True Combat Value of Wootz

Rivkin · 27th October 2006, 05:54 PM

Muhammad Mansur Mubarak-Shah in Qitab Adab al-Harb... is quite clear that "gorz (mace), chubak (similar to mace, i think in english it is called warhammer ?), hudzhikan (spear), bulkoteg (another type of mace) - weapon of those confident in their strength and is used against those dressed in ...(names of different types of armor) armor". He gives a few examples of the use of these weapons, telling that tabar can also be used against armored cavalrymen, but never does he speak about swords being used against them. It is obvious that sword can be used against armour; we see numerous references to someone cutting mail so badly it looked like that on David (by memory).
However, from manual it seems to be clear (to me) that sword in principle was not a primeral weapon against heavily armored soldiers: spear, mace-like weapons, even arrows were used against mail.
Now, to Shah Ismail - I would believe in him killing a man, but head to toe, then guns, then another two men - that sounds more like hashish talking. What's the original source for this, I suppose legend ?

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

27th October 2006, 05:54 PM	#20
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Muhammad Mansur Mubarak-Shah in Qitab Adab al-Harb... is quite clear that "gorz (mace), chubak (similar to mace, i think in english it is called warhammer ?), hudzhikan (spear), bulkoteg (another type of mace) - weapon of those confident in their strength and is used against those dressed in ...(names of different types of armor) armor". He gives a few examples of the use of these weapons, telling that tabar can also be used against armored cavalrymen, but never does he speak about swords being used against them. It is obvious that sword can be used against armour; we see numerous references to someone cutting mail so badly it looked like that on David (by memory). However, from manual it seems to be clear (to me) that sword in principle was not a primeral weapon against heavily armored soldiers: spear, mace-like weapons, even arrows were used against mail. Now, to Shah Ismail - I would believe in him killing a man, but head to toe, then guns, then another two men - that sounds more like hashish talking. What's the original source for this, I suppose legend ?