The Ultimate Karabela Guide

[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.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...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....
...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.)..
...The damage to a sword blade was therefore, in my opinion, incidental rather than the result of improper parrying procedure...

Wise words, Jim .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Wise words, Jim .

Thank you very much Fernando!!!!

[awdaniec666]

Thanks Jim for that important input and yet again for your kind words. I am glad to hear this information is uselful.

It seems to me that people debating historical fencing techniques (including myself) forget about the practical process of a battle which has been, as you comprehensible pointed out, a total chaos sometimes (most of the times?). I think I understood correctly that you brought the aspect of fighting/defending against different kinds of weapons and this has, without doubt, a huge impact on the way one has to use his weapon, a saber in our example.

As for the fencing stance, the "seconde", as I translated it from Mr.Z´s work, I am not sure if this can be taken as the standart for this specific time period. As fencing instructors have often traveled across Europe to share their knowledge, there are some written sources left for us to take a look on. And here comes a huge difference when it comes to the "Polish fencing style". There is practically no written source for that from the 17th-18th century. We have short mentionings in italian or german sources. But overall, its a riddle how the Polish saber has been used. I have heard the theory that saber fencing was tought by battle-experienced soldiers to young men or amongst the troops when gathered. This is a good question for a historian and I can´t wait until somebody finds a manuscript. Another problem is that a lot of documents are lost forever because of the destruction which has taken place in Poland during its "non-existence", the occupations and both world wars. Sad!
I can give you the additional information which I have been tought by my fencing instructor who teached F.C.Christmanns German saber based on a manual from 1838: The seconde is held with your arm as straight as possible. Your wrist so high, that you can see the eyes of your opponent under your hand. The thumb may not be placed on the back of the grip, you shall hold the weapon in a hammer-grip style. This is to prevent from thumb contusions while thrusting, which Christmann tells us, occured very often if the saber wasnt hold in a different manner. Side note: Christmann was a German who taught the use of the saber to Napoleons Dragoons.
As you see, there are a lot of interpretations of stances through time and location and Mr.Z. The one Christmann proposes reminds me of the "Prime" stance from other sources.
There is a book about the polish saber written by an US-American (i will not name him) which I have not read. I dont know where he has his information from since the Echelons of historical fencing in Poland are clueless about their own countries´ historical fencing techniques. So be aware of misinformation from such sources. If I am incorrect and someone knows of accurate sources he mentions in his work, please write.
There is a family of fencers in Poland (The Sieniawskis) which has "created" (I think that is the most appropiate word for it) a school of using the polish saber, namely "Sztuka Krzyzowa" (translation: "Art of the cross"). While I highly appreciate the effort of re-creating something forgotten for a long time and promoting ones countries´ legacy, these people base all of their fencing-style, as far as I know, from a single sentence in a italian description of european weapon use from the, I think, 17th century (sic! just one sentence). This sentence is loosely translated "...and the Poles cut crosswise.". So "all they do" is to parry with a cut down and riposte with a cut down from the other side, but not in moulinet-manner, but with swings form the shoulder. They do it very fast so one could argue there is no need to take a stance which claims you a safe space in front of you (f.e. "langort" in german longsword).
They produced a movie ("Born for the saber") which I can recommend when it comes to a historical accurate picture of a young boy becoming a soldier in 17th century Poland-Lithuania. But keep in mind what I mentioned before when watching these, admittedly very good looking, duels.

[awdaniec666]

Another thing I forgot to mention...
I am lucky enough to own a type II polish saber with nicks of battle use. Those nicks are located mostly in the middle of the blade. The middle is sharp, nut not as sharpened as the later part. The Part going towards the tip has been strongly smoothed and sharpened again. Mentioned nicks are 1,0 to a max. of 1,5 mm deep. Most of those go into the blade in a 90° angle to the edge. Some are angled in a smaller degree.
This contradicts the conversation and theory I worked out with mentioned swordsmith.
Since this is only one, very old blade, I cannot and will not abstract anything from it and claim it goes for all sabers from that time (17th c.). It can be that some youngers in 1885 just did light sparring with two of these sabers, history can go strange ways.
But a working-theory can be rightfully that the middle of the blade was for parries and the last part for cutting (When in control of the fighting situation and not in total chaos). Somebody obviously cared for re-shapening (getting rid of the nicks) only this part of that saber. This, of course, may be just coincidental and it can be the work of somebody much later and not familiar with the authentical battle preparation of a saber.

[awdaniec666]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

100% agree with that.
I myself have witnessed a gatekeeping/elitarism mentality on certain polish forums, especially when some people who claim they have the absolute knowledge are confronted with somebody not beeing a Polish person. Then argumentation mixes with patriotism. But these, often "load people", in a way one can be "loud" on internet forums, are very few and the majority uses such threads for asking questions about a weapon they recently bought/found and dont know what it is or where it comes from.

So: Feel free to ask anything here. No question is dumb and I will be happy to help out if I can. As far as I got the mindset right, this goes for all of us already exchanging thoughts here. If you have informations different than those I have noted, please share it. As I said, I am not a historian or professional in any matter on this topic and my word is not to be chiseled in stone!

I totally forgot about the interactive part of my guide. Here is something I posted in Part 2, but the image somehow was lost on its way.

---
You try now!

Below I post an image of another Karabela (edit: Type II saber). Feel free to examine it yourself and think about it. I will be happy if you post your results in a comment. This next Karabela (edit: Type II saber) is from a well known source, so if you already know the exact answer, you can still write it down, but hide the source, so somebody who doesnt know it can still make his or her own guess. I admit that I could have choosen an easier example, but this is not about winning or loosing, but just about the fun exploring and learning. I will reveal the correct answer in a few days!

[JT88]

Excellent information on a convoluted topic, I am personally reading Wlodzimierz's book right now just for the reason to get smart so I can make an educated purchase on a karabela!

Jim, I had the ability to see the famous reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks in person while in Kiev back in 2010, I think it was touring there if I remember correctly. I didn't have the sword bug, the way I do now when I was there but I do remember there being a large number of Mongolian arms in the museum there. Cool stuff!

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by awdaniec666

Below I post an image of another Karabela (edit: Type II saber). Feel free to examine it yourself and think about it. I will be happy if you post your results in a comment.\

This is a hard one. I have stared at this item a bit for several mornings puzzled. The size of the picture makes it hard to see the overall proportions (maybe 900-1000 tall so that it fits the screen next time).

Blade: The blade reminds me of 17th century Tatar examples with a bluntish spear point. It lacks fullers and/or a central rib. The forte seems straighter and slightly slanted towards the back of the hilt, not the mild forward lean of the Turkic/Mongol peoples from the steppe to the east (Kipchaqs/Mongols/Tatars). Of course if the blade was a recycled blade, the blade/hilt angle could have been altered then. There is a hint of a yelman without a definitive hammer. I cannot see if there is a ricasso. I am guessing that it is a laminated blade from the picture.

Hilt: The hilt is of the Polish type with a 90 degree birds beak. Is it of sandwich construction? There seem to be hollow rivets. Horn scales?

Guard: Small guard with the overall shape influenced by the NE sabers from the 15th century. To echo awdanie666's question; What are the pieces of the guard that go down into the handle and project above the guard forming a cross called? Wasy in Polish? Langlets or beard in English?

Time: Would this be a 18th century saber with a recycled blade? To me it looks like it could be functional or parade depending on the sheath.

Do we know where the balance point is?

A side note on technique. Rivkin said that the reason for the bend in the NE sabers was that when cutting the bend allowed the grip to be relaxed just before before impact to reduce the chance of breaking a wrist.

awdaniec666, thank you again for doing all this research and translation. It is a fascinating subject.

[awdaniec666]

Originally Posted by Interested Party

To echo awdanie666's question; What are the pieces of the guard that go down into the handle and project above the guard forming a cross called? Wasy in Polish? Langlets or beard in English

Its lovely to see I am not alone when it comes to this part of a saber. For our cause. Lets just call its "wasy" or "beard" then. ("Beard" is directly translated).

Following comes the official statement for this saber as shown on the wikipedia.
It is located in the "Livrustkammaren" in Stockholm, Sweden.
The image I have used is for common share (Thanks to the museum! ). Its official description on the wikipedia is as follows (translated from swedish to english via google):

"Fastener clad with plates of dark brown wood, fastened with rivets with knurled brass heads, two preserved of originally three. At the top bent forward in lace and contoured, around, the front and back rail of gilded brass with punched vine.

Short straight pair bars of gilded brass with spherical ends and in one with guide rails. The cross is decorated in chiseled relief with a cross surrounded by flowers.

Steel blade, 34 mm wide, curved, single-edged to the approximately 154 mm long two-edged tip portion. "

The information on wikipedia says its from the 17th century. This is not the case. As I know from the offical exhibition in the museum, the sign under this specific Karabela is signed "Polish saber, around 1700".

So... There you have it. The answer which is backed by historians is: "A Polish saber around 1700".

But what would we be if we would not intend to be more catholic than the pope in this thread?

The following is my own opinion. I respect the scientific expertise and limits of archeology and history and therefore dont aim at correcting professionals on antique weaponry. The following is just a guess based on my experience and knowledge for educational purpose...


Style of blade:
To be honest, this is a shape I came across only once. It looks like somebody wanted a Karabela-ish blade. The point was and is not really meant to thrust. I would go that far and say this is meant to look like an actual battle-ready blade, but it doesnt show things like fullers etc.. Yes, there is something like a "feather"/"pioro"/yelmen but very, very rudimentary. Just from that I think this blade is way too heavy-balanced tipwards, to be used for combat and too short to be a cavalry-chopper.

Crossguard: Shape is in ottoman style of the 17th century. The thickness/strenght is questionable. Broader/stronger crossguards made of steel can be found bent in other museums. This is not meant for battle in my opinion. The decoration looks like made in the mid 18th century for somebody who wanted to wear this saber for "parade" reasons. Brass is a good material, but not as durable as steel, so again...

Hilt: Polish decorative style of the ending 18th century. Absolutely no signs of architecture which helps to avoid sliding in the hand (szewrony, prominent rivets). Just plain wood. Brass rivets clearly dont go through the tang but are mounted on iron nails (can be seen because one brass "rivet-crown" is missing. I know this weapon only from this angle of view, there cannot say anything about the hilt design (sandwich/uni-blade?).

Conclusion:

Decorative polish saber with a karabela-hilt from between 1750-1850. (Karabela kontuszowa).

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by awdaniec666

Its lovely to see I am not alone when it comes to this part of a saber. For our cause. Lets just call its "wasy" or "beard" then. ("Beard" is directly translated).

Steel blade, 34 mm wide, curved, single-edged to the approximately 154 mm long two-edged tip portion.[/I] "

Style of blade:
To be honest, this is a shape I came across only once. It looks like somebody wanted a Karabela-ish blade. The point was and is not really meant to thrust. I would go that far and say this is meant to look like an actual battle-ready blade, but it doesnt show things like fullers etc.. Yes, there is something like a "feather"/"pioro"/yelmen but very, very rudimentary. Just from that I think this blade is way too heavy-balanced tipwards, to be used for combat and too short to be a cavalry-chopper.

Wasy it is then. I have not found a better word.

I am posting a blade with a similar cross section and a profile that is in many ways similar as well, if you take the forward slant away from the forte. Rivkin in his book A Study of the Eastern Sword although he says there were similar 13th century Kipchaq and Mongolian blades attributes this pattern to Mamluk Egypt. He states that in the 16-17th centuries it was produced in Egypt, Persia, and the Ottoman empire congruently. They could be made of bulat or plain steel.

PS. it seems 800 mp high might be the most we can use and fit a picture entirely on the screen. This attachment was 900 tall.

[awdaniec666]

Thank you for this correction. You are right, the blades do look very similar!
I´m happy to have the opportunity to learn here
Is the image from " A Study of the Eastern Sword"? It looks very well made.
Edit: Looking at the tatar blade on the image you have posted, it seems to me that there is a wide fuller (or should it be called a broad and shallow depression) on the blade as well as a little hammer. I missed these kind of things on the Livrustkammaren Karabela. This is why I had the thought of a decorative-only blade in the first place. It looks like just a plain piece of shaped metal to me.