View Single Post
Old 19th July 2017, 03:27 PM   #13
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Alex, I see your point, but still tend to agree with the "detractors".

Your assumption is based on the configuration of the blade as it is presented by the medieval European artist. BTW, what is the exact age of this picture? And what part of Europe is it from?

My point is that the Circassian/Crimean saber you are referring to was limited to a tiny and pretty isolated area. Yes, I know that the Genoese had their trading posts in Crimea, but I find it less than convincing that the Crimean/Circassian pattern was well known enough in Europe to serve as a model for an artist.

This pattern is exceedingly rare, and the few existing examples date to the 17-18 century ( see books by Gutowski and Rivkin) . The earliest known example in European collections is in Sweden, allegedly a military trophy of Gustavus II Adolfus and is dated to 1600, well after the potential date of the miniature in question. No doubt: this pattern was in actual use even earlier, but for that we have to go deeper into Circassian archeology, with only singular examples in local burials. This was a rare pattern to start with, mainly due to its complex forging, clumsiness and the resultant impracticality. While we have literally hundreds of existing "Tatar" sabers with regular blades dating to 8-15 centuries, the "bayonet-tip" recurved ones can be counted in a couple of dozens at the most.

I am with Marius here: IMHO it was just a technical artistic goof.
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote