Ancestors of yataghans

Jeff D · 16th December 2004, 02:11 AM

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 · 16th December 2004, 04:49 AM

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 · 16th December 2004, 07:07 AM

Hi TVV,

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

Jeff

Jeff D · 16th December 2004, 04:39 PM

Hi Erlikhan,

I just found this one which is thought to be from Amlash. There is a fellow named John Piscopo who posts regularlly on the SFI site that could help you further http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdi...?s=&forumid=12

Jeff

TVV · 16th December 2004, 04:42 PM

Great job digging this one out. The similarity with Erlikhan's long eared pommel sword is obvious. In order to avoid further confusion, could you please provide the source of this picture, and more specifically the reasons for the dating.

erlikhan · 16th December 2004, 09:35 PM

Jeff and TVV, thank you very much for the pictures. Amazing. Bactria is the other side of the Caspian sea, western middle Asia, which is far from Caucassia, and Luristan is today's western-southwestern Iran. I don't know the other place "Amlash". Almost completely same type weapons in a very large area, considered in that age's scales. Between 1500 - 1000 b.c., was there a single tribe ruling over the area or many tribes copied and used similar weapons perhaps because of limited development level of creativity or technical difficulties?
In English,does "mounted" mean using "stirrup"? Or everything including saddles? I meant to define saddle especially by word" mounted". If you check John Keegan- "A history of warfare" book , there are wall pictures from Asyrians, first showing horsemen sitting back and without saddle in 850s , and 2nd picture dating to 650s, sitting front and both horse and camels are mounted with saddles. There is no stirrup.

Jeff D · 19th December 2004, 07:18 PM

Sorry for the slow response, I have been busy. Here are some of the sights I found the swords on.
Erlikhan, mounted only means on top of and thus has no inference on whether stirrups are used or not.

http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/An...nd_Swords.html

http://www.edgarlowen.com/a50ane.html

http://www.theinterestingshop.com/pa...ntweapons1.htm

Jeff

tom hyle · 20th December 2004, 01:23 AM

Fascinating. The mahaira/copis I think to be a fairly Northern sword in its origins, and not Greek or Mediterranean, as commonly thought (nor am I certain of its close relation to the Egypto/Palestinian kopsh, which seems to be derived of the "broad axe"). The people of the Caucases region were known for metalworking and arms making, and I've read that they exported both finished arms and metal to Greece in the bronze age.........what I find interesting about these possible proto-eared-hilts is that the "ears" seem to actually be a tube, perhaps for a lanyard.

16th December 2004, 02:11 AM	#1
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	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; Attached Images

16th December 2004, 07:07 AM	#3
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi TVV, I found these interesting swords thought to be Bactrian 1000BC. Note the ears on the larger one. Jeff Attached Images

16th December 2004, 04:39 PM	#4
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Erlikhan, I just found this one which is thought to be from Amlash. There is a fellow named John Piscopo who posts regularlly on the SFI site that could help you further http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdi...?s=&forumid=12 Jeff Attached Images

16th December 2004, 04:49 AM	#2
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,664	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.

16th December 2004, 04:42 PM	#5
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,664	Great job digging this one out. The similarity with Erlikhan's long eared pommel sword is obvious. In order to avoid further confusion, could you please provide the source of this picture, and more specifically the reasons for the dating.

16th December 2004, 09:35 PM	#6
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Jeff and TVV, thank you very much for the pictures. Amazing. Bactria is the other side of the Caspian sea, western middle Asia, which is far from Caucassia, and Luristan is today's western-southwestern Iran. I don't know the other place "Amlash". Almost completely same type weapons in a very large area, considered in that age's scales. Between 1500 - 1000 b.c., was there a single tribe ruling over the area or many tribes copied and used similar weapons perhaps because of limited development level of creativity or technical difficulties? In English,does "mounted" mean using "stirrup"? Or everything including saddles? I meant to define saddle especially by word" mounted". If you check John Keegan- "A history of warfare" book , there are wall pictures from Asyrians, first showing horsemen sitting back and without saddle in 850s , and 2nd picture dating to 650s, sitting front and both horse and camels are mounted with saddles. There is no stirrup.

19th December 2004, 07:18 PM	#7
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Sorry for the slow response, I have been busy. Here are some of the sights I found the swords on. Erlikhan, mounted only means on top of and thus has no inference on whether stirrups are used or not. http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/An...nd_Swords.html http://www.edgarlowen.com/a50ane.html http://www.theinterestingshop.com/pa...ntweapons1.htm Jeff

20th December 2004, 01:23 AM	#8
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Fascinating. The mahaira/copis I think to be a fairly Northern sword in its origins, and not Greek or Mediterranean, as commonly thought (nor am I certain of its close relation to the Egypto/Palestinian kopsh, which seems to be derived of the "broad axe"). The people of the Caucases region were known for metalworking and arms making, and I've read that they exported both finished arms and metal to Greece in the bronze age.........what I find interesting about these possible proto-eared-hilts is that the "ears" seem to actually be a tube, perhaps for a lanyard.