Quote:
|
Originally Posted by estcrh
It depends, Ottoman kilij can have many types of blades and still be recognizable.
|
I beg to differ.
I have seen many authors making the very same confusion and identifying a sword exclusively by its hilt.
And yes, the hilt can be used for defining/identifying a sword, but when the blade is not very characteristic and cannot be identified as such.
In this case, the Ottoman Kilij is characterized primarily by the presence of the yelman and in lesser measure by the reinforced T-shaped spine extending along about two thirds of the blade and the fuller which the Shamshir lacks. Also the archetypal Kilij has a specific shape with a very shallow curvature (or no curvature at all) for the portion of the blade near the hilt, and a very deep curvature closer to the tip like the one in your second photo.
Of course there are blades that display mixed characteristics (as you may encounter "Shamshirs" having fullers or even an yelman) and cannot be accurately identified. In such cases allocating a specific name other than the generic terms of "sword" or "sabre" would be rather inaccurate and misleading, but it is not the case with the Ottoman Shamshir in your photo.
If however, you are Turkish, then the term Kilij (more accurately Kilic) will become also accurate, but only for you, because in Turkish, Kilic, literally means sword... any sword. But then, in the same line of thought, you would be correct calling "Kilic" even a Japanese Katana or an Italian Rapier.