Yataghan

Jim McDougall · 21st February 2005, 08:01 PM

Hi Erlikhan,
I think possibly the term 'tughra' was probably used improperly as I was thinking it applied generally to the type cartouche seen on the blade, and in review that term should apply to such marking for the Sultan only correct? In any case you are also correct in noting that these irregular units with their non-regulation and flamboyant uniforms would not necessarily have conformed to a particular weapon or any certain markings on the blade.
Tom's note is again, quite valid, in that a weapon of this quality was most certainly privately owned, and such weapons were not issued to the ranks.

In looking at the description from the auction listing, it seems quite detailed in noting the unit, which would seem to add certain credibility to provenance . It would be interesting to know what support is provided for attribution to that particular unit.

The specific 'pandour' units were disbanded after c.1747, and had become quite out of control, as they had essentially become outlaw with their depradations and looting. The very fearsome tribal warrior nature of these units however did appeal to the military of some European countries such as France, and Austria who installed units within regimental perameters to operate as auxiliary units in their armies. Much as with Caucasians in service of Russia in Cossack regiments, these forces were entitled to use their own weapons rather than any regimental issue.

All the best,
Jim

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

21st February 2005, 08:01 PM	#12
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,200	Hi Erlikhan, I think possibly the term 'tughra' was probably used improperly as I was thinking it applied generally to the type cartouche seen on the blade, and in review that term should apply to such marking for the Sultan only correct? In any case you are also correct in noting that these irregular units with their non-regulation and flamboyant uniforms would not necessarily have conformed to a particular weapon or any certain markings on the blade. Tom's note is again, quite valid, in that a weapon of this quality was most certainly privately owned, and such weapons were not issued to the ranks. In looking at the description from the auction listing, it seems quite detailed in noting the unit, which would seem to add certain credibility to provenance . It would be interesting to know what support is provided for attribution to that particular unit. The specific 'pandour' units were disbanded after c.1747, and had become quite out of control, as they had essentially become outlaw with their depradations and looting. The very fearsome tribal warrior nature of these units however did appeal to the military of some European countries such as France, and Austria who installed units within regimental perameters to operate as auxiliary units in their armies. Much as with Caucasians in service of Russia in Cossack regiments, these forces were entitled to use their own weapons rather than any regimental issue. All the best, Jim