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

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.

katana · 10th December 2006, 01:26 PM

More evidence about the small hand size of Indian Warriors.. this is an extract from "The Uncivilized Races of Men in All Countries of the World", by J.G. Wood, M.A., F.L.S.; Vol.2 of 2 volumes; J.B. Burr Publishing Co., Hartford, Connecticut, 1878. Mr. Wood appears to be an Englishman, and has written a prodigious number of books on all manner of very interesting subjects.

Here he is refering to the Kukri....

" The handle is made after a very remarkable fashion, and the portion, which forms the hilt is so small that it shows the size of the hand for which it was intended. This smallness of hilt is common to all Indian swords, which cannot be grasped by an ordinary English soldier. My own hand is a small one, but it is too large even for the heavy sabre or "tulwar," while the handle of the kookery looks as if the weapon were intended for a boy of six or seven years old. Indeed, the Ghoorkas are so small, that their hands, like those of all Indian races, are very delicate, about the same size as those of an English boy of seven. "

Link below
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/ghurka_wood.htm

katana · 10th December 2006, 01:44 PM

And here....possibly...further explaination as to the design of the restrictive hilt/pommel . An extract from A New System of Sword Exercise for Infantry
By Richard F. Burton
London: Printed and Published by William Clowes and Sons, 13 Charing Cross, 1876

"The Sliding Cut, common throughout the East. In this movement the elbow and wrist are held stiff and the blow is given from the strong muscles of the back and shoulder, nearly ten times larger than the muscles of the arm, while the whole force and weight of the body are thrown in. Hence the people of India use small hilts with mere crutch-guards, which confine the hand and prevent the play of the wrist; the larger grip required for the Chopping Cut only lessens the cutting force. The terrible effect of these cuts is well known. "

The whole article shows various sword cuts, parries etc. link below

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_burtonnewsword_0200.htm

8th December 2006, 07:33 PM	#4
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.

25th November 2006, 02:53 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	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	#3
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	#5
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.

10th December 2006, 01:26 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	More evidence about the small hand size of Indian Warriors.. this is an extract from "The Uncivilized Races of Men in All Countries of the World", by J.G. Wood, M.A., F.L.S.; Vol.2 of 2 volumes; J.B. Burr Publishing Co., Hartford, Connecticut, 1878. Mr. Wood appears to be an Englishman, and has written a prodigious number of books on all manner of very interesting subjects. Here he is refering to the Kukri.... " The handle is made after a very remarkable fashion, and the portion, which forms the hilt is so small that it shows the size of the hand for which it was intended. This smallness of hilt is common to all Indian swords, which cannot be grasped by an ordinary English soldier. My own hand is a small one, but it is too large even for the heavy sabre or "tulwar," while the handle of the kookery looks as if the weapon were intended for a boy of six or seven years old. Indeed, the Ghoorkas are so small, that their hands, like those of all Indian races, are very delicate, about the same size as those of an English boy of seven. " Link below http://www.arco-iris.com/George/ghurka_wood.htm

10th December 2006, 01:44 PM	#7
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	And here....possibly...further explaination as to the design of the restrictive hilt/pommel . An extract from A New System of Sword Exercise for Infantry By Richard F. Burton London: Printed and Published by William Clowes and Sons, 13 Charing Cross, 1876 "The Sliding Cut, common throughout the East. In this movement the elbow and wrist are held stiff and the blow is given from the strong muscles of the back and shoulder, nearly ten times larger than the muscles of the arm, while the whole force and weight of the body are thrown in. Hence the people of India use small hilts with mere crutch-guards, which confine the hand and prevent the play of the wrist; the larger grip required for the Chopping Cut only lessens the cutting force. The terrible effect of these cuts is well known. " The whole article shows various sword cuts, parries etc. link below http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_burtonnewsword_0200.htm