A very special 'tulwar'

[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.

[ariel]

Roland,

French armored knights at Cressy and Agincourt would glumly disagree with your opinion.....:-)

[TVV]

Originally Posted by ariel

Roland,

French armored knights at Cressy and Agincourt would glumly disagree with your opinion.....:-)

From what I understand based on modern research the casualties that were a direct result of the longbow in both these battles have been highly exaggerated and somewhat of a myth. The French cavalry could not perform proper charges in these battles, mostly having to do with poor terrain and poor discipline/execution. However, it sounds a lot more heroic and romantic to credit the English longbowmen for the victory, as opposed to ascribe it to a muddy field.

The battle of Hattin and some of the Mongol campaigns provide better examples of battles where the bow and arrow played a more significant role, however in those instances the arrows were being shot at mail and not plate armor. Even lamellar armor, assuming it was made of steel/iron plates, has been proven to effectively stop composite bow arrows at short range, let alone long range.

[Victrix]

It may have been the knights’ horses which were more vulnerable to arrows. When Richard Lionheart marched along the coast in the Holy Land the knights would make sure they had the Mediterranean Sea on one side and cover by infantry on the other side. Instead of shooting the knights’ horses with their arrows, the native archers would shoot the footsoldiers who acted as a human shield. The footsoldiers wore padded clothing underneath their chainmail hauberks, and were soon trotting along looking like porcupines due to the many arrows attached to their protective clothing. This suggests that chainmail protects against arrows fired by composite bows at least, which is why the users wore them.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by ariel

Roland,

French armored knights at Cressy and Agincourt would glumly disagree with your opinion.....:-)

Ariel,

it is exactly as TVV explained: "However, it sounds a lot more heroic and romantic to credit the English longbowmen for the victory, as opposed to ascribe it to a muddy field."

If we calculate a little bit, we have ~5000 english longbowmen, which were able to shoot 10-12 arrows per minute in fast firing mode. This makes 50000-60000 arrows per minute. A kind of hailstorm of arrows. And it is simply probable, that some of these arrows hit parts of the armor, which are not perfectly protected and especially the horses. As TVV said, without the deep mud and with much more dicipline, the english army would have been destroyed within half an hour.

Roland

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

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

Maybe the one in Istambul was a variation of the same device ?; or maybe the term "sharp" must be subject to interpretation...

[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.


.

[Jens Nordlunde]

No Fernando, it was described to me as a Panzersteker, by someone who knew what he was talking about - unfortunately he is dead now.

[Victrix]

As pointed out earlier, Panzerstecher is just German for armour piercing sword. In French it’s estoc and in Hungarian it’s hegyestor, etc.

If the sword in Istanbul looked like this, it’s likely a Turkish/Ottoman armour piercing sword. This particular item is displayed at the Imperial Armoury in Vienna. It’s war booty and was captured from Mikailoglu Kasim Bey outside Vienna in 1532.

The Tulwar above looks like it could be an armour piercing sword, but the tip seems surprisingly obtuse if designed to penetrate chinks in chainmail. Perhaps it’s just a decorative item used for display or rituals?

[fernando]

Is that you holding that beautiful estoc Victrix ? Have you borrowed it from the Imperial Armoury ? Did you already return it