About the Dussäge

Joe · 18th January 2007, 11:14 PM

Something like this?

Jim McDougall · 19th January 2007, 02:05 AM

Beautifully written and outstanding information Marc!!!
Joe, fantastic example!
Now here lies the true origins of the Scottish basket hilt, and interestingly there are examples with curved blades, usually termed 'turcael' referring to the curved Turkish blades often seen by Highlander mercenaries in Eastern Europe. Naturally there remains considerable debate on the basket hilt origin issue, but the highly developed hilts on the guards of the so called 'Sinclair' sabres from Northern Europe seem the most plausible ancestor in my opinion.

From what I understand , the term dusagge (dusack) although originally applied to very pedestrian peasant swords, and training swords.As fencing with these developed, the term began to be applied to various heavy, short sabres and as noted cutlasses.

It would appear that terminology applied locally to certain weapons can often be expanded colloquially to a wider range of similar type weapons as the terms diffuse via trade, transliteration and travellers. Because of this it can often become maddening to try to categorize a particular weapon to a specific term

as the same weapon may be referred to by very different terms in various places where found. I hope I said that right

!

Best regards,
Jim

Emanuel · 19th January 2007, 03:48 AM

Good one Joe!

It looks just like what I saw. Jim, the turcael would most certainly be kilij sabres no? If so this presents a clear path in my mind of the way in which Islamic and Persian curved sabres became the unidentified scimitar of western European literature and art. I always wanted to see actual examples being seen and eventually duplicated by Europeans...before Napoleon and Brits popularized Mamluk sabres, and eastern European Hussars and misc cavalry units introduced their own forms.

It's quite amazing to see this kilif form being adopted and further adapted to European uses and shapes.

Many thanks all of you!
Emanuel

Jim McDougall · 19th January 2007, 04:42 AM

Hi Emanuel,
The term 'turcael' was of course a Gaelic derived term as noted, thus used in description for 'curved blade' in Scotland, from what I understand. The term 'kilij' is primarily a general term for sabre as applied in Turkish regions.

The term 'scimitar' is a general term, as you note, used in literature to describe curved sabres, typically referring to Islamic forms, and does not specifically refer to an exact weapon. This term apparantly derived from a transliteration and is generally thought to have applied to the shamshir.

The sabres of the nomadic steppes tribes, the Turks, and of course Muslim forces in general, have certainly influenced the development of these forms in the west. During the crusades, various forms of falchion arose in France and England, and during the 15th-16th centuries the sabre developed in Eastern Europe from the sabres of the Turks. By the 18th century, sabres and flamboyant uniforms of cavalry in Western Europe derived from those of Eastern Europe.

It is interesting to see English sabres of late 18th and early 19th century that show influence of the fully parabolic curve of the shamshir and the use of the yelman at the point of the blade from Turkish kilij and the Polish/Hungarian sabres. Similar applications are seen in French and German sabres, and as you have noted, the influence of the Mamluk sabres from the Egyptian campaigns.

There has been a great deal written about the development of the sabre, which is a matter of considerable contention, but the views I have noted here as I understand seem to be generally accepted. I very much agree that it is fascinating to see the developing influences in these weapons, which reflect the development of history itself through the centuries and many cultures.

Your observations are right on target!!!

and I like the way you think!
Careful or you'll get obsessed by this stuff like me

All the best,
Jim

Joe · 19th January 2007, 07:26 AM

Personally Jim, I've always viewed the origin for the raised back-ridge on Western single-edged swords as being a combination of independent specialization, and popularization of the Turkish (and surrounding regions') sword-making styles. Which may explain why the yelman was sharpened, but most dorsal ridges on Western European swords were not.

But then, who knows?

Anyway, here's a little food for thought: attached are a few images, showing the "Eastern concepts" on European swords.

The first is Polish 18th(?) century.
The second is German dated to 1550.
And the third is an English "scimitar" from the 19th century.

Jim McDougall · 21st January 2007, 12:20 AM

Exactly Joe, lots of speculation and generally accepted ideas, but without hard evidence these remain inconclusive, though quite plausible.
Sir Richard Burton, a pioneer in edged weapons research wrote in 1884 ("Book of the Sword", p.139 ), "...the old Persian sword, often called by mistake the Turkish sword, ends in a point beyond a broadening of the blade. The effect is to add force to the cut; the weapon becomes top heavy, but that is of little consequence when only a single slash, and no guarding is required of it. This peculiarity was curiously developed in the true Turkish scymitar, which we see in every picture of the sixteenth century...".

Naturally, we know that Burton's work has been tremendously superceded, and that he is describing the yelman, and that this feature was quite well known in Europe on various forms of falchion long before and during the 16th century and certainly concurrent in that period with Turkish forms.
While these falchions do not necessarily correspond to the blade profile with yelman, they do carry blades dramatically widened toward the tip, and usually radiused rather than the step type widening from the back edge.
In "European and American Arms" by Claude Blair (1962), the following falchions are shown....a German falchion of early 15th c. (#40) ; the parade sabre of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol c.1560 Italian ; Brescian falchion (#161) of mid 16th c. ; the Conyers falchion from Durham Cathedral c.1260-70 (#21).

The development of the sabre prior to these times seems the most disputed, though as noted, has been discussed and written on considerably.

Great photos!

What are the sources?

The first one has a blade that seems more 19th century, is it identified in the source as Polish? It seems a bit heavy for a Polish sabre.

The last English 'scimitar' I would agree is latter 19th c. and corresponds with decorative items produced in that period. While the huge blade somewhat reflects some of the early falchions, it seems to also parallel the huge 'dadao' blades of so called 'oxtail ' form that were widely seen in China during the "Boxer Rebellion" of 1900, though these swords had been in use long prior to this. The crossguard seems very much like those on kaskaras, and the grip and pommel recall certain medieval style. Is this from a collection?

All best regards,
Jim

Joe · 21st January 2007, 09:03 AM

I agree Jim, too much time has passed since the use of these weapons, for us to do much more than speculate on their origins and uses. But as long as we're speculating, we may as well voice our opinions.

A good start is stepping back and drawing conclusions from swords indiginous to other countries. The raised ridge also appears on Russian, Indian, and Chinese swords, albeit at a much later time than those found on early falchions and Turkish swords.

Most evidence concludes that the Indian tulwar (introduced in the 1700's?) gained its (albeit uncommon) dorsal ridge as a result of influence from Persian and further blades, and I'm inclined to agree with this end. But the Chinese niuweidao, introduced in the 1800's (although new evidence is pointing to proto-nuiweidaos developing in the 1700's) had a dorsal ridge for the purpose of adding weight to the tip of the sword, and increasing its capacity for chopping. It reached this purpose because the primary users of the nuiweidao were peasents, who were not trained in sword arts and thus had very limited applicable techniques, and relied on chopping strength in favor of more advanced abilities. And then there is the Russian klytch, which more than a few old pictures and a current auction, I know nothing about. However, it is apparent from its appearance that it is directly related to the Turko-Persian sabers featuring yelmans.

Working from these three examples, we find that:
Klytch=Influenced origin
Nuiweidao=Independent origin
Tulwar(yelman)=Influenced origin

Working on this as a rule, we find that while the dorsal ridge on blades is likely to be influenced from other cultures, it also has the capacity to develop independently. And working back from this, let us observe the dorsal ridges on earlier blades. Certainly they appear on falchions and messers of the 16th century. But you've indicated that you have seen them on earlier period swords. I'd love to see any pics you have (if you couldn't tell, I share your enthusiasm for this sort of thing).

However, I have seen them on Turkish swords of the 15th century. One great example is the one attributed to Mehmed II, and dates to the mid-1400's. Another (provided below) is Mamluk, and goes back to the early 1400's. And a final one is attributed to Sultan Bayezid II, son of Mehmed II (weird how they're both The Second though....), late 1400's.

And then, I have another gap in my information. But continuing earlier, they appear in the 8th century. The most famous of one of which is undoubtedly the sword long-attributed to being used by Charlemagne, but since proven to have been merely a presentation gift to him from either the Magyars, Avars, or Huns (I am not entirely positive exactly who gave it to him). But it is not the attribution which draws attention to this sword, but the very long dorsal ridge.

And then, going the furthest back I can at the moment, it appears that the earliest sabers found with this feature are Bulgarian, and date to pre-7th century. And there we have it.

But anyway, on to the pics I posted earlier. The first passed through eBay in late 2005. It was identified as Polish by the seller, but he isn't the best at correctly identifying swords (last December, he sold an Afghan shashka which he incorrectly attributed to Russia. Ariel posted a thread about it.), so there is a definite possibility that it may be Hungarian, or Georgian. Here's a link to his eBay store if you were interested:
http://stores.ebay.com/Eclectic-Muse...QQftidZ2QQtZkm

The second is from:
http://www.hessink.nl/
It is item number 1428 in their current catalogue.

The third was really just a lark, showing that even though it only bore a slight resemblence to the genuine article, this is the image of the "scimitar" that has remained in popular culture, even to today! And I agree, it does bear a resemblence to the Chinese dadao of the 1800's and early 1900's, but I think we're probably drawing an imaginary line of relation. And yes, I noted the unusual guard and handle. Quite an amalgamation, this piece! But then, I have seen one similar Indian piece.... but besides that, I have no idea if the piece is part of a collection, but it probably is. It passed through the market sometime in the middle of last year, I think.

My, I wrote quite a bit, didn't I? Sorry, if I misspelled anything.

For those impetuous people who read my posts only for the pics I always include, here's the part where you pay attention.

Starting at the top...
1: Various sabers and falchions, most from the 16th century.
2: Sword of Sultan Bayezid II.
3: Sword of Mehmed II.
4: Mamluk sword, early 15th century.
5: Mamluk sword, 15th century.
6: Various old kilics.
7: Saber owned by Charlemagne.
8: Bulgarian sabers, pre-7th century.
9: The REAL oldest single-edged sword with a dorsal ridge.

19th January 2007, 07:26 AM	#5
Joe Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: McDonough, GA Posts: 48	Personally Jim, I've always viewed the origin for the raised back-ridge on Western single-edged swords as being a combination of independent specialization, and popularization of the Turkish (and surrounding regions') sword-making styles. Which may explain why the yelman was sharpened, but most dorsal ridges on Western European swords were not. But then, who knows? Anyway, here's a little food for thought: attached are a few images, showing the "Eastern concepts" on European swords. The first is Polish 18th(?) century. The second is German dated to 1550. And the third is an English "scimitar" from the 19th century. Attached Images

21st January 2007, 12:20 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Exactly Joe, lots of speculation and generally accepted ideas, but without hard evidence these remain inconclusive, though quite plausible. Sir Richard Burton, a pioneer in edged weapons research wrote in 1884 ("Book of the Sword", p.139 ), "...the old Persian sword, often called by mistake the Turkish sword, ends in a point beyond a broadening of the blade. The effect is to add force to the cut; the weapon becomes top heavy, but that is of little consequence when only a single slash, and no guarding is required of it. This peculiarity was curiously developed in the true Turkish scymitar, which we see in every picture of the sixteenth century...". Naturally, we know that Burton's work has been tremendously superceded, and that he is describing the yelman, and that this feature was quite well known in Europe on various forms of falchion long before and during the 16th century and certainly concurrent in that period with Turkish forms. While these falchions do not necessarily correspond to the blade profile with yelman, they do carry blades dramatically widened toward the tip, and usually radiused rather than the step type widening from the back edge. In "European and American Arms" by Claude Blair (1962), the following falchions are shown....a German falchion of early 15th c. (#40) ; the parade sabre of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol c.1560 Italian ; Brescian falchion (#161) of mid 16th c. ; the Conyers falchion from Durham Cathedral c.1260-70 (#21). The development of the sabre prior to these times seems the most disputed, though as noted, has been discussed and written on considerably. Great photos! What are the sources? The first one has a blade that seems more 19th century, is it identified in the source as Polish? It seems a bit heavy for a Polish sabre. The last English 'scimitar' I would agree is latter 19th c. and corresponds with decorative items produced in that period. While the huge blade somewhat reflects some of the early falchions, it seems to also parallel the huge 'dadao' blades of so called 'oxtail ' form that were widely seen in China during the "Boxer Rebellion" of 1900, though these swords had been in use long prior to this. The crossguard seems very much like those on kaskaras, and the grip and pommel recall certain medieval style. Is this from a collection? All best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 21st January 2007 at 12:34 AM.

21st January 2007, 09:03 AM	#7
Joe Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: McDonough, GA Posts: 48	I agree Jim, too much time has passed since the use of these weapons, for us to do much more than speculate on their origins and uses. But as long as we're speculating, we may as well voice our opinions. A good start is stepping back and drawing conclusions from swords indiginous to other countries. The raised ridge also appears on Russian, Indian, and Chinese swords, albeit at a much later time than those found on early falchions and Turkish swords. Most evidence concludes that the Indian tulwar (introduced in the 1700's?) gained its (albeit uncommon) dorsal ridge as a result of influence from Persian and further blades, and I'm inclined to agree with this end. But the Chinese niuweidao, introduced in the 1800's (although new evidence is pointing to proto-nuiweidaos developing in the 1700's) had a dorsal ridge for the purpose of adding weight to the tip of the sword, and increasing its capacity for chopping. It reached this purpose because the primary users of the nuiweidao were peasents, who were not trained in sword arts and thus had very limited applicable techniques, and relied on chopping strength in favor of more advanced abilities. And then there is the Russian klytch, which more than a few old pictures and a current auction, I know nothing about. However, it is apparent from its appearance that it is directly related to the Turko-Persian sabers featuring yelmans. Working from these three examples, we find that: Klytch=Influenced origin Nuiweidao=Independent origin Tulwar(yelman)=Influenced origin Working on this as a rule, we find that while the dorsal ridge on blades is likely to be influenced from other cultures, it also has the capacity to develop independently. And working back from this, let us observe the dorsal ridges on earlier blades. Certainly they appear on falchions and messers of the 16th century. But you've indicated that you have seen them on earlier period swords. I'd love to see any pics you have (if you couldn't tell, I share your enthusiasm for this sort of thing). However, I have seen them on Turkish swords of the 15th century. One great example is the one attributed to Mehmed II, and dates to the mid-1400's. Another (provided below) is Mamluk, and goes back to the early 1400's. And a final one is attributed to Sultan Bayezid II, son of Mehmed II (weird how they're both The Second though....), late 1400's. And then, I have another gap in my information. But continuing earlier, they appear in the 8th century. The most famous of one of which is undoubtedly the sword long-attributed to being used by Charlemagne, but since proven to have been merely a presentation gift to him from either the Magyars, Avars, or Huns (I am not entirely positive exactly who gave it to him). But it is not the attribution which draws attention to this sword, but the very long dorsal ridge. And then, going the furthest back I can at the moment, it appears that the earliest sabers found with this feature are Bulgarian, and date to pre-7th century. And there we have it. But anyway, on to the pics I posted earlier. The first passed through eBay in late 2005. It was identified as Polish by the seller, but he isn't the best at correctly identifying swords (last December, he sold an Afghan shashka which he incorrectly attributed to Russia. Ariel posted a thread about it.), so there is a definite possibility that it may be Hungarian, or Georgian. Here's a link to his eBay store if you were interested: http://stores.ebay.com/Eclectic-Muse...QQftidZ2QQtZkm The second is from: http://www.hessink.nl/ It is item number 1428 in their current catalogue. The third was really just a lark, showing that even though it only bore a slight resemblence to the genuine article, this is the image of the "scimitar" that has remained in popular culture, even to today! And I agree, it does bear a resemblence to the Chinese dadao of the 1800's and early 1900's, but I think we're probably drawing an imaginary line of relation. And yes, I noted the unusual guard and handle. Quite an amalgamation, this piece! But then, I have seen one similar Indian piece.... but besides that, I have no idea if the piece is part of a collection, but it probably is. It passed through the market sometime in the middle of last year, I think. My, I wrote quite a bit, didn't I? Sorry, if I misspelled anything. For those impetuous people who read my posts only for the pics I always include, here's the part where you pay attention. Starting at the top... 1: Various sabers and falchions, most from the 16th century. 2: Sword of Sultan Bayezid II. 3: Sword of Mehmed II. 4: Mamluk sword, early 15th century. 5: Mamluk sword, 15th century. 6: Various old kilics. 7: Saber owned by Charlemagne. 8: Bulgarian sabers, pre-7th century. 9: The REAL oldest single-edged sword with a dorsal ridge. 10: A dussack, to show what these things evolved into. 11: Why not, an Indian "scimitar." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...laceswords.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...1/bayezid1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...hmedkilij1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...nesskilij1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...d-15th_C_1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...csandsaifs.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...abermatrix.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...abi-yotov_.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...21/khopesh.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...venkasbook.jpg Attached Images

18th January 2007, 11:14 PM	#1
Joe Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: McDonough, GA Posts: 48	Something like this? Attached Images

19th January 2007, 02:05 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Beautifully written and outstanding information Marc!!! Joe, fantastic example! Now here lies the true origins of the Scottish basket hilt, and interestingly there are examples with curved blades, usually termed 'turcael' referring to the curved Turkish blades often seen by Highlander mercenaries in Eastern Europe. Naturally there remains considerable debate on the basket hilt origin issue, but the highly developed hilts on the guards of the so called 'Sinclair' sabres from Northern Europe seem the most plausible ancestor in my opinion. From what I understand , the term dusagge (dusack) although originally applied to very pedestrian peasant swords, and training swords.As fencing with these developed, the term began to be applied to various heavy, short sabres and as noted cutlasses. It would appear that terminology applied locally to certain weapons can often be expanded colloquially to a wider range of similar type weapons as the terms diffuse via trade, transliteration and travellers. Because of this it can often become maddening to try to categorize a particular weapon to a specific term as the same weapon may be referred to by very different terms in various places where found. I hope I said that right ! Best regards, Jim

19th January 2007, 03:48 AM	#3
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Good one Joe! It looks just like what I saw. Jim, the turcael would most certainly be kilij sabres no? If so this presents a clear path in my mind of the way in which Islamic and Persian curved sabres became the unidentified scimitar of western European literature and art. I always wanted to see actual examples being seen and eventually duplicated by Europeans...before Napoleon and Brits popularized Mamluk sabres, and eastern European Hussars and misc cavalry units introduced their own forms. It's quite amazing to see this kilif form being adopted and further adapted to European uses and shapes. Many thanks all of you! Emanuel

19th January 2007, 04:42 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Hi Emanuel, The term 'turcael' was of course a Gaelic derived term as noted, thus used in description for 'curved blade' in Scotland, from what I understand. The term 'kilij' is primarily a general term for sabre as applied in Turkish regions. The term 'scimitar' is a general term, as you note, used in literature to describe curved sabres, typically referring to Islamic forms, and does not specifically refer to an exact weapon. This term apparantly derived from a transliteration and is generally thought to have applied to the shamshir. The sabres of the nomadic steppes tribes, the Turks, and of course Muslim forces in general, have certainly influenced the development of these forms in the west. During the crusades, various forms of falchion arose in France and England, and during the 15th-16th centuries the sabre developed in Eastern Europe from the sabres of the Turks. By the 18th century, sabres and flamboyant uniforms of cavalry in Western Europe derived from those of Eastern Europe. It is interesting to see English sabres of late 18th and early 19th century that show influence of the fully parabolic curve of the shamshir and the use of the yelman at the point of the blade from Turkish kilij and the Polish/Hungarian sabres. Similar applications are seen in French and German sabres, and as you have noted, the influence of the Mamluk sabres from the Egyptian campaigns. There has been a great deal written about the development of the sabre, which is a matter of considerable contention, but the views I have noted here as I understand seem to be generally accepted. I very much agree that it is fascinating to see the developing influences in these weapons, which reflect the development of history itself through the centuries and many cultures. Your observations are right on target!!! and I like the way you think! Careful or you'll get obsessed by this stuff like me All the best, Jim