Is there a manual for yatagans?

ariel · 4th June 2006, 04:23 PM

Nobody answers...
I guess Erlikhan might be the source of info: a call to Askeri Muze or something like that and the dilemma will be solved.
My wild guess , there are none!
Why? Yataghans came to wide use in the 17th century and their use petered out in the first half of the 19th century. Sure, there were used even later, but by that time Turkey firmly put herself on the path of Westernization.
When in use, yataghans were kind of "private weapons". Ottomans in their imperial sunset were not very much into any systematization of anything (that was why Westernization was needed!), their army was in disarray and the Yenicheri corps (the main user of yataghans) was already destroyed and disbanded. Who needed to write manuals for the rebelling Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians?
Ah, the Ottomans... They had so many great ideas how to run a society ( free medical care, inclusion of minorities, religious tolerance, free care for the elderly and the poor), but somehow the whole enterprise deteriorated into brutalities and paranoia of the Sultans. I guess the absolute power, indeed, corrupts absolutely....

Jim McDougall · 4th June 2006, 06:27 PM

Hi Zifir,
A most interesting question, and I think what Ariel was trying to say, without the political observations, is astutely correct as pertains to the use of the yataghan. Not that I agree or disagree with the comments on geopolitical history, its just that those type observations often set discussions on a separate course.
I completely agree with the period of use assessed by Ariel for the yataghan, which has been noted by weapons historians as yet another descendant of ancient kopis bladed forms. I also agree that it was essentially a private type of weapon, and certainly not produced for military rank and file. With that being the case, it is unlikely any formal training, nor documented material describing thier manner of use would exist. The only documented source of such descriptions may be found in period narratives, which certainly would not be likely to be found in western resources.

It would seem that the yataghan, typically carried through a sash, rather than in a mounted scabbard as worn with swords, was intended mostly for secondary use as in the melee or when firearms were spent and incoming forces overran the position. Though typically considered for dismounted use, it is known that certain yataghan influenced sabres were used by mounted auxiliary forces such as the Pandours after the mid 18th century. These were almost certainly used in virtually the same drawcut, slashing type action as most likely accorded to the yataghan, rather than any sword to sword combat implied by the term 'fencing'.

While the period of use of the yataghan had virtually expired parallel with that of the sword and the advent of the use of firearms later in the 19th century, it is known that it remained a particularly deadly weapon in combat through WWI and probably later with many Balkan forces. Possibly recorded material within resources from that period, especially concerning Albanian and Montenegrin forces, might reflect thier use of yataghans in combat.

All best regards,
Jim
j

ariel · 4th June 2006, 07:19 PM

i was not trying to provoke any "political' controversy. Just that I think that the use of particular weapons is a part and parcel of societal circumstances. This is just as applicable to armoured knights vs. bowmen in medieval Europe, or the firearms vs. sword later on.
Changes in societal structure bring about changes in military doctrine and, subsequently, weapons and equally powerful forces operate in the opposite direction.
The use of Yataghan as an "unregulated' weapon was not favourable for the development of rigid system for it's use. Would be interesting to find a real "yataghan manual" to show me the error of my ways.

Zifir · 4th June 2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It would seem that the yataghan, typically carried through a sash, rather than in a mounted scabbard as worn with swords, was intended mostly for secondary use as in the melee or when firearms were spent and incoming forces overran the position. Though typically considered for dismounted use, it is known that certain yataghan influenced sabres were used by mounted auxiliary forces such as the Pandours after the mid 18th century. These were almost certainly used in virtually the same drawcut, slashing type action as most likely accorded to the yataghan, rather than any sword to sword combat implied by the term 'fencing'.
j

This question came to my mind when I read in one of the chronicles that janissaries were used to duel each other with yatagans in a place called 'hendek,' literally meaning 'ditch' in Istanbul. (actually, I suspect that was a part of the surviving Byzantine moat in the Galata district of Istanbul).

I can't say i am much knowledgable in the etymology of the term 'fencing', also in english language as you can see

, but if we include fighting with sabers in the category fencing, can't we use the term 'fencing' for yatagans also?

Zifir · 4th June 2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Nobody answers...
I guess Erlikhan might be the source of info: a call to Askeri Muze or something like that and the dilemma will be solved.
My wild guess , there are none!
Why? Yataghans came to wide use in the 17th century and their use petered out in the first half of the 19th century. Sure, there were used even later, but by that time Turkey firmly put herself on the path of Westernization.
When in use, yataghans were kind of "private weapons". Ottomans in their imperial sunset were not very much into any systematization of anything (that was why Westernization was needed!), their army was in disarray and the Yenicheri corps (the main user of yataghans) was already destroyed and disbanded. Who needed to write manuals for the rebelling Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians?
Ah, the Ottomans... They had so many great ideas how to run a society ( free medical care, inclusion of minorities, religious tolerance, free care for the elderly and the poor), but somehow the whole enterprise deteriorated into brutalities and paranoia of the Sultans. I guess the absolute power, indeed, corrupts absolutely....

As far as I know, there are many arching and horsemanship manuals written in arabic and ottoman turkish in the libraries. So my guess is why not for yatagans and other type of weapons? It is true that oral culture was very dominant among the common people and janissaries. Yet there were also literate people among the people as well as among the janissaries. And we should not forget literacy rate was always higher among non-muslims, who constituted considerable portion of the empire's population. It seems strange to me that nobody tought to write down a short manual for yatagans. And I think this has nothing to do with being systematic, scientific etc. Ottomans culture, like any other culture, had no shortage of manuals, or books on every aspect of life. Of course, as long as there is no evidence ariel's guess is closer to the truth than my guess

ariel · 4th June 2006, 08:35 PM

Archery was an elite sport in the Ottoman Empire and there were elite archery units; I would not be surprised if there was something systematic on archery.
Yataghan was a weapon of "brigands" and unruly Janissaries (they were not allowed to carry swords and guns outside the barracks and a Yataghan could pass for a "knife").
I guess it was beneath the dignity of "serious people" to write official manuals for Yataghan use.
The Balkan area was under Ottoman control and did not have regular armies until eventual independence. Any resistance, if at all, was a guerilla-type and those do not publish manuals, and after the independence yataghans became not very important: artillery, rifles, uniforms and medals, medals, medals were at the top of priorities.
I know that some sword manuals were published at the West and in Russia as late as at the end of 19th century (maybe even later) and fencing exercises were required , but.... who cared anymore? The anachronistic cavalry went the way of the Dodo bird and infantrymen carried enough junk to bother with a yet another heavy piece of metal. The glamour of ivory nadles, corals, gold inscriptions and silver scabbards just faded away...

Jim McDougall · 4th June 2006, 09:15 PM

Hi Ariel,
Did not mean to imply that you were trying to provoke any controversy, just trying to reemphasize that sometimes comments with political reference do send certain readers off on such tangents, and we lose track of the original discussion. You do very well at observing and expressing yourself so please excuse my qualification of your comments

I agree with your note that the societal circumstances certainly do impact the nature of weapons used and with regard to Zifir's original question, the manner in which they are used accordingly. An inexperienced or untrained peasant forced into action in dramatic circumstances would certainly wield a weapon in any way found possible contrary to those who regularly use such weapons.

Zifir,
Interesting detail on the term 'hendek' (=ditch) suggesting duelling in moat. Those type facts are fascinating examples often relating in many cases to colloquial terms applied to certain weapons, though obviously not specifically this instance. For example, in Balkans and Greece I have been told that the term 'karakulak' (=black ears?) is often colloquially applied to the yataghan (looking forward to you and Ariel's comments on this

As you note, the term 'fencing' does not necessarily apply to sword to sword combat, and as you have well explained, may be used to describe the general method of use of an edged weapon. Point well taken (no pun intended

!

It seems the yataghan is one of those well known weapons that always is included in reference books on swords and edged weapons, but virtually no reference to history, development or use are typically included. The only book I know of that specifically applies to yataghans is
"Jataghane:Aus dem Historichen Museum von Kroatien in Zagreb"
published by the Landeszueghaus am Landesmusem Joanneum Graz in 1976.
I found it as Library of Congress holding NK6771 Y8 P 68 .
It is mostly a catalog with some text, not in English unfortunately, but lots of captioned examples in plates.
In Burton ("Book of the Sword", 1884 p.134) he describes the yataghan as having a beautifully curved line of blade which coincides accurately with ther motion of the wrist in cutting.

It would be interesting to see if more comments on the history and development of the yataghan might be brought forward here, in addition to hopefully anyone presenting possible resources for thier manner of use.

Best regards,
Jim

kronckew · 12th June 2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...in Balkans and Greece I have been told that the term 'karakulak' (=black ears?) is often colloquially applied to the yataghan ...

My Balkan/Bulgar Karakulak Yataghan (27" loa) to illustrate:

closeup of horn eared scales on grip

no hilt strapping, bolster forged integral to the weapon, no makers marks, carving or any decoration

4th June 2006, 09:15 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,585	Hi Ariel, Did not mean to imply that you were trying to provoke any controversy, just trying to reemphasize that sometimes comments with political reference do send certain readers off on such tangents, and we lose track of the original discussion. You do very well at observing and expressing yourself so please excuse my qualification of your comments I agree with your note that the societal circumstances certainly do impact the nature of weapons used and with regard to Zifir's original question, the manner in which they are used accordingly. An inexperienced or untrained peasant forced into action in dramatic circumstances would certainly wield a weapon in any way found possible contrary to those who regularly use such weapons. Zifir, Interesting detail on the term 'hendek' (=ditch) suggesting duelling in moat. Those type facts are fascinating examples often relating in many cases to colloquial terms applied to certain weapons, though obviously not specifically this instance. For example, in Balkans and Greece I have been told that the term 'karakulak' (=black ears?) is often colloquially applied to the yataghan (looking forward to you and Ariel's comments on this As you note, the term 'fencing' does not necessarily apply to sword to sword combat, and as you have well explained, may be used to describe the general method of use of an edged weapon. Point well taken (no pun intended ! It seems the yataghan is one of those well known weapons that always is included in reference books on swords and edged weapons, but virtually no reference to history, development or use are typically included. The only book I know of that specifically applies to yataghans is "Jataghane:Aus dem Historichen Museum von Kroatien in Zagreb" published by the Landeszueghaus am Landesmusem Joanneum Graz in 1976. I found it as Library of Congress holding NK6771 Y8 P 68 . It is mostly a catalog with some text, not in English unfortunately, but lots of captioned examples in plates. In Burton ("Book of the Sword", 1884 p.134) he describes the yataghan as having a beautifully curved line of blade which coincides accurately with ther motion of the wrist in cutting. It would be interesting to see if more comments on the history and development of the yataghan might be brought forward here, in addition to hopefully anyone presenting possible resources for thier manner of use. Best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 4th June 2006 at 10:46 PM.

4th June 2006, 04:23 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Nobody answers... I guess Erlikhan might be the source of info: a call to Askeri Muze or something like that and the dilemma will be solved. My wild guess , there are none! Why? Yataghans came to wide use in the 17th century and their use petered out in the first half of the 19th century. Sure, there were used even later, but by that time Turkey firmly put herself on the path of Westernization. When in use, yataghans were kind of "private weapons". Ottomans in their imperial sunset were not very much into any systematization of anything (that was why Westernization was needed!), their army was in disarray and the Yenicheri corps (the main user of yataghans) was already destroyed and disbanded. Who needed to write manuals for the rebelling Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians? Ah, the Ottomans... They had so many great ideas how to run a society ( free medical care, inclusion of minorities, religious tolerance, free care for the elderly and the poor), but somehow the whole enterprise deteriorated into brutalities and paranoia of the Sultans. I guess the absolute power, indeed, corrupts absolutely....

4th June 2006, 06:27 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,585	Hi Zifir, A most interesting question, and I think what Ariel was trying to say, without the political observations, is astutely correct as pertains to the use of the yataghan. Not that I agree or disagree with the comments on geopolitical history, its just that those type observations often set discussions on a separate course. I completely agree with the period of use assessed by Ariel for the yataghan, which has been noted by weapons historians as yet another descendant of ancient kopis bladed forms. I also agree that it was essentially a private type of weapon, and certainly not produced for military rank and file. With that being the case, it is unlikely any formal training, nor documented material describing thier manner of use would exist. The only documented source of such descriptions may be found in period narratives, which certainly would not be likely to be found in western resources. It would seem that the yataghan, typically carried through a sash, rather than in a mounted scabbard as worn with swords, was intended mostly for secondary use as in the melee or when firearms were spent and incoming forces overran the position. Though typically considered for dismounted use, it is known that certain yataghan influenced sabres were used by mounted auxiliary forces such as the Pandours after the mid 18th century. These were almost certainly used in virtually the same drawcut, slashing type action as most likely accorded to the yataghan, rather than any sword to sword combat implied by the term 'fencing'. While the period of use of the yataghan had virtually expired parallel with that of the sword and the advent of the use of firearms later in the 19th century, it is known that it remained a particularly deadly weapon in combat through WWI and probably later with many Balkan forces. Possibly recorded material within resources from that period, especially concerning Albanian and Montenegrin forces, might reflect thier use of yataghans in combat. All best regards, Jim j

4th June 2006, 07:19 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	i was not trying to provoke any "political' controversy. Just that I think that the use of particular weapons is a part and parcel of societal circumstances. This is just as applicable to armoured knights vs. bowmen in medieval Europe, or the firearms vs. sword later on. Changes in societal structure bring about changes in military doctrine and, subsequently, weapons and equally powerful forces operate in the opposite direction. The use of Yataghan as an "unregulated' weapon was not favourable for the development of rigid system for it's use. Would be interesting to find a real "yataghan manual" to show me the error of my ways.

4th June 2006, 08:35 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Archery was an elite sport in the Ottoman Empire and there were elite archery units; I would not be surprised if there was something systematic on archery. Yataghan was a weapon of "brigands" and unruly Janissaries (they were not allowed to carry swords and guns outside the barracks and a Yataghan could pass for a "knife"). I guess it was beneath the dignity of "serious people" to write official manuals for Yataghan use. The Balkan area was under Ottoman control and did not have regular armies until eventual independence. Any resistance, if at all, was a guerilla-type and those do not publish manuals, and after the independence yataghans became not very important: artillery, rifles, uniforms and medals, medals, medals were at the top of priorities. I know that some sword manuals were published at the West and in Russia as late as at the end of 19th century (maybe even later) and fencing exercises were required , but.... who cared anymore? The anachronistic cavalry went the way of the Dodo bird and infantrymen carried enough junk to bother with a yet another heavy piece of metal. The glamour of ivory nadles, corals, gold inscriptions and silver scabbards just faded away...