The Ultimate Karabela Guide

[Ian]

awdaniec666,

Thank you for all the time and effort you have put into these posts. It is greatly appreciated.

I have received a request to transfer this thread to the European Armoury Forum on this site, where you may likely receive more responses. You will still be able to post in the thread after it has been transferred.

Ian.

[Ian]

Transferred to Euro Forum.

[ariel]

Fig 6. was just sold on liveauctioneers for $750 + 23% fee.. It was described as Russian Cossack Ukrainian or Don. I asked a question on what grounds , but did not receive any answer.
Pics and description were taken off the page.

[awdaniec666]

Thanks Ariel for that info!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Fig 6. was just sold on liveauctioneers for $750 + 23% fee.. It was described as Russian Cossack Ukrainian or Don. I asked a question on what grounds , but did not receive any answer.
Pics and description were taken off the page.

I would imagine this association may be based on the well known 1891 painting by Ilya Repin, "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire" by painter Ilya Repin.

This painting has well influenced the images of this famed host of Cossacks since then, and I can recall a number of times I have seen swords identified against this backdrop. I can recall discussions with Iaroslav Lebedynsky years ago about these Cossacks and the type of sabers they used (he is of Ukrainian descent). While mostly they used the 'L-guard' sabers of Poland and Lithuania (their original descent ) they of course would have used forms of Ottoman weapons as well.

The saber illustrated in #6 is of course Ottoman, with familiar pistol grip hilt, and likely early to mid 18th century. Aside from well evidenced provenance there is not really a way to distinctly align this with Zaporozhians. It is unlikely it would have been of the Don Host, but again, possibilities.

The reason this Ottoman saber might have been included among listings of 'karabela' is that I have seen images of Polish swords of this Ottoman form with pistol grip termed 'karabela', using the term in a more collective sense.
Returning to the Zaporozhian use of these types of swords, it is indeed possible they did use these as well as the L-guard form of Polish sabers of the 17th century.
The use of the L-guard sabers was confirmed by excavations from the Battle of Beretschko (1651) in the Ukraine, and the numerous examples found were documented in a 1992 article. I do not recall these types of Ottoman hilted sabers among those shown.

[Radboud]

Thank you for the excellent write up awdaniec666 Polish swords have a lot of charm to them, that's for certain!

[awdaniec666]

I had a conversation with an extraordinary swordsmith from Poland lately.
We discussed sword usage in relation to the damage the blade is taking especially from parrying.
We came to the conclusion Mr.Z´s theory of how blows were parried with the type II saber is one which you can expect from an olympic fencer (as Mr.Z was) but will not get you and your blade far in battle.
Reflecting parades will lead to serious edge damage to such an extend that the used blade must be fully replaced after fighting multiple opponents.
Therefore my personal working theory is now, like old sources from the medival (f.e. my time-distant teacher Peter von Danzig from the 15th century) tell us that one should only parry with the strong ("Stärke") of the blade, near the ricasso or the crossguard itself.
While this can seem obvious, one has to keep in mind that fights with sharp weapons are very uncommon these days (I know of certain madmen) and such a theory could be only verified by clashing ORIGINAL blades, not modern replica grade to see how our forefathers steel behaves.
As usual: There is no black and white, make your own conclusions using your logical mind but mind the experience of people who know their stuff.
Cheers
P.S.: I would very much appreciate input in form of images of your Karabelas or thoughts on this thread. Nearly 1300 readers must have something interesting to say. Thanks go out to the people who commented so far. This is for you guys, so if you want to hear more, I need feedback. I know the stuff and don´t need to write it down for myself :P

[Jim McDougall]

I must say this thread you have posted is not only informative, but fascinating, and I am learning more on the actual use of the saber itself in combat, not just the karabela. While I have indeed fenced (many years ago) I would not consider that experience offered me enough experience to speak with authority from that perspective, but I do think my years of research give me a viable working knowledge.

I do very much want to keep the discussion going, as I think there is much more to learn, and as you note, the number of viewers indicate a most notable interest. The fact that there is a paucity of entries to the discussion overall, is an unfortunate situation that is most often the case on many threads. Many readers fear placing entries as they do not feel they have enough knowledge etc., but do not realize that asking questions is extremely important, just as placing ideas and observations.

In an earlier entry of yours, for example, you pointed out that in the attack with the saber, the position known as 'seconde' was used......describing the arm with bent elbow, holding saber at eye level, point slightly downward.
I had not known the correct term, nor it seems position, though I thought I did, thinking it was higher (high tierce). This was valuable to know and I thank you for the correction.

Here I would like to add my thoughts on the use of the saber in combat, in the 17th into 19th century, and typically of course with cavalry or mounted forces.
While the concerns about parrying are of course well placed as far as damage of the blade, it would seem that in actual battle, the prospects for 'one on one duel' were fairly limited in the chaos of the melee. Naturally if he were attacked suddenly by one of the swirling mass of opponents, he would have to defend and probably with parry as noted. However, these kinds of reactions could not have been conditioned, nor 'scheduled', as in a fencing match. These were adrenaline fueled, 'knee jerk' reactions.

The circumstances for positioning were also limited with the element of complete chaos and impact of deadly combat factoring in the swirl of combatants, panicked or wounded horses, terrain and its conditions, noise and visibility (weather, smoke from guns, screaming etc.)..

Initial contact relied on set draw cuts or scheduled blows, but after that, despite any conditioned training, that would degenerate in the ensuing chaos of the melee. Consider as well, the use of other weapons such as the battle axe. There were no holds barred in combat, nor rules, of course.
The damage to a sword blade was therefore, in my opinion, incidental rather than the result of improper parrying procedure.

On the note on the use of 'watered steel' on the high end versions of karabela for dress etc. I have not ever seen examples, but would imagine they did exist with the artisans from Ottoman regions in Lvov etc.