Shamshir technique, reading?

[Stephan Aeppli]

If this post would be more appropriate to another forum my apologies.
I recently read in another forum that the Shamshir and related curved blades were "never" used in ground combat. On the face this statement seems a little ideological. The numerous antique weapons sites and museums seem to distinguish between Calvary blades and ?regular? blades. It would seem to me that dismounted horsemen or as seen in illustrations palace guards, jannasaris, etc carried curved blades as well. So help me out folks, any one know of any public domain training manuals or historical documents for the shamshir in french, arabic or english? Also how does Shamshir technique differ from dismounted europeon saber technique?
Yep I'm a newcomer.

[Manouchehr M.]

Originally Posted by Stephan Aeppli

If this post would be more appropriate to another forum my apologies.
I recently read in another forum that the Shamshir and related curved blades were "never" used in ground combat. On the face this statement seems a little ideological. The numerous antique weapons sites and museums seem to distinguish between Calvary blades and ?regular? blades. It would seem to me that dismounted horsemen or as seen in illustrations palace guards, jannasaris, etc carried curved blades as well. So help me out folks, any one know of any public domain training manuals or historical documents for the shamshir in french, arabic or english? Also how does Shamshir technique differ from dismounted europeon saber technique?
Yep I'm a newcomer.

Thank you Stephan for this interesting question. This statement is not correct. If you read the manuals such as Hossein KOrd Shabestari from the Safavid period you see that many duels were fought on foot on the ground using curved shamshirs. Additionally, miniatures show many fights on foot with shamshirs as well. The lack of understanding of the mechnics of shamshirs and a lcak of access to original sources in Iran have led to these wrong assumptions in the past.

Kind regards

Manouchehr

[Stephan Aeppli]

Dear Manouchehr, a google search turned up your excellent piece in the Persian Mirror but no Shabestari. Your article was refreshing in the praise you give to N. American and Europeon scholars and sword makers. I wish that my main area of study was as inclusive and tolerant of non-native enthusiast.
I have a book by a Brit who at the request of Iran helped to analyze and recreate the beautiful mathematical tile patterns in the classic mosques of Persia. The West was enriched by the study and Persia was able to preserve and restore national treasures. Oops way off track, I'll take your advice and pour over Persian miniatures as well as search for any Shabestari material available. I suspected a great deal of Eurocentrism in the statement regarding shamshirs being limited to Mongol and Persian horsemen.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Originally Posted by Stephan Aeppli

The numerous antique weapons sites and museums seem to distinguish between Calvary blades and ?regular? blades.

Not a good and simple distinction for sabers and the like.
Maybe in later times (late XVIII c. and >) something similar can be said for certain countries, mainly europeans, but is a statement that's not good for every country and every time, IMHO.

[Doug Mullane]

Originally Posted by Stephan Aeppli

I recently read in another forum that the Shamshir and related curved blades were "never" used in ground combat. On the face this statement seems a little ideological.

Hi Stephan,

Yes, I agree that this is an ideological statement--a little too ideological. Where is the evidence to prove it?

That statement is like someone making the claim that the gladius was used for thrusting and cutting equally. This was a thrusting weapon primarily. Evidence supports this assertion.

One should just think about this idea: will a mounted warrior put away his shamshir to pull another weapon out? Which one would he use? Is there any evidence that this would be the case? Has anyone one tested this assertion to find out if the shamshir is unusable on foot?

I think the claim from that other forum is an uninformed one.

Doug M

[Felix Wang]

Originally Posted by Doug M

Hi Stephan,

Yes, I agree that this is an ideological statement--a little too ideological. Where is the evidence to prove it?

That statement is like someone making the claim that the gladius was used for thrusting and cutting equally. This was a thrusting weapon primarily. Evidence supports this assertion.

Alas, I cannot agree with this statement, and rather think the reverse is true. This is not the forum to discuss it further, though. I believe if you check the ancient weapons forum here and the Roman Army Talk forum, you will find the issue is very much open to discussion.

[Stephan Aeppli]

Originally Posted by Doug M

Hi Stephan,
One should just think about this idea: will a mounted warrior put away his shamshir to pull another weapon out? Which one would he use? Is there any evidence that this would be the case? Has anyone one tested this assertion to find out if the shamshir is unusable on foot?
I think the claim from that other forum is an uninformed one.
Doug M

Well yes I did think about it and in spite of a chorus from the amen section (in the other forum) it did sound uninformed and was probably lifted from either someone who never actually witnessed the use of the weapon or was perpetuating racist or ethnic stereotypes. The persistance of curved swords in India the Middle East and the Caucusus as well as the adoption of the saber in Europeon military units would indicate that it was an effective design utilizing cut and thrust efficiently. The other statement regarding it being restricted to calvary goes against the existence of the longer mounted sabers and infantry sabers. I haven't studied the shamshir enough to know but antique blade dealers designate calvary tulwars and shamsirs from presumably shorter infantry models. And yes the idea of getting off a horse and taking out the "proper" sword does sound like having underwear for each day of the week.
Anyone want to take a run at my saber/shamshir exercise question?? I'll be using the Gen. McArthur, Richard Burton manuals until I hear back!

[Doug Mullane]

Originally Posted by Felix Wang

Alas, I cannot agree with this statement, and rather think the reverse is true. This is not the forum to discuss it further, though. I believe if you check the ancient weapons forum here and the Roman Army Talk forum, you will find the issue is very much open to discussion.

Well, that is fine, but here is a quote from Christopher Amberger's The Secret History of the Sword, page 162, based on "De re militarii" by the Roman author Flavius Vegetius Renarus (who wrote around A.D. 490):

"They were likewise taught not to cut, but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. Astroke with the edges, though made ever with so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bone and armor. On the contrary, a stab, although it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal."

"Open to discussion" is a given. But prove it otherwise.Yet this is off the point.

[Doug Mullane]

Originally Posted by Stephan Aeppli

Well yes I did think about it and in spite of a chorus from the amen section (in the other forum) it did sound uninformed and was probably lifted from either someone who never actually witnessed the use of the weapon or was perpetuating racist or ethnic stereotypes.

Good points.

Anyone want to take a run at my saber/shamshir exercise question?? I'll be using the Gen. McArthur, Richard Burton manuals until I hear back!

Ha!

[Manouchehr M.]

Of course, we tend to have our individual preferences and due to this, many assertions are made over superioruity of one design of a sword to the other. I can tell you that among Japanese swordsmen and professionals, this idea that katana is the best sword is prevalent (as everyone knows). Surely European fighters were not exempt of it. We all know about the claim that the French complained about the pattern 1796 of British sword as this pattern was a very good cutter! This was accepted for a long time, until Mr. until recently it was critically reviewed and asserted that there was no historical proof to this claim. The question is, of course, to whom they complained? Why didn't they imitate, given the fact that it was not the question how to imitate a certian technology (such as crucible steel) but simply design and form.

I fully understand that before a fight you need to believe in your own abilities, your training, and your weapons, otherwise you do not need to be there to begin with. Everyone martial artist who competed in a full-contact fight (doesn't need to be a swordsfight) knows how difficult such a challenge is. Therefore, our job as scholars on this forum or on any other book project or articles is to look at these sources with a critical mind. As I have mentioned it couple of times, in any weapon analysis, we cannot only rely on the colelctions of certain museums outside their corresponding cultures, we need to go to the source, we need to check primary sources and we need to cooperate with the scholars from that certain culture. Otherwise we end up with claims that "shamshirs were not meant for the battlefield but only for hunting purposes"!

Kind regards

Manocuhehr

[Felix Wang]

Originally Posted by Doug M

Well, that is fine, but here is a quote from Christopher Amberger's The Secret History of the Sword, page 162, based on "De re militarii" by the Roman author Flavius Vegetius Renarus (who wrote around A.D. 490):

"They were likewise taught not to cut, but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. Astroke with the edges, though made ever with so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bone and armor. On the contrary, a stab, although it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal."

"Open to discussion" is a given. But prove it otherwise.Yet this is off the point.

Vegetius is not a fully reliable source, as discussed in the thread I reference. Livy says cutting was used; Polybius refers to both being used, and a sculpture made by and for Roman soldiers (Adamklissi) shows a Roman about to cut down onto a Dacian: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtop...hrust&start=40

Here, see http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...gladius+thrust

[Stephan Aeppli]

The original thread is hanging by a thread. But I'll go out on a limb here and take a whack at it (but not a thrust).
I have read that some of the legions preferred the Iberian Falcata. A blade decribed as a "sword shaped axe". At the risk of sounding really green is it possible that one weapon might have better characteristics in different situations ie the Gladius was a better sword for using with a shield defense and still well suited to cutting? I've seen depictions of both. While falcata might be a more suitable place for a close distance hack and slash against opponents in close quarters.

And really Douglas McArthur saber exercises??? I'm dying here!!! there must be a better way

[Stephan Aeppli]

FACTS!! FACTS!! I don need no @$%&^Facts!!
To ammend my whining about saber exercise. The author of the saber exercises attributed to McArthur were written by Gen. Patton in 1914. Sorry

[Doug Mullane]

Originally Posted by Stephan Aeppli

FACTS!! FACTS!! I don need no @$%&^Facts!!
To ammend my whining about saber exercise. The author of the saber exercises attributed to McArthur were written by Gen. Patton in 1914. Sorry

Hi Stephan,

With this sort of thing, one just needs to develop patience. The answers you want are not easily come by. It is better to move slowly through this than rush it. Please work with us to find them.

[Stephan Aeppli]

Hi Doug, Thank you for your kind words and I do in spite of my excited and eager "newb" posts actually follow your wisdom. I was just shocked at my own sloppiness in the error and made a bad attempt at humor, and to correct the error.

I must admit impatience, I have this beautiful shamshir and do not feel comfortable doing even basic exercises with a sharpened sword until I find proper instruction. The wasters I've reworked to a proper shape from an oxtail design are great but well you know.

I do have a basic question: Is the traditional shamshir technique related to modern 18th CE and up saber technique or closer to sword and buckler as depicted in the fightbooks or a combination? For instance the Burton exercises use a great deal of point work of the sort I learned in my Épée training in college including the standard guard positions, moulinets, manichettes etc. I often see bucklers as standard equipment in middle eastern arms and to my untutored eye it makes me think that the shamshir may have been used in the Fechtbook type guard and cut stances? Burton who almost certainly fought men armed with swords of the shamshir type states in his "Sentiment of the Sword" that the "Arabs(sic) only knew of two cuts....to the shoulder and the thigh".
Again thank you Doug and all who answer my posts with understanding and kindness. I contribute frequently to a forum in my specialty and am saddened when men and women of heart and sincerity are diminished or ridiculed when honestly seeking knowledge in a field new to them. I am not generalizing the members an old folk saying goes "The tongue is the most dangerous organ of the human body, it can crush the heart with its weight and create wounds that like a cut from a poisonous blade will not heal" (Trad. Arabic).

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Recently, when visiting a friend of mine, I had the privilege to handle many of the Shamshirs of the collection. I'me used to Katana, and they seemed to me exceptionally light, well balanced and manouvrable as they are lighter then katana being intended for a single hand use exclusively.
The COP is in the right place to cut either from an higher position (as from horseback) but ALSO in combat by foot. In effect, the statement that
they are intended to cut from high to low, in order to slash infantry head or back from horseback only is BULLS**T. All of us knows that cavalry fought against cavalry too. Would a wise king to equip his army with a sword that left his cavalry in disadvantage toward another one because of the design of the sword ? If a shamshir was good to be used against other cavalry, i.e. against people at the same level from floor as you, obviously it was good even if you remove the horse from the bottom of the soldier...
The presence of a double edge toward the point on some made me feeling
he had some use as thrusting weapon too, even if only with few types of strikes, (like katana in some way).So I tried to find out how... A quick counterstrike with the point toward the enemy after a missing cutting strike was what I I felt more obvious and I performed many without be tired at all and at high speed due to the lightness of the weapon (I have to say that even if very slim I'm used to heavier blades...) . This has to be studied much deeper by more knowledge people that IS PROPERLY TRAINED TO USE CURVED SWORDS as Shamshir, IMHO definitively has a thrusting potential, even if little or limited, but still there.

Great weapons to use in a hot climate in which weight (either to carry and to swing) is an issue and the armor weren't as heavy as european ones.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Stephan, what do you think about this statement of mine ? :

"The COP is in the right place to cut either from an higher position (as from horseback) but ALSO in combat by foot. In effect, the statement that
they are intended to cut from high to low, in order to slash infantry head or back from horseback only is BULLS**T."

The original statement which mine is intended to challenge seems moronish to me. Something like if a moron drunk too
much southern american liqueur...

[Stephan Aeppli]

Well Carlo, Understand I didn't know a shamshir from a plowshare 2 months ago. From handling the blade it seems to offer very precise control, after reading your post I tried some cuts, overhand and horizontal recovering to a thrust with full arm extension at the end of each. I felt I was able to control the blade and bring the point back to target and thrust with ease. I have a upright post to gauge my horizontal vertical and distance in advance and retreat. The Cold Steel weighs 1.8 pounds, and is said to be copied from a museum collection original. I cannot see anything inherent in the design that would prevent cuts from below and on all planes and angles as described in the 12 master cuts. Another advantage it seems to me is the offset of the point especially en`garde. The opponent if not used to the upturned point would have a difficult time judging the height of the thrust coming off garde to full extension as a slight raising or lowering of the wrist off plane can move the point across a fair distance. It looks like it would also be an advantage in thrusting around a shield edge, around the corner so to speak, and would offer advantage if a thrust was aimed into body mass or a limb through a weak point in armor. I believe the Arab as well as Persian,Turk, Indian etc were respected as fierce and skilled opponents. The wounds from these weapons were recounted in writings during the Crusades as being especially savage, the curve of the blade causing long internal slicing from thrusts. So from having my hands on and my reading I tend to think the writing in the negative regarding the Shamshir were either here say of unreliable provenance or ethnocentrism aimed at diminishing the opponents in the mind of hostile readers. Its hard to believe that a blade used from the Mongols into the 20th CE would be inadequate and unsuitable for any purpose but the one you described. Painting of battles during the Napoleonic campaigns show foot soldiers wielding shamshir at close quarters and the adoption of the basic shape by Hussars The Turkish Guard,and Imperial Guards of Napoleons Armies seem to shed a different light on the use and effectiveness of the blade.
My thoughts based on little experience

[Todd Ellner]

Originally Posted by Stephan Aeppli

If this post would be more appropriate to another forum my apologies.
I recently read in another forum that the Shamshir and related curved blades were "never" used in ground combat. On the face this statement seems a little ideological.

Curved blades certainly were used by dismounted troops. My friend Mushtaq is putting together a series of DVDs of the martial arts he learned while spending time in India and Iran including the use of the shamshir and buckler. He's concentrating on the dismounted use of the curved sword because, well, most people just don't know how to ride these days.

From what I've seen so far the shamshir really comes into its own when shields are in use. Without bucklers the straight thrusting sword seems to have the advantage.

[josh stout]

It is interesting that in the Chinese sword world single edged swords were almost all curved from the Ming through the Qing. Cavalry sabers are defined as being heavier and longer than those of foot soldiers, and the two examples I have seen are almost straight.

http://www.sevenstarstrading.com/swords/?subpage=3004

and

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...duation285.jpg