A preliminary analysis of the characteristics and dimensions of Early Medieval Islamic Swords –

Nicholas Petrou

Abstract

This article seeks to analyse the 22 swords within “the Department of the Mantle of the Prophet and
Holy Relics" in the Topkapi Saray Museum, by comparing their measurements and characteristics to
those mentioned in historical sources. The aim is to not only gain a better understanding of how
these swords were created but also to ascertain how they were best used in combat. The underlying
intention is to provide an initial foundation for further research reconstructing the use of swords
within the wider Medieval Islamic world.

Introduction

A sword from a historical period can be seen in a myriad of different ways that complement its use
as solely a weapon: an object of reverence, aestheticism, status and an embodiment of the historical
period. However, the sword in essence, is ultimately designed with a singular purpose in mind, to
injure or kill. The Arabic term Sayf, the word for sword, itself is, according to Mark Muelhaeusler and
Robert Hoyland, "the concept of "snatching away"",1 a suitable literary device for describing that
which such an object is capable. With this in mind, we turn to discuss a collection of swords revered
within the Early Islamic world: both for their historical significance and what their characteristics
suggest to the historian. The Suyuf-i Mubareke (the sacred swords) within "the Department of the
Mantle of the Prophet and Holy Relics" are revered for these reasons and, as a result, many of their
characteristics have been measured and researched, therefore providing both a glimpse into Early
Medieval Islamic blades, as well as how these blades may have been used. It is hoped therefore, that
this article will serve as an initial study of the characteristics and dimensions of Early Medieval
Islamic swords, with the aim of providing a foundation for further research into swords within the
wider Medieval Islamic World.

However, even the initial studies raise issues of their own. Due to difficulties of communication and
access aggravated by the pandemic and a museum refurbishment, trying to get a first-hand ‘feel’ for
the use of these, or other similar representative, swords has simply not been possible. Consequently
experiencing how such swords handle is something that will be left to future researchers. A further
complication is one of hilt construction as the blades were re-fitted with newer and, in some pieces,
elaborately designed and decorated hilts either in the Late Medieval or Early Modern Period (after
the Ottoman conquest of Egypt).2 The indication is that these later hilts are Tartar, Mamluk,

1
Mark Muehlhaeusler and Robert Hoyland, "Swords in Arabic Poetry" in Medieval Islamic Sword and
Swordmaking, ed. by Robert Hyland and Brian Gilmour, “Gibb Memorial Trust: Cambridge, 2012), p. 39.
2
According to Uensal Yuecel, there is a diversion of two interpretations, the first is the above stated: that
Selim I took these, after the conquest of Egypt, from the last Abbasid Caliph (evidenced by Abd al-Rahman
Zaky's work The Sword in the Muslim World), another, that these were given by the Amir of Mecca and after
the conquest, were sent to Selim by Muhammad Abu Bakarat with other relics (sourced from Tashin Oez's
work, The Mantle and the Holy Relics of the Prophet). This is a matter of ambiguity however, Kirill Rivkin's and
Brian Issac's work would point to the first interpretation being more likely, coinciding with the large collection
of swords from the Mamluk Sultanate in the Topkapi Saray and Istanbul Military Museums. For more
information, see Uensal Yuecel, Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths, (Istanbul Research Centre for Islamic History:
Art and Culture, 2001) p. 10; and "The Great Steppe, from China and Japan to the Don and the Danube" in Kirill
Rivkin and Brian Isaac, A Study of the Eastern Sword, (Kiril Rivkin, self-published: Mankato, 2017) pp. 38-116.

1
Ottoman or Ottoman inspired, with the possibility that the designs of swords at the time typically
followed a small number of hilt conventions.3 The lavishness of some of the more decorated hilt
designs would make them likely to have been manufactured by, according to Rivkin, either
"Ottoman-trained jewellers in Crimea, of Armenians, Greeks, Jews and Albanians.”4 This would
mean, on a basic level, trying to evaluate the swords by their current handling the swords would
carry an anachronistic bias, given different weight distributions, points of balance etc. This affects for
example the weight which is measured for the entire sword rather than just the blade, given that the
swords are considered holy relics and therefore dismantling to remove the blades was not advisable
or desirable. Such difficulties echo the difficulties Ewart Oakeshott encountered when looking at
swords in the same historical period, and therefore an analysis of type compared to historical
period, like the Oakeshott typology, may be a viable alternative. The sword hilts being slightly curved
with a pistol grip, following conventions of Late Medieval and Early Modern Ottoman hilt designs,
may also be unlikely at the time these blades were made, thus effecting the handling of the swords
further. Study of such blades therefore remains a difficult, but nevertheless possible, opportunity for
further research.

Historical measurements of The Suyuf-i Mubareke

Surviving examples of Early Medieval Islamic Swords allow a much needed analysis of their empirical
measurements, a gap in previous studies and the Suyuf-i Mubareke is one of the key surviving
collections which can provide some form of insight. The collection contains 22 swords, one
attributed to the Prophet David, two to the Prophet Muhammad and the rest to the Sahaba
(Companions of the Prophet), including the first four Rashidun Caliphs. 20 of the swords are straight,
double edged, blades, a further two being single edged (two of these being curved, one with what
appears to be a prototype yalman). Because of their status as relics these particular swords have
been thoroughly covered by Uensal Yuecel (see footnote 2 above) whose specific measurements of
the swords hold promise as a starting point for a discussion on the Medieval Islamic Swords’
dimensions (as the data will be based on the work he has provided. In short, he has provided the
measurements and descriptions of the swords. Please note, the numbering of the swords is based
on length, to provide a consistent progression of comparable measurements, rather than the ones
Yuecel has provided). While the time period of their manufacturing is subject to conjecture and
debate, they are well suited to a comparison with the measurements provided by Al Kindi,
historically contextualising them. Taking the two sets of measurements together allows to better
detail the characteristics of the swords.

It is important to create a means of measuring the types of swords that will provide a useful
framework with the intent of suggesting how the measurements would effect their usage. To put
this understanding in its context, it is important to acclimatise oneself to the historical
measurements used within the Medieval Islamic world. This can be understood by examining the
measurements made in Al Kindi's time and comparing them to those of the Suyuf-i Mubareke
collection. Al Kindi's work is vitally important in this endeavour, his treatise being one of the most
detailed, empirical and technical manuals concerning sword-making in the Islamic World during the
9th Century Abbasid Empire. His treatise covers a myriad of different topics on the manufacture of

3
Ibid pp. 101-111
4
Ibid, p. 111.

2
Islamic Swords such as: the quality of iron and their categorisation into certain archetypes; the
geographical and ethnographical locations of mining, manufacturing and, specifically, the
characteristics of swords made in these regions (length, weight, width and the design of watering of
the blades). In fact, the treatise was so reliable in its overview of blades manufactured in the 9th
Century Abbasid Caliphate that future source materials would also paraphrase Al Kindi’s work,
inadvertently creating a lineage of works which may or may not reflect the changing times. The
treatise forms the foundational point of reference for discussion of further historical sources and
other scholarship on measurements.

The weight of swords in Al Kindi's time ranged from two ratls (being the lightest) and a minimum of
one and a third ratls. Sword of this latter weight approached the limit of the structural integrity of
the blade, as anything lighter would result in the blade deforming. However Al Kindi states that
weight was the primary determinant of price5. The heaviest swords weighed five ratls. High weights
were also associated with the use of high quality materials for example the ‘noble’, i.e. high quality,
Yemeni safiha and Indian steel called al-faqrun.6 The mean weight is between two and three
quarters, to four and half ratl.7 Examining different primary and secondary sources shows the weight
of a ratl is subject to debate and conjecture. According to Brian Gilmour two to five ratls is
approximated to 0.6-1.5 kg.8 Confusingly Shihab al-Sharraf measures 2 ratls as 81.25 kg;9 Within
primary sources, according to Agricola in 1555, a ratl was close to one pound or equivalent to 0.468
kg;10 0.406 kg is given for early Medieval Iraq11(such weights were not yet standardised). With these
approximations, it should be possible to provide an estimate for weights, however further
identification of surviving examples of Medieval Islamic Swords are required to refine this estimate
further.12 Nevertheless some sources do lend additional assistance; for example, according to David
Nicolle, Rabie references Mamluk swords in exercises described in furusiyya knightly-like military
treatises, as being from two to five pounds.13

The discourse on blade length in the Medieval Islamic period also requires discussion and
encompasses a vast range of different sword types. Al Kindi provides a range from three spans and
four fingers for white swords,14 and 5 spans for Qala'i swords with a width of four fingers,15 about

5
See Al Kindi, "On Swords and their Kinds," Ed. and tran by Robert Hoyland in Medieval Islamic Swords and
Swordmaking, p. 29.
6
ibid, p. 21.
Al-Sarraf, “Close Combat Weapons in the Early Abbasid Period,” in A Companion to Medieval Arms and
7

Armour, ed. by David Nicolle (The Boydell Press: Woodbrige, 2002), p. 154. Quoted from Brian Gilmour,
“KindI’s “On swords and their kinds” Commentary”” in Medieval Islamic Swords and Swordmaking p. 61.
8
See Brian Gilmour, "Kindi's "On swords and their kinds": Commentary" in Medieval Islamic Swords and
Swordmaking, op. cit., p. 71.
Al-Sarraf, “Close Combat Weapons in the Early Abbasid Period,” p. 173.
9
10
Bruno Kisch, Scales and weights: A historical Outline, New Haven, 1965, p. 223. Quoted from Brian Gilmour,
“Kind’s “On swords and their kinds” Commentary” in Medieval Islamic Swords and Swordmaking, p. 61.
11
Shihab Al-Sarraf op. cit, p. 61.
12
See Flinders-Petrie, "Standards of Weight", 475-78 for a discussion on the development of early systems of
weights in this region, as well as Walter Hinz, Islamische Masse und Gewichte: Umggerechnet ins metrische
System, Leiden, 1970 and Kisch, Scales and weights, appendix 3. Quoted from from Brian Gilmour, “Kind’s “On
swords and their kinds” Commentary” in Medieval Islamic Swords and Swordmaking, p. 61.
13
David Nicolle, "An introduction to arms and warfare in classical Islam" in Islamic Arms and Armour, (London
Scolar Press: Cambridge, 1979), p. 178
14
See Al Kindi, "On Swords and their Kinds," Ed. and tran by Robert Hoyland in Medieval Islamic Swords and
Swordmaking, p. 41.

3
90cm, assuming one span is 22.5 cm.16 A width of four fingers may have been 4 to 6 cm width17
(though this may be a low estimation of width and further research is necessary to see what the
measurement of a finger-width equals) which would make swords within Al Kindi's time much wider
than any known surviving medieval Islamic sword made of crucible steel. This would mean the
measurement of three spans and four fingers equalled 76 cm.18 This is comparable to a sword
attributed to Caliph Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, Umayyad Caliph (717-7290 C.E.), measuring 76.5 cm,19
and a sword of Umayyad/ Abbasid provenance which measures 76 cm.20

According to Al-Sharraf, the longest sword is, in Al Kindi’s text, excluding the tang, five spans
(estimated to be 112 cm).21 This would total a length of 125cm, taking into account that the tang was
at least 10 cm long (compared with surviving examples). Only one sword in the Topkapi Museum,
including the hilt (sword 22), comes close to this, measuring 140 cm overall. In reference to width,
such blades, according to Al Kindi, could reach four fingers or more, especially if a Yemeni safiha,
however the average width is stated to be around three fingers.22 Two such wide swords survive in
the Topkapi Museum. The first (sword 21) attributed to Caliph Uthman Ibn' Affan has a total length
of 115 cm and a width of 8.5 cm; the second (sword 20) is attributed to Caliph 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib and
has a total length of 112 cm and a width of 7.7 cm. They no doubt represent the earliest known
safiha swords, which would correspond with Al Kindi's term samsama.23

Correlating weight and blade design

Of the 22 swords, 16 (swords: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21) are flat, plain,
double edged cruciform swords with straight quillons (with 11, 16, 18, 21 having shallow grooves).
Such swords are mentioned in Al Kindi's work, he also describes specific types of blades which have
fullers, examples being Yemeni (which are chiselled)24 and Frankish (with a single fuller).25 These
blades have a specific function and types of opponents they were used against. Such light, flat, thin
bladed swords, are likely to have had a specific function to strike at lightly armoured targets.26 The
majority of these blades are the lightest in the collection (swords: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15). The lack of

15
See Al Kindi, "On Swords and their Kinds," Ed. and tran by Robert Hoyland in Medieval Islamic Swords and
Swordmaking, p. 33.
Shihab Al-Sarraf states five spans to be to be “approximately 112 cm. Divided by 5 this leaves 22.4cm. Al-
16

Sarraf, op. cit., p. 173.

“and that they measured nearly four spans (possibly about 90 cm or 36 inches) in length by four fingers in
17

breath. This suggests that the blades could have been up to about 4 to 6 cm wide, much wider than any
surviving (mainly much later) swords made of crucible steel.” See Kindi’s “On Swords and their Kinds”:
Commentary in Medieval Islamic Sword and Swordmaking, Ed. and tran by Robert Hoylands, op. cit. p. 65.
18
Al-Sarraf, op. cit., p. 175.
19
Topkapi Saray Museum: inv. no. 1/ 99.
20
Topkapi Saray Museum: inv. no. 1/101.
21
Al-Sarraf, op. cit., p. 173.
22
Al Kindi op. cit., p. 29.
23
Samsama, however in Al Kindi used Samsama as a term to denote a noble, large, light and double edged
fluted Yemeni sword (18) and the term Al Samsama was used to describe a double edged Arab sword which
did not bend (19). Nevertheless, the name depicted a mythical sword that was capable of enduring hardships
yet still retaining sharpness and durability, with the ability to endure hard blows without the edge being
nicked, the steel was also incapable of misshaping or sustaining damage (8).
24
Brian Gilmour "Kindi's "On swords and their kinds": commentary" in Medieval Islamic Sword and
Swordmaking, p. 27.
25
Ibid, p. 43.
26
Kirill Rivkin and Brian Isaac, op. cit, p. 53.

4
additional features, with their likely manufacture from high quality steel, would make them effective
and robust blades when facing a lightly armed opponent.

Three swords are of different design with a thin, elevated, ridge running through the centre of the
blade (swords 4, 19 and 22; 4 has no weight given). These swords are heavier which may indicate
both lack of flexibility and a more sophisticated method of blade production to create the ridged
shape, giving the ability to target more armoured opponents; the greater angling of the edge of the
blade makes it more suitable for attacking armour and may have tried to balance cutting and
thrusting with this in mind. Rivkin discusses of stiffness and mass-per-unit length27 and the possible
relation of these to cutting and thrusting, with a higher rigidity being better suited to thrusting.
However the lack of available comparators means this must remain an open question.
Unfortunately, none of these types of swords are mentioned in Al Kindi's treatise, providing a further
level of uncertainty. Sword 9 interestingly is forked in the fashion of Zhulfiqar,28 with an additional
two elongated holes at the top of the sword. This coinciding with the fact it is heavily decorated,
suggests non-combat use though its measurements (except for weight which is excluded) conform
with the other straight-double edged swords.

Two swords are curved: the first (sword 10) narrowing before widening again at the upper half of the
blade, the other (sword 17) curved with a distinct yalman which measures 24 cm at its widest point,
the inner curve of 89cm and the outer curve of 90.5 cm. It is possible that the subtle design of the
first sword hints at an early type of yalman, though this is not immediately recognisable or
prominent, with indications of an early design to create a blade more ergonomically weighted
towards the tip, by slightly curving it and applying slightly more mass there to make it more suitable
for cutting. Al Kindi does provide some indications of early sabres, using terms like "distorted" to
perhaps mean asymmetrical blades,29 and other primary sources such as Ibn Akhi Hizam, an
renowned Abbasid Iraqi commander in the 9th Century, described a number of sword types, one
being an "edge and a half" sword, coined "al-khisrawani" (the Royal Persian").30 Sword 17 with its
more pronounced yalman, though still shallow, this still conforms with the curved shape of the
blade, possibly dating it to around the 10th to 12th centuries.31 However the option to select these
types of blades in the Early Medieval period, in comparison to the increased and more dominant
usage of these types of blades in the 13th Century,32 suggest these, though not common, were
present.

Sword 13 appears to have a very thin single edged blade as one side curves to the tip while the other
is straight; Yuecel identifies this as double edged, though this is unlikely due to the weight and form
of this blade. Only using one edge in combat has the benefit of reducing the weight of the blade,
however due to the blade’s thinness this may have necessitated carrying a second sword as a backup

27
Kirill Rivkin and Brian Isaac, op. cit, p. 53.
28
Zulfiqar is a blade of mythical proportions within the Islamic world. It is a sword that was given to Ali ibn Abi
Talib (600-661) the fourth Rashidun Caliph.
29
Brian Gilmour "Kindi's "On swords and their kinds": commentary" in Medieval Islamic Sword and
Swordmaking, p. 47
30
See Shihab Al-Sarraf, "Close Combat Weapons in the Early 'Abbasid Period: Maces, Axes and Swords" in
Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour, p. 168.
31
See Kirill Rivkin, op. cit, p. 75.
32
Numerous blades in Yuelcel's work shows a number of blades attributed to rulers in the 13th century,
suggesting that from this point, curved swords become more typically used.

5
just in case the first broke, as the thinner blade made it more delicate.33 This is largely consistent
with the time period which the Suyuf-i Mubareke were made in, where literary depictions reference
the carrying of two swords, one on the right side and the other on the left, one of the swords being
kept in reserve. However, this also seems to point to individuals in high/prominent positions,34
making the sword’s importance significant.

With respect to the historical date range of the Suyuf-i Mubareke it should perhaps be noted that
the characteristics of the swords correspond to the description and typology of swords that existed
within the Abbasid Caliphate. Sources such as Al Kindi and Ibn Akhi Hizam indicate that these blade
types fit within the range of the Caliphate’s existence, at a time where such sword types were
common, however these types are likely to have existed before they appear in written sources.
Based on the existing source material, and that some swords are mentioned at the time of the
Prophet Muhammad, such as Dhu-I-Faqar and Samsama, the date range of these swords may vary
between from the 7th to 10th Centuries. However, the corroboration with Abbasid sources, and
Arabic Poetry pre-dating the Abbasid period,35 suggest that these swords may indeed represent the
use of surviving blades, reflective of the zenith of Abbasid blade making.

Comparing weight and length

Within the swords of the Suyuf-i Mubareke collection, trends can be drawn showing an increase of
length in proportion to the blade's weight. However, there is some variation in weight trend with
blade length: A number of swords, 7 (0.84 kg to 84.3 cm), 5 (0.85 kg to 23.8 cm), 6 (0.88 kg to 83.8
cm), 10 (0.925 kg to 87.2 cm), 12 (1.145 kg to 87.4 cm), 18 (1.225 kg to 91.1 cm) and 14 (1.235 kg to
89.8 cm),36 show a linear relationship as weight and length increase. However between 83 cm to
87.2 cm blade length the weight of the blade remains roughly constant at 0.80 kg, with the
exception of the sword attributed to Ammar ibn Yasir (sword 8) being 0.965 kg and 87.2 cm long.
One of the swords attributed to the Prophet (sword 3) also weighs 1.045 kg with a length of just
82.05 cm. Once swords pass a blade length of 87.2 cm mark blade length once again seems to
correlate with the increase in weight. There are exceptions; one of the anonymous sahaba swords
(sword 15) weighs 0.855 kg at a blade length of 90 cm (perhaps the longer blade while maintaining a
low weight was a compromise for cutting and thrusting with better handling against lightly
armoured opponents), and the sabre attributed to Zayn al-Abidin (sword 17) is 0.985 kg at 90.5 cm
(which, like sword 15, would be designed in a similar way, though optimised more for cutting, with
an additional of a yalman at the tip to add forward mass to the cut). The exceptions, in all cases,
come from swords: 21 (being highly decorated, gilded and wide, 2.585 kg and 8.5 cm mid width), 20
(also particularly wide and gilded. 1.615 kg and 7.7 cm mid-width), 17 (2.8 cm wide), 22 (gilded and
2.850 kg, with a 6 cm mid-width) and sword 18 (gilded and 1.225 kg, with 4.45 cm mid-width). From
this it seems that the gilded and highly decorated swords are heavier calling into question their use
as practical weapons. However swords 21 and 22 have large blade widths (8.5 cm and 6 cm), a type

33
Ibid, p. 45.
34
See Mark Muehlhaeusler and Robert Hoyland, "Swords in Arabic Poetry" in Medieval Islamic Sword and
Swordmaking, p. 84
35
Ibid. pp. 83-143.
36
see appendix 3.3

6
of blade alluded to by Al Kindi, and their decoration may have been added during the Late Medieval
to Early Modern Period.37

With regards to the blade types, the trends mentioned above seem more or less consistent across all
the swords. However, there are 5 exceptions to this. Three straight, flat and double edged swords 1
(0.765 kg to 79.2cm), 20 (1.615kg to 99 cm) and 21 (2.585 kg to 100 cm) seem to deviate from the
majority of swords. The differences associated with swords 20 and 21 have been explained above.
Sword 1, being single edged is the lightest, due to the likely design of the blade to only utilise one
edge. This would make it stand out as a sword which can afford to be longer while at the same time
maintain a low weight for ease of handling. One sword, Sword 22, is ridged and, as mentioned
above, is on the heavier side though, as well as the added decoration, the ridged design may have
added to the weight, with its role being likely as a sword optimised for use against heavier armoured
opponents. What is interesting to note is sword 10’s (0.925 kg, 87.2 cm) closeness to the least
squared gradient relating to the proportion of weight and length. Its appearance as an only slightly
curved sword with a proto-yalman might explain its closer conformity with the straight double-
edged swords, rather than the curved sword of the yalman (sword 17, 0.925 kg to 87.2cm) which
though longer is slightly heavier. With less mass at the top of the blade that a more pronounced
yalman would produce, the comparison with sword 17 and the straight, flat double-edged swords
would show sword 10 to be transitionary between both types.

Comparing width and length

Two potential gradients for the ratio between width against blade length are shown in Figure 2.1.
The shallower least squared fit gradient line38 shows a clear correlation between width and length
for swords 3 (3.7 cm to 82.05 cm), 4 (3.8 cm to 83.5 cm), 6 (3.8 cm to 83.8 cm), 7 (3.8 cm to 84.3
cm), 8 (4.4 cm to 85.7 cm), 9 (4.4 cm to 87 cm), 14 (4.8 cm to 89.8 cm) and 19 (5.1 cm to 91.65 cm).
There is also a cluster of swords with similar widths, and in the case of the steeper gradient, which
has been observed by eye rather than a square trend line, with similarly proportioned
measurements as shown by swords 10 (2.3 cm to 87.2 cm), 17 (2.8 cm to 90.5 cm), 13 (3.2 cm to
89.5 cm) and 15 (3.6 cm to 90 cm). The other steeper gradient also aligns swords 18 (4.45 cm to 91.1
cm), 19 (5.1 cm to 91.65 cm), 20 (7.7 cm to 99 cm) and 21 (8.5 cm to 100 cm). These observations
have two implications. Both gradients are likely to encompass a range of blade makers with the
knowledge of creating well-proportioned and balanced blades. The first gradient indicates a group
of swords with similar proportions that may reflect the conventional practice or traditions of the
swordsmiths, and also the blacksmith compensating for the increase in length with an increase in
width. The second steeper gradient includes a group of swords that have varying width which does
not conform proportionally to the increase in length. The second gradient may be a consequence of
individual choice, in conjunction with customising the sword’s dimensions to be used in a certain
way (e.g. a short blade that is also disproportionally wide) use of the sword, as mentioned
throughout Al Kindi's treatise or may reflect the breadth just as in today's consumer market, of the
wide and varied geographical market for such swords that survived well beyond the Abbasid
Empire's disintegration.

37
Ibid, p. 85, and See Kirill Rivkin and Brian Isaac, A Study of the Eastern Sword, p. 28.
38
The least squared line is a line that makes distance between the points to the line as small as possible.

7
The influence of individual choice by the swordsmith or the user becomes apparent with certain
blade types. Swords 10 (2.3 cm to 87.2 cm) and 17 (2.8 cm to 90.5 cm) are at the lower end of the
steeper gradient, having low width, though being slightly longer. This would suggest both being
optimised to cut well, with sword 17 having an obvious curve and yalman, and the curve of sword 10
curve being less pronounced. Within the steeper gradient, this is followed by sword 13 (3.2 cm to
89.5 cm) which, with its single edge, would conform to the cutting function of the previously
mentioned curved swords. The bladesmith can make parts of the blade thinner to within the curved
shape in order to optimise the blade to cut at the wider parts while reducing overall weight at the
narrower parts. For the ridged designs, sword 4 and 19 conform to the shallow least squared fit
gradient, suggesting these followed the same proportion conventions as the flat blades. However
sword 22 (8.5 cm and 100 cm) is shown to be an anomaly as it follows neither gradient. The reason
for this may be that, as mentioned previously, it may be one of the only surviving wide blades that Al
Kindi mentions. As one of the longest and widest in the collection it is a sword that could apply a lot
of force to a target, ideal against a heavier opponent with its ridged design.

Point of balance

The scatter diagram of Figure 2.4 indicates that there may be a cluster of swords that have a similar
point of balance between 15 and 30 cm along the blade. This cluster which encompasses the
majority of swords in the collection (17 out of the 22 swords, close to 73% of them, rounded up).
There is also a similar cluster of blade weights, see figure 2.5, with the majority of the swords in the
collection, between 0.765-1.28kg (15 out of the 22 swords, close to 68%, rounded up). Figure 2.5
also shows an estimate of the weight range, comparable to that mentioned in the sources, of the
swords in ratls, showing a consistency when it comes to range. These measurements indicate that
the blacksmith used discretion to make the sword convenient to handle, and but had designed them
such that they are weighted towards the tip, as the point of balance, for all swords, is far from the
cross guard, the distance from the point of balance to the cross guard averages out to 23 cm
(between 19 cm and 28.5 cm away from the cross guard) for swords that have a blade length of 82
to 91.65 cm. This seems to have some similarity to the surviving Viking, and slightly later, swords
described by Ian Pierce,39 however proportionally, of the 35 of these swords that have
measurements for point of balance mentioned, the average position, rounded to two decimal
places, comes to 16.99 cm, compared to the Suyuf-i Mubareke collection which comes to 23.99 cm,
displaying that on average the Islamic swords have a point of balance further from the cross-guard.
Examining the Pierce sample more closely, the 22 swords in his sample which fall within the Suyuf-i
Mubareke’s length range still have an average point of balance distance of only 19.31 cm. Further,
only including swords with from Pierce’s sample with points of balance at more than 16 cm, gives an
average position of 19.17 cm which is still lower than that the Islamic swords. This suggests that such
swords were optimised for cutting, though with the ridged swords these would also work as strong
thrusters against more armoured foes, due to the balance being weighted towards the tip.

39
Ian G. Pierce and Ewart Oakeshott, Swords of the Viking Age (The Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 2002)

8
Conclusion

This analysis of the Suyuf-i Mubareke in the context of the literature has indicated differences
between swords and sword types and trends in the relationships between their characteristics. It
indicates that it is timely for further dialogue on Medieval Islamic Swords, their typologies, and their
use in combat. The analysis of the blades in the collection has provided hints at what the swords
were designed for, though this has been limited by fact the collection was re-hilted during the Late
Medieval and Early Modern Period, exacerbated with the lack of opportunity to handle these or
similar swords. Given the fact these swords have been re-hilted, most of them as pistol grips (suited
to aligning the blades for both cutting and thrusting), future opportunities which would best suit the
research provided would be to focus on the hilt construction, particularly the design of the tang itself
(e.g. if they curve) and what effect this would have on the handling of the swords (and whether
these were also anachronistically changed at the time of re-hilting as well).

A route to comparing these swords, similar to the Oakeshott typology, has been to assess them by
type. It has been observed that flat blades were intended for lighter, and ridged blades for heavier,
armoured opponents. Although their dimensions are similar, curved blades have different weight
distributions reflecting their use in cutting.). Additionally, the single edged blade is lighter at the
expense of allowing only one sharp edge to be used in combat. Most of the blades are weighted
towards the tip which would provide weighted strikes with more force. With regards to
measurements, both weight and width increase in proportion to length, though with alternative
trends highlighting room for individual choice.

Other sword collections such as the extensive Mamluk collection within the Topkapi Surray and
Istanbul Military Museums, provides an opportunity for a more extensive analysis akin to that
attempted in this article. The outcome of this would hopefully present both the evolution of swords'
design and function throughout the Medieval to Early Modern Period and contribute to the detail of
la longue durée of sword evolution in the Middle East and North Africa. However, as with Ewart
Oakeshott’s work on Medieval European swords, such a wide study of swords within the Medieval
Islamic World would be complex and require a large amount of effort and time.

This study has been necessarily exploratory and somewhat limited, consequently much remains to
be done to analyse these and other similar blades in order to establish the relationship of their form
with respect to their intended use. While such analysis is at the moment in its infancy, Late Medieval
and Early Modern European combat Treatises on fighting with the sword,40 and the large amount of
Arabic Furuiyya treatises41 provide a significant opportunity for further study. The reconstruction of
both these swords and their use would also contribute to the emerging picture and should be
attempted in the future.

40 th
Examples of treatises are extended, examples including: the 14 Century manuscript Walpurgis Fechtbuch
th
(MS I.33, Royal Armouries, Leeds), the 15 Century Treatise Il Fior di Battaglia (MS Ludwig XV 13, J. Paul Getty
th
Museum, Los Angeles), the 16 Century Treatise Codex Wallerstein (Cod. Ⅰ.6.4º.2, Universitätsbibliothek
Augsburg, Augsburg) and Joachim Meyers’ 16 Century Fechtbuch (MS Bibl. 2465, Bayerisches
th

Nationalmuseum, Munich).
41
For more information see Shihab Al Sarraf, "Mamluk Furusiyah Literature and its Antecedents" in Mamluk
Studies Review VIII No. 1 (Chicago: The University of Chicago, Middle East Documentation Center, 2005).

9
 Table: 1) List of measurements for the Suyuf-i Mubareke swords in the Topkapi Saray Museum as
provided by Uensal Yuecel

Sword Sword Blade Blade Length Sword Width of Length of Hilt description Point of Inventory
number Attributed to: type description of weight the blade: hilt (cm) balance in Topkapi
Blade (kg) Near cross (from the Saray
(cm) guard, cross Museum
midpoint guard) (cm)
and near
tip (cm)
1 Khalid ibn al- Flat Straight, 79.2 0.765 4 Not Pommel cap - 16.5 21/147
Walid, a double edged mentioned highly
Companion of ornamented
the Prophet quillons, part of
grip and
pommel
2 Khalid ibn al- Flat Straight, 82 0.89 3.85 16 Curved, 24.5 21/144
Walid, a double edged. drooping
Companion of Inscription on quillons with
the Prophet the blade near langet, widens
the hilt. to pommel -
pommel cap
3 The Prophet Flat Straight, 82.05 1.045 3.7 12.9 Straight with 22 21/129
Muhammad double edged beaked pommel,
drooping
quillons with
langet - One
piece and highly
Ornamented
(does not
appear to be for
use)
4 Khalid ibn al- Ridged Straight, 83.5 Not 3.8 16 Curved with 20.5 21/146
Walid, a double edged mentioned langet - Pommel
Companion of cap
the Prophet
5 Umar Ibn al- Flat Straight, 83.8 0.85 4.5 13.5 Slightly curved, 26.5 21/134
KHattab double edged widens slightly
(Second to the pommel,
Rashdun with langet -
Caliph) Pommel cap
6 Abu Hasana, Flat Straight, 83.8 0.88 3.8 17.6 Curved with 25.5 21/141
the scribe of double edged langet - Pommel
the prophet cap
7 Khalifa Abu Flat Straight, 84.3 0.84 3.8 13.5 Slightly curved 27.5 21/131
Bakr al-Sadiq double edged with langet -
(The first Pommel cap
Rashdun
Caliph)
8 Ammar ibn Flat Straight, 85.7 0.965 4.4 16.1 Slightly curved 19 21/149
Yasir, one of double edged with langet -
the Pommel cap
Companions
of the Prophet
9 Khalifa Flat Cloven sword, 87 Not 4.4 15 Shorter 24 21/136
'Uthman ibn inscribed and mentioned Shamshir type
Affan (the highly grip - One piece
third Rashdun decorated
Caliph) with floral
designs,
inscriptions
and gilded.
10 The Prophet Curved Flat and 87.2 0.925 2.3 13.8 Curved, long 21 21/130
Muhammad slightly curved quillons with
with a concave langet - Pommel
to the centre cap
and thickening

10
 out to the end
11 Khalid ibn al- Flat 8 narrow 87.3 1.245 5.4 15.6 Slightly curved 31.5 21/145
Walid, a grooves, with with langet,
Companion of a width of 0.25 widens to
the Prophet cm each, split pommel -
in two sets of Pommel cap
four with the
middle bearing
an inscription.
12 The Prophet Flat Straight, 87.4 1.145 5.6 16.5 Slightly curved, 25 21/137
David double edged widens slightly
to the pommel,
short quillons
with langet -
Pommel cap
13 Khalifa Single Straight, single 89.5 0.62 3.2 14 Slightly curved - 28.5 21/135
'Uthman ibn Edged edged. Pommel cap
Affan (the
third Rashdun
Caliph)
14 Zubayr ibn al- Flat Straight, 89.8 1.235 4.8 16 Slightly curved, 25.5 21/140
'Awwam, one double edged long quillons
of the with langet -
companions Pommel cap
of the Prophet
15 Annonymous Flat Straight, 90 0.855 3.6 13 Ornamented, 21.1 21/142
Sahaba double edged curved,
drooping
quillons with
langet - one
piece
16 Umar Ibn al- Flat Straight, 90.1 1.28 5.6 17 Slightly curved, 27 21/133
KHattab double edged. drooping
(Second Two parallel quillons with
Rashdun grooves in the langet - Pommel
Caliph) centre. cap
17 Zayn al- Curved Curved with a 90.5 0.985 2.8 Not Curved with Not 21/139
Abidin, yalman (24cm mentioned beaked pommel, mentioned
grandson of before the tip) long quillons
Khalifa 'Ali ibn with langet,
Abi Talib widens to the
(sabre) end - One piece
18 Anonymous, Flat Straight, 91.1 1.225 4.45 12.1 Slightly curved, 13.5 21/148
Sahaba double edged. drooping
Two grooves quillons -
run to the Squared
lower part of pommel cap
the blade
before this
cuts off and a
central groove
runs to the
end.
19 Umar Ibn al- Ridged Straight, 91.65 1.18 5.1 13.4 Slightly curved, 21 21/132
KHattab double edged, long quillons
(Second with a central with langet -
Rashdun ridge. Pommel cap
Caliph)
20 Khalifa 'Ali ibn Flat Straight, 99 1.615 7.7 15 Slightly curve 31 21/138
Abi Talib double edged. grip, widens to
(fourth Decorated the pommel,
Rashdun with floral short quillons
Caliph) designs and with langet -
gilded Pommel cap
21 Khalifa Flat Straight, 100 2.585 8.5 27 Curved, highly 17.5 21/3775
'Uthman ibn double edged, ornamented
Affan (the with nine thin grip, drooping
third Rashdun parallel quillons with

11
 Caliph) grooves at the langet and lobed
centre. Heavily pommel (does
decorated not look
around the intended to be
blade. functional)
22 Ja'far al- Ridged Straight 118.6 2.85 6 25.5 Slightly curved, 35.2 21/143
Tayyar, one of double edged. drooping
the Highly quillons with
Companions decorated langet - Pommel
of the Prophet with gilded cap
mythical and
floral designs
towards the
tip.

Table: 2) Swords grouped according to type

Type Colour Sword Number in

Numbers sample
code

Flat Red 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 16
8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
15, 16, 18, 20,
21

Ridged Green 4, 19, 22 3

Single edged Blue 13 1

Curved Purple 10, 17 2

12
3.1 Blade midpoint width against length showing a least squares fit gradient for the flat double edged swords
in the collection and an alternative steeper gradient fitted by eye (the sword numbers labelled). The steeper
gradient aligned with several swords and therefore displayed a pattern recognisable enough to point out.

Key

21 Flat

Ridged
20
Single Edged

Curved
Maximum estimated length according to Shihab Al-Sarraf
22

16
12
18
11
19
14
5
8
9
1 2
7
6 15
4
3
13
17

10

Maximum length of 112cm according to Shihab al-

Sharraf

13
3.2 Blade width at the mid-point against length showing a least squares fit gradient for the 16 straight, flat,
double-edged swords in the collection (the sword numbers labelled).

21

20

Maximum estimated length according to Shihab Al-Sarraf

12 16

11

14
5 8
9 18
1 2
7
3 6
15

Maximum length of 112cm according to Shihab al-Sharraf

14
3.3 Sword weight against length for all the swords in the collection showing a cluster and a least squares fit
gradient (the sword numbers labelled).

Key

Flat
22
Ridged
21
Single Edged

Curved

Maximum weight of 5 ratls according to Brian

Gilmour’s measurement
20

16
11 18
12 14 19
3 8
6 17
2
15
1 5 7 10

13

Minimum Wight of 2 ratls according to Brian Gilmour’s

measurement

Maximum length of 112cm

according to Shihab al-Sharraf

15
3.4 Sword weight against length for the straight double-edged swords showing a cluster and a least squares fit
gradient (the sword numbers labelled).

21

Maximum weight of 5 ratls according to Brian

Gilmour’s measurement
20

16
11
18
12 14
3
8 15
6
2
1 5 7

Minimum Wight of 2 ratls according to Brian Gilmour’s

measurement

Maximum length of 112cm

according to Shihab al-Sharraf

16
3.5 Blade length against point of balance of the sword showing a cluster (the sword numbers labelled)

22
Key
11
Flat
20
Ridged
7 13
5 16
12 14
Single Edged
6
2
9 Curved
3 10 15
19
4
8
21
1

18

17
3.6 Sword weight against point of balance showing a cluster (the sword numbers labelled).

Key
22
Flat

11 Ridged
13

13
Single
7 Edged
5 16
6 12 14
Curved
2
3
10 19
15
8
21
1

18

18
4.1 Drawing of Sword 7 representative of a straight, double edged, sword.

19
4.2 Drawing of Sword 19 representative of a straight, double-edged, sword with a
central ridge.

20
4.3 Drawing of Sword 10, representative of a sword which slightly
curved, and concaves out in the centre before widening out at
the tip, reminiscent of a proto-yalman (please note, the curve is
extremely subtle and difficult to reflect in the below drawing).

21
4.4 Drawing of Sword 17 representative of a curved single edged sword with a subtle
yalman.

22
4.5 Drawing of Sword 13 representative of a straight, single-edged, sword.

23
Bibliography

Al Sarraf, Shihab, "Mamluk Furusiyah Literature and its Antecedents" in Mamluk Studies Review VIII No. 1
(Chicago: The University of Chicago, Middle East Documentation Center, 2005).

Muehlhaeusler, Mark and Hoyland, Robert, "Swords in Arabic Poetry" in Medieval Islamic Sword and
Swordmaking, ed. by Robert Hyland and Brian Gilmour, “Gibb Memorial Trust: Cambridge, 2012).

Pierce, Ian G., and Oakeshott, Ewart, Swords of the Viking Age (The Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 2002).

Rivkin, Kirill and Isaac, Brian, A Study of the Eastern Sword, (Kiril Rivkin, self-published: Mankato, 2017).

Yuecel, Uensal, Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths, (Istanbul Research Centre for Islamic History: Art and Culture,
2001).

24