Islamic/Eastern European Crossguard

Tim Simmons · 11th November 2005, 07:43 PM

Hello B.I , Is not academic in many cases just speculation by an appointed body. Is this information not easily found in museums where the qualified academics reside. Good luck with your research. Tim

B.I · 12th November 2005, 11:40 AM

hi tim,
everything can be classed as speculation, as it is all down to opinion. the general consensus (in print and museums) is that this hilt form is of a 17thC date. however, i dont consider their opinion any more valid than some members of this forum, so a discussion here can unveil information that they havent accessed as yet. also, sometimes they are clouded by their own views and less likely to take a risk in assuming something that they will be asked to prove.
what i am attempting is to open up their trail of thought and push it past assumption. the only way i can do this is by finding earlier iconography, or similar forms that can to related in some way. i never rely soley on print, as i know there is much inforamtion that has never been written down. however, this is a good starting point for others to pick up on.
this happened with my islamic crossbow post, in that members pulled in all their own individual research to a common question, and i had a mass of information to back up my opinion. but, as you say this is only ammunition for my own views, but i think that is all we can offer (unless someone has a photograph taken in the 16thC, which would be great :-)

Jens Nordlunde · 12th November 2005, 01:59 PM

Hi Brian,
While we are looking, you might as well ask Ann about the excavations at Merv and other places, as she may be able to come up with an early quillon block

.

Marc · 13th November 2005, 12:36 AM

Ok, so, just to set the ball rolling, here I put some swords from the Military Museum in Istanbul that are labelled as 16th c. and that allegedly belonged to some of the Ottoman rulers of that time. Sadly, I know nothing about the reasons that may support such attributions (I suppose the inscriptions in the blade may have something to do with it) nor how reliable may they be.
In fact, I'm afraid I must confess I don't know enough about "eastern" swords of this period to really feel comfortable discussing the finer points of the origin of a crossguard typology, but I happened to have these pictures and thought they could contribute to this subject...

Marc · 13th November 2005, 12:37 AM

By the way, for more and much more detailed pictures, HERE is where I found them.

Rivkin · 13th November 2005, 02:15 AM

Astvatsaturjan, page 85, dates first sabres of this type to XVIth century.

B.I · 14th November 2005, 07:29 AM

hi,
thanks for the replies.
jens, i dont think the answer will appear in merv, but will happily ask ann. i am hoping that wolviex will join in (hint) or aqtai/kirill as i feel the answer will be in ottoman/mamluk/eastern europe.
marc, thank you for the images. the blades you show are wonderful, but unfortunately it is these swords that are leading the arguements against me. all the hilts are later. whilst i would hope the quillion blocks could have been original, the grips are definately a latr addition. the grip would have been slightly slanted off to one side with a pommel cap. btw, can you read french (an obscure and unrelated question)
kirill, this is interesting but can you expand as my 'great' library always seems ridiculously inadequate when you quote sources

12th November 2005, 01:59 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Brian, While we are looking, you might as well ask Ann about the excavations at Merv and other places, as she may be able to come up with an early quillon block.

13th November 2005, 12:36 AM	#4
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Ok, so, just to set the ball rolling, here I put some swords from the Military Museum in Istanbul that are labelled as 16th c. and that allegedly belonged to some of the Ottoman rulers of that time. Sadly, I know nothing about the reasons that may support such attributions (I suppose the inscriptions in the blade may have something to do with it) nor how reliable may they be. In fact, I'm afraid I must confess I don't know enough about "eastern" swords of this period to really feel comfortable discussing the finer points of the origin of a crossguard typology, but I happened to have these pictures and thought they could contribute to this subject... Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11th November 2005, 07:43 PM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,856	Hello B.I , Is not academic in many cases just speculation by an appointed body. Is this information not easily found in museums where the qualified academics reside. Good luck with your research. Tim

12th November 2005, 11:40 AM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi tim, everything can be classed as speculation, as it is all down to opinion. the general consensus (in print and museums) is that this hilt form is of a 17thC date. however, i dont consider their opinion any more valid than some members of this forum, so a discussion here can unveil information that they havent accessed as yet. also, sometimes they are clouded by their own views and less likely to take a risk in assuming something that they will be asked to prove. what i am attempting is to open up their trail of thought and push it past assumption. the only way i can do this is by finding earlier iconography, or similar forms that can to related in some way. i never rely soley on print, as i know there is much inforamtion that has never been written down. however, this is a good starting point for others to pick up on. this happened with my islamic crossbow post, in that members pulled in all their own individual research to a common question, and i had a mass of information to back up my opinion. but, as you say this is only ammunition for my own views, but i think that is all we can offer (unless someone has a photograph taken in the 16thC, which would be great :-)

13th November 2005, 12:37 AM	#5
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	By the way, for more and much more detailed pictures, HERE is where I found them.

13th November 2005, 02:15 AM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Astvatsaturjan, page 85, dates first sabres of this type to XVIth century.

14th November 2005, 07:29 AM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi, thanks for the replies. jens, i dont think the answer will appear in merv, but will happily ask ann. i am hoping that wolviex will join in (hint) or aqtai/kirill as i feel the answer will be in ottoman/mamluk/eastern europe. marc, thank you for the images. the blades you show are wonderful, but unfortunately it is these swords that are leading the arguements against me. all the hilts are later. whilst i would hope the quillion blocks could have been original, the grips are definately a latr addition. the grip would have been slightly slanted off to one side with a pommel cap. btw, can you read french (an obscure and unrelated question) kirill, this is interesting but can you expand as my 'great' library always seems ridiculously inadequate when you quote sources