Quote:
|
Originally Posted by estcrh
I have placed red arrows showing the area I think you are talking about. You made an astute observasion. So the question is...would you still consider this to be a shashka? There are several thoughts on how this sword ended up being created, an Ottoman sword maker creating a shashka for Circassian troops but adding an Ottoman embelishment is one way I can think of. The other is that this was a kilij that was altered with the addition of a shashka hilt.
|
That is exactly what I meant. BTW Your second guess is more possible. The Circassians were a stubborn bunch (no offence meant, using the word as a compliment) and I don't think any one of them would agree to have "Shashka" with a guard. And the blade, despite of all it's similarities to a shashka blade is different nonetheless. Since I think that this blade was initially meant to have a crossguard (not sure about the hilt) one had to order it made this way. And for sure that ONE wasn't a Circassian. (After all only a shashka is a shashka, and everything else is not)
If this is not an experimental weapon altogether, than I think the handle/hilt is a later addition. One of the reasons it could have happened, as you said, the original (kilij type) handle broke and since the smith, who was fixing the sword (not necessarily the one that made it initially), did not have enough tang to put a kilij handle, just replaced the handle and put something that would work just as fine with a shorter tang.
P.S. The reason I think that the handle/hilt has been replaced, is quality of the crescents on it. They differ a lot from the quality of the workmanship of the cross-guard. I think the original handle had crescents on it, which were lost as well, and that the (new)owner just wanted to have them.