A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[Rick]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, Jim, first we do not have to invike the Ottomans as stand-up for Golden Horde nomads ( see the Mongol saber ). Second, I have no recollection where I read it, but really old flissas were very much yataghan-like ( I have one of those), without the exaggerated point of the newer and longer flissas..

But here are promised pics of the Tulwar, with suspiciously Afghani blade and reinforced point. Somehow I do not believe it was constructed with a spit in mind:-)

Here is another sword with reinforced point.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=kirach

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Rick

Here is another sword with reinforced point.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=kirach

This 'reinforced' look at the point, now that I look at it more, is very much like British cavalry sabres of M1821 and later. The general idea of these was that they were functional for both cut and thrust, the ridge at the point extended as far as the hollowed out fuller of the blade all the way to the forte.


There were a lot of problems with these swords as they often bent and broke in these uses and a lot of 'retooling' was needed. The 1821s didnt get back into production until 1829 after several years hiatus.


Perhaps these Indian tulwar blades are taken after the British cavalry blades, as there were outfitters privately supplying units in India.

The ridged reinforcement feature at the tip seems to correspond to those on katars and the concept was intended for the thrust.


If I can recall correctly, in 1962 Gerhard Seifert ("Schert Degen Sabel") tried to classify some features of cavalry sabres, and this type was termed 'CENTER POINT' as opposed to the simple point 'spear point'.

[ariel]

Very interesting.
As I recall, there are descriptions of Indian swordplay by the Brits: according to them , Indians did not parry and did not use the thrust.
And here are two quintessential Indian blades with a deliberate thrusting feature.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Very interesting.
As I recall, there are descriptions of Indian swordplay by the Brits: according to them , Indians did not parry and did not use the thrust.
And here are two quintessential Indian blades with a deliberate thrusting feature.

That is true, in true Indian combat techniques, it was considered that the dhal shield was for the parry, and of course the sabre (tulwar) was used for cutting and slashing attack. However, the Native Indian cavalry units in the British Raj, used the British swords in many cases.


Actually, these units often selected their types of swords and while some wanted their native tulwars (I have seen examples made by Mole in Birmingham) and these may have been produced in some degree by military outfitters in India.


One of the most favored sabres was the British M1796, and often there were tulwars carrying these older blades....so much so that the British producers in England kept producing stirrup hilt form M1796 well into 1880s+

Some of the Native units however chose the M1821 sabres......which of course seemed contrary to the typical Indian type of use as they usually favored the heavy slashing blades of the 1796. Even the colonial model three bar hilts like the 1821 made in the 1880s had a 'hatchet point' blade.

The appearance of this 'center point' tip on these Indian sabres is truly an anamoly, and in my thinking must have some influence from British military swords as noted. Still the idea of the thrust was not normally considered favorably in India, so these points are as previously noted, unusual.

[Mercenary]

In India (how boldly we are speaking about the whole subcontinent and 1000 years of documented history) used talwar for thrust and parrying, Hanuman had not forbidden this, but do not forget about the peasants who seasonally engaged in military service - to cut with a talwar and to parry with a dhal - what could be more reliable?

[Jim McDougall]

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.

Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.