![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
Hello again,
How about the broad characteristics of the blade? A long ricasso area and wide blade exemplifies the tulwar, while the yelman is a kilij feature. Does the classical Persian shamshir have either of these? Did Persians commonly use wide blades with yelmans? I understand these cannot be generalized to all pieces, but do they at least apply to the majority? Regards, Emanuel |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
My understanding is that "shamshir" is a generic word for Persian long curved swords, just like "kilij" is a generic Turkish name for a "sword".
Mughal curved swords were mostly called Tulwar. A straight Mughal sword with the Indo-Persian handle was still a Tulwar, and the same blade with a Basket handle was "khanda". If the blade was of Persian origin (see Fiegel) it was a shamshir. A shamshir-type sword was called "Klych" (kilij) in Russia, and the same was true among the Bedouins. A shamshir was called Ajemi Kilij ("Persian Kilij") in Turkey and Yelman-ed sword was called by Persians " Shamshir Torki" ( "Turkish Shamshir"). Each country gave these swords different names, but the pattern was the same. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." "Romeo and Juliet" (II, ii, 1-2) Shamshirs were of different curvature. Even modestly curved blades were shamshirs. Abbas-period shamshirs were highly curved more often than the earlier samples. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|