My first Tulwar

[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

[fernando]

Originally Posted by spiral

Yes indeed , appologies for my unprovoked & ignorant outburst.


Spiral

Hi Spiral
I fail to discern within the might of your inteligence quoficient a consistent reason to deny my quotation of a book of historical events written by an internationaly credited guy, without something solid to counter propose.
I wonder who you were trying to belittle, the book author or myself.
If it was the writer, he will probably not hear about your so called outburst, nor will i tell him when i see him. If it was my humble person, those were bullets that skipped over the cuirasse of my indiference ... sorry for the ready made phrase.
So you needn't apologise in either case, unless you are adressing the Forum members or and moderators, as probably that was your intention after all.
I try and keep in mind Egberto Gismonti's statement that the quality of the answer resides in the time of sedimentation of the question, but i fail to do that, as i don't have such wisdom profile.
I will nevertheless refrain from answering to your other insinuations. I do not have your assumed intelectual obligations, but will obey to the moderators message to "keep it civil".
I am sorry for anything said above that you or the other Forumites may dislike.
fernando

[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'.

[Emanuel]

Hi David,

I don't think that the variation is all that surprising. European swords had just as much diversity in terms of shapes, sizes, and weights. Look at the Oakshott typology, I'm actually surprised there isn't an equivalent one for Indian swords. I think the standard Indian hilt is so standard simply because it was very effective. There are other hilts without the disk pommel and quillons, but they seem to be rareer. Perhaps they tried different grips and found the standard one to be most advantageous.

Hi Jim,
I have two tulwars and neither has a ricasso. I have no reason to suspect the blades were cut down in any way so I think there must be plenty of swords without the ricasso.

About the finger over the guard grip, I think that the disk pommel gets in the way of holding the tulwar in a rapier hold. Holding either of mine, I don't see any particular difference or advantage in wielding by positioning the fore-finger over the guard.

I think that Indians were sufficiently comfortable with a slashing fighting style not to modify the tulwar too much. They had plenty of other sword forms to use when thrusts were needed. Jens mentioned that warriors equipped themselves with four weapons, perhaps one sword was a slasher and the other better suited for a thrust. The kattars would fulfill that need though, wouldn't they?

Regards,
Emanuel