1822 British Lancer Mameluke

[Richard G]

Earl of Athlone. Governor General of Canada
Lord Lieutenant of South Yorkshire

[Calien]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Earl of Athlone. Governor General of Canada
Lord Lieutenant of South Yorkshire

He was a major general, and thats the 1831 regulation mameluke for generals. When you said civilian did you mean dress uniform?

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Earl of Athlone. Governor General of Canada
Lord Lieutenant of South Yorkshire

As Calien said that is a general, I’d like to see some purely civilian swords, not retired military.

I misspoke about fullers, yes they’re on eastern swords but I see no connection between age and fullers as you originally said.

[awdaniec666]

No, fullers do not always correlate with age. But when trying to identify something and one thing is missing which was common in a period of time, one must look for other details. As I said, another hint is the hammer on the spine of the blade just before the false edge of the yelman (the little prominent "hook"). With or without fullers, another rule of thumb seems to me, as I already said, the older the ottoman blade, the more prominent the hammer when the blade has a prominent yelman. I tried to give you help based solely on my knowledge as much as I could know. I think thats what people want when asking on a forum. Maybe I´m completely wrong. Take it or leave it.

--
I wrote a little story...
Person A shows a picture of the Titanic: Look this ship crossed the ocean in 1492.

Person B: Looks more like a 20th century ship to me. These old ships had sails. This one hasn´t.

Person A: But there were ships without sails back then, so this must be one of them.

Person B: But the circumstances differ. These old ships without sails had people in there rowing all the time and they were not meant to cross the ocean. Look here is a picture of Columbus´ship. And here is another of a Roman galley. They had no motors back then, so the architecture was different.

Person A: No.

--
Best wishes and good luck
(Image Ottoman saber, blade: 16-17th century. Other parts may be replaced, Source: Metropolitan Museum, New York)

[JT88]

From my friend Osman who wants to post but his account is not validated: “That his statement about fuller and mahmuz ( hammer ) is totally mistaken, he cant categorize ottoman swords like that your blade is not 15th thats for sure it is 17th second half but fuller or without fuller is will of owner or smith of the time. There are fullerless examples belonging to 16th century also with fuller examples as well he can look swords of Sultan Suleiman the magnificent and sword of his father Sultan Selim”

Another statement from him: “ Most blades made by Kuşkadem ( khoskadem ) are without fullers late 15th Mamluk swords are with or without fullers ( Ottoman and Mamluk swords are going parallel always and Ottoman weaponry made peak as success when Mamluk smiths moved to Ottoman Empire ) and many Sultans has swords without fullers as well as they have with so we cant standartize them into bases like ohh look this has no fuller so it is late that is nonsense and funny i am into research of these by many many years of my life and inspected more than hundreds of examples belonging from 12th to 19th centuries and saw almost all types belonging to different periods”

Pictures also from Osman

Your statement that fullers were so common that a sword without is an oddity is simply incorrect.

[O. Baskurt]

Hello all i am Osman and i ve been researching recreating Ottoman or Mamluk swords and Jack showed me the comments here . Now to make things clear

- as i sent Jack by message and as he post here too. We cant categorize kilics accourding to fuller work on them. It will be huge mistake cuz from very early periods there is all type of examples. We divide Ottoman kilics into periods
- Early period end 13th to end 15th century
- Classical period 15th to 18th century
- Late period 18th to 19th century

And every periods has subdivisions this is not our case now totally different topic but wanted to explain this to clarify things cuz until late period there are all type of kilics. With or without fuller high heeled pronounce mahmuz and smooth mahmuz ( hammer ) these specs are not age related. It will be huge mistake to categorize them by age like this cuz our swords made for person not like mass production and taste of owners changes a lot i have tona of examples from different periods with all types. If you want to date the blade mostly go for decorations style of inlay, caligraphy materials used forms of decorations if no decoration form of blade or tang area is best bet to look at. As for Jack's blade it is end 17th Ottoman Blade form is perfectly matching it is no way 15th century i told him that already also sorry but we didnt adopt fuller works from western we had them even in ancient blades too. His blade has koftghari style inlays on it earlier blades doesnt have these type of ornaments they have groove cut inlay type. Inlay can be added later on too but in this case there always leave signs of old inlays cuz erasing them makes steel weaker and most cases they cant go deep on cleaning. So hope this small info gives you hint and you dont argue on a funny case like this

[Jim McDougall]

As well pointed out, the 'mameluke' style saber, named for its styling influence purportedly from the famed Mamluk warriors in Egypt during the campaigns between England and France 1798-1802, became popular not just with Great Britain, but France and America in the early 19th century.

Its use was not confined to the officers of any particular group of officers, and certainly was available to other sectors including diplomatic and civilian for dress wear.

With this blade obviously being of Eastern origin, and apparently of wootz, the original blade which would typically have had the necessary identifying motif needed to identify its probable use is absent.

Here I would point out that this blade is of a 'style' that is regarded in my view as related to some earlier Ottoman forms as suggested, and more likely in that form used in northern India on tulwars in the 18th century. Interestingly the wootz steel used in many of these kinds of blades come from India.

By the term 'style' of course means that a blade of a type in use in earlier centuries was often traditionally produced in later years as well, as in many of those used in tulwars in India. That British officers in India often desired such blades for their swords very well accompanies the adoption of Indian fashion in uniforms and the weapons worn in many cases.

The depictions of these kinds of blades from the Polish references is well placed as the early Ottoman blades 'of this style' often profoundly influenced the Polish and other Eastern Europeans in their blades.

Shown, an 18th century Indian tulwar, probably Mughal and of northern India.....note the 'yelman'.
In Polish references this feature seems to have different terms which indicate its purpose, to add weight to momentum of cut.
Detail of yelman.

The Ottoman 'pala' which is a shorter, stouter version more curved and yelman more pronounced. These share the same 'pistol grip' of Ottoman 'style' which influenced the mameluke sabers of Europe. This type of hilt was also present on other Ottoman sabers with shamshir type blades, curved with tip radiused to sharp point. The term 'kilic' is a Turkish word collectively referring to 'sword'.


These are simply my observations from my interpretations and research over years, and always welcome any corrections.

As Osman has pointed out, the fullering of blades is by no means 'western' in origin, and early Islamic swords of course had such blade features. In the interpretations of the Revered Zulfiqar sword, it has been suggested the name refers to 'possessor of spines' which may indicate the blade was fullered rather than bifurcated.

[JT88]

The bottom is what we could call a “Pala” have one of those as well

As for the Indian manufacture of Turkic style, Osman seems pretty sure it is not.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by JT88

The bottom is what we could call a “Pala” have one of those as well

As for the Indian manufacture of Turkic style, Osman seems pretty sure it is not.

I think perhaps I was distracted by the fact that the Mughal dynasty was founded by Babur (1483-1530), of Chagatai Turkic descent. Also the tulwar I showed has a somewhat (?) similar style of blade. The probable provenance of the 'mameluke' saber we are discussing is unlikely without any sort of defining markings or blade inscriptions.
As shown are British sabers with this type of stepped point blade along with an Indian tulwar with this Turkic 'style' blade, used traditionally through the 18th century. The British of course ruled in India until 1947. Many British officers favored Indian blades which were often diplomatically acquired.

Though the blade style is of early 'form' it is certainly not 15th or 16th c. but could be 17th-18th.
The Ottoman kilic shown with pistol grip has similar blade profile as those in India, Mughals often recognized Mughal influences.
The Ottomans had Turkic ancestry just as the Mughals.

[O. Baskurt]

Jim these type of blades are produced in Ottoman in very wide range of time period from early 16th to beginning 18th. As for steel variations they brought steels from different regions as well as they produced their own in Istanbul too there was a dimiskihane ( dimiski is damascus as well as refered to wootz / bulat / polat ) Now here is hint about this blade earlier forms has different types of patterns than later forms. Earlier blades has more P ( phosphorus element ) inside than later forms and later forms had higher carbon content than earlier versions as well as they have high Manganese inside of them too. Which changes patterning a lot in this case as myself i am wootz maker too and witnessing this in my works too i produced smiliar patterns to both lines. As for Indian blades they have totally different way in Egypt back then they dont use indian blades. As in your example photos even visible rissso area in Indian blade are extremely upside down thing with our style cuz we have unified edge all along . This blade is not an Indian one it is purely 17th century Ottoman work

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by O. Baskurt

Jim these type of blades are produced in Ottoman in very wide range of time period from early 16th to beginning 18th. As for steel variations they brought steels from different regions as well as they produced their own in Istanbul too there was a dimiskihane ( dimiski is damascus as well as refered to wootz / bulat / polat ) Now here is hint about this blade earlier forms has different types of patterns than later forms. Earlier blades has more P ( phosphorus element ) inside than later forms and later forms had higher carbon content than earlier versions as well as they have high Manganese inside of them too. Which changes patterning a lot in this case as myself i am wootz maker too and witnessing this in my works too i produced smiliar patterns to both lines. As for Indian blades they have totally different way in Egypt back then they dont use indian blades. As in your example photos even visible rissso area in Indian blade are extremely upside down thing with our style cuz we have unified edge all along . This blade is not an Indian one it is purely 17th century Ottoman work

Well noted, and I am honestly surprised that I managed to overlook a most important factor in Indian tulwar blades, which is the blunt edge of the blade at the root near hilt known as the "Indian ricasso" (Rawson, 1968).

I cannot tell by photos if JT's sword (OP) has this feature or not, but this would be a most telling factor. As noted, an Ottoman blade would not use this feature.

While it remains possible an Ottoman blade could have become situated in Indian context, just as cases of shamshir blades in the same manner as favored by Mughal principalities, it would be more an anomaly.

Note the excellent example shown by Norman in the previous post of this type of 'Turkic' style blade where the 'Indian ricsasso' is clearly seen.