Quote:
|
Originally Posted by estcrh
Marius, you know that swords / daggers from certain cultures are more categorized than others. Indian swords are very categorized with many different types being given specific names. Swords / daggers from other cultures are treated differently....take yatagan for example....many different blade types, hilt types, scabbard types and yet we have no problem categorizing them as yatagan. These things tend to be on a case by case basis.
So is this sword a nimcha or a flyssa???
|
Of course you are right and I know myself that.
However, I am of the oppinion we must stirve to improve the current naming system by making it clearer, more consitent and more accurate.
Following this idea, I believe a sword is primarilly defined by its blade.
So, your example is a "Flyssa with a Nimcha hilt." Now, even without seeing the photo, you could be able to get a pretty good idea of what it is.
Why not a "Nimcha witha Flyssa blade?" Because, as I mentioned earlier, the blade is the most important part of a sword, and therefore, the sword should be named after the blade.
However, this remains my oppinion.
PS: You found a brilliant example!
