I do not want to make comments on Dr. Feuerbach's thesis since I have not read it in its entirety. It is accepted among some, not without a reason, that "persian" bulat has more contrast than an indian one, something I agree with, even though I am not a bulat-collector. Is it good or bad, I think the answer is we don't know.
Concerning the quality of weapons, the issue should be taken not with us, but with Shah Abbas and probably a hundred or so of other authors that used such generalizations. I would however be cautious here since Abbas speaks about bulat, not nesseseraly swords, may be they used indian bulat, which they thought to be superior (since time immemoria, even in Shahname they swing "indian" swords) to make swords locally.
In any case there was big difference in quality and style among sword producing regions, level of smiths and personal preferences of customers. Persian weapons were in general considered to be good ones, indian weapons often were considered the best, then there is a question of solignen and western weapons vs. eastern weapons. Caucasus surprisingly was always known as an excellent armour production center, but there is very little mentioning with an exception of a few time periods (chalibs, as and then - XVIth and XIXth century respectively) of a quality swords produced there.
It is like with rugs - New-York is not exactly the place known for good ones.
|