Good question, which you may have answered in your opening post. It really was not until Mohammad Ali attempted to arm the local peasants and drill them in European manner that the local population even bore any arms. The peasants, unlike peasants in other parts of North Africa and the Middle East were not really expected to provide any kind of military service even as poorly equipped levies, with the military usually supplied by foreign slave mercenaries, such as the Circassian and Kipchaq Mamelukes prior to the Ottoman conquest. This situation goes back all the way to the Fatimid Caliphate.
The military elite certainly had its own decorative style and forms for weapons, as Egypt had sufficient arms producing capabilities until the 16th century, and it may be interesting to see how much of what we consider Ottoman in terms of sword hilt and blade style (and armor too) may have been borrowed from the Mamelukes. However, following the Ottoman conquest it appears that a lot of the bladesmiths along with other skilled artisans may have been resettled in other parts of the Empire, as was the custom in the Middle East following conquests, which must have brought an end to the local arms producing traditions. This explains why we stop seeing blades signed by so and so "Al-Misri" into the 17th century and thereafter, with the local military elite relying on imports or weapons brought along with the mercenaries themselves, such as in the case of Mohammad Ali's Balkan (predominantly Albanian) contingent which turned out to be strong enough to take advantage of the power vacuum left in the early 19th century following Napoleon's campaign.
When you think about it, this is not just limited to daggers, but is also the case when it comes to swords and firearms - following the Ottoman conquest, there ceases to be a style that we can recognize as clearly Egyptian.
|