Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

My IMHO theory: this peculiar behavior of the Russians might be due to the absense of their own tradition. They got their weapons from Vikings or Mongols ( and later from acquiring Persian, Turkish, Polish or W. European examples, singularly or en masse), and their own clumsy boyar coats and women’s sarafans were banned by Peter I and substituted for W. European garb. A chance to dress like some unknown to the world Caucasians and wield peculiar Caucasian weapons gave them identity they so much yearned for.

Everything is easier. Russia was not colonial empire and did not destroy local cultures - all of them still live. But I agree, russian = eclectic . When you are criticizing Russian you are criticizing 190 different nations. Please, don't do it with so many people :-)

[ariel]

I am talking about a dominant culture and governmental lmperial policies. No offense to any particular people was meant.
If you have a better alternative explanation I would love to hear it and may even agree.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

I am talking about a dominant culture and governmental lmperial policies. No offense to any particular people was meant.
If you have a better alternative explanation I would love to hear it and may even agree.

Mameluke swords in Europe in 19th. Didn't Europeans have their own weapons? The same Russians in Caucasus. Russian army was equiped with modern weapons as any other European army. What is "absense of their own tradition" in 19th (!!!) for army of European style? Where were British, French or Austrian own "native" weapons in 19th?
In the case of shashka or any others Caucasian things that was just a fashion the same as some British adopted tulwars. In the case of French and British it was "a cultural intruder and surprisingly borrower of local traditions" too? I am not sure. For a more developed states to borrow some of the native curious items is normal.