The Ultimate Karabela Guide

[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.

[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]

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.