Short-bladed Indo-Afghani sabers

[Nihl]

Just to inject another "IMO" in here about sword tips & shapes & all:
In regards to the "zirah bouk-ish" sword I would point out that the blade shape is both in form and decoration blatantly 19th century - which is to say it was made during the "twilight of the sword" when such weapons were more often carried for display & status than for anticipation of combat. Don't get me wrong, of course plenty of people were still using swords to fight and kill each other on every corner of the planet - and this blade is by no means an exception, I'm sure it could be quite deadly when properly used & sharpened - but this use was quite limited by the extensive colonization and use of firearms that defined the era. As a result, I would argue that this Afghan trade blade (as I have seen this particular blade type identified as) was made primarily with show in mind, and not to demonstrate or emphasize any particular martial concept.

In regards to blade length and curvature (in general), I would just say "different strokes for different folks." Some people fought more in close quarters, and as a result needed smaller blades. Given the emphasis of draw-cutting in Indian swordsmanship, it makes sense that the curve of these swords - as well as their weight - would be condensed to match their size, so as to not throw off the user when handling them (or at least that sounds like a logical reason for the proportions in my mind). Overall they're just Indian/Indo-Persian cutlasses, not much more to 'em.

[ariel]

To summarize:
A weapon for close quarters fights , I.e. infantry ?

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

To summarize:
A weapon for close quarters fights , I.e. infantry ?

There is no infantry as such in tribal zones, these guys are / were walking in rocky areas and short swords as just practical as the khyber knives...
IMHO

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

There is no infantry as such in tribal zones
IMHO

Of course, there was:
Third Battle of Panipat , 1761: 32,000 Rohilla infantry
Second Anglo-Afghani War, 1878: 62 infantry, 16 cavalry regiments

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

Of course, there was:
Third Battle of Panipat , 1761: 32,000 Rohilla infantry
Second Anglo-Afghani War, 1878: 62 infantry, 16 cavalry regiments

Mmmm it depends if this word "infantry" was used by Europeans/British or in local sources...
Then the swords that you posted are not infantry swords, forgive my classic vision of an infantry but to me me the swords should be standardized like the late khyber knives for example.
So in fact it depends of your personal definition or opinion about infantry.

[ariel]

Infantry: foot soldiers, organized in defined units. Like ( see above) “regiments”:-)

Question: if there were so many foot soldiers in the 18-19 century Afghan armies, why are Afghani “ cutlases” so rare?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Infantry: foot soldiers, organized in defined units. Like ( see above) “regiments”:-)

Question: if there were so many foot soldiers in the 18-19 century Afghan armies, why are Afghani “ cutlases” so rare?

I'm curious about what qualifies as an 'Afghan cutlass'. If the reference to to quite heavy bladed and often relatively short blade length swords, in post #1 the 3rd and 4th swords (tulwar with khanda type stem and paluoar hilts respectively) these would seem to fit the bill.

It seems to me that foot soldiers were far more available than cavalry, which obviously required a horse, and like much of the arms etc. were at the expense of the individual so at a premium. Perhaps that is too simplistic a notion?

I guess it depends on which Afghan region or demographic, as I know parts of Afghanistan the horsemen are outstanding as well known from the sport of Buzkhashi (cf.polo).

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

.....swords should be standardized like the late khyber knives for example.

OK, how "standard" are these Khybers, all 19 century, except for two potentially earlier?