European blades in India

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

In might be amusing to know whether horrifying damages inflicted by the Indians on the Brits ( see references by Sirupate) were not in fact made by the old and retired 1796 blades, sharpened properly and struck hard, as conveyed by poor Lew Nolan :-)

Ariel, your own thinking - it's great! But perhaps you have other than your words have evidence? For example, citations from the books?
Because those who saw how the Indians used Talwar wrote the following:
«An effective thrust is much more easier learnt that drawing cut which makes the tulwar such a terribly effective weapon in the hand of the expert swordsman». The Earl of Cardigan The Cavalry of the Territorial Army, The Nineteenth Century and After, 1908.

And there are no words about the sabers of the model 1796

I'm sorry my bad english

[sirupate]

An interesting point Mahratt, but in the case of John Ship he was using a 1796 Light Cavalry sabre which according to Ship the Gorkha Chieftain with his Tulwar; 'he nearly cut my poor twenty-fourther in pieces'

[Pukka Bundook]

I think Jim has it summed up pretty well.

The English swords were consistent, not as good as the best tulwar maybe, but much better than the worst! Therefore an object of desire for the lower Indian ranks who would otherwise be possibly stuck with one of the latter.
The exception was the 1796, as mentioned above, and a great favourite everywhere.

The key was the blade being Sharp though, as mentioned numerous times above, And the fact that a blade with more curve will slice better, particularly if the 'target' is festooned in multiple layers of cloth.

Much first -hand material could be added to Sirupate' interesting list, if we referenced the book "Sahib".
Time after time we see references to the native tulwar chopping off arms and legs at a blow, as well as slicing clean through a torso at one stroke.
These blows were sometimes described as delivered "with a hissing sound" ......in other words, the sword wielder was giving it all he had.(And That will also make a difference in how effective a cut is!!)

One more point re. how effective a sword may be, is the amount of training or use the individual has had. A person who has grown up wielding one will be more comfortable (and better) with it than a man trained in later years.

We know how the steel scabbard dulls the blade, but sometimes even tulwars in their wooden sheathes were worn "sharp side up" so as to keep the cutting edge as keen as possible.

It may be that though the English blades in the O.P. "would not cut butter", this problem could have been rectified easily with a good sharpening.
My own pocket knife can get dull at times. :-)

[ariel]

Yes. That's why I mentioned hard strike together with sharp blade. With these two conditions one can get lucky even if the sword is garage-made:-)

1796 was heavy, not as fast as shashka, but the steel quality was excellent and in the hands of a burly English lad it beat the hell out of every other sharp and pointy thing. This is why it was adopted ( with minor cosmetic modifications) by so many other armies. Kind of AK-47 of the 19th century:-)

[Mercenary]

I just wanted to know were there any mentions of the fact that the Indians valued European blades in general . As I understand it now, we do not have any references at all.
The links that prove the opposite opinion I posted above.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

I just wanted to know were there any mentions of the fact that the Indians valued European blades in general . As I understand it now, we do not have any references at all.
The links that prove the opposite opinion I posted above.

I am unclear on this. You are looking for specific quotations which state that the Indians favored European blades?

With the General's sword of 1821 ('Gothic' hilt or three bar)you posted with the Indian blade.....it is quite understandable that he would prefer an Indian blade as this particular pattern was quite plagued with complaints. In Brian Robson's "Swords of the British Army" (1975) this dilemma is summed up describing their use in the Crimean war where blades bent or broke, and were generally inadequate. This was partly why the '1821' patterns' production was interrupted by around 1823 and did not resume until 1829.

With this reputation, and the fact that officers had more leeway in their choice of weapons, the General no doubt favored the Indian made blades over the questionable British ones...the rank and file had no choice.

As far as Indians 'favoring' or extolling the virtues of 'European' blades, I feel sure we can probably find a quote somewhere where this expressed verbatim, however the evidence of constant use of European blades would seem to suggest that they used them considerably..like them or not.

I think in Pant ("Indian Arms and Armor') it decribes Tipu Sahib as being quite fond of his 'ANDREA FERARA' sword, and with the German blades used these were termed 'Alemani' and again quite favored in Deccani context.
With the Mahratta, the adoption of the basket hilt form from Europeans to their traditional khanda and the use of European blades seem to have virtually cemented the term 'firangi' in place with the preponderance of these swords extant. So the swords known as 'alemani' and 'firangi', both representing foreign or European bladed swords seems prevalent......thus implying that the Indian's probably were 'OK' with European blades.

As for an exact quote to support this demonstrative evidence, it may take some time but perhaps can be found somewhere.......maybe in an ad in Indian media of the time merchandizing European blades

[ariel]

Jim,
Not to forget that Henry Lawrence was born in Ceylon, spent virtually all his life in India ( with the exception of a short stint in England) and even died at the siege of Lucknow.

His allegiance was impeccably British, but a sentiment toward all things Indian was very strong.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
Not to forget that Henry Lawrence was born in Ceylon, spent virtually all his life in India ( with the exception of a short stint in England) and even died at the siege of Lucknow.

His allegiance was impeccably British, but a sentiment toward all things Indian was very strong.

Good point! Still interesting that he used a British hilt when officers had a choice. In some cases I have seen British blades with Hindu basket hilts
It is hard to use these personal preferences to support broader sentiments, but as always, most interesting.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

With the Mahratta, the adoption of the basket hilt form from Europeans to their traditional khanda and the use of European blades seem to have virtually cemented the term 'firangi' in place with the preponderance of these swords extant. So the swords known as 'alemani' and 'firangi', both representing foreign or European bladed swords seems prevalent......thus implying that the Indian's probably were 'OK' with European blades.

Hi, Jim!

And how do you feel about the opinion of Rawson, who believes that the basket hilt form is of Indian origin?

"The Hindu Basket hilt was developed in the West Deccan round about 1500 AD. It is a formal development from the Old Indian, in that the fundamental pattern of grip, guard, seating process and pommel is preserved "

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Hi, Jim!

And how do you feel about the opinion of Rawson, who believes that the basket hilt form is of Indian origin?

"The Hindu Basket hilt was developed in the West Deccan round about 1500 AD. It is a formal development from the Old Indian, in that the fundamental pattern of grip, guard, seating process and pommel is preserved "

Actually, your note, as I highly respect your skills at research, made me think to reconfirm what I said. So I spent several hours with Pant, Rawson and Elgood
In Pant (p.49) he notes that Rawson indeed did state the basket hilt was of Indian origin.
"..it is probable that this development took place in the western Deccan about 1600AD and was promoted by contacts with European basket hilted swords".
I then went to Rawson, who indeed did discuss the pata and khanda (p.45) where he notes both of these straight blade swords were invented in the west Deccan and diffused into other regions by the Marathas.
Further, "...the Hindu basket hilt, a development of the old Indian, was foreshadowed in the hilts of the sukhelas illustrated in the miniatures of the Deccan sultanates".
Then on p,44 re:sukhelas
"...the hilts of the sukhelas shown in the miniatures from the sultanates are of varied forms and have the traditional circular Indian pommel with dome as the old Indian and Indo-Muslim hilts have, but they have a broad knuckle guard , NO DOUBT IMITATED FROM EUROPEAN EXAMPLES". (my caps).

Elgood ("Hindu Arms & Ritual", 2004, p.39) notes, "...the 'Nujum al Ulum' illustrates a Spanish or Portuguese sword of about 1570 with its distinctive European hilt, and describing it as 'A GOOD SWORD'. "

Elgood (op.cit. p.39) notes, ",,,giving arms as diplomatic gifts was commonplace and it seems a reasonable assumption *that European blades were reaching Vijayanagara via the Portuguese on the coast from the beginning of the 16th c. and judging from the number mounted on the best worked hilts in the kingdom, THEY WERE MUCH APPRECIATED AT COURT".

* this assumption is indeed reasonable with the number of European blades found in the Tanjore katars.

Pant (1980, p.61),
"...Rawson calls dhup, sukhela as the same weapon and says that if the blade is of foreign origin the term phirangi is applied to such a sword. The blades of this type were continuously imported throughout the late 16th c into the 17th by the European factories on the west coast .
It is probable that the European blades were FAVORED first because their form was long familiar in the Deccan and because there was little good iron and steel working in this part of India (ref. Rawson p85)".

Pant (op.cit. p.42) re: firangi,
"..literally it means 'the Portuguese' since it was first introduced by them in India but later on it was successfully adopted by the Marathas".

So apparently, the khanda/firangi basket hilt did in fact ORIGINATE in India..but the point was that it was developed from the old Indian sword, but INFLUENCED by the European styles.

Thank you Mahratt for prompting this recheck on this detail !

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

I think Jim has it summed up pretty well.

The English swords were consistent, not as good as the best tulwar maybe, but much better than the worst! Therefore an object of desire for the lower Indian ranks who would otherwise be possibly stuck with one of the latter.
The exception was the 1796, as mentioned above, and a great favourite everywhere.

The key was the blade being Sharp though, as mentioned numerous times above, And the fact that a blade with more curve will slice better, particularly if the 'target' is festooned in multiple layers of cloth.

Much first -hand material could be added to Sirupate' interesting list, if we referenced the book "Sahib".
Time after time we see references to the native tulwar chopping off arms and legs at a blow, as well as slicing clean through a torso at one stroke.
These blows were sometimes described as delivered "with a hissing sound" ......in other words, the sword wielder was giving it all he had.(And That will also make a difference in how effective a cut is!!)

One more point re. how effective a sword may be, is the amount of training or use the individual has had. A person who has grown up wielding one will be more comfortable (and better) with it than a man trained in later years.

We know how the steel scabbard dulls the blade, but sometimes even tulwars in their wooden sheathes were worn "sharp side up" so as to keep the cutting edge as keen as possible.

It may be that though the English blades in the O.P. "would not cut butter", this problem could have been rectified easily with a good sharpening.
My own pocket knife can get dull at times. :-)

Richard, thank you so much for the kind note....and especially for reading my post!!! which indeed cites from a book. Your supportive comments are spot on!