glasses of water, and then congratulating yourselves for having “weathered” them thanks to your vast nautical abilities...It’s really ludicrous, you know.



but more grateful should be the spaniards to the arab domination for SEVEN centuries,



Presence: yes. Domination: not really. More likely a cohesive military and economic control of certain key areas, mostly Southern Andalucia. The fact is that Spain was very underpopulated ( 6 to 10 million), and the invading Omeya-Iranian armies were very few (There were never more than 60,000-100,000 ethnic arabs in Spain at any one time), which meant that most of the population never even saw a “real” Arab, specially taking into consideration the ruggedness of Spain’s terrain and the remoteness of the villages.





Culturally-wise, the Spanish did convert to Islam in staggering amounts, and this mostly because it was convenient. Meaning, most of Spanish Arabs were actually Spanish.



as they were complete barbarians when the arab invasion, divided in many kingdoms (still are by local separatisms), under the foreign visigotic rule...and arabs gave them some civilization ¿Of what unity we are talking about, when still today many basques and catalonians do not completely accept the spanish government and speak different languajes than the official castillian?



Just like in Mexico, where even today 1. every so often you get Indiadas risings?, where 2. many of the local inhabitants speak their own dialects?, whose 3. Spanish is often quite difficult to recognize as such? 4. Where the inland Indians deridingly call their city-dwelling Indian brothers “ispanioles”? Yep, your native unity touches my heart…



The arabs incorporated many scientific findings from the civilizations they conquered by means of fire and sword, but were not that great Scientist themselves. In fact Gonzo, Islam expressly forbid trying to understand God’s ways. It was downright Heresy, and It could be punished by Death. Not a very scientific mind-set, if you ask me.

Kisses?



I will not touch that comment with a ten-foot pole…



Toots




; )




Manuel Luis





Again: Gonzo, if you’d like to continue this discussion, do it through PMs.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Gonzalo



I browsed on this article. Do i see it differently, or have i read a different passage ?

"Relacionada con esta tenemos otra arma de origen árabe, como es la cimitarra. A pesar de que Covarrubias diga que es igual que el alfange, eso si remarcando la curva de su hoja, al decir que es una espada vuelta a manera de hoz (Covarrubias, op. Cit. 283 r). Esta tipología se corresponde a los shamsires turcos, que resultaban algo más largos que los alfanjes, con hojas más estrechas y curvadas."

Isn't it Beraiz, opposing Covarrubias, who defines that a scimitar, like a samshir, is larger than an alfanje, with narrower and more curved blades?
Or am i confusing things?
Fernando

No Fernando, I am sorry, but It is just that I think you read wrongly the same passage. Let me first translate, to the benefit of the forumites:

‘In relation with this, we have another weapon of arab origin, which is the scimitar. Although Covarrubias says that the alfanje is the same that the scimitar, but more curved, when states that it is a sword bended as a sickle (Covarrubias, op. Cit. 283 r). But this typology is related with the turkish shamshirs, longer and heavier than the alfanjes, with blades more narrow and curved.’

OK, Fernando, based on this description, can you say Beraiz has defined or described the scimitar? I don’t think so. At the best, you can infer that the shamshirs are longer and heavier than the alfanjes, with blades more narrow and curved. In other words, Beraiz says that the alfanje and the scimitar are not the same weapons, and also enumerates some differences among the alfanjes and shamshirs. But it says nothing about the scimitar itself.

I call the attention to the point that even two spanish specialist in swords do not agree if alfanjes and scimitars are, or are not, the same weapon, and with the lack of trustable illustrations about this kind of swords. Also, the lack of records among available authentic swords existing to the present day, mentioning arab ‘scimitars’ and ‘alfanjes’. In my opinion, those terms were used vaguely and imprecisely to refer to other curved weapons from the Middle East and the near Orient, and there are not swords we can call today scimitars and alfanjes, but the european Renaissance weapons already mentioned. I believe it is not a mere coincidence nobody can show today any arab, turkish or persian authentic alfanje, but only references and illustrations of weapons made in Europe.

And, I’m sorry again, Fernando, but I personally find your source with insuficient credentials, with all due respect. You have to have knowledge of the swords, far more than the traditional descriptions you can find on old books and museographic references, so full of mistakes and gaps. Your quote from this person does not add much light on the subject of the scimitar (the subject of the present thread), but it does make me think about the nature of the author’s approach. First, I can tell you that there are many references in this forum from Jim McDougall and others, stating that the early islamic swords (the time of the arab conquest) were straight and not curved. But there are more specialists on the subject, whom I will enumerate latter as suggested readings, as I don’t like very much quoting out of context. First, we don’t know when and by whom curved swords were carried into Europe. It seems that the avars, who invaded Hungary, were the first ones. It is said that the saber of Charlemagne, according with some sources, comes from his wars against the avars. The oldest known saber from islamic procedence, was unearthed in Iran, and it seems to belong to a 9th Century turkish slave warrior. Latter, maybe carried by central asian turkish groups, this type of blade had more diffusion into actual Iran, Middle East and North Africa, but it came very late into Spain. Just take on account that Spain was the far-west islamic dominion with respect to Iran-Persia, and the curved sword had to travel in some way to the Iberian area. It seems that even early mamelukes or mamluks used straight swords. The arabs which invaded Europe used straight swords. The latter invasions from North Africa into actual Spain used straight swords. If you know the Gineta or Jineta sword, carried by the berber zenetes, you will know what I mean. The preserved swords from the late nazarid period, also were straight. The men el Cid fought to, used straight swords. This is the reason the Tizona, which is a straight sword, is been called as ‘andalusian’, meaning an arab weapon, independently if it is not from El Cid. Also, the Gineta swords illustrated in your post, are straight. We will not question in this moment why these swords are classified as ‘ginetas’ by some spanish scholars.

You have to take on account, also, that the words ‘saif’, ‘kiliç’, and ‘shamshir’ only designate a ‘sword’ of no specific form in their original languages, and that those swords also came with straight blades. In the case of the shamshir, it seems that still under the arab rule it has a straight blade, and it was until latter, before or after the mongol invasion, but probably not under the arab dominion over Persia, it took the curved form. This is a subject yet not clarified satisfactorily, but at least the curved shamshir seems to have not predominated under the arab rule. So, the great development of curved shamshir comes from a turkish or a mongol period, and not arab, as a result of central asian influences.

As from other parts of your quote, I find them very questionable. Of course, Roman and Arabs belonged to different cultural environments…and timelines…maybe the preislamic arabs or other semitic nomads (in the nabatean and the yemenite kingdoms, or the numids, for example) used roman style swords, or at least straight swords reminiscent of the roman. But I cannot characterize the mass of christian swords from the Reconquest as ‘roman’, though some of the spanish peoples could use some kind of short sword in the roman style. Most of the medieval swords in your illustration are germanic long swords (from diverse origins: visigothic, viking, saxon, frankish, etc.) And the germanic swords do were decorated, if in a different way than the arabic. I don’t think the islamic art influenced the romanic swords, but instead the germanic ones. The first sword from your illustration, looks like late roman, and not frank, but I can be completely mistaken. As I don´t have much knowledge of the frankish swords. In fact we don’t know to which degree romans decorated their swords, as we have but few examples, mostly in very bad shape, and maybe from common soldiers. Decoration was determined by the rank and richness of the sword owner, so many swords from common arab and berber soldiers were also ‘absent of artistic attires’. You have to take on account also the availability of decoration techniques on the arab empire and in the european kingdoms, which seem to be more primitive in their technologies. The technique of damanascening was unknown outside the arab area in the Iberian Peninsula for a long time.

And, what does it mean the statement: ‘submitted to Christian power the Persians and Arabs of the center and north of the Iberian peninsula’? I don´t know id I undertood well, but it seems that your author believes that there were persians and arabs alongside in the Iberian Peninsula…another questionable point, to say the less. And, finally, there were muslim units during the arab conquest which used the straight short sword blades, roman style.

To make a personal verification of the arab swords, please see:

‘Some issues in the studv of the pre-Islamic
weaponry of southeast Arabia’
by D. T. Potts, in Arabian archaeology
and epigraphy, Denmark, 1998

Early Islamic Arms and Armour, by David Nicolle,
Instituto de Estudios sobre Armas Antiguas, 1963

‘The Sword in Islam’, by Zaki Abd al R., in Studies in Honour of Prof. K. A. C. Creswell, El Cairo, 1965

‘Jihad and Islamic Arms and Armour’, by David Alexander, in Gladius, Vol. XXII, 2002

‘La Espada de Protocolo del Sultán Nazarí Muhammad V’, by Virgilio Martínez Enamorado, in Gladius, Vol. XXV, 2005

‘Las Armas en la Historia de la Reconquista’, by Ada Bruhn de Hoffmeyer, in Gladius, Vol Especial 1988

‘Swords and Sabers During Early Islamic Period, by David Alexander, in Gladius, Vol. XXI, 2001

‘Una Espada de Época Omeya del Siglo IX D.C., by Alberto Canto García, in Gladius XXI, 2001

El Cid and the Reconquista 1050 . 1492, by David Nicolle, Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 200), 1996

The Moors - The Islamic West 7th - 15th Centuries A.D., by David Nicolle, Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 348), 2001

Armies of the Muslim Conquest, by David Nicolle and Angus McBride (or is Jim McDougall?), Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 255), 1993

Saladin and the Saracens, by the same authors, Osprey Military (Collection Men-At-Arms Series, No. 171), 1996

Also, you can search images in the web from the swords of the ayubids (the dynasty of Saladin in North Africa and part of the Middle East), the Gineta swords, the nasrid swords, and so on. They are real swords from the time period.

I want to bring here another reference to the scimitar from the article by Dueñas. On pages 10 and 11, he writtes: ‘One type of weapon, less known and fabricated in Spain on the 16th Century, was the terciado. According with Covarrubias (Covarrubias, op. Cit. pág. 85), it´s name was originated on the fact that the length of the blade was smaller than the third part of the marca. If we take on account that the marca was of five quarters of a vara, equivalent of 83 cm, the terciado should have a length of 50 cm approximately. Furthermore, he says that it was a short and wide sword , but does not mention if it was curved or straight, or if it had one or two edges. This widthness is confirmated in several texts from this time, like this:

The giant arosed the cane to Marcelino, but he tilted his body and the cane hitted the floor, and the cane jumped off the hand of the giant. Then he took a terciado, which was very wide and strong, and tried to hit Marcelino destroying part of his shield, but Marcelito hitted him back’.


‘Another possible synonym of this type of weapon is the machete. Which was defined in this time same as the terciado, who was not as long as the sword, nor as short as the puñal or the daga (Covarrubias, op, Cit. pag? 531r). It is possible that the only difference was that the machete, more than being a weapon, was a tool, a knife of great proportions useful in agriculture and cattle raising. From other references it can be deducted that the term terciado was used as a synonym of the expression scimitar. Maybe it was the term in Castilian to refer to this arab weapon.

He fell upon the weapons of a soldier,
Taking his quiver and a terciado.
Which now used over a less strong shoulder,
Of the wide scimitar he ornated the narrow band.
(Oña, 1596: 251)’

So, we find here an hypotheses: that the terciado and the scimitar could be the same weapon. Also, that the terciado and the machete could be the same weapon, being the only difference the working purposes of the machete. There is no specification to the form of the blade, if it was straight or curved. We have to take on account that the machetes were not only a working tool in those times, but also a weapon used in the 19th Century in place of the sword and the saber by the non mounted soldier and specialist of the spanish army, meaning all the infantry, artillery, grenadiers, engineers, musicians, etc., and their blades varied drastically along the time. So, we have to precise what kind of machetes Dueñas Beraiz is referring to, but the most common type of machete had a straight blade and a curved edge. So, it was not a curved type of sword or working tool. It is also possible that the terciado was the direct ancestor, or the same weapon than the espada ancha.
Regards

Gonzalo

PD: Fer, I apolgy for my delayed response, but I previously said in other thread, I have problems with internet connection. In the future, I will respond a little late, but I will respond.

[Gonzalo G]

Celtan, Manolin, sorry but I find your posts about this subject very boring, useless, off-topic, biased and not very constructive for all the froumites. Your spanish-centerd vision-compulsion is absurd and uninteresting. I will not waste my valuable time and the few moments I can get into internet answering a late pile of idiocies. But I will fight you any time you persist in dealing with subjects politically or ideologically biased into your fascist ideas and your self-cultural-centrism, and especially in off-topic areas forbidden to deal with on this forum. Please don´t bother to answer me on this matter. Neverthless, in other matters, you are a nice guy and I love you.
Kisses

Gonzalo

[Gonzalo G]

Jim McDougall, I couldn´t find my questioning to a previously statement you made, and I must make a public apology of my mistake. I found a source for your statement about arabs importing european blades into their dominions in Al-Andalus in actual Spain in the early stages of their domination there. I have not read previously that source, so it is my mistake to deny such big imports in the early history of muslim rule in that area. Why did you not mention it to me before, when I asked for? I wonder to which extent in time these imports were necessary.
Regards

Gonzalo

[celtan]

Gonzo,



If you’d rather lie in the perpetual dream of Aztlanic navel-ism , then do so. It’s your prerogative. But I will not allow you to preach your lies-of-convenience uncontested, specially if you try to do so at the expense of Spain or the US, whose Histories I’m relatively well versed in.



Otherwise, let’s keep to the subject of bladed weapons, and perhaps we can make it a productive arrangement after all.



Toots!



: )

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Celtan, Manolin, sorry but I find your posts about this subject very boring, useless, off-topic, biased and not very constructive for all the froumites. Your spanish-centerd vision-compulsion is absurd and uninteresting. I will not waste my valuable time and the few moments I can get into internet answering a late pile of idiocies. But I will fight you any time you persist in dealing with subjects politically or ideologically biased into your fascist ideas and your self-cultural-centrism, and especially in off-topic areas forbidden to deal with on this forum. Please don´t bother to answer me on this matter. Neverthless, in other matters, you are a nice guy and I love you.
Kisses

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Hi Gonzalo,
Just a couple layman senseless loose notes ...

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... Let me first translate, to the benefit of the forumites:
‘In relation with this, we have another weapon of arab origin, which is the scimitar. Although Covarrubias says that the alfanje is the same that the scimitar, but more curved, when states that it is a sword bended as a sickle (Covarrubias, op. Cit. 283 r). But this typology is related with the turkish shamshirs, longer and heavier than the alfanjes, with blades more narrow and curved.’

It's funny; i still don't interpreter it that way but, being you spanish speaking, i will not presume i am right and you are wrong. I even think there is a problem of punctuation in the text .

And, I’m sorry again, Fernando, but I personally find your source with insuficient credentials, with all due respect.

Maybe yes, maybe not. I wouldn't diminish him so quickly. I am only citing parts of the work, with my interpretation and translation limitations. Besides, every now and then he quotes people that are certainly within the subject, presupposing that he is not 'inventing' the whole thing; guys like Pompeo Gener, Cobn-Wiener, Raimundo Koechlin ... who ever they are .

Your quote from this person does not add much light on the subject of the scimitar (the subject of the present thread),

If i well remember, my post was an evolution on the probability of curved swords, scimitars or other, appearing in the peninsula, handled by Arabs (or Muslims) at such early stage, after being said (by you at least) that curved swords appeared a good couple centuries later.

If you know the Gineta or Jineta sword, carried by the berber zenetes, you will know what I mean. The preserved swords from the late nazarid period, also were straight. The men el Cid fought to, used straight swords. This is the reason the Tizona, which is a straight sword, is been called as ‘andalusian’, meaning an arab weapon, independently if it is not from El Cid. Also, the Gineta swords illustrated in your post, are straight. We will not question in this moment why these swords are classified as ‘ginetas’ by some spanish scholars.

I am aware that the gineta was produced in Granada by the XIII century and copied by the christians by the XV century in Toledo, and was later westernized; but this doesn't avoid peoples to use more than one type of sword in the same period of time, as frequently occurs ... right ?

But I cannot characterize the mass of christian swords from the Reconquest as ‘roman’, though some of the spanish peoples could use some kind of short sword in the roman style.

Maybe we are shortening time spans. The romanized sword like in figure 1 was on between the IX and mid X centuries. The reconquest went on for seven centuries;certainly things changed whilst it lasted. Figure 2 pretends to represent the sword used during XI, XII and XIII centuries; this was the model with the greatest credits. Certainly an European design, with pommels having the knights crests engraved which, besides heraldic representation, were used as seals to press on the wax of parchments.

Most of the medieval swords in your illustration are germanic long swords (from diverse origins: visigothic, viking, saxon, frankish, etc.)

Maybe 'most' is a strong term, but no wonder; swords in the peninsula alternated their influence from Perso-Arab, Mozarab and European ... in a random sequence and returns.

The first sword from your illustration, looks like late roman, and not frank, but I can be completely mistaken.

Naturally this is the illustration of the sword evoluted from that quoted of Roman tradition, used by the locals against the Arab invaders, appearing in the IX century with Mozarab influences. I guess the author uses the term frank in a different meanning than that of it having Frankish origins... sort of free, like in free style, or the like; he even puts frank sword between " ".

And, what does it mean the statement: ‘submitted to Christian power the Persians and Arabs of the center and north of the Iberian peninsula’? I don´t know id I undertood well, but it seems that your author believes that there were persians and arabs alongside in the Iberian Peninsula…another questionable point, to say the less.

The Arabs with whom Tarik invaded the Peninsula in 711 included Sirians, Egiptians, Persians and Berberes.

To make a personal verification of the arab swords, please see:

I already decided that i will soon order a couple Nicolle works.

I want to bring here another reference to the scimitar from the article by Dueñas. On pages 10 and 11, he writtes: ‘One type of weapon, less known and fabricated in Spain on the 16th Century, was the terciado. According with Covarrubias (Covarrubias, op. Cit. pág. 85), it´s name was originated on the fact that the length of the blade was smaller than the third part of the marca. If we take on account that the marca was of five quarters of a vara, equivalent of 83 cm, the terciado should have a length of 50 cm approximately. Furthermore, he says that it was a short and wide sword , but does not mention if it was curved or straight, or if it had one or two edges.

So it appears that the term terciado (terçado in portuguese) was (also) one of those atriibuted to various types of sword throught time.

So, we find here an hypotheses: that the terciado and the scimitar could be the same weapon.

At least the Portuguese chroniclers often mention the terçado as a weapon ( also?) used by the Moors.

In the future, I will respond a little late, but I will respond.

Take your time

Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

How disappointing. The subject of these swords, the history of Spain and the colonies in its empire ( I hope I worded that properly as I wouldnt want any of the combatants here to take offense), in what promised to be an extremely informative discussion, completely trashed by personality laden , barbed cattiness.
I've said it before....I wanted the discussions here clear of that kind of nonsense, and thought what I had noted was understood.

In order to spare any more suffering or embarassment for the rest of us, I think we'll have to wait to learn more about this subject another time, and I hope the parties here that are obviously most learned on this history will try to brush up on diplomacy. Its actually pretty easy....it it really necessary to be insulting to make a point? No, but it does take some skill and above average patience and understanding to take the time to craft the message.
I honestly expected more.

Thread regrettably closed.

Jim