The Ultimate Karabela Guide

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by awdaniec666

Below I post an image of another Karabela (edit: Type II saber). Feel free to examine it yourself and think about it. I will be happy if you post your results in a comment.\

This is a hard one. I have stared at this item a bit for several mornings puzzled. The size of the picture makes it hard to see the overall proportions (maybe 900-1000 tall so that it fits the screen next time).

Blade: The blade reminds me of 17th century Tatar examples with a bluntish spear point. It lacks fullers and/or a central rib. The forte seems straighter and slightly slanted towards the back of the hilt, not the mild forward lean of the Turkic/Mongol peoples from the steppe to the east (Kipchaqs/Mongols/Tatars). Of course if the blade was a recycled blade, the blade/hilt angle could have been altered then. There is a hint of a yelman without a definitive hammer. I cannot see if there is a ricasso. I am guessing that it is a laminated blade from the picture.

Hilt: The hilt is of the Polish type with a 90 degree birds beak. Is it of sandwich construction? There seem to be hollow rivets. Horn scales?

Guard: Small guard with the overall shape influenced by the NE sabers from the 15th century. To echo awdanie666's question; What are the pieces of the guard that go down into the handle and project above the guard forming a cross called? Wasy in Polish? Langlets or beard in English?

Time: Would this be a 18th century saber with a recycled blade? To me it looks like it could be functional or parade depending on the sheath.

Do we know where the balance point is?

A side note on technique. Rivkin said that the reason for the bend in the NE sabers was that when cutting the bend allowed the grip to be relaxed just before before impact to reduce the chance of breaking a wrist.

awdaniec666, thank you again for doing all this research and translation. It is a fascinating subject.

[awdaniec666]

Originally Posted by Interested Party

To echo awdanie666's question; What are the pieces of the guard that go down into the handle and project above the guard forming a cross called? Wasy in Polish? Langlets or beard in English

Its lovely to see I am not alone when it comes to this part of a saber. For our cause. Lets just call its "wasy" or "beard" then. ("Beard" is directly translated).

Following comes the official statement for this saber as shown on the wikipedia.
It is located in the "Livrustkammaren" in Stockholm, Sweden.
The image I have used is for common share (Thanks to the museum! ). Its official description on the wikipedia is as follows (translated from swedish to english via google):

"Fastener clad with plates of dark brown wood, fastened with rivets with knurled brass heads, two preserved of originally three. At the top bent forward in lace and contoured, around, the front and back rail of gilded brass with punched vine.

Short straight pair bars of gilded brass with spherical ends and in one with guide rails. The cross is decorated in chiseled relief with a cross surrounded by flowers.

Steel blade, 34 mm wide, curved, single-edged to the approximately 154 mm long two-edged tip portion. "

The information on wikipedia says its from the 17th century. This is not the case. As I know from the offical exhibition in the museum, the sign under this specific Karabela is signed "Polish saber, around 1700".

So... There you have it. The answer which is backed by historians is: "A Polish saber around 1700".

But what would we be if we would not intend to be more catholic than the pope in this thread?

The following is my own opinion. I respect the scientific expertise and limits of archeology and history and therefore dont aim at correcting professionals on antique weaponry. The following is just a guess based on my experience and knowledge for educational purpose...


Style of blade:
To be honest, this is a shape I came across only once. It looks like somebody wanted a Karabela-ish blade. The point was and is not really meant to thrust. I would go that far and say this is meant to look like an actual battle-ready blade, but it doesnt show things like fullers etc.. Yes, there is something like a "feather"/"pioro"/yelmen but very, very rudimentary. Just from that I think this blade is way too heavy-balanced tipwards, to be used for combat and too short to be a cavalry-chopper.

Crossguard: Shape is in ottoman style of the 17th century. The thickness/strenght is questionable. Broader/stronger crossguards made of steel can be found bent in other museums. This is not meant for battle in my opinion. The decoration looks like made in the mid 18th century for somebody who wanted to wear this saber for "parade" reasons. Brass is a good material, but not as durable as steel, so again...

Hilt: Polish decorative style of the ending 18th century. Absolutely no signs of architecture which helps to avoid sliding in the hand (szewrony, prominent rivets). Just plain wood. Brass rivets clearly dont go through the tang but are mounted on iron nails (can be seen because one brass "rivet-crown" is missing. I know this weapon only from this angle of view, there cannot say anything about the hilt design (sandwich/uni-blade?).

Conclusion:

Decorative polish saber with a karabela-hilt from between 1750-1850. (Karabela kontuszowa).

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by awdaniec666

Its lovely to see I am not alone when it comes to this part of a saber. For our cause. Lets just call its "wasy" or "beard" then. ("Beard" is directly translated).

Steel blade, 34 mm wide, curved, single-edged to the approximately 154 mm long two-edged tip portion.[/I] "

Style of blade:
To be honest, this is a shape I came across only once. It looks like somebody wanted a Karabela-ish blade. The point was and is not really meant to thrust. I would go that far and say this is meant to look like an actual battle-ready blade, but it doesnt show things like fullers etc.. Yes, there is something like a "feather"/"pioro"/yelmen but very, very rudimentary. Just from that I think this blade is way too heavy-balanced tipwards, to be used for combat and too short to be a cavalry-chopper.

Wasy it is then. I have not found a better word.

I am posting a blade with a similar cross section and a profile that is in many ways similar as well, if you take the forward slant away from the forte. Rivkin in his book A Study of the Eastern Sword although he says there were similar 13th century Kipchaq and Mongolian blades attributes this pattern to Mamluk Egypt. He states that in the 16-17th centuries it was produced in Egypt, Persia, and the Ottoman empire congruently. They could be made of bulat or plain steel.

PS. it seems 800 mp high might be the most we can use and fit a picture entirely on the screen. This attachment was 900 tall.

[awdaniec666]

Thank you for this correction. You are right, the blades do look very similar!
I´m happy to have the opportunity to learn here
Is the image from " A Study of the Eastern Sword"? It looks very well made.
Edit: Looking at the tatar blade on the image you have posted, it seems to me that there is a wide fuller (or should it be called a broad and shallow depression) on the blade as well as a little hammer. I missed these kind of things on the Livrustkammaren Karabela. This is why I had the thought of a decorative-only blade in the first place. It looks like just a plain piece of shaped metal to me.

[awdaniec666]

The Ultimate Karabela Guide - PART 4

This part is about makers marks. It is a quiet difficult topic and there is enough to write a book about it. This here is just for orientation. I recommend reading the "Early Makers Marks" thread in this forum, since a lot of Karabelas are marked with the toothed sickle mark, sometimes called "Gurda" in the Caucaus, "sierpy" in Poland. Those marks appear on A LOT of blades from between 1500 to 1700, Dussacks, Schiavonna, Wallon-swords etc..

---
Brief overview

Smiths providing blades which were used on Karabela hilts and had marks which allow for differentiation were mainly located in:

- Persia
- Ottoman Empire
- Hungary
- Northern Italy (Genua)
- Southern Germany (Solingen, Passau)
- Austria (Steiermark)

When it comes to the European workshops there is a huge problem in distinguishing some makers marks. Take the sickle for example. It is said to come from Genua and its colonies (They had colonies in the Caucasus -> Gurda). It has been copied by at least a handful of locations across Europe: Steiermark, Hungary, Poland and the Caucasus region.

How do you approach research in distinguishing similar marks:
Take the "Passauer wolf" as an example. This mark has been changed through history and locations and there is enough literature where you can easily look up how the wolf mark has been made in a specific time and which workshop used a specific example (as far we can know now).

See Image 1

The following images are here to provide you a basic understanding of how those marks were made and how they look like. Keep in mind that most of them (not all) have been stamped into the blade when it was still formable. Those stamps could be used few times before beeing destroyed in the process.

When it comes to the sickle-mark there are many variations. Sickles besides each other, sickles above each other, with stars around them, with simple dots etc..
The same goes for other marks, as you see in the Passauer wolf image.

There is no complete list of marks and their workshops. I doubt that there will be one. All we could do is to create a database where we gather those marks. One will probably not find out where every mark is from since import/export of blades back then was very common. Weapons were often build by "sword-makers" (German: "Schwertfeger") from imported parts: A blade could come from Germany, the crossguard could have been made by Armenians in Lwów, the wooden handle by a Hungarian craftsman. Such items were delivered or even ordered to a certain workshop where they were matched to a user-optimized weapon.

Most of these images have been taken from type II sabers. Three are from the "makers marks" thread on this forum. One has been taken from a 17th century German rapier. Another depicts the Persian lion mark which can be also found on Stephan Batorys saber in thr MWP in Warsaw. Because of time-lack I wont get into presenting the whole weapon with its marks. This would take too much time which I sadly have not.

Keywords you can use to find makers marks on the internet:

-FRINGIA
-Sickle-mark
-Gurda
-Passauer Wolf
-Solingen mark
-Persian lion mark

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by awdaniec666

Thank you for this correction. You are right, the blades do look very similar!

Is the image from " A Study of the Eastern Sword"? It looks very well made.
Edit: Looking at the tatar blade on the image you have posted, it seems to me that there is a wide fuller (or should it be called a broad and shallow depression) on the blade as well as a little hammer. I missed these kind of things on the Livrustkammaren Karabela. This is why I had the thought of a decorative-only blade in the first place. It looks like just a plain piece of shaped metal to me.

Not a correction. Just an idea.

I've noticed that there are of Indian/Afghan tulwars of a similar cross section and profile. As you mention wide shallow fullers are notoriously hard to determine in photographs. I would not know how this relates to your subject as Indian sword techniques to my understanding have a stiffer wrist (I have heard that the disc and short grip may lock the hand in place) and the Indian style used a lot of slicing/ draw cut movements. How these preferred movements would effect the desired balance, weight of the blade etc., I do not have the competence to answer.

[awdaniec666]

This is a problem we share. I am very much into Karabela sabers, a little bit less into hungarian-polish types and everything else oscillates around that for me, so I very much appreciate knowledge on tangent topics, when it comes f.e. to re-mounted blades of distant origin

[awdaniec666]

Hey folks,

I would like to ask you if anybody has a book, magazine or single pictures of the National exhibition to celebrate "thousand years of hungary" in Budapest which has been there from 1897 to 1901.

This would be a major contribution.
Thanks