Short-bladed Indo-Afghani sabers

[shayde78]

Originally Posted by ariel

Short-bladed #3 ( the lowest) has a mail-piercing ( zirah bouk-ish) tip, implying stabbing as its significant function. Any thoughts?

Not that your original question want a good one, but I find this question very compelling. I am sure there are plenty of examples and that I have simply not thought to pay attention, but I don't think I've seen a zirah bouk tip on a curved blade (of sword length) of a form typically associated with slashing cuts. Is this at all common and does it prove the thrust was part of established tulwar play?

[ariel]

You are correct: “ zirah bouk-ish” Indo-Afghani swords ( not daggers!) are very rare. I can recall seeing maybe 3-4, no more. But they do exist. One could entertain an idea that they might have come to Persia/India from the nomads: kind of atavistic feature, akin to our coccyx:-) By many accounts piercing/stabbing was not a part of Indian swordplay.

Were the short-bladed swords merely individual orders for especially short individuals? Why all 3 have very broad and as a result heavy blades?
Usually we assume that short-bladed sword from N. Africa/Arabia belong to a “naval” group; tough to include the Afghani ones in it.

A whole bunch of open questions.

[Nihl]

Just to inject another "IMO" in here about sword tips & shapes & all:
In regards to the "zirah bouk-ish" sword I would point out that the blade shape is both in form and decoration blatantly 19th century - which is to say it was made during the "twilight of the sword" when such weapons were more often carried for display & status than for anticipation of combat. Don't get me wrong, of course plenty of people were still using swords to fight and kill each other on every corner of the planet - and this blade is by no means an exception, I'm sure it could be quite deadly when properly used & sharpened - but this use was quite limited by the extensive colonization and use of firearms that defined the era. As a result, I would argue that this Afghan trade blade (as I have seen this particular blade type identified as) was made primarily with show in mind, and not to demonstrate or emphasize any particular martial concept.

In regards to blade length and curvature (in general), I would just say "different strokes for different folks." Some people fought more in close quarters, and as a result needed smaller blades. Given the emphasis of draw-cutting in Indian swordsmanship, it makes sense that the curve of these swords - as well as their weight - would be condensed to match their size, so as to not throw off the user when handling them (or at least that sounds like a logical reason for the proportions in my mind). Overall they're just Indian/Indo-Persian cutlasses, not much more to 'em.

[ariel]

To summarize:
A weapon for close quarters fights , I.e. infantry ?

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

To summarize:
A weapon for close quarters fights , I.e. infantry ?

There is no infantry as such in tribal zones, these guys are / were walking in rocky areas and short swords as just practical as the khyber knives...
IMHO

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

There is no infantry as such in tribal zones
IMHO

Of course, there was:
Third Battle of Panipat , 1761: 32,000 Rohilla infantry
Second Anglo-Afghani War, 1878: 62 infantry, 16 cavalry regiments

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

Of course, there was:
Third Battle of Panipat , 1761: 32,000 Rohilla infantry
Second Anglo-Afghani War, 1878: 62 infantry, 16 cavalry regiments

Mmmm it depends if this word "infantry" was used by Europeans/British or in local sources...
Then the swords that you posted are not infantry swords, forgive my classic vision of an infantry but to me me the swords should be standardized like the late khyber knives for example.
So in fact it depends of your personal definition or opinion about infantry.