Turkish Shamshir

[estcrh]

A few different saif/sayf references. The top left image is from George Stones book, he shows an Indian sword and a sword from Java as being saif, Stone mentions saif as having a "hooked pommel". The top right image from the "Official Report of the Calcutta International Exhibition, 1883-84" mentions two types of Indian swords as being "saif-i-janubi" and "saif-i-halbi". The third image is from "Oriental Armour" by H. Russell Robinson, he calls Mamluk swords "saif". The bottom two images are from Artzi, they show two completely different types of swords being called "saif".

[ALEX]

All these swords are Arabian saifs. What is your point?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

All these swords are Arabian saifs. What is your point?

Originally Posted by ALEX

Saif is an Arabic word for "sword", and represents Arabian/Bedouin sword type with (usually) straight blade. The one pictured above is Indian.

The point is that saif can be curved as well as straight and they can be Indian in origin.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by estcrh

The point is that saif can be curved as well as straight and they can be Indian in origin.

You're trying to prove a point without completely understanding it. Noone said saif cannot be curved, although it is usually straight(ish). But saif is not Indian in origin, period. the descriptions in Stone's book are inaccurate and you're repeating them without considering other reliable sources). These are Arabian swords, not Indian or Javan!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

You're trying to prove a point without completely understanding it. Noone said saif cannot be curved, although it is usually straight(ish). But saif is not Indian in origin, period. the descriptions in Stone's book are inaccurate and you're repeating them without considering other reliable sources). These are Arabian swords, not Indian or Javan!

Alex, maybe your the one who is not understanding, where did I say that the saif was Indian in origin....no were. I am not "proving" any point, I am explaining why some collectors and dealers etc may consider swords to be saif that you may not. Were are your "reliable sources", I have posted some maybe you can show some references that back up your statements. If a sword was made in India (or Java) in the manner of a saif then it can be called a saif. What is your proof that Stone (and Artzi) are wrong?? Where is your proof that a saif is usually straight(ish)? Lets see some references or is this all from our personal knowledge.

[ALEX]

Estcrh, you may call every sword a Saif... and you'll be right. But please do not manipulate and misrepresent my words! I did not say that Artzi was wrong, and I did not say that Saif is always straight. I said it is (usually) straight. look, out of all Saifs pictured only a few have curved shamshir-like blades, most are almost straight, very slightly curved, this is what I meant by straigh(ish), and this may be wrong term. and also that there's a mistake in Stone's description, even though he stated that Saif is an Arab sword (not Indian), the mistake is in Indian and Javan description of 2 Arab swords. Based on it, you concluded that Saif: "can be Indian in origin" (I quote your own words). I am afraid I cannot help if you need more proof and evidences of said.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Estcrh, you may call every sword a Saif... and you'll be right. But please do not manipulate and misrepresent my words! I did not say that Artzi was wrong, and I did not say that Saif is always straight. I said it is (usually) straight. look, out of all Saifs pictured only a few have curved shamshir-like blades, most are almost straight, very slightly curved, this is what I meant by straigh(ish), and this may be wrong term. and also that there's a mistake in Stone's description, even though he stated that Saif is an Arab sword (not Indian), the mistake is in Indian and Javan description of 2 Arab swords. Based on it, you concluded that Saif: "can be Indian in origin" (I quote your own words). I am afraid I cannot help if you need more proof and evidences of said.

Let me enter in the "dance", I vote for Alex! But I would like to add something:
Saif is the Arabic word for sword, no more. It can be - and not should be - apply to Arabic swords.
Another point a kilij has not necessary a yelman. It's a sword in Turkish, point.
I have a kilij with no yelman.
I never saw a tulwar with an Ottoman hilt. But I'm sure that's exist somewhere, true or fake... I have seen a lot of strange combinations since the lats years...
And again the origin of the blade doesn't define a sword.
An Arabian sword with a Persian blade is an Arabian sword, called sometimes saif sometimes Arabian shamshir by collectors...
Kubur

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Estcrh, you may call every sword a Saif... and you'll be right. But please do not manipulate and misrepresent my words! I did not say that Artzi was wrong, and I did not say that Saif is always straight. I said it is (usually) straight. look, out of all Saifs pictured only a few have curved shamshir-like blades, most are almost straight, very slightly curved, this is what I meant by straigh(ish), and this may be wrong term. and also that there's a mistake in Stone's description, even though he stated that Saif is an Arab sword (not Indian), the mistake is in Indian and Javan description of 2 Arab swords. Based on it, you concluded that Saif: "can be Indian in origin" (I quote your own words). I am afraid I cannot help if you need more proof and evidences of said.

Here are Artzi's words, sounds to me like you are saying he is wrong if you insist that saif are usually straight, and while you are complaining about me "misrepresenting" your words maybe you can stop misrepresenting mine. I always love it when someone says that they can not provide any references to back up what they are saying but you just have to believe that they are right and you are wrong...humm.

The word Saif in Arabic is a general name for a curved sword

[A.alnakkas]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Alex, maybe your the one who is not understanding, where did I say that the saif was Indian in origin....no were. I am not "proving" any point, I am explaining why some collectors and dealers etc may consider swords to be saif that you may not. Were are your "reliable sources", I have posted some maybe you can show some references that back up your statements. If a sword was made in India (or Java) in the manner of a saif then it can be called a saif. What is your proof that Stone (and Artzi) are wrong?? Where is your proof that a saif is usually straight(ish)? Lets see some references or is this all from our personal knowledge.

Every sword can be called a saif if you are using Arabic. Just like how every sword can be called sword if you are using English.

The swords you have posted are all Arabic, so naturally an Arab who probably used that sword would still call it 'saif'

As for saifs being straight or straight-ish there are elements of truth in it but I do not know any reference that mentions Arabs using only straight or straight-ish examples. All was used, but mildly curved swords were favoured.