[Alex. N.]

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.

[Konstantin Tsvetkov]

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.

[Glen A Cleeton]

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

[Alex. N.]

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.

[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.

[Glen A Cleeton]

Hi Alex,

You wrote, in part:

[Alex. N.]

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.

[Hisham Gaballa]

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.

[Alex. N.]

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.

[Hisham Gaballa]

[Alex. N.]

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?

[Alex. N.]

Hello again

I was wondering wether anyone new of any sites which describe the weight of standard yataghan swords?

Cheers guys.
Alex.