Ancestors of yataghans

[erlikhan]

Well I didn't mean to provacate and even thanked for the apologizes, and I am sure I am not the one to carry the discussion to offense and signs of general hatred.
Moghuls came to the stage of history in 8th century and just as a record of existence, not any significant effect on politics, out of today's Mongolia to north, and that was 500 years after Turkic Huns invading and conquering China, 300 years after Attila in Europe, and 1-2 centuries after Gokturks ruling from Caspian sea to whole China including Mongolia, even having capitol Otuken established in central Mongolia of today( like Huns as well). Moghuls became a big power even 100-120 years after Seljuks defeated Byzance in 1071 Malazgirt and entered Anadolu. And ancient Persian weaponry still so developed and strong in the age of Turks ? Of course not. That is one of the reasons why Arabs easily conquered Persia by 1 single battle, and later Turks ruled there from 10th to 19th century. Well, if some obvious feelings mix into any kind of theories so much, I am sure neither I nor you will cause nobody to need to lock topics anymore, but definitely will cause time waste and pollution
Jeff, as I told, the Schytian-1500 b.c. information was certainly from Azerbaijan museum's definition for their samples. I am not an expert or especially interested in Schytians myself. My interest mainly aroused after I acquired this weapons. I remember even that I wrote in the forum that I was happy to see the museum's definition dating older, as I was assuming my weapons dating to 900-1000 before. Mines are from North Azerbaijan - Dagestan region. I am sure about it. And that area was ruled and established by Schytians for centuries like Ukraine, and unlike Palestine and Syria, which were occupied for short time. I am almost sure about it. Then 1-do they belong to Schytians and closer time or 2- if older and if not Schytian , to whom do they belong? The long sword is 90 cms. Who lived in that area and needed to produce such weapons before 900s b.c.? Any information?
10th century b.c. for iron work in Ukraine can be logical. What I said was just; iron working didn't require huge technological level which can't be reached by any community in the region, after once learning its clues, and no tribe would keep victorious, or even just independent if they used bronze weapons against their iron using neighbors. And I know horse riding started much earlier, but I said "mounted riding", and training, developing stronger horses, with which, horsemen became able to sit and control the horse better from the front part of its back, instead of the rear part. You can see that difference from Asyrian wall decorations. In 1000s, riders sit onto the back part, and in 700s, closer to the front shoulder, like today. Before that change, horsemen were not beneficiary in wars . Horses were preferred mainly to ride war charriots. Even camels were better than horses in a battle before these developments.
And, if you can give any link to pictures of well preserved samples of bronze or iron swords of Schytians, -and other tribes around before christ, especially Hittites and Asyrians, I will be grateful to you.
regards

[Jeff D]

Hi Erlikhan,

Great information, my post was only reguarding the museums claim that these bronze swords where Scythian. Number 2 I think is Persian and I haven't a clue about the other, as bronze weapons are way out of my league. I will post some pictures to show what I mean.
Next to hockey and sabers, horses are my other passion. The mounting of the rider over the withers (the front part of the back) is to shift his weight onto the front legs, this allows the horse to run faster freeing up the back legs where most of the driving force is derived. A jockey is able to do this even more by having short stirrups allowing him to shift all his weight off the back and move it forward infront of the horses point of balance. Modern riders will slow a horse by simply shifting their weight back onto the horses back. The forward position is therefore not for control but for speed and endurance. There where a number of horse cultures before the Scythians in the steppes and many migrated out. Scythians were a light cavalry using composite bows and throwing javalins. Mobility and speed was their trade mark, to great effect. The next big breakthrough was the development of stirrups by the Goths. This allowed the horse to perform as a elevated platform for lance, sword etc. and act as a shock force, thus developing the heavy cavalry. This developed around 400 AD.
Here are a few examples of Scythian swords that I could find;

[Jeff D]

Here is a sword similar to one of yours dates to around 1500 BC. found in laristan. (same as yours)

Hope this helps
Jeff

ed. I uploaded the wrong photo here is the correct one

[TVV]

Jeff, this is exactly what I started to write: Scythians did not have stirrups and it would have been hard for them to use swords while mounted. However, I always associated the invention of the stirrups with the Huns, or perhaps even the Sarmathians, and not the Goths, but this is immaterial to the discussion at hand. It was later than 1500 B.C. by all means.
Toa dd something more to the discussion, here is a picture of a Thracian mahaira, which in its essence is almost identical to the kopis, if not the same thing.

[Jeff D]

Thanks TVV,

I just did a quick google and it seem that the Huns most likely did invent the stirrup. Things have changed since I last read about the battle of Hadrianople where the Romans where rudely introduced to it.
And to add a little more here is a Scythian hilt;

[TVV]

Jeff, I believe the Goths were unlucky enough to be in the Huns' way on their migration to Central Europe, as they inhabited Eastern Europe above the Danube. It is quite likely that they acquired the stirrups from the Huns, and somewhere I cannot really remember now I read the Sarmathians came up with the stirrups first. In any case, the Scythians did not have knowledge of the stirrups. This does not solve the question about the origin of Erlikhan's bronze swords, particularly the long one with the eared pommell. Just because it is long, it does not necessarily mean that it was used on horseback.

[Jeff D]

Hi TVV,

I found these interesting swords thought to be Bactrian 1000BC. Note the ears on the larger one.

Jeff