Long yatagan

Emanuel · 8th February 2016, 02:34 PM

Thank you.
This thread was also linked Any larger yataghan?

That thread showed 3 long yataghan
- 71cm blade
- 92cm overall
- 73cm blade
The last one you posted looks like an old one with the twist core and gold inlay cartouche. Oldest date I came across on mine was 1826 I believe. I can't make out anything in your cartouche.

Emanuel

estcrh · 8th February 2016, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Thank you.
This thread was also linked Any larger yataghan?

That thread showed 3 long yataghan
- 71cm blade
- 92cm overall
- 73cm blade
The last one you posted looks like an old one with the twist core and gold inlay cartouche. Oldest date I came across on mine was 1826 I believe. I can't make out anything in your cartouche.

Emanuel

Here is your yatagan with integral bolster and no T handle that is dated 1239/1826, Turkish ribbon construction, brass inlay, 24"(60cm) long blade and 1cm thick.

estcrh · 9th February 2016, 03:11 AM

Overall length 92 cm.

estcrh · 9th February 2016, 03:48 AM

73 CM BLADE.

ariel · 9th February 2016, 12:40 PM

Your 1826 yataghan sports a "usual" blade.

What is interesting about Zeibek yataghans is their length, almost complete lack of decoration and the form and proportions of the blade. They do not have this elegant double-curve and the widening of the blade in the distal third, but are rather simply curved down, of relatively uniform width, often have a T-section and look relatively skinny vs. their exaggerated length. Also, similar to Bulgarian Karakulaks they have an integral bolster.Also, the triangular plates by the handle are very simple, unlike almost any other example.

This makes me believe that by and large Zeibeks did not use mass-produced blades from the Balkans and other large centers, but have created their own separate pattern of the entire weapon that was produced locally from the beginning to the end.

And you are right: the length must have made Zeibek yataghan clumsier than the classic one for a non-mounted warrior.

Did they use them on horseback? Like Caucasian shashkas? :-)

Very interesting......

Thanks for starting this discussion.

estcrh · 11th February 2016, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

the length must have made Zeibek yataghan clumsier than the classic one for a non-mounted warrior.

Did they use them on horseback? Like Caucasian shashkas? :-)

Very interesting......

Thanks for starting this discussion.

I have been wondering what the purpose of this type of blade was, I can not recall seing a Zeybek on a horse, but it seems to me that Causasian/Circassian were not usually pictured on horses either, also would a concave blade be useful on a horse? Here is a comparison with a 600+ yr old Japanese tachi which had about the same amount of curve, just in the opposite direction. Tachi were used by mounted samurai and they were also longer and more curved than the later katana.

ariel · 11th February 2016, 08:01 PM

"Smiley face" in my post:-)))

No, of course, Yataghan is not a cavalry weapon. But when we talk about yataghans as "long knives" we may well remember the Zeibek example: ain't no knife.

9th February 2016, 03:11 AM	#3
estcrh Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: USA Posts: 1,492	Overall length 92 cm. Attached Images

9th February 2016, 03:48 AM	#4
estcrh Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: USA Posts: 1,492	73 CM BLADE. Attached Images

8th February 2016, 02:34 PM	#1
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Thank you. This thread was also linked Any larger yataghan? That thread showed 3 long yataghan - 71cm blade - 92cm overall - 73cm blade The last one you posted looks like an old one with the twist core and gold inlay cartouche. Oldest date I came across on mine was 1826 I believe. I can't make out anything in your cartouche. Emanuel

9th February 2016, 12:40 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Your 1826 yataghan sports a "usual" blade. What is interesting about Zeibek yataghans is their length, almost complete lack of decoration and the form and proportions of the blade. They do not have this elegant double-curve and the widening of the blade in the distal third, but are rather simply curved down, of relatively uniform width, often have a T-section and look relatively skinny vs. their exaggerated length. Also, similar to Bulgarian Karakulaks they have an integral bolster.Also, the triangular plates by the handle are very simple, unlike almost any other example. This makes me believe that by and large Zeibeks did not use mass-produced blades from the Balkans and other large centers, but have created their own separate pattern of the entire weapon that was produced locally from the beginning to the end. And you are right: the length must have made Zeibek yataghan clumsier than the classic one for a non-mounted warrior. Did they use them on horseback? Like Caucasian shashkas? :-) Very interesting...... Thanks for starting this discussion.

11th February 2016, 08:01 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	"Smiley face" in my post:-))) No, of course, Yataghan is not a cavalry weapon. But when we talk about yataghans as "long knives" we may well remember the Zeibek example: ain't no knife.