This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kilij article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Ottoman

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Ottoman military history task force

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

Comments

Untitled

The information in the very first paragraph does not reflect the scholarly consensus at the moment; neither the Hsiung-nu nor the Avars are thought of as "Turks" by historians. A few historians in the 19th and early 20th century have suggested that the Hsiung-nu "might" be the "Huns" in Europe, and they in turn "might" be connected to "Turks" but these theories remain marginal and no direct evidence exists to support them. This article should not include the Hsiung-nu or the Avars as Turks if we care about historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parryriposte (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does not reflect the scholarly consensus of eurocentric scholars ,but the opinions of eurocentrists are worthless for turkish historians. 46.114.172.131 (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter

Claim at the etymology part has no base. Actually "pala" is shorter, wider, highly curved blade which can be compared to machete.

Comment

~~In turkish 'kılıç' means any type of sword.... Armanalp 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Nvm, I fixed it... Armanalp 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

What this article needs is a picture of thi type of sword

Jon Ascton (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

I think that subject must not to be united with shamshir. Despite its Persian origin, Kilij has Turkish origins. That makes it different. Of course there is a similarity between them but who can say each European sword is unique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.76.197 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two swords were quite different, their hilts were similar but their blades - the functionally important bits - were quite distinct. Shamshirs were long and slender bladed, the classic killij was considerably shorter and much heavier-bladed. Might as well merge chalk and cheese ;) Urselius (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish kılıç and iranian(not persian,at least not originally) shamshir are two unique types of sword. Even though they comne from the same source (central asian saber) and thus they are related, they are definitely not the same thing; those swords evolved differently throughout the history. So those articles should not be merged.88.235.97.148 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you actually give me a reliable source that states curved blades, like scimitar, or its variant were originated in persia or by persians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.194.239 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curved blades were created in Central Asia by proto-Turk and proto-Mongol nomads around Hsing-Nu period. Their cavalry warfare style made a single handed curved saber necessary. Later this type of Turko-Mongol saber were imported to West and East by Turkic migration and Mongol conquest. Kilij(product of Ottoman Turkmen migration to Anatolia), shamshir(procut of Seljuk conquest of Iran), dao(product of Mongol-Manchu conquest of China), szabla(product of Hun, Avar,Bulgar, Mongol, Tatar and Ottoman conquest to East Europe) , karabela, european cavalry saber(product of Hunnic migration to Hungary and later Turco-Mongol conquests), tulwar(product of Mughal invasion of Northern İndia)etc. are its descendants. Of course every variation of this type of saber is co-creation of the culture of the invaders and the local culture, so both parties can list rigtfully as their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.152.152 (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Reversion

So far one of my edits, mentioning exactly what the kilij did on Deadliest Warrior, has been reverted twice, once by the bot. No explanation has been given for why a piece of information that is easily verifiable and provides clarity to the point made on the show has been deleted as "not constructive". Chitoryu12 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

What is conspicuously absent from this article is the rationale for designing a sword with a blade that has such a pronounced curve. Assuming there is such a reason, it ought to be one of the featured elements of this article and all articles that cover swords of similar design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.245.132 (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

advantage over the shamshir whose extreme curvature did not allow the thrust

Nice modern theory from persons, without any real experience how to fight with a Shamshir. I have a real more than 300 years old, deeply curved (~9cm curvature) Persian Shamshir, where the point was obviously used and lost a tiny bit of material from stabbing. There are at least three different techniques to use the Shamshir as a thrusting weapon, one from the back of a horse and two as a foot soldier. r.m.