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

[LabanTayo]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

While I profess no experience whatsoever in martial arts, I have great admiration and respect for those who seriously practice these disciplines. It would seem to me, as an observer, that these forms and manuevers although gracefully practiced in repetition and apparant stylized choreography, are intended to condition the individual into harmony with the weapon. Clearly, as we have previously discussed, in the heat of battle such rehearsed movements would have no place, and the warrior would not be thinking of following such course. It would seem that unconsciously, however, many of the standard movements may be applied as required and the warrior would be conditioned to carry them through.

Best regards,
Jim

very well said!

[katana]

I have tried various grips holding a Tulwar, the normal grip seems best although a little tight. It allows you to 'roll' your wrist and have good control. I do believe that the hilt is designed to be 'tight' for obvious reasons...but I think ...for my hand....it needs to be 1/2'' (1.25 cms) longer. This would provide me with the 'tightness' and allow all my fingers to grasp the hilt. I could use the 'standard' hilt...but it would create several problems.
1. It cuts down the blood circulation in the 'sword' hand.....not good....causes numbness in the fingers and shortly after finger 'cramp' ...last thing you want in the heat of battle.
2. If my 'sword strike' was parried, the shock through the hilt would be painful with such cramped up fingers..... again not a good situation.

[Yustas]

I like the movement a loot!
But i think they should implement leg and arm movements in the system.
But the sword work is great.
It is different then Europian though )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP_07ubwGho

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The longstanding claim that the smaller grip size was presumed due to smaller Indian handsize, while it has been also suggested that the presence of the 'Indian ricasso' on the blade was intended to allow the warrior to wrap the forefinger around the quillon of the guard. This seems to relate to similar European practice from early rapier swordplay.

Hi Jim, may i ask you ?
Would it be a reasonable positioning on this problematic to consider that, small grips to fit hands of determined Peoples, or short grips due to transfer of one ( or even two ) finger/s to the blade ricasso, are two distinct things ?. This not avoiding that a mix of both can be referenced ... and also this not meaning such mixes are for efective use.
As an example, one can observe in pictures 20, 21, 23, 24, 28 and 29 of HOMENS, ESPADAS E TOMATES, various Cingalese Kastanes, with their blade ricassos and finger protection rings of a diminute dimension . In a free translation of this book's page 173, Daehnhardt reminds that the Portuguese introduced in Ceilão, in the beginning of the XVI century, besides the portable firearm, the sword finger protection. He refers however, that the Cingalese swordsmiths never understood the appearing of the techniques related to the blade ricasso and the protection rings in front of the guard. They actually introduced the ricasso section in their blades, but reduced the dimension of the rings to such a size that fingers could not get through, therefore the whole technology degenerating into a mere decoration detail. The reason, he says, is that Cingalese smiths kept making the blades with the same curved shape, for striking use, as also the Cingalese sword handling techniques remained the same. Therefore having no need to extend the finger to control the sword, the presence of these devices must be considered as of style and ornamentation.
Sorry for the bore, most probably you already knew all of this.
Kind regards
fernando

[Jim McDougall]

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]

Thank you Jim,

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Jens Nordlunde]

Katana, you really have done a lot of ‘homework’, thank you for taking the time to find these interesting links. I always felt that this must be the answer to the question, as all the Indians I have met have much slimmer hands than the Europeans I know. This does not mean that all Indians have slim hands, as I am sure one can find Indians with big hands, but in general the hands are slim.

[katana]

Hi Jens, I agree that we are talking the 'average' size of hands. I have a Tulwar which has a hilt slightly larger than the average.

It certainly seems to be true that the small hilts are attributed to the smaller (on average) hand size of most Indian fighters.

The form of the Tulwar hilt (the disc pommel especially) seems to suit the 'style' of the sword technique used. Which I suspected from the beginning and which started this thread.

The 'riccasso' question is the 'only fly in the ointment', IMHO risking unprotected fingers to gain more control of the blade seems unlikely. If good sword technique required this technique .....protection would have been 'incorperated' into the design. Afterall if your soldiers were losing 'digits' in battle, assuming they survived the conflict, they would have lost the abillity to 'control' the blade in future fights. If this 'fingering' technique was important to Tulwar use......protection would have evolved.....it didn't.

So it seems almost certain that Tulwar sword technique did not need extra control of the blade (using the ricasso). This sword, I feel, has been 'viewed' with 'Western eyes' with western sword techniques 'imposed' on an Eastern sword. Possibly 'blinding' the likely and obvious truth........after all the simplist answer is quite often the right one ......Occam's Razor seems to have cut through (pun intended) this 'clouded' issue

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Katana,

I agree very much with you. As I believe the ‘fingering’ technique could/would only lead to a missing finger, and who would want that in the middle of a battle?

The Europeans made use of the ‘fingering’ technique, but they fought in a different way, and the finger was protected. Had the Indians used this technique, they would at least have made sure the finger had some protection.

When this is said, I must add, that we have another question. We have tulwars with or without ricasso (shamshir/tulwar blades), but why did the Indian blades have a ricasso? Sometimes it is short, and sometimes it is rather long – but why is it there?

Could it be from ancient times, before they used quillons, if the hand slipped a bit, you did not cut your fingers at once, only if it slipped a lot? After they got the quillons, they still made the ricasso – be course that was the way blades were made. A lot of the things done when making blades or marks on blades, had no doubt a meaning, but I also think it was used long after the original meaning was forgotten - it was tradition.

[katana]

Hi Jens,
perhaps the 'ricasso' on Tulwars and similar swords is not a 'ricasso' at all.
As the blade edge does not end at the hilt ....we would assume that it is a ricasso ...as a number of European swords have this feature for a functional reason. Could it be ...simply...that an edge so close to the hilt would have little advantage, as it was almost exclusively a 'slashing' weapon ?

Other 'simple' explainations could be that it allowed safe handling of the sword blade whilst it was being fixed (resin) to the hilt. Or as Jim suggested, made sharpening safer.

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent observations Jens, and I am inclined to agree, I would be extremely nervous having my most important finger out there subject to such danger!
While the Europeans did of course fight differently (actually parrying with the sword itself, while Indian combat practice typically seems to have dictated the use of the buckler to parry), it may possibly be a structural feature of the blade taken from the European blades?
Possibly it was perceived that the thickened area at the root of the blade would give more strength to the blade in its seat, and as Katana has mentioned, my suggestion of the 'choil' concept in sharpening the blade.

I think that we have established that there was distinctly a difference in hand size by mention of this in a number of sources, so the idea of the 'finger wrap' has lost a great deal of its feasability in general. There would remain of course a certain selectability, where in key instances it would be quite possible that a warrior might have held the tulwar with finger wrapped to insure firm grip in attack to assure solid hit, and if little or no opposition was seen or expected (i.e.surprise attack on camp etc.). Such application would seem a matter of choice, not necessity.

Again, if sword to sword combat possibility existed, it seems that finger should stay 'inside' the guard!

Best regards,
Jim

[BBJW]

I have 16 tulwars and can only get a comfortable grip on one of them. Smaller Asian hands? Perhaps, but I can get a good grip on the 2 koras I have and the Nepalese certainly aren't very big. My kukris also have a comfortable grip for my Western size hands.