Real Shamshir or Kilij?

erlikhan · 9th July 2007, 08:50 PM

Thnak you Odevan,correct, I mean when I try to describe it to a Turk for sure. If to a foreigner, no problem ,you just say long Kilij and all gets clear.
I agree and respect your idea about wishing to correct common mistakes in local terminology, but what convincing and practical new naming can we replace it with? The "double yelmaned"ness speciality of a sword is very important . I still believe "long Turkish sword" would not be satisfactory enough as every Turkish sword doesn't have double yelman, and double yelman is not a Turkish monopoly. According to me long and double yelmaned Turkish swords,which I would assume as primarily cavalry or sipahi sword should have been named something special in Ottoman military literature, to seperate it from short palas, or other kinds of long Turkish swords, but that information needs a better academical knowledge and research experience than I have. To revive real historical namings - if there is any- is the best correction in terminology. Do you know exactly that they didnt have any special name in past?
regards

Kayahan · 10th July 2007, 11:27 AM

Dear Jim,

It seems that the widened, double-edged yalman was not only adding weight and momentum to the blade, but also allowing "back-cuts". Logically thinking, there would be no need to sharpen a false edge if it was only to add weight and momentum. Archaeology (Kovacs: 1935) and practice (Zablocki: 1989) support this back-cut issue.

Dear Erlikhan,

You are right, not every sword that Turks used in history had a double-edged yalman, nor the double-edged yalman was a Turkish speciality. However, as I stated in a previous post, the type that we call "kilic" in this forum was their original sword and therefore had its name plainly; a "sword". Nevertheless, modern Turkish scholars call it "Turk kilici" in order to avoid a confusion due to the language being used.

For Ottomans, once again, it was simply "kilic". A shamshir-bladed Ottoman sword was a "simsir" (shimshir). A shorter and wider kilic-bladed sword with a T-spine was a "pala". An epee-bladed sword was a "mec" (mech).

In order not to bother forum members with the local terminology issues, I suggest that we could further discuss it via PMs if you like. Below are two local academical papers for reference to my terminology. I believe these are highly valueable for other forum members, too, provided that they could read Turkish.

- "Turk Kilicinin Mense ve Tekamulu Hakkinda", Bahaeddin Ogel, A.U. DTCF Dergisi 6, 1948, p. 431-460 ("On the Origin and the Development of Turkish Sword")

- "Topkapi Sarayi Muzesindeki Turk Kiliclari Uzerinde Bir Inceleme", A. Ural Bikkul, Turk Etnografya Dergisi, no. 6, 1961, p. 20-28 ("A Dissertation on the Turkish Swords at Topkapi Sarayi Museum")

Jim McDougall · 10th July 2007, 10:02 PM

Hi Odevan,
Thanks very much for the response!! I completely agree that the back cut was one of the practical features of the sharpened back edge, and it seems these widened points were usually sharpened. The dynamics of extra weight does sound logical as well.
Thank you very much for the excellent observations and nicely presented data here, and especially for adding the references.
All best regards,
Jim

9th July 2007, 08:50 PM	#1
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Thnak you Odevan,correct, I mean when I try to describe it to a Turk for sure. If to a foreigner, no problem ,you just say long Kilij and all gets clear. I agree and respect your idea about wishing to correct common mistakes in local terminology, but what convincing and practical new naming can we replace it with? The "double yelmaned"ness speciality of a sword is very important . I still believe "long Turkish sword" would not be satisfactory enough as every Turkish sword doesn't have double yelman, and double yelman is not a Turkish monopoly. According to me long and double yelmaned Turkish swords,which I would assume as primarily cavalry or sipahi sword should have been named something special in Ottoman military literature, to seperate it from short palas, or other kinds of long Turkish swords, but that information needs a better academical knowledge and research experience than I have. To revive real historical namings - if there is any- is the best correction in terminology. Do you know exactly that they didnt have any special name in past? regards Last edited by erlikhan; 10th July 2007 at 09:04 AM.

10th July 2007, 11:27 AM	#2
Kayahan Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8	Dear Jim, It seems that the widened, double-edged yalman was not only adding weight and momentum to the blade, but also allowing "back-cuts". Logically thinking, there would be no need to sharpen a false edge if it was only to add weight and momentum. Archaeology (Kovacs: 1935) and practice (Zablocki: 1989) support this back-cut issue. Dear Erlikhan, You are right, not every sword that Turks used in history had a double-edged yalman, nor the double-edged yalman was a Turkish speciality. However, as I stated in a previous post, the type that we call "kilic" in this forum was their original sword and therefore had its name plainly; a "sword". Nevertheless, modern Turkish scholars call it "Turk kilici" in order to avoid a confusion due to the language being used. For Ottomans, once again, it was simply "kilic". A shamshir-bladed Ottoman sword was a "simsir" (shimshir). A shorter and wider kilic-bladed sword with a T-spine was a "pala". An epee-bladed sword was a "mec" (mech). In order not to bother forum members with the local terminology issues, I suggest that we could further discuss it via PMs if you like. Below are two local academical papers for reference to my terminology. I believe these are highly valueable for other forum members, too, provided that they could read Turkish. - "Turk Kilicinin Mense ve Tekamulu Hakkinda", Bahaeddin Ogel, A.U. DTCF Dergisi 6, 1948, p. 431-460 ("On the Origin and the Development of Turkish Sword") - "Topkapi Sarayi Muzesindeki Turk Kiliclari Uzerinde Bir Inceleme", A. Ural Bikkul, Turk Etnografya Dergisi, no. 6, 1961, p. 20-28 ("A Dissertation on the Turkish Swords at Topkapi Sarayi Museum")

10th July 2007, 10:02 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Hi Odevan, Thanks very much for the response!! I completely agree that the back cut was one of the practical features of the sharpened back edge, and it seems these widened points were usually sharpened. The dynamics of extra weight does sound logical as well. Thank you very much for the excellent observations and nicely presented data here, and especially for adding the references. All best regards, Jim