Karabela origin?

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Sylektis

Poland Ottoman Empire Land?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland

If we are going there (and I am far from convinced we should), let us proceed very carefully and leave any nationalistic or patriotic feelings at the door. Otherwise, there will be consequences.

This is not the place for socio-political debate.

[archer burak]

Sorry but this history not politics , or ethnicity ,,,, and one thing more Poland name in Ottoman perriod was Lehistan ...thats history too...

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by archer burak

Sorry but this history not politics , or ethnicity ,,,, and one thing more Poland name in Ottoman perriod was Lehistan ...thats history too...

Nonsense. I will not ask again. Leave it alone.

[ariel]

The entry of karabela into Polish armamentarium can likely be connected to 2 factors: the Ottoman rule over the Balkans and Hungary ( there are many karabelas in Balkan muzeums) and multiple wars between the Ottomans and Poland ( the Siege of Vienna, anyone? :-) ). Thus, there were plenty of opportunities for the Poles to get acquainted with karabelas. The timing of these events may be dated to ~ 15th century, when karabelas were noted among the arms of Poznan and Kalisz dukedoms . A bit later, the 17th century Polish poet Waclaw Potocki rued the disappearance of "swords, pallashes and kords" in favor of light "karabelas and czeczugas". From Poland, karabela spread to the Ukraine ( then a part of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom) and to Russia, after Polish-Russian wars.

The funny thing is that Karabela is not a separate novel example of a particular sword ( like Pala or Shashka for example), but rather just a saber with virtually any type of the blade but with a distinct configuration of the pommel. This minute part of the "anatomy" is all that distinguishes karabela from a multitude of other saber-like long-bladed weapons.

Poland nurtured her relations with the Persian Empire as a counterweight to the Ottomans as well as the "sarmatian" connection of Polish aristocracy and loved all things Persian, but the karabela came from their foes, not allies.

An interesting moment is that Poland fought with Crimean Tatars ( vassals of the Ottoman Empire), and had a sizeable Tatar population , so why wouldn't we attribute the entry of Karabela into Poland from the Crimea? Simple: Tatars did not use karabelas, instead they had Circassian "ordynkas" that also entered Polish armamentarium, and were significantly more distinct as a pattern than karabelas.


Trailing weapons' migration is a lot of fun!

[Jim McDougall]

Ariel that is an absolutely perfect description of the 'karabela' as a form and its diffusion, nicely explained, and entirely objective historically. Well done and thank you!

Best regards,
jim

[Martin Lubojacky]

Thank you Ariel for this entry.
Regards,
Martin

[ariel]

My pleasure.

[Sancar]

Originally Posted by ariel

...

The funny thing is that Karabela is not a separate novel example of a particular sword ( like Pala or Shashka for example), but rather just a saber with virtually any type of the blade but with a distinct configuration of the pommel. This minute part of the "anatomy" is all that distinguishes karabela from a multitude of other saber-like long-bladed weapons.
...

If the distinct "rumi-palmet" form of the "pommel"or head of the handle is what diffirentiates and characterize karabela as a distinct blade(and I agree with you in this matter), then doesn't this makes identification problem for this type of blade very very problematic? I mean this type of pommel form is used in Turco-Mongoland İndo-Persian weaponry for centuries. Almost 1/2 of Turkish knives have this sort of pommels. Even yatagan "eared" form was evolved from this and if you ignore the pronounced ears, this is the basic form of every yatagan pommel. Adding to this, this shape of pommels is very often found in Ottoman kilijs as late as 19th century, right alongside with late period pistol gripped, "armudi"(pear-shaped) form pommeled "pala"s. I mean there is a whole section in İstanbul Military Muıseum for this type of kilijs. Now, how will we identfy these kilijs? Will we call them "Ottoman karabelas" just because they have pommels in a very common form of Turkish blades?Or will we call them just "kilijs?

I find it problematic to identify origin for a blade (especially when it comes to the hot-button issue of what culture or nation does it belong to) reduced only to a one minor aspect of a blade. "For example: It is only a Turkish style kilij if it has a distinct false edge and a pear shaped pommel, otherwise it is a shamshir while Turks used metal pommels for centuries; or no guard equals to shashka ,etc.)

It might be an easy shortcut for classification for us contemporary researchers; but it creates many problems when it is used to cultural identification especially for Western Asian arms and armour because of the complex and interactive multi-cultural structure of the region.

And I don't see a similar approach(there is distinct classification, but not separation) when it comes to western bladeswhich makes me think that this issue has its roots in "orientalism" as in most socio-cultural areas of research in modern social sciences.

My thesis might have sound nationalistic but this is not my intention. I gave examples from my own angle of view but I presume same problem appears for every western Asian or Eastern European researcher whether they are Persian, Arab, Afghan, or Slavic.

I don't have an easy solution for this, but maybe more than pointers when it comes to identification and a more inclusive and non-separative or fluent approach when it comes to classification might help.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Sancar

If the distinct "rumi-palmet" form of the "pommel"or head of the handle is what diffirentiates and characterize karabela as a distinct blade(and I agree with you in this matter), then doesn't this makes identification problem for this type of blade very very problematic? I mean this type of pommel form is used in Turco-Mongoland İndo-Persian weaponry for centuries. Almost 1/2 of Turkish knives have this sort of pommels. Even yatagan "eared" form was evolved from this and if you ignore the pronounced ears, this is the basic form of every yatagan pommel. Adding to this, this shape of pommels is very often found in Ottoman kilijs as late as 19th century, right alongside with late period pistol gripped, "armudi"(pear-shaped) form pommeled "pala"s. I mean there is a whole section in İstanbul Military Muıseum for this type of kilijs. Now, how will we identfy these kilijs? Will we call them "Ottoman karabelas" just because they have pommels in a very common form of Turkish blades?Or will we call them just "kilijs?

I find it problematic to identify origin for a blade (especially when it comes to the hot-button issue of what culture or nation does it belong to) reduced only to a one minor aspect of a blade. "For example: It is only a Turkish style kilij if it has a distinct false edge and a pear shaped pommel, otherwise it is a shamshir while Turks used metal pommels for centuries; or no guard equals to shashka ,etc.)

It might be an easy shortcut for classification for us contemporary researchers; but it creates many problems when it is used to cultural identification especially for Western Asian arms and armour because of the complex and interactive multi-cultural structure of the region.

And I don't see a similar approach(there is distinct classification, but not separation) when it comes to western bladeswhich makes me think that this issue has its roots in "orientalism" as in most socio-cultural areas of research in modern social sciences.

My thesis might have sound nationalistic but this is not my intention. I gave examples from my own angle of view but I presume same problem appears for every western Asian or Eastern European researcher whether they are Persian, Arab, Afghan, or Slavic.

I don't have an easy solution for this, but maybe more than pointers when it comes to identification and a more inclusive and non-separative or fluent approach when it comes to classification might help.

Thank you, Sancar. Great post.

I suspect the reason Western European weapons are so well-categorized is because someone(s) spent the time and resources to conduct scholarly research and publish on it (e.g. Oakeshott, et.al.).

I can tell you that the very situation you describe for Western Asian weapons is present in my personal area of interest--Mainland SEA weapons. Those of us in the West who study and collect these weapons have struggled for years to neatly "sort" weapon origins, etc. However, the shifting of ethnic, national and cultural borders in the region defy most casual efforts.

[Sancar]

You're most welcome Andrew. I also agree that Asian art of weaponry is a relatively less researched subject and multi layered inter-cultural interactions through ages makes it even harder. One of the biggest problems is this "black-and-white" approach I witness in most attempts of classification and cultural identification.

I am an art historian and archeologist so I tend to lookat the weapons as an another area of fine art just like architecture or paintings. As an art historian, we identify cultural origins and evolution of styles thoroughout ages as a whole but also notice the fluent nature of this evolution from culture to culture and from geography to geography. Take Renaissance for example. Can you say it is italian and only italian without denying the existence of nothern masters like Bosch? Or can you say the Flaman style of renaissnce art is a national style of painting that originates only in Flandra and belong only to that culture without denying the birth of that style in Italy? Same goes for Gothic cathedrals, Baroque etc. Art historians follow and identify the evolution of themes, styles, ornamantation figures, dress fashions, architectural components or even objects like spoons or chairs. It is naturally the healthiest approach to be applied in the study of bladed weapons as well.

And I see it is used in such fashion in European blades. I did not witness any fights between British, Italian,German and French researchers about which culture does the longsword belong to. People recognize historical origins and evolution from Roman gladius to spatha to Celtic and Gothic migration period swords. etc. all the way to late Middle ages, with contrubitions of every culture and geography on its way.

Yet when it comes to Western Asian swords either a mono-block approach "İslamic weapons", "Oriental weapons"as if all the different cultures from Andulusia to Malaysia is one and the same(the orentalistic view), or the reactionary view which is to ignore all evolution and inter-culturel trade of styles and identify one specific variation of one specific weapon as the national weapon of such culture that only originated from and only belong to that culture and geography. And this over-separative approach bring identification by the smallest of differences such as shape of a pommel.

Long story short, let's look at swords like architecture and stop fighting over who owns what. It is well-known that Gothic style is brought to Britian by French architects but this does not make Westminister Abbey any less British, does it?

[archer burak]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Nonsense. I will not ask again. Leave it alone.

If one country pay tax every year this became this country is an other countrys land technicly , thats why ı said Poland was Ottoman land ... nonsense realy ...

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by archer burak

If one country pay tax every year this became this country is an other countrys land technicly , thats why ı said Poland was Ottoman land ... nonsense realy ...

Archer, the "nonsense" comment I made was directed at your specious position that"Sorry but this history not politics , or ethnicity." I was not opining that your information was nonsense (I have no expertise or knowledge of Ottoman history and, thus, have no position.)

As there was clearly a misunderstanding of some sort, I will renew my final request that this portion of the topic be allowed to die without further comment.

In other words--let it go.

Andrew

[archer burak]

[QUOTE=Andrew]Archer, the "nonsense" comment I made was directed at your specious position that"Sorry but this history not politics , or ethnicity." I was not opining that your information was nonsense (I have no expertise or knowledge of Ottoman history and, thus, have no position.)

As there was clearly a misunderstanding of some sort, I will renew my final request that this portion of the topic be allowed to die without further comment.

In other words--let it go.

Andrew

As a historian , I hope Next time you'll act less biased to my words ...

Burak

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=archer burak]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Archer, the "nonsense" comment I made was directed at your specious position that"Sorry but this history not politics , or ethnicity." I was not opining that your information was nonsense (I have no expertise or knowledge of Ottoman history and, thus, have no position.)

As there was clearly a misunderstanding of some sort, I will renew my final request that this portion of the topic be allowed to die without further comment.

In other words--let it go.

Andrew

As a historian , I hope Next time you'll act less biased to my words ...

Burak

Gentlemen,
May I please respectfully ask, along with Andrew, please let this texture in this thread go. It is completely counterproductive and I would point out that this entire fray stems from a laconic and deliberately nuanced comment by Sylektis, who has had no stock in this discussion whatsoever. Those few words taken out of the context of Buraks text deliberately and derisively accented had no purpose whatsoever beyond the unfortunate result seen.

This is an outstanding topic, and as Archer has profoundly noted, we here are indeed historians, most of us, and we need not let wording issues cloud our larger scope in discussion. Obviously there are cultural and language differences among us and typically our commonality is gentlemanly interaction despite those matters.

I for one, do not want this thread ended as there have been some brilliant entries which importantly address the conundrums is classifying these, and I am anxious to hit the books myself to see if I can add anything as well.

Let us continue!!!

Best regards
Jim

[TVV]

[QUOTE=archer burak]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Archer, the "nonsense" comment I made was directed at your specious position that"Sorry but this history not politics , or ethnicity." I was not opining that your information was nonsense (I have no expertise or knowledge of Ottoman history and, thus, have no position.)

As there was clearly a misunderstanding of some sort, I will renew my final request that this portion of the topic be allowed to die without further comment.

In other words--let it go.

Andrew

As a historian , I hope Next time you'll act less biased to my words ...

Burak

You call yourself historian? I am sorry, but I find your Pan-Turkic and Nationalistic drivel obnoxious, pointless and completely unproductive. You are at the wrong place.

It is obvious you will not stop to spew nonsense, so I kindly ask the moderators to put an end to this NOW, with whatever means necessary.

Thank you,

Teodor

[Andrew]

[QUOTE=archer burak]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Archer, the "nonsense" comment I made was directed at your specious position that"Sorry but this history not politics , or ethnicity." I was not opining that your information was nonsense (I have no expertise or knowledge of Ottoman history and, thus, have no position.)

As there was clearly a misunderstanding of some sort, I will renew my final request that this portion of the topic be allowed to die without further comment.

In other words--let it go.

Andrew

As a historian , I hope Next time you'll act less biased to my words ...

Burak

Archer, I am not biased for or against you or any other forum member. I am here to keep the peace and keep discussion on-topic. The topic of this thread is the origins of the karabela. Not whether Poland was part of the Ottoman Empire.

Andrew