A very special 'tulwar'

Jens Nordlunde · 28th June 2018, 09:34 PM

Victrix, the 'sword' I saw in Istanbul was like the one Tirri shows, not like the one yoou show - desværre.

ariel · 28th June 2018, 10:00 PM

Energy is a product of mass times speed squared.
Energy of a thrust by an experienced cavalryman is a mass times the sum squared of speed of the thrust+ speed of the horse.

Victrix · 28th June 2018, 10:01 PM

Jens, I know very little about Indian swords unfortunately (but willing to learn). As I mentioned the length of the tulwar makes it look like an estoc but the tip should be sharper and the blade should have a slight taper to penetrate and expand the chinks in the chainmail. The steel also needs to be very hard. I know they used chainmail in India which is helpful in hot climates as air is allowed to circulate. Guess there would be a Mughal connection. Det kanske finns ett online foto från samlingen på svärdet du såg?

Jens Nordlunde · 29th June 2018, 02:36 PM

Victrix, jeg har ledt på millitærmuseets og Topkapis hjemmesider - ingen billeder.
I have been looking at the homepages of The Millitary museum, and the one of Topkapi, but found very few pictures, and most certainly not of the 'sword' discussed.
A search at the homepage of the MET give no result.

midelburgo · 29th June 2018, 04:22 PM

I think the ones really enjoying this kind of weapon were the Polish. Here says that inventories give near parity with broadswords (sabers?), as the weapon to be used after a lance charge.

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Koncerz.htm

About crossbows and bows losing ground to fire weapons, what it is often not realized is that you can have a bag with a kilo of arquebus balls and that will give you some 40 shots. But to have 40 arrows or bolts is much more encumbering. So the rate of fire is secondary. Of course, you can recover some, but only when the fight is over...if you win.

In his memories, Marshall Monluc describes how he became behind the Spanish lines in Fuenterrabia in 1521 with a band of crossbowmen for a couple of days. Trying to return they were very afraid of encountering Spanish cavalry because their bolts could not penetrate and they were wasting them fast. Their only hope was a small group of Navarrese shotgunners. 4 years later at Pavia, the French were still hardly using arquebuses.

Jens Nordlunde · 29th June 2018, 09:14 PM

midelburgo, it is interesting that you mention a Polish link, but I am not quite sure why you do so, as I would have said Germany.
But I do agree with you, that they likely were used after a cavallery attack.
We do, however, know very little about these weapons, and they are seldom seen/shown.
A weapon like this one would have been very rare, as it would have cost a lot of money, and it would have been in use very seldom.
Jim shows pictures of some, but they are not quite like the one Tirri shows.

Victrix · 29th June 2018, 10:28 PM

There are estocs in different shapes, and the hilts in particular tended to be adapted to suit local customs as Jim mentioned above. The function to penetrate chainmail remained the same. But chainmail ceased to be used in Europe in the 16thC (?) due to the advent of the firearm so estocs became redundant there. Except in Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland,...) the use of estocs continued because their adversaries the Ottomans continued to use chainmail because in their part of the world the bow and arrow continued to be in use.

The kismeta.com page linked to by Midelburgo included this: ”Polish cavalry sometimes used it like a short pike - putting the hilt between arm and chest and holding the blade a third of the way down.” Indian cavalry might have done the same. So the round twisted area between the hilt and the blade proper on the thrusting tulwar might be designed to steady the blade as much as possible on impact to enhance its penetrating capability.

ariel · 30th June 2018, 02:18 AM

In Turkey these "estocs" are called "meç" or "Meç -Kiliç": pronounced as mech ( "ch" as in cheese).

The word "mech" or "mach" comes from slavic group of languages, and means just " sword".

One possibility is that the Ottomans got this weapon from the Balkans ( Serbia?) and preserved the original sounding.

However, similar thrusting Mamluk examples are present in Askeri Muze ( Yucel, plates 61-63) and are dated to 15th century.

Here is yet another conundrum: at that time Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt was ruled by Burji dynasty, that was Circassian in origin. Circassians and Crimean Tatars, with whom the former were very close, had very long sabers with bayonet points designed specifically for thrusting. Was the idea of a purely thrusting sword in Mamluk( and later, Ottoman) military imported from the Northern shore of Black Sea, the main source of acquiring slave soldiers?

Marsigli in his accounts of the Ottoman Empire, mentioned this " meç", but did not know how to transliterate sound "ch". So, he used "gg". Russian researcher Astvatsaturyan, an author of their famous book "Turkish weapons", not knowing any foreign languages, rendered its sounding in a typical Russian fashion as "мегг" ( pronounced as "meg" with hard "g" at the end).
That is how in Russian weapon history books appeared yet another genuine Ottoman weapon : "meg".

Another story from the " karud" series:-)

28th June 2018, 10:00 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Energy is a product of mass times speed squared. Energy of a thrust by an experienced cavalryman is a mass times the sum squared of speed of the thrust+ speed of the horse. Last edited by ariel; 29th June 2018 at 12:20 AM.

28th June 2018, 09:34 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Victrix, the 'sword' I saw in Istanbul was like the one Tirri shows, not like the one yoou show - desværre.

28th June 2018, 10:01 PM	#3
Victrix Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Sweden Posts: 755	Jens, I know very little about Indian swords unfortunately (but willing to learn). As I mentioned the length of the tulwar makes it look like an estoc but the tip should be sharper and the blade should have a slight taper to penetrate and expand the chinks in the chainmail. The steel also needs to be very hard. I know they used chainmail in India which is helpful in hot climates as air is allowed to circulate. Guess there would be a Mughal connection. Det kanske finns ett online foto från samlingen på svärdet du såg?

29th June 2018, 02:36 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Victrix, jeg har ledt på millitærmuseets og Topkapis hjemmesider - ingen billeder. I have been looking at the homepages of The Millitary museum, and the one of Topkapi, but found very few pictures, and most certainly not of the 'sword' discussed. A search at the homepage of the MET give no result.

29th June 2018, 04:22 PM	#5
midelburgo Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 263	I think the ones really enjoying this kind of weapon were the Polish. Here says that inventories give near parity with broadswords (sabers?), as the weapon to be used after a lance charge. http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Koncerz.htm About crossbows and bows losing ground to fire weapons, what it is often not realized is that you can have a bag with a kilo of arquebus balls and that will give you some 40 shots. But to have 40 arrows or bolts is much more encumbering. So the rate of fire is secondary. Of course, you can recover some, but only when the fight is over...if you win. In his memories, Marshall Monluc describes how he became behind the Spanish lines in Fuenterrabia in 1521 with a band of crossbowmen for a couple of days. Trying to return they were very afraid of encountering Spanish cavalry because their bolts could not penetrate and they were wasting them fast. Their only hope was a small group of Navarrese shotgunners. 4 years later at Pavia, the French were still hardly using arquebuses.

29th June 2018, 09:14 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	midelburgo, it is interesting that you mention a Polish link, but I am not quite sure why you do so, as I would have said Germany. But I do agree with you, that they likely were used after a cavallery attack. We do, however, know very little about these weapons, and they are seldom seen/shown. A weapon like this one would have been very rare, as it would have cost a lot of money, and it would have been in use very seldom. Jim shows pictures of some, but they are not quite like the one Tirri shows.

29th June 2018, 10:28 PM	#7
Victrix Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Sweden Posts: 755	There are estocs in different shapes, and the hilts in particular tended to be adapted to suit local customs as Jim mentioned above. The function to penetrate chainmail remained the same. But chainmail ceased to be used in Europe in the 16thC (?) due to the advent of the firearm so estocs became redundant there. Except in Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland,...) the use of estocs continued because their adversaries the Ottomans continued to use chainmail because in their part of the world the bow and arrow continued to be in use. The kismeta.com page linked to by Midelburgo included this: ”Polish cavalry sometimes used it like a short pike - putting the hilt between arm and chest and holding the blade a third of the way down.” Indian cavalry might have done the same. So the round twisted area between the hilt and the blade proper on the thrusting tulwar might be designed to steady the blade as much as possible on impact to enhance its penetrating capability.

30th June 2018, 02:18 AM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	In Turkey these "estocs" are called "meç" or "Meç -Kiliç": pronounced as mech ( "ch" as in cheese). The word "mech" or "mach" comes from slavic group of languages, and means just " sword". One possibility is that the Ottomans got this weapon from the Balkans ( Serbia?) and preserved the original sounding. However, similar thrusting Mamluk examples are present in Askeri Muze ( Yucel, plates 61-63) and are dated to 15th century. Here is yet another conundrum: at that time Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt was ruled by Burji dynasty, that was Circassian in origin. Circassians and Crimean Tatars, with whom the former were very close, had very long sabers with bayonet points designed specifically for thrusting. Was the idea of a purely thrusting sword in Mamluk( and later, Ottoman) military imported from the Northern shore of Black Sea, the main source of acquiring slave soldiers? Marsigli in his accounts of the Ottoman Empire, mentioned this " meç", but did not know how to transliterate sound "ch". So, he used "gg". Russian researcher Astvatsaturyan, an author of their famous book "Turkish weapons", not knowing any foreign languages, rendered its sounding in a typical Russian fashion as "мегг" ( pronounced as "meg" with hard "g" at the end). That is how in Russian weapon history books appeared yet another genuine Ottoman weapon : "meg". Another story from the " karud" series:-)