|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 28, 2017 2:28:37 GMT
www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=USS185&name=Persian+ShamshirHow does it compare to historical examples? From the little experience I have, it seems that the shallow curve was rare (antiques seem to have a much deeper curve), and the fuller seems to be ahistoric. Aside from those details, how are the stats? Are they within the range of historical accuracy for Persian shamshirs?
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 28, 2017 4:05:13 GMT
You're quite right that most Persian shamshirs are more curved and unfullered. There are blades this straight (and straighter), sometimes fullered, on later Persian swords (mostly 19th century IIRC). Blades like this were made in Persia for the export market, and are often found with Arab mounts, and sometimes Ottoman/Turkish mounts. The Universal has an Ottoman-style hilt, so it makes for a poor Persian sword if you're fussy about accuracy. As far as the stats go, I can't comment on thickness due to lack of data, but length, weight, and POB are in the historical range. Weight is below average (for Persian shamshirs), but not much (maybe 2-3oz below average); there are plenty of lighter examples, even if most are heavier. POB is closer than average (most are 15cm/6" to 20cm/8"). Some moderately curved shamshirs, some fullered, most with Persian blades, in Persian, Arab, and Ottoman/Turkish mounts: oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=4432oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=1470oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=3521oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2316oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=4580oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=3138oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2569oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2954oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=414oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=4333
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 28, 2017 4:14:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 28, 2017 6:17:53 GMT
Probably. I think that hilt on the Universal must be fairly heavy. The Universal might be the better infantry sword, and CS the better cavalry sword.
Apart from the grip being synthetic horn (i.e., plastic(?)), what's less accurate about the CS?
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 28, 2017 17:42:59 GMT
I assumed the hidden tang hilt style wasn't done often, but I could be wrong....
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 28, 2017 20:12:31 GMT
Hidden tang is usual. But a grip strap (i.e., the metal strip covering the join between the two halves of the grip) is also usual. I've seen very few examples without it. The grip strap covers all kinds of sins of gaps and fillers in the hilt construction. Sometimes they are attached to the tang, and sometimes the tang is narrower and there is a gap between the tang and the grip strap. Usually, they are much wider than the tang is thick. The tang is usually short. The pommel hook/bulb is often supported by a thin metal plate (or plates). The construction of hilts for yataghans and Khyber knives is similar. On European/American "mameluke" swords, the hilt usually has a heavy cast frame - the exposed edges are part of this. The tang fits inside the frame. Similar in many ways to Asian construction, but heavier, and the "strap" and pommel plate are all one-piece instead of separate pieces. Sometimes, the guard is part of the frame. The Universal looks like it might be this kind of European mameluke hilt. It would be easy enough to add a grip strap to the outside of the CS hilt. Restoration of a shamshir hilt: www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=143Photos showing some of the construction of a shamshir hilt: www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21679For those who haven't seen it, the CS tang: sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/32550/mrl-scimitar-question
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 29, 2017 0:49:05 GMT
Great stuff Timo... Very informative. It seems construction methods could be a little rough and ready back in the day....
|
|
|
Post by jdm61 on Dec 26, 2017 6:43:25 GMT
That does look a bit more like an Egyptian mameluke sword or one of its European descendants, doesn't it?
|
|