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
|