sucker for African sickles

fearn · 21st November 2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

--snip--

It does seem that 19th century collectors did tend to apply practical manners of use according to presumption by the shape of blades etc. without actually seeing them used, especially with the 'throwing knives' for example. On the shotel, the severe tip on the deeply curves examples does seem likely to have had purpose for reaching over shields in downward stroke, as well of course for hooking and slashing...but as Roanoa has noted, such movement would leave the weapon holder wide open, so without having 'been there' in the battles....predictable assumption.

--snip--

All the best,
Jim

Just wanted to respond to the shotel question. There is an interesting essay by Hank Reinhardt on shotel use. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:

"Wooden swords edged with shark's teeth, draw cuts, pulling cuts, slashes -- all of these are understandable, but there has always been one type of sword and fighting technique that fills me with . . . well, I'm not sure what. You decide: The Abyssinian shotel is a long curved double-edged sword. At first glance, it looks like a Near Eastern scimitar, but on closer inspection you realize that the curve is a full half circle. And it is, I repeat, double-edged. The blade, generally, is a flattened, diamond cross section and quite stiff.

The natives fight with these swords from behind large, circular leather shields. Rather than try to cut through the shield, or feint it out of the way, they reach around it to hook their opponent with the point of the sword. I think you can image what a strange type of combat it must be. Many years ago, when the movie theaters had shorts subjects, I saw a travelogue that briefly showed two Abyssinians "fencing" with sword and shield. They hoped and ducked and bounced all around, with the long curved swords moving in very awkward ways. Really strange.

When you handle a shotel you realize that it isn't very effective for slicing, nor slashing, and certainly not built for thrusting, but it is pretty good for hooking, and that is how it should be judged." (source: There is no best sword)

He seems to be saying that he actually saw the shotel used around a shield. Weird but true, and contrary to what Roanoa was saying. We really need someone with experience using it to speak up.

My 0.02 cents,

F

Jim McDougall · 22nd November 2007, 04:00 AM

Very, very well said Fearn!

roanoa · 22nd November 2007, 11:00 PM

OK, guys. I do not want to argue with people who seem to know more than I do. What I am saying is simply this: I have handled probably 50 shotels. Only two had a "full" (??) curve. The others had a curvature that varied from curved to almost straight. I have seen LOTS of swords (including British) that have a much more dramatic curvature than most shotels. Nothing would prevent these swords from being used as a shotel (i.e. reach around the shield....). And most likely that's how someone may have used it. Especially if he was performing a dance in front of a camera. Last words: get a shield and a shotel and try it yourself!!!

Jim McDougall · 23rd November 2007, 05:40 AM

Hi Roanoa,
The discussion of the manner of use of the 'shotel' seems to focus primarily on the highly parabolic sickle type examples, while the use of those with standard curve blades or even the slight recurved forms seems understood. Burton, who was in these regions in about the 1870's, and unsurprisingly, as an empassioned Anglocentric swordsman, declared that nothing was less handy than this gigantic sickle, and that "such a weapon never belonged to a race of swordsmen". He claims that such examples of weapon must have led to early emphasis to obtain swords from the Portuguese and Muslims as early as the 16th century.

It seems clear that as late as publication of Burton's book in 1885, and certainly during future colonial enterprise as late as WWII, there was little, if any true understanding of the use of the sickle shaped shotel. With the much larger volume of sabre blade mounted versions, it would almost seem that these may have been held more in a traditional sense and probably more dress or ceremonial. It was Spring who suggested that these were most probably originally used to circumvent the round shields.

I have always deferred to the martial arts enthusiasts in trying to explain the actual use of many of these weapons, and the fully parabolic deep curved blades such as on the shotel and some shamshirs seem hard to understand except for a sweeping draw cut. On the note on British swords with deep curves, I have seen British sabres (often Flank Company forms) with extremely deep parabolic curves and sharp points, with profile much as that of some shamshirs, most of these Napoleonic period.

Burton notes on p.163 that the high arc of the blade tapers to a point "...which can hardly be used". On a sickle type sword with a sharp point and the edge on the inside, it seems that a high tierce downward stroke might be effective over the shield, in traditional tribal combat. With the advent of modern warfare...undoubtedly moot.

Your knowledge and experience with Ethiopian weapons is well established here, and I offer these notes only as informational perspective on the deep curved shotels. Without sound evidence, as you say, thier use over shields in a hook fashion can only be presumed, but I would be inclined to follow your experienced opinion.

All very best regards,
Jim

Tim Simmons · 23rd November 2007, 10:09 PM

As for the mambele I can only see a use for them as a striking weapon in a X form of strokes. Attacks to the head and shoulders with downward blows and Parry's from this postion, or upward strikes from similar to fancy fencing terms octave and septime and opportune blows from the side. It is well known that ideas about these weapons may have been formed to suit the times. These people were meant to be savage. As I mentioned before it is possible that there may have been some rule to certain forms of combat especially that involving the ruling classes. Perhaps some conflicts may have been fought out in quite sophisticated ways not always involving all the community and the disruption that would bring to a life based on varying degrees of subsistence agriculture and technology.

Jim McDougall · 24th November 2007, 08:14 PM

Hi Tim,
After reading your post I felt a little embarassed at choice of words ("tierce") to describe the downward stroke, which did sound a 'bit too fancy' . Also, it may have not been the correct term in the first place, but I just remembered it from discussions describing a high held position of a sword. What little fencing I ever did was back in the Errol Flynn days!!!

I agree with what you have said on the savage nature intended in combat, which is naturally quite true. It is also true that tribal warfare in Africa, from what I understand, did rely a great deal on the individual combat of select warriors to hopefully resolve certain issues.

Thanks for keeping the perspective!

All very best regards,
Jim

23rd November 2007, 10:09 PM	#5
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,844	As for the mambele I can only see a use for them as a striking weapon in a X form of strokes. Attacks to the head and shoulders with downward blows and Parry's from this postion, or upward strikes from similar to fancy fencing terms octave and septime and opportune blows from the side. It is well known that ideas about these weapons may have been formed to suit the times. These people were meant to be savage. As I mentioned before it is possible that there may have been some rule to certain forms of combat especially that involving the ruling classes. Perhaps some conflicts may have been fought out in quite sophisticated ways not always involving all the community and the disruption that would bring to a life based on varying degrees of subsistence agriculture and technology. Last edited by Tim Simmons; 23rd November 2007 at 10:28 PM. Reason: spelling

22nd November 2007, 04:00 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,196	Very, very well said Fearn!

22nd November 2007, 11:00 PM	#3
roanoa Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 241	OK, guys. I do not want to argue with people who seem to know more than I do. What I am saying is simply this: I have handled probably 50 shotels. Only two had a "full" (??) curve. The others had a curvature that varied from curved to almost straight. I have seen LOTS of swords (including British) that have a much more dramatic curvature than most shotels. Nothing would prevent these swords from being used as a shotel (i.e. reach around the shield....). And most likely that's how someone may have used it. Especially if he was performing a dance in front of a camera. Last words: get a shield and a shotel and try it yourself!!!

23rd November 2007, 05:40 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,196	Hi Roanoa, The discussion of the manner of use of the 'shotel' seems to focus primarily on the highly parabolic sickle type examples, while the use of those with standard curve blades or even the slight recurved forms seems understood. Burton, who was in these regions in about the 1870's, and unsurprisingly, as an empassioned Anglocentric swordsman, declared that nothing was less handy than this gigantic sickle, and that "such a weapon never belonged to a race of swordsmen". He claims that such examples of weapon must have led to early emphasis to obtain swords from the Portuguese and Muslims as early as the 16th century. It seems clear that as late as publication of Burton's book in 1885, and certainly during future colonial enterprise as late as WWII, there was little, if any true understanding of the use of the sickle shaped shotel. With the much larger volume of sabre blade mounted versions, it would almost seem that these may have been held more in a traditional sense and probably more dress or ceremonial. It was Spring who suggested that these were most probably originally used to circumvent the round shields. I have always deferred to the martial arts enthusiasts in trying to explain the actual use of many of these weapons, and the fully parabolic deep curved blades such as on the shotel and some shamshirs seem hard to understand except for a sweeping draw cut. On the note on British swords with deep curves, I have seen British sabres (often Flank Company forms) with extremely deep parabolic curves and sharp points, with profile much as that of some shamshirs, most of these Napoleonic period. Burton notes on p.163 that the high arc of the blade tapers to a point "...which can hardly be used". On a sickle type sword with a sharp point and the edge on the inside, it seems that a high tierce downward stroke might be effective over the shield, in traditional tribal combat. With the advent of modern warfare...undoubtedly moot. Your knowledge and experience with Ethiopian weapons is well established here, and I offer these notes only as informational perspective on the deep curved shotels. Without sound evidence, as you say, thier use over shields in a hook fashion can only be presumed, but I would be inclined to follow your experienced opinion. All very best regards, Jim

24th November 2007, 08:14 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,196	Hi Tim, After reading your post I felt a little embarassed at choice of words ("tierce") to describe the downward stroke, which did sound a 'bit too fancy' . Also, it may have not been the correct term in the first place, but I just remembered it from discussions describing a high held position of a sword. What little fencing I ever did was back in the Errol Flynn days!!! I agree with what you have said on the savage nature intended in combat, which is naturally quite true. It is also true that tribal warfare in Africa, from what I understand, did rely a great deal on the individual combat of select warriors to hopefully resolve certain issues. Thanks for keeping the perspective! All very best regards, Jim