[Gonzalo G]

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) 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 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....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. Specially when many belong to a really powerfull empires which ripped the poor spanish empire into pieces and ate them calmly. 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. 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. 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...Well, at the end, we are grateful of the spanish opression...we could easily shake it off...but more grateful should be the spaniards to the arab domination for SEVEN centuries, 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?

Miguel, about the scimitar and the falchion: I don´t believe the falchion was the result of any oriental influence. The falchion, known in spanish as "bracamarte", was a medieval weapon. On the times of the crusades and latter, arabs and moors used straight swords. Even the berber which latter came into Spain, used straight swords, and the mamelukes seem to have used initially straight swords. But if you see the representations of the falchion, you can verify that it does not resemble any turkish or arab weapon.

The swords of El Cid are of questionable origin, maybe one of the numerous myths created for national self-glorificaton and as a console of the arab domination, and you must take on account that arabs did not had the need to import european weapons into Spain, as they produced very good ones. That is said without deniying the possibility of arabs, moors or berbers using occasionally european swords, from gifts, purchases or war trophies. After all, the straight blades were the same type of their´s.

Also, the duble handed sword, was not a weapon from the times of El Cid, but a weapon more common in the Modern Era, that´s it, from the end of the 15th Century and forward, and although it already existed at the end of the Middle Ages, it was more often used in this time the hand and a half sword, with a little bigger blade and hilt than the one hand sword. So, the sword used by Charlton Heston on the movie, is another Hollywood invention. The two handed sword is a response to the single plaque armour from the Modern Era, and you can see it much more often on the hands of warriors from the Renaissance, like the landsknechts.

How the word "scimitar" came into the spanish vocabulary? Many believe that the word designates originally different type of swords, from the shamshir to the kiliç, passing throught the pala-gadara, which is the sword illustrated in Fernando´s photograph. But maybe there was much confussion from europeans in front of this new (for them) turkish and persian weapons, and they tended to globalize them under the term "scmitar", designing a curved blade, specially one with a yelman, that´s it, a blade which widens toward the point. The fact is that actually we know every one, or most, of this weapons, and no one is called "scimitar", and the only resemblance we found is in the word mentioned by Fernando: shamshir.

I personally think we should not use the word "scimitar" anymore, as it is ambiguos and obsolete.
Regards

Gonzalo

PD: I don´t have for the moment internet connection, so I colud be delayed for any response needed.
Kisses