Long yatagan

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

I haven't yet met a sword of less than 700g that I felt was unwieldy. Not an unusual length for an infantry sword.

That said, a very light-hilted sword (which some would say "blade-heavy" instead) will feel different. Differently-wieldy, at least. (I feel this with my shorter (27" blade) and lighter (400g) yatagan.)

I wonder exactly what role the ears play when you're moving it around at speed (note to self: swing my yatagan around at speed and see).

I am just used to shorter swords, this particular yatagan when held with my arm fully extended has a reach of around 5 ft, I am sure there was a technique behind its use. Maybe European infantry swords had a similar length but it is unusual for most 19th century Indo-Persian and Japanese swords to be this long I think. Seeing that the zeybek were an experienced military force I can not believe that they would choose to use a sword that was not suitable for fighting and was just for looks/intimidation etc.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I am just used to shorter swords, this particular yatagan when held with my arm fully extended has reach of around 5 ft, I am sure there was a technique behind its use. Maybe European infantry swords had a similar length but it is unusual for most 19th century Indo-Persian and Japanese swords to be this long I think. Seeing that the zeybek were an experienced military force I can not believe that they would choose to use a sword that was not suitable for fighting and was just for looks/intimidation etc.

32-33" of blade is common for British infantry swords, and some other countries issued similar. At the same time, 35-36" might be seen on cavalry swords.

Moving away from military swords, you can find rapiers where the blade alone exceeds the total length of your yatagan. Now those would be unwieldy in the cut (but would also weight twice as much as your yatagan, as well as being longer).

About 95cm total length looks typical for Persian shamshirs, so not that different. Also not too hard to find Indian swords of similar length (e.g., khandas and tulwars) but these are perhaps longer than usual for the types (but some types were often quite a bit longer, e.g., firangi, pata). You might not call those infantry swords, but they were used on foot.

As for technique, try this:

Start with the hilt back, near your shoulder. Hold the sword with a fairly relaxed grip. Elbow downwards, forearm approximately vertical. Then push the sword forwards. Don't make a big effort to swing the sword. Put a little effort into swinging it, and a lot of effort into just moving it forwards. As your arm approached full extension, your hand will slow down, and the hilt will slow down. Let the sword pivot about where the ears are against your hand, and its forward speed will convert into a fast rotation into the target. Maybe as the blade is about to hit the target, you should tighten your grip on the hilt and help push the blade into the target. After hitting the target, pull down on the ears, draw-cutting across the target.

[Emanuel]

Timo,

I have similarly-sized tulwar and kirach with relatively heavy blades compared to the handle. I could see these used with the same technique leading with the hilt and letting the sword pivot into a draw-cut.

[Emanuel]

On another note, the lithograph below is attributed to Prince Grigory Grigorievich Gagarin and supposedly dated 1839.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1...graph-gagarin/

I've tried tracking down the original publication by the French publisher Roger & Cie. but no luck. This would make it the earliest dated illustration of Zeibek costume and gear and would push much further back the dates of these yataghan. Gagarin dies in 1893 so that would make a more plausible date

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

On another note, the lithograph below is attributed to Prince Grigory Grigorievich Gagarin and supposedly dated 1839.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1...graph-gagarin/

I've tried tracking down the original publication by the French publisher Roger & Cie. but no luck. This would make it the earliest dated illustration of Zeibek costume and gear and would push much further back the dates of these yataghan. Gagarin dies in 1893 so that would make a more plausible date

Emanual I have been looking for earlier dated info on Zeybek as well, this painting by Charles Gleyre (1808-1874) is supposedly dated 1834,
"Zeibeck of Smyrna". Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[ariel]

Interesting.... The pommel is not a typical Zeybek. The pants are not right..

Either Zeybeks changed their appearance and weapons, or .... can we trust iconography?

[Sancar]

Ariel, it is not a strict uniform, just the local costume. And not specific to zeybeks either. This is mostly similar to most town folk wore in Ottoman Anatolia and Balkans in 19th century.

And that so-called "Zeybek" yatagan with T shaped ears. That is not specific to zeybeks either. It is just easier to make than a real ear shaped handle. And in late 19th century-early 20th century small town blacksmiths were not expert swordsmiths like in earlier times, so most made those ears T shaped because it was easier to make. Some yatagans that were made earlier also got those T shaped pommels when their original fancy handles got fallen apart and their owners or the local knifesmith made these simple handles for them.

Zeybek yatagan is just a name given by contemporary antique dealers, just to make it easier to classify and make it sound more important.

[werecow]

I actually meant to put this 113 cm yataghan here, so making a cross link for posterity.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

About 95cm total length looks typical for Persian shamshirs, so not that different. Also not too hard to find Indian swords of similar length (e.g., khandas and tulwars) but these are perhaps longer than usual for the types (but some types were often quite a bit longer, e.g., firangi, pata). You might not call those infantry swords, but they were used on foot.

As for technique, try this:

Start with the hilt back, near your shoulder. Hold the sword with a fairly relaxed grip. Elbow downwards, forearm approximately vertical. Then push the sword forwards. Don't make a big effort to swing the sword. Put a little effort into swinging it, and a lot of effort into just moving it forwards. As your arm approached full extension, your hand will slow down, and the hilt will slow down. Let the sword pivot about where the ears are against your hand, and its forward speed will convert into a fast rotation into the target. Maybe as the blade is about to hit the target, you should tighten your grip on the hilt and help push the blade into the target. After hitting the target, pull down on the ears, draw-cutting across the target.

Timo, I tried variations of your method and eventually I found that by facing a target sideways and holding the sword blade parellel with the ground it was very easy to pivot with a thrusting motion into the target. Using this method on a large box it seemed much easier than trying to thrust with a straight sword without feeling off balance, over a certain amount of curve makes it hard to do the same thing with a convex bladed sword.

Below is a comparison view, while some are very near the yatagan in size many are not. You have to look at what types of sword the Zeybek may have encountered when in Turkey and in the military conflicts they participated in against Bulgarians, Armenians, Greeks etc, most if not all would have been convex bladed swords.