|Scimitar has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Blades||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Military history||(Rated Start-Class)|
I am going to try to get this article back on track, starting with detailing how this does not refer to a specific type of sword. I will add citations as I go along. Dlatrex (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Arabs use this sword long before Turkish invasion because as you probably know Sword of Uthman, Ali and Muhammad were scimtar (in particulary Zulfiqar how is probably one of the most known scimtar) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EF25:CEF0:3C3B:77A:75CA:4370 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
there is just no piece of evidence that supports the names you listed wielded a curved sword. in fact, some depictions like this show that they were not curved.
If info is needed about Western Asian sabers, there are rich articles in popflock.com resource about saif, shamshir, pulwar, tulwar, kilij, dao, shashka,shashu, mameluke saber and many other related saber types. The term scimitar itself isa misconception by the orientalistic western imagination. It is the arms and armour equivelant of the orientalistic terms such as "Saracen", "Seraglio" or "Orient". It could be about how westerners misperceived the different yet related types sabers in muslim nations and their historical evolution and imagined this orientalistic "scimitar". You can write an article about that phenomenon. But this article isn't even about that. It is a provierbial soup of confusion of terminology, culture and historical evolution of several types of swords, souced with lots of myths, prejudice and misperceptions that would even shame the most ignorant 12th century crusader. It is literally a mess. There is more than enough info in popflock.com resource on every saber type ever used by Western Asian Muslims. Please erase this Frankenstein of an article. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm a video game nerd myself, but this is an encyclopedia, not a gaming web site. This article contains two and a half lines of factual information followed by a page of fanboy trivia garbage. Why is it that nerds feel obligated to fill every article related to weapons or anything Japanese with a list of video games or anime in which they appear? You'll notice that the "Apple" article does not contain a list of every book and movie in which a character ever consumed an apple, nor does the "Pants" article have a list of famous pant-wearers; this is because it's not encyclopedic information. A scimitar is a type of sword; of course half of the fantasy games out there have them. Someone needs to start a "Purge popflock.com resource of Fanboyism" project.
Is it really relevant to have that banal comment about a Forgotten Realms character at the end? If it's in there at all, should it not be subordinated in a "Misc." or "Fiction" section? Really, it tarnishes the article.
check the article on swords...technically a sword, by definition, has 2 cutting blades.
scimitars aren't really swords.
The article says it is "relatively light." However, I do not consider these swords light. A dagger or foil is light. If one hacks like a machete, it's more like bludgeoning, which means heavy, upper arm use. I've never used either, but it seems "light" would imply forearm and wrist parley. -- Kristinwt (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder: is there is any distinguishing done between types of scimitars? It seems to me that scimitars bearing similar lines to the shamshir are rather different from the heavier swords dubbed scimitars in the movies (here I'm thinking especially of Azeem's sword from "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves"). Obviously, that weapon was custom-made for the film, but it still is a lot closer to the depictions of scimitars that I remember from history books and the like (e.g., long, heavy blade, widening toward the tip, with a recurved "hook" between the tips of the front and rear cutting surfaces). Sacxpert 00:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I believe I must disclaim myself. I am primarily focused in western european weaponry, armoury, and martial arts and know little of anything much east of Italy or Germany. I have been taught, however, and read in countless published texts, that these swords are in fact the same, but under two different names. What is the physical or geographical differentiation between the two? It seems that both have exactly the same physical characteristics and existed at the exact same time in the exact same place. The popflock.com resource articles provide no clear differentiation, and no text I have found (aside from the Oxford Dictionary, which is not very reputable source for sword-related information) supports the concept that the two are less than the same weapon (from my understanding most scholarly texts find the later appearance of the word "scimitar" in the 1500s a bastardization of shamshir, a product of trade and revised interest in the middle east). If the shamshir is now "more inclusive" then of course it "includes" the scimitar by its rightful name (note that the word scimitar does not seem to appear until 1548, yet the weapon appears much earlier - what would it have been called? Most scholars seem to think "shamshir"). I think that the "scimitar" related information should be merged into the shamshir article, leaving scimitar as a redirect page. However, I can certainly be wrong, and my interpretation and recollection of printed material can be wrong - but it certainly seems that much (if not all) of the academia associates these two words to mean the same weapon, most properly (and originally) termed a shamshir. --Xiliquiern 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What I would have thought is the most famous use of a scimitar in film is the scene in Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's the first that came to my mind anyway...
Isn't there any better information for why they're shaped the way they are besides that it's "good for slashing opponents while riding on a horse"? Why does the curved shape help slashing opponents while riding a horse? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this article about the arab word saif, curved swords in general, Islamic curved swords, or what? The morphology just mentions curved swords used in Islamic cultures, and the "symbolism" section is about symbolism of the sword in Islamic culture. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The article says that Khalin ibn Al-Whalid and Genghis Khan are the only generals never to have lost a battle. This is not true. Rodrigo Diaz, AKA El Cid, never lost a battle either. MFLK (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The IP edit regarding uniqueness was me - I forgot to log in.
If the three are unique because they're individuals, then 'unique' is superfluous. But if they're unique because they never lost a battle, then there's three of them - so they can't be unique.
Incidentally: I never lost a battle (I never fought one). Someone added a '' tag; but what kind of citation could support a negative assertion of the form "these three are X, and there are no others"? So, I favour deleting the entire claim. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)