Hello, I'm IPostSwords and today I'm going to be talking to you about a sword
which simply put does not exist. That sword is the so called scimitar the word
scimitar comes from Italy in France in the 1560s and it describes this: the
shamshir. The original words - cimeterre and simitarra - were describing this
persian sword. This sword design was in use for hundreds of years and of course
they needed a word to describe it. And in itself, that's fine.
Using the word scimitar to describe a shamshir back in the day was a way of
describing something which did not exist in the native lands were the word was in
use. The word scimitar has evolved from the 1560s and these days serves to
describe any curved sword that is foreign to Europe - for example from the
Middle East or Asia - this therefore is the originator of the term scimitar. But
this sword probably isn't even what you picture when you hear the word scimitar
due to the stereotype it has created. Instead, the word scimitar is probably
more likely to provoke this sort of image in your mind. This is a Turkish
pala, which is in itself a subset of the kilij family. It features a broad and
heavily curved blade which widens towards the tip and this is the rather
prototypical image of a scimitar that people have, but it is of course not a
scimitar, because it is not a shamshir, and you may think I'm being pedantic but
this style of sword already has a name - the Pala - and in fact the family already
has a name - the Killij. They have unique names and identities, and the unique
names and identities of these swords tie into their cultures and history. By
calling this a scimitar - a word which is inherently inaccurate when applied to
this sword - all it's doing is pandering to that propagandic idea of
fear - mongering, that this is somehow "the other", that this is something wrong, and
not European, it is a "cUrVEd SwORd" as Skyrim would put it. In fact, that Skyrim
meme "they have curved swords" is precisely what I'm talking about:
this idea of something being shocking and "other" because it's curved and it
therefore is a scimitar - but no. This is a pala. But the problem with the word
"scimitar" goes even deeper than that. both of the swords I've just shown you are in
fact from the Middle East, and they are curved blades, and that would make sense
as being described as a "scimitar", however, I've also heard these being described
as scimitar this is a yataghan - a turkish design and you'll notice that
the edge is on the bottom - that means that occurs in the opposite direction to
the pala that I showed it before and yet both of them are somehow considered
to be scimitars, despite being completely different in form and function, because
they are both foreign, curved swords. If this is a scimitar, this cannot be. That
word cannot possibly describe both of these completely different designs. If it
can describe them both the word loses all meaning. In specificity, words gain
meaning. If I tell you "he used a scimitar" in written text, you'll not be able to
know whether it was this or this - that inherently means the word scimitar is a
useless word and that scimitars don't exist - there is no prototypical scimitar
as there might be a prototypical pala or a prototypical yataghan, or a
prototypical shamshir. This problem doesn't only extends to places like
Persia and Ottoman Turkey - it in fact goes all the way to India. For example
with this tulwar .The tulwar is the prototypical sword of India and it has a
distinctive disc shaped pommel and a distinctive one-piece hilt assembly. The
blades are moderately curved and from being rather narrow to being very
broad - in fact a broad tulwar has its own name and that is Tegha. A Tegha is
literally just a tulwar with a broad blade or by some definitions a blade
that widens towards the tip. I in fact have a Tegha, which you can see on
screen now. Both of these swords despite being very similar, have their own names
neither of these are scimitars, they are Tegha and Talwar.
They have distinct identities and "scimitar" is not an accurate descriptor
for either of them, for the reasons we've mentioned earlier. Tut it doesn't just
stop in Turkey Persia and India, it goes further still. This is an Afghan pulwar
which you might notice is very similar in both name and form to the tulwar -the
pulwar however has a half dome shaped pommel - different to the disk shaped
pommel on the tulwar, but it is in other ways similar - it has a similar
curvature and breadth to the blade and a similar hilt construction - although it
does have downturned beasts head quillons. This blade is there for yet
another curved blade that is not from Europe which is also not a "scimitar"
Now, everything we've covered so far is just a fraction of the swords that are called
a "scimitar" it's also true of arabian Saif swords or "arabian Sabres" or even
things like the ottoman Karabela, which are in every way identical to polish
Karabela, and yet you'd never call a Polish Karabela a "scimitar" you'd call it
a "Polish saber", and so this highlights the inherent, let's say racist,
characteristic of the word scimitar. if an ottoman Karabela is a scimitar, and
a Polish Karabela is a saber, then that word, scimitar, which can be used to
describe an ottoman Karabela of course, is inherently only defining the fact
that it's foreign, that it's not European, and I think that is inherently a little
bit problematic, not only is the term inaccurate, it also
carries racist connotations, and we should probably stop using it if not for
the first reason, then for the combined first and second reasons. The word
scimitar is therefore is useless. Thank you for listening to this short and
hopefully calm rant, because that's all I've got for you today. Until next time
stay sharp
you