Go to page Previous  1, 2

Jerzy Miklaszewski wrote:


PS: Felix - this saber you showed, are you sure it is a shashka? I would consider that more of the Arabian damascen type saber... (because of the blade fashion)


Its official name is "Shashka of the minor staff of turkmen cavalry division"


Last edited by Felix Grashalmstahl on Sun 13 Apr, 2008 1:54 am; edited 1 time in total
that is a beautiful blade shape .As a euro centric brit I must admit to having very little knowledge of eastern European ,Russian or Turkish arms .
There seems to be lines in the blade is it a piled(multy layered) steel construction .
anyhow congratulations on a fine piece .
People, the saber on the first pic is shamshir, and "shashka" have no palm gard, its handle looks like a knifes handle, you can easely find loads of pics in net.
Point of this discusion is - is it a persian saber or other one -IMO its persian, couse of a handles form and smooth blade.
I can guess it is rather light, created for fast fencing, with no armour pearcing abilitys - 18, or rather 19 c.
[quote="Kerim Mamedov"]People, the saber on the first pic is shamshir, and "shashka" have no palm gard, its handle looks like a knifes handle, you can easely find loads of pics in net./quote]

You are speaking about just one type of shashkas. Many shashkas had guard. But you are right, guardless shashkas are the most typical shashkas.

Here is the picture about shashka's anatomy from an article about evolution of shashkas (sorry for Cyrillic letters)
[ Linked Image ]


Last edited by Felix Grashalmstahl on Tue 15 Apr, 2008 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total
I don't think, that there are strict differences to distinguish shashkas from other sabres, but the way of bearing (edged side back when bearing in a scabbard) and the country of origin.

And about that piece - i also think it was made not in Zaporozhie.
I don't think, they were able to produce damascus steel that time.

But this blade could belong to a Cossack for some period.
Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:


You are speaking about just one type of shashkas. Many shashkas had guard. But you are right, guardless shashkas are the most typical shashkas.

Here is the picture about shashka's anatomy from an article about evolution of shashkas (sorry for Cyrillic letters)


Well, shashka (шъэшхо) in Adige language means Long Knife [that weapons origin is Caucasus mountains]
and it is guardlees saber.
Why it shoud be guardlees? cose original design makes your cut max. effective when you strike target with closest point to the hilt - it makes wond deep and long, long cut in fact takes opponent out of rank immediately (deep but short perforation have to hit vital point to cnock out some one in a second)

Felix, I find the site you are taking this pics from - interesting articles, about history and fencing with shashka.
beyond some ridiculous mistakes - "shashka of the minor staff of turkmen division" is a shamshir beyond doubt - I can make 2 conclusions - handfull of garded handle shashkas are experimental weapons arrived on batlefields at the wery end of cavalery era.
gards was designed to give some pearcing abilities to shashka, and some defence to unexpirienced recruits.
"real" users (caucasus highlanders and living close to them military community of cossacks) newer ewer tryed to stab with shashka, (to stub, pikes was in use at WW1, also long kama daggers was used)
and palm gard on shashka makes some wital fencing "tricks" unrealizable.

And sorry for my english

Fizkult-privet ;)
Kerim Mamedov wrote:

Well, shashka (шъэшхо) in Adige language means Long Knife [that weapons origin is Caucasus mountains]
and it is guardlees saber.
Why it shoud be guardlees? cose original design makes your cut max. effective when you strike target with closest point to the hilt - it makes wond deep and long, long cut in fact takes opponent out of rank immediately (deep but short perforation have to hit vital point to cnock out some one in a second)


Have you ever tried to cut anything with the sabre? The "closest point to the hilt" does not have enough speed for cleaving.

Kerim Mamedov wrote:
Felix, I find the site you are taking this pics from - interesting articles, about history and fencing with shashka.


Really?! Could you please give me the link to another article about shashkas from http://www.popmech.ru/ ?)))))))
It's a site of a Popular Mechanics magazine. This site has ONLY ONE article about shashkas. Cool pics, poor text.

Kerim Mamedov wrote:
beyond some ridiculous mistakes - "shashka of the minor staff of turkmen division" is a shamshir beyond doubt


beyond all doubt - it's the official name of this sword.
In all documents of Russian Empire Army this sword's is called shashka. But it is not typical shashka of course

Kerim, I'm not interested in further discussion with you.
Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:


Have you ever tried to cut anything with the sabre? The "closest point to the hilt" does not have enough speed for cleaving.



read this:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%...8%D0%B5%29
...Впрочем, и удобства, предоставляемые шашкой, оказывались очень незначительны. Наносить удар надо было основанием клинка, максимально близко к рукоятке (поэтому режущие мечи делались с гардой небольшого размера, или вовсе без неё), а потом вытягивать клинок (поэтому рукоятка имела развитый отогнутый вниз упор). Первое крайне снижало досягаемость оружия, а второе (учитывая обычное в кавалерийском бою относительное движение и характер наносимой режущей саблей раны) просто не всегда выходило...

and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashka
The construction of a shashka fits its primary combat technique: the strike is applied by the part of the blade close to the hilt, and then the shashka is pulled to increase the cutting action. This accounts for the following features.

The absence of the guard: the closer the strike to the hilt, the more initial force is applied by the balance of the blade and the longer pulling is possible. Actually, the absence of the guard is inherited from the original Caucasian construction, in which the shashka is nearly completely hidden in the scabbard, together with the hilt.

Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:

Really?! Could you please give me the link to another article about shashkas from http://www.popmech.ru/ ?)))))))
It's a site of a Popular Mechanics magazine. This site has ONLY ONE article about shashkas. Cool pics, poor text.


http://www.popmech.ru/part/?articleid=1514&rubricid=7

http://www.popmech.ru/part/?articleid=1516&rubricid=7


Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:
beyond all doubt - it's the official name of this sword.
In all documents of Russian Empire Army this sword's is called shashka. But it is not typical shashka of course.


Get this book:
http://www.legat-verlag.de/shop/index.php?pag...lang=en_EN

or try to ask autor, he is a member of this site:
http://arms-and-armor-from-iran.de/b02_author.html
You can learn a lot , if you will be interested with discussion

Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:
Kerim, I'm not interested in further discussion with you.


I have the impression, that it will be not me, ho will lose more opportunity to learn something new because of this,
but of cose, if you did not want to continue, just dont reply, I will not be offended.
Kerim Mamedov wrote:
Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:


Have you ever tried to cut anything with the sabre? The "closest point to the hilt" does not have enough speed for cleaving.



read this:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%...8%D0%B5%29
...Впрочем, и удобства, предоставляемые шашкой, оказывались очень незначительны. Наносить удар надо было основанием клинка, максимально близко к рукоятке (поэтому режущие мечи делались с гардой небольшого размера, или вовсе без неё), а потом вытягивать клинок (поэтому рукоятка имела развитый отогнутый вниз упор). Первое крайне снижало досягаемость оружия, а второе (учитывая обычное в кавалерийском бою относительное движение и характер наносимой режущей саблей раны) просто не всегда выходило...
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashka
The construction of a shashka fits its primary combat technique: the strike is applied by the part of the blade close to the hilt, and then the shashka is pulled to increase the cutting action. This accounts for the following features.

The absence of the guard: the closer the strike to the hilt, the more initial force is applied by the balance of the blade and the longer pulling is possible. Actually, the absence of the guard is inherited from the original Caucasian construction, in which the shashka is nearly completely hidden in the scabbard, together with the hilt.


The trustworthiness of these wikipedia articles is doubtful. Looks like original research.

Kerim Mamedov wrote:

Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:

Really?! Could you please give me the link to another article about shashkas from http://www.popmech.ru/ ?)))))))
It's a site of a Popular Mechanics magazine. This site has ONLY ONE article about shashkas. Cool pics, poor text.


http://www.popmech.ru/part/?articleid=1514&rubricid=7

http://www.popmech.ru/part/?articleid=1516&rubricid=7


You have my apologies. It has not ONE, but TWO articles. )))))

And the second article, describing the shashka's fencing technics( http://www.popmech.ru/part/?articleid=1516&rubricid=7 ) crushes your theory (English speakers can see the pictures of shashka fencing. Click pics to see the large image. Pics describe real shashka cleaving, one can see what part of shashka blade is used). And shashka from the picture also has a guard.

Kerim Mamedov wrote:

Felix Grashalmstahl wrote:
beyond all doubt - it's the official name of this sword.
In all documents of Russian Empire Army this sword's is called shashka. But it is not typical shashka of course.


Get this book:
http://www.legat-verlag.de/shop/index.php?pag...lang=en_EN


This book does not have any connection with Russian Empire Army shashkas. I don't try to say that turkmen division shashka can not be classified as a shamshir-type. But it is shashka anyway.
I'm not understanding what's being debated. Typology? Techniques used?

It's clearly a shamshir. That's undebatable. Perhaps the semantics are the issue? Is shashka a general term for a sword, or a very specific sword? I know that shamshir and kilij and seif all just mean sword in Persian, Turkish and Arabic respectively, but in English are type-specific to a certain style and era viewed as typical of "Oriental" blades. Is the same true for shashka?

As for technique, shamshir can be used for drawcuts as well as direct slices. A good swing will also have a little pull to it to encourage the cutting medium to "fall apart" as it were, a very slight pulling motion that utilizes the friction on the edge as well as the force of impact and blade geometry. With a curved sword, this maximizes the slicing motion as well as the impact of the swing all at once, which is quite devastating.

Best regards,
Shayan
I'm just trying to say, that the word "shashka" can describe various types of sabres, and that the first quoter of the blade was not normally used by horsemen fencers.
Felix and Kerim and everyone,
Please make sure the discussion stays courteous and respectful. Some of the posts above are close to being discourteous and disrespectful. Thank you.
Well, I can see 2 points for this moment

1 - sword on the first photo (the discussed one, if enyone can remember :D ) is shamshir in ewery inch, the fact that someone placed photo of shamshir in net article (second discussed pic) and named it "shashka of the minor staff of turkmen division" is not convinced me, they can call it even Kalashnikov, but it is IMHO shamshir, I can stake euros against nutty. The only way to make it clean - ask members for help - that why I proposed Manuchehir's book.

2 - how to cleave with shashka, and palm gard - yes or now. Well, Wiki is Wiki, but 2 honestly writen big articles in 2 different languages convinced me. Again, its only unautorised net resurce. But my books about Caucasus weapons and armor are in other coutry, I can get them in the month probabely.
Best resurce I have is "orujie narodov Kavkaza" by Astvacaturian (Weapons of Caucasus nations)
May be Felix have one and can find something (seems whe are only 2 cirilic reading persons in this discussion)
Zaporozhian Cossack Scimitar, 18th Century
The sword in its scabbard. Note the tip of the blade jutting from it.
[ Linked Image ]
Sorry, I can't see the picture from first post. May be that is a "клыч" (cossack's name).

Do not believe everything in Wiki and others (especially in Russian language)...
For example, think about this phrase from http://www.popmech.ru/ "Идеальная шашка Оружие Популярная механика" :
"К тому же удар требует двух раздельных движений - взмах и нанесение удара, а укол - одного."
In English means: "Moreover, a blow requires two separate movements - up and (then) makeing a blow, but a prick requires only one (movement)".
If this is a "mechanics", so may be very very popular "mechanics".
I don't want to say that the esse is absolutely bad (it has a lot of good information),
but it's p o p u l a r, don't forget about it ...

Of course shashka was used widely in Russia, and of course it is NOT Russian weapon.
"Russian" shashka with guard (experimental shashka by Федоров) - this is Russian dragoon's weapon, but a cossack is not a dragoon ("cossack" is a complex object (not only a professional warrior); at the moment we don't touch ethnology aspects).
Generally spoken: "C o s s a c k shashka" has no guard ((not cossack's from the river Don nor from the Ukraine-(Zaporozhian) or Urals etc.)). It may be Georgian or Osetia or etc. "type", but again without any guard. Cossack shashka is not a weapon for fencing, it's a killer of infantry (for cavalry they had pikes).
And again, there are no serious scientific works about sabres of Old Russia, except by Кирпичников А. Н. "Древнерусское оружие" Том 1. Мечи и сабли IX-XIII вв., 1966 (Kirpichnikov A. N., " Old Russia weapon", vol. 1. Swords and sabres IX-XIII c., 1966), but there were no any cossacks at that time. They appeared later in XV c..
look here (and need to register):
http://annals.xlegio.ru/contens/sai.htm

[ plus esse by Евглевский, Потемкина (Evglevsky, Potemkina) about typology of sabres of IX-XIV c., unfortunatly there is no this esse in Internet ;
plus the work by Кочкаров У.Ю. «Вооружение воинов Северо-Западного Предкавказья VIII-XIV вв. (оружие ближнего боя)» http://www.tayc.ru/v2/index.shtml?action=details&bnum=430
but this work must be ordered ]

And if you want to see an image of "cossack shashka" in my imagination, it is near to this:
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction.jpg
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction_2.jpg
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction_3.jpg
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction_4.jpg
I'm absolutely not an expert, but I'm 1/2 cossack :) (my father is cossack from r. Don, and his father so, and his mother and so on and ...). Excuse me for off-top.

Thank you all, and sorry for my awful English


 Attachment: 25.18 KB
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction.jpg


 Attachment: 46.94 KB
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction_2.jpg


 Attachment: 84.88 KB
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction_3.jpg


 Attachment: 57.2 KB
1881 model cossack officer's shasqua, Czerny's auction_4.jpg

Zaporozhian Cossack Scimitar, 18th Century
I'm sorry, Vadim. That photo suddenly disappeared due to file error.
Go to page Previous  1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum