For the weight of sabers I am not very knowledgeable. As far as I understood there was no standard weight, everyone chose a sabre suitable to its strenght.
The statement about " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is also puzzling to me. What does he mean by it is not clear. Same is valid for "crooked". What does it exactly mean in English, I am not sure if the author meant a highly curved kilij or a modestly one.
Here is some more quotes from the same book:
Quote:
|
Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger.
|
Quote:
|
As soldiers, even the best taught to use crooked sabers, are not always so calm in action as to make the best use of it, a blade tempered in the manner of the best blades in Europe is preferable, provided the edge be perfectly sharp, and the angle of it not too acute; and as to the crooked form, it also requires coolness and knowledge to use it, for if the part which bends most forward and the point do not descend in a straight line (i.e. if the edge and the back do not descend in the same line) the point will turn the saber sideways by its weight, as soon as the crooked part strikes, and prevent its cutting; for this reason a straighter blade, in an ignorant or timid hand, is preferable; but a light blade and thin hilt is absolutely necessary for the safety of the soldier. It may be remembered that the Romans, with their short swords, had a great advantage over the Gauls, whose long heavy swords soon tired them. A Turk, with his light short saber proportioned to his strength (for they are not long taking the chord of the segment) will not tire so soon as an European with his long heavy saber. I speak of cavalry, for the saber, after the invention of bayonet, is a bad weapon for infantry.
|