How does one hold a tulwar?

[Ian]

This question has been discussed at length before and I don't think it was ever fully resolved.

One suggestion is that the forefinger is looped over the cross guard. I don't recall seeing a picture showing that particular grip, until I was reading again The Last Empire: Photography in British India, 1855-1911 with text by Clark Worswick and Ainslie Embree, Aperture Inc.: New York, 1976, 146 pp.

On page 50 of this book, there appears a picture titled, Englishman with Ruling Prince and Suite. The picture is attributed to Lt. Churchill and dated to the "1860s." It was "part of the Frith series of Indian views published during the nineteenth century." There are some typical weapons on display in the picture, but the one of relevance to this topic is held by the man in the bottom right, seated on the floor beside the Prince (who is not identified in the text). Closer inspection of the hand holding the tulwar hilt shows his forefinger curled around the cross guard.

Does this represent a fighting grip? I don't know, but he could well be a personal body guard as he is positioned close to the Prince with his sword unsheathed.

This is the only picture I have found to show this particular grip and may offer some support to the belief that it was used in combat.

Ian.

[Pukka Bundook]

Good morning Ian,

I think as you say this has been discussed before.
I think as India has many diverse people, there may have been several ways of holding a tulwar.
Actually, one common practice Appears to have been parrying with a shield, and Not with the blade, so the argument that putting a finger over the cross would get it chopped off does not bear that much weight.

Maybe ask a Gatka practitioner??

Best,
Richard.

[Tim Simmons]

Still your finger is exposed what ever you parry with, Looking for a week spot, if as an experienced Sabre user, it is the finger? If you lost your finger and was somehow still able wave your weapon you would not be much good with a new unpracticed three finger grip ?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ian,
It is one thing to show a soldier sitting relaxed with his sword, but it is quite different how he would hold his sword during a fight.
Somewhere Hendley wrote, that the whole idea with the way the tulwar hilt was made was, that it should be held very firmly, and he does not suggest the indexfinger should be curled around the quillon.
I have seen quite a number of miniatures, but in none I have seen the indexfinger curled around the quillon.

Richard,
Nice to see you here again, it has been some time.
Should the Indians have been indifferent about the finger protection, why would they use a hand guard?
True the Indians did not fence like the Europeant did, but they still liked to have their hand in one piece when the fight was over - the ones that survived that is.
See Robert Elgood's Hidu Arms and Ritual, page 110. To see how the South Indian's protected their indexfinger. The swords shown are 16th to 17th century, and not of tulwar type, but it was an issue even then.
So I am with Tim.

Jens

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Ian,
It is one thing to show a soldier sitting relaxed with his sword, but it is quite different how he would hold his sword during a fight. ...

Jens

Jens,

I completely agree. Whether he is sitting "relaxed" or "watchfully alert to possible danger" is hard to say, and I don't think one picture tells us anything about the fighting style of this individual. His sword is unsheathed (as is the sword of the man seated on the left on the floor) suggesting a possible protective role (or perhaps just staged for the picture--hard to say). Those standing at the back of the Englishman and Prince are wearing some form of uniform and appear to be courtiers/officials of the Prince.

I offer the picture only as evidence that perhaps this grip was used for the tulwar by some individuals.

Ian.

[AJ1356]

I've been following this guy's videos for a while now, he is going through a few swords and the only sword he holds with the index finger over the gaurd is a short sword in the left hand. It is in the 3rd video, but if you see the guys working with him they are holding their normally as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLTcVJGMBkQ

[kronckew]

nice video. the disk pommel is there to force you to keep the blade at roughly a 90 degree angle to your forearm, unlike a western swordsman who would extend the blade with a lot more reach. this position encourages the draw and push cuts you see in the video. the disks on theirs are not as pronounced as many, and do allow a bit more extension, but a std. western thrust is difficult.

the man standing is holding his sword w/o fingering the guard & he has a reasonably large disk pommel. the seated man has his finger over, but i do not see a disk pommel of a tulwar, and suspect it is a short sword as mentioned.

western swords with simple cross guards are frequently used finger over the guard in a style where the hand is protected by an armoured gauntlet offering finger protection. as armour fell out of fashion,you start to get rings coming off the guard to protect the finger over the guard, and/or a guard extension bent down towards the pommel to protect the hand, eventually developing into the elaborate guards of rapiers and basket hilts, which further develop into again more simple guards of latter day swords. i've seen anumber ofn sabres with a leather loop behind the guard bowl to put your finger thru, and polish sabres frequently had a thumb ring for similar use.

i recall a scene in 'kingdom of heaven' where balial's dad tells him 'always take a high guard' - that makes sense if you note they were not wearing armoured gauntlets & the hand & forearm is much more vulnerable to stop cuts/thrusts with a simple cross guard. anything you stick out in front of you, arm, hand, foot, leg is a legitimate and tempting target and a cut to them can disable or even kill, or at least permit a killing followup. a man whose arm nerves or tendons have ben cut cannot hold his sword & thus is either no longer a threat, or vulnerable to a killing blow. ditto on the legs. major blood vessels in the inside of the elbow, the arm pit or the groin - inside upper thigh, allow fairly quick bleed-out with resulting death if not quickly stopped. and of course similar cuts to the more obviously vulnerable neck.

p.s. - a deep cut to the bone on the fore-finger HURTS*, almost as much as when the surgeon sews it back up. i would bet a chopped off finger would restrict a swordsmans abilities to use his weapon. he might then prefer a pata.

*frozen beef roast -1 : me -nil. finger is still a bit numb after 20 years where the nerve was cut. luckily it was my left hand.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ian,
I think I know exactly what you meant by starting this thread :-).

I feel with you, but as you say, luckily it was the left hand.

Jens

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I think it is part personal preference and indeed a change of grip depending on the sword use would be very fast...However is it not ultimately dependent on the size of the sword hand compared to the hilt? The chap shown has huge hands and he could not possibly hold the small Tulvar grip . Using the sword with the finger over the guard makes for a very powerful down strike...or maybe he is trying to get one finger cut off so that his hand will fit??...

[David R]

H. Russell Robinson was a big advocate of the "fore finger" grip, but he also believed there was a difference between War and Hunting Tulwar and the way they were used.
Generally those blades that had a lot of meat in the last third of the blade he saw as War Swords, and those with an elegant taper to the point as Hunting Swords. Animals do not cut back, so the forefinger grip would not be a problem..... Just my two pennyworth here.
http://www.worldcat.org/title/orient...tionsView=true

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by Ian

Closer inspection of the hand holding the tulwar hilt shows his forefinger curled around the cross guard.

Ian.

Hello Ian,

I have four old tulwar blades and three of them have no ricasso, they are very sharp down to the cross guard. Only the wootz-tulwar has a ricasso but ironically the handle of this wootz-tulwar is the biggest of the four, long enough für my xl- hand.

The forefinger around the cross guard allows more control but paid with significantly less cutting power. The forefinger would be damaged in this position without enemies support, because there is no ricasso.

I asked the same question to myself and this is my result.


Roland

[blue lander]

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3...hp?f=3&t=17821

Very confusing... It seems some argue that gatka has evolved (or devolved) into a points based fencing system fought with sticks and bears little resemblance to how Sihks fought two hundred years ago. What the fellow in the screenshots above practices is called shastar vidya and claims to be the "real" sikh martial art passed on to this guy from some last remaining master or something like that. Gatka practitioners consider shastar vidya to be illegitimate and vice versa. Gatka practitioners would argue against taking his method of tulwar usage as being historically accurate. Who knows what the truth is but it might be better to rely on the historical texts directly.

I'm curious about knuckle bows on Tulwars. Some have them and some don't . Is this a regional thing or is one form older than the other?