¿ YATAGAN SABER?

tom hyle · 5th February 2005, 01:07 PM

Yep, nice. Again, essentially a sha'sh'ka. One wonders of there isn't another local name for these than yatagan; at least yatagan with some sort of modifier. Note the regionality; that's a salwar yatagan bolster.

Yannis · 5th February 2005, 01:15 PM

My opinion is that this is a central asian shashka. Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc. I have seen some but this is the most well done of all.
The scabbard is fine, exept the worn leather that it is normal for the 100 years of its age.

Carlos, are fittings made of silver as I suppose?

tom hyle · 5th February 2005, 01:28 PM

Yes, it IS a sha'sh'ka, but is that what it would locally be called, or are we helplessly transposing a kazak word, having no alternative? And is that an important matter? Not really to me, in truth; just an idle wondering; all the local terminology seems to be of great interest to some other people though.

tom hyle · 5th February 2005, 01:32 PM

Yes, it IS a sha'sh'ka, but is that what it would locally be called, or are we helplessly transposing a kazak word, having no alternative? And is that an important matter? Not really to me, in truth; just an idle wondering; all the local terminology seems to be of great interest to some other people though.
The main difference from Caucasian sha'sh'ka per se is length; with the Caucasian swords having grown to longswords, while these, like yatagan per se, seem to have remained most usually the ancestral size; what I categorize as "regular size" (ie. niether long nor short) swords. Is shah shish ka a big blade or the blade of the big? A lord of swords or the sword of lords? (It's common for barbarians, when confronted with mostly citified ideas of social division/stratification, and kazaks have a reputation for this, to speak of themselves as all being lords, kings, or heros.)
Note a tendency in Western Europe for the long sabre to turn into a regular length sword (hanger), perhaps under influence from falchion/long-sax, but I think also because its use comes more natural (no matter what Burton might have said; Burton was given to the usuall trained fencer's elitist/superiorist thing [ie "the way I was taught is THE WAY and there is no other...."], and was basically criticizing the naturalness of hanger use; giving more, perhaps too much, credit to his beloved "scientific" swordsmanship; it's not unreminscent of Samurai training manuals sneering at peasants and common soldiers and their swords.).

Yannis · 5th February 2005, 03:39 PM

Tom, as usual, you hit a point. Personally I dont care about the length of the sword as far as I feel it ok in my hand.
Talking of shaskhas my favorite sword this period is an asian type shaskha . This beauty is the one that I could choose to hold if I had to fight with swords

It has great balance and a strong blade (german I think). But before this, my favourite arm was a medium size kilij. There is a difference of 20cm (!) between them, but both have great “feeling”. I cant say the same for all my swords.

Rivkin · 5th February 2005, 03:48 PM

Afaik the other difference is that caucasian shashka is usually mounted with the hilt fully exposed and essentially bigger in diameter than the scabbard's opening.

"Asian" shashkas usually have extremely large scabbard's opening, so the hilt goes partially into the scabbard.

Just my 2c.

Yannis · 5th February 2005, 07:29 PM

I thought it was quite the opposite. The most shaskhas have the kind of scabbard you describe but some of the so called “asian” have the hilt bigger than the scabbard, so they overlap it. Like the shaskha I show here.

Also my opinion is that it is better to call this type “Islamic” than “asian”, because it comes from the muslim tribes of Caucasus. So we can have a difference from Carlos shaskha that is “central asian”.

I wish I read more opinions here.

ariel · 6th February 2005, 11:37 PM

Lebedynsky calls it "pseudo-shashka".
As a part of the Great Game, the Russians started their conquest of the Central Asia (Bukhara, Khokand, Khwarism, Samarkand etc) sometimes in the middle third of the 19th century. They deployed regular army units and Cossack troops. That is when the locals were first acquainted with the Cossack Shashkas and started copying it. However, they still had their local motives preserved: the bolster and the blade sunk deep into the scabbard are direct descendants of the Khyber Knife (Salawar Yataghan). Thus, the Caucasian (handle outside) and the Asian (sunk handle) types were defined as such by the Russian military and the terms are of later origin.
Whereas Caucasian Shashkas had relatively short and light blades, the Central Asian often had very large and heavy ones. Another difference is the handle: Caucasian have an almost cylindrical body of the handle , with equal width throughout. Asian shashkas have relatively thin handle close to the blade and it widens toward the eared pommel.
Subsequently, Caucasian swordmakers went to Bukhara (already under the Russian control) and there was an active exchange of techniques: that is whence enameling came to the Caucasus.

5th February 2005, 01:32 PM	#4
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Yes, it IS a sha'sh'ka, but is that what it would locally be called, or are we helplessly transposing a kazak word, having no alternative? And is that an important matter? Not really to me, in truth; just an idle wondering; all the local terminology seems to be of great interest to some other people though. The main difference from Caucasian sha'sh'ka per se is length; with the Caucasian swords having grown to longswords, while these, like yatagan per se, seem to have remained most usually the ancestral size; what I categorize as "regular size" (ie. niether long nor short) swords. Is shah shish ka a big blade or the blade of the big? A lord of swords or the sword of lords? (It's common for barbarians, when confronted with mostly citified ideas of social division/stratification, and kazaks have a reputation for this, to speak of themselves as all being lords, kings, or heros.) Note a tendency in Western Europe for the long sabre to turn into a regular length sword (hanger), perhaps under influence from falchion/long-sax, but I think also because its use comes more natural (no matter what Burton might have said; Burton was given to the usuall trained fencer's elitist/superiorist thing [ie "the way I was taught is THE WAY and there is no other...."], and was basically criticizing the naturalness of hanger use; giving more, perhaps too much, credit to his beloved "scientific" swordsmanship; it's not unreminscent of Samurai training manuals sneering at peasants and common soldiers and their swords.). Last edited by tom hyle; 5th February 2005 at 01:46 PM.

5th February 2005, 03:39 PM	#5
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	Tom, as usual, you hit a point. Personally I dont care about the length of the sword as far as I feel it ok in my hand. Talking of shaskhas my favorite sword this period is an asian type shaskha . This beauty is the one that I could choose to hold if I had to fight with swords It has great balance and a strong blade (german I think). But before this, my favourite arm was a medium size kilij. There is a difference of 20cm (!) between them, but both have great “feeling”. I cant say the same for all my swords. Attached Images

5th February 2005, 01:07 PM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Yep, nice. Again, essentially a sha'sh'ka. One wonders of there isn't another local name for these than yatagan; at least yatagan with some sort of modifier. Note the regionality; that's a salwar yatagan bolster.

5th February 2005, 01:15 PM	#2
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	My opinion is that this is a central asian shashka. Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc. I have seen some but this is the most well done of all. The scabbard is fine, exept the worn leather that it is normal for the 100 years of its age. Carlos, are fittings made of silver as I suppose?

5th February 2005, 01:28 PM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Yes, it IS a sha'sh'ka, but is that what it would locally be called, or are we helplessly transposing a kazak word, having no alternative? And is that an important matter? Not really to me, in truth; just an idle wondering; all the local terminology seems to be of great interest to some other people though.

5th February 2005, 03:48 PM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Afaik the other difference is that caucasian shashka is usually mounted with the hilt fully exposed and essentially bigger in diameter than the scabbard's opening. "Asian" shashkas usually have extremely large scabbard's opening, so the hilt goes partially into the scabbard. Just my 2c.

5th February 2005, 07:29 PM	#7
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	I thought it was quite the opposite. The most shaskhas have the kind of scabbard you describe but some of the so called “asian” have the hilt bigger than the scabbard, so they overlap it. Like the shaskha I show here. Also my opinion is that it is better to call this type “Islamic” than “asian”, because it comes from the muslim tribes of Caucasus. So we can have a difference from Carlos shaskha that is “central asian”. I wish I read more opinions here.

6th February 2005, 11:37 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Lebedynsky calls it "pseudo-shashka". As a part of the Great Game, the Russians started their conquest of the Central Asia (Bukhara, Khokand, Khwarism, Samarkand etc) sometimes in the middle third of the 19th century. They deployed regular army units and Cossack troops. That is when the locals were first acquainted with the Cossack Shashkas and started copying it. However, they still had their local motives preserved: the bolster and the blade sunk deep into the scabbard are direct descendants of the Khyber Knife (Salawar Yataghan). Thus, the Caucasian (handle outside) and the Asian (sunk handle) types were defined as such by the Russian military and the terms are of later origin. Whereas Caucasian Shashkas had relatively short and light blades, the Central Asian often had very large and heavy ones. Another difference is the handle: Caucasian have an almost cylindrical body of the handle , with equal width throughout. Asian shashkas have relatively thin handle close to the blade and it widens toward the eared pommel. Subsequently, Caucasian swordmakers went to Bukhara (already under the Russian control) and there was an active exchange of techniques: that is whence enameling came to the Caucasus.