Hello my name Is Alex and i am new. I have however known about myArmoury for quite a while now and i have explored many areas of the site (i don't really know the correct term for this, or even if there is one).
The reason why i signed up is that i recently discovered yataghan blades and i have found them to be quite fascinating. Also after having contacted Vince Evans, he recommended that it would be a good idea to sign up as well.
I love the shape of the yataghan blade, its elegance really appeals to me.
For this reason i was wondering if anyone could possibly provide me with some blade dimensions, in particular blade width and thickness of heavier more robust examples, if not normal yataghan blade dimensions would be great.
Thanks,
Alex. N.
Hello and welcome,
There are several antique yatagans on sale for the next auction at Czerny's, have a look at them here www.czernys.com, go to "Oriental weapons". I was surprised to find out how short they could be, at least two of them, as far as I remember, were in a range of 65-70 cm.
There are several antique yatagans on sale for the next auction at Czerny's, have a look at them here www.czernys.com, go to "Oriental weapons". I was surprised to find out how short they could be, at least two of them, as far as I remember, were in a range of 65-70 cm.
Hi Alex,
I had watched a particular example at a dealer for several years and finally grabbed it last year.
As far as yataghans go, this is a good size one. Roughly 24 inches of edge and just shy of 30 inches overall. The balance is right about seven inches from the grip scales but you wouldn't think so in hefting it. Weight is less than a ppound and a half. The blade spine is just shy of a quarter inch at the hilt and has a pretty linear distal taper and maybe an eigth inch at the spine, an inch back from the tip. Quite a concave blade geometry on this. It really feels like it wants to cut something.
What I thought was brass is some sort of gold alloy. Walrus ivory and crucible steel (but not true wootz). It dates to around 1800 and was a nice find. I don't think the dealer really knew what they had. It was not expensive at all.
The grip had some wobble but I have since removed my dental floss and stablized it with super glue. At some point in its life, someone did a lead solder repair to the metal that doesn't detract much but it is on my list of things to remove and fix. This is one that I have been working on polishing and will eventually try an etch on. Looking at the steel under magnification reveals quite a matrix of structure.
Here is a thread elsewhere with some pictures of mine. It really is a sweety.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=68240
There are some great threads over there about arms and armour of the middle east.
Keep a lookout on Ebay and they do linger at some obscure dealers at decent prices.
Vince Evans doe amazing work and his yataghans have been no exception.
Cheers
GC
I had watched a particular example at a dealer for several years and finally grabbed it last year.
As far as yataghans go, this is a good size one. Roughly 24 inches of edge and just shy of 30 inches overall. The balance is right about seven inches from the grip scales but you wouldn't think so in hefting it. Weight is less than a ppound and a half. The blade spine is just shy of a quarter inch at the hilt and has a pretty linear distal taper and maybe an eigth inch at the spine, an inch back from the tip. Quite a concave blade geometry on this. It really feels like it wants to cut something.
What I thought was brass is some sort of gold alloy. Walrus ivory and crucible steel (but not true wootz). It dates to around 1800 and was a nice find. I don't think the dealer really knew what they had. It was not expensive at all.
The grip had some wobble but I have since removed my dental floss and stablized it with super glue. At some point in its life, someone did a lead solder repair to the metal that doesn't detract much but it is on my list of things to remove and fix. This is one that I have been working on polishing and will eventually try an etch on. Looking at the steel under magnification reveals quite a matrix of structure.
Here is a thread elsewhere with some pictures of mine. It really is a sweety.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=68240
There are some great threads over there about arms and armour of the middle east.
Keep a lookout on Ebay and they do linger at some obscure dealers at decent prices.
Vince Evans doe amazing work and his yataghans have been no exception.
Cheers
GC
Thanks for the info fellas, i appreciate it. Will check out all the links and get back to you guys as soon as i can.
Cheers,
Alex N.
Cheers,
Alex N.
G'day Glen, how's it going?
Mate, it was interesting that you said that blade of yours had its centre of gravity 7 inches from the grip and only weighed 1.5 pounds. I was thinking you could pretty much double the mass of that sword, and with a slightly longer grip (hand and a half style) which had a metallic pommel (bronze, brass) which would have the effect of moving the COG back a bit and all up would improve the balance of the sword. The extra weight would greatly increase its cutting ability.
This is the kind of stuff i am in to mate, i reckon that yataghan swords would have so much more potential if only they were made slightly longer in the blade (~27 inches) and the grip (~8-9 inches) and with metallic pommels. They could still maintain all their original features such as distal taper and would still be weildy but they would also be tougher and stronger, able to withstand greater levels of abuse.
I have seen a few examples of yataghans that were about 27 inches in the blade or very close to it but still had the shorter grips and no well defined counter balance for the blade, like i said i think there is potential there.
All in all it would be great to see an up-sized yataghan so to speak, and how it would perform. I know it wouldn't be historically acurate but i think it could still work well and not be impractical.
Mate, it was interesting that you said that blade of yours had its centre of gravity 7 inches from the grip and only weighed 1.5 pounds. I was thinking you could pretty much double the mass of that sword, and with a slightly longer grip (hand and a half style) which had a metallic pommel (bronze, brass) which would have the effect of moving the COG back a bit and all up would improve the balance of the sword. The extra weight would greatly increase its cutting ability.
This is the kind of stuff i am in to mate, i reckon that yataghan swords would have so much more potential if only they were made slightly longer in the blade (~27 inches) and the grip (~8-9 inches) and with metallic pommels. They could still maintain all their original features such as distal taper and would still be weildy but they would also be tougher and stronger, able to withstand greater levels of abuse.
I have seen a few examples of yataghans that were about 27 inches in the blade or very close to it but still had the shorter grips and no well defined counter balance for the blade, like i said i think there is potential there.
All in all it would be great to see an up-sized yataghan so to speak, and how it would perform. I know it wouldn't be historically acurate but i think it could still work well and not be impractical.
Hi Alex,
You wrote, in part:
The basic design changed very little for hundreds of years. Something tells me they handled just fine fo their intended purpose. It seems to me they would have altered them a lot more than they did over time. Consider that many earlier examples than mine have much larger "ears" and wonder why smaller became either more useful, or fashionable.
I often read of folk wanting less blade biased balance in a blade and often wonder why they feel that way. Despite the seemingly forward balance of my example, it is far from slow and unweildy. There is a lot more to any bladed weapon than a static cog number. An awful lot of terrific feeling swords and knives have a cog somehwere between a third and half the overall length.
One of the most truly wonderful cutting swords I have ever handled has a center of gravity ten inches from the guard. This is a recreation of an early migration era sword and has a quite thin blade and no more of a pommel than a steel cap, maybe half an inch thick. Most that handle it guess (before actually checking) somewhere between 4-6 inches for a balance point.
It seems to me there are similar Mideast swords that had both a longer grip and blade. For some reason I'm thinking of flyssa (sp) but I could be mistaken.
Maybe what you envision is more along the lines of a giant khukri.
I'm still unsure why someone would want to take a quite nimble design and turn it into something else but it is your imagination and effort if modifying the concept. I'm unclear what type of abuse you feel a sword needs to withstand but you must have a pretty clear idea what you want.
Cheers
GC
You wrote, in part:
Quote: |
I have seen a few examples of yataghans that were about 27 inches in the blade or very close to it but still had the shorter grips and no well defined counter balance for the blade, like i said i think there is potential there.
|
The basic design changed very little for hundreds of years. Something tells me they handled just fine fo their intended purpose. It seems to me they would have altered them a lot more than they did over time. Consider that many earlier examples than mine have much larger "ears" and wonder why smaller became either more useful, or fashionable.
I often read of folk wanting less blade biased balance in a blade and often wonder why they feel that way. Despite the seemingly forward balance of my example, it is far from slow and unweildy. There is a lot more to any bladed weapon than a static cog number. An awful lot of terrific feeling swords and knives have a cog somehwere between a third and half the overall length.
One of the most truly wonderful cutting swords I have ever handled has a center of gravity ten inches from the guard. This is a recreation of an early migration era sword and has a quite thin blade and no more of a pommel than a steel cap, maybe half an inch thick. Most that handle it guess (before actually checking) somewhere between 4-6 inches for a balance point.
It seems to me there are similar Mideast swords that had both a longer grip and blade. For some reason I'm thinking of flyssa (sp) but I could be mistaken.
Maybe what you envision is more along the lines of a giant khukri.
I'm still unsure why someone would want to take a quite nimble design and turn it into something else but it is your imagination and effort if modifying the concept. I'm unclear what type of abuse you feel a sword needs to withstand but you must have a pretty clear idea what you want.
Cheers
GC
Hey Glen whats doing.
I think i might need to clarify things a little bit mate. I neglected to mention that it would be interesting to see how a yataghan would perform against different harder mediums such as armour (maile or leather). Like you said the design of the yataghan has changed little over many years no doubt due to the fact that it was probably very effective at doing what it was designed to do which was to "cut", most likely (judging by the weight and size of the majority of yataghans i have seen) softer targets (unarmoured).
I am sure that the piece which you have in your possession was also very effective at doing this and with it weighing only 1.5 pounds it probably benefited greatly as a result of having the COG located 7 inches from the hilt, but despite the sword having greater blade presence it still only weighed 1.5lbs and a sword of that weight i think would always be wieldy regardless of how far the COG was placed away from the hilt.
The design i had proposed would also require a good amount of blade presence but not too much as it would weigh around about the 3lbs mark and too much blade presence would make it hard to recover, hence the need for a metallic pommel and perhaps a slightly longer handle to allow the COG to be closer to the hilt in order to retain the weildiness of the lighter blades and also for 2 hands to be used if need be. Also now that i have mentioned the intended purpose of the blade i had in mind it might be clear of what kind of abuse it should be able to stand up to.
Basically what i am trying to say is that a heavier more robust yataghan might still retain its effectiveness in the cut due to its weight whilst also retaining its agility by having a COG closer to the hilt. I don't know mate, please tell if what i am saying makes sense.
Would you agree that a heavier blade might have an advantage over a lighter one in cutting harder targets?
Mate, i really appreciate your input on this topic and its clear that you have far more experience than i do when it comes to handling swords. Maybe my idea should be thought of as a sword designed to be practical for its purpose but more along the lines of fantasy rather than actual history seeing how it probably has never existed.
Cheers mate,
Alex.
I think i might need to clarify things a little bit mate. I neglected to mention that it would be interesting to see how a yataghan would perform against different harder mediums such as armour (maile or leather). Like you said the design of the yataghan has changed little over many years no doubt due to the fact that it was probably very effective at doing what it was designed to do which was to "cut", most likely (judging by the weight and size of the majority of yataghans i have seen) softer targets (unarmoured).
I am sure that the piece which you have in your possession was also very effective at doing this and with it weighing only 1.5 pounds it probably benefited greatly as a result of having the COG located 7 inches from the hilt, but despite the sword having greater blade presence it still only weighed 1.5lbs and a sword of that weight i think would always be wieldy regardless of how far the COG was placed away from the hilt.
The design i had proposed would also require a good amount of blade presence but not too much as it would weigh around about the 3lbs mark and too much blade presence would make it hard to recover, hence the need for a metallic pommel and perhaps a slightly longer handle to allow the COG to be closer to the hilt in order to retain the weildiness of the lighter blades and also for 2 hands to be used if need be. Also now that i have mentioned the intended purpose of the blade i had in mind it might be clear of what kind of abuse it should be able to stand up to.
Basically what i am trying to say is that a heavier more robust yataghan might still retain its effectiveness in the cut due to its weight whilst also retaining its agility by having a COG closer to the hilt. I don't know mate, please tell if what i am saying makes sense.
Would you agree that a heavier blade might have an advantage over a lighter one in cutting harder targets?
Mate, i really appreciate your input on this topic and its clear that you have far more experience than i do when it comes to handling swords. Maybe my idea should be thought of as a sword designed to be practical for its purpose but more along the lines of fantasy rather than actual history seeing how it probably has never existed.
Cheers mate,
Alex.
Most surviving yataghans date to the 18th and 19th centuries (although i have seen a pictures of a 16th century and 17th century examples), by this time armour had pretty much fallen out of use in the Ottoman empire.
Furthermore by this time the Ottoman army was made up primarily of provincial infantry who's primary weapons was a musket. The yataghan was very much a secondary weapon.
Furthermore by this time the Ottoman army was made up primarily of provincial infantry who's primary weapons was a musket. The yataghan was very much a secondary weapon.
Hi Hisham, nice to hear from you mate.
Tell me more about these older blades (16th century). Could armour still have been prevalent during the time that they were in use?
Thanks,
Alex.
Tell me more about these older blades (16th century). Could armour still have been prevalent during the time that they were in use?
Thanks,
Alex.
Alex. N. wrote: |
Hi Hisham, nice to hear from you mate.
Tell me more about these older blades (16th century). Could armour still have been prevalent during the time that they were in use? Thanks, Alex. |
Hi Alex:
This is the one I mean:
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOne...=1993%2E14
Since this particular piece is a presentations word I doubt it was ever meant to be used in combat. But at the time that it was made, armour was still very much in use; Ottoman sipahi cavalry wore mail shirts or mail-and-plate armour. The Ottoman Empire's European foes; the Holy Roman Empire, the Hungarians and the Venetians would have been wearing even heavier armour. the Metropolitan suggests that yataghan were used by the janissaries, infantry armed with arquebuses and bows. So it was still a secondary weapon and probably meant for use against other infantry.
G'day Hisham mate how's it going.
Thanks for the info mate. Interesting stuff. Would there have been much difference in the armour worn by infantry and cavalry? I was thinking that although it seems that the yataghan was a secondary weapon it would have still had to have been effective against the armour worn by infantry. Seeing how the yataghan was primarily designed to cut, if it was needed how do you think it would have been employed against infantry wearing heavy armour (if in fact they did)?
Sounds to me that you know a thing or two about middle-eastern swords. This may be off the topic a bit but i was wondering if you knew anything about how Indian tulwar's and the like handled? What kind of weight would you be looking at for a standard tulwar, or did they vary?
Thanks for the info mate. Interesting stuff. Would there have been much difference in the armour worn by infantry and cavalry? I was thinking that although it seems that the yataghan was a secondary weapon it would have still had to have been effective against the armour worn by infantry. Seeing how the yataghan was primarily designed to cut, if it was needed how do you think it would have been employed against infantry wearing heavy armour (if in fact they did)?
Sounds to me that you know a thing or two about middle-eastern swords. This may be off the topic a bit but i was wondering if you knew anything about how Indian tulwar's and the like handled? What kind of weight would you be looking at for a standard tulwar, or did they vary?
Hello again
I was wondering wether anyone new of any sites which describe the weight of standard yataghan swords?
Cheers guys.
Alex.
I was wondering wether anyone new of any sites which describe the weight of standard yataghan swords?
Cheers guys.
Alex.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum