A very special 'tulwar'

[fernando]

Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts.
I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880.
On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though.



.

[Kubur]

Ok just to be more clear
I also think that this weapon was for the Maratha...

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by fernando

Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts.
I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880.
On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though.

.

Hi Fernando,

I only claimed that a crossbow is too weak to penetrate plate armor efficiently, because i saw that on Youtube a few weeks ago:

350 lb only dents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ
1200 lb a little bit of a puncture but the bolt wont stuck in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byc887HmUdc

The bolt is too slow with ~200fps for more effectiveness.

Plate armor for the battlefield was between 1.5 and 3mm thick and hardened.

As far as i know long bows are unable to deeply penetrate every kind of armor exept the weakest ones.

I have read in another comment that this Tulwar could be a hunting sword and this was just my poorly placed answer to that.


Best wishes,
Roland

[fernando]

Roland, i was following considerations from allegedly knowledge people, based more on historical records than on current tests, whatever difference that makes. However plate as thick as 3 m/m would have been used for jousting & tournament armour. But then again, i couldn't resist a skilled confrontation with my jazz talk ... and surely your approaches are not poorer than mine .

[Victrix]

I’m not sure estocs were designed to penetrate plate armour but they look like they could be used to stab any vulnerable gaps in the armour. Estocs were more likely designed specifically to penetrate chain mail. The sharp narrow tip would enter a chink in the mail and then the momentum from the charging rider would force the tapering blade through the ring and expand this until it burst and enabling the blade to penetrate deeper. I believe sometimes the estoc would be held against the side when charging, in which case it would be used a bit like a lance. The tulwar above looks like that although the tip doesn’t look very sharp.

Estocs were used well into the 18thC in E.Europe because the Ottomans continued to use chainmail until quite late, probably because they and the Persians continued to use bow and arrow. Chainmail protects against arrows but not bullets I believe. So the Hungarian and Polish hussars would carry an estoc strapped to the side of the saddle in addition to their sabre personal side arm, as Jim showed above (and see attached picture).

I also attach two pictures from the Imperial Armoury in Vienna. The first shows a knight in armour with what appears to be a huge estoc (?) two-hand sword strapped to the saddle under the leg. The other picture shows some interesting Turkish estocs, as worn by Sipahis, with what appears to be characteristic hilts. A description at the museum explicitly mentions that these swords were designed to penetrate chinks in chainmail.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by fernando

Roland, i was following considerations from allegedly knowledge people, based more on historical records than on current tests, whatever difference that makes. However plate as thick as 3 m/m would have been used for jousting & tournament armour. But then again, i couldn't resist a skilled confrontation with my jazz talk ... and surely your approaches are not poorer than mine .

Hi Fernando,

i was looking for old sources and i found one but in German language only (http://www.larpwiki.de/Panzerbrechend). On a modern reproduction plate armor a crossbow with 500 pounds left a dent of 2cm. In medieval this armor would have not reached the mimimum requirement of a medieval plate armor guild. This plate was 2mm thick and unhardened.

Here is a interesting study in English: Peter N. Jones: "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." in "Materials Characterization".

Bow and crossbow against chainmail armor are good to very effective but almost useless against plate armor.


Roland

[NavdeepBal]

In the Punjab, this would be called a Khirch. Having practised Indian Swordfighting most of my life I can tell you that the bit close to the hilt is most likely used for blocking, a lot like how the Rajputs block, using the flick of the wrist to turn the other’s blade. It is also wrong to call this a tulwar because it’s “vaars”, or strikes, are very different from a tulwar’s.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by NavdeepBal

In the Punjab, this would be called a Khirch. Having practised Indian Swordfighting most of my life I can tell you that the bit close to the hilt is most likely used for blocking, a lot like how the Rajputs block, using the flick of the wrist to turn the other’s blade. It is also wrong to call this a tulwar because it’s “vaars”, or strikes, are very different from a tulwar’s.

So it would be a Sikh weapon, said (quoting) to be made up of thin, sharp iron rod with a handle at one end, very dangerous. It is used to pierce in the human body...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, I dont remember it to be sharp, the one I saw in Istanbul. Also I think it is of Europeand origin.

[NavdeepBal]

Originally Posted by fernando

So it would be a Sikh weapon, said (quoting) to be made up of thin, sharp iron rod with a handle at one end, very dangerous. It is used to pierce in the human body...

It could also be from the Deccan. But a possibility of it being a Punjabi weapon is also very high, because two most common names for swords are still found in local Punjabi Lingo, Khirch and Tulwar. Khirch was very popular in Punjab, and this might jus be some variation although it is more of a rod rather than a blade.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

...Bow and crossbow against chainmail armor are good to very effective but almost useless against plate armor...

Roland, i am a bit hesitant at continuing with this interesting conversation, as by now is established that the example posted by Jen's that gave place to the present topic is navigating in a different direction, but here goes my last approach ...
There is a Spanish saying that, roughly translated, says:
I don't believe there are witches ... although they exist .
For each article or chronicle or video clip that we take account, there is another one that admits that, a good (cross) bow shot, well directed and at a close distance may perforate plate armour, not to mention mail armour. For each battle they recall about bows having not been effective as expected, another author argues that the opponent's victory was due to other factors, like in the context, archers not having reach the kill line distance in the terrain, for one.
Not that the primary intention of crossbows was that of armour perforation, but still was considered as complementary. We must not forget that not all armour had the same thickness, or temper, or deflecting angles. All in all, i am not ready to be subject to such life test myself; would only care to have a real early crossbow in my collection .


-

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, I remember it to have been a long rod, pointet at one end and a hilt at the other end, just like the one Tirri shows..

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Fernando, I remember it to have been a long rod, pointet at one end and a hilt at the other end, just like the one Tirri shows..

Maybe the example at Istambul is something for a different purpose, only the rod shape being coincidental. Having or not a sharp point could be due to time wearing or some accident make them becoming blunt.
Judging by NavdeepBal's words Tirri's example was more directed to human (unarmoured) combat. We akso know that a Kirch doesn't have to have a talwar hilt mounted in it. But it is also true that the term has been vulgarized and its attribution corrupted trough time; you may read the term nowadays in the Indian press about people been currently attacked with Kirch, as meaning a "small rapier", a "knife like weapon" a "sharp edged weapon" and other. The only picture available of what seems to be a Kirch in its original attribution, produced by Sikh sources is a rather poor one; in any case i will upload it here.
On the other hand, i have captured parts of what seems to be a rather consensual description of what a French estoc or English tuck would be, (courtesy of Blood & Bourbon) as partly already approached in here before, as being a type of sword in use from the 14th to 17th centuries, characterized as having a cruciform hilt with a grip for two handed use and a straight, edgeless, but sharply pointed blade of around 36-52 inches in length. Such swords averaged about 4 pounds with no specimen weighing more than 6 pounds. The estoc was a variation of the longsword designed for fighting against mail or plate armor. It was long, straight, and stiff with no cutting edge, just a point. As armor improved, so did the methods of attacking the armor .....Thrusting weapons that could split the rings of mail, or find the joints and crevices of plate armor, like the estoc, were employed....
Whereas the example in Istambul was brought from India or belongs in the family of European estocs, a so called Mec, is something for you Jens, or any of our members to figure out.


.