![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,818
|
![]() Quote:
Many early Ottoman, Persian and Indian blades have been mounted in the Mameluke "English" dress. As Delar notes, In 1822, Official sanction was given for the sword type to be included in the dress regulations for the British army....prior to this he notes, that from 1805-1822 there is evidence of use in the elite units of the army. By 1810, the sword type had established itself. Of note, Swords for Sea service show two Ottoman and one Persian swords presented to Officers...this and what Delar notes about the sacking of various arsenals, it is easy to see the transition of the sword type from regulation hilt styles with earlier non EU blades to the form as it is known today. Gavin |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
That's exactly what I had in mind: the "British" handle without the D-guard and with a smaller round pommel became popular toward the mid-19 century. That was a classic Europeanized Mameluke sword. Also, there is a matter of semantics: what do we mean "Mameluke"? Wellington carried what he and others called a "Mameluke" from his service in India, but that was a very Indianized sword, with all-metal brass (?) handle, D- guard and Tulwar-like langets.
The one under discussion is a somewhat crudish copy of the classic British one, 1831 pattern, but without sculpted British cross guard, with Oriental decorations on the strap, Oriental blade, crude lion mark. All together , these features suggest to me a non-Iranian attempt to produce a British type of a Mameluke sword. These were made in India both pre and post Sepoy mutiny, likely mostly for British officers. That's why I vote for its Indian origin and 19 century. Last edited by ariel; 2nd March 2017 at 04:32 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|