Perhaps not surprisingly, being that it was the hub of an empire, the Topkapi Palace has a fine collection of weapons (There is a military museum in Istanbul which has many more but which, sadly, was not easily accessible to us during our trip). They are stored in what functioned in both the Former Imperial Treasury and the Imperial Armory.
It is me. Of course you get pictures of weapons.
 |
| The Topkapi Dagger. Manufactured in 1747 for the Shah of Iran, who was assassinated while the dagger was en-route and returned to Istanbul. The stones are emeralds, likely from the Spanish colonies (Colombia). |
Wasn't expecting these photos TB, good way to wake up on a hot hazy morn here. Lot of effort and gems on those arms and armor for the VIPs. Give me plain any day.
ReplyDeleteNylon12, if there is an armory on any tour I am on I go. I cannot get enough of such things.
DeleteTo Michael's point below, most of these were likely gifts, display items, or intended for the highest level of personal bodyguards. That said, as time went on and the bureaucracy developed, highly decorated weapons could have even gone to war with the commanders (who were likely not leading from the front).
Nylon12 when it was time to fight the Leaders used the finest plain weapons available. No heavy gilded ones.
ReplyDeleteAn era when leadership was often quite near the front of the battle.
True of the Ottomans up to around the 16th Century when the Sultans stopped going to war. Not that they eschewed comforts and extravagance along the way: the Sultan traveled in style even durng the 16th Century and the allies of the Battle of Vienna were amazed at the luxury of the Ottoman Commanders tents (much like the allied Greeks were after capturing the tent of Mardonius after the Battle of Platea in 479 B.C.). The tent is or at least was, still on display at Vienna.
DeleteThe craftsmanship is absolutely amazing. And the chain mail, WOW!
ReplyDeleteLeigh, it really is. Add in the amount of hours that are represented by any of these works and it truly becomes astounding in a world where we measure items by the speed they are built and how truly limited we can make that time.
DeleteI look at the weapons and mundane questions pop into my head.
ReplyDeleteHow easy was it to pull a long, curved sword out of its sheath? Did a person rich enough to have that kind of sword have a retainer (page) to hold the far end? How did they do it on horse-back?
Some of the handles appear sub-optimal. It would be instructive to be able to swing some of them and slice watermelons. Maybe they were primarily emblems of authority and were mostly held overhead like battle-standards. Not an insignificant thing when 1/3 of adult males need correction for vision.
@ERJ
Delete1. The curve makes it easier, actually. It mirrors the arc your hand naturally makes at full extension, so longer swords are easier to draw if they're curved.
2. Usually not for that reason specifically, but sword-bearers for rich people did exist. It mostly was due to the fact that carrying a sword was often a sign of nobility and power, but nobody likes toting around 3-8 pounds of Steel and jewels...
3. Long weapons were often attached to the horse, not the man, so it was easier to draw. The farther your have to reach to get your hand on the hilt, the longer of a blade you can draw.
4. Curved sword handles have some distinct advantages and disadvantages. While I haven't handled many Arabic weapons, the ones I have are very comfortable in the hand. The giant funny pommel is very helpful when retaining the blade and ensuring you don't drop it.
5. Waving swords around as a standard, while cool in the movies, isn't actually that useful. It's too damn small and hard to see, especially in the dust and tunnel vision of battle. Bright banners, horns, and leading from the front are all more useful in that regard.
6. Needing vision correction is less critical with contact weapons than with ranged weapons. I can't read past 3 feet without my glasses, and faces are blurry outside 10 feet. I don't have any issues with contact weapons, and half of my training partners are the same. (I don't wear contacts, though some do.)
Squire
(I'll get to your post about axes in a bit, which is what brought me here. )
ERJ - I have not much to add to Squire's quite excellent discussion above. A few minor additions only:
Delete1) Keep in mind that for many longer swords, these were intended for known battle, not necessarily "reaction" drills e.g. regular defensive weapons for daily use. Those would have been more along the dagger/short sword/tanto line.
2) The curve of the sword - Japanese for certainly, Arabic and Asian probably - was due to the fact that sword originally was a cavalry weapon and the curve gave a longer cutting edge on horseback.
3) In terms of grip, often (especially in armor) there were gloves/gauntlets involved as well. I believe the equivalent of a sword loop was used (e.g., a lanyard tied to the sword hilt and looped around the wrist) to reduce the likelihood of losing the sword in battle.
4) My particular sword art practices the art of quickly drawing a katana (or a shorter nodachi) quickly. It can be done with training from both traditional Japanese sitting positions and standing.
Squire - Thanks for the great commentary and for stopping by!
DeleteYou're welcome! I'm glad to have found your blog, I'll likely be back!
DeleteRe: Your point #1:
There's a huge difference, especially in European weaponry, between defensive arms and weapons of war. As an analogy, it's similar to the difference between CCW gear(getting out of trouble guns), and rifles and hard plates(getting into trouble guns). Defensive arms were shorter, lighter, and less cumbersome. Anyone carrying heavier weaponry in civilian contexts would cause fear in peasantry and armed responses from authority. Funnily enough, a shield is actually one of the biggest differentiators. They're heavy, awkward to carry, and pretty much always an indicator of intent. This is where the term "swashbuckler" comes from, as anyone wandering around swashing their buckler is someone who's looking for a sword fight and would be treated about the same way as someone wandering into a bar waving around a shotgun...
Re#2: It also has quite a bit to do with the increased cutting power of a curved edge against unarmored flesh. Nobody sane wears much armor in the middle east, so weapons developed to kill unarmored enemies, where European weapons developed in response to the prevalence of armor.
Re#3: That wouldn't surprise me. My training is mostly European where significant grappling is involved. Tying a weapon to your arm gives the other guy another handle to crank your arm with while he's trying to jam a spike into your armpit, so it's done much less.
~Squire
Delete