Help pls. on 15th-17th C. cutlass & scimitar

migueldiaz · 6th February 2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Lorenz

Do you mean a scimitar used by the Moors in Europe ?
... Not that i can illustrate it; just to make sure that i well understand you. You know the term is a bit tricky.

Fernando

Hello Fernando,

Yes sir

that was what I meant, a scimitar used by Moors in Europe.

And pardon the stupid question

and my ignorance, but could there have been a scimitar or a scimitar-inspired sword that were developed and used by Europeans during the same said period (15th to 17th Century)?

In other words, would a scimitar be a weapon that was used exclusively by Moors?

Just to be fully transparent, I am not asking the above questions because I already have an idea of what the answer is, and I merely want to validate my own hunch. Remember that I'm an practically ignorant on the subject and thus any info or pic or illustration would be truly appreciated!

Best wishes,

Lorenz

fernando · 6th February 2009, 02:57 PM

Hi Lorenz
These things of weapons typology and their semanthics are never elementary ... isn't that right?
I have one source saying that the term scimitar, cimitar or scimeter is a medieval europeanization of the Persian term shamsheer. It appears that the Arab term for this sword would be saif.
The so called scimitar is said to have being be used by Turcs, Persian and Arabs, specially by Muslims, hence used by the Moors that have been in Europe, when they invaded the Iberian Peninsula.
Some say that the European falchion is a copy of it, some others don't agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion
The picture attached depicts a scimitar of the type usually painted in our churchs, during the middle ages, when the Moor, the Jew and the three Magic Kings were represented with scimitars.
These swords demand for extraordinary strength; they were often used for executions and animal sacrifices. Their advantage over European swords was that they could break sword guards and left hand daggers with their circular strike.
Mind you Lorenz, this is only for entertaining you, till the experts come around and offer their skilled views.

Fernando

.

celtan · 6th February 2009, 05:36 PM

Hi Nando,

Nice to see you again on these "lares". : )
I agree with you on the nature of the falcon. The spanish didn't have a cutlass per se until the early 19th C., when the Brit M 1804-05 began being fabricated (briefly) at Toledo. The M1728 regulation sword, sometimes with a field cut-down blade, was regularly used by the Navy. Otherwise, used cutlasses were mostly of Dutch, German and British provenance.

The arabs imported many customs to Iberia, and in fact, most of the so-called moors were eventually Iberian christians who had converted to Islam for many practical motives which do not need be discussed here. Thus, scimitars were also used by the autoctonous european "muslims". OTOH, the arabs also began adopting the type of weapons regularly used in Iberia, of Roman-Germanic style, with long straight or tapered blades, as the famed Tizona (Coaled/Burnt) reflects.

BTW: I can't picture Don Roderic Diaz de Vivar parrying an alfanje with a main-gauche. Perhaps later in the 16th C as with Cervantes in Lepanto against the Turks..?

Take care

Fortuna, Vino y Mujeres!

Manolo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Lorenz
These things of weapons typology and their semanthics are never elementary ... isn't that right?
I have one source saying that the term scimitar, cimitar or scimeter is a medieval europeanization of the Persian term shamsheer. It appears that the Arab term for this sword would be saif.
The so called scimitar is said to have being be used by Turcs, Persian and Arabs, specially by Muslims, hence used by the Moors that have been in Europe, when they invaded the Iberian Peninsula.
Some say that the European falchion is a copy of it, some others don't agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion
The picture attached depicts a scimitar of the type usually painted in our churchs, during the middle ages, when the Moor, the Jew and the three Magic Kings were represented with scimitars.
These swords demand for extraordinary strength; they were often used for executions and animal sacrifices. Their advantage over European swords was that they could break sword guards and left hand daggers with their circular strike.
Mind you Lorenz, this is only for entertaining you, till the experts come around and offer their skilled views.

Fernando

.

migueldiaz · 7th February 2009, 12:13 AM

Hola Manuel Luis

Thanks, too, for the additional info. I appreciate it!

As an aside and about El Cid, finally I saw the movie (starring Charlton Heston & Sofia Loren) the other day. I like it a lot ... very inspiring.

Had 16th century "Philippines" (an anachronism I understand) only had its El Cid, then the Igorots, Tagalogs, Bisayans, Moros, and all other 'tribes' would had fought side by side against the Spaniards and other would-be colonizers

But divide-and-conquer works all the time, that's for sure

Had ancient Filipinos played the role of colonizers in history, I'm sure they would have used the same strategy.

And I'm not trying to open a can of worms here!

Best wishes to all.

PS - From Wikipedia, on El Cid's swords:

A weapon traditionally identified as El Cid's sword, Tizona [pic attached], can still be seen in the Army Museum (Museo del Ejército) in Madrid. In 1999, a small sample of the blade underwent metallurgical analysis which confirmed that the blade was made in Moorish Córdoba in the eleventh century and contained amounts of Damascus steel [citation needed].

In 2007 the Autonomous Community of Castile and León bought the sword for 1.6 million Euros, and it is currently on display at the Museum of Burgos.

El Cid also had a sword called Colada.

Both swords have been misrepresented in popular culture. La Tizona was actually a one-handed sword, in the late roman style, whereas La Colada was a two-handed sword, greater in length.

Quote:

Originally Posted by celtan

Hi Nando,

Nice to see you again on these "lares". : )
I agree with you on the nature of the falcon. The spanish didn't have a cutlass per se until the early 19th C., when the Brit M 1804-05 began being fabricated (briefly) at Toledo. The M1728 regulation sword, sometimes with a field cut-down blade, was regularly used by the Navy. Otherwise, used cutlasses were mostly of Dutch, German and British provenance.

The arabs imported many customs to Iberia, and in fact, most of the so-called moors were eventually Iberian christians who had converted to Islam for many practical motives which do not need be discussed here. Thus, scimitars were also used by the autoctonous european "muslims". OTOH, the arabs also began adopting the type of weapons regularly used in Iberia, of Roman-Germanic style, with long straight or tapered blades, as the famed Tizona (Coaled/Burnt) reflects.

BTW: I can't picture Don Roderic Diaz de Vivar parrying an alfanje with a main-gauche. Perhaps later in the 16th C as with Cervantes in Lepanto against the Turks..?

Take care

Fortuna, Vino y Mujeres!

Manolo

celtan · 7th February 2009, 03:42 AM

Hi Miguel Diaz,

Be thankful it was the Spanish who colonized Filipinas, and gave you a Hispanic culture besides your native ones. Remember that most other colonizing powers didn't have any place _at all_ for the native populations.

Spain gave Filipinas cohesion as a National entity, the first concept of unity Filipinos had was when you all became Spanish. Before that, it was just a bunch of separated islands more often than not at War with each other. Add to that Chinese incursions, pirates et al.

So, taking that into account, it was not a matter of "dividing", but more of uniting against common enemies, and that's exactly how all Nations are born.

Best regards

Manuel

BTW: There's lot of dissension about the Tizona being the real McCoy. It is believed by most Spanish historians that the one currently described as Tizona is another sword of the same period.

Gonzalo G · 7th February 2009, 01:12 PM

English says the same thing about India...but I seriously doubt anybody should be grateful for being invaded and subjugated by anybody, at the cost of lost of many human lifes, the destruction of cultures and civilizations (spaniards destroyed cultures, english did not, or at least not in the same measure) and the expoliation of their economy and natural resources, to benefit a colonial metropoli and a bunch of spanish parasites, who were empoverished by their richness because they did not produce anything and used their gold to enrich France, England and Holland purchasing there all the goods they were incapable to manofacture, and so the spanish empire began it´s decadence as soon as it started....frankly, I don´t see the need to glorify spanish imperialism, of dubious greatness and gone MANY years ago, at the expense of the countries of origin of the rest of the forumites. Specially when many belong to a really powerfull empires which ripped the poor spanish empire into pieces and ate them calmly. Or expeled the spaniards two centuries ago into the sea in their wars of independence before the impotence and incompetence of the whole spanish armed forces and their government. Curiosly, the few great men Spain had in it´s Golden Age, all them deeply depicted the spanish government and the spanish status quo...or establishment, as we say in modern times. What common enemies did the conquered peoples had with Spain? The United States and England? Did they were the enemies of the meshica (aztecs) or the philipine moro?...ridiculous...Well, at the end, we are grateful of the spanish opression...we could easily shake it off...but more grateful should be the spaniards to the arab domination for SEVEN centuries, as they were complete barbarians when the arab invasion, divided in many kingdoms (still are by local separatisms), under the foreign visigotic rule...and arabs gave them some civilization ¿Of what unity we are talking about, when still today many basques and catalonians do not completely accept the spanish government and speak different languajes than the official castillian?

Miguel, about the scimitar and the falchion: I don´t believe the falchion was the result of any oriental influence. The falchion, known in spanish as "bracamarte", was a medieval weapon. On the times of the crusades and latter, arabs and moors used straight swords. Even the berber which latter came into Spain, used straight swords, and the mamelukes seem to have used initially straight swords. But if you see the representations of the falchion, you can verify that it does not resemble any turkish or arab weapon.

The swords of El Cid are of questionable origin, maybe one of the numerous myths created for national self-glorificaton and as a console of the arab domination, and you must take on account that arabs did not had the need to import european weapons into Spain, as they produced very good ones. That is said without deniying the possibility of arabs, moors or berbers using occasionally european swords, from gifts, purchases or war trophies. After all, the straight blades were the same type of their´s.

Also, the duble handed sword, was not a weapon from the times of El Cid, but a weapon more common in the Modern Era, that´s it, from the end of the 15th Century and forward, and although it already existed at the end of the Middle Ages, it was more often used in this time the hand and a half sword, with a little bigger blade and hilt than the one hand sword. So, the sword used by Charlton Heston on the movie, is another Hollywood invention. The two handed sword is a response to the single plaque armour from the Modern Era, and you can see it much more often on the hands of warriors from the Renaissance, like the landsknechts.

How the word "scimitar" came into the spanish vocabulary? Many believe that the word designates originally different type of swords, from the shamshir to the kiliç, passing throught the pala-gadara, which is the sword illustrated in Fernando´s photograph. But maybe there was much confussion from europeans in front of this new (for them) turkish and persian weapons, and they tended to globalize them under the term "scmitar", designing a curved blade, specially one with a yelman, that´s it, a blade which widens toward the point. The fact is that actually we know every one, or most, of this weapons, and no one is called "scimitar", and the only resemblance we found is in the word mentioned by Fernando: shamshir.

I personally think we should not use the word "scimitar" anymore, as it is ambiguos and obsolete.
Regards

Gonzalo

PD: I don´t have for the moment internet connection, so I colud be delayed for any response needed.
Kisses

Jim McDougall · 7th February 2009, 07:12 PM

Lorenz has asked some most interesting questions, and again I have been reading along with the discussion, as the topics of the history of Spain and its colonies are among my favorites, as of course, are Spanish swords.
In my youngest years I loved studying the conquistadores, and thier exploits in the Americas, and grew up in a region that reflected the profound influence of the Spanish culture, in southern California.
El Cid was also one of my favorite movies, and clearly carried the colorful pageantry that I always thought of associated with Spain's history.

However, like all history, there are often at least two sides, and in reviewing or studying it, there will always be empassioned debates and perspective much in the way politics bring volatility to virtually every venue of media daily.

Once again, I will say that I admire the knowledge displayed on these pages, and especially sense the restraint that is clearly being struggled with in some of the entries. You have all expressed yourselves well, as you have the questions posed.......please leave the barroom chest pounding out of this, along with the political editorials OK guys. I do not want this discussion 'divided' nor do I want to have to 'conquer' this thread !

The focus is on the weapons, and great information on Tizona and Colada!
Great assessment on the ongoing debate on the falchion Fernando, another mystery of medieval swords and thier terminology. It seems more a heraldic term in most cases these days, as like 'scimitar' the term became archaic.

The word 'scimitar' is as described by Fernando, a term whose etymology derives from early transliteration, and was often applied in many flowery narratives in English of those early times to illustrate the exotic sabres of the Moorish world. It is now an archaic term left best to the Elizabethan and Victorian literature that it was most used in, and to the fantasy swords it often names.

All best regards,
Jim

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... Also, the duble handed sword, was not a weapon from the times of El Cid, but a weapon more common in the Modern Era, that´s it, from the end of the 15th Century and forward, and although it already existed at the end of the Middle Ages, it was more often used in this time the hand and a half sword, with a little bigger blade and hilt than the one hand sword. So, the sword used by Charlton Heston on the movie, is another Hollywood invention. The two handed sword is a response to the single plaque armour from the Modern Era, and you can see it much more often on the hands of warriors from the Renaissance, like the landsknechts.

Hello Gonzalo,

Thanks for pointing this out

When I posted above the poster of the El Cid movie, I was actually meaning to ask everyone what would be the historical and technical inaccuracies in the movie. Thus thanks for elaborating on this particular item!

Well we all know Hollywood ... they tend to abuse "poetic license".

Like I'm also a (modern) firearms enthusiast. And one of the common rules in firearms handling as many of us know is that "forget everything you learned from Hollywood!" ...

celtan · 27th February 2009, 11:03 PM

Hello all, I’m just back from dealing with literally explossive issues. And here, waiting for my arrival, Gonzalo left me another.

Again, I think this is something to be addressed outside of the forum, as I have repeatedly said before. But since Gonzo’s post was published, I believe I have the right to answer same in kind. My heartfelt apologies to those not interested in the subject.

And it goes:

English says the same thing about India...but I seriously doubt anybody should be grateful for being invaded and subjugated by anybody, at the cost of lost of many human lifes, the destruction of cultures and civilizations (spaniards destroyed cultures, english did not, or at least not in the same measure)

Spanish incorporated native cultures into their own, and doing so, exposed them to interactions with the one they brought. In the end, the americans themselves decided which one was better and more useful. The less popular and useful simply faded away, just like arameic. Its called evolution.

and the expoliation of their economy and natural resources, to benefit a colonial metropoli and a bunch of spanish parasites, who were empoverished by their richness because they did not produce anything

Parasites like the Incas and the Aztecs..? No, I don’t think so. Spain became an administrative center, and while this model eventually became outdated, it did all right for several centuries. No small feat.

and used their gold to enrich France, England and Holland purchasing there all the goods they were incapable to manofacture, and so the spanish empire began it´s decadence as soon as it started....

Actually Gonzo, most of the Spanish Gold ended up in India, of all places.

Everything decays, living per force also entails dying. Which does not mean that we should avoid living in order not to die…

frankly, I don´t see the need to glorify spanish imperialism, of dubious greatness and gone MANY years ago, at the expense of the countries of origin of the rest of the forumites.

I have never done that, your words are a rather childish attempt to antagonize me to other posters, by default enlisting them on your “side”, whatever that is….

Specially when many belong to a really powerfull empires which ripped the poor spanish empire into pieces and ate them calmly.

Oh Really..? What I have learned from studying post grad History is that Spain destroyed itself from the inside, right after the Napoleonic wars, albeit the beginning of the end may be found at the Battle of Rocroi vs the French gallant Duc d’Enghien, with the destruction of most of the veteran Tercios and the military teachers cadre. All this out of a mere Royal whim...

Ate? : ) Seems like little ol’ Spain was a tough bone to gnaw. It took three centuries for the combined powers of England, France and Holland to bring Spain down, and this as low as Mexico has ever been able to raise itself. : )

Or expeled the spaniards two centuries ago into the sea in their wars of independence before the impotence and incompetence of the whole spanish armed forces and their government.

Yeah, yeah. Curiously, it was the criollos, the American born descendants of the Spanish who managed that (in a very, very close call that left both Mexico and Venezuela virtually uninhabited )not the local rebels. In fact, most of the native populations fought beside the Spanish against the oppression of the criollo landholders. An even the criollos required massive unofficial assistance from the British, and reinforcement from Spanish Regular army expatriates.

The latter were regular soldiers from Riego’s republican armies, who left the Peninsula evading Ferdinan VII absolutist forces and the 100,000 French Sons Of Saint Louis. In sum, the Spanish Empire was actually brought down by Ferdinand VII’s francophyllia, his return to absolutism, and his abolition of the popular Cortes.

Curiosly, the few great men Spain had in it´s Golden Age, all them deeply depicted the spanish government and the spanish status quo...or establishment, as we say in modern times.

Do you meant “despised” perhaps? Mexican Spanglish is a tad difficult to understand sometimes, although understandably so, in view of its post-Iturbide’s History.

So? The Spanish have always been their own most acerbic critics, like today's USA. And yet, this does not detract the slightest bit from our pride in ancestry and love-of-country.

Heck, the few well educated men in 21st C. Mexico despise far more the Mexican government, than the Spanish ever disliked their own!

What common enemies did the conquered peoples had with Spain? The United States and England? Did they were the enemies of the meshica (aztecs) or the philipine moro?...ridiculous...

Nopey, I meant the Aztecs, who were hated and despised all over 15th C. Mexico, and their like. The Chinese who wanted to conquer Filipinas. The Cambodians who wanted to conquer Thailand, etc…

Well, at the end, we are grateful of the spanish opression...we could easily

shake it off...

Remember the Spanish stayed in Veracruz for as long as they wanted? Heck, they even w returned along with French and British, to recover unpaid debts, defeating everything the Mexicans threw at them When both Brits and Spans realized that the French planned to stay, they both left Mexico because they refused to saddle themselves with the unholy mess you made, of what once was the wealthiest part of America...
.
C’mon, Gonzo. There’s nothing that the Mexicans can shake off, in fact, you guys got nothing to shake! You are the most despised nationality in all of America, so much so, that you can’t even stand yourselves!

You Mexicans are your own worst enemies, creating storms within glasses of water, and then congratulating yourselves for having “weathered” them thanks to your vast nautical abilities...It’s really ludicrous, you know.

but more grateful should be the spaniards to the arab domination for SEVEN centuries,

Presence: yes. Domination: not really. More likely a cohesive military and economic control of certain key areas, mostly Southern Andalucia. The fact is that Spain was very underpopulated ( 6 to 10 million), and the invading Omeya-Iranian armies were very few (There were never more than 60,000-100,000 ethnic arabs in Spain at any one time), which meant that most of the population never even saw a “real” Arab, specially taking into consideration the ruggedness of Spain’s terrain and the remoteness of the villages.

Culturally-wise, the Spanish did convert to Islam in staggering amounts, and this mostly because it was convenient. Meaning, most of Spanish Arabs were actually Spanish.

as they were complete barbarians when the arab invasion, divided in many kingdoms (still are by local separatisms), under the foreign visigotic rule...and arabs gave them some civilization ¿Of what unity we are talking about, when still today many basques and catalonians do not completely accept the spanish government and speak different languajes than the official castillian?

Just like in Mexico, where even today 1. every so often you get Indiadas risings?, where 2. many of the local inhabitants speak their own dialects?, whose 3. Spanish is often quite difficult to recognize as such? 4. Where the inland Indians deridingly call their city-dwelling Indian brothers “ispanioles”? Yep, your native unity touches my heart…

The arabs incorporated many scientific findings from the civilizations they conquered by means of fire and sword, but were not that great Scientist themselves. In fact Gonzo, Islam expressly forbid trying to understand God’s ways. It was downright Heresy, and It could be punished by Death. Not a very scientific mind-set, if you ask me.

Kisses?

I will not touch that comment with a ten-foot pole…

Toots

; )

Manuel Luis

Again: Gonzo, if you’d like to continue this discussion, do it through PMs.

migueldiaz · 8th February 2009, 12:57 AM

Hola Manuel!

First of all, thanks for the comment on the Tizona. I didn't know that there's some controversy surrounding its authenticity.

I can only wonder what happened to the career of the people who recommended buying the piece for 1.6 million Euros!

On the colonization thing, in what you said, there are points I agree with, and on some I disagree. But that's ok ... on the latter we can just agree to disagree

As an old friend told me, if two people are *always* agreeing, one is a pope and the other is a dope ... and no offense meant to those whose fondest dream is to become the former!

So for me, all that history is water under the bridge (no hard feelings), and we all just learn from it (what Santayana said is very important), and we move on.

[Jim, sir thanks for kindly reminding everyone to stick to the topic. Like in all discussions though, it's sometimes the "by the way's" that turn out to be more interesting. But like any moving cavalry or sword wielding infantry, we have to have the discipline ... sorry for the stream of consciousness rambling!]

Hey, wife is now blowing the car horn so I have to run now.

But let me thank in advance Jim, Gonzalo, and last but not the least Fernando for the most interesting additional info given. I'll comment and make my follow up queries on those later! But let me reiterate my thanks mi querido amigos, as I truly appreciate the additional info!!

Best regards, Manuel!

Lorenz

Quote:

Originally Posted by celtan

Hi Miguel Diaz,

Be thankful it was the Spanish who colonized Filipinas, and gave you a Hispanic culture besides your native ones. Remember that most other colonizing powers didn't have any place _at all_ for the native populations.

Spain gave Filipinas cohesion as a National entity, the first concept of unity Filipinos had was when you all became Spanish. Before that, it was just a bunch of separated islands more often than not at War with each other. Add to that Chinese incursions, pirates et al.

So, taking that into account, it was not a matter of "dividing", but more of uniting against common enemies, and that's exactly how all Nations are born.

Best regards

Manuel

BTW: There's lot of dissension about the Tizona being the real McCoy. It is believed by most Spanish historians that the one currently described as Tizona is another sword of the same period.

ward · 8th February 2009, 03:57 AM

I have an illustrated article on form and symbolism of scimitars, sabers and broadswords in Renaissance painting with a lot of good info on this subject.
If anyone is interested I'll post it lmk

Jim McDougall · 8th February 2009, 04:01 AM

Thanks very much guys, I really appreciate the cooperation! I didnt want this thing to derail, and I want to keep our forum clear of personality issues.

Good notes on the bracamante Fernando...and the illustration looks remarkably like the English one of medieval times known as the 'Conyers falchion', but here again I am drawing from memory.

The scimitar term is indeed still tossed around in lterature and as noted, various fantasy swords.....but actually I have seen the term used in a number of very scholarly historic accounts. I have often been amazed at the text of many military history references, which often include considerable detail on uniforms, artillery and firearms, but swords are reduced to either straight or curved sabres, while the scimitars are cliche', carrying the exotic image of Moorish and Middle Eastern warriors.

All best regards,
Jim

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

I wonder if anyone can point me to a photo or an illustration of the following: [1] a cutlass (Spanish preferably) used in the 16th century; and ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by celtan

... The spanish didn't have a cutlass per se until the early 19th C., when the Brit M 1804-05 began being fabricated (briefly) at Toledo. The M1728 regulation sword, sometimes with a field cut-down blade, was regularly used by the Navy. Otherwise, used cutlasses were mostly of Dutch, German and British provenance.

Thanks Manuel for this clarification! Appreciate it.

Dear all,

It would appear then that my query as posed originally would be an anachronism. So I guess I'd have to rephrase the inquiry as, "Can anybody please post here any image or info of a 16th Century Spanish sword?"

Now precisely on that specific subject, I found these two [below] 16th Century Spanish swords, at Arma Española as cited earlier.

I've tried using Yahoo! Babelfish for the translation. But I'm getting a not-so-clear translation. Can I kindly request for a proper English translation of the texts?

Thanks in advance!

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 12:56 AM

Since these previously posted images are just a few kilobytes each (and thus not burdensome on the server), and also for the convenience of all, please allow me to post here again some of the images lifted from Osprey's The Conquistadores.

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 12:58 AM

Some more ...

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 01:00 AM

Last set from Osprey's The Conquistadores ...

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

... I found these two [below] 16th Century Spanish swords, at Arma Española as cited earlier.

I've tried using Yahoo! Babelfish for the translation. But I'm getting a not-so-clear translation. Can I kindly request for a proper English translation of the texts?

So here's the original Spanish text, and the corresponding Babelfish translation. The translation is imperfect, but one gets the general idea. It wouldn't hurt though if we non-Spanish speaking folks can get a more decent translation

SWORD NO. 1

Spanish description:

ESPADA DE LAZO
Ref. 1-1550-B

(IOHANNES DE LA HORTA)
mediados del siglo XVI

Long T: 1270

GUARNICIÓN: De lazo, italianizante y algo asimétrica en su desarrollo. Nótese la presencia de un solo gavilán curvado hacia el interior, un solo pitón o gancho frontal dirigido hacia arriba y un gran puente que, en sutil curvatura, une la base de la patilla del interior con el arriaz. En el reverso tres ramas parten de las citadas patillas para reunirse en la base del aro guardamano. Escusón en afilada punta. Pomo casi cilíndrico con leve perilla superior. Puño facetado completamente alambrado con torzal, entre dos virolas en cabeza de turco. Todos los elementos se hallan cincelados y damasquinados.

HOJA:Ancha, llana (sin mesas marcadas) con dos filos y breve talón. Canal en su tercio fuerte.

INSCRIPCIÓN: IOHANES DE LA HORTA. Punzón A (en un cuadrado del recazo)

OBSERVACIONES: Según Palomares Iohanesde la Horta forjaba en Toledo en 1545.

English translation c/o Babelfish:

BOW SWORD

Ref 1-1550-B

(IOHANNES OF THE HORTA)

half-full of century XVI

Long T: 1270

TRIMMING: Of bow, italianizante and something asymmetric in its development. Nótese the presence of a single sparrowhawk curved towards the interior, a single pitón or frontal hook upwards directed and a great bridge that, in subtle curvature, unites the base of the sideburn of the interior with arriaz. In reverse the three branches they leave from the mentioned sideburns to meet in the base of the hoop hand guard. Escusón in sharpened end. Almost cylindrical Pomo with slight knob superior. Facetado fist completely fencing with torzal, between two ferrules in Turk head. All the elements are chiselled and damascene works.

LEAF: It widens, trowel (without noticeable tables) with two edges and brief heel. Channel in its strong third.

INSCRIPTION: IOHANES OF THE HORTA. Striker pin A (in squaring of the back)

OBSERVATIONS: According to Iohanesde Pigeon houses the Horta forged in Toledo in 1545.

Would anyone care to comment on the awkward translation?

Thanks!

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 05:46 AM

And the other one:

SWORD NO. 2

Spanish description:

ESPADA DE LAZO (TOLEDO)
finales siglo XVI

Ref. 1-1590-B

Long T: 1.290

GUARNICIÓN: De lazo, cincelada con maestría, con pomo troncocónico descansando sobre peana y ésa, a su vez, sobre virola. Puño cilíndrico con marcados surcos en espiral, arriazen cruz de rectos gavilanes y escusón central poligonal. El lazo propiamente dicho lo forman tres puentes frontales, de cuyo superior arranca un brazo hasta la mitad del aro, las ramas posteriores en número de tres y las patillas que surgen del arriazy, en arco de circunferencia, van a la base del recazo. Conjunto armónico y muy bien logrado.

HOJA: Ancha, con dos mesas por cara y canal central en su primer tercio. Filos a ambos lados.

INSCRIPCIÓN: TOLEDO

OBSERVACIONES: Situamos el arma a finales del s. XVI y comienzos del XVII época de oro de las espadas de lazo.

English translation c/o Babelfish:

BOW SWORD (TOLEDO)
end century XVI

Ref 1-1590-B

Long T: 1.290

TRIMMING: Of bow, chiselled with trunkated cone masters, pomo resting on pedestal and that one, as well, on ferrule. Cylindrical fist with noticeable furrows in spiral, arriazen cross of straight sparrowhawks and escusón central polygonal. Bow proper bridges form it three frontal, of whose superior it takes an arm until the later half of the hoop, branches in number of the three and sideburns that arise from arriazy, in circumference arc, go to the base of the back. Very well obtained harmonic set and.

LEAF: It widens, with two tables by face and central channel in his first third. Edges to both sides.

INSCRIPTION: TOLEDO

OBSERVATIONS: We locate the weapon at the end of the s. XVI and beginnings of XVII the time of gold of the bow swords.

The machine translation is for better translation, please?

migueldiaz · 9th February 2009, 06:05 AM

Still on the conquistadores, here's another title that I should buy one of these days: The Conquistador: 1492-1550.

migueldiaz · 6th February 2009, 10:56 PM

Olá Fernando,

Obrigado muito!

Hey, you are certainly one of the experts in the subject. And I appreciate the info and the picture.

Indeed navigating these 'waters' can be tricky, as said. Thus all info or lead will help a lot. So thanks again! ...

PS - By the way, a friend graciously pointed me to this information-rich website on Spanish swords!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Lorenz
These things of weapons typology and their semanthics are never elementary ... isn't that right?
I have one source saying that the term scimitar, cimitar or scimeter is a medieval europeanization of the Persian term shamsheer. It appears that the Arab term for this sword would be saif.
The so called scimitar is said to have being be used by Turcs, Persian and Arabs, specially by Muslims, hence used by the Moors that have been in Europe, when they invaded the Iberian Peninsula.
Some say that the European falchion is a copy of it, some others don't agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion
The picture attached depicts a scimitar of the type usually painted in our churchs, during the middle ages, when the Moor, the Jew and the three Magic Kings were represented with scimitars.
These swords demand for extraordinary strength; they were often used for executions and animal sacrifices. Their advantage over European swords was that they could break sword guards and left hand daggers with their circular strike.
Mind you Lorenz, this is only for entertaining you, till the experts come around and offer their skilled views.

Fernando

.

6th February 2009, 02:57 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Lorenz These things of weapons typology and their semanthics are never elementary ... isn't that right? I have one source saying that the term scimitar, cimitar or scimeter is a medieval europeanization of the Persian term shamsheer. It appears that the Arab term for this sword would be saif. The so called scimitar is said to have being be used by Turcs, Persian and Arabs, specially by Muslims, hence used by the Moors that have been in Europe, when they invaded the Iberian Peninsula. Some say that the European falchion is a copy of it, some others don't agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion The picture attached depicts a scimitar of the type usually painted in our churchs, during the middle ages, when the Moor, the Jew and the three Magic Kings were represented with scimitars. These swords demand for extraordinary strength; they were often used for executions and animal sacrifices. Their advantage over European swords was that they could break sword guards and left hand daggers with their circular strike. Mind you Lorenz, this is only for entertaining you, till the experts come around and offer their skilled views. Fernando . Attached Images

27th February 2009, 11:03 PM	#9
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Hello all, I’m just back from dealing with literally explossive issues. And here, waiting for my arrival, Gonzalo left me another. Again, I think this is something to be addressed outside of the forum, as I have repeatedly said before. But since Gonzo’s post was published, I believe I have the right to answer same in kind. My heartfelt apologies to those not interested in the subject. And it goes: English says the same thing about India...but I seriously doubt anybody should be grateful for being invaded and subjugated by anybody, at the cost of lost of many human lifes, the destruction of cultures and civilizations (spaniards destroyed cultures, english did not, or at least not in the same measure) Spanish incorporated native cultures into their own, and doing so, exposed them to interactions with the one they brought. In the end, the americans themselves decided which one was better and more useful. The less popular and useful simply faded away, just like arameic. Its called evolution. and the expoliation of their economy and natural resources, to benefit a colonial metropoli and a bunch of spanish parasites, who were empoverished by their richness because they did not produce anything Parasites like the Incas and the Aztecs..? No, I don’t think so. Spain became an administrative center, and while this model eventually became outdated, it did all right for several centuries. No small feat. and used their gold to enrich France, England and Holland purchasing there all the goods they were incapable to manofacture, and so the spanish empire began it´s decadence as soon as it started.... Actually Gonzo, most of the Spanish Gold ended up in India, of all places. Everything decays, living per force also entails dying. Which does not mean that we should avoid living in order not to die… frankly, I don´t see the need to glorify spanish imperialism, of dubious greatness and gone MANY years ago, at the expense of the countries of origin of the rest of the forumites. I have never done that, your words are a rather childish attempt to antagonize me to other posters, by default enlisting them on your “side”, whatever that is…. Specially when many belong to a really powerfull empires which ripped the poor spanish empire into pieces and ate them calmly. Oh Really..? What I have learned from studying post grad History is that Spain destroyed itself from the inside, right after the Napoleonic wars, albeit the beginning of the end may be found at the Battle of Rocroi vs the French gallant Duc d’Enghien, with the destruction of most of the veteran Tercios and the military teachers cadre. All this out of a mere Royal whim... Ate? : ) Seems like little ol’ Spain was a tough bone to gnaw. It took three centuries for the combined powers of England, France and Holland to bring Spain down, and this as low as Mexico has ever been able to raise itself. : ) Or expeled the spaniards two centuries ago into the sea in their wars of independence before the impotence and incompetence of the whole spanish armed forces and their government. Yeah, yeah. Curiously, it was the criollos, the American born descendants of the Spanish who managed that (in a very, very close call that left both Mexico and Venezuela virtually uninhabited )not the local rebels. In fact, most of the native populations fought beside the Spanish against the oppression of the criollo landholders. An even the criollos required massive unofficial assistance from the British, and reinforcement from Spanish Regular army expatriates. The latter were regular soldiers from Riego’s republican armies, who left the Peninsula evading Ferdinan VII absolutist forces and the 100,000 French Sons Of Saint Louis. In sum, the Spanish Empire was actually brought down by Ferdinand VII’s francophyllia, his return to absolutism, and his abolition of the popular Cortes. Curiosly, the few great men Spain had in it´s Golden Age, all them deeply depicted the spanish government and the spanish status quo...or establishment, as we say in modern times. Do you meant “despised” perhaps? Mexican Spanglish is a tad difficult to understand sometimes, although understandably so, in view of its post-Iturbide’s History. So? The Spanish have always been their own most acerbic critics, like today's USA. And yet, this does not detract the slightest bit from our pride in ancestry and love-of-country. Heck, the few well educated men in 21st C. Mexico despise far more the Mexican government, than the Spanish ever disliked their own! What common enemies did the conquered peoples had with Spain? The United States and England? Did they were the enemies of the meshica (aztecs) or the philipine moro?...ridiculous... Nopey, I meant the Aztecs, who were hated and despised all over 15th C. Mexico, and their like. The Chinese who wanted to conquer Filipinas. The Cambodians who wanted to conquer Thailand, etc… Well, at the end, we are grateful of the spanish opression...we could easily shake it off... Remember the Spanish stayed in Veracruz for as long as they wanted? Heck, they even w returned along with French and British, to recover unpaid debts, defeating everything the Mexicans threw at them When both Brits and Spans realized that the French planned to stay, they both left Mexico because they refused to saddle themselves with the unholy mess you made, of what once was the wealthiest part of America... . C’mon, Gonzo. There’s nothing that the Mexicans can shake off, in fact, you guys got nothing to shake! You are the most despised nationality in all of America, so much so, that you can’t even stand yourselves! You Mexicans are your own worst enemies, creating storms within glasses of water, and then congratulating yourselves for having “weathered” them thanks to your vast nautical abilities...It’s really ludicrous, you know. but more grateful should be the spaniards to the arab domination for SEVEN centuries, Presence: yes. Domination: not really. More likely a cohesive military and economic control of certain key areas, mostly Southern Andalucia. The fact is that Spain was very underpopulated ( 6 to 10 million), and the invading Omeya-Iranian armies were very few (There were never more than 60,000-100,000 ethnic arabs in Spain at any one time), which meant that most of the population never even saw a “real” Arab, specially taking into consideration the ruggedness of Spain’s terrain and the remoteness of the villages. Culturally-wise, the Spanish did convert to Islam in staggering amounts, and this mostly because it was convenient. Meaning, most of Spanish Arabs were actually Spanish. as they were complete barbarians when the arab invasion, divided in many kingdoms (still are by local separatisms), under the foreign visigotic rule...and arabs gave them some civilization ¿Of what unity we are talking about, when still today many basques and catalonians do not completely accept the spanish government and speak different languajes than the official castillian? Just like in Mexico, where even today 1. every so often you get Indiadas risings?, where 2. many of the local inhabitants speak their own dialects?, whose 3. Spanish is often quite difficult to recognize as such? 4. Where the inland Indians deridingly call their city-dwelling Indian brothers “ispanioles”? Yep, your native unity touches my heart… The arabs incorporated many scientific findings from the civilizations they conquered by means of fire and sword, but were not that great Scientist themselves. In fact Gonzo, Islam expressly forbid trying to understand God’s ways. It was downright Heresy, and It could be punished by Death. Not a very scientific mind-set, if you ask me. Kisses? I will not touch that comment with a ten-foot pole… Toots ; ) Manuel Luis Again: Gonzo, if you’d like to continue this discussion, do it through PMs. Last edited by celtan; 28th February 2009 at 02:40 AM.

9th February 2009, 12:56 AM	#14
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Since these previously posted images are just a few kilobytes each (and thus not burdensome on the server), and also for the convenience of all, please allow me to post here again some of the images lifted from Osprey's The Conquistadores. Attached Images

9th February 2009, 12:58 AM	#15
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Some more ... Attached Images

9th February 2009, 01:00 AM	#16
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Last set from Osprey's The Conquistadores ... Attached Images

7th February 2009, 03:42 AM	#5
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Hi Miguel Diaz, Be thankful it was the Spanish who colonized Filipinas, and gave you a Hispanic culture besides your native ones. Remember that most other colonizing powers didn't have any place _at all_ for the native populations. Spain gave Filipinas cohesion as a National entity, the first concept of unity Filipinos had was when you all became Spanish. Before that, it was just a bunch of separated islands more often than not at War with each other. Add to that Chinese incursions, pirates et al. So, taking that into account, it was not a matter of "dividing", but more of uniting against common enemies, and that's exactly how all Nations are born. Best regards Manuel BTW: There's lot of dissension about the Tizona being the real McCoy. It is believed by most Spanish historians that the one currently described as Tizona is another sword of the same period.

7th February 2009, 01:12 PM	#6
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	English says the same thing about India...but I seriously doubt anybody should be grateful for being invaded and subjugated by anybody, at the cost of lost of many human lifes, the destruction of cultures and civilizations (spaniards destroyed cultures, english did not, or at least not in the same measure) and the expoliation of their economy and natural resources, to benefit a colonial metropoli and a bunch of spanish parasites, who were empoverished by their richness because they did not produce anything and used their gold to enrich France, England and Holland purchasing there all the goods they were incapable to manofacture, and so the spanish empire began it´s decadence as soon as it started....frankly, I don´t see the need to glorify spanish imperialism, of dubious greatness and gone MANY years ago, at the expense of the countries of origin of the rest of the forumites. Specially when many belong to a really powerfull empires which ripped the poor spanish empire into pieces and ate them calmly. Or expeled the spaniards two centuries ago into the sea in their wars of independence before the impotence and incompetence of the whole spanish armed forces and their government. Curiosly, the few great men Spain had in it´s Golden Age, all them deeply depicted the spanish government and the spanish status quo...or establishment, as we say in modern times. What common enemies did the conquered peoples had with Spain? The United States and England? Did they were the enemies of the meshica (aztecs) or the philipine moro?...ridiculous...Well, at the end, we are grateful of the spanish opression...we could easily shake it off...but more grateful should be the spaniards to the arab domination for SEVEN centuries, as they were complete barbarians when the arab invasion, divided in many kingdoms (still are by local separatisms), under the foreign visigotic rule...and arabs gave them some civilization ¿Of what unity we are talking about, when still today many basques and catalonians do not completely accept the spanish government and speak different languajes than the official castillian? Miguel, about the scimitar and the falchion: I don´t believe the falchion was the result of any oriental influence. The falchion, known in spanish as "bracamarte", was a medieval weapon. On the times of the crusades and latter, arabs and moors used straight swords. Even the berber which latter came into Spain, used straight swords, and the mamelukes seem to have used initially straight swords. But if you see the representations of the falchion, you can verify that it does not resemble any turkish or arab weapon. The swords of El Cid are of questionable origin, maybe one of the numerous myths created for national self-glorificaton and as a console of the arab domination, and you must take on account that arabs did not had the need to import european weapons into Spain, as they produced very good ones. That is said without deniying the possibility of arabs, moors or berbers using occasionally european swords, from gifts, purchases or war trophies. After all, the straight blades were the same type of their´s. Also, the duble handed sword, was not a weapon from the times of El Cid, but a weapon more common in the Modern Era, that´s it, from the end of the 15th Century and forward, and although it already existed at the end of the Middle Ages, it was more often used in this time the hand and a half sword, with a little bigger blade and hilt than the one hand sword. So, the sword used by Charlton Heston on the movie, is another Hollywood invention. The two handed sword is a response to the single plaque armour from the Modern Era, and you can see it much more often on the hands of warriors from the Renaissance, like the landsknechts. How the word "scimitar" came into the spanish vocabulary? Many believe that the word designates originally different type of swords, from the shamshir to the kiliç, passing throught the pala-gadara, which is the sword illustrated in Fernando´s photograph. But maybe there was much confussion from europeans in front of this new (for them) turkish and persian weapons, and they tended to globalize them under the term "scmitar", designing a curved blade, specially one with a yelman, that´s it, a blade which widens toward the point. The fact is that actually we know every one, or most, of this weapons, and no one is called "scimitar", and the only resemblance we found is in the word mentioned by Fernando: shamshir. I personally think we should not use the word "scimitar" anymore, as it is ambiguos and obsolete. Regards Gonzalo PD: I don´t have for the moment internet connection, so I colud be delayed for any response needed. Kisses

7th February 2009, 07:12 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,744	Lorenz has asked some most interesting questions, and again I have been reading along with the discussion, as the topics of the history of Spain and its colonies are among my favorites, as of course, are Spanish swords. In my youngest years I loved studying the conquistadores, and thier exploits in the Americas, and grew up in a region that reflected the profound influence of the Spanish culture, in southern California. El Cid was also one of my favorite movies, and clearly carried the colorful pageantry that I always thought of associated with Spain's history. However, like all history, there are often at least two sides, and in reviewing or studying it, there will always be empassioned debates and perspective much in the way politics bring volatility to virtually every venue of media daily. Once again, I will say that I admire the knowledge displayed on these pages, and especially sense the restraint that is clearly being struggled with in some of the entries. You have all expressed yourselves well, as you have the questions posed.......please leave the barroom chest pounding out of this, along with the political editorials OK guys. I do not want this discussion 'divided' nor do I want to have to 'conquer' this thread ! The focus is on the weapons, and great information on Tizona and Colada! Great assessment on the ongoing debate on the falchion Fernando, another mystery of medieval swords and thier terminology. It seems more a heraldic term in most cases these days, as like 'scimitar' the term became archaic. The word 'scimitar' is as described by Fernando, a term whose etymology derives from early transliteration, and was often applied in many flowery narratives in English of those early times to illustrate the exotic sabres of the Moorish world. It is now an archaic term left best to the Elizabethan and Victorian literature that it was most used in, and to the fantasy swords it often names. All best regards, Jim

8th February 2009, 03:57 AM	#11
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	I have an illustrated article on form and symbolism of scimitars, sabers and broadswords in Renaissance painting with a lot of good info on this subject. If anyone is interested I'll post it lmk

8th February 2009, 04:01 AM	#12
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,744	Thanks very much guys, I really appreciate the cooperation! I didnt want this thing to derail, and I want to keep our forum clear of personality issues. Good notes on the bracamante Fernando...and the illustration looks remarkably like the English one of medieval times known as the 'Conyers falchion', but here again I am drawing from memory. The scimitar term is indeed still tossed around in lterature and as noted, various fantasy swords.....but actually I have seen the term used in a number of very scholarly historic accounts. I have often been amazed at the text of many military history references, which often include considerable detail on uniforms, artillery and firearms, but swords are reduced to either straight or curved sabres, while the scimitars are cliche', carrying the exotic image of Moorish and Middle Eastern warriors. All best regards, Jim

9th February 2009, 05:46 AM	#18
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	And the other one: SWORD NO. 2 Spanish description: ESPADA DE LAZO (TOLEDO) finales siglo XVI Ref. 1-1590-B Long T: 1.290 GUARNICIÓN: De lazo, cincelada con maestría, con pomo troncocónico descansando sobre peana y ésa, a su vez, sobre virola. Puño cilíndrico con marcados surcos en espiral, arriazen cruz de rectos gavilanes y escusón central poligonal. El lazo propiamente dicho lo forman tres puentes frontales, de cuyo superior arranca un brazo hasta la mitad del aro, las ramas posteriores en número de tres y las patillas que surgen del arriazy, en arco de circunferencia, van a la base del recazo. Conjunto armónico y muy bien logrado. HOJA: Ancha, con dos mesas por cara y canal central en su primer tercio. Filos a ambos lados. INSCRIPCIÓN: TOLEDO OBSERVACIONES: Situamos el arma a finales del s. XVI y comienzos del XVII época de oro de las espadas de lazo. English translation c/o Babelfish: BOW SWORD (TOLEDO) end century XVI Ref 1-1590-B Long T: 1.290 TRIMMING: Of bow, chiselled with trunkated cone masters, pomo resting on pedestal and that one, as well, on ferrule. Cylindrical fist with noticeable furrows in spiral, arriazen cross of straight sparrowhawks and escusón central polygonal. Bow proper bridges form it three frontal, of whose superior it takes an arm until the later half of the hoop, branches in number of the three and sideburns that arise from arriazy, in circumference arc, go to the base of the back. Very well obtained harmonic set and. LEAF: It widens, with two tables by face and central channel in his first third. Edges to both sides. INSCRIPTION: TOLEDO OBSERVATIONS: We locate the weapon at the end of the s. XVI and beginnings of XVII the time of gold of the bow swords. The machine translation is for better translation, please?

9th February 2009, 06:05 AM	#19
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Still on the conquistadores, here's another title that I should buy one of these days: The Conquistador: 1492-1550. Attached Images