My first Tulwar

[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

[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

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

[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

[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.

[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'.

[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

[Rick]

I had always thought that the tulwar blades w/out ricasso were Persian made.

(opinion)
One of the Indian swords not made for slashing, but for thrusting is the kirach .
(ducks)

[ariel]

Well, the "finger-over-quillon" idea always struck me as strange: blades slide down toward the guard and, when they meet a finger, the blade always wins. The entire idea of the guard is to separate the incoming blade from the hand.
The obvious reason for a ricasso is to strenghten the blade: the more massive it is at the base, the better. Actually, slashing swords require only the distant third of the sharpened blade or thereabouts to be fully functional. The rest is for the show.

[kai]

As a sidenote: IMHO the round engraving near the base of the blade seems to be a lotus seedpot (Nelumbo nucifera).

Regards,
Kai

[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

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks so much guys for the added input which include some outstanding observations!
Emanuel I appreciate your notes on the tulwars you have and agree that the Indians did not need to modify the tulwar to adjust to certain preferences in using it, and that there were probably considerable numbers without the ricasso. As rick has noted, the Persian shamshir blades were without ricasso, and obviously with Mughal courts highly influenced by Persia, of course these blades would have been mounted in tulwars.

Kai, thank you for the observation on the flower on the blade being quite possibly a lotus seedpot, and for including the botanical reference. The lotus would of course be very logical in representation here. I had thought there were too many petals for a lotus, and your observation would resolve that.

Ariel, you have added an extremely valid purpose for the ricasso that I had honestly not thought of, adding strength to the root of the blade. Your comment on the purpose of the guard to separate the hand from the blade is of course clear and well established as several others have noted. This is one of the reasons that make the extended and wrapped forefinger so questionable, but all possibilities must be considered.

It does seem that it was commonly accepted that the hands of Indian warriors were indeed smaller and that the hilts were made to more firmly accommodate them, as evidenced by the size of hilts of other Indian sword forms as well. As Katana has very well pointed out, and I believe the reference he cites is from Robson ("British Military Swords") where it is noted that swords made for Indian troopers were made with smaller hilts. It is important to note as Katana has, that there is no evidence of that particular action being based on any actual study, but probably a simple assumption.

The reference that Fernando included suggesting that weapons in armouries were often kept disassembled is most interesting, and I am glad that he noted the source as Mr. Daehnhardt's book. The author is indeed a highly respected authority on arms and armour and I would consider references found in his work quite valid. Just as most references however,it must be remembered that often new evidence is presented that could requalify material in most any resource.

Thanks for patching up the slight derailment there guys!

All very best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, the "finger-over-quillon" idea always struck me as strange: blades slide down toward the guard and, when they meet a finger, the blade always wins. The entire idea of the guard is to separate the incoming blade from the hand.
The obvious reason for a ricasso is to strenghten the blade: the more massive it is at the base, the better. Actually, slashing swords require only the distant third of the sharpened blade or thereabouts to be fully functional. The rest is for the show.

Thank you Ariel,
At a final stage, it is undeniable that the finger over the quillon in tulwars can only reach disaster, rather than comon sense. The point i have initialy raised was more like a trip wondering to what extent exterior influences and mutations can be seen in weapons, as in other things, that are just remnants of what didn't meet actual funcionality, but nevertheless prevail on the object, raising either all kinds of speculations or the nostalgy of a well identified but unnefective device.
I quote again the kastane, the nimcha and probably many others.
As i said when i posted the pictures, the hilt was too small for both mine and my wife's hands and curiously the quillon reentrance and the ricasso existance were just an invitation to extend the forefinger over and through it.
As for the ricasso being uniquely for reinforcing the blade base, the so called forte, i thaught a certain double atribution would take place here, like the egg and the hen. My question is that if ricassos were only for strenghtening the blades, they didn't necessarily have to be enbeveled or at least unedged. Whereas if the blade base is for wraping the finger, it doesn't have to be thicker but surely has to be blunt.
I have read that the ricasso functional idea seems to be very old. In the British Museum there is a Sassanid silver cup of the VI century, depicting a warrior holding a sword with his finger in front of the guard. It would be nice to check in detail, if possible, the whole atitude.

BTW Ariel, i still hope you can tell us more about the slanted quillons being relative to age, in tulwars.

Thanks again

fernando

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kai

As a sidenote: IMHO the round engraving near the base of the blade seems to be a lotus seedpot (Nelumbo nucifera).

Regards,
Kai

Thank you for the hint Kai,
I must say i have rushed browsing the net for lotus seed pictures but, to my modest eyes, i fail to see such resemblance.
Maybe other member will confirm this.
Kind regards
fernando

[kai]

Hello Fernando,

I'm assuming it to be a stylized representation: The seedpods are variable and change quite a bit throughout the ripening process; they are pretty graphic though and lend themselves to abstraction IMHO.

Regards,
Kai

[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]

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 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

[spiral]

Originally Posted by fernando

.
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.

Hi Fernando, can I suggest you look again at Tirris book, in. fig. 249 one is riveted twice, {Ive never seen double rivets on tulwar before.} & in fig 249c 3 have the single rivet fixing. So that 4 out of 12 tulwar showing rivets, { fig 249b they have none.} But realy unless you try to dissasemble the grip you can find what other hidden fixing there may be.

If any tulwar were kept dissasembled, {something I personaly find hard to belive, but cannot disprove. dispite the fact it would logisticaly be a nightmare.}} they would only be the very lowest quality pieces for volonteers & conscripted peasents, as after all all the Marajahs, kings & major landowners whatever, had there own proffesional standing full time army & troops.

Brass Brazing has been around for centurys in India.

For $280 I would want a very nice tulwar, but they are commen in England.

Spiral