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

Tulwar hilts....small ...and the disc pommel catches the back of the hand...perhaps Asians had smaller hands?......Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer.....we are used to 'standard' sword 'play' and as such see the hilt as a problem. However, I found these interesting short videos that show Martial Art forms for the Tulwar, the Gatka still practiced by Sikhs.

You will need Microsoft Media Player to view these files.

http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/v...ngleSword1.wmv

http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/v...ngleSword2.wmv

http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/v...ngleSword3.wmv

http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/v...ladebattle.wmv

As can be seen, rather than the sword being an extention of the arm, the whole upper body is used to direct blows and slashes, which requires less wrist motion. The small hilt and large pommel ensure the sword is not 'lost' in the frenzy of battle.

What do you think.........................

WOW!!!! I want more please :)



Lew

I agree , sweeping cuts using the upper body .
All that whipping the sword around between cuts is impressive but you have to wonder about its efficacy in melee combat .
There was a long Gatka vid on SFI somewhere ; would be worth a search although the production values are not as good as the ones you offered .

Very impressive and very beautiful!
However, I think this style of swordplay uses MORE rather than less wrist motion. Rivkin once posted Georgian video, swordplay with a Kindjal: remarkably similar technique. I would agree with Rick: most of this ballet is just for show: actual battle swordplay is more economical. Perhaps, it is just "katas" of gatka, and in the actual battle elements are used as needed.

Still....

How on earth do they do it? :confused: :confused:
I tried with my Tulwar (pretty big and very comfortable handle), but couldn't approach even 1% of the fluid, 3-dimensional slashes! The pommel disk got in the way. I must be doing something wrong or one needs hell of a lot more training.
Great video!
Thanks!

Your wish is my command...... :) I thought they would be of interest... I certainly think so......here are several methods to get to the front of a queue or get through to the bar in a crowded Pub..... :D :D

http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/v...oubleSword.wmv

http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/v...oubleSword.wmv

Extremely interesting post Katana!! and I'm glad to see the attention to the tulwar, which is one of the more esoteric of collectible ethnographic swords.

I have always been inclined to think of the design of the tulwar hilt to represent largely atavistic influence from many of the early weapons seen in the iconography of India. It seems as if the techniques employed in using the tulwar may have evolved to work around the somewhat restrictive elements of the hilt structure, particularly the often very large pommel disc. The disc is known to carry not only aesthetic but often important symbolic themes in its decoration. The knuckleguard may represent the influence of European weapons and swordplay techniques in degree but such application needs to be consigned to research on individual weapons or limited regional forms rather than broad assessments.

It seems there have been a number of very good discussions over the years examining the techniques used with the tulwar, and the primary concerns seem to have been with the impairment of wrist action caused by the disc of the pommel, as well as the limited size of the grip. 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.

The tulwar was an incredibly deadly weapon, and used with considerable effect by the Sikhs in particular. In the cavalry regiments of the British Raj, these were the chosen sabre. I once owned several examples made by Robert Mole of Birmingham,England specifically for native troopers of British cavalry in India.

Best regards,
Jim

hi,
i realise i am bordering controversy, but hope this will be taken as it is meant, and not how it could possibly sound.
i dont relate gatka with the formation or original martial use of the tulwar. i have seen gatka a few times, and know people that practise it to a realtively high standard, and theorise on the use of this and other swords. no matter how convinced they are themselves, none have ever managed to sway me past the thought that this is not much more than a dance with swords, done in the membrance of a lost history of martial prowess.
as rick says, put in a real situation, i dont think they will be swinging so much in pretty patterns.
the tulwar is not a sikh weapon, although it was adopted as such.
the 'dances' i have seen are truly fabulous, and a wonder to behold. but then again, so is michael flatley.
there are many accounts of encountered indian warriors in battle, described by the british. although they sadly dont recount the actual weapons (we can assume they could have been tulwars) i am sure they would have mentioned the wild swinging as this was very un-british.
i am afraid that, like most other oriental martial art, it is only a matter of time before gatka hits the general public after a c-list celebrity decides to make a fitness video using its basic principles.
the ricasso arguement, as jim stated, is long going and without a possible outcome. i think both camps locked horns and argreed to disagree :)
as to the grip size, i feel this too has had many theories. mine is rather simple, and as valid and invalid as any other :-)
i believe the original hindus (especially in the north - rajput and before) to be of a much smaller size. muslims (from all over) have been in india since well before the moghuls, and left a solid mark not only in art and architecture, but also in the people themselves. if you go to india, you will see many very small men, with very small hands (that today would fit comfortably in a 300 year old hilt). i think this form was very much like their original hindu ancestors. then you see many indian that are much larger, and i think these had a mingling of blood from the turks/persians/moghuls/sultanate who were larger people. there is no such thing as a hindu hilt in the tulwar form, as no one can prove who the original sword was made for (could have been a small moghul, or a large rajput!)
i have accounts of a famous 17thC rajput prince of 'pure' hindu line that had a huge brother who owned outsized weapons. the maharajas state's armoury still exists, which a number of huge weapons (possible owned by his brother, or just another big guy some years later). what i am saying is nothing can be assumed or put past speculation.
another interesting point, to bolster my long-standing arguement against fingering the ricasso, is that early hindu swords (from 16thC and before) had absolutely tiny hilts, smaller than most small tulwars. the form of the enlarged guard makes slipping a finger anywhere absolutely impossible.

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

YEAH!!!!! :D :D :D

me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu'

"at 200 yards, independant quick FIRE"
"at 100 yards, volley by ranks, first rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"second rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"third rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"

where did all them natives go?

remember, those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.

[QUOTE=kronckew]me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu' [QUOTE]



Yeah, great movie!!! :)

I must agree with you Jens, this looks more like dancing and stage fighting swordplay rather than fighting techniques, pretty much like the Syrian "hakam" sword dancing we saw a long time ago on SFI.

In my experience of Martial Arts, whether with weapons or not, stylised routines were developed which incorperated 'moves' and techniques. These are generally know as 'forms'.
Many of the 'forms' seem little more than a sequence of movement: however ....this is usually far from the truth.
What I see is fast coordination between body movement and sword movement, the practice of deadly slashing cuts....this is the function of the 'dance', obviously you would not run into the battle field and then re-enact it.....this is practice ...in fluid movement.
The movements may seem dance-like but it develops balance, coordination and technique.............. this concept is well understood by many Eastern cultures and practioners of their Martial Arts in the West.

I caught a glimpses of a very functional thrust, parries and draw cuts from those vids .
The rest , possibly some elements of positioning for the strike ; most everything else seemed like frosting on the cake .

......or perhaps evasive manoeuvres...

Yes possibly those too ; but the whirling blade business . :confused: :rolleyes:

My personal opinion is, that when clips like the these are shown, one should write that this is a kind of dance and not how they fought at the time. On the forum there are new as well as old collectors, and the new collectors may not be able to look what is behind these clips – they make take them for real.

This is most impressive, a beautiful show of sword play. Some of the clips bring to mind the historic axe swing in the lines of the Saxons at Senlac Hill.

The foot work is a little static for a true dance, certainly for actual sport fencing which can at times be an approximation to a duel or fighting swordsmanship. None the less very skillful and the fact that these clips show thier hands are very familiar with the sword says enough.

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.

Conversely, I cannot help recalling an instance in the narrative of a British cavalryman after the Battle of Balaklava, better known of course for the immortal Charge of the Light Brigade. The trooper was completely incensed because in a combat encounter with a Russian cavalry trooper, the proper sword combat procedures were not followed by the Russian! As I recall he complained that he attacked with a cut 3 or 4 (cannot be certain of the numeric) but the Russian responded with an unexpected cut, out of sequence and "the bloody fool knocked me off my horse!!". It almost sounded as if there had been a referee there he would have announced a foul!! :)

It seems there are many narratives of battles where the complete uselessness of certain rigid military drills totally out of place in unforeseen circumstances became more liability than asset.

I agree that while certain movies and video clips offer great entertainment, they are less than informative when it comes to actual weapon history. One of my recollections is of a pirate movie (of course c.1680) where one of the pirates is wielding a brass hilted cutlass (uh, a M1860 naval cutlass from the Civil War! :(.

Best regards,
Jim

Here is a link to a page with a history of Gatka.

http://www.warriorsaints.com/article...oryOfGatka.asp

The point of the video links was to show how 'unified' both sword and swordsman were whilst performing slashes, parries etc. To me the use of the 'tight' hilt and large disk pommel is attributable to the style of its use...and not physical reasons such as small hands.....
To me, the 'arcing' style of sword technique requires less movement of the wrist. A lot of the movement, with slashing cuts, seems to eminate from the torso. As it twists, a coordinated surge of power then involves the shoulders, the elbow and then the sword (in that sequence). I suppose another way of explaining it, is this.... If you punch a target in front of you without additional body movement the punch is weak. But a coordinated punch were the body twists in the the same direction (and side) as the punch, intensifies the power considerably.
But, I felt there is a problem with the 'arcing' style, because of the power of the cuts, centrifical forces would cause the sword to, most likely, slip from your grasp. If that was the case I would be force to fit a large pommel....to stop me 'losing' my sword.....the trouble is.... a large pommel would be too heavy and upset the point of balance, making it bottom heavy.... not a good idea with a 'slashing' type sword....unless I make it light and large..........a disc pommel.......This is what I was thinking when I first saw these videos and thats why I posted the thread.
I have e-mail a number of Gatka practioners today and asked them how the Tulwar is held, as yet I have not received any replies, hopefully I will.

Tim I agree with your comment utterly
'the fact that these clips show their hands are very familiar with the sword says enough.'

That's partly true, but I think it's largely because they were not modernized and organized like western powers. They didn't have time to set up there own government and united under one government and organize and modernize their army. And they had no real naval power, which can cut off trade (a blockade) which can cripple their ability to wage war. REmember when Vietnam was united under one leader, Hochimin, they were able to easily beat the French. The French was fighting a defensive war and set up a trape to lure them in, but inspite of it they lost badly because the people were united and their army more orgainized.

hi katana,
this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question :)
the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories.
i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion.
your original question said -

Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer

i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us.
i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine.
not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller.
sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows.
i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

The tulwar disc pommel works well during close quarter fighting with or without a shield.

Hi B.I,
I appreciate your comments, and understand your views. First of all I did say 'I MAY have the answer' , I didn't define it as 'THE' answer......I wanted to 'draw out' peoples views.

As regards the small hilts....small hands theory. I can see that this may have been the case in the Tulwars 'infancy'. But my understanding is that the Tulwar was quickly adopted by neighbouring cultures and races, whom did not have small hands. Surely, logically speaking, the hilt would have been extended. The hilt would have evolved, a restrictive hilt would be a disadvantage on the battle field and yet, as far as I know this did not happen. So, if this is the case, you have to ask yourself ....Why? The only explaination I can see is, so far, is that the hilt design is dictated by how the sword is used. It seems that the relative smallness of the hilt and the disc pommel 'trap' the hand, assuming this is deliberate, then the design function must be to insure the sword/hand do not part company, which suggests the Tulwar 'technique' is dis-similar to 'normal' swordplay.

The fact that we view this issue from differing perspectives is, I believe,
vitally important......a theory has to be constantly 'attacked' before it can be considered a fact.

I found this while surfing......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_an...Cavalry_Swords

About half way down the page.


[edit] Variants
The Army of India variant of the 1908 sword featured a smaller grip to match the generally smaller hands of cavalry troopers recruited in the sub-continent.

It seems small hands could be the reason for the small hilts afterall.....

As usually, the Occam's Razor works well: the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one.
A (very lame!) joke:
Question: What do they say about men with big feet?
(Usually, men start grinning here, women start giggling etc, etc)
Answer: They wear big shoes.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!

some of the views against how Gatka is not martial but more dancing could be changed if you were to have real edged weapons and stand in front of someone coming at you the way they do. all questions of its effectiveness will be answered. even the Filipino Martial Arts can look flowery, but put yourself at the wrong end of the battle, and you'll see/feel what the motions are meant for. before anyone can give their theory of how a sword is used in martial application, take some lessons in that art first. get a better understanding of how they move and think.
i have heard lots of "theories" of how western fencing is unbeatable against asian fencing. one of my most senior students was invited to "play" with the local fencing club. he played arnis against epee. he now runs that club. the maestre was so impressed with the filipino arts, that he invited my student to train with them and develop tactics for fighting in tournaments.
now, dont get me wrong. i truely respect fencing, and in now way am i saying arnis is better than fencing why? because i was on the wrong end of a battle with a fencer, and saw first hand how their art works.
the tulwar handle is very functional in the way Gatka uses it. put a tulwar in my hands, and i would be lost. it doesnt feel "filipino", so i would have no idea how to use it. but i can understand how the tulwar is used based on design. in this case, form followed function.
in the filipino arts, there are a lot of twirling exercises. all kinds of fancy twirls. theyre not there to impress the girls. theyre there to develop flexibility and strength of the wrist, to understand how the weapon moves with kinetic energy and to develop speed in striking from any postion the weapon may be in.

to put my 2 cents in on why the british may have never mentioned the fighting style of the Sikh's. this comes from my dealings with spanish and american written accounts of their dealings with filipino's.
they either didnt understand the movements, and couldnt put into words what they saw, or, that the only fact that mattered was that they won the battle.
the spanish almost eliminated 400 years of culture in the philippines. the only history of that time era are the spanish accounts. and why would the spanish document their defeats with details.
i do not hold the spaniards of today liable of what happened then.
i do not know how the british documented their occupation of india. so i will not comment directly on it.

I TOTALLY AGREE.....

But although the form of the Tulwar hilt could be reasoned to be designed with the 'style' of its use.....the small size of the hilt is not. It seems a combination of sword 'style' dictated form and the 'smaller hands' theory provides an answer to the size. Especially when the British sabre hilts were made smaller for the Indian Army at the turn of the 19c.

katana,
the same goes with filipino swords. some hilts are too small for me, but in smaller hands, make sense.
the tulwar, with a large cup and d-guard, create a snug fit for controlling all the centrifugal force created by their moves. the centrifugul force has to have a center (the hand and hilt). too much play or movement between the hand and hilt (the hand loosing control of the hilt because there is too much room inside of the guard) means not too good of control of the blade. if you cant control the blade and cutting edge, you get killed.
they are not gripping it like a stick with a closed fist. i'm sure there is a special way of holding it.

very well said!

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.

Good
 

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

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

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

Thank you Jim,
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

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

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:).

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.

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