Tulwar hilt and disc pommel.....the reason for their design

Jim McDougall · 2nd July 2006, 06:02 PM

Extremely interesting post Katana!! and I'm glad to see the attention to the tulwar, which is one of the more esoteric of collectible ethnographic swords.

I have always been inclined to think of the design of the tulwar hilt to represent largely atavistic influence from many of the early weapons seen in the iconography of India. It seems as if the techniques employed in using the tulwar may have evolved to work around the somewhat restrictive elements of the hilt structure, particularly the often very large pommel disc. The disc is known to carry not only aesthetic but often important symbolic themes in its decoration. The knuckleguard may represent the influence of European weapons and swordplay techniques in degree but such application needs to be consigned to research on individual weapons or limited regional forms rather than broad assessments.

It seems there have been a number of very good discussions over the years examining the techniques used with the tulwar, and the primary concerns seem to have been with the impairment of wrist action caused by the disc of the pommel, as well as the limited size of the grip. The longstanding claim that the smaller grip size was presumed due to smaller Indian handsize, while it has been also suggested that the presence of the 'Indian ricasso' on the blade was intended to allow the warrior to wrap the forefinger around the quillon of the guard. This seems to relate to similar European practice from early rapier swordplay.

The tulwar was an incredibly deadly weapon, and used with considerable effect by the Sikhs in particular. In the cavalry regiments of the British Raj, these were the chosen sabre. I once owned several examples made by Robert Mole of Birmingham,England specifically for native troopers of British cavalry in India.

Best regards,
Jim

B.I · 3rd July 2006, 01:11 AM

hi,
i realise i am bordering controversy, but hope this will be taken as it is meant, and not how it could possibly sound.
i dont relate gatka with the formation or original martial use of the tulwar. i have seen gatka a few times, and know people that practise it to a realtively high standard, and theorise on the use of this and other swords. no matter how convinced they are themselves, none have ever managed to sway me past the thought that this is not much more than a dance with swords, done in the membrance of a lost history of martial prowess.
as rick says, put in a real situation, i dont think they will be swinging so much in pretty patterns.
the tulwar is not a sikh weapon, although it was adopted as such.
the 'dances' i have seen are truly fabulous, and a wonder to behold. but then again, so is michael flatley.
there are many accounts of encountered indian warriors in battle, described by the british. although they sadly dont recount the actual weapons (we can assume they could have been tulwars) i am sure they would have mentioned the wild swinging as this was very un-british.
i am afraid that, like most other oriental martial art, it is only a matter of time before gatka hits the general public after a c-list celebrity decides to make a fitness video using its basic principles.
the ricasso arguement, as jim stated, is long going and without a possible outcome. i think both camps locked horns and argreed to disagree

as to the grip size, i feel this too has had many theories. mine is rather simple, and as valid and invalid as any other :-)
i believe the original hindus (especially in the north - rajput and before) to be of a much smaller size. muslims (from all over) have been in india since well before the moghuls, and left a solid mark not only in art and architecture, but also in the people themselves. if you go to india, you will see many very small men, with very small hands (that today would fit comfortably in a 300 year old hilt). i think this form was very much like their original hindu ancestors. then you see many indian that are much larger, and i think these had a mingling of blood from the turks/persians/moghuls/sultanate who were larger people. there is no such thing as a hindu hilt in the tulwar form, as no one can prove who the original sword was made for (could have been a small moghul, or a large rajput!)
i have accounts of a famous 17thC rajput prince of 'pure' hindu line that had a huge brother who owned outsized weapons. the maharajas state's armoury still exists, which a number of huge weapons (possible owned by his brother, or just another big guy some years later). what i am saying is nothing can be assumed or put past speculation.
another interesting point, to bolster my long-standing arguement against fingering the ricasso, is that early hindu swords (from 16thC and before) had absolutely tiny hilts, smaller than most small tulwars. the form of the enlarged guard makes slipping a finger anywhere absolutely impossible.

micas · 3rd July 2006, 09:28 AM

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

Flavio · 3rd July 2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micas

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

YEAH!!!!!

kronckew · 3rd July 2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micas

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu'

"at 200 yards, independant quick FIRE"
"at 100 yards, volley by ranks, first rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"second rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"third rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"

where did all them natives go?

remember, those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.

Flavio · 3rd July 2006, 11:31 AM

[QUOTE=kronckew]me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu' [QUOTE]

Yeah, great movie!!!

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd July 2006, 02:12 PM

If you really are interested in the subject, you should go back, looking for signs, when the tulwar hilt started to look like it has for several hundreds of years, and why you are at it, you should also take an interest in the very early hilts. Maybe this will tell you more than watching the video clips. Although they are interesting, and the movements very elegant, they are hardly fighting technique.

S.Al-Anizi · 3rd July 2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

If you really are interested in the subject, you should go back, looking for signs, when the tulwar hilt started to look like it has for several hundreds of years, and why you are at it, you should also take an interest in the very early hilts. Maybe this will tell you more than watching the video clips. Although they are interesting, and the movements very elegant, they are hardly fighting technique.

I must agree with you Jens, this looks more like dancing and stage fighting swordplay rather than fighting techniques, pretty much like the Syrian "hakam" sword dancing we saw a long time ago on SFI.

Titus Pullo · 4th July 2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu'

"at 200 yards, independant quick FIRE"
"at 100 yards, volley by ranks, first rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"second rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"third rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"

where did all them natives go?

remember, those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.

That's partly true, but I think it's largely because they were not modernized and organized like western powers. They didn't have time to set up there own government and united under one government and organize and modernize their army. And they had no real naval power, which can cut off trade (a blockade) which can cripple their ability to wage war. REmember when Vietnam was united under one leader, Hochimin, they were able to easily beat the French. The French was fighting a defensive war and set up a trape to lure them in, but inspite of it they lost badly because the people were united and their army more orgainized.

B.I · 4th July 2006, 07:31 AM

hi katana,
this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question

the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories.
i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion.
your original question said -

Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer

i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us.
i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine.
not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller.
sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows.
i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

MABAGANI · 4th July 2006, 09:57 AM

The tulwar disc pommel works well during close quarter fighting with or without a shield.

fernando · 24th November 2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The longstanding claim that the smaller grip size was presumed due to smaller Indian handsize, while it has been also suggested that the presence of the 'Indian ricasso' on the blade was intended to allow the warrior to wrap the forefinger around the quillon of the guard. This seems to relate to similar European practice from early rapier swordplay.

Hi Jim, may i ask you ?
Would it be a reasonable positioning on this problematic to consider that, small grips to fit hands of determined Peoples, or short grips due to transfer of one ( or even two ) finger/s to the blade ricasso, are two distinct things ?. This not avoiding that a mix of both can be referenced ... and also this not meaning such mixes are for efective use.
As an example, one can observe in pictures 20, 21, 23, 24, 28 and 29 of HOMENS, ESPADAS E TOMATES, various Cingalese Kastanes, with their blade ricassos and finger protection rings of a diminute dimension . In a free translation of this book's page 173, Daehnhardt reminds that the Portuguese introduced in Ceilão, in the beginning of the XVI century, besides the portable firearm, the sword finger protection. He refers however, that the Cingalese swordsmiths never understood the appearing of the techniques related to the blade ricasso and the protection rings in front of the guard. They actually introduced the ricasso section in their blades, but reduced the dimension of the rings to such a size that fingers could not get through, therefore the whole technology degenerating into a mere decoration detail. The reason, he says, is that Cingalese smiths kept making the blades with the same curved shape, for striking use, as also the Cingalese sword handling techniques remained the same. Therefore having no need to extend the finger to control the sword, the presence of these devices must be considered as of style and ornamentation.
Sorry for the bore, most probably you already knew all of this.
Kind regards
fernando

2nd July 2006, 06:02 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,100	Extremely interesting post Katana!! and I'm glad to see the attention to the tulwar, which is one of the more esoteric of collectible ethnographic swords. I have always been inclined to think of the design of the tulwar hilt to represent largely atavistic influence from many of the early weapons seen in the iconography of India. It seems as if the techniques employed in using the tulwar may have evolved to work around the somewhat restrictive elements of the hilt structure, particularly the often very large pommel disc. The disc is known to carry not only aesthetic but often important symbolic themes in its decoration. The knuckleguard may represent the influence of European weapons and swordplay techniques in degree but such application needs to be consigned to research on individual weapons or limited regional forms rather than broad assessments. It seems there have been a number of very good discussions over the years examining the techniques used with the tulwar, and the primary concerns seem to have been with the impairment of wrist action caused by the disc of the pommel, as well as the limited size of the grip. The longstanding claim that the smaller grip size was presumed due to smaller Indian handsize, while it has been also suggested that the presence of the 'Indian ricasso' on the blade was intended to allow the warrior to wrap the forefinger around the quillon of the guard. This seems to relate to similar European practice from early rapier swordplay. The tulwar was an incredibly deadly weapon, and used with considerable effect by the Sikhs in particular. In the cavalry regiments of the British Raj, these were the chosen sabre. I once owned several examples made by Robert Mole of Birmingham,England specifically for native troopers of British cavalry in India. Best regards, Jim

3rd July 2006, 01:11 AM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi, i realise i am bordering controversy, but hope this will be taken as it is meant, and not how it could possibly sound. i dont relate gatka with the formation or original martial use of the tulwar. i have seen gatka a few times, and know people that practise it to a realtively high standard, and theorise on the use of this and other swords. no matter how convinced they are themselves, none have ever managed to sway me past the thought that this is not much more than a dance with swords, done in the membrance of a lost history of martial prowess. as rick says, put in a real situation, i dont think they will be swinging so much in pretty patterns. the tulwar is not a sikh weapon, although it was adopted as such. the 'dances' i have seen are truly fabulous, and a wonder to behold. but then again, so is michael flatley. there are many accounts of encountered indian warriors in battle, described by the british. although they sadly dont recount the actual weapons (we can assume they could have been tulwars) i am sure they would have mentioned the wild swinging as this was very un-british. i am afraid that, like most other oriental martial art, it is only a matter of time before gatka hits the general public after a c-list celebrity decides to make a fitness video using its basic principles. the ricasso arguement, as jim stated, is long going and without a possible outcome. i think both camps locked horns and argreed to disagree as to the grip size, i feel this too has had many theories. mine is rather simple, and as valid and invalid as any other :-) i believe the original hindus (especially in the north - rajput and before) to be of a much smaller size. muslims (from all over) have been in india since well before the moghuls, and left a solid mark not only in art and architecture, but also in the people themselves. if you go to india, you will see many very small men, with very small hands (that today would fit comfortably in a 300 year old hilt). i think this form was very much like their original hindu ancestors. then you see many indian that are much larger, and i think these had a mingling of blood from the turks/persians/moghuls/sultanate who were larger people. there is no such thing as a hindu hilt in the tulwar form, as no one can prove who the original sword was made for (could have been a small moghul, or a large rajput!) i have accounts of a famous 17thC rajput prince of 'pure' hindu line that had a huge brother who owned outsized weapons. the maharajas state's armoury still exists, which a number of huge weapons (possible owned by his brother, or just another big guy some years later). what i am saying is nothing can be assumed or put past speculation. another interesting point, to bolster my long-standing arguement against fingering the ricasso, is that early hindu swords (from 16thC and before) had absolutely tiny hilts, smaller than most small tulwars. the form of the enlarged guard makes slipping a finger anywhere absolutely impossible.

3rd July 2006, 09:28 AM	#3
micas Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 30	Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

3rd July 2006, 11:31 AM	#6
Flavio Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Italia Posts: 1,243	[QUOTE=kronckew]me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu' [QUOTE] Yeah, great movie!!!

3rd July 2006, 02:12 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	If you really are interested in the subject, you should go back, looking for signs, when the tulwar hilt started to look like it has for several hundreds of years, and why you are at it, you should also take an interest in the very early hilts. Maybe this will tell you more than watching the video clips. Although they are interesting, and the movements very elegant, they are hardly fighting technique.

4th July 2006, 07:31 AM	#10
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi katana, this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories. i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion. your original question said - Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us. i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine. not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller. sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows. i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

4th July 2006, 09:57 AM	#11
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	The tulwar disc pommel works well during close quarter fighting with or without a shield.