Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

ariel · 9th August 2016, 12:07 PM

Marius,

There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers.
Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc.

But we are not talking about construction her. There were multiple examples of parallel development, and we need to differentiate between them.
Look at Sardinian Leppa or Beduin saber: almost identical blade,- and handle-wise to the Bukharan examples. And having nothing in common with them ethnically and culturally.

Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis.

It served as an inspiration for Russian military sabers and, through them, provided modifying influence upon Afghani military sabers . This is why they are pseudo-shashkas. Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor.

One cannot lump together totally independent weapons simply by the criterion of their external appearance. Extending such an approach ad absurdum, we can immensely simplify our lives by calling all long-bladed weapons just swords. This would be fine for some Joe Shmo, but totally unacceptable for the students of weapons. Dolphins, antelopes, humans and rats are all mammals, aren't they? :-)))

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

9th August 2016, 12:07 PM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Marius, There is no doubt that all of them belong to the family of guardless sabers. Just like parangs, some Indian examples , daabs etc. But we are not talking about construction her. There were multiple examples of parallel development, and we need to differentiate between them. Look at Sardinian Leppa or Beduin saber: almost identical blade,- and handle-wise to the Bukharan examples. And having nothing in common with them ethnically and culturally. Circassian ( and, subsequently, pan-Caucasian) shashka is an entity Sui Generis. It served as an inspiration for Russian military sabers and, through them, provided modifying influence upon Afghani military sabers . This is why they are pseudo-shashkas. Bukharan examples bear significant similarity to real shashkas, but developed totally independently and from a different progenitor. One cannot lump together totally independent weapons simply by the criterion of their external appearance. Extending such an approach ad absurdum, we can immensely simplify our lives by calling all long-bladed weapons just swords. This would be fine for some Joe Shmo, but totally unacceptable for the students of weapons. Dolphins, antelopes, humans and rats are all mammals, aren't they? :-)))