Origins of karabela
 

I put a note in another thread to this effect, but perhaps we need to have a separate thread, to question the common misconseption.

There is a widespread belief that Karabela ( handle , of course) is of Iranian origin and stems from Karbala.
This is based mainly on Khorasani's assertion and his fancy idea that the shape of the handle follows the outline of the windows in the Karbala shrine, but..! .....only if we divide the window in half:-)

Many fancy derivations were invented for the word karabela ( including italian cara bella, dear beauty:-)), but the most obvious one, i.e. the Turkish locality call Karabel, was relegated to the back of the line.

There is, however, a simple fact of the distribution of such handles. It is a truism that any invention of a particular culture/tradition would be most popular in the country of origin and will spread to the surrounding, influenced, societies.
First, there are very few karabelas in Iran. Second, there are virtually no karabelas in the Iran-influenced countries: India, Afghanistan, Central Asian Khanates . In contrast, there are many of them in Turkey proper and , most importantly, everywhere the Ottomans went: Eastern Europe, Balkans, Hungary, Austria, North Africa ( their yataghan handles) and Aravia proper ( Yemeni examples). The argument of Polish admiration for all things Persian does not hold water: neither Croats, nor North African, Hungarians or Styrians had any connection with Iranian culture, and all used Karabela style left and right.

This, I think, is the strongest and the most obvious indirect evidence of the Turkish Ottoman primacy in the introduction of Karabela-type handle into the world military practice.

However, we seem to have a direct evidence as well : the actual sword of Sultan Selim I kept in Topkapi.
This is the same Selim the Grim (born 1465-1470 (?), died 1520) who defeated Persian Shah Ismail at Chahldiran in 1514 ,and who destroyed the Egyptian Mamluks in 1517. He lived, as is obvious, 100 years before Shah Abbas who is so generously credited with the invention of the Karabela handle. As seen from the attached pic, this pattern was in use in Turkey well before Abbas' visit to Karbala.

I agree, and have expressed similar opinion before: links to the Ottomas are far stronger for this swod type than links to Persia. When one examines all the trophies, taken from the Ottomans in German and Austrian Museums (my memories from the Dogal Palace in Venice are somewhat blank wen it comes to swords, I just remember the mathlocks and an early yataghan blade), dating back to the 17th century, the majority of the swords are with trilobate hilts, i.e., what we refer to as karabelas. It is obvious that the type was very popular among the Ottomans, as opposed to the Central Asian Khanates and the Moghuls, which, as pointed out, adopted all Safavid Persian fashions.
However, this concerns the period from the second half of the 17th century, culminating in the second siege of Vienna and the subsequent Eugene of Savoy's campaigns. Therefore, can we be absolutely sure that Selim the Grim's sword was not rehilted later, like so many of the swords in Top Kapi?

Another outstanding topic Ariel!!!and its great to get these kinds of discussions going so that we can better understand these peculiarities of certain weapon forms, and in some cases revise long held thoughts with comprehensive evidence and observations.

I have personally never seen Manouchers book, so I cannot effectively offer critique, however I can well understand the noted emphasis on Iranian origin for not only this sword form but many other arms and armour and many other cultural aspects. If I understand correctly the book was published under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west.

In "Polish Sabres:Origins and Evolution" (Jan Ostrowski, 1979), the author describes of course the Polish affinity for these sabres with the distinctive trilobate hilt, and notes the earliest prototypes for them from captured examples at the Siege of Vienna (1683). In this reference he notes that these had developed in Turkey under Persian influence in the early 17th century. The etymology is noted, patently dismissing the Italian 'cara bella' notion, but more credence to the possibility of Karabel (western Turkey) with primarily a phonetic connection as the only evidence.

Robert Elgood (1994, "Arms & Armour of Arabia") notes the Shah Abbas I connection and that in 1623 he took Baghdad and the town of Karbala in Iraq. Here he suggests that the 'karabella' type hilts seen worn by him in later miniatures perhaps may be commemorative of these events. It is further suggested that the term may have been a Polish corruption of the name of Karbala in Iraq, the location of an important Sh'ia shrine as well as the reference previously noted.
Prior to the Siege of Vienna, Poland was according to Elgood, in alliance with Persia against the Ottomans. While this may suggest earlier awareness of these hilts via the Persians, it does not seem to be the case. It is noted by Ostrowski the first exposure to the karabella by the Poles was at Vienna.

This returns to the apparant Ottoman presence of the karabella form, and as seen here with the sword of Selim the Grim (1470-1520). It would seem that the hilt form of his sword was established in that period, and likely became a favored form being worn even a hundred years later. Perhaps with the 1623 incursions by Shah Abbas I into Iraq as previously noted, he adopted this then traditional Ottoman hilt form seen worn by him in the miniatures.
This is of course presuming that the sword of Selim was not rehilted as suggested in the 16th century as swords entered Topkapi.

I think the hilt must have originated in Turkey, as suggested with the sword of Selim the Grim or at least been in use c.1623, becoming somewhat commemorative in Persia in form, but probably superceded there by the shamshir as a favored form. The form would seem to have remained in place in Ottoman context in degree, with those captured at Vienna in 1683. Here in turn, these became once again, commemorative with the Polish adopting the form as thier national parade sabre.

It is a bit of a paradox that this particular hilt form occurs significantly in Arabia, with the obviously Ottoman influenced hilt, and the affinity of the Arabs for Persian blades. As Eastern European, primarily Hungarian but some Polish blades also were heavily traded into Arabia, one cannot deny possibility of these karabella swords also coming in.

It seems that perhaps this might explain the Persian connection in the development of the karabella hilt, as well as the probable source for the term. The Persian influence in Mughal, Afghan and other regions does not reflect the karabela style hilt in notable degree at least in swords I would think because the shamshir was more prevalent later. It is interesting to note that in many cases Ottoman hilts are also evident.

All best regards,
Jim

Quick journey toward the bookshelf:

**********************************

Documented Ottoman karabelas in the Dresden Turkish Chamber:

#166. Entered museum catalogue in 1672
#202 -----------"--------------------- in 1689
#165: -------"------------------------- in 1672
#198: --------"------------------------- in 1689
#295:------------"----------------------- in 1695

Several later ones , registered in the museum at least in 1714

*****************************



Khorasani's complete account of all major Iranian collections ( 10 major museums):

#80: not dated, defined by the author as "Karbala sword". The name of Shah Sefi ( 1629-1642) is mentioned in the cartouche, but ownership or relation to him are not even implied. This is the only blade so far with a wide fuller on both sides. The next shamshir with a blade of similar construction and ( what a co-incidence:-)) with a similar handle appears only in the mid-18th century ( #114). After that fullers are abound.

*****************************************


Let's think....


Only in a single German Museum of impeccable credentials (Dresden) there is an abundance of karabela-hilted swords of documented Turkish provenance and documented age of the 1600's ( at least by the date of entering a collection). Other European Museums ( Hungary, Croatia, Karlsruhe Turkish Chamber) have multiple additional examples of 17 century documented and provenanced Turkish Karabelas.


In contrast, the entire Iranian theory hinges on a SINGLE sword within the vast collections of 10 major military museums.
This sword is of unknown date and provenance. Its construction is grossly unusual for its purported age and is fully compatible with mid-1700s at the earliest.

Nevertheless, this sword was pronounced fully genuine, authentic "Karbala-type" weapon, and the origin of the Karabela handle was attempted to be set within the Iranian tradition by the author working

".... under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west" ( Jim MD).


As the Stooges used to say: Who are you gonna believe: me or your own cheating eyes?:-)

Looks like the wisdom of the stooges is well placed! I think the score for birth of the karabela is to Turkey by landslide with only one shaky example for the Iranian claim. You perceived my comment pertaining to the Khorasani reference well :)
Outstanding research there as well Ariel. I do agree with Teodor also in wondering if the Selim sword is a remounted example in the manner of many of the Topkapi swords.

All the best,
Jim

Just for fun's sake, here are pictures of karabelas from Vienna: the first one is from the Military History Museum, and the other two from a display in the Vienna City History Museum. I took a close up a few years ago when I was there, but it is too blurry, so I am posting picture of the entire display. Both displays are dedicated to trophies, taken during the second siege of Vienna (except for the Ethipian presentation shield, which the curators must have misidentified and misplaced, of course :o ).

I am also adding a picture from the Army Museum in Ingolstadt: it may have been posted here before, I do not remember where I got it from.

Regards,
Teodor

We may never know the full history of the Selim's sword: the Imperial Ottomans were notoriously generous with decorating ( and re-decorating) their famous weapons and even more notoriously bad about documentation and standards of care. The book by Yucel mentions inscriptions on the Holy Swords that were present in the 1920-30s ( Stocklein's examination), but were lost subsequently due to rough cleaning.

This is the real reason why the Western collections are so important: their pedantic, unromantic documentation is academically precise and unarguable, whereas Iranian collections are still based on legends and wishful thinking aimed at bolstering sagging national ego. Turks are somewhere in the middle: their treasures were at least concentrated in Topkapi (and, later, Askeri Muze), and there is is an honest recent attempt on their part to start cataloguing and publishing ( Yucel, Aydin and Yasar's books).

Salaams Ariel ~ I think you hit the nail on the head there!!! ha ! :)
I have the book "Selim The Grim" and will dive into that in due course. Great stuff Ariel.

I imagine this will throw open the debate on Karabela appearing in Saudia hilts and Zanzibari Nimcha (hilts that I think look like hawksheads) I can see the transition from Turkey down the Eastern Mediterranean via Bedouin formations down into the entire region (Saudia and. the Red Sea) much more logically.. looking at Buttin now...http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...hlight=bedouin shows great map by Dom on Bedouin grouping..and a post showing Karabela hilts is close by.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi. :shrug:

Correction the book is on the son Sulaiyman the Magnificent, however, interestingly he is shown wearing a Karabela hilted sword in a sketch which I will publish tomorrow.

I add the note by wiki encyclopaedia as follows and for those of us, like me, who aren't yet quite conversant with this style of sword ~

Quote "A karabela was a type of Polish sabre (szabla). Perhaps one of the most famous types Polish sabres, it became highly popular in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 1670s.

The word "karabela" does not have well-established etymology, and different versions are suggested. For example, Zygmunt Gloger suggests derivation from the name of the Iraqui city of Karbala, known for trade of this kind of sabres. It may also be a loanword from the Turkish compound word "kara-bela", which means * "black-bane".

The sabre was modelled after the swords of the Turkish footmen formations of Janissaries and Spahis, which used it in close quarters. Much lighter than the hussar szabla, the karabela had an open hilt with the pommel modelled after an eagle's head. Such a grip allowed for easier handling of circular cuts while fighting on foot, and for swinging cuts from horseback.

Initially, the karabela sabres were used mostly for decoration or as a ceremonial weapon worn on special occasions. Popularized during the reign of King Jan III Sobieski, the sabre became one of the most popular Polish melee weapons. Though in theory the type could be subdivided into ornamental ceremonial type and a simple battle weapon, in reality both more expensive and the cheaper designs were often used in combat. Most of the Polish nobility (szlachta) could afford only one expensive karabela and, in case of need, simply replaced the ebony or ivory-made scabbard with a leather-made one, and removed some of the precious stones from the hilt in order to convert it into a fully reliable weapon". Unquote.


*I have never heard of "black bane" however ~ They think history's most serious anthrax outbreak was "Black Bane," a terrible epidemic that swept Europe in the 1600s. It killed at least 60,000 people and many more domestic and wild animals. Perhaps it refers to that ? See rense.com/general16/thehistoryofgerm.htm

It thus occured to me that if a sword was named after an anthrax epidemic in Europe that it would point to its origin of design.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

As noted by Ibrahiim, the Polish and Hungarians often adopted Turkish sword designs, developing into the familiar szabla which became the dashing cavalry sabres of Europe. With thier constant warfare with the Turks and thier incursions naturally there would be significant influence. The Persian influences throughout most of these cultural spheres cannot be ignored despite how subtle or indirect they were. Like most diffusion of influence culturally, just as with most instances of discovery and invention, these are the result of typically gradually occurring events and occurrences which culminate into established entities which then develop into having thier own identity.

I would imagine the adoption of these trilobate type hilts from those used by janissaries and in other Ottoman circumstances in regions of Arabia would be from Ottoman suzerainty and trade there. It is interesting to note that the well known repousse silverwork trilobate hilt Arabian sa'if usually attributed to San'aa and Hadhramaut have been regarded to often have been produced in Hyderabad in India. It would seem that the style must have been furnished to those artisans from Arabian sources as I cannot offhand think of other Indian hilts with karabela styling.

Here is a pic from Yucel's book about Topkapi collection. Usually, the authors are very fastidious about potential alterations to the swords and their furniture, not sparing even the examples attributed to Muhammed, his companions and the first Caliphs.
This sword has no corrections and equivocations. In the authors' opinion, therefore, it is as original and pristine as can be.
It is dated to early 10th century Hijra/16th century CE. Signed by Ahmad al-Tuqati, embellished with Seljuk motives.


Thus, Turkish "karabela" handles were in existence at least 100 years before Shah Abbas I, the purported "inventor" of that style traipsed to Karbala.

And here are 2 Yemeni Nimchas, 19th century, with rudimentary "karabela" handles. Ottoman Turks " were there, done that":-)

Salaams ! Ariel whilst Ive now sorted out my camera in support of your Turkish style hilt with a picture of a sketch of Selim the Grims son Suleyman the Magnificent and Janissaries with swords ~ The date of the engraving is 1559 A.D.

I might add that the cross guard of the style you show at your last post (left above) is normally Saudia in form.(According to Buttin).

I agree generally that the Yemeni style is as you show though it can have a variety of guards. It is, however, of the group Zanzibari style...One could pontificate all day about which pot it was boiled in but there it is; according to Buttin.

My only caution here is that you have almost entirely written off the influence of Syrian and Iranian form in its entirity whereas I can't do that since there was a lot of cross polination in style... :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams All ~ I thought it rather odd that we have here a thread which takes an arguement perhaps half way up the hill and stops ? Is there anyone sitting on the fence who can run with this one...or was it something I said ? :)

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams all ~ I have a Karabela.... The weapon came to hand for a friend who bought the item in Mutrah souk Muscat some 2 decades ago and is interesting since it has a dot on the tip of what appears to be a European imported blade ...and a typical Yemeni to Oman inter souk traded item. The design is clearly a local Yemeni copy of Peter Munich of Solingen style...(1595-1660) I believe so liked because of its moon phase ... and generally well respected blade...The moon phase also likely to have been copied by Munich from Juan Martinez of Toledo (mid 16th C) :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.