A very special 'tulwar'

[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

[Victrix]

I wish it was me but unfortunately it’s from this website: http://www.harmankaya.net/KasimBeyPanzerstecher.html
It must be some fortunate museum curator fellow handling the beautiful sword

But the same sword appears on the right in my previous post from a picture taken by me through the glass of the display case at the Imperial Armoury in Vienna during my visit last December. I wanted to show more details of the sword by adding the photos from the website. Note how long the sword is, and that the blade is reinforced for greater strength and rigidity required to penetrate chainmail.