Interesting shamshir

Jens Nordlunde · 17th November 2005, 01:02 PM

No Andy, the Qajar period is not all that long 1795-1925.

M.carter · 18th November 2005, 06:39 PM

Hello,

The crossguard seems to be a later, crude "blacksmith" quality replacement. A sword with a beautiful hilt as this one aught to have had a much better crossguard.

RSWORD · 18th November 2005, 10:33 PM

I would classify this one as Indo-Persian, circa 18th century with replaced crossguard. For two examples with near identical carved ivory grip please refer to Arms and Armour, Traditional Weapons of India by E. Jaiwant Paul p. 16. Claims to be shamshir of Augangzeb, 17th century. Also, Persian Arms and Armour, by Orez Perski, p. 288 120a. This is classifed Indo-Persian, circa 18th century. Perhaps these grips became fashionable amongst Mughal nobility and this is why we see several examples.

ariel · 19th November 2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSWORD

I would classify this one as Indo-Persian, circa 18th century with replaced crossguard. For two examples with near identical carved ivory grip please refer to Arms and Armour, Traditional Weapons of India by E. Jaiwant Paul p. 16. Claims to be shamshir of Augangzeb, 17th century. Also, Persian Arms and Armour, by Orez Perski, p. 288 120a. This is classifed Indo-Persian, circa 18th century. Perhaps these grips became fashionable amongst Mughal nobility and this is why we see several examples.

Just a gentle comment: Orez Perski is NOT an author of the book: it just means "Persian Weapons" in Polish.
The author (or, more precisely, the Chief Editor , of this book) is Antoni Romuald Chodynski.
This is a very frequent mistake made by many people and needs to be corrected. Nothing personal.

RSWORD · 19th November 2005, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Just a gentle comment: Orez Perski is NOT an author of the book: it just means "Persian Weapons" in Polish.
The author (or, more precisely, the Chief Editor , of this book) is Antoni Romuald Chodynski.
This is a very frequent mistake made by many people and needs to be corrected. Nothing personal.

None taken. Thank you for the correction.

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

17th November 2005, 01:02 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	No Andy, the Qajar period is not all that long 1795-1925.

18th November 2005, 06:39 PM	#2
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	Hello, The crossguard seems to be a later, crude "blacksmith" quality replacement. A sword with a beautiful hilt as this one aught to have had a much better crossguard.

18th November 2005, 10:33 PM	#3
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,086	I would classify this one as Indo-Persian, circa 18th century with replaced crossguard. For two examples with near identical carved ivory grip please refer to Arms and Armour, Traditional Weapons of India by E. Jaiwant Paul p. 16. Claims to be shamshir of Augangzeb, 17th century. Also, Persian Arms and Armour, by Orez Perski, p. 288 120a. This is classifed Indo-Persian, circa 18th century. Perhaps these grips became fashionable amongst Mughal nobility and this is why we see several examples.