mamluk khanjar ??

Rivkin · 13th July 2005, 05:13 PM

The manual David Nicolle translated I think is from 1412 (it's like totally the most famous one

). It's in turkish, but comes from circassian epoch.
While XIX century events and muhajars (circassian migrants) is a little bit different story,
The problem is that no one depicts mamluks of traditional period - pre 1517 with khanjars, so it's hard to understand what their khanjars actually were. It's strange that you can see mamluk mace, bow, multitudes of swords, but not khanjars.

Marc · 13th July 2005, 05:24 PM

Uh... may I ask for the full reference for the manual in question? I'm very interested...
Thank you

B.I · 13th July 2005, 06:02 PM

very interesting. i know the ottomans had a type of khanjar, which may have descended from this mamluk weapon, if it existed.
remember, you are taking one persons translation of a 15thC writing. david nicolle may have used the term 'khanjar' for want of a better term. maybe the weapon he was describing had no known name, and he used this term out of context. or maybe he did so with the ottoman dagger in mind and assumed they were describing a similar weapon.
just a thought.

Rivkin · 13th July 2005, 08:48 PM

I've found actually a link to this article. Unfortunately during the first reading I skipped all the stuff concerning which manual was translated, erroneously attributing authorship and period (well by a few lousy decades).
Here is the link:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=274

It's a very good point concerning khanjars. I'm also interested in the menaing of the distinction he makes in his translation in between of khanjar and dagger...

B.I · 13th July 2005, 09:09 PM

from the david nicholle's book -

'Question What is the best way to overcome fear at night?
Answer Keep your trousers on, and your coat and boots, and your sword girded on, and your horse saddled.'

i must admit, i tend to be much braver with my trousers on and my horse saddled!

Aqtai · 13th July 2005, 09:53 PM

In his L'art arabe, E. Prisse D'Avennes has a picture of weapons and a helmet which he attributes to Tumanbay II, the last Mamluk sultan of Egypt, who was executed by the Ottomans in 1517. Among the weapons is a dagger. I have no idea if these really are the arms of Tumanbay or where they are now, but here is the picture:

On a side issue, The Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo has a sword attributed to Sultan Tumanbay I, who reigned in 1501 for about 3 months.

Edit: Rivkin, I've just recognised that picture of yours, that's in the military museum in Cairo. Interesting Museum, it has some good stuff, a lot of rubbish and a lot of very dodgy captions.

Marc · 14th July 2005, 09:07 AM

Thank you, Rivkin.
Much appreciated.

13th July 2005, 09:53 PM	#6
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	In his L'art arabe, E. Prisse D'Avennes has a picture of weapons and a helmet which he attributes to Tumanbay II, the last Mamluk sultan of Egypt, who was executed by the Ottomans in 1517. Among the weapons is a dagger. I have no idea if these really are the arms of Tumanbay or where they are now, but here is the picture: On a side issue, The Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo has a sword attributed to Sultan Tumanbay I, who reigned in 1501 for about 3 months. Edit: Rivkin, I've just recognised that picture of yours, that's in the military museum in Cairo. Interesting Museum, it has some good stuff, a lot of rubbish and a lot of very dodgy captions. Last edited by Aqtai; 13th July 2005 at 10:10 PM.

13th July 2005, 05:13 PM	#1
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	The manual David Nicolle translated I think is from 1412 (it's like totally the most famous one ). It's in turkish, but comes from circassian epoch. While XIX century events and muhajars (circassian migrants) is a little bit different story, The problem is that no one depicts mamluks of traditional period - pre 1517 with khanjars, so it's hard to understand what their khanjars actually were. It's strange that you can see mamluk mace, bow, multitudes of swords, but not khanjars.

13th July 2005, 05:24 PM	#2
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Uh... may I ask for the full reference for the manual in question? I'm very interested... Thank you

13th July 2005, 06:02 PM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	very interesting. i know the ottomans had a type of khanjar, which may have descended from this mamluk weapon, if it existed. remember, you are taking one persons translation of a 15thC writing. david nicolle may have used the term 'khanjar' for want of a better term. maybe the weapon he was describing had no known name, and he used this term out of context. or maybe he did so with the ottoman dagger in mind and assumed they were describing a similar weapon. just a thought.

13th July 2005, 08:48 PM	#4
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I've found actually a link to this article. Unfortunately during the first reading I skipped all the stuff concerning which manual was translated, erroneously attributing authorship and period (well by a few lousy decades). Here is the link: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=274 It's a very good point concerning khanjars. I'm also interested in the menaing of the distinction he makes in his translation in between of khanjar and dagger...

13th July 2005, 09:09 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	from the david nicholle's book - 'Question What is the best way to overcome fear at night? Answer Keep your trousers on, and your coat and boots, and your sword girded on, and your horse saddled.' i must admit, i tend to be much braver with my trousers on and my horse saddled!

14th July 2005, 09:07 AM	#7
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Thank you, Rivkin. Much appreciated.