Yataghan

Radu Transylvanicus · 20th February 2005, 06:52 PM

E PLURIBUS UNUM, Jim

Dont mention it !

erlikhan · 21st February 2005, 11:15 AM

Jim, I checked again but couldnt see any sultan tughra on the blade.. Just some inscriptions in Arabic alph. but no tughra emblem as far as i see. And Austria-Hungary and Ottomans didn't have any war in the period (19th c. 2nd half) which this yataghan should be produced. Austria took control of Bosna from Ottomans in 1878, but by some agreements. This yataghan could easily be used by a Bosnian moslem in local legions serving Austrian army, and Radu is right, even by a Croatian or anybody from Balkans. Fashions were more desicive than tribal identities.The only problem is that, there is nothing special to show a relation with Austrian army,or even any former Yugoslavian countries to support seller's story,- if we think this story has a part in determining the price of this yataghan-.
regards

tom hyle · 21st February 2005, 12:48 PM

Yes, that's exactly correct; it is not an army yatagan; it is not an issued yatagan. Now, it could easily be a private issue weapon that was carried by a soldier; it could even be a weapon of strictly military form that was privately sold to a soldier. The idea that military weapons are intrinsically/legally different than civillian arms is by no means universal. The issuing of standardized arms is by and large a fairly new thing; most soldiers throughout history have armed themselves, usually in accordance with some sort of requirements/regulations/traditions. Only very recent, and still quite isolated and poorly accepted, is the concept of actually prohibitting the carrying of non-issued items.

Jim McDougall · 21st February 2005, 08:01 PM

Hi Erlikhan,
I think possibly the term 'tughra' was probably used improperly as I was thinking it applied generally to the type cartouche seen on the blade, and in review that term should apply to such marking for the Sultan only correct? In any case you are also correct in noting that these irregular units with their non-regulation and flamboyant uniforms would not necessarily have conformed to a particular weapon or any certain markings on the blade.
Tom's note is again, quite valid, in that a weapon of this quality was most certainly privately owned, and such weapons were not issued to the ranks.

In looking at the description from the auction listing, it seems quite detailed in noting the unit, which would seem to add certain credibility to provenance . It would be interesting to know what support is provided for attribution to that particular unit.

The specific 'pandour' units were disbanded after c.1747, and had become quite out of control, as they had essentially become outlaw with their depradations and looting. The very fearsome tribal warrior nature of these units however did appeal to the military of some European countries such as France, and Austria who installed units within regimental perameters to operate as auxiliary units in their armies. Much as with Caucasians in service of Russia in Cossack regiments, these forces were entitled to use their own weapons rather than any regimental issue.

All the best,
Jim

erlikhan · 25th February 2005, 08:54 PM

Jim, tughra is the royal emblem of the sultan in charge. formed with the full name of the sultan in a decorative manner. All of them looks same from far. an example below. Struck onto items ordered by the palace , but much more, to silver or gold items produced in market, as an aproval of their grades. If they wish, gold or silversmiths could take their products to mint office and make them tested and tughra struck, to gain customer trust. if any antique is struck by tughra, it is usually significantly more expensive than a similar item without tuhgra.
Imperial forces of 19th c. liked to have exotic legions from ethnisities under their rule, perhaps as a show of their multinational vast geographies controlling power. And, when needed, as pleased local servants from the conquered tribe, to be able to control that tribe from inside, and settle down potential fury against the occupation easier.
regards

Jim McDougall · 26th February 2005, 12:18 AM

Erlikhan,
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation of that term. This is the best thing about these threads, learning and sharing information, and the data archived to help others as they continue research on these weapons. Very nicely done!
All the best,
Jim

25th February 2005, 08:54 PM	#5
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Jim, tughra is the royal emblem of the sultan in charge. formed with the full name of the sultan in a decorative manner. All of them looks same from far. an example below. Struck onto items ordered by the palace , but much more, to silver or gold items produced in market, as an aproval of their grades. If they wish, gold or silversmiths could take their products to mint office and make them tested and tughra struck, to gain customer trust. if any antique is struck by tughra, it is usually significantly more expensive than a similar item without tuhgra. Imperial forces of 19th c. liked to have exotic legions from ethnisities under their rule, perhaps as a show of their multinational vast geographies controlling power. And, when needed, as pleased local servants from the conquered tribe, to be able to control that tribe from inside, and settle down potential fury against the occupation easier. regards Attached Images

20th February 2005, 06:52 PM	#1
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	E PLURIBUS UNUM, Jim Dont mention it !

21st February 2005, 11:15 AM	#2
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Jim, I checked again but couldnt see any sultan tughra on the blade.. Just some inscriptions in Arabic alph. but no tughra emblem as far as i see. And Austria-Hungary and Ottomans didn't have any war in the period (19th c. 2nd half) which this yataghan should be produced. Austria took control of Bosna from Ottomans in 1878, but by some agreements. This yataghan could easily be used by a Bosnian moslem in local legions serving Austrian army, and Radu is right, even by a Croatian or anybody from Balkans. Fashions were more desicive than tribal identities.The only problem is that, there is nothing special to show a relation with Austrian army,or even any former Yugoslavian countries to support seller's story,- if we think this story has a part in determining the price of this yataghan-. regards

21st February 2005, 12:48 PM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Yes, that's exactly correct; it is not an army yatagan; it is not an issued yatagan. Now, it could easily be a private issue weapon that was carried by a soldier; it could even be a weapon of strictly military form that was privately sold to a soldier. The idea that military weapons are intrinsically/legally different than civillian arms is by no means universal. The issuing of standardized arms is by and large a fairly new thing; most soldiers throughout history have armed themselves, usually in accordance with some sort of requirements/regulations/traditions. Only very recent, and still quite isolated and poorly accepted, is the concept of actually prohibitting the carrying of non-issued items.

21st February 2005, 08:01 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Hi Erlikhan, I think possibly the term 'tughra' was probably used improperly as I was thinking it applied generally to the type cartouche seen on the blade, and in review that term should apply to such marking for the Sultan only correct? In any case you are also correct in noting that these irregular units with their non-regulation and flamboyant uniforms would not necessarily have conformed to a particular weapon or any certain markings on the blade. Tom's note is again, quite valid, in that a weapon of this quality was most certainly privately owned, and such weapons were not issued to the ranks. In looking at the description from the auction listing, it seems quite detailed in noting the unit, which would seem to add certain credibility to provenance . It would be interesting to know what support is provided for attribution to that particular unit. The specific 'pandour' units were disbanded after c.1747, and had become quite out of control, as they had essentially become outlaw with their depradations and looting. The very fearsome tribal warrior nature of these units however did appeal to the military of some European countries such as France, and Austria who installed units within regimental perameters to operate as auxiliary units in their armies. Much as with Caucasians in service of Russia in Cossack regiments, these forces were entitled to use their own weapons rather than any regimental issue. All the best, Jim

26th February 2005, 12:18 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Erlikhan, Thank you so much for the detailed explanation of that term. This is the best thing about these threads, learning and sharing information, and the data archived to help others as they continue research on these weapons. Very nicely done! All the best, Jim