Origins of karabela

TVV · 13th December 2012, 06:24 PM

I agree, and have expressed similar opinion before: links to the Ottomas are far stronger for this swod type than links to Persia. When one examines all the trophies, taken from the Ottomans in German and Austrian Museums (my memories from the Dogal Palace in Venice are somewhat blank wen it comes to swords, I just remember the mathlocks and an early yataghan blade), dating back to the 17th century, the majority of the swords are with trilobate hilts, i.e., what we refer to as karabelas. It is obvious that the type was very popular among the Ottomans, as opposed to the Central Asian Khanates and the Moghuls, which, as pointed out, adopted all Safavid Persian fashions.
However, this concerns the period from the second half of the 17th century, culminating in the second siege of Vienna and the subsequent Eugene of Savoy's campaigns. Therefore, can we be absolutely sure that Selim the Grim's sword was not rehilted later, like so many of the swords in Top Kapi?

Jim McDougall · 13th December 2012, 09:43 PM

Another outstanding topic Ariel!!!and its great to get these kinds of discussions going so that we can better understand these peculiarities of certain weapon forms, and in some cases revise long held thoughts with comprehensive evidence and observations.

I have personally never seen Manouchers book, so I cannot effectively offer critique, however I can well understand the noted emphasis on Iranian origin for not only this sword form but many other arms and armour and many other cultural aspects. If I understand correctly the book was published under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west.

In "Polish Sabres:Origins and Evolution" (Jan Ostrowski, 1979), the author describes of course the Polish affinity for these sabres with the distinctive trilobate hilt, and notes the earliest prototypes for them from captured examples at the Siege of Vienna (1683). In this reference he notes that these had developed in Turkey under Persian influence in the early 17th century. The etymology is noted, patently dismissing the Italian 'cara bella' notion, but more credence to the possibility of Karabel (western Turkey) with primarily a phonetic connection as the only evidence.

Robert Elgood (1994, "Arms & Armour of Arabia") notes the Shah Abbas I connection and that in 1623 he took Baghdad and the town of Karbala in Iraq. Here he suggests that the 'karabella' type hilts seen worn by him in later miniatures perhaps may be commemorative of these events. It is further suggested that the term may have been a Polish corruption of the name of Karbala in Iraq, the location of an important Sh'ia shrine as well as the reference previously noted.
Prior to the Siege of Vienna, Poland was according to Elgood, in alliance with Persia against the Ottomans. While this may suggest earlier awareness of these hilts via the Persians, it does not seem to be the case. It is noted by Ostrowski the first exposure to the karabella by the Poles was at Vienna.

This returns to the apparant Ottoman presence of the karabella form, and as seen here with the sword of Selim the Grim (1470-1520). It would seem that the hilt form of his sword was established in that period, and likely became a favored form being worn even a hundred years later. Perhaps with the 1623 incursions by Shah Abbas I into Iraq as previously noted, he adopted this then traditional Ottoman hilt form seen worn by him in the miniatures.
This is of course presuming that the sword of Selim was not rehilted as suggested in the 16th century as swords entered Topkapi.

I think the hilt must have originated in Turkey, as suggested with the sword of Selim the Grim or at least been in use c.1623, becoming somewhat commemorative in Persia in form, but probably superceded there by the shamshir as a favored form. The form would seem to have remained in place in Ottoman context in degree, with those captured at Vienna in 1683. Here in turn, these became once again, commemorative with the Polish adopting the form as thier national parade sabre.

It is a bit of a paradox that this particular hilt form occurs significantly in Arabia, with the obviously Ottoman influenced hilt, and the affinity of the Arabs for Persian blades. As Eastern European, primarily Hungarian but some Polish blades also were heavily traded into Arabia, one cannot deny possibility of these karabella swords also coming in.

It seems that perhaps this might explain the Persian connection in the development of the karabella hilt, as well as the probable source for the term. The Persian influence in Mughal, Afghan and other regions does not reflect the karabela style hilt in notable degree at least in swords I would think because the shamshir was more prevalent later. It is interesting to note that in many cases Ottoman hilts are also evident.

All best regards,
Jim

ariel · 13th December 2012, 11:41 PM

Quick journey toward the bookshelf:

**********************************

Documented Ottoman karabelas in the Dresden Turkish Chamber:

#166. Entered museum catalogue in 1672
#202 -----------"--------------------- in 1689
#165: -------"------------------------- in 1672
#198: --------"------------------------- in 1689
#295:------------"----------------------- in 1695

Several later ones , registered in the museum at least in 1714

*****************************

Khorasani's complete account of all major Iranian collections ( 10 major museums):

#80: not dated, defined by the author as "Karbala sword". The name of Shah Sefi ( 1629-1642) is mentioned in the cartouche, but ownership or relation to him are not even implied. This is the only blade so far with a wide fuller on both sides. The next shamshir with a blade of similar construction and ( what a co-incidence:-)) with a similar handle appears only in the mid-18th century ( #114). After that fullers are abound.

*****************************************

Let's think....

Only in a single German Museum of impeccable credentials (Dresden) there is an abundance of karabela-hilted swords of documented Turkish provenance and documented age of the 1600's ( at least by the date of entering a collection). Other European Museums ( Hungary, Croatia, Karlsruhe Turkish Chamber) have multiple additional examples of 17 century documented and provenanced Turkish Karabelas.

In contrast, the entire Iranian theory hinges on a SINGLE sword within the vast collections of 10 major military museums.
This sword is of unknown date and provenance. Its construction is grossly unusual for its purported age and is fully compatible with mid-1700s at the earliest.

Nevertheless, this sword was pronounced fully genuine, authentic "Karbala-type" weapon, and the origin of the Karabela handle was attempted to be set within the Iranian tradition by the author working

".... under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west" ( Jim MD).

As the Stooges used to say: Who are you gonna believe: me or your own cheating eyes?:-)

Jim McDougall · 14th December 2012, 02:30 AM

Looks like the wisdom of the stooges is well placed! I think the score for birth of the karabela is to Turkey by landslide with only one shaky example for the Iranian claim. You perceived my comment pertaining to the Khorasani reference well

Outstanding research there as well Ariel. I do agree with Teodor also in wondering if the Selim sword is a remounted example in the manner of many of the Topkapi swords.

All the best,
Jim

TVV · 14th December 2012, 03:54 AM

Just for fun's sake, here are pictures of karabelas from Vienna: the first one is from the Military History Museum, and the other two from a display in the Vienna City History Museum. I took a close up a few years ago when I was there, but it is too blurry, so I am posting picture of the entire display. Both displays are dedicated to trophies, taken during the second siege of Vienna (except for the Ethipian presentation shield, which the curators must have misidentified and misplaced, of course

).

I am also adding a picture from the Army Museum in Ingolstadt: it may have been posted here before, I do not remember where I got it from.

Regards,
Teodor

ariel · 14th December 2012, 10:00 AM

We may never know the full history of the Selim's sword: the Imperial Ottomans were notoriously generous with decorating ( and re-decorating) their famous weapons and even more notoriously bad about documentation and standards of care. The book by Yucel mentions inscriptions on the Holy Swords that were present in the 1920-30s ( Stocklein's examination), but were lost subsequently due to rough cleaning.

This is the real reason why the Western collections are so important: their pedantic, unromantic documentation is academically precise and unarguable, whereas Iranian collections are still based on legends and wishful thinking aimed at bolstering sagging national ego. Turks are somewhere in the middle: their treasures were at least concentrated in Topkapi (and, later, Askeri Muze), and there is is an honest recent attempt on their part to start cataloguing and publishing ( Yucel, Aydin and Yasar's books).

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 14th December 2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

We may never know the full history of the Selim's sword: the Imperial Ottomans were notoriously generous with decorating ( and re-decorating) their famous weapons and even more notoriously bad about documentation and standards of care. The book by Yucel mentions inscriptions on the Holy Swords that were present in the 1920-30s ( Stocklein's examination), but were lost subsequently due to rough cleaning.

This is the real reason why the Western collections are so important: their pedantic, unromantic documentation is academically precise and unarguable, whereas Iranian collections are still based on legends and wishful thinking aimed at bolstering sagging national ego. Turks are somewhere in the l !!: their treasures were at least concentrated in Topkapi (and, later, Askeri Muze), and there is is an honest recent attempt on their part to start cataloguing and publishing ( Yucel, Aydin and Yasar's books).

Salaams Ariel ~ I think you hit the nail on the head there!!! ha !

I have the book "Selim The Grim" and will dive into that in due course. Great stuff Ariel.

I imagine this will throw open the debate on Karabela appearing in Saudia hilts and Zanzibari Nimcha (hilts that I think look like hawksheads) I can see the transition from Turkey down the Eastern Mediterranean via Bedouin formations down into the entire region (Saudia and. the Red Sea) much more logically.. looking at Buttin now...http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...hlight=bedouin shows great map by Dom on Bedouin grouping..and a post showing Karabela hilts is close by.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

14th December 2012, 03:54 AM	#5
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,664	Just for fun's sake, here are pictures of karabelas from Vienna: the first one is from the Military History Museum, and the other two from a display in the Vienna City History Museum. I took a close up a few years ago when I was there, but it is too blurry, so I am posting picture of the entire display. Both displays are dedicated to trophies, taken during the second siege of Vienna (except for the Ethipian presentation shield, which the curators must have misidentified and misplaced, of course ). I am also adding a picture from the Army Museum in Ingolstadt: it may have been posted here before, I do not remember where I got it from. Regards, Teodor Attached Images

13th December 2012, 06:24 PM	#1
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,664	I agree, and have expressed similar opinion before: links to the Ottomas are far stronger for this swod type than links to Persia. When one examines all the trophies, taken from the Ottomans in German and Austrian Museums (my memories from the Dogal Palace in Venice are somewhat blank wen it comes to swords, I just remember the mathlocks and an early yataghan blade), dating back to the 17th century, the majority of the swords are with trilobate hilts, i.e., what we refer to as karabelas. It is obvious that the type was very popular among the Ottomans, as opposed to the Central Asian Khanates and the Moghuls, which, as pointed out, adopted all Safavid Persian fashions. However, this concerns the period from the second half of the 17th century, culminating in the second siege of Vienna and the subsequent Eugene of Savoy's campaigns. Therefore, can we be absolutely sure that Selim the Grim's sword was not rehilted later, like so many of the swords in Top Kapi?

13th December 2012, 09:43 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Another outstanding topic Ariel!!!and its great to get these kinds of discussions going so that we can better understand these peculiarities of certain weapon forms, and in some cases revise long held thoughts with comprehensive evidence and observations. I have personally never seen Manouchers book, so I cannot effectively offer critique, however I can well understand the noted emphasis on Iranian origin for not only this sword form but many other arms and armour and many other cultural aspects. If I understand correctly the book was published under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west. In "Polish Sabres:Origins and Evolution" (Jan Ostrowski, 1979), the author describes of course the Polish affinity for these sabres with the distinctive trilobate hilt, and notes the earliest prototypes for them from captured examples at the Siege of Vienna (1683). In this reference he notes that these had developed in Turkey under Persian influence in the early 17th century. The etymology is noted, patently dismissing the Italian 'cara bella' notion, but more credence to the possibility of Karabel (western Turkey) with primarily a phonetic connection as the only evidence. Robert Elgood (1994, "Arms & Armour of Arabia") notes the Shah Abbas I connection and that in 1623 he took Baghdad and the town of Karbala in Iraq. Here he suggests that the 'karabella' type hilts seen worn by him in later miniatures perhaps may be commemorative of these events. It is further suggested that the term may have been a Polish corruption of the name of Karbala in Iraq, the location of an important Sh'ia shrine as well as the reference previously noted. Prior to the Siege of Vienna, Poland was according to Elgood, in alliance with Persia against the Ottomans. While this may suggest earlier awareness of these hilts via the Persians, it does not seem to be the case. It is noted by Ostrowski the first exposure to the karabella by the Poles was at Vienna. This returns to the apparant Ottoman presence of the karabella form, and as seen here with the sword of Selim the Grim (1470-1520). It would seem that the hilt form of his sword was established in that period, and likely became a favored form being worn even a hundred years later. Perhaps with the 1623 incursions by Shah Abbas I into Iraq as previously noted, he adopted this then traditional Ottoman hilt form seen worn by him in the miniatures. This is of course presuming that the sword of Selim was not rehilted as suggested in the 16th century as swords entered Topkapi. I think the hilt must have originated in Turkey, as suggested with the sword of Selim the Grim or at least been in use c.1623, becoming somewhat commemorative in Persia in form, but probably superceded there by the shamshir as a favored form. The form would seem to have remained in place in Ottoman context in degree, with those captured at Vienna in 1683. Here in turn, these became once again, commemorative with the Polish adopting the form as thier national parade sabre. It is a bit of a paradox that this particular hilt form occurs significantly in Arabia, with the obviously Ottoman influenced hilt, and the affinity of the Arabs for Persian blades. As Eastern European, primarily Hungarian but some Polish blades also were heavily traded into Arabia, one cannot deny possibility of these karabella swords also coming in. It seems that perhaps this might explain the Persian connection in the development of the karabella hilt, as well as the probable source for the term. The Persian influence in Mughal, Afghan and other regions does not reflect the karabela style hilt in notable degree at least in swords I would think because the shamshir was more prevalent later. It is interesting to note that in many cases Ottoman hilts are also evident. All best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 13th December 2012 at 10:21 PM.

13th December 2012, 11:41 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Quick journey toward the bookshelf: ******************************** Documented Ottoman karabelas in the Dresden Turkish Chamber: #166. Entered museum catalogue in 1672 #202 -----------"--------------------- in 1689 #165: -------"------------------------- in 1672 #198: --------"------------------------- in 1689 #295:------------"----------------------- in 1695 Several later ones , registered in the museum at least in 1714 ************************* Khorasani's complete account of all major Iranian collections ( 10 major museums): #80: not dated, defined by the author as "Karbala sword". The name of Shah Sefi ( 1629-1642) is mentioned in the cartouche, but ownership or relation to him are not even implied. This is the only blade so far with a wide fuller on both sides. The next shamshir with a blade of similar construction and ( what a co-incidence:-)) with a similar handle appears only in the mid-18th century ( #114). After that fullers are abound. *************************************** Let's think.... Only in a single German Museum of impeccable credentials (Dresden) there is an abundance of karabela-hilted swords of documented Turkish provenance and documented age of the 1600's ( at least by the date of entering a collection). Other European Museums ( Hungary, Croatia, Karlsruhe Turkish Chamber) have multiple additional examples of 17 century documented and provenanced Turkish Karabelas. In contrast, the entire Iranian theory hinges on a SINGLE sword within the vast collections of 10 major military museums. This sword is of unknown date and provenance. Its construction is grossly unusual for its purported age and is fully compatible with mid-1700s at the earliest. Nevertheless, this sword was pronounced fully genuine, authentic "Karbala-type" weapon, and the origin of the Karabela handle was attempted to be set within the Iranian tradition by the author working ".... under the auspices of the Iranian Ministry of Culture in order to fulfill a perceived need for more information on Persian arms in the west" ( Jim MD). As the Stooges used to say: Who are you gonna believe: me or your own cheating eyes?:-)

14th December 2012, 02:30 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Looks like the wisdom of the stooges is well placed! I think the score for birth of the karabela is to Turkey by landslide with only one shaky example for the Iranian claim. You perceived my comment pertaining to the Khorasani reference well Outstanding research there as well Ariel. I do agree with Teodor also in wondering if the Selim sword is a remounted example in the manner of many of the Topkapi swords. All the best, Jim

14th December 2012, 10:00 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	We may never know the full history of the Selim's sword: the Imperial Ottomans were notoriously generous with decorating ( and re-decorating) their famous weapons and even more notoriously bad about documentation and standards of care. The book by Yucel mentions inscriptions on the Holy Swords that were present in the 1920-30s ( Stocklein's examination), but were lost subsequently due to rough cleaning. This is the real reason why the Western collections are so important: their pedantic, unromantic documentation is academically precise and unarguable, whereas Iranian collections are still based on legends and wishful thinking aimed at bolstering sagging national ego. Turks are somewhere in the middle: their treasures were at least concentrated in Topkapi (and, later, Askeri Muze), and there is is an honest recent attempt on their part to start cataloguing and publishing ( Yucel, Aydin and Yasar's books).