|
Post by YlliwCir on Oct 9, 2008 19:52:07 GMT
It has come to my attention that we don't have a section for Islamic or Middle Eastern swords. While I don't know much about the type myself, I have seen some discussed at length. What do ya'll think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2008 20:20:45 GMT
It has come to my attention that we don't have a section for Islamic or Middle Eastern swords. While I don't know much about the type myself, I have seen some discussed at length. What do ya'll think? I think it's a pretty good idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2008 20:23:54 GMT
How about a Middle Eastern/South Asian Section. I'm not sure if that'd be the right way to put it, but it could cover everything from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (as well as several others).
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Oct 9, 2008 21:53:25 GMT
I personally think we've got perhaps 15 more forums than we aready need. I say we start grouping forums together instead of splitting indivudual threads into their own forums like it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2008 22:56:56 GMT
But Islamic swords get almost no discussion, and no where to put them. This might change if posters like me and ShayanMirza had a forum to convert all of your katanaphiles and Knight guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2008 23:37:19 GMT
it can be worked. although they deserve a subforum of their own due to their diversity, you can always start on the history subforums................and then expand it elsewhere......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2008 15:53:13 GMT
It is a huge crying shame, and theres so many different Arabic swords that made legends out of themselves during the Crusades.
The Turkish saber, the first curved sword as we know it, probably first seen chopping off Crusader heads at the Battle of Dorylaeum during the opening of the First Crusade.
The Moorish straight bladed Jineta, the early shamshir of Tamerlane's time, the straight bladed saifs of Arabia and the Mamluke's like what Saladin's warriors would have carried.
The yataghan's and pala's of Ottoman Turkey, the list goes on and on. It's my hope we can get a sword manufacturer to produce these weapons, in the same way we have managed to get budget katana, budget Medieval and budget Chinese and Filipino swords on the market.
The Islamic world had some of the finest swordsmen known in history. Even Prophet Muhammad's disciples like Khalid ib Al-Walid and his cousin Ali, were famed as great swordsmen.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Oct 11, 2008 16:55:56 GMT
Funny fact I learned from college - according to the Gesta Francorum and Fulcher of Chartres, the Arabs where totally demoralized when they tried to engage the crusaders in close combat for they learned quickly that maille was not something that was going to be cut through. They called the crusaders "Men of Iron." The casualties inflicted by the turks were almost solely due to their famed cavalry archery which the crusaders under Bohemund (the vanguard) scoffed at for their inability to inflict any sort of damage to armour. The crusader casualties at the battle were mainly due to the fact that the crusader vanguard was ahead 5 kilometers and there were many straglers in between the forces who were cut down by the turks.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Oct 11, 2008 17:43:43 GMT
Ah, we seem to be learning already. I have already professed little knowlege of these types, tho it occurs to me that our Marine Corps has a Mameluke sword as part of their uniform. I am not a Marine, however I do know and love one. My brother has one of those.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2008 22:07:16 GMT
Funny fact I learned from college - according to the Gesta Francorum and Fulcher of Chartres, the Arabs where totally demoralized when they tried to engage the crusaders in close combat for they learned quickly that maille was not something that was going to be cut through. They called the crusaders "Men of Iron." The casualties inflicted by the turks were almost solely due to their famed cavalry archery which the crusaders under Bohemund (the vanguard) scoffed at for their inability to inflict any sort of damage to armour. The crusader casualties at the battle were mainly due to the fact that the crusader vanguard was ahead 5 kilometers and there were many straglers in between the forces who were cut down by the turks. I doubt the truthfulness of this report and it sounds alot more like Crusader propoganda, as Arab warrior would have been full well aware of the imperviousness of mail. Arab warriors especially, (not sure about Turks) differed very little from Crusaders during this period. Asides from different decorations and waring turbans on their helmets, they wore mail abundantly, helmets virtually the same as Crusaders and their swords were mostly straight bladed and same size/chopping power of any European blade at the time. In fact it is reported some Crusaders didn't even know they were being charged by Arabs, until they got very close, due to how similar they looked. Also Arabs did not use swords all that much for heavily armoured opponents. Most Faris had several weapons on them, almost always carrying a good axe and a good mace. The axe and mace preferable for armoured opponents, they also had dozens of different varieties of arrowheads, many of which were meant for use against armour. Don't believe everything the Crusaders said my friend.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Oct 11, 2008 22:13:47 GMT
The Gesta Fracorum and Fulcher of Chartres are both Crusader sources, however 1.) Both authors were actually in the battle at the time and 2.) it's repeated by arab sources as well.
It's highly unlikely that it's false.
I'm on vacation at the moment so I don't have any of my primary sources with me (they are all back in my dorm) but I can confirm for certain that the Turks referred to the crusaders as "men of iron" and that many reports are given of armourd knights breaking ranks and charging at the battle surviving hundreds of arrows fired at them.
Bohemund's force suffered remarkably few casualties, and after the battle the vast majority of those dead or wounded where the straglers who were caught between the vanguard and the main force.
Please cite the source. I've only read the gesta Francorum and Fulcher. there was also one more author who was in the fight who repeated the above sentiments however I seem to have forgotten the source at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2008 22:42:43 GMT
Turks I don't doubt, (I thought you were referring to all Saracens) because they were largely horse archers.. Though they did have some elites, as very heavy cavalry, however those Turks usually served in the Egyptian armies.
Arabs and especially Persians, however were a different story, my friend. They needed to be well armoured.
My source of the statement you quoted is an Osprey book on the Saracen Faris. It was mentioned in passing, however the author used mostly period Arab sources, and plenty of armoury records, throughout the book. He's a well researched guy who I believe also wrote on the Crusaders.
EDIT: The author of the book is David Nicolle, PhD.
Also Rammstein, where the hell are you on AIM or MSN man? ;D
I'm adding your MSN , you better be on.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Oct 11, 2008 22:46:08 GMT
I'm on both AIM and MSN at the moment.
Sorry I've a bad habit of using Arab and Turk interchangably. I'm ONLY talking about the battle of Dorylaeum here against the seljuk Turks. Once we get into the more meaty bits of the Abbasid Caliphate I'd not be suprised if things change a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2008 22:51:19 GMT
Well to be fair mate, I hardly expect much of any cutting sword to do much against mail. ;D
But it was still a grand blade, especially for unarmoured or even medium armoured opponents and for other horsemen.
|
|