foreign influence in european arns production?

[TVV]

Interesting arguments, but can you back them with factual evidence?

Originally Posted by ausjulius

this was the biginning.. one has to remember europe outpased the rest of the world very quickly... one only has to look in 1300 there odds were even.. by 1600 it was quite uneven....

We are discussing arms technology, right? I personally fail to see any gap between the Ottomans and their European enemies during the 17th century - do you have any examples? Ottoman defeats can be attributed to things such as outdated tactics, poor command and the logistical nightmare of raising, maintaining and transporting an army from one end of the Empire to another, further worsened by internal problems. However, I certainly would not blame the Ottoman arms and armor for lack of Ottoman military success towards the end of the 1600s. Also, one needs to remember that during the second siege of Vienna, the capital of the Habsburgs was saved by Ian Sobieski and his hussars, whose arms and equipment was developed under heavy Eastern influence.

but these changes were from enternal conflict.. and didnt come about in the areas with conflict with non european oponants...... you didnt see huge advances in.. romania.. russia or serbia....
they stayed as they were in 10 centuary almost.... using the same weapons as their oponants..

If we are discussing the 13th and 14th centuries, prior to the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, one needs to remember that in the early 13th century a Bulgarian army composed of Bulgarians, Vlachs and Cumans dealt a heavy and ultimately fatal defeat to the Latin Crusaders, who had just captured Constantinople. In Russia, Alexander Nevsky was also quite successfull against Western foes, such as the Teutonic Order and the Kingdom of Sweden. Of course, I would not attribute those victories to any superior arms and armor that Eastern Europeans had compared to Western Knights, but to better tactics, developped in centuries of fighting Eatsern Armies.

As for Serbia, it rose to prominence in the 14th century, and its heavy cavalry was perhaps the strongest in the world by the end of the 1400s, as evidenced by the battle of Nicopolis, where Stefan Lazarevic and his cavalrymen decided the outcome. Apparently, the Serbs had more than adequate arms and armor to allow them to outclass and defeat the assortment of Western knights at the battlefield. And those certainly were not the same arms and armor that the Serbs used a few centuries earlier - archaeological finds and pictorial evidence suggests that the Serbs were capable of adopting the best in arms technology from the East and the West.

So personally, I fail to see any great European advantage in technology prior to the Industrial Revolution, which certainly tipped the balance in favor of industrialized countries. After that I completely agree that Europe influenced the military technology in the world, but seeking the roots of this success in the Middle Ages might be a bit stretching it, and come across as very eurocentric.

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent Teodor!!! An absolutely magnificently thought out and written account of the geopolitical flux of these times. The complexity of the history of these areas and the Ottoman Empire have always seemed a bit formidable, and I've never been able to focus enough in that area of study to fully understand all of the components of this history. Your concise overview really helps, thank you so much.

Ausjulius, I think I missed the premise of the original question in that what you are looking for is not as much 'influence' from the 'East' on European arms and armour and that what you are trying to discover is instances of actual swordsmiths and armourers working in European centers.

That is an interesting question, which reminds me of the line from Kipling's famous ballad;

"...Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet".

Clearly this was not the case, especially with arms and armour, and with reference to influence, which is far more permeable in many perceptions than actual presence.

Your note on Catholic Monks working on cannons among the Mongols is an interesting anology, and I'd like to hear more on this. As to 'Eastern' (or foreign) craftsmen working in European production of arms, the only thing that readily comes to mind would be possibly the Armenians who were situated in the south of Poland in Lvov and Krakow. These skilled armourers were key in the adaption of Ottoman styles into the European armouries.

It would be difficult to say how prevalent the instance you are considering might be, as in post exploration colonization, the most common scenario was the export of European surplus and trade materials to these ecumenical locations. There was certainly always a supreme effort to capture the process of watered steel, wootz in blademaking centers, but as far as I know there was not documented presence of 'foreign' smiths in European locations.
Foreign weapons were often brought in as souveniers, and certainly there were efforts made to duplicate them, but again, typically and as far as I know ,not using foreign artisans.

While noting that these are my own perceptions, without further research, and I would be interested to hear of instances of 'foreign' presumably Eastern or Oriental armourers working in European locations.

All best regards,
Jim

[pallas]

during the carolingian period, where not the frankish swords considered superior to those of the maghrib/middle east/byzantium by the muslims themselves and did not a brisk trade in frankish blades to muslim spain/sicily/maghrib exist, so much so that several popes issued edicts banning the sale of such weapons to the "infidels" over a period of a couple centuries?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by pallas

during the carolingian period, where not the frankish swords considered superior to those of the maghrib/middle east/byzantium by the muslims themselves and did not a brisk trade in frankish blades to muslim spain/sicily/maghrib exist, so much so that several popes issued edicts banning the sale of such weapons to the "infidels" over a period of a couple centuries?

Very good point Pallas! The Frankish swords were indeed considered of the highest quality, and the export of these blades is remarkable in the geographic scope covered. It seems at some earlier point, some of the processes used by the Celtibereans, and later by smiths in Andalusian regions were in some way transmitted to and incorporated into forging by the Franks. It is unclear whether these workers actually went to the Frankish regions to work, or whether the processes were diffused through trade and contact.
It does seem almost ironic that the Frankish swords eventually became so much more in demand.

Much of this is of course , not only the forging techniques, but the quality of the steel as well, which in many cases was simply a raw product imported, not involving foreign workers. In India, the wootz steel was of course readily available, but without the Persian smiths, the end product was quite different.

Best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

FOUND IT!!!

While poring through loads of material on smallswords in quest of the elusive beaded hilt motif, in J.Aylward's " The Smallsword in England" (1945, p.57), on the smallsword hilts known as 'Tonquinese' (these are elsewhere also termed of the Peking style);

"...made originally in the Far East between 1710 and 1750 to the order of the Dutch East India Company it would seem that the ascription of the work to Tonquinese artists is hardly correct, for while Dampier, for instance, in his "Voyages" ("Dampiers Voyages" Ed. by John Mansfield, 1906) describes all the then manufacturers of Tonquin most closely, he says nothing at all about swords being made there, and it is a historical fact that the Dutch withdrew thier factory from Tonquin in 1707. It is most likely that these weapons were first made for the Dutch factory in Pekin, and it is known that afterwards,

the Company brought over some Chinese workmen to Europe, who produced in Amsterdam hilts of similar character which were fitted with blades made in Holland and in Solingen".

This is the first evidence I have found of 'foreign' workmen being brought into European centers, but it would not seem unusual to find instances elsewhere as well.

All best regards,
Jim

Addendum,
Just found in "Smallswords and Military Swords" (A.V.B. Norman, 1967),
"...Japanese craftsmen were also employed to make hilts for the European market; these were made of the black alloy of copper and gold called shakudo, and partly gilded".
It is noted further on a hilt in the Victoria and Albert Museum mounted by Jan Hosse of Amsterdam seems to be of a group of hilts made for the Dutch East India Company possibly in thier factory at Deshima in Japan".

[Samik]

I have an example that could be termed "eastern influence on western armour". I have already posted and discussed it on myarmoury forum
( http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17004 ) , but methinks that you would not mind if I'd shared it with you

This is from a Marble monument dedicated to György Serédy (dated 1549, although some historians date it later to 1557) that is located in a church (St.Egidius, basilica minor) in my hometown of Bardejov, Slovakia ( hope thats not being considered as a commercial but hey you are free to pay a visit if you wish )



I was told that Serédy's helmet is a burgonet. The one that I find most similar to it is this piece:



However, please note the presence of the "nasal bar" on Serédy's burgonet that is a feature apparently borrowed from the ottoman-turkish çiçak helmet:



Regards,
Samuel

[cornelistromp]

Hi All,

the earliest example I can recall is eastern looking sword (japanese) in the
maciejovski bible, French 1250 .

best regards