Development and characteristic of Ottoman Turk swords

Radu Transylvanicus · 9th January 2006, 12:09 PM

This might not be everyone’s cup of the but I have no doubt many of you have gave it a thought. I want to open a discussion on a theme that has puzzled me for a while now:
Given the large amount of Ottoman sabers preserved in the world that can be observed, how does the evolution of the Ottoman edged weaponry, especially Turkish, manifest from the early 16th century to early 19th century in evolution or change? Does one see a noticeable difference in the shape, decoration or craftsmanship of the traditional curved sabers of the Ottomans like the pala, the kilij, the shamshir, qama or the yathagan like an recognisable pattern of change or evolution?
Is that visible perhaps at least on the lesser sized weapons like the daggers?
I would prefer this thread not to divert into a review of the motley panoply of the Ottoman borders (East-Central Europe, Balkans or North Africa for example) but to emphasize on distinctively Turkish or at least regulated Ottoman troops (Askeri or Kapikulu), basically Sultan’s army, like the janissaries, akinci or sipahi trying to keep the more auxiliary regiments like the semi-independent bashi-bouzuks or mamelouks to a minimum. Between 16th and 19th century, anywhere in Europe, for example has made tremendous changes, constantly, visible at least one hundred if not every fifty years to its edged weaponry, however regardless of its amazing success I cannot say the same thing about the Ottoman Empire who almost at an uttering slow pace is making any changes to their cutting armory. That Eurocentric point of view of mine that considers obsolete anything that doest not change or evolve for a long tome might just not work when asked the eternal question: why change something that is perfect or very good, at least... a thing so evident in the case of Japanese swords for example...But even so at least with the help of decoration or signatures one can easily tag the identity and age of a sword. In case of Europe was also easier because regimental or serial produced examples have been crafted early and so consistent on any given point of the timeline.
However I found that very difficult in coping with the Ottoman swords and truly, unless it’s a pure guess based on physical appearance on the condition of the sword I found no true means of dating or attributing with confidence to a less vague period or military group based on in-situ evidence. That, unless luckily, a self-explanatory calligraphy or a year stamp comes a long and things are simple enough, rarely enough though when that occurs.
I know its hard enough at times to make distinction even between Persian, Caucasian, Arabian and Ottoman classic sabers as their geography and influential sphere interweaves do much but question remains: have the Ottoman Turks swords between 16th century to early 19th century possesed signs or particularities that in general would help ID them better? At least generalizing, maybe we can try to find elements that would help nailing better.

Vaguely I would try to start by proposing a timeline for when the distinct type of Ottoman sabers became widespread and commonly in use, strangely enough that happened in waves of approximately one century apart:

Shamshirs ,probably first, in the 14th century
Kilij, a little later like 15th century
Palas around 16th century or a little earlier
Yathagans around 17th century

Rivkin · 9th January 2006, 03:50 PM

1. As far as I remember Astvatsaturjan is very specific in saying that yataghans appeared in huge n umbers in the second half of XVIII and nearly disappeared in the end of the first half of XIX centuries. I would be a little cautious, since all she writes about is based on russian imperial collections.

2. Concerning the development of Ottoman armoury I would again refer to Astvatsaturjan. It is a very good book, and I doubt such a general question can be answered more or less respectively on this forum.

3. One can make an argument that western swords evolved precisely due to the eastern/ottoman influence, from straight swords into curved sabres, so the ottoman weaponry had to evolve far less than european weapons.

Concerning the evolvement itself. Here I am not a specialist, but imho first of all such weapons as maces, axes, later palashes disappear. Palas become more rare. In the second half of XIX century all traditional turkish weapons are replaced by "pattern" swords, with traditional hilts, but european-like blades, in XIX century due to germanization of the army sabres become basically nearly identical to contemporary german patterns.

Also, as far as I remember, kilij in XVIII century - more curved than pala, less than shamshir, as thin and wide as pala. Kilij prior to XVIII century - narrow, far less curved blade (aka karabela). Has a back edge, as later kilij also do. "turkish" shamshir of XVIII cenutry is less curved than older, iranian models.

But yet again - Astvatsaturjan spends dozens of pages on this.

Radu Transylvanicus · 9th January 2006, 08:25 PM

What do you think about the concept that T handle yathagan belongs to very late 18th century, early 19th century?
Thank you, Rivkin.
P.S. "The Astvatsaturjan ( hard name...) book is maybe the missing link in my library... I have a set published by authorities of Topkapi and Askeri museums coming soon, maybe they will bring more light"

9th January 2006, 12:09 PM	#1
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	Development and characteristic of Ottoman Turk swords This might not be everyone’s cup of the but I have no doubt many of you have gave it a thought. I want to open a discussion on a theme that has puzzled me for a while now: Given the large amount of Ottoman sabers preserved in the world that can be observed, how does the evolution of the Ottoman edged weaponry, especially Turkish, manifest from the early 16th century to early 19th century in evolution or change? Does one see a noticeable difference in the shape, decoration or craftsmanship of the traditional curved sabers of the Ottomans like the pala, the kilij, the shamshir, qama or the yathagan like an recognisable pattern of change or evolution? Is that visible perhaps at least on the lesser sized weapons like the daggers? I would prefer this thread not to divert into a review of the motley panoply of the Ottoman borders (East-Central Europe, Balkans or North Africa for example) but to emphasize on distinctively Turkish or at least regulated Ottoman troops (Askeri or Kapikulu), basically Sultan’s army, like the janissaries, akinci or sipahi trying to keep the more auxiliary regiments like the semi-independent bashi-bouzuks or mamelouks to a minimum. Between 16th and 19th century, anywhere in Europe, for example has made tremendous changes, constantly, visible at least one hundred if not every fifty years to its edged weaponry, however regardless of its amazing success I cannot say the same thing about the Ottoman Empire who almost at an uttering slow pace is making any changes to their cutting armory. That Eurocentric point of view of mine that considers obsolete anything that doest not change or evolve for a long tome might just not work when asked the eternal question: why change something that is perfect or very good, at least... a thing so evident in the case of Japanese swords for example...But even so at least with the help of decoration or signatures one can easily tag the identity and age of a sword. In case of Europe was also easier because regimental or serial produced examples have been crafted early and so consistent on any given point of the timeline. However I found that very difficult in coping with the Ottoman swords and truly, unless it’s a pure guess based on physical appearance on the condition of the sword I found no true means of dating or attributing with confidence to a less vague period or military group based on in-situ evidence. That, unless luckily, a self-explanatory calligraphy or a year stamp comes a long and things are simple enough, rarely enough though when that occurs. I know its hard enough at times to make distinction even between Persian, Caucasian, Arabian and Ottoman classic sabers as their geography and influential sphere interweaves do much but question remains: have the Ottoman Turks swords between 16th century to early 19th century possesed signs or particularities that in general would help ID them better? At least generalizing, maybe we can try to find elements that would help nailing better. Vaguely I would try to start by proposing a timeline for when the distinct type of Ottoman sabers became widespread and commonly in use, strangely enough that happened in waves of approximately one century apart: Shamshirs ,probably first, in the 14th century Kilij, a little later like 15th century Palas around 16th century or a little earlier Yathagans around 17th century Last edited by Radu Transylvanicus; 9th January 2006 at 08:31 PM.

9th January 2006, 03:50 PM	#2
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	1. As far as I remember Astvatsaturjan is very specific in saying that yataghans appeared in huge n umbers in the second half of XVIII and nearly disappeared in the end of the first half of XIX centuries. I would be a little cautious, since all she writes about is based on russian imperial collections. 2. Concerning the development of Ottoman armoury I would again refer to Astvatsaturjan. It is a very good book, and I doubt such a general question can be answered more or less respectively on this forum. 3. One can make an argument that western swords evolved precisely due to the eastern/ottoman influence, from straight swords into curved sabres, so the ottoman weaponry had to evolve far less than european weapons. Concerning the evolvement itself. Here I am not a specialist, but imho first of all such weapons as maces, axes, later palashes disappear. Palas become more rare. In the second half of XIX century all traditional turkish weapons are replaced by "pattern" swords, with traditional hilts, but european-like blades, in XIX century due to germanization of the army sabres become basically nearly identical to contemporary german patterns. Also, as far as I remember, kilij in XVIII century - more curved than pala, less than shamshir, as thin and wide as pala. Kilij prior to XVIII century - narrow, far less curved blade (aka karabela). Has a back edge, as later kilij also do. "turkish" shamshir of XVIII cenutry is less curved than older, iranian models. But yet again - Astvatsaturjan spends dozens of pages on this.

9th January 2006, 08:25 PM	#3
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	What do you think about the concept that T handle yathagan belongs to very late 18th century, early 19th century? Thank you, Rivkin. P.S. "The Astvatsaturjan ( hard name...) book is maybe the missing link in my library... I have a set published by authorities of Topkapi and Askeri museums coming soon, maybe they will bring more light"