My first Tulwar

[Emanuel]

Hi David,

I don't think that the variation is all that surprising. European swords had just as much diversity in terms of shapes, sizes, and weights. Look at the Oakshott typology, I'm actually surprised there isn't an equivalent one for Indian swords. I think the standard Indian hilt is so standard simply because it was very effective. There are other hilts without the disk pommel and quillons, but they seem to be rareer. Perhaps they tried different grips and found the standard one to be most advantageous.

Hi Jim,
I have two tulwars and neither has a ricasso. I have no reason to suspect the blades were cut down in any way so I think there must be plenty of swords without the ricasso.

About the finger over the guard grip, I think that the disk pommel gets in the way of holding the tulwar in a rapier hold. Holding either of mine, I don't see any particular difference or advantage in wielding by positioning the fore-finger over the guard.

I think that Indians were sufficiently comfortable with a slashing fighting style not to modify the tulwar too much. They had plenty of other sword forms to use when thrusts were needed. Jens mentioned that warriors equipped themselves with four weapons, perhaps one sword was a slasher and the other better suited for a thrust. The kattars would fulfill that need though, wouldn't they?

Regards,
Emanuel