Tulwar Vs sabre.

[spiral]

Most weapons come in many qualties, tulwars, & kukris are great examples of this.

Some are junk , some can also be great pieces of weaponary or art. True masterpieces.

As for tulwars they can have blades of any origin or type of steel in them, although I must say quarter curved to a circle sounds rather nice to me!

Thats sounds rather like a shamshir blade in a tulwar hilt.

After all generaly its the shape of the hilt that decides the name tulwar.


Spiral

[Jim McDougall]

Thats sounds rather like a shamshir blade in a tulwar hilt.

After all generaly its the shape of the hilt that decides the name tulwar.


Spiral[/QUOTE]


"...talwar, derived from the Persian 'pouluar', is the term used for 'sword' in the Islamic tongues of North-West India".
"The Indian Sword", P.S.Rawson, 1969, N.Y. p.86

In fig.3 (Rawson) a shamshir with the typical hilt, crossguard and blade is termed 'talwar'.
Fig. 48, another example captioned " talwar hilt of pure Persian form".

These references seem convincing, however issue is taken by G.N.Pant in his often referred to work "Indian Arms and Armour" (New Delhi, 1980) where on p.76 he notes and illustrates a shamshir (fig.160) specifically terming it as 'shamshir' (though its provenance is shown as Lahore). He notes further that Indo-Persian blades are frequently used in Turkey and in India where they are remounted in the styles characteristic of these countries.
"...when Indo-Persian blade is fitted into the usual Indian hilt it is called talwar".
On page 83 the author notes, regarding the term talwar, "...it is a class name for the Indian sabre and practically all the curved sabres in it. For a student of weaponry it stands for those curved swords which have the blade like that of a shamshir and the usual Indian hilt. P.S.Rawson has confused talwar with shamshir at many places".

On p.66, Pant discusses the hilt form familiarly called 'pulouar' which we all recognize and associate with Afghan regions. He notes that P.S.Rawson has wrongly called it a talwar (p.165, fig.72). Interestingly, nowhere does Pant suggest or mention that this hilt form is attributed to Afghan regions, but does suggest that the form may be derived from earlier Arab swords.

On p.77, Pant shows a smaller shamshir in size that he suggests were made for young princes, though noting they were at times also used by adults. In this classification he terms this item, 'nimcha shamshir'. One can only imagine what that description used in narrative would suggest if relying on the preconceived images of the reader who relied on stereotyped classifications based on pidgeonholed forms!

Pant continues other terminology issues, particularly an error he describes by the venerable Lord Egerton in describing the dagger we know collectively as 'katar'. He claims that these are correctly termed 'jemedhar' and that the term was misapplied in Egerton. This has been discussed numerous times over the years and it is generally agreed that since the term 'katar' is so solidly based within the arms and armour glossary and terminology, it would be fruitless to try to rectify the use of this term referring to these daggers.

In his post, Spiral has wisely qualified his comment that the term talwar is 'generally' based on the shape of the hilt.
The reason I wanted to address this topic specifically is to point out the inherent dangers in relying on terminology or commonly applied names in classifying weapons. While many forms of weapon adhere basically to a familiar and generally congruent group, there are constantly found examples which are clearly hybrids or crossover items, which are better classified descriptively.

Regarding the reference to the sword exercises in Gatka, while they do indeed seem theatrical, in my opinion such demonstrations do serve a purpose. While obviously unlikely in combat situations, they certainly appear to give the individual the general feel for the dynamics of the sword in use as well as familiarity and comfort in its use, which of course would generate much needed confidence.
As Fenris has noted, the drill in the use of a weapon is a key factor, and the British rank and file probably had limited attention given to the use of the sword. Sir Richard Burton is known to have observed the seemingly theatrical displays of Indian use of the sword with disdain, considering it more of a 'dance' than useful exercise. Certainly the strict regimental procedures of the British army toward the use of the sword was much more 'wooden' in categoric movements. I recall reading an instance from a British narrative of Balaklava where a British trooper was extremely upset when he encountered a Russian trooper, and when he attacked the Russian with a 'cut 5' or some numerically applied move, the Russian responded unexpectedly with an entirely out of sequence 'cut 7' or some number and 'knocked him off his horse!" Extremely ungentlemanly !!!

Excellent perspective on the production of steel Jens! I think that any restrictions applied by the British in India concerning such production would not likely have concerned deforestation or such environmental issues. Being an industrialized power would likely focus on economic rather than environmental driving factors, though it seems I have seen references suggesting the deforestation issue as a consideration.

As noted, the book by Robert Elgood, "Hindu Arms and Ritual" is an absolute must!! and not only wonderfully discusses the study of Hindu weaponry, but presents essential perspective in the study of ethnographic weapons in general.

All best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

Some very good points made earlier in this thread, especially by Jim.

For my part, I would like to add that we have more than one issue here:

a) Quality of the steel used;

b) Edge imparted;

c) Sword blade design; And

d) cutting skill of the swordsman.


Contrary to popular perceptions, cutting with a sword, as opposed to merely bashing with the blade, is very difficult to master. The cut, to be effective, has to be made with the blade's center of percussion (COP) and without any lateral movement. The tendency for most is to impart to the sword a lateral movement as well as cutting with parts of the blade other than the COP. This greatly negates the effect of the cut and imposes great stress on the blade, often damaging it.

For those not familiar with the importance of a sword's COP, it is the point at which the blade vibrates the least when hitting the target. On sabres it is usually around 10" from the point. The thicker the blade, as with Japanese swords, the greater the "sweet-spot" around the COP. With deeply fullered Euro sabres and the like, the said sweet-spot is smaller, rendering cutting a more exacting task.

Even with the Japanese sword, an excellent cutter by all accounts, a considerable amount of training has to be undertaken before the swordsman becomes proficient. It is noteworthy that after the Meiji restoration, the Japanese army adopted European sabres and many officers trained in their traditional swordsmanship reverted to their native wares because they found the sabres too springy and difficult to cut with.

Of course European sabres went through a number of changes, starting out as very curved weapons and ending up, by the 1850s as much straighter. Many military fencing masters considered that the later patterns were neither fish nor fowl, that is poor cutters and poor thrusters. It is for this reason that the debate of point vs edge has raged in military circles right into the 20th century, with the point gaining favour by the end of the 19th.

Notwithstanding Nolan's enthusiasm, Richard Burton, who served in India, had contempt for Indian swordsmanship because, according to him, they neglected the use of the point. As for Nolan's 2nd hand assertion that those native swordsmen who inflicted those terrible wounds received no special training, I find it very hard to believe, save that they could have been merely lucky cuts delivered in a battle in which many more were totally ineffective, as was so often observed during the cavalry battles of Napoleonic era.

As for the matter of edges, a very keen edge on a sword will deliver spectacular cuts on unarmoured human targets, but will also render it extremely vulnerable to damage if inadvertently cutting into hard objects, an all too common occurrence.

Cheers
Chris

[Pukka Bundook]

I thank you all for your contributions!
Though I still "see through a glass darkly" some of it is becoming a little clearer.

Spiral,
It was interesting what you said, Re. the Horizontal and circular motions favourable to the tulwar, as I had been 'playing' with mine, and found exactly the same thing!

Jens and Jim,
Re. the English forbidding ingot making, on account of de-forestation, this May have been for environmental reasons,.................Messing up the Tiger hunting!!??

Jim,
It does appear in "Sahib" that quality control for British swords was a bit loose in the mid 19th century, there are many examples given of swords failing in use, though as Chris stated, a badly directed blow can spoil a good blade.
Some bent "almost in two" on first strike, some broke on first strike, some good men died after cutting down an oponent or three, when the sword broke in the hilt and left them defenceless.
I'm sure these complaints would not have arisen with the old 1796 pattern.

Jens, and Katana,
I was most interested in what you had to say about swords made for individuals, and being handed down from father to son.
This would account to some degree for swords showing much age and wear, the koftgari on hilts nearly all worn away, and blades having lost much of their width through sharpening, Sharpening that was not done just for the sake of it!
I do wish Indian swords were easier to date. I get the feeling some are much older than we first think!

Chris,
Very interesting obsevations.
Richard Burton may have had contempt for Indian swordsmanship, (not understanding 'the point') but it must have been he never tried the point with a Tulwar,......It would be very hard to thrust straight with one!
Any thrust would appear to have to be "short and compass".....don't you think?

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Richard,
Thank you so much for the individually and detailed responses! Very much appreciated. It seems too often that responses are keyed to a single thought or idea from a particular post while those of others get overlooked, and here you took the time to address all specifically.
Good point (no pun intended on the Burton perspective concerning his disregard for Indian swordsmanship and the absence of use of the thrust.

On the quality of the British blades, you're right, it seems as industrialization and mass producing advanced, the quality became worse. The battle on the quality of British blades vs. German of course prevailed from the 17th century well through the 19th. The British blades of c. 1796 were certainly of high quality, and the old light cavalry blades were initially quite deadly ( as observed by Napoleon and his marshals at Waterloo) while in later years thier servicability deteriorated from improper maintainance. Later it was discovered by the British when examining the blades taken from Indian warriors, that the razor honing of the blades was key, as well as regular oiling and wooden scabbards. There is less shock to a blade if it meets solid opposition by slicing through it (at least thats my physics perspective! .

Thanks again!
All the best,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the nice words, and like Jim wrote, that you took the time to address each of us.

When it comes to Indian swords and weapons in general, you must remember, that a sword was not only a weapon, it had a history and above all, it had a spirit of its own, so when you inherited a weapon, you did not only inherit a blade, you also inherited its history and its spirit, a thing which is very important to the Hindus. This is one of the reasons why it is important to read Robert Elgood's book Hindu Arms and Ritual, as he explains this, a thing, which most authors avoid to comment on.

[Jim McDougall]

Beautifully said Jens!!!!!
Elgood has definitely and at last put the study of these weapons in the proper perspective.
All the best,
Jim

[William.m]

Hi Jim, I must disagree with you on the alleged poor quality of British swords as I have had quite a few from various time periods and have found most of them to be excellent swords. In regards to scabbards, wooden and leather scabbards would usually be reserved for officers and the steel scabbards should have a wooden inner core, which is the norm. May I also ask why you believe that the British did not sharpen their swords and learned that sharpening and oling were good for a sword?


Regards,

William

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Later it was discovered by the British when examining the blades taken from Indian warriors, that the razor honing of the blades was key, as well as regular oiling and wooden scabbards.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi William,
It's good to hear from you! Please note that I have not questioned the quality of British blades, only the proper use of them by British troopers, a thing not uncommon in other ranks of many armies in various circumstances.
While there were many debates, questions and scandals concerning British swords from the latter 18th through the end of the 19th centuries, it is commonly held that the British M1796 light cavalry sabre was the finest sword ever used by the British cavalry. Indeed it remained in use by yeomanry units throughout the 19th c. and in Indian regiments into the 20th.

I will share with you some excerpts on which I have based my comments.

British General Gaspard LeMarchant (1766-1812) was a brilliant cavalry officer who worked at advancing cavalry tactics and weapons, and was responsible for devising the M1796 sabre from his observations while detached on campaign in Flanders with Austrian forces in 1795. While there, he noted the brilliant swordsmansip of the Austrians, and regrettably noted that one Austrian officer had observed that while British swordplay was entertaining, he likened it to "somebody chopping wood".
("Scientific Soldier:A Life of General Le Marchant" , R.H.Thoumaine, 1968, p.41).

In "Swords of the British Army" (Brian Robson, London, 1975, p.34), it is noted that , "...the history of the British cavalry troopers sword in the 19th c. is largely one of complaints. How far these complaints genuinely arose from defects in the swords and how far they were due to deficiencies in the users is difficult to determine".
Further, "...there is however, evidence to suggest that the faults were not confined to the swords. Very often, the troopers were not well trained in the difficult art of mounted swordsmanship and
'little attention was paid to the care and sharpening of the swords".

In reviewing "British Cut and Thrust Weapons" (John Wilkinson-Latham,1971) on p.20, the author cites passages from Louis E.Nolan from his 1853 Treatise on cavalry, "Cavalry,Its History and Tactics", where it is noted,
"...at Rumnugger..the troopers of the light cavalry had no confidence in their swords. A regulation sword in his hand,
which must always be blunted by the steel scabbard in which it
is encased.
The native sword blades were chiefly old dragoon blades cast from our service..they all had an edge like a razor from heel to point, and were
worn in wooden scabbards".

Nolan made these observations in India in 1850, and it is interesting to note that he, like LeMarchant, approached all aspects of the cavalry with deep passion. Ironically both were killed in cavalry charges, LeMarchant at Salamanca in 1812 and Nolan at Balaklava in the immortal "Charge of the Light Brigade".

In "Nolan of Balaclava" (H.Moyse-Bartlett, London, 1971, p.121) the author describes Nolans observations concerning the terrifying effectiveness of the swords used by troopers of Nizams Irregular Horse against Rohilla tribesmen, where "...the swords turned out to be merely old blades discarded by British dragoons, cut to a razor edge and worn in wooden scabbards from which they were never drawn except in action".



Clearly, the blades did indeed have superior quality basically, however would not seem to have held in particularly high regard by the British troopers, if they were simply discarded. This may likely indicate that the men at this period and on campaign on India's frontiers had no special regard for swords because of more reliance on firearms with little consideration for the sword.

At the end of the 18th century, there were indeed wooden inserts in many of the M1788 sabres, in particular those by Gill, however it does not appear that wooden inserts were widely used in the subsequent issues of regulation swords for cavalry troopers. The concerns expressed by Nolan, noting the importance of wooden scabbards must have been considered in the ongoing struggle to improve the quality of British swords later in the 19th c. as seen in this excerpt from "Sword, Lance and Bayonet" , Ffoulkes & Hopkinson, 1938, p.22),
"...in considering convenience in use the scabbard must not be left out of consideration. Writing in 1869 Colonel Denison ("Modern Cavalry") urged the use of a wooden lining, as the sword edge coming in contact with the metal scabbard tended to become blunted, and he instances the universal use of the wooden scabbard by Oriental horsemen in support of his contention".

This would of course suggest that swords were typically sheathed in metal scabbards as late as 1869, although as you have noted, officers swords were often in leather covered wood cases. I have seen noted that later in the 19th c. swords sent to India were in wood scabbards that were covered there locally so as not to question the type of animal hide applied to cover it.

There can never be any question of the gallantry of the outstanding cavalry of Great Britain in these times, and my comments were not intended to question that in any way. In the years after the Napoleonic Wars there was a great deal of complacency in the military, and colonial campaigns were anything but ideal for parade ground discipline. The constant struggles in the neverending debate of cut vs. thrust typically negated any consistancy in sword design or exercise and certainly had profound bearing on the importance of the sword as a viable combat weapon with the growing emphasis on firearms as principle weapons.

I hope this will better explain my comments
All the best,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Chris,
Very interesting obsevations.
Richard Burton may have had contempt for Indian swordsmanship, (not understanding 'the point') but it must have been he never tried the point with a Tulwar,......It would be very hard to thrust straight with one!

Precisely!

Cheers
Chris

[Pukka Bundook]

Jens,
Thank you for the explanation, re. what was inherited with these swords,
ie, Not only the weapon, but Also its history and Spirit.
This little statement has given me a Much better understanding of "how it was"
I feel so often, we can limit our understanding of an object by reducing it to a matter of bare bones, (ie, wood, metal or whatever) and limit our study to these 'bare bones', when really, the 'object' of our obsevation can be the key to passage into an incredibly rich "other world" that we may otherwise have never had opportunity to enter!.............. A place where real history can be fleshed out...
Thank you again!!
I must look for a copy of Elgood's book.

Jim,
Thank you for your input!
Re, British sword quality, I believe you are right about the slow decline in usefulness.
At Multan, in 1848, John Kennedy, in a letter home states; "Markham broke his sword in a Sikhs body,and then floored him with his fists....many officers and men were engaged in this way, and the number of blades broken testifies to the mediocrity of our sword cutlery. I could fill my paper twice over with minor events of this kind". (Sahib, p386)
It appears even prior to this, the Tulwar had certain appeal.
In this book It states Arthur Wellesley usually carried a plain but well proportioned Indian sword..(361)
Also states most of the problem with the British blades, was blunting through drill with metal scabbards....as you previously mentioned.

Spiral,
I must agree, Most Sikh gentlemen I have met are fine chaps! not small by any standards........with hands to match!

Chris,
An enchanting little memo from the same book, re. slicing rather than thrusting.
( paraphraed!)
In the action at Ramnagar, a certain Sgt Clifton and comrades ,14th light dragoons, was ordered to advance whilst resing in a field eating turnips.
The sgt. slipped a turnip into his shako for later consumption.
In the following action his horse was shot under him, he was surrounded and the top of his shako cut to shreds and his turnip to slices without touching his head!
Seems he escaped with a few light scratches to his shoulders....
I can just imagine his little sliced turnip, still sitting neatly on his head!....

All the best,
Richard.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Richard,

One very fundamental difference about the way the Westerners and the Indians look/looked on a sword is, that the Westerner regarded it as a sword only, maybe with a little bit of affection if someone in the family had used it, but to the Indians it was much more that that. The decoration also seems to have had a far deeper meaning that only the decoration – but I an digging into that at the moment, so when I know more I will write about it, although the informations are far apart.

When looking for Elgood's book, try ABE Books on the net, I think you will find a good buy in India.