van Gogh Zeybek yatagan translation assistance

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I'd like to hear thoughts and observations on what you guys think......why are these weapons so weird?
Being an aviation guy......the T-tail on the Zeybek reminds me of a DC-9, but thats of course not relevant.

So, just from holding this (fairly hefty) yataghan now, it occurs to me that this T section grip is very supportive of the long draw cuts in the style that Matt Easton demonstrates here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfhC_c2Zbh0

Note how you basically drag the blade along behind the hand. A T section grip is very secure in this case because all the force is directed straight into that T. So if I had to make a guess, I would suggest that that T is more or less intended for "dragging" the sword along in a wide full body slashing motion. Of course, the sword curves the other way, and I am not trained in Zeybek swordsmanship (or really any swordsmanship other than modern fencing), so that is purely a (not very) educated guess.

On a side note, I have a pretty hefty Syrian shamshir and a related thought occurred to me; that sword is quite unwieldy unless you make those slashing cuts. When you do, you basically drag the point along after the rest of the blade along the curve of the shamshir and the momentum of the thing feels quite natural and even assists the cut (as far as I can tell from moving it at moderate speed in my living room without any target to strike).

EDIT: Although with this forward curve it does of course feel more "choppy" than "slashy". So maybe my intuition is off? Someone more knowledgeable than I please comment.

[serdar]

Originally Posted by werecow

So, just from holding this (fairly hefty) yataghan now, it occurs to me that this T section grip is very supportive of the long draw cuts in the style that Matt Easton demonstrates here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfhC_c2Zbh0

Note how you basically drag the blade along behind the hand. A T section grip is very secure in this case because all the force is directed straight into that T. So if I had to make a guess, I would suggest that that T is more or less intended for "dragging" the sword along in a wide full body slashing motion. Of course, the sword curves the other way, and I am not trained in Zeybek swordsmanship (or really any swordsmanship other than modern fencing), so that is purely a (not very) educated guess.

On a side note, I have a pretty hefty Syrian shamshir and a related thought occurred to me; that sword is quite unwieldy unless you make those slashing cuts. When you do, you basically drag the point along after the rest of the blade along the curve of the shamshir and the momentum of the thing feels quite natural and even assists the cut (as far as I can tell from moving it at moderate speed in my living room without any target to strike).

EDIT: Although with this forward curve it does of course feel more "choppy" than "slashy". So maybe my intuition is off? Someone more knowledgeable than I please comment.

You are corect, yataghan blades were used in a such way that they would hack with it and pull, same with zeybek like with any other yataghan, some blades are warped becouse of choping with them, but technique was basicaly hack, or hook, or strike and pull, in very close combat just pull.
Shamshir and other similary curwed swords (pulwars etc.) they were more pike meat slicer movement, slashong and cutting in circular moves.

[serdar]

That longer inscription could be names of sleepers and their dog.

[serdar]

Here is translation, after year, says made by Hadzi Husein, owner Ahmed-aga,
Other side are the names of the sleepers and their dog, it has a talismanic properties.
With regards.

[werecow]

Many thanks!