Indian sword blades

Jens Nordlunde · 21st August 2005, 04:48 PM

The length of the Indian sword has puzzled me for a long time, but while reading Elgood’s ‘Hindu Arms and Ritual’, I found an explanation. On pages 205-16 he writes about ‘Nujum al-‘Ulum’, and in section 1 the author of’Nujum al-‘Ulum’ writes. “About the types/conditions (ahwal) of swords. A sword is the best of arms and is regarded as superior and noblest of all arms in defending against enemy. Therefore I begin with this. Those who are aware of the art of using a sword or are expert in it all agree that swords are of three types, the superior, the middle and the inferior type of sword.
The superior sword is one, which is fifty fingers-width long while the inferior is twenty-five fingers-width in length and this is called a nimcha. The middle type of sword falls between these two lengths. One must take care while wearing these swords that the number of fingers of measurement should be even rather than odd. The reason for this is that the sword has its own absolute (tamam) influence in overcoming an enemy.
Moreover you should know that the masters and experts of this art that any sword is to be regarded auspicious which has the mark of an umbrella or a sivalinga (which are essential to the infidels of India and hang round their neck), or the profile of a standard (alam) or the leaves of papal tree which are very well known in India; or the profile of the blue-water lily flower (nilofar, Nymphaea cyanea), or an earring. On the occasion of actual fighting one should use such swords and on other occasions when not fighting it is very auspicious to have such swords on one’s person. Furthermore, the blade should not be short in length or be broken or cracked, should have very good and brilliant watering (ab) and should produce a good resonance. If something is hit against it, its sound should be very clear, In short, a sword should have all the necessary good qualities. Its point, which according to the Indians is called kori, is like the leaf of a tree called cow’s tongue (the Indians call it tinalakie), or like the leaf of the plant called bamboo (binu), ore cane or reed (nai), sharp and pointed. The Indians regard a sword of this type as one of good qualities.
When tried and experienced it was found that the smell of the good sword should be like a lotus flower or a kaner/chanar flower, which is found everywhere in India; or is could smell like must (mad), the smell of an elephant in rut, or like the smell of certain oils. The indications of bad (mazmum) sword are that the johar resembles poisonous leprosy sores, or that it bears on it the forms of a headless man, a kite or any of the forty-seven (or forty-nine) forms of scorpion. That the sword bears irregularities or cracks and does not look well, or that it smells like the fat (charbi) from fat-tailed sheep. Or that it smells like cow’s urine, slimy mud, animal’s guts or the blood of a tortoise (dallak pusht). The use of such a sword in time of war, or the carrying of such a sword in peacetime, is inauspicious.
The next thing that should be known concerning swords is that, if there are undulations on the sword blade that one wishes to make flat or, if the sword is extremely long and one wants to cut the blade down, the job should be done with a file and not with an instrument like an ishkanah or a hammer and the like, because we have come to the conclusion after experience that work done in this latter fashion does not have good results and leaves inauspicious influence in the sword.”

We still don’t know what kind of a measure a ‘finger’ is, but on page 214 there is a clue.
“You should know that the length and breadth of all arms described in this chapter heve been measured by fingers. It is therefore appropriate to specify the meaning of a finger. It should be made clear that when we say finger it is not the length of the finger but the breadth at the tip. The average breadth of a finger is eight grains kept width wise side by side. But since of men’s fingers are not equal in size, some being broad and others thin, therefore a limit has been fixed so that a standard can be set, namely, whenever we say finger it should be eight grains. For example, if it is said that a certain arm is ten fingers long it means its length is equal to eighty grains kept side by side widthways, and so on and so forth.
These are the arms which were used in ancient times in India but gradually during the reign of each king there were improvements and new arms were invented with a view to better defence."

We now know that a fingertip was equal to eight grains, but what is eight grains equal to? It does not say what kind of grain was used, and is it not likely that grains at the time (1570), were smaller than today?

Yannis · 21st August 2005, 06:50 PM

The most common grains worldwide are wheat and rice. I have no wheat home but I tried with 2 different varieties of rice. 8 grains of one variety gives 2.5cm and the other gives 1.5cm. So the average is 2cm exactly. My measurements are in kitchen rice without the husk. If today’s rice is more fat than the medieval, we counter balance with the lack of the husk (what am I saying

????).
Conclusion: Superior swords are 1 meter long, inferior are 50cm and the middle ones are in between these sizes. Very good!

My swords smell mostly oils but I am not sure how the blood of a tortoise (dallak pusht) does smell.

Jens Nordlunde · 21st August 2005, 10:14 PM

Hi Yannis,

Very good, my first thought was rice, but I thought I would wait till others had a chance to think it over.

We have three different kinds of rice in the household, and all of them measure 2.3 mm. When measuring my index finger at the tip, it measures 2.5 mm. So we are getting close – but this leads us to the often-asked question – why are the Indian hilts so small?

A katar I just picked out of a bundle shows 8 cm from side guard to side guard, and even if we measurers after the 2.3 cm for eight grains (2.3 by 5 = 11.5 cm) – one could still not hold such a katar (normal size).

This is one important thing; another is the sound – which is very important as far as I can see, then comes the smell, which is also important. The decoration is, of course important too, as it showed onlookers that this was an outstanding weapon.

Correction. It should of course be 2.3 by 4 = 9.2 cm. Sorry.

Tim Simmons · 22nd August 2005, 07:19 PM

I have wondered this, you see small hilts in other Asian countries but most often from the subcontinent. Possible reasons-
1 Small hands from the under nourishment of serf soldiers?
2 Small hands because soldiers are little more than boys?
3 Small hilts on fancy weapons because they never going to be used by their owners in anger ?
I think these reasons are valid as one does see weapons with what would be considered normal size hilts. Tim

Jens Nordlunde · 22nd August 2005, 08:51 PM

Hi Tim,

This question has, as you most likely know, been discussed several times, and will no doubt be discussed again later.

It is likely that the Indians used big boys for soldiers, when they could not get others, but I doubt very much that the small hilts were made be course of that, as most of the soldiers were grown up men.

I don’t think the hilts were made small be course the swords were not supposed to be used, as all Indian swords were made to be used, although I grant you, that some were not made for battle, but their hilts were of the same size as the swords used for battle.

At one point it was suggested that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon, I have never seen this grip on the miniatures I have seen, and to do this, is to ‘ask’ to get it cut off. Should the man survive the wound/operation, the hilt would of course fit – but still. Besides should this have been the case, they would no doubt have had a ring attached to the quillon for protection of the index finger.

It has also been suggested that the hilt had to be narrow so the hand was forced into a tight grip. This is not likely, as I don’t think anyone would be able to fight for a whole day with his finger pressed together like that.

Another suggestion is, that people in India, just like in Europe, were smaller two hundred years ago than they are now. This is true, and could be part of the answer, another part of the answer could be, that the Indians maybe have a finer bone structure than most Europeans, but if we go back to the eight grains being the average of a finger, the hand would still be too broad – so, so far the answer is open.

BTW try to measure the hilts of the European swords from the same period, and why you are at it, try to measure the hilts of pesh kabz and other knifes – why are these hilts bigger?

Maybe it is a combination of the above mentioned, although I don’t buy the one with the trigger finger.

Tim Simmons · 22nd August 2005, 09:10 PM

Hello Jens,
I think the finger thing is rubbish, would you keep hold of a weapon when your finger had just been removed? In the days when I practised fencing, epee and sabre fencing involed a lot of first cuts/stabs to the hand, wrist and arm, a sort of 1,2,3 to the head. The loss of a finger would not be fun and leave you wide open for finnishing off. Fighting would be very difficult with a weapon too small for your hand, it would just not move the way you wanted. I suspect the lighter body frame as was the same in europe is very possible especially with under nourished levies. The boy soldier is also very possible when you bare in mind that in some cultures you can be a man at around 15. Tim

Jens Nordlunde · 23rd August 2005, 06:14 PM

Hi Tim,

I doubt that the question on boy soldiers is valid here. True that they did exist, but you don’t make the hilts in a general size due to the boy soldiers, as they were relatively few compared to the rest of the army, and as you can read in the books, many were veteran soldiers, or tailors, carpenters, brick layers, and so on – they often made the greatest bulk of the army.

They would likely make the size of the hilts to fit the average hand, and the boy soldiers would have to live with it, even if their hands were smaller. You do occasionally see hilts ‘tailored’ to someone, as the hilts are bigger than normal, but it is relatively seldom.

Rick · 23rd August 2005, 07:33 PM

Being average height 5'8" and wearing a medium glove ; my hand across the palm (not counting the thumb) measures 3 5/8" .

A tulwar hilt fits quite nicely for whatever it's worth .

/oh yes BTW , I'm Anglo Saxon

Aqtai · 23rd August 2005, 08:23 PM

Up until now because of other commitments (wife, 2 children and mortgage) I've limited myself to books and browsing sites such as this one and have avoided collecting.

However I aquired my first piece of Ethnographic weaponry today, mainly because it was cheap!

It is a 19th century tulwar hilt (allegedly).

It fits my ungloved hand very nicely. I'm 5 foot 11 inches tall and weigh 15 stone.

BTW any advice as to how genuine this piece is and how to care for it would be much appreciated.

Jens Nordlunde · 23rd August 2005, 10:48 PM

Well, you see, we can all try a tulwar hilt, and some may it fit, while others have far too big hands, I think it must have been like that with the users, but I also think, that the users can have had smaller hands – or the hilts would have been made bigger. I think this discussion is interesting, but the start of this topic was on the blades, so maybe this should be taken to another topic.

Ian · 24th August 2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Being average height 5'8" and wearing a medium glove ; my hand across the palm (not counting the thumb) measures 3 5/8" .

A tulwar hilt fits quite nicely for whatever it's worth .

/oh yes BTW , I'm Anglo Saxon

Individual variation is considerable. I'm of similar height and ethnicity to Rick, but my fist measures 4 1/4 inches cross and I wear an XL glove! Tulwar hilts (and I have a half dozen to try) are extremely uncomfortable and will only accommodate three fingers on the handle. However, an 18th C. firangi with an Indian basket hilt, and a couple of other examples of this hilt, are much more roomy and admit my whole hand comfortably. Why do you think the later hilt style was so much smaller? Is this related to how the swords were used?

Ian.

B.I · 24th August 2005, 10:49 AM

hi ian,
most firangis where made to incorporate a padded interior. some had holes in the guards to tie to, some didnt and the padding tied around the guard with cord. this may explain the difference in size. maybe also firangis were more common in the south, a different tribe/caste.
i know of a collection of tulwars, all made 'over-sized'. my hand (large) easily fits into all. as jens noted, the indians were in general of a smaller size (still are now) with many exceptions. this goes also for antique tulwars - in general small with many exceptions.
i think the size thing has been an on-going debate from generations past ours, and probably will continue as we can only speculate.
the rajputs were a small race (as noted in accounts) and many swords came from rajesthan. annup singh, a rajput maharaja of the 17thC was noted as having a brother of immense size, and most of the larger weapons in the armoury (which still exists) probably belonged to him.

Tim Simmons · 23rd August 2005, 11:35 PM

I am going to sound outragous now but could small hilted fancy weapons be just that, for show. Like most weapons of this class they are normally collected in exellent condition and often show no signs of use. I think they must surely have largely been the property of noncombatants or hunting items of the ruling class to survive in such numbers and such pristine condition. Tim

B.I · 24th August 2005, 01:19 AM

hi jens,
interesting to note that indians (boy thats general!) still class the khanda's length by an amount of 'hands' eg 10 hands in length etc. maybe this was the fingers, as quoted (4 fingers together equals a hand).
ths sort of information must be relatively easy to track down, as i'm sure a unit of measurement would be universal (ie not restricted to arms alone, and there are enough trading accounts of the time to find the term used again.

you quoted -

any sword is to be regarded auspicious which has the mark of an umbrella or a sivalinga

the Nujum al-Ulum is interesting as it is a rare survival of deccani manuscripts. it is interesting for a sultanate manuscript to revere both an 'infidel' symbol in the sivalinga (a hindu symbol, prevelant in the south) and an umbrella, supposed to be a symbol of the moghul emperor, even though they were of a sunni faith.
it goes to show that the religions of the day, although apposing, had respect for each other. this obviously makes the dating and opinion of 'indian' arms all the more harder, with such crossovers from diversly different states and religions. a sufi soldier (or leader) would happily possess a mughal blade, or even seek one out if it was so revered.

21st August 2005, 04:48 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Indian sword blades The length of the Indian sword has puzzled me for a long time, but while reading Elgood’s ‘Hindu Arms and Ritual’, I found an explanation. On pages 205-16 he writes about ‘Nujum al-‘Ulum’, and in section 1 the author of’Nujum al-‘Ulum’ writes. “About the types/conditions (ahwal) of swords. A sword is the best of arms and is regarded as superior and noblest of all arms in defending against enemy. Therefore I begin with this. Those who are aware of the art of using a sword or are expert in it all agree that swords are of three types, the superior, the middle and the inferior type of sword. The superior sword is one, which is fifty fingers-width long while the inferior is twenty-five fingers-width in length and this is called a nimcha. The middle type of sword falls between these two lengths. One must take care while wearing these swords that the number of fingers of measurement should be even rather than odd. The reason for this is that the sword has its own absolute (tamam) influence in overcoming an enemy. Moreover you should know that the masters and experts of this art that any sword is to be regarded auspicious which has the mark of an umbrella or a sivalinga (which are essential to the infidels of India and hang round their neck), or the profile of a standard (alam) or the leaves of papal tree which are very well known in India; or the profile of the blue-water lily flower (nilofar, Nymphaea cyanea), or an earring. On the occasion of actual fighting one should use such swords and on other occasions when not fighting it is very auspicious to have such swords on one’s person. Furthermore, the blade should not be short in length or be broken or cracked, should have very good and brilliant watering (ab) and should produce a good resonance. If something is hit against it, its sound should be very clear, In short, a sword should have all the necessary good qualities. Its point, which according to the Indians is called kori, is like the leaf of a tree called cow’s tongue (the Indians call it tinalakie), or like the leaf of the plant called bamboo (binu), ore cane or reed (nai), sharp and pointed. The Indians regard a sword of this type as one of good qualities. When tried and experienced it was found that the smell of the good sword should be like a lotus flower or a kaner/chanar flower, which is found everywhere in India; or is could smell like must (mad), the smell of an elephant in rut, or like the smell of certain oils. The indications of bad (mazmum) sword are that the johar resembles poisonous leprosy sores, or that it bears on it the forms of a headless man, a kite or any of the forty-seven (or forty-nine) forms of scorpion. That the sword bears irregularities or cracks and does not look well, or that it smells like the fat (charbi) from fat-tailed sheep. Or that it smells like cow’s urine, slimy mud, animal’s guts or the blood of a tortoise (dallak pusht). The use of such a sword in time of war, or the carrying of such a sword in peacetime, is inauspicious. The next thing that should be known concerning swords is that, if there are undulations on the sword blade that one wishes to make flat or, if the sword is extremely long and one wants to cut the blade down, the job should be done with a file and not with an instrument like an ishkanah or a hammer and the like, because we have come to the conclusion after experience that work done in this latter fashion does not have good results and leaves inauspicious influence in the sword.” We still don’t know what kind of a measure a ‘finger’ is, but on page 214 there is a clue. “You should know that the length and breadth of all arms described in this chapter heve been measured by fingers. It is therefore appropriate to specify the meaning of a finger. It should be made clear that when we say finger it is not the length of the finger but the breadth at the tip. The average breadth of a finger is eight grains kept width wise side by side. But since of men’s fingers are not equal in size, some being broad and others thin, therefore a limit has been fixed so that a standard can be set, namely, whenever we say finger it should be eight grains. For example, if it is said that a certain arm is ten fingers long it means its length is equal to eighty grains kept side by side widthways, and so on and so forth. These are the arms which were used in ancient times in India but gradually during the reign of each king there were improvements and new arms were invented with a view to better defence." We now know that a fingertip was equal to eight grains, but what is eight grains equal to? It does not say what kind of grain was used, and is it not likely that grains at the time (1570), were smaller than today?

21st August 2005, 10:14 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Yannis, Very good, my first thought was rice, but I thought I would wait till others had a chance to think it over. We have three different kinds of rice in the household, and all of them measure 2.3 mm. When measuring my index finger at the tip, it measures 2.5 mm. So we are getting close – but this leads us to the often-asked question – why are the Indian hilts so small? A katar I just picked out of a bundle shows 8 cm from side guard to side guard, and even if we measurers after the 2.3 cm for eight grains (2.3 by 5 = 11.5 cm) – one could still not hold such a katar (normal size). This is one important thing; another is the sound – which is very important as far as I can see, then comes the smell, which is also important. The decoration is, of course important too, as it showed onlookers that this was an outstanding weapon. Correction. It should of course be 2.3 by 4 = 9.2 cm. Sorry. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 22nd August 2005 at 08:13 PM.

22nd August 2005, 07:19 PM	#4
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	why are Indian hilts so small I have wondered this, you see small hilts in other Asian countries but most often from the subcontinent. Possible reasons- 1 Small hands from the under nourishment of serf soldiers? 2 Small hands because soldiers are little more than boys? 3 Small hilts on fancy weapons because they never going to be used by their owners in anger ? I think these reasons are valid as one does see weapons with what would be considered normal size hilts. Tim

22nd August 2005, 09:10 PM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	Hello Jens, I think the finger thing is rubbish, would you keep hold of a weapon when your finger had just been removed? In the days when I practised fencing, epee and sabre fencing involed a lot of first cuts/stabs to the hand, wrist and arm, a sort of 1,2,3 to the head. The loss of a finger would not be fun and leave you wide open for finnishing off. Fighting would be very difficult with a weapon too small for your hand, it would just not move the way you wanted. I suspect the lighter body frame as was the same in europe is very possible especially with under nourished levies. The boy soldier is also very possible when you bare in mind that in some cultures you can be a man at around 15. Tim Last edited by Tim Simmons; 22nd August 2005 at 09:27 PM. Reason: SPELLING!!!

21st August 2005, 06:50 PM	#2
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	The most common grains worldwide are wheat and rice. I have no wheat home but I tried with 2 different varieties of rice. 8 grains of one variety gives 2.5cm and the other gives 1.5cm. So the average is 2cm exactly. My measurements are in kitchen rice without the husk. If today’s rice is more fat than the medieval, we counter balance with the lack of the husk (what am I saying ????). Conclusion: Superior swords are 1 meter long, inferior are 50cm and the middle ones are in between these sizes. Very good! My swords smell mostly oils but I am not sure how the blood of a tortoise (dallak pusht) does smell.

22nd August 2005, 08:51 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Tim, This question has, as you most likely know, been discussed several times, and will no doubt be discussed again later. It is likely that the Indians used big boys for soldiers, when they could not get others, but I doubt very much that the small hilts were made be course of that, as most of the soldiers were grown up men. I don’t think the hilts were made small be course the swords were not supposed to be used, as all Indian swords were made to be used, although I grant you, that some were not made for battle, but their hilts were of the same size as the swords used for battle. At one point it was suggested that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon, I have never seen this grip on the miniatures I have seen, and to do this, is to ‘ask’ to get it cut off. Should the man survive the wound/operation, the hilt would of course fit – but still. Besides should this have been the case, they would no doubt have had a ring attached to the quillon for protection of the index finger. It has also been suggested that the hilt had to be narrow so the hand was forced into a tight grip. This is not likely, as I don’t think anyone would be able to fight for a whole day with his finger pressed together like that. Another suggestion is, that people in India, just like in Europe, were smaller two hundred years ago than they are now. This is true, and could be part of the answer, another part of the answer could be, that the Indians maybe have a finer bone structure than most Europeans, but if we go back to the eight grains being the average of a finger, the hand would still be too broad – so, so far the answer is open. BTW try to measure the hilts of the European swords from the same period, and why you are at it, try to measure the hilts of pesh kabz and other knifes – why are these hilts bigger? Maybe it is a combination of the above mentioned, although I don’t buy the one with the trigger finger.

23rd August 2005, 06:14 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Tim, I doubt that the question on boy soldiers is valid here. True that they did exist, but you don’t make the hilts in a general size due to the boy soldiers, as they were relatively few compared to the rest of the army, and as you can read in the books, many were veteran soldiers, or tailors, carpenters, brick layers, and so on – they often made the greatest bulk of the army. They would likely make the size of the hilts to fit the average hand, and the boy soldiers would have to live with it, even if their hands were smaller. You do occasionally see hilts ‘tailored’ to someone, as the hilts are bigger than normal, but it is relatively seldom.

23rd August 2005, 07:33 PM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Being average height 5'8" and wearing a medium glove ; my hand across the palm (not counting the thumb) measures 3 5/8" . A tulwar hilt fits quite nicely for whatever it's worth . /oh yes BTW , I'm Anglo Saxon

23rd August 2005, 08:23 PM	#9
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Up until now because of other commitments (wife, 2 children and mortgage) I've limited myself to books and browsing sites such as this one and have avoided collecting. However I aquired my first piece of Ethnographic weaponry today, mainly because it was cheap! It is a 19th century tulwar hilt (allegedly). It fits my ungloved hand very nicely. I'm 5 foot 11 inches tall and weigh 15 stone. BTW any advice as to how genuine this piece is and how to care for it would be much appreciated.

23rd August 2005, 10:48 PM	#10
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Well, you see, we can all try a tulwar hilt, and some may it fit, while others have far too big hands, I think it must have been like that with the users, but I also think, that the users can have had smaller hands – or the hilts would have been made bigger. I think this discussion is interesting, but the start of this topic was on the blades, so maybe this should be taken to another topic.

24th August 2005, 10:49 AM	#12
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi ian, most firangis where made to incorporate a padded interior. some had holes in the guards to tie to, some didnt and the padding tied around the guard with cord. this may explain the difference in size. maybe also firangis were more common in the south, a different tribe/caste. i know of a collection of tulwars, all made 'over-sized'. my hand (large) easily fits into all. as jens noted, the indians were in general of a smaller size (still are now) with many exceptions. this goes also for antique tulwars - in general small with many exceptions. i think the size thing has been an on-going debate from generations past ours, and probably will continue as we can only speculate. the rajputs were a small race (as noted in accounts) and many swords came from rajesthan. annup singh, a rajput maharaja of the 17thC was noted as having a brother of immense size, and most of the larger weapons in the armoury (which still exists) probably belonged to him.

23rd August 2005, 11:35 PM	#13
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	I am going to sound outragous now but could small hilted fancy weapons be just that, for show. Like most weapons of this class they are normally collected in exellent condition and often show no signs of use. I think they must surely have largely been the property of noncombatants or hunting items of the ruling class to survive in such numbers and such pristine condition. Tim

24th August 2005, 01:19 AM	#14
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jens, interesting to note that indians (boy thats general!) still class the khanda's length by an amount of 'hands' eg 10 hands in length etc. maybe this was the fingers, as quoted (4 fingers together equals a hand). ths sort of information must be relatively easy to track down, as i'm sure a unit of measurement would be universal (ie not restricted to arms alone, and there are enough trading accounts of the time to find the term used again. you quoted - any sword is to be regarded auspicious which has the mark of an umbrella or a sivalinga the Nujum al-Ulum is interesting as it is a rare survival of deccani manuscripts. it is interesting for a sultanate manuscript to revere both an 'infidel' symbol in the sivalinga (a hindu symbol, prevelant in the south) and an umbrella, supposed to be a symbol of the moghul emperor, even though they were of a sunni faith. it goes to show that the religions of the day, although apposing, had respect for each other. this obviously makes the dating and opinion of 'indian' arms all the more harder, with such crossovers from diversly different states and religions. a sufi soldier (or leader) would happily possess a mughal blade, or even seek one out if it was so revered.