Long yatagan

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.

Emanuel · 11th February 2016, 09:58 PM

Ariel, if by "usual" you mean usual Zeibek, then I agree. The blade has the same narrow profile and fat T-section, twist-core and substantial integral bolster.

This construction still makes me wonder as no Balkan-produced yataghan have integral bolsters. I agree with your long knife comment. The Balkan yataghan may indeed be long knives with thin blades, but these thick Ioanian ones are all sword.

estcrh · 12th February 2016, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

"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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Ariel, if by "usual" you mean usual Zeibek, then I agree. The blade has the same narrow profile and fat T-section, twist-core and substantial integral bolster.

This construction still makes me wonder as no Balkan-produced yataghan have integral bolsters. I agree with your long knife comment. The Balkan yataghan may indeed be long knives with thin blades, but these thick Ioanian ones are all sword.

These very long yatagan were swords, while certainly not "cavalry" weapons they would have been useful to someone who rode horses and just how did the zeybek get around, did they walk everywere or did they ride horses. There must have been a reason that they were developed and used, just as the katar gauntlet sword was developed for a reason.

ariel · 12th February 2016, 08:03 AM

We have a tendency to believe that every peculiar construction of an Oriental weapon is a very well-thought feature cleverly invented by the locals to adapt to their unique circumstances and to fulfill a specific function.

There are, however, many examples of Oriental weapons that were just clumsy from an ergonomic or engineering point of view. While Europe always aimed for maximal functionality, the Orient gave much more emphasis to metaphysical, sacral, artistic or just exaggerated forms. Examples from India are abound, but the same tendency was seen elsewhere. Usually such examples were a dead-end model and tended to disappear quickly or to persist as ceremonial implements. Think Indian Bank with extremely curved ( almost 180 degrees ) blade, or Laz Bichaq, or Dhu-l-Fakar with two blades, or just a Shamshir with exaggerated curve.

Is it possible that the clumsy construction of the Zeibek Yataghan is just yet another example: too long and unwieldy for the infantry and too mechanically unsound for cavalry slashing?

After all, Zeibeks were quite an isolated and closed group with pretty unique appearance and clothing; why not their idiosyncratic weapon?

Kind of Ford Edsel or AMC Gremlin, or BMW Isetta of their day: a failed attempt:-)

Sancar · 13th February 2016, 03:17 AM

I hope you allow me put some historical context to the discussion: zeybeks were mostly active at the end of 19th century-early 20th century in Western Anatolia as irregular rural militia at best, but in reality mostly as cutthroat bandits. They can be likened to "cowboys" in American wild west. So as you can see, they mostly lived in a time period where importance of a bladed weapon faded quite fastly.

In that era, zeybek or town folk gentry, most people carried those so-called "zeybek yatağan"s as part of their costume,and as a sign of prestige(like court swords-smallswords) so the blades got longer and longer, well in to the 20th century.

9th February 2016, 12:40 PM	#1
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	#3
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.

11th February 2016, 09:58 PM	#4
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Ariel, if by "usual" you mean usual Zeibek, then I agree. The blade has the same narrow profile and fat T-section, twist-core and substantial integral bolster. This construction still makes me wonder as no Balkan-produced yataghan have integral bolsters. I agree with your long knife comment. The Balkan yataghan may indeed be long knives with thin blades, but these thick Ioanian ones are all sword.

12th February 2016, 08:03 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	We have a tendency to believe that every peculiar construction of an Oriental weapon is a very well-thought feature cleverly invented by the locals to adapt to their unique circumstances and to fulfill a specific function. There are, however, many examples of Oriental weapons that were just clumsy from an ergonomic or engineering point of view. While Europe always aimed for maximal functionality, the Orient gave much more emphasis to metaphysical, sacral, artistic or just exaggerated forms. Examples from India are abound, but the same tendency was seen elsewhere. Usually such examples were a dead-end model and tended to disappear quickly or to persist as ceremonial implements. Think Indian Bank with extremely curved ( almost 180 degrees ) blade, or Laz Bichaq, or Dhu-l-Fakar with two blades, or just a Shamshir with exaggerated curve. Is it possible that the clumsy construction of the Zeibek Yataghan is just yet another example: too long and unwieldy for the infantry and too mechanically unsound for cavalry slashing? After all, Zeibeks were quite an isolated and closed group with pretty unique appearance and clothing; why not their idiosyncratic weapon? Kind of Ford Edsel or AMC Gremlin, or BMW Isetta of their day: a failed attempt:-)

13th February 2016, 03:17 AM	#7
Sancar Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 79	I hope you allow me put some historical context to the discussion: zeybeks were mostly active at the end of 19th century-early 20th century in Western Anatolia as irregular rural militia at best, but in reality mostly as cutthroat bandits. They can be likened to "cowboys" in American wild west. So as you can see, they mostly lived in a time period where importance of a bladed weapon faded quite fastly. In that era, zeybek or town folk gentry, most people carried those so-called "zeybek yatağan"s as part of their costume,and as a sign of prestige(like court swords-smallswords) so the blades got longer and longer, well in to the 20th century.