My first Tulwar

[katana]

Originally Posted by fernando

Back to its feel and as a curiosity, i am posting pictures handing the sword. As the grip is rather short, i thaught i would hold it with the thumb in front of the quillon, using the ricasso functionality. To have it pictured by both sides, i had to borrow my wife's right hand. She said she was busy, but i managed to convince her .

Kind regards to all
fernando

Hi Fernando,
the size of the hilts is another 'hotly' debated subject ..there are several posts on the Forum.....here is one that I posted...

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ht=tulwar+disc

Your Tulwar certainly seems 'battle worthy' and interesting that your sword is 'handed'...I have several which also feel better in the right hand. I suspect that as the blades are 'fixed' with resin, it was easier to 'set' the blade in a way to suit the owner.

Hi CourseEight, thanks for posting the link... it does create more questions.
IMHO I thought most hunting swords were straight bladed...European ones that is. As I thought 'hunting swords' were only used to kill a captured/injured animal quickly, by piercing the spinal cord/heart/main artery. The 'actual' hunting weapons would have been the spear/arrow/firearm or traps were used. Using a curved sword as a hunting sword suggests that a slashing cut was used to despatch the captured animal (beheaded ?)

David

[fernando]

Originally Posted by katana

the size of the hilts is another 'hotly' debated subject ..there are several posts on the Forum.....here is one that I posted...

I am aware of this discussion, as i even posted some humble coments on this thread. Actually i have now brought these handling pictures in order to complement the said frequent discussion. To my poor view there is no doubt that the small Indian hilt subject is a fusion of two distinct phenomena. Among various resources, i remember Rainer Dahenhart's book HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES (page 191):
In the northern Indo-Portuguse territories ( Diu, Damão, Baçaim, Dadra, Nagar-Haveli ) the tulwar was used, but only in the hands of local nobility and auxiliary indigenous forces. The Portuguese weren't using this weapon, firstly because they had more confidence in their own, bu also because the majority of tulwar grips are so small that only few Portuguese hands would fit into them ( pics. 51, 52 and 100 ).
On the other hand, the acceptance of this concept might have been adultered by the introduction of the ricasso, probably brought in by Europeans with their swords. We know that in some cases the ricasso efectiveness was only virtual. In Cingalese kastanes the ricasso is there and was efectively brought by the Portuguese , but the down quillons were so withered that it only served for decoration. This because they never needed this alternative, as they didn't adopt the corresponding fencing techniques. However while i was browsing the Net to look for material on my tulwar, i have read that the majority of tulwar holders in existing pictures, are handling the sword with their forefinger out the hilt and onto the ricasso.
We remember that this system enabled for a much wider angle of sword holding, an advantage that ended up enabling the thrust, which would put the foe without this system in a very weak situation in combat.
Allow me to through some logs onto the fire and post the pages referring to this evolution, within an European perspective,from the same quoted book.

[katana]

Originally Posted by fernando

IHowever while i was browsing the Net to look for material on my tulwar, i have read that the majority of tulwar holders in existing pictures, are handling the sword with their forefinger out the hilt and onto the ricasso.
We remember that this system enabled for a much wider angle of sword holding, an advantage that ended up enabling the thrust, which would put the foe without this system in a very weak situation in combat.
.

Hi Fernando,
thanks for posting the drawings . I think the majority agree that the forefinger on the ricasso gives greater control of the Tulwar.....but there is no protection for it (the finger)..... which makes no sense .

Several of my Tulwars have a slighter larger grip and smaller disc pommels which are much more comfortable and 'easier' to use.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by katana

Your Tulwar certainly seems 'battle worthy' and interesting that your sword is 'handed'...I have several which also feel better in the right hand. I suspect that as the blades are 'fixed' with resin, it was easier to 'set' the blade in a way to suit the owner.

David

Let me quote again the same book.
The purpose for the tulwar hilts being made in one only piece ( guard, grip and pommel ), an unusual practice in other swords, was to be practical to store them. As in these regions, invasions tumults and popular mutinies were rather frequent, the Sovereigns could store the hilts in one side and the blades in another, so that it needed some time for the swords to be mounted and used. When actual wars were about to come, the Sovereigns would know that with a determined antecipation, and the swords could be mounted in time for battle.
Talking figures, amounts like 100 thousand hilts could be kept in well locked towers, and the equivalent number of blades would be kept with a confortable distance.
For the mounting, hilts were held upsidown and pitch was poured into the hollow grip, the only material that held the blades in position.

[spiral]

My apology was to you Fernado & to other foromites & the moderaters as well.

My rude comment about IQ was particularily aimed at the finger on the ricaso concept, from whoever it came from. You or the auther or anyone else. After all it realy does negate any point in having a guard. It is a shame i put my point over so badley though. me bad. I am just incredulus when people say it.

That rather shows my then state of bieng as your comment was more related to the storeing handles & blades in different places.

RE.

Originally Posted by fernando

For the mounting, hilts were held upsidown and pitch was poured into the hollow grip, the only material that held the blades in position.

Examination of tulwar hilts quite often shows methods other than copius amouts of pitch & sap derivied resins I think?


Katana, India is {& was.} made up with many races & peoples in some areas like Coorg People most people are very small, While some of the Punjabi & Rajastan people are rather on the large size, I dont think one handle size would do for evryone.

Spiral

[fernando]

Hi Spiral,

Let's skip over that and go back to business

Originally Posted by spiral

Examination of tulwar hilts quite often shows methods other than copius amouts of pitch & sap derivied resins I think?

Spiral

When i said the only material that fixed the blade i meant to say that there were no rivets or screws or the like, just the liquid material. The book actually mentions pitch, but i am ready to accept the idea of other solutions being used. This is my first tulwar after all, and i only have a couple books on the subject, whereas you have a larger experience. Pitch was o.k. for me, as i had already read it was also used to fix jambiyas. Besides, it is a very old stuff. Maybe other solutions took place in later times ?
As for the tulwar ricasso and the forefinger, it wasn't in the book, but my whilling to speculate a bit in the subject of European influences on Oriental weaponry, as i tryed to explain in my reply to the last Ariel's posting.
All the best
fernando

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by spiral

My apology was to you Fernado & to other foromites & the moderaters as well.

Cheers, Spiral.

[ariel]

Fernando,
Re: slanted quillons.
For the life of me, I cannot remember where I got this info from originally. I've heard it mentioned casually so many times that I assumed it was just a well known and trivial piece of info.
If I am wrong, than I also apologize.

[spiral]

Thankyou....

Fernando, For me sap & pitch are all very similar, although some are also fitted with a chalky rock type substance, possibly borax? some tulwar do have a rivet in them as well, & on some otheres the finial is pinched or some such tight fitting onto the tang as a permenant fixing & indeed I have had one piece where the final was actuly part of the tang, it was only because of damage that this was visible.

I dont know how common such fixings were as generaly the second two varietys are only visble if the handle is damaged or removed in some way.

I expect others here have seen many more dismantled tulwar than I.

Spiral

[Jens Nordlunde]

This post can also be read on My Pata.


Damascene Work in India, 1892, by T. H. Hendley.

Page 10. The fist fills the grip of the Indian sword, and a large pommel confines the hand. Burton points out that this was the case long ago, as Arjuna is so represented grasping his weapon in the Caves of Elephanta. As the Indian does not fence, he does not require a straight pointed weapon. The Indian hilt is small and has no knuckle-guard. The heavier swords have knuckle-guards, and even basket hilts. The huge gauntlet swords – Patta – used by the Nagas or military monks of Jeypore, and by Mahrattas, have large steel gauntlets.
Comments to page 10. I find the description of how the hilts were held were good, and feel sure that he would have mentioned it, had the Indians held it otherwise.

Page 11. [about the katar] It is mentioned by Ibn Batuka, who lived in the days of Mohamed Toghluk, that is, about AD 1332.
Comments to page 11. A travel companion of Betuta’s was killed at the coast of west India, with a weapon described as being a katar. As the katar described, hardly is the first one ‘invented’, it is likely that the katar, as a weapon, is far older.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by spiral

Thankyou....

Fernando, For me sap & pitch are all very similar, although some are also fitted with a chalky rock type substance, possibly borax? some tulwar do have a rivet in them as well, & on some otheres the finial is pinched or some such tight fitting onto the tang as a permenant fixing & indeed I have had one piece where the final was actuly part of the tang, it was only because of damage that this was visible.

I dont know how common such fixings were as generaly the second two varietys are only visble if the handle is damaged or removed in some way.

I expect others here have seen many more dismantled tulwar than I.

Spiral

Very interesting and oportune, Spiral

I will start be re-interpretering what i have read. Tulwar hilts are built to one piece, not meaning they are cast in one piece. So the assumed difference between them and other sword hilts is that they are kept assembled in one piece, whereas the other diverse hilts remain available with their components separate. I hope this is not nonsense.
As for the fixing to the blade, i look at the several examples in Tirri's book, and they all seem not to have rivets. Could this mean could mean the majority of these pieces are fixed only by "glueing" the tang into the grips?
On the hand i must say that i am just arriving from my visit back to the guy who sold me the tulwar, as i knew he had two more of these pieces, which i haven't found so appealing. Efectively one of them had its tang also fixed by a rivet. The other one must have had a hilt "pommel" accident, and the disk and finial were refixed by openning a vent on the grip top and insert the finial "flat vertical plate" into it, and fix it with two rivets ... aparently a period repair. However i saw no signs of this disc/finial set being fixed/riveted to the tang, before or after the damage.

Now i have some important questions and i need some help here

I have noticed that these two tulwars, without knuckle guards, had grooves and also a false edge in the one third blade near the tip, as for thrusting. One of them even has a little hump where the bevel starts. Looking to Tirry's book, i would say these would be gaddaras, a sort of tulwar with a kilig blade. Is this potentially correct?
They both have short blades, some 28" in straight line.Their disks are very plain, as all the rest.
The one with the humped false edge had one langet repair. Looks like a new langet was welded with brass or bronze soldering. I wonder if "golden" look soldering is old enough for this to be a period repair. I can only think of contemporaneous oxiacetylene brass or bronze soldering.
I am tempted to buy this piece, the price is around $ 280 (the one i have now cost me $ 350).
I now i am a sucker.
Should i buy this humped false edge gaddara looking tulwar ?
Remember this is a small country and there are'nt many old weapons around.
BTW i am not an eBay or any kind of web auction user
Thanks a lot in advance for some helping response.
fernando

[fernando]

Sorry, this was a double up

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

Fernando,
Re: slanted quillons.
For the life of me, I cannot remember where I got this info from originally. I've heard it mentioned casually so many times that I assumed it was just a well known and trivial piece of info.
If I am wrong, than I also apologize.

Hi Ariel,
I am feeling sort of uncomfortable with so many apologies
The fact that i am contemplated with postings from a God's lion in my threads is quite a prize for me. I am no academic. I will consider your assumption on this subject good enough for me, until something otherwise proves the contrary.

fernando

[fernando]

Originally Posted by katana

and interesting that your sword is 'handed'...I have several which also feel better in the right hand. David

You mean right handed ? I wasn't clear in my posting. I meant to say that, as the engraving is on the right side of the blade, be it ceremonial or fighter, this tulwar is is right handed in any case

[katana]

Originally Posted by fernando

You mean right handed ? I wasn't clear in my posting. I meant to say that, as the engraving is on the right side of the blade, be it ceremonial or fighter, this tulwar is is right handed in any case

Fernando, sorry I did understand you meant right handed. What I meant by 'handed' is that it is specifically for one side (right) or the other (left) side and is not ambidextrous.(could be used left and right handed)... I hope that makes sense.

Your comments on the storing of blades and hilts separately is interesting....do you know why they were never stored 'complete' ?

[spiral]

Of course most were stored complete!

Forfinger on ricaso is modern concept to improve balance on poor specimiens of swords or thier currant owners ignorance & interpritation based on never having been in a sword fight..

If your fore finger goes in front of the guard there no point in its existance, one could go Afghan sabre or Shasqua instead., with thier different vertues.

The people who made & used these would have understood that.

Spiral

[fernando]

Originally Posted by spiral

Of course most were stored complete!

Spiral

Hi Spiral
I see you are so certain with your coment.
Maybe the book i have quoted is the wrong source.
Could you quote the book/s you have read stating otherwise?
Thanks
fernando

[spiral]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Spiral
I see you are so certain with your coment.
Maybe the book i have quoted is the wrong source.
Could you quote the book/s you have read stating otherwise?
Thanks
fernando

No book Fernando just an IQ over 90

Spiral

[fernando]

Originally Posted by spiral

Forfinger on ricaso is modern concept to improve balance on poor specimiens of swords or thier currant owners ignorance & interpritation based on never having been in a sword fight..

If your fore finger goes in front of the guard there no point in its existance, one could go Afghan sabre or Shasqua instead., with thier different vertues.

The people who made & used these would have understood that.

Spiral

Right. Then what is the reason for the existance of a ricasso in tulwars ? Only for fantasy, like in Cingalese kastanes and other ?
Aren't knuckle guards in tulwars also of European influence ?

fernando

[spiral]

I see you have never ground a blade & fitted it to a handle or sharpend a full length blade into a handle that has languets the Fernando.

It is easier faster neater workmanship

A finger in front of the guard negates any point in having a guard, its that simple.

the people who made them & the warriors who used these would understand that.

Its quite simple realy.



Spiral

[Andrew]

Keep it civil, please. This isn't your local.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by katana

Your comments on the storing of blades and hilts separately is interesting....do you know why they were never stored 'complete' ?

Again my funny english didn't make it. The idea was to avoid the sudden reaction of an internal or local rebelion. In those regions these events were taking place every now and then. Sovereigns often dyed of unatural causes, betraied by familiars and local opponents. So in case such people wanted to get hold of the King's own armament to knock him down, they would find it dificult to achieve, as swords would have to be stollen from two different spots and still had to be mounted
Was i clear now, David?

[spiral]

I may be totaly wrong, but I always presume swords decorated on one side were made as wallhangers.

Spiral

[fernando]

Originally Posted by spiral

I may be totaly wrong, but I always presume swords decorated on one side were made as wallhangers.

Spiral

Maybe, as you say, you are totaly wrong ... so it seems so far, judging by the oppinions already given above and by the specifications of this piece

[spiral]

Originally Posted by fernando

Maybe, as you say, you are totaly wrong ... so it seems so far, judging by the oppinions already given above and by the specifications of this piece

I may be wrong, as I said, its just based on what I have seen, have you checked for temper on such one sided pieces? Or looked at the old Bannerman sales catoulouges from the 1920 & 30s? for starters?


Spiral

[katana]

Originally Posted by fernando

Was i clear now, David?

Yes Fernando, now it makes sense ......I also know that if I had to post in Portugese .....I would never make any sense My Portugese is very....very bad

[Jim McDougall]

The extended forefinger over the guard, and the 'Indian ricasso'. This is a very old debate that seems to come up every so often over the years!
As always these 'debates' often bring out the darker side of some people, but it would be interesting if we could really examine the topic and leave the personalities out.

I think Fernando's posting of the Dahenhart book brings up some pertinant perspective. It seems that the practice of wrapping the forefinger around the guard for more control was well established with rapiers, and the developed quillons of the guard were indeed for protection of the hand and the finger.
The Portuguese were well established colonially in India. Many early weapons of India seem to have borne the influence of European weapons including two handed swords, the basket hilt, broadsword military blades, trade sabre blades among others.

The purpose of the ricasso on Indian sabre blades is of course the center of this controversial topic. Some questions that should be considered:

On many forms of tulwar, there is the knuckleguard which is suggested to have derived from European sabres. This hilt feature suggests protection for the hand in sword to sword combat. It would seem that an extended finger outside the guard in this case would invite disaster.

On the other hand, much of the Indian use of the tulwar involved slashing cuts with the only parrying received by the shield. If this was the case, the finger would not require protection, and the cut might be better controlled by the tightly held wrapped forefinger.

It has been shown in previous discussions that the typical size of the Indian hand was indeed typically smaller and the hilts were often fashioned accordingly. In some cases this was taken to presume that certain hilts were not meant to receive the entire finger group, the forefinger would be outside the guard. This was disproven in my opinion by similar size hilts on swords with basket hilts that could not allow such finger extension.



Did all Indian blades actually have ricassos? Could these have been taken from trade European sabre blades in form? Was the purpose of the ricasso, being the blank unsharpened spot at the root of the blade, simply a choil to act as a terminus for sharpening the blade?

It may well be that the extended forefinger was simply a practice subject to individual preference. Possibly the manner early Portuguese swordsmen held thier rapiers may have influenced some Indian swordsmen, bit it does not seem likely that the tulwars were fashioned specifically to afford that option. Also the rapier was of course a thrusting weapon, the tulwar clearly was not.

It would seem that a defined conclusion to this controversial topic will likely remain at an impasse, and individuals will retain thier opinions pending more compelling evidence. I always have the utmost regard for those who maintain their opinions without trying to belittle others, and look forward to more observations and especially supporting material.

All best regards,
Jim

[spiral]

Yes indeed , appologies for my unprovoked & ignorant outburst.


Spiral

[katana]

What amazes me .....is that Indian history is fairly well documented...the Tulwar was in use until late 19th C / early 20th C yet we can find no conclusive evidence of how the Tulwar was held or its technique of use. No definitive evidence about the average hand size....just some small references from various sources. One of which I found that stated a consignment of British military swords made with smaller hilts for the Indian conscripts. But, it is not stated whether they ACTUALLY measured the average hand or that they made an assumption and took the measurements from 'local' swords (Tulwars).

The other point of interest is the diversity of blade forms, some slightly curved to the Shamshir 'curve', some with a sharpened back edge, some with widened tips...all with differing weights...points of balance etc. Some of the sword 'strokes', for instance, used with a sword that has a sharpened back edge would not be available to those without.

So why are the hilts so similar in shape (other than the addition of a guard) ? From a practical point of view this seems 'unusual'.