Dear Jim,
It seems that the widened, double-edged yalman was not only adding weight and momentum to the blade, but also allowing "back-cuts". Logically thinking, there would be no need to sharpen a false edge if it was only to add weight and momentum. Archaeology (Kovacs: 1935) and practice (Zablocki: 1989) support this back-cut issue.
Dear Erlikhan,
You are right, not every sword that Turks used in history had a double-edged yalman, nor the double-edged yalman was a Turkish speciality. However, as I stated in a previous post, the type that we call "kilic" in this forum was their original sword and therefore had its name plainly; a "sword". Nevertheless, modern Turkish scholars call it "Turk kilici" in order to avoid a confusion due to the language being used.
For Ottomans, once again, it was simply "kilic". A shamshir-bladed Ottoman sword was a "simsir" (shimshir). A shorter and wider kilic-bladed sword with a T-spine was a "pala". An epee-bladed sword was a "mec" (mech).
In order not to bother forum members with the local terminology issues, I suggest that we could further discuss it via PMs if you like. Below are two local academical papers for reference to my terminology. I believe these are highly valueable for other forum members, too, provided that they could read Turkish.
- "Turk Kilicinin Mense ve Tekamulu Hakkinda", Bahaeddin Ogel, A.U. DTCF Dergisi 6, 1948, p. 431-460 ("On the Origin and the Development of Turkish Sword")
- "Topkapi Sarayi Muzesindeki Turk Kiliclari Uzerinde Bir Inceleme", A. Ural Bikkul, Turk Etnografya Dergisi, no. 6, 1961, p. 20-28 ("A Dissertation on the Turkish Swords at Topkapi Sarayi Museum")
|