Strtaight Blade Tulwar

[Jens Nordlunde]

Both Mourice and Jim are right, and the discussion pops up now and again.
It seems to me, that we have discussed this before, although I seem to remember, that the discussion was on different sword blades with a tulwar hilt.
If anyone sees a tulwar hilt without a blade, no one will discuss that it is a tulwar hilt, so I will suggest that swords with a tulwar hilt, but with a different blade is called. A tulwar hilt with a Persian blade, a tulwar (with the Indian tulwar blade), a sukhela with a tulwar hilt and so on.
In this case it will be clear, what both the hilt and the blade looks like.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Both Mourice and Jim are right, and the discussion pops up now and again.
It seems to me, that we have discussed this before, although I seem to remember, that the discussion was on different sword blades with a tulwar hilt.
If anyone sees a tulwar hilt without a blade, no one will discuss that it is a tulwar hilt, so I will suggest that swords with a tulwar hilt, but with a different blade is called. A tulwar hilt with a Persian blade, a tulwar (with the Indian tulwar blade), a sukhela with a tulwar hilt and so on.
In this case it will be clear, what both the hilt and the blade looks like.

Well said Jens, it is about qualifying descriptively what the sword is, especially if the components test the boundaries of concise classification.

Using an analogy that always perplexed me in my younger years, if I had a 1950 Ford, but put a Chevy 350 engine in it.....then what do I call it? a Ford or a Chevy. If I need the engine worked on and tell them I have a '50 Ford, when they check for parts they need Chevrolet parts, not Ford, etc.
The dilemma is easily seen...I must specify the difference in what was once simply a 1950 Ford.

[Kubur]

It's what I was saying too about Ottoman swords and North African swords.
It's the hilt the ID of a sword.
Blades are traded or looted. To a certain extend the scabbard is interesting too.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Jim that's to easy. A Ford with a Chevy motor. You should have kept it, it would have been worth quite a lot of mone these days:-).

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Jim that's to easy. A Ford with a Chevy motor. You should have kept it, it would have been worth quite a lot of mone these days:-).

Heck yeah!!!! I sure wish I still had it!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

It's what I was saying too about Ottoman swords and North African swords.
It's the hilt the ID of a sword.
Blades are traded or looted. To a certain extend the scabbard is interesting too.

Good point Kubur, when extant, the scabbard of a sword can offer most interesting details about the swords last or most recent disposition. The scabbard in many cases, almost invariably with ethnographic weapons, is far less durable than the sword itself, and while swords (especially the blade as you note) often have long working lives, the scabbards usually do not.

With European or other military swords, a weapon which either has no scabbard or is with mismatched one, may often be found to be a 'battlefield pick up' as swords were dropped in combat while the individual was either a fatality or continued away, with scabbard still with him.

With ethnographic weapons, harsh conditions and deterioration of less than durable materials usually led to refurbishing of weapons often, particularly the scabbards. This was especially the case as weapons were handed down through generations or changed hands by one means or another.

Another good point about the Ottoman instance in use for classification. Such use of the broad description of an empire which endured for many centuries and covered many cultural spheres is infeasible for accurate classification or typology. These I would consider 'Imperialized' categories, such as 'Byzantine' and other 'empire' terms in such use, and even the term Mughal often falls short when trying to accurately describe many items, as their empire , though situated in India, broadly transcended geographic areas.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

These I would consider 'Imperialized' categories, such as 'Byzantine' and other 'empire' terms in such use, and even the term Mughal often falls short when trying to accurately describe many items, as their empire , though situated in India, broadly transcended geographic areas.

Hi Jim,
I agree for the scabbard. The scabbard is an useful information to complete other observations. For the Ottomans, I think it's an useful term and the ethnic terms are not perfect either, for example the so-called Kurdish dagger means nothing. You have Iranian, Iraki, Syrian and Turkish Kurds...and their daggers are slightly different depending of the area...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Jim,
I agree for the scabbard. The scabbard is an useful information to complete other observations. For the Ottomans, I think it's an useful term and the ethnic terms are not perfect either, for example the so-called Kurdish dagger means nothing. You have Iranian, Iraki, Syrian and Turkish Kurds...and their daggers are slightly different depending of the area...

Well noted Kubur, and the term Ottoman, for example, does denote certain stylistic characteristics and themes, and from that standpoint is useful, however for more specific classification purposes it is more so if properly qualified.
I recall quite some time ago for example in the case of the now properly classified laz bichagi, earlier in the century these were termed Kurdish-Armenian yataghans. Obviously these were not 'yataghans' by definition (and that is another troublesome term) but the term later adopted, 'Black Sea yataghan' was equally ineffective.
Though situated geographically in Ottoman territory, clearly these did not fall under the Ottoman style or conventions as they were obviously of ethnic groups outside that classification. The term 'Black Sea' was far too broad to effectively denote region or the ethnic character of the weapons.

Robert, please pardon the digression into classification terminology and the complexities of proper terms describing weapons. Your sword posted here is a great example for us to discuss this very topic, and I hope we can all learn more as we probe into various circumstances. This may also offer a better perspective on what your sword may best be classified.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Robert,
Here are some photos of my straight bladed Indian sword. The blade on mine is definitely not European and as yours looks like a very close relative I would suggest neither is yours. The hilt on mine was gilded at some point so not a munitions grade weapon. The hilt on yours is of a low quality as I'm sure you know but as has been said previously blades were rehilted as and when necessary so the hilt your blade now sports is not necessarily the one it started out with. I tried to look into this type of blade as much as the internet and the books I have would let me and I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that this is a Sukhela primarily because of the straightness and flexibility of the blade rather than any other attribute. I also think that my blade and I suspect yours do have a bit of age, at least the early to middle 190thC if not a bit earlier. I think these are good blades, light and fast, and my example is one of my favourite pieces.
Regards,
Norman.

[Rick]

And submitting this example for the umpteenth time.
Very fine grained wootz; light and flexible.