Deccan tulwar

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

In the 13th century, the Normans were the people of the Channel Islands off the coast of France.
Perhaps you called the Normans the ruling class of the English kingdom? Then you can really speculate about English swords in 13th century India

Serge, let's say that Normans are Varangians, what will change from this?
Have you already found a solution to the problem with the old 500-year truth that does not fit into a convenient system? In whose favor is your decision?

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by Saracen

Serge, let's say that Normans are Varangians, what will change from this?

Firstly, when talking about the swords mentioned in the treatise of the 13th century, it is completely incorrect to use the concepts of "Normans" or "Varangians". By this time, the Normans and Varangians had already gone down in history for 200 years. Therefore, when discussing the treatise, the only correct solution would be to use the term that the author used (of course, if there is no goal to mislead the interlocutors).

Secondly, neither the Normans or the Varangians, nor any of the inhabitants of the North of Europe invented any special sword design. The design of their weapons belongs to the Carolingian sword. In addition, as modern research shows, most of the swords used in Northern Europe were made in the Lower Rhine region (on the territory of modern Germany), where metallurgical and weapons production flourished since the time of the Roman Empire.
Today, researchers of ancient weapons are unanimous in their opinion that the Carolingian sword is a direct descendant of the spatha, the long sword of the cavalry of the Roman Empire. In turn, the design of the spatha was borrowed by the victorious Romans (Attention! Drum roll!!!) from the Gauls they defeated! This is indisputable, it is possible to discuss only the moment in time at which the borrowing occurred.

Originally Posted by Saracen

Have you already found a solution to the problem with the old 500-year truth that does not fit into a convenient system? In whose favor is your decision?

Arthur, thank you for not forgetting about the complexities of my choice. But now the truth is different - you asked this question not because you want to help me (if you did, you would have asked me this question in another thread and on another forum), but because Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Firstly, when talking about the swords mentioned in the treatise of the 13th century, it is completely incorrect to use the concepts of "Normans" or "Varangians". By this time, the Normans and Varangians had already gone down in history for 200 years. Therefore, when discussing the treatise, the only correct solution would be to use the term that the author used (of course, if there is no goal to mislead the interlocutors).

Secondly, neither the Normans or the Varangians, nor any of the inhabitants of the North of Europe invented any special sword design. The design of their weapons belongs to the Carolingian sword. In addition, as modern research shows, most of the swords used in Northern Europe were made in the Lower Rhine region (on the territory of modern Germany), where metallurgical and weapons production flourished since the time of the Roman Empire.
Today, researchers of ancient weapons are unanimous in their opinion that the Carolingian sword is a direct descendant of the spatha, the long sword of the cavalry of the Roman Empire. In turn, the design of the spatha was borrowed by the victorious Romans (Attention! Drum roll!!!) from the Gauls they defeated! This is indisputable, it is possible to discuss only the moment in time at which the borrowing occurred.

I don't know why you needed to write such a long text about the origin of the Carolingian sword with well-known information. But thanks for that.
The question was, what would change in the meaning of Ariel's message if we used any of these terms, including the term used by the author of the treatise?

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Arthur, thank you for not forgetting about the complexities of my choice. But now the truth is different - you asked this question not because you want to help me (if you did, you would have asked me this question in another thread and on another forum), but because Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

This question was related to the first one. I wanted to say that by juggling terms whose time boundaries are somewhat blurred, you are not completely honest here. Just as you are not completely honest in another thread on another forum. It was an analogy, not a question.

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

You flatter yourself too much here.
But at the same time you flatter me, so I have absolutely no complaints about this part

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Ariel needs your help now. And it's true - he needs help.

I always appreciate constructive help. That’s the main reason I come to this site.

[ariel]

Going back to the original topic of discussion: any consructive thoughts about potential Chinese influence on the construction of the “ quillon”?

[Ren Ren]

I immediately rejected the version of the direct borrowing of Chinese design with the help of Zheng He's flotilla. This version is so weak that it is not worth wasting time even explaining the reasons for its weakness.

Even a quick review of the overland part of the Great Silk Road gave much more promising results. Although this line of contacts operated continuously for more than 2500 years, the nature and intensity of the interaction changed significantly over different periods of time.
The most interesting for me are the 14th-16th centuries, when the state of Moghulistan existed on the territory including modern Xinjiang, the southeastern part of Kazakhstan and part of Kyrgyzstan. This state had outstanding opportunities for interaction with China, Mongolia, Tibet, the states of Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, using its geographical position, the unique composition of the population and the dynastic ties of its sovereigns.

It is especially important for us that the mother of Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty, was the daughter of the sovereign of Moghulistan, and many relatives on the maternal side became associates of Babur. They were the descendants of the Mongols who converted to Islam and the Turkic language, but at the same time retained a significant part of the ties with Mongolia.

Very little is known about the Mongolian weapons traditions of the 14th-16th centuries. But thanks to the excellent research of Donald LaRocca, we know that the conservative traditions of Tibet have preserved much of the common heritage of the Mongols, Tibetans, Chinese and Manchus.
Therefore, I once again looked at the historical weapons of Tibet and, in order not to waste more words, I have prepared for you a small overview of the most characteristic items.

[Ren Ren]

And also some Tibetan weapon accessories

[fernando]

Beautiful .

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Very little is known about the Mongolian weapons traditions of the 14th-16th centuries. But thanks to the excellent research of Donald LaRocca, we know that the conservative traditions of Tibet have preserved much of the common heritage of the Mongols, Tibetans, Chinese and Manchus.
Therefore, I once again looked at the historical weapons of Tibet and, in order not to waste more words, I have prepared for you a small overview of the most characteristic items.

Interesting discussion gentlemen. I find cross cultural influence and exchange of technology, ideas, and genes to be one of the most fascinating subjects ever.

Ren Ren, the Tibetan swords you show seem to have a Kala on them? Would you say that is a Tibetan addition that fits conveniently into the space or is it an implied motif on the Chinese and Indian examples also? I.e. time and death devouring all. The visors of the Mongolian helmets state this as well or just share a silhouette? Seeing that pattern repeat was a very good catch.

Mercenary, Where is the example in post #41 from?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Interested Party

Mercenary, Where is the example in post #41 from?

The State Hermitage Museum (Petersburg, Russia)
Iran, XV-XVI, when Chinese motifs were popular in the art of the Timurid state and the early Safavids. At a later time, the heads of dragons and birds were removed.

inscription: "From the desire to have a sun-like dagger, every bone in my body side became a dagger".

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by Interested Party

Ren Ren, the Tibetan swords you show seem to have a Kala on them? Would you say that is a Tibetan addition that fits conveniently into the space or is it an implied motif on the Chinese and Indian examples also? I.e. time and death devouring all.

Donald LaRocca uses the Tibetan name "tsi pa ta" in his book, which is exactly the same as the Sanskrit "kirttimukha". I do not know if the kirttimukha mask is used in the decoration of Indian weapons. China has its own symbol - the mask of Tao Tie 饕餮 (you can translate it as "Terrible Glutton"). This is a very ancient symbol, it has been known since at least 1300 BC. Later, it partially united with the kirttimukha symbol, which brought Buddhism from India.

Originally Posted by Interested Party

The visors of the Mongolian helmets state this as well or just share a silhouette? Seeing that pattern repeat was a very good catch.

I suppose that if you wish, you can find parallels between the silhouette of the visor of the Mongolian helmets and Buddhist religious objects, such as the headdresses of monks and priests. But this is hardly connected directly with the symbol tsi pa ta/kirttimukha.