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

katana · 24th November 2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LabanTayo

some of the views against how Gatka is not martial but more dancing could be changed if you were to have real edged weapons and stand in front of someone coming at you the way they do. all questions of its effectiveness will be answered. even the Filipino Martial Arts can look flowery, but put yourself at the wrong end of the battle, and you'll see/feel what the motions are meant for. before anyone can give their theory of how a sword is used in martial application, take some lessons in that art first. get a better understanding of how they move and think.

but i can understand how the tulwar is used based on design. in this case, form followed function.

in the filipino arts, there are a lot of twirling exercises. all kinds of fancy twirls. theyre not there to impress the girls. theyre there to develop flexibility and strength of the wrist, to understand how the weapon moves with kinetic energy and to develop speed in striking from any postion the weapon may be in.

.

I TOTALLY AGREE.....

But although the form of the Tulwar hilt could be reasoned to be designed with the 'style' of its use.....the small size of the hilt is not. It seems a combination of sword 'style' dictated form and the 'smaller hands' theory provides an answer to the size. Especially when the British sabre hilts were made smaller for the Indian Army at the turn of the 19c.

LabanTayo · 24th November 2006, 05:53 PM

katana,
the same goes with filipino swords. some hilts are too small for me, but in smaller hands, make sense.
the tulwar, with a large cup and d-guard, create a snug fit for controlling all the centrifugal force created by their moves. the centrifugul force has to have a center (the hand and hilt). too much play or movement between the hand and hilt (the hand loosing control of the hilt because there is too much room inside of the guard) means not too good of control of the blade. if you cant control the blade and cutting edge, you get killed.
they are not gripping it like a stick with a closed fist. i'm sure there is a special way of holding it.

katana · 24th November 2006, 06:11 PM

I have tried various grips holding a Tulwar, the normal grip seems best although a little tight. It allows you to 'roll' your wrist and have good control. I do believe that the hilt is designed to be 'tight' for obvious reasons...but I think ...for my hand....it needs to be 1/2'' (1.25 cms) longer. This would provide me with the 'tightness' and allow all my fingers to grasp the hilt. I could use the 'standard' hilt...but it would create several problems.
1. It cuts down the blood circulation in the 'sword' hand.....not good....causes numbness in the fingers and shortly after finger 'cramp' ...last thing you want in the heat of battle.
2. If my 'sword strike' was parried, the shock through the hilt would be painful with such cramped up fingers..... again not a good situation.

Jim McDougall · 25th November 2006, 02:53 AM

Laban Tayo, thank you so very, very much!!!

I am really glad that Katana revived this thread as the discussions on tulwar use, hilt size with reference to Indian warriors hand size and the 'Indian ricasso' have always proven most interesting.
Katana, your extremely well placed reference taken from the Wikipedia reference gives some good support to the hand size element! It seems that the original reference actually comes from Brian Robson ("Swords of the British Army", 1975, p.57), where he discusses the modified version of the pattern 1908 cavalry sword adopted by the Indian Army in 1918, "...the hilt generally was much smaller to match the hand of the average Indian trooper".
I think that statement also supports the excellent observation noted by B.I. concerning many Hindu hilts made very small and with enlarged guards that would not allow the extension of the forefinger outside it.

Fernando, this brings me to your also well placed observation, that the discussion of the possible practical applications of the size of the hilts as well as the use of the ricasso and extended forefinger are in many cases entirely different.
Your analogy concerning the Sinhalese kastane is a very good example of vestigial elements and design on a weapon. The drooping makara head quillons that in design, eventually touched the opposing sides of the blade, completely disregarding the earlier intent of such quillons for protection of fingers clearly illustrates lack of understanding of original purpose.

I think that the tulwar hilt, indeed often of smaller size, may have well fit the hands of many Indian warriors. However, it seems odd that a ricasso would be required on the cutting edge of the blade, unless possibly it simply acted as a choil in the sharpening of the blade? If a warriors hand was in fact, too large, or if a firmer grip for a more solid hit was preferred, the wrapped finger would seem to be ideal. Since parrying was with the dhal, the danger of the opponents blade against the exposed finger would seem unlikely.

I still think there may have been some influence in earlier times when observing the swordsmanship of the Portuguese, in turn very much in parallell with that of the Italians, whose fingers did often coil around the rapier blade.
Although obviously speculation, it simply seems an interesting possibility, but admittedly it seems that further hilt development should have occurred to concur with the ring guards of the rapiers used. Again, to agree with what Fernando has noted, perhaps the purpose of the guards did not seem apparant, so did not integrate into the local hilt design.

While the ricasso, finger curl issue would seem to remain inconclusive, it seems supported that the size of the hilts was indeed to better accomodate the typically smaller hand size of most Indian warriors.

All best regards,
Jim

fernando · 25th November 2006, 03:59 PM

Thank you Jim,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

If a warriors hand was in fact, too large, or if a firmer grip for a more solid hit was preferred, the wrapped finger would seem to be ideal. Since parrying was with the dhal, the danger of the opponents blade against the exposed finger would seem unlikely.

What Rainer emphasizes is that the finger in front of the guard highly increased the angle of efectiveness ( the hit strength not being the issue ? ). If you look at pictures 84+85 and 94+95, you see him demonstrating how this technique allowed the sword to be handled down to an almost straight position ( 160º ), possibilitating the thrust atack. He adds that this often made the difference in battles, as Muslim swords ( with only a 120º angle ) had to be raised up for slashing, the warriors body becoming a good target for the opponent's thrust.
Kind regards
fernando

katana · 8th December 2006, 07:16 PM

More evidence that the average Indian hand were generally smaller than Europeans. This is regards the 1908 pattern sword, quoted from the REME Museum of Technology.

"A modified version of our Sword Cavalry No I Mk 1* Patt '08 which was adopted by the Indian Army in 1918. The blade is identical but marked 'IP '08'. The hilt generally was much smaller to suit the smaller hand of the average Indian trooper. The guard of the Indian pattern, while generally the same shape, was without the reinforcing piece. The grip is only 5¾ inches long compared to our 6¼ inches. In addition, the bowl of the guard is smaller, at its widest point being 4¾ inches against our 5½ inches."

The link below is a goggle 'cached' page....pictures wont load

http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:...k&ct=clnk&cd=8

Jens Nordlunde · 8th December 2006, 07:33 PM

Thank you Katana, this question has been discussed on and off for a long time, here and on other forums, and what you have found, is very interesting - just along the line that I 'postulated' it would be

.

katana · 8th December 2006, 07:56 PM

Hi Jens,
I found a reference to this fact originally through Wikipedia and posted it, Jim (McDougall)
also refered to a reference from Brian Robson ("Swords of the British Army", 1975, p.57). I found this reference ...whilst looking for info. on a different topic ...but felt that this re-inforces the previous references....
Hopefully, these are independent statements about a historical fact and not references from one individual's opinion.....

Also, interestingly, I mentioned that I would be more 'comfortable' if the hilts were 1/2" longer..........which is the exact difference between the modified hilts and that of the British version.

Yustas · 24th November 2006, 06:18 PM

I like the movement a loot!
But i think they should implement leg and arm movements in the system.
But the sword work is great.
It is different then Europian though )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP_07ubwGho

24th November 2006, 05:53 PM	#2
LabanTayo Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kansas City Posts: 177	katana, the same goes with filipino swords. some hilts are too small for me, but in smaller hands, make sense. the tulwar, with a large cup and d-guard, create a snug fit for controlling all the centrifugal force created by their moves. the centrifugul force has to have a center (the hand and hilt). too much play or movement between the hand and hilt (the hand loosing control of the hilt because there is too much room inside of the guard) means not too good of control of the blade. if you cant control the blade and cutting edge, you get killed. they are not gripping it like a stick with a closed fist. i'm sure there is a special way of holding it. Last edited by LabanTayo; 24th November 2006 at 06:04 PM.

8th December 2006, 07:33 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you Katana, this question has been discussed on and off for a long time, here and on other forums, and what you have found, is very interesting - just along the line that I 'postulated' it would be.

24th November 2006, 06:18 PM	#9
Yustas Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 40	Good I like the movement a loot! But i think they should implement leg and arm movements in the system. But the sword work is great. It is different then Europian though ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP_07ubwGho

24th November 2006, 06:11 PM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	I have tried various grips holding a Tulwar, the normal grip seems best although a little tight. It allows you to 'roll' your wrist and have good control. I do believe that the hilt is designed to be 'tight' for obvious reasons...but I think ...for my hand....it needs to be 1/2'' (1.25 cms) longer. This would provide me with the 'tightness' and allow all my fingers to grasp the hilt. I could use the 'standard' hilt...but it would create several problems. 1. It cuts down the blood circulation in the 'sword' hand.....not good....causes numbness in the fingers and shortly after finger 'cramp' ...last thing you want in the heat of battle. 2. If my 'sword strike' was parried, the shock through the hilt would be painful with such cramped up fingers..... again not a good situation.

25th November 2006, 02:53 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,525	Laban Tayo, thank you so very, very much!!! I am really glad that Katana revived this thread as the discussions on tulwar use, hilt size with reference to Indian warriors hand size and the 'Indian ricasso' have always proven most interesting. Katana, your extremely well placed reference taken from the Wikipedia reference gives some good support to the hand size element! It seems that the original reference actually comes from Brian Robson ("Swords of the British Army", 1975, p.57), where he discusses the modified version of the pattern 1908 cavalry sword adopted by the Indian Army in 1918, "...the hilt generally was much smaller to match the hand of the average Indian trooper". I think that statement also supports the excellent observation noted by B.I. concerning many Hindu hilts made very small and with enlarged guards that would not allow the extension of the forefinger outside it. Fernando, this brings me to your also well placed observation, that the discussion of the possible practical applications of the size of the hilts as well as the use of the ricasso and extended forefinger are in many cases entirely different. Your analogy concerning the Sinhalese kastane is a very good example of vestigial elements and design on a weapon. The drooping makara head quillons that in design, eventually touched the opposing sides of the blade, completely disregarding the earlier intent of such quillons for protection of fingers clearly illustrates lack of understanding of original purpose. I think that the tulwar hilt, indeed often of smaller size, may have well fit the hands of many Indian warriors. However, it seems odd that a ricasso would be required on the cutting edge of the blade, unless possibly it simply acted as a choil in the sharpening of the blade? If a warriors hand was in fact, too large, or if a firmer grip for a more solid hit was preferred, the wrapped finger would seem to be ideal. Since parrying was with the dhal, the danger of the opponents blade against the exposed finger would seem unlikely. I still think there may have been some influence in earlier times when observing the swordsmanship of the Portuguese, in turn very much in parallell with that of the Italians, whose fingers did often coil around the rapier blade. Although obviously speculation, it simply seems an interesting possibility, but admittedly it seems that further hilt development should have occurred to concur with the ring guards of the rapiers used. Again, to agree with what Fernando has noted, perhaps the purpose of the guards did not seem apparant, so did not integrate into the local hilt design. While the ricasso, finger curl issue would seem to remain inconclusive, it seems supported that the size of the hilts was indeed to better accomodate the typically smaller hand size of most Indian warriors. All best regards, Jim

8th December 2006, 07:16 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	More evidence that the average Indian hand were generally smaller than Europeans. This is regards the 1908 pattern sword, quoted from the REME Museum of Technology. "A modified version of our Sword Cavalry No I Mk 1* Patt '08 which was adopted by the Indian Army in 1918. The blade is identical but marked 'IP '08'. The hilt generally was much smaller to suit the smaller hand of the average Indian trooper. The guard of the Indian pattern, while generally the same shape, was without the reinforcing piece. The grip is only 5¾ inches long compared to our 6¼ inches. In addition, the bowl of the guard is smaller, at its widest point being 4¾ inches against our 5½ inches." The link below is a goggle 'cached' page....pictures wont load http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:...k&ct=clnk&cd=8

8th December 2006, 07:56 PM	#8
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Jens, I found a reference to this fact originally through Wikipedia and posted it, Jim (McDougall) also refered to a reference from Brian Robson ("Swords of the British Army", 1975, p.57). I found this reference ...whilst looking for info. on a different topic ...but felt that this re-inforces the previous references.... Hopefully, these are independent statements about a historical fact and not references from one individual's opinion..... Also, interestingly, I mentioned that I would be more 'comfortable' if the hilts were 1/2" longer..........which is the exact difference between the modified hilts and that of the British version.