Kopis/khopsh etc. - Egyptian swords

[Yannis]

Well, too many words to answer.

1. Except “nationalistic Greeks” there are hundreds of Anglo-Saxon scholars that say the same things. I am not the nationalist type, but I have seen lot of ancient greek warriors in original artwork holding kopis. I have not seen any Caucasian. I believe that this sword is coming from an older form, most possible from Egyptian khepesh. Through emporium and colonies it was spread in all “known” world, before Alexander, from Iberia (Spain) to Colchis (Caucasus).

2. Of course exchange of technology (or ideas) is not one way, but Greeks pushed the wagon little further, like Democracy (Athens), Philosophy (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle), Geometry (Pythagoras), Physics (Democritus), Medicine (Hippocrates) etc. As far as I know the schools around the globe still inform their students about it.

3. Alexander was on the tide of Macedonians and the demand of all Greeks for revenge against Persians. But if it was not him, greek army would not reach India. A lot of times he had stand against his soldiers will to return home. He was clever enough to try new strategies, fighting against bigger armies.

4. Talking about weapons, the Greeks, like any successful army, had studied a lot their weapons and developed new kinds of them for new strategies. For example, Spartans with sort swords and big shields developed the tight formation where each soldier was covering a partner. The Theban general Epaminondas 'invented' new battlefield tactics by concentrating his assault on one selected point of the enemy line. Macedonians developed the sarisa, a 17 feet long pike. In the phalanx the sarisas of the first five rows were pointing forwards, a forest of armor piercing iron. The other rows lifted their sarisas at an angle upwards, forming an effective protection against missiles.

A recent American fiction book about Alexander is Steven Pressfield’s “The virtues of war”. It is based on ancient writers.
Finally this is a Macedonian phalanx:

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by Yannis

Well, too many words to answer.

1. Except “nationalistic Greeks”

There's one of 'em now!

there are hundreds of Anglo-Saxon scholars that say the same things.

Doesn't make 'em right; All Western Europe is drawn into the Graecocentrism from which it (not entirely accurately) claims its descent. If every one is wrong, everyone is wrong. Truth is not democratic.

I am not the nationalist type,

I gotta tell you; no questioning of the glowing ancient Greek reputation ever seems to pass you without challenge; I think you are a bit nationalistic.

but I have seen lot of ancient greek warriors in original artwork holding kopis. I have not seen any Caucasian.

I think I have; definitely in the steppes countries, and I'm pretty sure they've excavated the swords "up" there, too.

I believe that this sword is coming from an older form, most possible from Egyptian khepesh.

The resemblance is rather tenuous......and did the kopsh (so rebellious, I am!) come to Egypt with the (Northern Steppes) Hyksos? Still seeing if anyone will A/ defend/explain that concept, or B/ explain why these are thought to be closely related forms. Are you familiar with the Egypto-Palestinian broadaxe? You're really missing an important element if you're not. You (Yannis) are saying the copis came from Egypt? Do you hear Kamil saying the kopsh came from up north? (AFAIK it actually came at the same time as an invasion? which is hardly hard-and fast proof, though encountering relatively long swords could have inspired the Afrasians to turn their fighting axe into one.....)

Through emporium and colonies it was spread in all “known” world, before Alexander, from Iberia (Spain) to Colchis (Caucasus).

2. Of course exchange of technology (or ideas) is not one way, but Greeks pushed the wagon little further, like Democracy (Athens),

Democracy may be the natural human government. It is fairly common, but no one in Helenic (etc.) Greece practiced real democracy; they were a bunch of slave-holding elitists. They routinely claimed the profit from their slaves; what makes you think they wouldn't claim credit for their ideas etc? Modern Republican "democracy" coming out of the United States of America seems to have features derived as much or more from Iroquois government, BTW. And people are often taking credit for (for instance) my ideas, and those of other social outcasts who do so much of what serious thinking gets done (normal people go along, you see; it's contrary to thinking to accept the concepts that are handed to you, so by definition......)

Philosophy (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle), Geometry (Pythagoras), Physics (Democritus), Medicine (Hippocrates) etc. As far as I know the schools around the globe still inform their students about it.

Again, that does nothing to make it right or true, nothing to address the achievements OR lacks of any other culture, and does NOTHING to credit any of this to those particular individuals, and a study of history in general should show you that art, philosophy, etc. do not occur in a vacuum, but in a cultural context, which in works that "stand the test of time" is thereby indicated to be more cultural than personal, even where evidence of parrallel development doesn't exist, though it often does. For example, there was a whole school painting like Heironymous Bosch (sp?), but in US he's the only one you ever hear of or see his work. He was not the first, either. Pasteur learned vaccination from Africans. Many people were working on automobiles and airplanes contemporary with the famed ones who get credit, and who there is actually evidence (for both machines) "cheated" from ultimately "less successful" artisans/inventors. Much the same for electricity; a few quick top of the head examples of a very typical human behaviour, and I'm completely unconvinced that WHOEVER was leading the Macedonian army at the time would have done much different; it was bound to be an arrogant monomaniac, as A/ that's kings for ya, and (more importantly) B/ despite (not unusual) protests, grumblings, and troubles with the soldiers who actually did the deeds, that's what the Macedonian people were in the mood for. (the hated ruler is also largely a myth, though in these days the government armies can be so technologically superiour to the people to render it a real possibility. Take Hitler; the Germans loved Hitler.....) It is particularly in invention that the "Great men" theory is most obviously heavily flawed to say the very least, but IMHO this pertains as equally to politics, religion, etc. Often "great men" with some humility have creditted is as such (notably Thomas Jefferson, for instance). The farther back you go the less you'll find the tenuous and typically deliberately concealed/destroyed sort of evidence that shows this; that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
As far as is really accurate to go is that we don't have good records concerning the more northern peoples' philosophy, etc, largely as they appear to have been illiterate. In modern times, the distortive effect of Eurocentrism on perceptions of other cultures has been exposed as rampant and blatantly insulting, sometimes going so far as to deliberately destroy the antiquities of conquered peoples (notably in Africa and Mexico), often ostensibly out of religious outrage, but the created absense then is used to point to "primitivism", justifying conquest and rulership in some eyes.

3. Alexander was on the tide of Macedonians and the demand of all Greeks for revenge against Persians. But if it was not him, greek army would not reach India. A lot of times he had stand against his soldiers will to return home. He was clever enough to try new strategies, fighting against bigger armies.

This may be true, but as I say; as with pretty much all the "great men" stuff it's a cultural idea/interpretive paradigm of near religious standing in the "Western" mind; there's no real evidence for it; it wasn't neccessarily just his will, but that of the home country.

4. Talking about weapons, the Greeks, like any successful army, had studied a lot their weapons and developed new kinds of them for new strategies. For example, Spartans with sort swords and big shields developed the tight formation where each soldier was covering a partner. The Theban general Epaminondas 'invented' new battlefield tactics by concentrating his assault on one selected point of the enemy line.

A/ I think this is a more universal tactic than that, and, again, there is, and CAN BE, no evidence that this particular individual arrived at the idea on his own, any more than there's any that Shaka Zulu actually invented the long-bladed iklwa (whose name, BTW, contrary to silly legend, seems to be the same Bantu word as the Kuba ikula.....)

Some writing outside the quotes so the computer will believe I wrote.....It told me to enter one characters or more......

[tom hyle]

Where's my Burton? I don't know; I've a semi-memory of a stone-bladed kopsh illustrated?

[Yannis]

Tom

I am not “nationalistic” enough to fight your ideas. Actually I agree with a lot of them. But I still believe that Alexander was an exceptional leader. Few points on it:
1. He was brave enough to fight in the first line of his army, leading cavalry charges deep in the enemy lines.
2. He never killed or torture captives and actually he gave all respect to Darius family and the Persians nobles.
3. He respected foreigner religions and he wanted to learn about them.
4. He encouraged his bachelor soldiers to marry Persian women to unite the nations. He was punishing hard rappers and robbers.
5. I have travel in some Asian countries and the name Ishkander or Shikander is still alive and kicking. I have heard from natives nice stories about him that are not known not even in Greece.

[tom hyle]

I don't know that I'm saying he wasn't an exceptional leader as much as I'm proposing that exceptional leaders and their exceptional movements are a product of (at least more than vice-versa) exceptional social circumstances. In other words, something made the Macedonians get up and conquer and I don't buy that it was only the (perhaps laudable, perhaps despicable; I suppose it's a cultural/spiritual question) ambition of Alexander and his father.

[ariel]

Tom is subscribing to the Marxist view of history, whereby everything is driven by suprahuman (economic) necessity and the individual leader is just somebody who was there at the right place and in the right time. A marionette of objective historical forces, so to speak.
Most of us, especially in the post-Cold War days, would only chuckle....
There is no doubt that Alexander was Greek, that he was a formidable leader, and that he actively initiated a chain of events that re-shaped the world. I suggest we stop here and now the silly argument " my ancestor was greater than your (his, their, her etc)...". There is already another internet place where such arguments are hotly debated, with Alexander being the villain and barbarian who destroyed a mighty, cultured, humanistic and generally idyllic Persian culture. Nothing good comes from these arguments, guys, except mutual accusations of cultural insensitivity.
Can we concentrate on the swords? Do Yataghan and Kora descend from the Greek Macedonian Kopis? Was there a reverse migration of the recurved blade back to Asia Minor? Sosun Pattah, anyone? Where does Falcatta fit here? Why does my beloved Laz Bicaq (Black Sea Yataghan) have a configuration resembling Egyptian Khopesh?

[Yannis]

I copied this photo from the old forum. Thanks to Artzi we had a graphical explanation of the evolution of kopis.

The full topic is here: http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002313.html

Alexander was not my ancestor, I was born in south Greece

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by ariel

Tom is subscribing to the Marxist view of history,


No, Tom is subscribing to his own view of history; Tom is fairly unfamiliar with Marx, actually. Tom finds other peoples' philosophy usually makes boring reading......


whereby everything is driven by suprahuman (economic) necessity



A meme/paradigm is not by any means neccessarily economic; individuals and peoples often do uneconomic things, because there are more reasons and drives in our lives than that. The simplest name for the concept of societies/social institutions behaving as wholes/organisms rather independantly of their individual members, much as "you" are independant from being ruled by each of your cells; even an important brain cell, is "sociology". It's all around us. It's very real. And when people are not conscious of it they tend very strongly to be ruled by it.


and the individual leader is just somebody who was there at the right place and in the right time. A marionette of objective historical forces, so to speak.


Yes, pretty much. He must, of course, possess the requisite qualities, which are not rare; primarily intelligence and ambition, and perhaps fit a social category of class or descent. Now we've had sociology. Anthropology has a teaching more similar to the great men thing; that the leaders always start wars for their own selfish reasons and lie to the people to justify it. Some anthro. texts will state this as an universal or near-universal truth.


Most of us, especially in the post-Cold War days, would only chuckle...


I consider the disaprobrium of the normal masses a badge of honor; hate to tell you. the great men theory of history is not, to my mind, very well supported by any meaningful evidence, while everything I've seen humans doing all my life supports the sociological view. I believe that "great men" are supreme goer-alongers; men who think and do for themselves often live short, outcast lives, and are rarely remembered by history. To me, these are the real great men. Christ, for instance, was an actually great man who is remembered; Julius Caesar, for instance, was a thug and a manipulator; not anything to look up to in my book. (Please, Itallian friends; do not be offended; there are thugs and manipulators in every country)

BTW, Russia is a poor country. It is an intrinsically poor country; cold and largely landlocked. It had a protracted struggle against a similarly large, but much richer country, and ended up with a collapsed economy. The idea that any of this has anything to do with communism, democracy, etc. is, well, standardized, to say the least (I've been asked to say the least; perhaps appropriately) .......



There is no doubt that Alexander was Greek,



Lots of doubt, actually; tell it to a Bulgarian; tell it to (the former) Yugoslavia; lots and lots of doubt that Alexander in particular or Macedonians in general should be considered Greek. Who's right? Not the point I'm trying to make; my point is there is doubt; there is controversy; very serious international controversy, actually, and a big land dispute. I personally consider it fairly clear that the Macedonians were and are part Greek, part North (and to the north is the border between Slavia and Tartarstan); I actually can't understand why anyone would even question this; it seems fairly obvious and inevitable.


that he was a formidable leader, and that he actively initiated


This is exactly the big question. Exactly; the initiating; a social movement or one arrogant boss? What evidence is there, or indeed, can there be for so long ago? But looking around the modern world we can study examples much more closely, and a close study does much to crush the "great men" theory of history, much as few in power/"success" (as I've said before, and for obvious self-interest reasons) will admit it,often most of all to themselves.



a chain of events that re-shaped the world. I suggest we stop here and now the silly argument " my ancestor was greater than your (his, their, her etc)...".


Was anyone saying those things? Such was not my intent, certainly. None of these people are perceptibly my ancestors, except in the aside/example about Iroquois government, in which I was pointing out that not all things commonly attributed to Ancient (primarily Attic) Greece are unique to it or directly traceable to it; that at least some of these beliefs are more mythic than historical; Ie. modern US government is fairly dis-similar to the oft-creditted Athenian democracy; more similar to Latin republican government, ruled by a council, which is not unusual for a tribe, but the multiple-"house", checks and balances tripartate structure seems closer to Iroquois, the native people of much of the region where American government arose, and who had extensive contact with the Americans in the formative stages of that nation.
It has been in the emotional, and also political interests of the American nation to deny this, and other (American) Indian contributions to technology, philosophy, law, roads, etc. etc. etc. (an interesting book? "Indian Givers" subtitle something like how the Indians of the Americas revolutionized the world), and that's just what's been done. It wasn't done, BTW, by any great man, but by a nation as a whole, and has been by no means entirely conscious. No incivility or insult is intended; this is pretty straightforward history, and no longer contradicted, even by experts.



Where does Falcatta fit here?


Do you view falcatta as seperate from copis?


Why does my beloved Laz Bicaq (Black Sea Yataghan) have a configuration resembling Egyptian Khopesh?

a good question, though one raised previously with no success. At least we found out a little more about these fascinating swords.