Karabela or not?
 

Some time ago, Rivkin commented on the power of "nationalistic sentiment" as a determinant of the value and desirability of swords.
Here is an example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/VERY-OLD-RUSSIAN...QQcmdZViewItem
Yes, this is a karabela, and it commanded a very high price despite being very simple. But, would one pay $4500 for the same sword with an Indo-Persian (Tulwar) or Shamshir-type handle? And this is the only feature that distinguishes it!
We usually associate karabelas with Poland but, IMHO, this one is not: the flattened quillons suggest Balkan origin.

Balkan karabela
 

I agree with Ariel! See below the photos of a balkan sword. The blade has allmost the same markings.

Quote : " Yes, this is a karabela, and it commanded a very high price despite being very simple. But, would one pay $4500 for the same sword with an Indo-Persian (Tulwar) or Shamshir-type handle? And this is the only feature that distinguishes it! "
I hear peacock and turkey taste the same, yet the price to pay for one is very different that 'cause one is a lot more harder to come by. That alone might answer your question to a good extent, without opening useless polemics regarding practicality.

It's very nice karabela. The hilt is not typical but the handle is just like those described in Polish books as "war karabelas". I would call it Turkish, and this is probably Turkish with European blade of characteristic profile for those from 17th century. European blades with Turkish hilts are nothing uncommon, and are often seen together. Those markings are well known for me, and appearing quite often, thought I must have sclerosis because I can't remember where: nimchas?, schiavonas? :confused: come on, help :eek:

Conclusing: Turkey, ca. half of the 17th century, blade European (Italy?).

And it was bought by my countryman :)