Sword of the Last Armenian King: 14th century

[Rivkin]

It is very interesting. Cilician armenia was an ally of Ilkhanid empire, later a vassal to anatolian turks. In fact, it was always an open question, how many "mongol" soldiers in Ilkhanid-mamluk war were actually armenian/georgian. Would be interesting to see the authentication of this one.

Attached is 14th century georgian fresca.

[ariel]

the georgian wields a straight-bladed sword. What does his opponenr carry?
The moral: don't grab the blade!

[M.carter]

If you honestly believe that that sword is earlier than 17th century, you really should read a history book

[ariel]

Aaa-h, somebody agrees with me!
My feelings exactly!


First, the style of the inlay: this is a typical Turkish Ottoman technique with gold wire hammered into incised design and protruding above the surface. The earliest examples are from the 17th century.The intactness of the inlay is astounding: no way it could have been made in the 14th century: only museum exponates survive that well, but the older swords were put to use.


Second, the ornament of flags and halberds is very European , at the earliest 17th, more likely 18-19th century.

The figure of sitting Mary with baby Jesus in her lap is very Western: first, it has uncovered hair that was unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox Church and, second, the Cherub above her head is also Western: head with two wings. The "all-seeing eye in a triangle" in the uppermost cartouche looks suspiciouly as a Masonic symbol that came into popular use in the second half of the 18th century.

The blade also looks Turkish, typical early Kilic 17-18th century.

The handle looks Persian (iron crossguard and 90 deg. pommel) but it could have been remounted. Remounted and broken handle and perfectly intact blade???


My overall assessment: this is a very nice and valuable sword made in Turkey, likely Istanbul in the 18th century at the earliest under significant Western influence. It resembles mightily the series of similar swords shown in the Astvatsaturyan's book "Turkish Weapons" and bearing Greek, Latin, Slavic or Arabic inscriptions. Probably, there was a fashion of the times.

As to the attribution of this sword to Leon V.... Not every "Indiana Jones" knife was actually owned by Harrison Ford

[M.carter]

Originally Posted by ariel

Aaa-h, somebody agrees with me!
My feelings exactly!


First, the style of the inlay: this is a typical Turkish Ottoman technique with gold wire hammered into incised design and protruding above the surface. The earliest examples are from the 17th century.The intactness of the inlay is astounding: no way it could have been made in the 14th century: only museum exponates survive that well, but the older swords were put to use.


Second, the ornament of flags and halberds is very European , at the earliest 17th, more likely 18-19th century.

The figure of sitting Mary with baby Jesus in her lap is very Western: first, it has uncovered hair that was unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox Church and, second, the Cherub above her head is also Western: head with two wings. The "all-seeing eye in a triangle" in the uppermost cartouche looks suspiciouly as a Masonic symbol that came into popular use in the second half of the 18th century.

The blade also looks Turkish, typical early Kilic 17-18th century.

The handle looks Persian (iron crossguard and 90 deg. pommel) but it could have been remounted. Remounted and broken handle and perfectly intact blade???


My overall assessment: this is a very nice and valuable sword made in Turkey, likely Istanbul in the 18th century at the earliest under significant Western influence. It resembles mightily the series of similar swords shown in the Astvatsaturyan's book "Turkish Weapons" and bearing Greek, Latin, Slavic or Arabic inscriptions. Probably, there was a fashion of the times.

As to the attribution of this sword to Leon V.... Not every "Indiana Jones" knife was actually owned by Harrison Ford

My opinion exactly on swordforum, though manouchehr says he believes that its something different. He says that in his upcoming book, he found out that these hilts and blade styles go much older than 15th century.

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by M.carter

My opinion exactly on swordforum, though manouchehr says he believes that its something different. He says that in his upcoming book, he found out that these hilts and blade styles go much older than 15th century.

My aplologies to Manoucher - while he is a great specialist, certainly of incomparably higher caliber than I am, but I find certain things he says objectionable. For example, in his recent article he claimed that "indian swords" referred in mediaval iranian sources are in fact iranian swords made from wootz. While it is possible, he did not offer any proof of such attribution, therefore I find it too optimistic.

[B.I]

i agree with all (except the 14thC date of course).
i think the blade could go as early as the 17thC, and the hilt can so as late as 19thC, so ariels 18thC is a safe bet. i do feel a strong possibility that the blade is earlier than the hilt, so a possibility the inscription was put on during this refit.
there are many claims on SFI, many of which are unfounded unfortunately. i look forward to any new book on oriental arms as my library is as important as my collection, but i fear the 'expertise' there is on history and language, and definately not on arms. it seems the presence of inscriptions and placement in a museum seems to be 'proof' in some opinions.
not here i'm pleased to see

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

My aplologies to Manoucher - while he is a great specialist, certainly of incomparably higher caliber than I am, but I find certain things he says objectionable. For example, in his recent article he claimed that "indian swords" referred in mediaval iranian sources are in fact iranian swords made from wootz. While it is possible, he did not offer any proof of such attribution, therefore I find it too optimistic.

Well, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

[Rivkin]

My reputation among dashnaktzatyun is that of a turk and fashist, so I preferred to abstain from commenting on this sword. I am also _not_ a specialist on this kind of swords or cilician history.

I disagree with some of the criticism. I think that here it is hard to say whether virgin mary's head is covered by mopharion, as it is supposed to be. I also would somewhat disagree concerning western-eastern difference in head cover. For example, afaik, ethiopian tradition is uncovered hair, but all byzantine influenced countries (russia, syria, armenia, partially italy) have covered hair, and only north-western europe - france, germany, scandinavia, netherlands portray uncovered hair.
Despite the fact that cilician armenian art was extremely influenced by crusaders (but yet they always depicted Mary with her head covered), I have never seen cherub in such a position on any cilician icons or manuscripts. However, as noted by Ariel, such depiction is typical for ottoman-produced swords, starting with the end of XVIth century. The style of goldwork is also somewhat ottoman. The banners are in fact very typical for XVIII century as well. I agree with all of this, but there are even more problems:

Levon the Vth ruled in 1374 - 1375. Not 1366, not 1336. I doubt that his armorer was so ignorant and arrogant as just to put a date on the sword from the top of his head. I also have a small problem with a cross that is held by the king. I am no expert on armenian symbolics, but such crosses imho are much more characteristic for Levon the Ist and lorraine cross; later kings would be expected to use - templar of jerusalem's crosses.

And finally - I mentioned the union with mongols, because it could have explained the type of the sword. Curved swords were not used by armenians, instead they used swords very similar to the georgian sword depicted above. Attached are excavated (???) armenian cilician swords, Levon the Ist time or so.

P.S. I think the demon just has a torch.