Tulwar or not ?

Norman McCormick · 7th December 2007, 06:49 PM

Hello,
Have just acquired this item and am not sure about it and would like some help. Quite short at 29 1/2 inches overall, blade 25 inches. Thought it might be modern but the hilt looks quite worn, smooth and used and the blade although short in comparison to the Tulwar I already own is sharp and looks to have been continually sharpened for some time, the scabbard is leather over a wooden core and sewn up the back. Looks quite a utility item, although reasonably constructed, and I would liken it to European sidearms issued to the rank and file. Any help would be appreciated.
Regards,
Norman.

Norman McCormick · 10th December 2007, 08:04 PM

Hello All,
If more info or photos are required please do not hesitate to ask.
Regards
Norman.

Jim McDougall · 10th December 2007, 09:47 PM

Hi Norman,
Excellent! You seem to have inspired an infusion of tulwars! as it looks as if Fernando has just posted one too.
Your observations on this seeming to be munitions grade are well placed, as well as noting it seems relatively modern. The hilt seems to be cast brass, while most tulwar hilts are of course iron. I would suspect this might be an ordnance issue weapon that may have been issued to native cavalry regiments serving with the British during the Raj in the early 20th century. I would be curious if there are markings anywhere on or under the disc on the hilt, anywhere on the blade? The swords carried by these units were often special issue weapons resembling British cavalry patterns, but many units preferred thier native tulwars.
I would be interested in other observations, but this would be my initial opinion.

Very best regards,
Jim

Norman McCormick · 10th December 2007, 10:36 PM

Hello Jim,
I've had a good look round the sword but can find no trace of markings of any description on either the hilt, which is brass, or the blade. The blade length seems rather short would you say for a cavalry weapon maybe more appropriate for an infantry role although I'm only basing this supposition on the length of the other Tulwar I have and a British 1821 pattern heavy cavalry piece I own at approx 33 and 36 inches blades respectively. The most I'm hoping for is a military piece from the first part of the 20th Century and not a late 20th Century wallhanger. The evidence of multiple sharpenings and worn hilt makes me think the former rather than the latter but you never know. The scabbard certainly looks like it was intended to accept the sword at a greater width taking into account the material lost through sharpening and approx an inch longer. Hope this is of some use.
Regards,
Norman.

Jim McDougall · 10th December 2007, 11:44 PM

Hi Norman,
The regulation British cavalry sabres typically had blades of about 36", though I have seen some officers M1796 sabres quite short. These were I think intended as dress sabres that would not be as obtrusive while being worn at formal events, and not necessarily combat weapons.
In British regulations for the swords for native cavalry, I think there were two prescribed lengths, 31" and 33" for the sabre blades, one for Madras and one for Bengal (I believe this was in one of Wilkinson's books on swords).I would imagine that in sharpening, some of the tip radius would diminish, so the short length could correspond to the shorter length mentioned.

While it is true that the short blade on this tulwar might preclude cavalry use, I think that would be more the case earlier before firearms became primary weapons. The tulwars became more of a secondary weapon that was more likely to be used in melee or dismounted as often the case as action with British forces moved to the Northwest Frontier. I once had the great honor of interviewing a British brigadier who as a young cavalry officer had led one of the last British cavalry charges in the plains of these regions in the 1930's. He showed me an interesting sidearm he had captured from a tribesman which was like a tulwar without pommel disc, and the blade was also relatively short.

Despite lack of markings (weapons in frontier regions were not necessarily monitored in native ordnance with the rigor of British regular regiments) this may well be the early 20th c. piece you're hoping for .

All the best,
Jim

Norman McCormick · 13th December 2007, 08:20 PM

Hello Jim,
Thanks again, I'll tag it as such and display with the other bits and pieces.
Regards,
Norman.

7th December 2007, 06:49 PM	#1
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,596	Tulwar or not ? Hello, Have just acquired this item and am not sure about it and would like some help. Quite short at 29 1/2 inches overall, blade 25 inches. Thought it might be modern but the hilt looks quite worn, smooth and used and the blade although short in comparison to the Tulwar I already own is sharp and looks to have been continually sharpened for some time, the scabbard is leather over a wooden core and sewn up the back. Looks quite a utility item, although reasonably constructed, and I would liken it to European sidearms issued to the rank and file. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, Norman. Attached Images

10th December 2007, 08:04 PM	#2
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,596	Hello All, If more info or photos are required please do not hesitate to ask. Regards Norman.

10th December 2007, 09:47 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Hi Norman, Excellent! You seem to have inspired an infusion of tulwars! as it looks as if Fernando has just posted one too. Your observations on this seeming to be munitions grade are well placed, as well as noting it seems relatively modern. The hilt seems to be cast brass, while most tulwar hilts are of course iron. I would suspect this might be an ordnance issue weapon that may have been issued to native cavalry regiments serving with the British during the Raj in the early 20th century. I would be curious if there are markings anywhere on or under the disc on the hilt, anywhere on the blade? The swords carried by these units were often special issue weapons resembling British cavalry patterns, but many units preferred thier native tulwars. I would be interested in other observations, but this would be my initial opinion. Very best regards, Jim

10th December 2007, 10:36 PM	#4
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,596	Hello Jim, I've had a good look round the sword but can find no trace of markings of any description on either the hilt, which is brass, or the blade. The blade length seems rather short would you say for a cavalry weapon maybe more appropriate for an infantry role although I'm only basing this supposition on the length of the other Tulwar I have and a British 1821 pattern heavy cavalry piece I own at approx 33 and 36 inches blades respectively. The most I'm hoping for is a military piece from the first part of the 20th Century and not a late 20th Century wallhanger. The evidence of multiple sharpenings and worn hilt makes me think the former rather than the latter but you never know. The scabbard certainly looks like it was intended to accept the sword at a greater width taking into account the material lost through sharpening and approx an inch longer. Hope this is of some use. Regards, Norman.

10th December 2007, 11:44 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Hi Norman, The regulation British cavalry sabres typically had blades of about 36", though I have seen some officers M1796 sabres quite short. These were I think intended as dress sabres that would not be as obtrusive while being worn at formal events, and not necessarily combat weapons. In British regulations for the swords for native cavalry, I think there were two prescribed lengths, 31" and 33" for the sabre blades, one for Madras and one for Bengal (I believe this was in one of Wilkinson's books on swords).I would imagine that in sharpening, some of the tip radius would diminish, so the short length could correspond to the shorter length mentioned. While it is true that the short blade on this tulwar might preclude cavalry use, I think that would be more the case earlier before firearms became primary weapons. The tulwars became more of a secondary weapon that was more likely to be used in melee or dismounted as often the case as action with British forces moved to the Northwest Frontier. I once had the great honor of interviewing a British brigadier who as a young cavalry officer had led one of the last British cavalry charges in the plains of these regions in the 1930's. He showed me an interesting sidearm he had captured from a tribesman which was like a tulwar without pommel disc, and the blade was also relatively short. Despite lack of markings (weapons in frontier regions were not necessarily monitored in native ordnance with the rigor of British regular regiments) this may well be the early 20th c. piece you're hoping for . All the best, Jim

13th December 2007, 08:20 PM	#6
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,596	Hello Jim, Thanks again, I'll tag it as such and display with the other bits and pieces. Regards, Norman.