On the Origins of the so-called Berber Sabres

M ELEY · 14th September 2009, 01:48 AM

Dmitry, I love your Brazilian (until proven otherwise!) cutlass. It is similar, but superior to my example. Not to divert the subject away from the Berber sabers, but as far as the Brazilian goes, I don't think there is much question that they aren't at least Spanish colonial if not specific to the Brazilian region.

Jim, I had also seen that saber with Pedro II's coat-of-arms. It was spot-on. The only thing was the timeline...later period than I would have suspected, but then again, many of the Spanish broadswords were used over many centuries. I tried to track it down again to no avail.

Dmitry's sword has that distinctive snake design on the finial we've discussed before on espada. I just saw a nice espada for sale on a website with the same pattern, but because it was an active sale, I didn't list it here (I am assuming a sale item and an active auction are considered the same??).

The Brazil sabers seem to have two distinct types of blades- straight (or nearly straight) and the classic curved type. I'm wondering what these swords were ultimately used for? Horseman's sabers? Cutlass in the many coastal ports? The pattern obviously was repeated, yet not a "model" used by any military or militia, apparently. Not trying to offend anyone, but I'm having trouble envisioning anyone riding around in the jungle or pampas on horseback with these strapped to their side. True, horseman's sabers could be rather large, but the guard seems more cutlass-like (what, me biased

).
The folded stirrup on these seems to indicate one worn on the side, like the smaller espada. So...was it like an infantry-type sword? I'm just struggling trying to imagine HOW the sword was put to use in this environment if not as the classic ship-board pattern.

Teodor, you started this great topic (thank you!) with a picture of the sabers in Barcelona. I'm curious what that museum listed all these swords (the Brazil sword (?), the Berber sabers (?) and espada) as in their collection? Do you know? Thanks.

TVV · 14th September 2009, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Teodor, you started this great topic (thank you!) with a picture of the sabers in Barcelona. I'm curious what that museum listed all these swords (the Brazil sword (?), the Berber sabers (?) and espada) as in their collection? Do you know? Thanks.

The picture was made by a friend of mine, who visited the Military Museum in Montjuic a year ago - I just noticed it recently among all the rest of the pictures. Unfortunately, he has not made any pictures of labels.

I will be going to Barcelona in a month. Unfortunately, I read that the museum was closed permanently in May of this year. Part of the collection may have been transferred to Girona, and if true, I will try to visit there as well, as I am also very curious to see how these swords are identified.

If one of the Spanish members is reading this, please let me know where all the weapons from the Barcelona Military Museum are to be found now.

Best regards,
Teodor

Marc · 14th September 2009, 09:30 AM

Well, I have to check, but IIRC the collection was indeed supposedly set to be moved to the Figueres Castle (in the province of Girona, but not in Girona city itself, just to clarify), bit I think it's still far from being actually on display there.
I'll confirm before you leave, though.

Best,

Marc

TVV · 14th September 2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc

Well, I have to check, but IIRC the collection was indeed supposedly set to be moved to the Figueres Castle (in the province of Girona, but not in Girona city itself, just to clarify), bit I think it's still far from being actually on display there.
I'll confirm before you leave, though.

Best,

Marc

Thanks a lot Marc.

Gonzalo G · 14th September 2009, 07:27 PM

Continuing with my post in home and not knowing if somebody made a response to my comments meanwhile, I would like to add some more
commentaries. First, the fact that Morocco was not a colony until the
20th Century. Of course, there were wars and temporal occupation of
some ports by spanish and portuguese. In the 15th Century the portuguese occupied four ports and the spanish one, but were defeated and expelled latter. The war of 1859-60 against Spain ended with a treaty by which the sultan of Morocco gave to the spaniards the coastal area in the north of the country. It was a war to spoil Morocco of the ports, not to colonize it, in the same way that Gibraltar is not a colony, but a military post. The Rif berbers were not subjugated until the decade of 1930´s (with great loses to the spaniards).

So, of what colonial weapons are we talking about when refering to the
berbers? To beging with, what is a colonial weapon? The answer seems
obvious, but is not. Anytime I see this concept (colonial weapon), is
associated with european colonization. Which seems to be another
ethnocentric misunderstanding. Why never a yataghan from Greece or the Balkans is called 'colonial'? Colonialism is not a phenomenon exclusive of the capitalist countries, as feudal Portugal and Spain demonstrates. And so the historians writte of greek or carthaginean colonies in Europe. This is not off-topic, since the concept must be clarified, as it is taken in loan from the social sciences and sometimes used too liberally.

I understand as colonial weapons, those made by the colonial powers,
specifically in the colonies, by the colonial settlers or by the 'natives' undertheir direction. Or made exclusively for colonial uses. This does not include the weapons not made specifically in this way, as the colonial powere manofactured their weapons in the metropolis for purposes not exusively or specifically related with the colonies, but with their general military needs. Brazil (remember the 'brazilian' sword?), is independent since 1822, and Spain had a little presence there, if any, since that was an area under the influence of the Great Britain, and before, a portuguese colony which was not allowed to commerce with anybody but Portugal. America had not ports of call, for the spaniards, except Cuba, since around 1820-22,
including the Dominicana Republic. The blade on the berber sabre from Teodor was made after the independence of this country from Spain,
which give us a time span for this weapon. The machete of Guanabacoa is another history.

The weapons made by the 'natives' using 'trade blades', or blades taken in war from the colonial enemy, are not 'colonial', in the same way the saifs made with 'trade blades' from the persians are not 'colonial', nor the firangis from India are.

Would it be causal that the european (most probably) painter whose work was mentioned by Ariel represented the berber sabre ALSO confused with an american sword? Not likely. Too much distance and the relative ignorance in Europe about the late evolution of the american weapons, makes it very unprobable (such a coincidence!). I think the swords from the spanish museum and the painting in Versailles are enough proof, since the curators also can be right about how to classify a sword, mainly if they are from a country which colonized the berber area of the Rif (well, on the other side, this is not a garantee, in this case). Those are hard evidences dreserving to be taked on account.

I insist. As there were european influences, so there were african influences over all the countries which enslaved african people. When they were taken, they came to stay, with all the cultural and racial implications this carries. Republica Dominicana and Haiti are in the same little island, only divided by a political frontier. Their culture is strongly black. Papa Doc used the vodoo to dominate his people in Haiti just decades ago. Also this are the cases of Cuba and Brazil. Berbers surely had also decorative influences from the territories to their south. And they were also enslavers and slave traders. Mutual influences could perfectly be developed. We know a just a few from them, as far as I can see.
Regards

Gonzalo G

14th September 2009, 01:48 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,158	Dmitry, I love your Brazilian (until proven otherwise!) cutlass. It is similar, but superior to my example. Not to divert the subject away from the Berber sabers, but as far as the Brazilian goes, I don't think there is much question that they aren't at least Spanish colonial if not specific to the Brazilian region. Jim, I had also seen that saber with Pedro II's coat-of-arms. It was spot-on. The only thing was the timeline...later period than I would have suspected, but then again, many of the Spanish broadswords were used over many centuries. I tried to track it down again to no avail. Dmitry's sword has that distinctive snake design on the finial we've discussed before on espada. I just saw a nice espada for sale on a website with the same pattern, but because it was an active sale, I didn't list it here (I am assuming a sale item and an active auction are considered the same??). The Brazil sabers seem to have two distinct types of blades- straight (or nearly straight) and the classic curved type. I'm wondering what these swords were ultimately used for? Horseman's sabers? Cutlass in the many coastal ports? The pattern obviously was repeated, yet not a "model" used by any military or militia, apparently. Not trying to offend anyone, but I'm having trouble envisioning anyone riding around in the jungle or pampas on horseback with these strapped to their side. True, horseman's sabers could be rather large, but the guard seems more cutlass-like (what, me biased ). The folded stirrup on these seems to indicate one worn on the side, like the smaller espada. So...was it like an infantry-type sword? I'm just struggling trying to imagine HOW the sword was put to use in this environment if not as the classic ship-board pattern. Teodor, you started this great topic (thank you!) with a picture of the sabers in Barcelona. I'm curious what that museum listed all these swords (the Brazil sword (?), the Berber sabers (?) and espada) as in their collection? Do you know? Thanks.

14th September 2009, 09:30 AM	#3
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Well, I have to check, but IIRC the collection was indeed supposedly set to be moved to the Figueres Castle (in the province of Girona, but not in Girona city itself, just to clarify), bit I think it's still far from being actually on display there. I'll confirm before you leave, though. Best, Marc

14th September 2009, 07:27 PM	#5
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Continuing with my post in home and not knowing if somebody made a response to my comments meanwhile, I would like to add some more commentaries. First, the fact that Morocco was not a colony until the 20th Century. Of course, there were wars and temporal occupation of some ports by spanish and portuguese. In the 15th Century the portuguese occupied four ports and the spanish one, but were defeated and expelled latter. The war of 1859-60 against Spain ended with a treaty by which the sultan of Morocco gave to the spaniards the coastal area in the north of the country. It was a war to spoil Morocco of the ports, not to colonize it, in the same way that Gibraltar is not a colony, but a military post. The Rif berbers were not subjugated until the decade of 1930´s (with great loses to the spaniards). So, of what colonial weapons are we talking about when refering to the berbers? To beging with, what is a colonial weapon? The answer seems obvious, but is not. Anytime I see this concept (colonial weapon), is associated with european colonization. Which seems to be another ethnocentric misunderstanding. Why never a yataghan from Greece or the Balkans is called 'colonial'? Colonialism is not a phenomenon exclusive of the capitalist countries, as feudal Portugal and Spain demonstrates. And so the historians writte of greek or carthaginean colonies in Europe. This is not off-topic, since the concept must be clarified, as it is taken in loan from the social sciences and sometimes used too liberally. I understand as colonial weapons, those made by the colonial powers, specifically in the colonies, by the colonial settlers or by the 'natives' undertheir direction. Or made exclusively for colonial uses. This does not include the weapons not made specifically in this way, as the colonial powere manofactured their weapons in the metropolis for purposes not exusively or specifically related with the colonies, but with their general military needs. Brazil (remember the 'brazilian' sword?), is independent since 1822, and Spain had a little presence there, if any, since that was an area under the influence of the Great Britain, and before, a portuguese colony which was not allowed to commerce with anybody but Portugal. America had not ports of call, for the spaniards, except Cuba, since around 1820-22, including the Dominicana Republic. The blade on the berber sabre from Teodor was made after the independence of this country from Spain, which give us a time span for this weapon. The machete of Guanabacoa is another history. The weapons made by the 'natives' using 'trade blades', or blades taken in war from the colonial enemy, are not 'colonial', in the same way the saifs made with 'trade blades' from the persians are not 'colonial', nor the firangis from India are. Would it be causal that the european (most probably) painter whose work was mentioned by Ariel represented the berber sabre ALSO confused with an american sword? Not likely. Too much distance and the relative ignorance in Europe about the late evolution of the american weapons, makes it very unprobable (such a coincidence!). I think the swords from the spanish museum and the painting in Versailles are enough proof, since the curators also can be right about how to classify a sword, mainly if they are from a country which colonized the berber area of the Rif (well, on the other side, this is not a garantee, in this case). Those are hard evidences dreserving to be taked on account. I insist. As there were european influences, so there were african influences over all the countries which enslaved african people. When they were taken, they came to stay, with all the cultural and racial implications this carries. Republica Dominicana and Haiti are in the same little island, only divided by a political frontier. Their culture is strongly black. Papa Doc used the vodoo to dominate his people in Haiti just decades ago. Also this are the cases of Cuba and Brazil. Berbers surely had also decorative influences from the territories to their south. And they were also enslavers and slave traders. Mutual influences could perfectly be developed. We know a just a few from them, as far as I can see. Regards Gonzalo G