Sword of a Giant ( hormonal)

[ariel]

For those of you who do not know me well, in addition to studying swords I also have to make a living:-). My job consists mainly of research in pituitary hormones in humans, especially growth hormone (GH).
A good chunk of my time is occupied by taking care of patients with a disease called acromegaly: they have pituitary tumors producing a lot of GH and, as a result, growing excessively and uncontrollably. If a tumor appears in childhood, when the bones can still get longer, they become giants. But even if the disease starts in adulthood and they cannot grow taller, they still can grow "wider", developing coarse facial features and enormous hands and feet.
Here are pics of the most famous giant acromegalic, Andre the Giant, showing his overall height and the size of his hands ( vs. Mohammed Ali's)

OK, that's the introduction.

This was why I bought this Khyber: here are pics of it in comparison with two " standard " ones.
Blades of standard khybers are ~ 20-23 "
The " giant" one sports a blade that is 34 1/2 " long.

Well, one can say that the owner ordered such a monster simply because he had " penis envy"

However, let's measure the grip, as a reflection of the size of his hands.

Those of standard khybers are 3 1/2 and 3 3/4" in length
The " giant" one's is full 5". He must have had rather enormous hands.

Thus, I would guess that this khyber belonged to an Afghani man who suffered from gigantism/acromegaly. If so, he would have been very impressive as a ceremonial guardsman, but not very useful as a fighter: usually, these patients have very big pituitary tumors compressing their eye nerves and causing loss of vision, their high GH causes awful damage to the joints and the mobility is grossly diminished, and they also often have damage to the pituitary and lack cortisol, thyroid hormone and testosterone, making them very tired, fatigued and weak. if untreated, they also die very young as a result of even minor infection. Virtually all circus giants of the 19th- early 20th century died before 40 y.o. "The Irish Giant" Charles Byrne and " The Alton Giant" Robert Wadlow both died at 22.

Now you understand why I got this monster: it blends my job ( study of swords) with my side hobby ( endocrinology) :-)

[David R]

Wow, that is fascinating... both the intro and the blade. Thanks for sharing.

[fernando]

Superb example ... and interesting subject, Dr. Barkin.
In a different perspective, i would say this giant navaja was only for show off, and not destined to a customer with a GH anomaly .

.

[Jim McDougall]

WOW! Now this is a dramatic example of contrast in view of the current thread discussing smaller grips and weaponry found in Indian edged weapons.

Ariel, I would like to join in thanking you for the fascinating introduction and explanation of your career in medical research, which is most important. Your contributions to advancing knowledge and helping people with these maladies are commendable and I hope well recognized with the gratitude deserved.

While the supposition toward this rather large 'Khyber' being for someone so afflicted with acromegaly is of course possible, it does seem that I have been told that Afghan ethnic groups are often of larger size, and indeed with large hands. I hope using the term 'large' is sufficient to allow for various dispositions of hand size in describing such cases.

Returning to the grip size denominator, there were discussions of tulwars without the disc pommels, which were attributed to Afghan regions, and it was presumed that these were simply damaged or had lost their pommel discs. In research I once did where I interviewed a British Brigadier who had been in action in the Khyber regions in the 1930s, he showed me an example of one of these 'disc less' tulwars which he took from a tribesman there.
This seems to have been its intended character as I could not see signs of damage or removal. I thought it unusual, but did not pursue the matter at the time.

This is a fascinating case Ariel, and I hope we will see more examples of 'mega' weapons, and the very plausible circumstances of their being associated with persons of large size or of course with this unusual disorder.
Naturally the famed Biblical story of David and Goliath comes to mind.
Thank you again for a great topic!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Superb example ... and interesting subject, Dr. Barkin.
In a different perspective, i would say this giant navaja was only for show off, and not destined to a customer with a GH anomaly .

.

It seems there have been numbers of these huge navaja around over the years, and most seem to have been, as suggested, for knife makers displays. It does seem that many navaja were of unusually large size however, as they were intended often to serve as a kind of dirk or small sword in dire circumstances. Common folk (including sailors) were not permitted swords in many places (Spain comes to mind) and this became a concealable stand in weapon. Thus began the pocket or folding knife trend.

[ariel]

Jim,
The story of David and Goliath contains some fascinating hints of acromegaly in the latter.

His height was 6 cubits and a span, ~ 280cm ( ~ 9’ 2”) . That’s a mother of all gigantisms!

Now about the tumor:

If the tumor goes sideways, it affects nerves responsible for an eye movement. Thus , the afflicted person cannot move both eyes in a precisely coordinated fashion and develops double vision. And when and if it goes upward, the afflicted loses peripheral vision.

Goliath “ looked about” to find David, because he could see only a narrow field in front of him. For anything else he had to turn his eyes.

And here comes the punchline:

When he, looking sideways, finally located David approaching him with a shepherd’s staff, he said derisively: “Am I a dog that you are coming against me with sticks ( sic!) ?”

The point is , David carried only one stick:-)

Thus, the Bible tells us that Goliath had gigantism, loss of peripheral vision and double vision: he had a very big and invasive pituitary tumor producing GH

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
The story of David and Goliath contains some fascinating hints of acromegaly in the latter.

His height was 6 cubits and a span, ~ 280cm ( ~ 9’ 2”) . That’s a mother of all gigantisms!

Now about the tumor:

If the tumor goes sideways, it affects nerves responsible for an eye movement. Thus , the afflicted person cannot move both eyes in a precisely coordinated fashion and develops double vision. And when and if it goes upward, the afflicted loses peripheral vision.

Goliath “ looked about” to find David, because he could see only a narrow field in front of him. For anything else he had to turn his eyes.

And here comes the punchline:

When he, looking sideways, finally located David approaching him with a shepherd’s staff, he said derisively: “Am I a dog that you are coming against me with sticks ( sic!) ?”

The point is , David carried only one stick:-)

Thus, the Bible tells us that Goliath had gigantism, loss of peripheral vision and double vision: he had a very big and invasive pituitary tumor producing GH

Now THAT is interesting! I always found bio-history or medical aspects of historical figures fascinating. Another case of the study of history and arms in tandem. Thank you!

[fernando]

A fascinating episode of Biblical history indeed. Thanks a lot for revealing it.

[mariusgmioc]

Thank you for this very interesting posting!

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Ariel, it is very interesting and you explained it very well.
Maharaja Anup Singh of Bikaner (r. 1669-1698) is said to have had a gigantic brother, Padam(?) Singh, who for this reason had his weapons made especially for him. His sword is said to weigh 27 kg.

[ariel]

I am glad you all liked this little foray into pituitary endocrinology.

Do you want me to extend my quest and start arguing that tiny Katars and small Tulwar handles were specially made for the warriors with GH deficiency ( pituitary dwarfs)? Na-ah:-)

[fernando]

How cruel .

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by ariel

I am glad you all liked this little foray into pituitary endocrinology.
...

Is there no way of stopping or neutralising the GH or even destroying some of the pituitary and/or any associated tumors? Focused neutron bombardment?

27kg would be heavy even for the biggest giant. A large two handed sword from the era weighs in at considerably less. It would be a death sentence for the dielder if actually used as it would be horribly slow. The myth of huge two handed swords being really heavy has been debunked already. 2.7kg +/- a bit maybe...

[ariel]

Sorry, pushed the wrong button and got a duplicate

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by ariel

I am glad you all liked this little foray into pituitary endocrinology.

Do you want me to extend my quest and start arguing that tiny Katars and small Tulwar handles were specially made for the warriors with GH deficiency ( pituitary dwarfs)? Na-ah:-)

Well, Little people could be very powerful royal attendants, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_dwarf. Can't see why they would not also be armed with custom made arms and armour...they are no different than us, just a bit shorter. An example below of a recognisable one from a well known fiction, along with a painting of a real example from history.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Well, Little people could be very powerful royal attendants, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_dwarf. Can't see why they would not also be armed with custom made arms and armour...they are no different than us, just a bit shorter. An example below of a recognisable one from a well known fiction, along with a painting of a real example from history.

Interesting note Wayne, and well placed. We have had some interesting concurrent discussions on other threads concerning a breast plate which seemed unusually small; a katar whose hilt seemed too small for the hand of an average person; and I brought up armor said to be of Joan of Arc, but thought to be too small.

Clearly 'size does matter', and the examination of both seemingly unusual sizes both too small, or notably large, are of interest..

The occasional note of dwarves has come up in some of these discussions, and while this anomaly as we regard it today, may not have been prevalent (or at least notable) in earlier times. As has been noted, the smaller average stature of humans was the case at large, so perhaps figures even in the range of what we consider today 'dwarves', may not have been deemed 'unusual' enough for special notice.

I thought of mentioning Attila the Hun, who has often been noted as having been a dwarf, but am not confident in the popular culture notions which reign in lore. Actually there seems to be little accord in the material concerning the Huns or Attila himself, but there are many references which call them, and him of course, as small in stature.

It does appear that general discussion on these aspects of arms and armor must be observed on the merits of each individual item, in which of course we can only speculate on its details. As Wayne notes, it does seem feasible that arms or armor may have been specifically made for such persons.

I did note however, that most authorities consider that the Huns did not have ability or materials for forging or making weapons, therefore they must have relied on captured or otherwise obtained weaponry. If they were in any way unusually small in stature, this would seem to have presented a problem.

[fernando]

Jim, do i see you determined to 'merge' topics discussed in different chambers, small breastplates, slim handle katars and all, and bring them to the table to keep the clock ticking .
The notion that armour was made under measure for atypically sized persons is a theme already approached; even with the mentioning of care to build them with proportional consistence, according to their purpose and user's physical capacities.
But i see that i am following the same path, i.e. keep 'raining in the wet'.
In a different note, Attila not having been a notably tall man is more due to his Eastern origins than to dwarfism;those pejorative epithets attributed by his angry Western adversaries (victims).
Dare i also put it that the Huns, not being able to produce armour, was not a particular handicap; even the Romans had to have them produced in places with such vocation ... notwithstanding armour was then a somehow incipient device, compared to the complexity of the setups we have been discussing as of late.
Just further to say that, in case anyone wishes to commission an armour apparatus, here is the system to take your measurements. Ah, and don't forget to wear padded clothes when you take them; makes a hell of a difference .

.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by ariel

...
The " giant" one sports a blade that is 34 1/2 " long.
...

Ariel,
An interesting story and analogy indeed. Here is another one of those "giant" Khybers... but even longer, 56" overall with 47" blade! There may be more than one giant in Afghanistan, or these long Khybers may be made to be used as swords
As Fernando noticed earlier, Navajas are well known to be made in over-sized proportions, as many other types in various locales, predominantly for exhibitions purposes. Another photo below shows a modern 'giant' dagger made in Pakistan.

[kronckew]

Looks like a two handed 56" Khyber, one hand to hold the what appears to be a normal size grip, and someone else's hand to hold it closer to the tip . The assistant would also help draw it from it'sscabbard.

Maybe the owner just didn't want an opponent to get close enough to require a regular sized one. Must have had pretty strong wrists too. As would the guy with the little bowie.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, do i see you determined to 'merge' topics discussed in different chambers, small breastplates, slim handle katars and all, and bring them to the table to keep the clock ticking .
The notion that armour was made under measure for atypically sized persons is a theme already approached; even with the mentioning of care to build them with proportional consistence, according to their purpose and user's physical capacities.
But i see that i am following the same path, i.e. keep 'raining in the wet'.
In a different note, Attila not having been a notably tall man is more due to his Eastern origins than to dwarfism;those pejorative epithets attributed by his angry Western adversaries (victims).
Dare i also put it that the Huns, not being able to produce armour, was not a particular handicap; even the Romans had to have them produced in places with such vocation ... notwithstanding armour was then a somehow incipient device, compared to the complexity of the setups we have been discussing as of late.
Just further to say that, in case anyone wishes to commission an armour apparatus, here is the system to take your measurements. Ah, and don't forget to wear padded clothes when you take them; makes a hell of a difference .

.

Fernando, thank you for noting my efforts to 'keep the clock ticking' (i.e. keep the discussion fluid) by responding to Ariel's (OP author) comments in post #11 concerning small katars and 'pituitary dwarfism) and Wayne's post on ' little people'.
However I must apologize for mentioning the other 'size oriented' weapon topics from other 'chambers' which were mentioned by Ariel in his post #11, and had not realized these were not relevant here as they had already been discussed elsewhere, as you point out.

I do appreciate your indulgence in adding your your comments on the observations I added on Attila etc. and do hope my deviation from the possible physiological aspects which may have bearing on 'larger' weaponry by mentioning the converse GH issue of dwarfism does not cause further disruption here.

Gratefully Alex has added a perfectly placed example of another very large Khyber (thank you Alex!) which places Ariel's thesis back on track …..uh, being from Texas, I really like that huge Bowie as well (if it is OK to mention).

[fernando]

However, while gigantism of navajas is focused in exhibitionism or, in the best, the making of large examples to hang in sales stands (in the old days, they say) these large Khyber sabers appear to have been made for the real deal.


.

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...…..uh, being from Texas, I really like that huge Bowie as well (if it is OK to mention).

I called it a 'little' bowie in recognition of Texan viewpoints. I was going to call it a 'Confederate bowie before I noted it didn't have a knuckle guard.

Love the Navaja! He needs a bigger window!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kronckew

I called it a 'little' bowie in recognition of Texan viewpoints. I was going to call it a 'Confederate bowie before I noted it didn't have a knuckle guard.

Love the Navaja! He needs a bigger window!

Sometimes a Bowie can LOOK pretty big if you're facing a big Texan holding one! All point of view.