Yataghan

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

20th February 2005, 06:22 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,285	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