9th April 2005, 02:25 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
|
XXL size
Dear All,
I recently visited St.Augustine, and once again I was somewhat surprised to see statues and records of spanish soldiers, with the height of some of those warriors being 4'9". I'm 6'6" (well a little bit less), and I always had a problem - most of the weapons I have do not fit in my hand. Holding something with D-guard is usually out of the question and I usually do not sharpen the lower portion of my kindjals, because my fingers usually rest partially on the blade. That brings the question - how many XXL size weapons are out there ? Is hand and a half can be considered an XXL hand ? I've seen some monster kindjals with 8 inches long hilts, but all other weapons I've seen have been a disappointment in terms of size. |
9th April 2005, 03:53 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
The size of tulwar handles was always a topic of discussions. The idea that the tight fit gave the warrior a certain jolt of aggressiveness ("josh") as per E. Jaiwant Paul ("By my sword and shield") always amused me: people all over the world got physically bigger after their nutritional status got better. Modern Japanese teenager is about 15-20 cm (10-12") taller than his counterpart from 1930s. I have a Pata and cannot stick my hand into the gauntlet at all.
I just got back from England and at Leeds Armoury here are plenty of complete sets of knights' armour. Some would fit a 6 footer, but most were built for a 5'2"- 5'7" man. Every time somebody complains about McDonalds, remember that Lancelot might have easily been a runt and Indian heroes just midgets |
9th April 2005, 07:48 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
May I suggest PI "bolos" and panabas as weapons with often large, thick, "beefy" (no horn pun intended) handles and thick, very solid blades, many of which might suit you. Just something that comes instantly to mind. These still aren't large people compared to N Americans, but their hilts surprisingly often are of a large size that might partly contribute to N Americans' enjoyment of them.
|
9th April 2005, 12:05 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
It is interesting questions you raise, which, no doubt, have made quite a lot of others wonder too.
In Anthony C.Tirri’s book Islamic Weapons, page 329, Figure 249D, a tulwar hilt is shown, and the text to the picture is ‘ Tulwar with pommel removed for a large hand’. Firstly, it is rather removal of the disc, which would give more room for a big hand, and secondly I don’t know from where Tirri knows this, as he does not give any reference to his knowledge. In Des Armes Orientales by P.Holstein, 1931, volume II, plate 1 and 6, another tulwar hilt without disc is shown (see the picture, showing both sides of the hilt). Holstein gives the place of origin as Katch. The strange think here is, that when looking closely is seems as if there never was a disc, but there are slits on each side of the hilt where it should have been, but the slit does not seem to go the whole way around the hilt, only on each side. If the hilt was not meant to have a disc, why make the slits? I have never seen a tulwar hilt without a disc, other that on these pictures, but I have heard about two more. They were taken, after a one of the last English cavalry attacks, close to the Khyber Pass in the 1930’ies. At a time when a sword was important to the owner, not only to keep him alive, but also as a status symbol, I doubt very much, that someone would remove the disc and pommel on a hilt as by doing this reduce the value. I can’t say that it was not done, but so far I have problems believing in it. It would seem more likely that the owner would have the sword rehilted with a hilt in the right size. It could of course be, that the sword was part of a loot, and that the owner was a very poor man with big hands – who knows? |
9th April 2005, 12:44 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
what I note about this is that it is the same style of hilt with the less common type of quillons as one we recently discussed mainly over the variantness of its assembly.
|
9th April 2005, 04:32 PM | #6 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,221
|
Working with some smaller Filipinos at the hospital, I noticed that they can fit into my Moro armour, something I could never do.
|
9th April 2005, 04:40 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
That is one thing with someone else's old armour; a sword you can usually at least hold wrong somehow if the hilt is too small for you.....
|
9th April 2005, 05:45 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
I think it is interesting what Ariel writes, and I have seen hints at this before about Europeans, but there must also be a ‘minimum’ size from the start – at least within the span of time where we operate.
I have seen discussions, where it was suggested, that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon. To my opinion that would not last long in a fight, the hand would be ‘made’ to fit the hilt – one finger lost. Amongst the Indians I have meet, there are small ones and tall ones, just like with the Europeans, but I also think that they had a finer bone structure, which of course would give a less ‘beefy’ hand. Is this true, or do I only think it is? |
10th April 2005, 06:15 AM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
I pretty much follow and agree. I've seen some BIG Sikhs. There is also the legend (which actually doesn't seem right to me, because of the numbers and multi-caste ownership of tulwars (?)) of the tulwar as a sword of aristocrats who never work, and work makes your hands larger and flatter, like an unbound foot, over time. They guy with the Guiness book fingernails is/was a Hindoo aristocrat following (to an extreme) a tradition of displaying the non-use of one's hands. I can hold at least 1/2 of tulwars reasonably well, though tightly gripped by disc and quillons, and about 1/4 of those comfortably and not tightly. I am a fairly large human. You've seen me next to Therion, but you might not know that Therion is at least a 1/2 giant. My sister, say, a slim and athletic woman (Down youse! Down, I say!) could probably hold any tulwar I've seen comfortably. I call her slim and athletic, but she is about the size of most "natural" normal size olden days men. Then there's this; the tulwars I've handled have all been brought to US, and may be unduly biased by the large hands of Americans, if you see what I mean.
|
10th April 2005, 11:23 AM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
Let us move to another kind of sword, the one on the picture. It is from the Malabar Coast (Stone, page 594, #4). This hilt is even narrower than the tulwar hilt, but if you watch old paintings and sculptures, you will notice that it is held with three fingers, plus the thumb, around the grip, and the rest of the hand around the pommel. Why it is like that I don’t know.
|
10th April 2005, 11:33 AM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
Wow, real bizarro; switching to a 1/2 push-dagger type grip, as seen in a variety of styles re smallsword? Some African swords have these like 2 inch handles where I can only imagine the usually but not always small pommel resting within the hand, even in like the hollow of the center of the palm; I mean, normal or small size humans like the W/C African aborigines (pygmies)aren't THAT small; about nipple high on me, usually, and then the much more nunerous Bantu race is a genetically large and also a beef eating people, not unlike (and in many other ways not unlike) Europeans.......a notably k(e)ris panjang-like blade there, I think, BTW.
|
11th April 2005, 11:53 PM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Posts: 312
|
One thing I would like to note, the size difference has often been over-exaggerated. At the turn of the century (Im forgetting the text, maybe its in History of Sulu by Saleeby), in PI the average height of a "Moro" male was 5'4", and of course there were taller guys around. Now Im only 5'8" and most of my Moro swords fit quite well, Im sure if youre 6'6" the difference may be severe, but Ive often heard people complain about size differences when they are 5'6" using a sword made for someone only a little bit smaller than them. I just dont see 2" in height making drastic hand size differences. Then you got guys who are small with big hands (my hands are just as big as my 6'4" room-mate), so the way I figure it, while certainly as people got larger grips probably grew, I just dont see small height differences (of course this is not always the case) making huge hilt differences. Anyways, just my opinion for what its worth. Excellent discussion so far.
|
12th April 2005, 02:43 PM | #13 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt.
The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century. |
13th April 2005, 02:31 AM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
hey! That one's even more k(e)ris-like!
|
13th April 2005, 03:24 AM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,247
|
Then there are the old bronze swords. I'm trying to remember where I read it (was it Ewart Oakeshotte's book?), but those old blades had ridiculously short hilts by modern standards. This was attributed (as we do here) to the Bronze Age greeks having tiny hands. Oakeshotte (assuming he wrote it) actually tried handling an accurate reconstruction, and found something very simple: the hilt was held by the last three fingers, while the thumb and forefinger fit very nicely on that round base of the leaf-shaped blade. When held that way, the old swords were actually very easy to use.
Since I just got hold of Waffen aus Zentral-Afrika, I'm looking at pictures of dozens of short swords with ridiculously short handles--as Tom mentions above. No one can hold a sword with a three inch handle, unless theyu're grabbing the base of the blade as well. In these cases, I suspect they were. I'd ask those of you with the African swords to try it out and see, personally. I suspect that's also what's going on with that Malabar rapier. As for the problem of getting your finger lopped off if it's looped around the hilt, I'd say--yep, it's possible, but that doesn't stop most people who use sais from doing that very thing. Something to think about. Fearn |
13th April 2005, 05:53 PM | #16 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
[QUOTE=fearn]
As for the problem of getting your finger lopped off if it's looped around the hilt, I'd say--yep, it's possible, but that doesn't stop most people who use sais from doing that very thing. Something to think about. Fearn, have you ever seen a miniature where an Indian sword fighter has his index finger curled around the quillon? Besides, I don't know what the word 'sais' means. Jens |
13th April 2005, 07:40 PM | #17 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,247
|
Hi Jens,
Sais is the plural of sai, the common weapon from Okinawa, China, and Indonesia (aka tjabang, cabang, etc) I'll admit that I haven't paid a lot of attention to Indian blades, so I'm not sure about people looping their fingers around quillons. However, it's an old tradition with rapiers and similar blades (especially where the elaborated hilts give the hand more protection), and I suspect that similar things happen on many other knives, especially those African blades with the short handles and large pommels. As another, non-military example, I usually hold my favorite Chinese cleaver with two fingers pinching the blade--that's how it is supposed to be used. Fearn |
13th April 2005, 09:07 PM | #18 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
I guess the quillon-curling techniche may have a ring of truth when one remembers Polish-Hungarian swords with thumb rings.Same idea of extending the leverage on the handle by expanding the grip outside the protected area.
The difference, of course, many an Indian could not pick his nose after his very first battle.... |
13th April 2005, 09:23 PM | #19 | |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,203
|
Hi Jens:
When looking at the statuary of Hindu gods, and perhaps some Buddhist works as well, it is common to see the forefinger and little finger raised, even when holding certain objects (as in this picture). I believe this representation has some religious significance. Similar hand postures are seen among traditional dancers in India, Thailand and elsewhere in SE Asia, where the third and fourth fingers are flexed towards the thumb, forming a C-shape, and the forefinger and little finger are extended. I don't know the name for this posture, but it seems to have been around for a long time and must have a particular significance. Ian. Quote:
|
|
13th April 2005, 10:38 PM | #20 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
Ian, you are right of course, but this does not change the size of the grip/hilt. I still think the flat pommel rested against the palm of the hand - just like Tom described it.
If the grip on the hilt was like this, the ' freedom' to move the sword in any direction would be the best possible, and I don't think the strokes would be less fatal. BTW - calling Rivkin - HALLO, do you hear me? Jens |
14th April 2005, 04:59 PM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
|
I here ye, loud and clear . I know nothing about indian swords, so I prefer to listen for now, however here is something related to the question - it's understandable why some of the grips are very small, but why there are some classes of swords where the hilt is actually quite comfortable for a big hand:
Hand and a half sword (It was not really designed to be a two handed sword, was not it ?) Katanas (well, they are two handed, so it's quite ok to use one hand). Kindjals (you can have a very comfortable kindjal, but shashkas usually do not have a large hilt). |
17th April 2005, 08:05 AM | #22 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearwater, Florida
Posts: 371
|
Good observation Ian and Tom......with many of my African pieces, Poto, just as one example, by holding the flared multi-disc hilts with the thumb and first two or three fingers and extending the pinky, Victorian tea cup fashion, I long ago found that I can get a very secure grip with a LOT of power behind it, plus it automatically tends the make the wrist extremely flexible, wheras it tends to stiffen automatically with a full fist grip.
Justin and I had EXACTLY that same discussion last week, with I the pinky flicker and he the gripper This same grip works excedingly well with the curved kanjars and khoumiyas, with the curve pointing inward and the point facing backward for the "whirling dervish" (thanks Hal!) fluid style of middle eastern fighting. When it comes to the actual size of native peoples, keep in mind that while Africa had the Pygmies, they also had the Watusi that regularly stood 7' tall (they did seem to be exceptionally fine boned as well though)...does anyone know or have examples of any Watusi weapons (and no basketball photos, either! **grin**) Finally, when it comes to tribesman/weapons sizes and correlations, does that have any relevence in relation to the New Guinea gourds? Mike Last edited by Conogre; 17th April 2005 at 08:20 AM. |
|
|