A very special 'tulwar'

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:-)

Victrix · 30th June 2018, 09:54 AM

Ariel, great to learn about the mec-kilic. I think these chainmail piercing swords have been around almost as long as chainmail itself. In Europe estocs were used in medieaval times but in islamic (for want of a more appropriate word?) lands they continued in use longer presumably because chainmail continued in use, probably because of a greater traditional attachment to archery?

The use of the Slavic word mach for this type of sword could be that the Ottomans first encountered these weapons during the conquest of the Balkans. This does not have to mean the swords originated here but that they were manufactured in the traditional centres in Passau and Brescia etc and imported to the Balkans which was the first point of contact for the Ottomans with European warfare. It makes you wonder if the crusaders did not use these weapons in which case they might have been called franji-kilic (Frankish sword) instead? Also I would be surprised if the mongols and tatars did not have chainmail piercing swords in which case the Turks would have adopted these swords alng with curved sabres. Not sure Circassians or Crimean Tatars spoke Slavic languages?

There was an earlier discussion about estocs here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21249 . You may find posts #13 and 16 in particular interesting.

fernando · 30th June 2018, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victrix

...I think these chainmail piercing swords have been around almost as long as chainmail itself.. .

So it seems indeed. As for origin, looking at the perspective of various Spanish sources, they have no doubt that the "estoc" (a term of old french origin, meaning the 'point of a sword') if not invented by the French, was certainly by them popularized. It appeared for the first time in the Peninsula in 1275, specifically in Cataluña, on its way from France.This may bee seen in contemporaneous paints and texts of the 100 years war. Like in many occasions, the invention of a weapon may be attributed to a people, a nation or person depending on historians and specialists works, but in the case of the estoc, results curious emphasizing the following text from Góngora (1561-1627):

"Cuyas armas siempre fueron,
aunque abolladas, triunfantes
de los franceses estoques
y de los turcos alfanjes"

Consensualy its development followed military evolution to face new defensive weapons (armour); Sancho IV of Castille harness dates from 1285, this weapon then having to be effective in penetrating armour weak points. It seems as the estoc was a must in wealthy Spaniards war gear, as established in the Cortes of Valladolid in 1385:
"All men that have each one an amount of twenty thousand maravedis or more, be obliged of having long harness with all armour parts, basinet or brimmed hat with its gorget, or helmet, and breeches and estoc and axe and dagger".

On the other hand, from all many examples from various origins so far shown here, not one is a little close from the the talwar hilted specimen shown in Tirri's. Whether its purpose is one of punching into unarmoured bodies, or that of a non lethal martial combat, or just a cremimonial item, it sure carries for the time being some enigma to it, not strange to the intricate & imaginative arsenal the India Subcontinent.

.

30th June 2018, 09:54 AM	#4
Victrix Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Sweden Posts: 755	Ariel, great to learn about the mec-kilic. I think these chainmail piercing swords have been around almost as long as chainmail itself. In Europe estocs were used in medieaval times but in islamic (for want of a more appropriate word?) lands they continued in use longer presumably because chainmail continued in use, probably because of a greater traditional attachment to archery? The use of the Slavic word mach for this type of sword could be that the Ottomans first encountered these weapons during the conquest of the Balkans. This does not have to mean the swords originated here but that they were manufactured in the traditional centres in Passau and Brescia etc and imported to the Balkans which was the first point of contact for the Ottomans with European warfare. It makes you wonder if the crusaders did not use these weapons in which case they might have been called franji-kilic (Frankish sword) instead? Also I would be surprised if the mongols and tatars did not have chainmail piercing swords in which case the Turks would have adopted these swords alng with curved sabres. Not sure Circassians or Crimean Tatars spoke Slavic languages? There was an earlier discussion about estocs here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21249 . You may find posts #13 and 16 in particular interesting. Last edited by Victrix; 30th June 2018 at 10:09 AM.

29th June 2018, 09:14 PM	#1
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	#2
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	#3
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:-)