Karabela for comment

TVV · 25th December 2007, 11:02 PM

Jeff, I do not mond diverting the thread a bit - after all, this forum's purpose is the enhancement of our knowledge about the things we collect. I wonder whether there is any evidence that the karabela hilt became popular in areas under strong Persian influence, such as Central Asia and Northern India? If the form originated in Persia, it is logical that it should have spread in the regions, where Persian fashions were followed.

TVV · 26th December 2007, 03:00 AM

I was searching for other info when I accidentally stumbled upon a sword with a karabela hilt and a little different crossguard with down-turned quillons in a book about the weapons of Peter the Great. The description states that the blade is wootz, the hilt is made of tortoise shell, and that the crossguard, scabbard mouth and scabbard chape are marked with the tugra of Sultan Ahmed I (1603-1617). Perhaps another clue pointing towards Ottoman origin.

Jeff D · 26th December 2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVV

Jeff, I do not mond diverting the thread a bit - after all, this forum's purpose is the enhancement of our knowledge about the things we collect. I wonder whether there is any evidence that the karabela hilt became popular in areas under strong Persian influence, such as Central Asia and Northern India? If the form originated in Persia, it is logical that it should have spread in the regions, where Persian fashions were followed.

Great observation Teodor,

To my knowledge, Central Asia essentially used the classic persian shamshir hilt as well as their own local/regional styles ie Bukhara hilts, shashka like etc.. I will await Ariels observation as he is much more familiar with this region then myself. North India again favored the Tulwar and classic shamshir hilt, animal motifs are also seen but I cannot think of any Indian made Karabella hilts (they must exist, if only for export).
The style was mass produced in Poland, Saxony and Russia as well as the middle east (Nadolski Pg36-37).
I like your epicenter approach.

Best of the Season
Jeff

ariel · 26th December 2007, 08:50 PM

Let's define the question: Karabela is a saber with a characteristic "eaglehead" handle.

This is, supposedly, the contribution of Shah Abbas ( 1571-1629, reigned since 1588). He first invaded Mesopotamia ( war with the Ottoman Empire) in 1603-1605 and that was the earliest he could see the shrine in Karbala from the door grilles of which he supposedly got the inspiration for the new type of handle ( as per M. Khorasani's book " Arms and Armor from Iran"). The author cites Lebedynsky's description of a portrait of Sultan Selim the Grim (reigned 1512-1520) wearing this type of sword, but persists in claiming that the priority belongs to the Safavids. The earliest example cited by him is the sword attributed to Shah Safi ( 1629-1642). That should be enough already.

Additional evidence in favor of a Turkish origin:
1. Kwasniewicz " Dzieja sczabli w Polsce"
- cites contemporary descriptions of the raid by Kalisk and Poznan principalities against Turks and Wallachs in 1497-1498, with Poles armed with "karabelkas"

- Early 16th century doggerel by Waclaw Potocki
" As long as we carried swords, sabers and kords,
We were not afraid of the Horde.
But as soon as Karabelkas and Czeczugas got to be worn by a Pole,
The plows went idle over Ukraine and Podol"
( Sorry for the translation

)
- p.72: pictures of Polish "eagle head sabers with or without yelman, dated to 16-17th centuries.
- description of "eaglehead" Polish swords in the museum collections in London, Netherlands and Sweden ( captured during the Swedish "deluge" war in 1655-1660, but, obviously, made earlier)

2. Astvatsaturyan : "Turkish Weapons"
- cites and shows ( p.90) drawings of an" eaglehead" sword from the book by De Marsilli ( real spelling was, likely, different, but the book was published in Russian in St. Petersbourg, 1737) " Military state of the Ottoman Empire with its ascendancy and decline"
_ presents photographs of several Ottoman "eaglehead" swords from the collection of the State Historical Museum in Moscow, bearing tugras of Ahmed II ( 1691-1695) and his successors till 1730.

3. "Hongaarse Wapenpraal"

_ p.38: picture of a Hungarian saber with eaglehead handle dated to the beginning of 17th cen.

4.Wagner " Swords and Daggers"
- pp. 96-97: Turkish and Polish Karabelas with "eaglehead" handles dated 17th cen from "MM's" collection

5."Ubojite Ostrice" ( collection from Croatian museums)

- p.70: Hungarian "eaglehead " Karabela 17th cen

Thus, it is quite obvious that the "eaglehead" Karabela handle was known in Eastern Europe and Turkey well before the supposed visit of Shah Abbas to Karbala. Nothing to do with Persia.
Well, at least, Safavid Persia invented... Nanotechnology!

http://www.persianmirror.com/Article...ubCategory=115

Jeff D · 27th December 2007, 04:50 PM

Hi Ariel,

Awesome references. The Sha Safi Karabela is shown in the middle portrait above. Oliver Pinchot note that it most likely is the same as his fathers.

Here is a quote from Pg 62 of Orez Perski Lech Kobyliniski states;

On portraits of Sha Abbas the Great dating from the 17th century shamshirs with a carabela hilt appear. This type of hilt can also be seen in portraits of Shah Safi and Shah Abbas II. On one picture in Padshahnama, which shows the audience granted by the emperoe Shahjahan to a Persian ambassador, the Persians carry sabers with such a hilt. Based on these portraits, some authors connect the genesis of the carabela hilt with Persia, however it is known that this type of hilt also appeared in much earlier Turkish sabers and so it probably originated there and was adopted in Persia later. Anyhow, it was used only in court sabers, and it was popular only for a short period of time.

I will see if I can find some of these earlier Turkish sabers. Looks like it is starting to swing your way.

All the Best
Jeff

ariel · 27th December 2007, 05:01 PM

Another hint:
Some time ago I posted this Yataghan:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4728
and thought it had a Karabela handle.
I was corrected, however, by several Forumites. This is the so-called North African form of the Yataghan handle.
However, look how similar it is to the "eaglehead" configuration!
I would say the N. African handle was a local modification of the Karabela one. Any disagreements?
Another area of Ottoman influence, and no connection with Persia!

TVV · 15th March 2010, 09:40 PM

My friend in Bulgaria, in his latest attempt to cause me great envy, has added another karabela hilted sword to his collection.

Tha blade is marked with what looks like a hand holding a cleaver, I am assuming meant as a stylized version of a kilidj (a blade with a yelman). Looking at the old markings thread, I saw similar markings, such as one by Peter Munich. In Munich's version though, the sword was straight and double edged. Does anyone recognize this particular marking?

Also, what would be a good guess on age? Late 17th century? There are a few similarly hilted swords in Vienna in displays associated with the second siege of the city by the Ottomans, thus my guess.

Many thanks for all responses,

Teodor

ariel · 15th March 2010, 11:37 PM

Nice to see old threads being resuscitated.
Somebody ( Alzheimer playing tricks again) on the Forum advanced another line: The Karabela handle was widespread all across the Ottoman sphere of influence, but pitifully sparse in Persia proper ( in fact, only a couple of pictures with Shahs sporting them) and never East of Persia or in Persia-influenced ( on-and -off) Daghestan. To attribute Karabela to Persia simply because Poland had good relations with Persia and Poles carried Karabelas is an argument of a dubious nature. Poland never shared a border with Iran, and their trade was limited to occasional batches of expensive souvenirs brought to Poland by Armenian traders. In contrast, Poles were in constant contact with the Hungarians, Tatars and Turks ( their borders spread down almost to the Black Sea).To amplify it even further, the ultimate Persian sword, Shamshir, was never popular in Poland. If we to believe the "Poland as the proving ground" theory, we need to ask ourselves: why did Poles choose an unpopular "Persian" sword karabela and ignored shamshir? My answer: because karabela did not come to them from Persia.
Interstingly, Cossacks, Poles close neighbors, carried a lot of shamshirs, but they raided Persia since 17th century ( Sten'ka Razin, for example).
That should be enough for anybody to conclude the origin. No?

26th December 2007, 03:00 AM	#2
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,666	I was searching for other info when I accidentally stumbled upon a sword with a karabela hilt and a little different crossguard with down-turned quillons in a book about the weapons of Peter the Great. The description states that the blade is wootz, the hilt is made of tortoise shell, and that the crossguard, scabbard mouth and scabbard chape are marked with the tugra of Sultan Ahmed I (1603-1617). Perhaps another clue pointing towards Ottoman origin. Attached Images

26th December 2007, 08:50 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Let's define the question: Karabela is a saber with a characteristic "eaglehead" handle. This is, supposedly, the contribution of Shah Abbas ( 1571-1629, reigned since 1588). He first invaded Mesopotamia ( war with the Ottoman Empire) in 1603-1605 and that was the earliest he could see the shrine in Karbala from the door grilles of which he supposedly got the inspiration for the new type of handle ( as per M. Khorasani's book " Arms and Armor from Iran"). The author cites Lebedynsky's description of a portrait of Sultan Selim the Grim (reigned 1512-1520) wearing this type of sword, but persists in claiming that the priority belongs to the Safavids. The earliest example cited by him is the sword attributed to Shah Safi ( 1629-1642). That should be enough already. Additional evidence in favor of a Turkish origin: 1. Kwasniewicz " Dzieja sczabli w Polsce" - cites contemporary descriptions of the raid by Kalisk and Poznan principalities against Turks and Wallachs in 1497-1498, with Poles armed with "karabelkas" - Early 16th century doggerel by Waclaw Potocki " As long as we carried swords, sabers and kords, We were not afraid of the Horde. But as soon as Karabelkas and Czeczugas got to be worn by a Pole, The plows went idle over Ukraine and Podol" ( Sorry for the translation ) - p.72: pictures of Polish "eagle head sabers with or without yelman, dated to 16-17th centuries. - description of "eaglehead" Polish swords in the museum collections in London, Netherlands and Sweden ( captured during the Swedish "deluge" war in 1655-1660, but, obviously, made earlier) 2. Astvatsaturyan : "Turkish Weapons" - cites and shows ( p.90) drawings of an" eaglehead" sword from the book by De Marsilli ( real spelling was, likely, different, but the book was published in Russian in St. Petersbourg, 1737) " Military state of the Ottoman Empire with its ascendancy and decline" _ presents photographs of several Ottoman "eaglehead" swords from the collection of the State Historical Museum in Moscow, bearing tugras of Ahmed II ( 1691-1695) and his successors till 1730. 3. "Hongaarse Wapenpraal" _ p.38: picture of a Hungarian saber with eaglehead handle dated to the beginning of 17th cen. 4.Wagner " Swords and Daggers" - pp. 96-97: Turkish and Polish Karabelas with "eaglehead" handles dated 17th cen from "MM's" collection 5."Ubojite Ostrice" ( collection from Croatian museums) - p.70: Hungarian "eaglehead " Karabela 17th cen Thus, it is quite obvious that the "eaglehead" Karabela handle was known in Eastern Europe and Turkey well before the supposed visit of Shah Abbas to Karbala. Nothing to do with Persia. Well, at least, Safavid Persia invented... Nanotechnology! http://www.persianmirror.com/Article...ubCategory=115 Last edited by ariel; 26th December 2007 at 11:21 PM.

27th December 2007, 04:50 PM	#5
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Ariel, Awesome references. The Sha Safi Karabela is shown in the middle portrait above. Oliver Pinchot note that it most likely is the same as his fathers. Here is a quote from Pg 62 of Orez Perski Lech Kobyliniski states; On portraits of Sha Abbas the Great dating from the 17th century shamshirs with a carabela hilt appear. This type of hilt can also be seen in portraits of Shah Safi and Shah Abbas II. On one picture in Padshahnama, which shows the audience granted by the emperoe Shahjahan to a Persian ambassador, the Persians carry sabers with such a hilt. Based on these portraits, some authors connect the genesis of the carabela hilt with Persia, however it is known that this type of hilt also appeared in much earlier Turkish sabers and so it probably originated there and was adopted in Persia later. Anyhow, it was used only in court sabers, and it was popular only for a short period of time. I will see if I can find some of these earlier Turkish sabers. Looks like it is starting to swing your way. All the Best Jeff

15th March 2010, 09:40 PM	#7
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,666	My friend in Bulgaria, in his latest attempt to cause me great envy, has added another karabela hilted sword to his collection. Tha blade is marked with what looks like a hand holding a cleaver, I am assuming meant as a stylized version of a kilidj (a blade with a yelman). Looking at the old markings thread, I saw similar markings, such as one by Peter Munich. In Munich's version though, the sword was straight and double edged. Does anyone recognize this particular marking? Also, what would be a good guess on age? Late 17th century? There are a few similarly hilted swords in Vienna in displays associated with the second siege of the city by the Ottomans, thus my guess. Many thanks for all responses, Teodor Attached Images

25th December 2007, 11:02 PM	#1
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,666	Jeff, I do not mond diverting the thread a bit - after all, this forum's purpose is the enhancement of our knowledge about the things we collect. I wonder whether there is any evidence that the karabela hilt became popular in areas under strong Persian influence, such as Central Asia and Northern India? If the form originated in Persia, it is logical that it should have spread in the regions, where Persian fashions were followed.

27th December 2007, 05:01 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Another hint: Some time ago I posted this Yataghan: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4728 and thought it had a Karabela handle. I was corrected, however, by several Forumites. This is the so-called North African form of the Yataghan handle. However, look how similar it is to the "eaglehead" configuration! I would say the N. African handle was a local modification of the Karabela one. Any disagreements? Another area of Ottoman influence, and no connection with Persia!

15th March 2010, 11:37 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Nice to see old threads being resuscitated. Somebody ( Alzheimer playing tricks again) on the Forum advanced another line: The Karabela handle was widespread all across the Ottoman sphere of influence, but pitifully sparse in Persia proper ( in fact, only a couple of pictures with Shahs sporting them) and never East of Persia or in Persia-influenced ( on-and -off) Daghestan. To attribute Karabela to Persia simply because Poland had good relations with Persia and Poles carried Karabelas is an argument of a dubious nature. Poland never shared a border with Iran, and their trade was limited to occasional batches of expensive souvenirs brought to Poland by Armenian traders. In contrast, Poles were in constant contact with the Hungarians, Tatars and Turks ( their borders spread down almost to the Black Sea).To amplify it even further, the ultimate Persian sword, Shamshir, was never popular in Poland. If we to believe the "Poland as the proving ground" theory, we need to ask ourselves: why did Poles choose an unpopular "Persian" sword karabela and ignored shamshir? My answer: because karabela did not come to them from Persia. Interstingly, Cossacks, Poles close neighbors, carried a lot of shamshirs, but they raided Persia since 17th century ( Sten'ka Razin, for example). That should be enough for anybody to conclude the origin. No?