Yataghan

ariel · 20th February 2005, 06:13 AM

Just ended.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MEWA:IT

It is a very nice Yataghan, no doubt. According to the seller, it is in fact Austro-Hungarian . I was totally unaware that some Austro-Hungarian units carried Yataghans. Anybody has better information?

erlikhan · 20th February 2005, 10:18 AM

Austro Hungarian army had some Bosnian legions , and they used some exotic accessories, but i can see no spesific nuance which can be related to Austria or even Bosna. Just a beautiful pure Turkish style yataghan. It belonged to somebody of course, and its owner could be a soldier from those legions too, who knows, but nothing special to prove it, as far as I see. (But perhaps the inscription can reveal something to deny me).Its price climbed a bit high for an unscabbarded yataghan,making me stay away. This Austro-Hungarian story had a share in its price i guess.

tom hyle · 20th February 2005, 01:05 PM

The story seems bizarre; I'm curious as to any evidence/provenence/source of attribution; to me also this looks like a rather ornate hand made traditional yatagan; it certainly ian't a mass produced piece we'd expect to see associated with an European military unit....In reference to yatagans in Hungary I have the term karakalak or karakulak. The ones I've seen had integral forged bolsters, unwrapped flat tangs, and wider tips than common on Turkish yatagans.

Battara · 20th February 2005, 02:01 PM

I doubt Austro-Hungarian. However, under Ottoman rule the Bosnians and the region were issued yataghans, especially as part of the Janissary corps.

Unique forte design. The rest is nice and Ottoman.

tom hyle · 20th February 2005, 03:03 PM

Again I'd just like to say that this does not look to me like anything that was issued to anyone anywhere; this looks like a nice privately bought or possibly gift/presentation piece. It ain't no field grade military piece that was handed out in stacks.

Jim McDougall · 20th February 2005, 05:34 PM

Ariel,
While the seller is correct in degree by the statement that there were components of Austro-Hungary's forces who did use some forms of the yataghan, the obvious presence of the tuhgra on the blade would preclude that including this Ottoman example. The components I refer to were the 'pandours' who were irregular mercenary forces assembled from frontier guards and private militia type troops that came from regions in Croatia primarily, as well as Slovenian.
While assemblages of Balkan troops from widely varying regions comprised these pandour units, and the possibility of certain Balkan form of yataghans is plausible, it should be noted that those participating typically fought against Ottoman forces, and use of an Ottoman yataghan, even captured, would seem unlikely. The Balkan yataghan forms are also noticeably different in the hilts, which typically have a studded appearance.

The often referenced 'yataghan' sidearms typically carried by pandours were of the hunting sword type (couteau de chasse) and had a 'karabela' type hilt in profile which often had a degree of cleft pommel, which presumably led to the yataghan descriptive term.

A very nice example Ottoman yataghan, which however is unlikely to have anything to do with Austro-Hungarian forces, and especially as Tom has noted, certainly not a weapon issued in numbers to rank and file.

Best regards,
Jim

Radu Transylvanicus · 20th February 2005, 05:49 PM

I recently posted quiet a few pics of similar yathagans from a Transylvanian museum in Timisoara , a city that was under Ottoman rule for a while. For those who need a refreshment here is the link: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=313
And Jim, Ariel it was quiet common that auxiliaries from Austro-Hungarian Empire like Transylvanians or Wallachians (I am sure the case with Bosnians) they do not have to be Muslim necesary or serving under ,,crescent moon,, flag, it was simply a popular and colorful weapon. Carried in different shapes by haidouks, pandouri, arnaouti, panziri, estradioti and others east of Italy to Antalya and from Poland to Greece ...
Jim, you think that the world of yathagans is more distinct in geography and shapes than it really is, noope ... Walrus grip, eared pommel, coralite studs, silver/brass spines on yathagans were everywhere Ottomans traded heavily.

Jim McDougall · 20th February 2005, 06:22 PM

Hello Radu,
Welcome back!!
Good points you make....and you are absolutely right, weapons have no geographic boundaries, and I did not intend to make my comments sound so arbitrary. Since these amalgams of mercenary troops were not strictly aligned with any particular regulation or regimentation, virtually anything was possible in costume or weaponry ( the term often used was 'freebooters' if I am not mistaken). I am not sure there has ever been any clear distinction offered for the identification of yataghans at least in any references I am aware of, despite the usual speculation. With the scope of the Ottoman empire covering vast territories over centuries, and regions such as the Balkans constantly in geo-political flux, I rather doubt such definition would be possible, and the range of variations of yataghan you note will often remain identified speculatively.
Thank you for the correction in my observation, which would better have been applied as a note that yataghans in all forms were used comprehensively in all these regions throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
Since religious affinity would have been nominal at best in these irregular units, it would likely be best to requalify my comment on the tughra as well

Good call Radu!

All the best,
Jim

Radu Transylvanicus · 20th February 2005, 06:52 PM

E PLURIBUS UNUM, Jim

Dont mention it !

erlikhan · 21st February 2005, 11:15 AM

Jim, I checked again but couldnt see any sultan tughra on the blade.. Just some inscriptions in Arabic alph. but no tughra emblem as far as i see. And Austria-Hungary and Ottomans didn't have any war in the period (19th c. 2nd half) which this yataghan should be produced. Austria took control of Bosna from Ottomans in 1878, but by some agreements. This yataghan could easily be used by a Bosnian moslem in local legions serving Austrian army, and Radu is right, even by a Croatian or anybody from Balkans. Fashions were more desicive than tribal identities.The only problem is that, there is nothing special to show a relation with Austrian army,or even any former Yugoslavian countries to support seller's story,- if we think this story has a part in determining the price of this yataghan-.
regards

tom hyle · 21st February 2005, 12:48 PM

Yes, that's exactly correct; it is not an army yatagan; it is not an issued yatagan. Now, it could easily be a private issue weapon that was carried by a soldier; it could even be a weapon of strictly military form that was privately sold to a soldier. The idea that military weapons are intrinsically/legally different than civillian arms is by no means universal. The issuing of standardized arms is by and large a fairly new thing; most soldiers throughout history have armed themselves, usually in accordance with some sort of requirements/regulations/traditions. Only very recent, and still quite isolated and poorly accepted, is the concept of actually prohibitting the carrying of non-issued items.

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

erlikhan · 25th February 2005, 08:54 PM

Jim, tughra is the royal emblem of the sultan in charge. formed with the full name of the sultan in a decorative manner. All of them looks same from far. an example below. Struck onto items ordered by the palace , but much more, to silver or gold items produced in market, as an aproval of their grades. If they wish, gold or silversmiths could take their products to mint office and make them tested and tughra struck, to gain customer trust. if any antique is struck by tughra, it is usually significantly more expensive than a similar item without tuhgra.
Imperial forces of 19th c. liked to have exotic legions from ethnisities under their rule, perhaps as a show of their multinational vast geographies controlling power. And, when needed, as pleased local servants from the conquered tribe, to be able to control that tribe from inside, and settle down potential fury against the occupation easier.
regards

Jim McDougall · 26th February 2005, 12:18 AM

Erlikhan,
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation of that term. This is the best thing about these threads, learning and sharing information, and the data archived to help others as they continue research on these weapons. Very nicely done!
All the best,
Jim

20th February 2005, 06:13 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yataghan Just ended. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MEWA:IT It is a very nice Yataghan, no doubt. According to the seller, it is in fact Austro-Hungarian . I was totally unaware that some Austro-Hungarian units carried Yataghans. Anybody has better information?

20th February 2005, 10:18 AM	#2
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Austro Hungarian army had some Bosnian legions , and they used some exotic accessories, but i can see no spesific nuance which can be related to Austria or even Bosna. Just a beautiful pure Turkish style yataghan. It belonged to somebody of course, and its owner could be a soldier from those legions too, who knows, but nothing special to prove it, as far as I see. (But perhaps the inscription can reveal something to deny me).Its price climbed a bit high for an unscabbarded yataghan,making me stay away. This Austro-Hungarian story had a share in its price i guess. Last edited by erlikhan; 20th February 2005 at 11:10 AM.

20th February 2005, 01:05 PM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	The story seems bizarre; I'm curious as to any evidence/provenence/source of attribution; to me also this looks like a rather ornate hand made traditional yatagan; it certainly ian't a mass produced piece we'd expect to see associated with an European military unit....In reference to yatagans in Hungary I have the term karakalak or karakulak. The ones I've seen had integral forged bolsters, unwrapped flat tangs, and wider tips than common on Turkish yatagans. Last edited by tom hyle; 20th February 2005 at 03:01 PM.

20th February 2005, 05:49 PM	#7
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	I recently posted quiet a few pics of similar yathagans from a Transylvanian museum in Timisoara , a city that was under Ottoman rule for a while. For those who need a refreshment here is the link: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=313 And Jim, Ariel it was quiet common that auxiliaries from Austro-Hungarian Empire like Transylvanians or Wallachians (I am sure the case with Bosnians) they do not have to be Muslim necesary or serving under ,,crescent moon,, flag, it was simply a popular and colorful weapon. Carried in different shapes by haidouks, pandouri, arnaouti, panziri, estradioti and others east of Italy to Antalya and from Poland to Greece ... Jim, you think that the world of yathagans is more distinct in geography and shapes than it really is, noope ... Walrus grip, eared pommel, coralite studs, silver/brass spines on yathagans were everywhere Ottomans traded heavily. Last edited by Radu Transylvanicus; 20th February 2005 at 06:00 PM.

25th February 2005, 08:54 PM	#13
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Jim, tughra is the royal emblem of the sultan in charge. formed with the full name of the sultan in a decorative manner. All of them looks same from far. an example below. Struck onto items ordered by the palace , but much more, to silver or gold items produced in market, as an aproval of their grades. If they wish, gold or silversmiths could take their products to mint office and make them tested and tughra struck, to gain customer trust. if any antique is struck by tughra, it is usually significantly more expensive than a similar item without tuhgra. Imperial forces of 19th c. liked to have exotic legions from ethnisities under their rule, perhaps as a show of their multinational vast geographies controlling power. And, when needed, as pleased local servants from the conquered tribe, to be able to control that tribe from inside, and settle down potential fury against the occupation easier. regards Attached Images

20th February 2005, 02:01 PM	#4
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,139	I doubt Austro-Hungarian. However, under Ottoman rule the Bosnians and the region were issued yataghans, especially as part of the Janissary corps. Unique forte design. The rest is nice and Ottoman.

20th February 2005, 03:03 PM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Again I'd just like to say that this does not look to me like anything that was issued to anyone anywhere; this looks like a nice privately bought or possibly gift/presentation piece. It ain't no field grade military piece that was handed out in stacks.

20th February 2005, 05:34 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,751	Ariel, While the seller is correct in degree by the statement that there were components of Austro-Hungary's forces who did use some forms of the yataghan, the obvious presence of the tuhgra on the blade would preclude that including this Ottoman example. The components I refer to were the 'pandours' who were irregular mercenary forces assembled from frontier guards and private militia type troops that came from regions in Croatia primarily, as well as Slovenian. While assemblages of Balkan troops from widely varying regions comprised these pandour units, and the possibility of certain Balkan form of yataghans is plausible, it should be noted that those participating typically fought against Ottoman forces, and use of an Ottoman yataghan, even captured, would seem unlikely. The Balkan yataghan forms are also noticeably different in the hilts, which typically have a studded appearance. The often referenced 'yataghan' sidearms typically carried by pandours were of the hunting sword type (couteau de chasse) and had a 'karabela' type hilt in profile which often had a degree of cleft pommel, which presumably led to the yataghan descriptive term. A very nice example Ottoman yataghan, which however is unlikely to have anything to do with Austro-Hungarian forces, and especially as Tom has noted, certainly not a weapon issued in numbers to rank and file. Best regards, Jim

20th February 2005, 06:22 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,751	Hello Radu, Welcome back!! Good points you make....and you are absolutely right, weapons have no geographic boundaries, and I did not intend to make my comments sound so arbitrary. Since these amalgams of mercenary troops were not strictly aligned with any particular regulation or regimentation, virtually anything was possible in costume or weaponry ( the term often used was 'freebooters' if I am not mistaken). I am not sure there has ever been any clear distinction offered for the identification of yataghans at least in any references I am aware of, despite the usual speculation. With the scope of the Ottoman empire covering vast territories over centuries, and regions such as the Balkans constantly in geo-political flux, I rather doubt such definition would be possible, and the range of variations of yataghan you note will often remain identified speculatively. Thank you for the correction in my observation, which would better have been applied as a note that yataghans in all forms were used comprehensively in all these regions throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Since religious affinity would have been nominal at best in these irregular units, it would likely be best to requalify my comment on the tughra as well Good call Radu! All the best, Jim

20th February 2005, 06:52 PM	#9
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	E PLURIBUS UNUM, Jim Dont mention it !

21st February 2005, 11:15 AM	#10
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Jim, I checked again but couldnt see any sultan tughra on the blade.. Just some inscriptions in Arabic alph. but no tughra emblem as far as i see. And Austria-Hungary and Ottomans didn't have any war in the period (19th c. 2nd half) which this yataghan should be produced. Austria took control of Bosna from Ottomans in 1878, but by some agreements. This yataghan could easily be used by a Bosnian moslem in local legions serving Austrian army, and Radu is right, even by a Croatian or anybody from Balkans. Fashions were more desicive than tribal identities.The only problem is that, there is nothing special to show a relation with Austrian army,or even any former Yugoslavian countries to support seller's story,- if we think this story has a part in determining the price of this yataghan-. regards

21st February 2005, 12:48 PM	#11
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Yes, that's exactly correct; it is not an army yatagan; it is not an issued yatagan. Now, it could easily be a private issue weapon that was carried by a soldier; it could even be a weapon of strictly military form that was privately sold to a soldier. The idea that military weapons are intrinsically/legally different than civillian arms is by no means universal. The issuing of standardized arms is by and large a fairly new thing; most soldiers throughout history have armed themselves, usually in accordance with some sort of requirements/regulations/traditions. Only very recent, and still quite isolated and poorly accepted, is the concept of actually prohibitting the carrying of non-issued items.

21st February 2005, 08:01 PM	#12
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,751	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

26th February 2005, 12:18 AM	#14
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,751	Erlikhan, Thank you so much for the detailed explanation of that term. This is the best thing about these threads, learning and sharing information, and the data archived to help others as they continue research on these weapons. Very nicely done! All the best, Jim