XXL size

[tom hyle]

Wow, real bizarro; switching to a 1/2 push-dagger type grip, as seen in a variety of styles re smallsword? Some African swords have these like 2 inch handles where I can only imagine the usually but not always small pommel resting within the hand, even in like the hollow of the center of the palm; I mean, normal or small size humans like the W/C African aborigines (pygmies)aren't THAT small; about nipple high on me, usually, and then the much more nunerous Bantu race is a genetically large and also a beef eating people, not unlike (and in many other ways not unlike) Europeans.......a notably k(e)ris panjang-like blade there, I think, BTW.

[Federico]

One thing I would like to note, the size difference has often been over-exaggerated. At the turn of the century (Im forgetting the text, maybe its in History of Sulu by Saleeby), in PI the average height of a "Moro" male was 5'4", and of course there were taller guys around. Now Im only 5'8" and most of my Moro swords fit quite well, Im sure if youre 6'6" the difference may be severe, but Ive often heard people complain about size differences when they are 5'6" using a sword made for someone only a little bit smaller than them. I just dont see 2" in height making drastic hand size differences. Then you got guys who are small with big hands (my hands are just as big as my 6'4" room-mate), so the way I figure it, while certainly as people got larger grips probably grew, I just dont see small height differences (of course this is not always the case) making huge hilt differences. Anyways, just my opinion for what its worth. Excellent discussion so far.

[Jens Nordlunde]

On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt.
The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century.

[tom hyle]

hey! That one's even more k(e)ris-like!

[fearn]

Then there are the old bronze swords. I'm trying to remember where I read it (was it Ewart Oakeshotte's book?), but those old blades had ridiculously short hilts by modern standards. This was attributed (as we do here) to the Bronze Age greeks having tiny hands. Oakeshotte (assuming he wrote it) actually tried handling an accurate reconstruction, and found something very simple: the hilt was held by the last three fingers, while the thumb and forefinger fit very nicely on that round base of the leaf-shaped blade. When held that way, the old swords were actually very easy to use.

Since I just got hold of Waffen aus Zentral-Afrika, I'm looking at pictures of dozens of short swords with ridiculously short handles--as Tom mentions above. No one can hold a sword with a three inch handle, unless theyu're grabbing the base of the blade as well. In these cases, I suspect they were. I'd ask those of you with the African swords to try it out and see, personally. I suspect that's also what's going on with that Malabar rapier.

As for the problem of getting your finger lopped off if it's looped around the hilt, I'd say--yep, it's possible, but that doesn't stop most people who use sais from doing that very thing. Something to think about.

Fearn

[Jens Nordlunde]

[QUOTE=fearn]
As for the problem of getting your finger lopped off if it's looped around the hilt, I'd say--yep, it's possible, but that doesn't stop most people who use sais from doing that very thing. Something to think about.

Fearn, have you ever seen a miniature where an Indian sword fighter has his index finger curled around the quillon?
Besides, I don't know what the word 'sais' means.

Jens

[fearn]

Hi Jens,

Sais is the plural of sai, the common weapon from Okinawa, China, and Indonesia (aka tjabang, cabang, etc)

I'll admit that I haven't paid a lot of attention to Indian blades, so I'm not sure about people looping their fingers around quillons. However, it's an old tradition with rapiers and similar blades (especially where the elaborated hilts give the hand more protection), and I suspect that similar things happen on many other knives, especially those African blades with the short handles and large pommels.

As another, non-military example, I usually hold my favorite Chinese cleaver with two fingers pinching the blade--that's how it is supposed to be used.

Fearn

[Ian]

Hi Jens:

When looking at the statuary of Hindu gods, and perhaps some Buddhist works as well, it is common to see the forefinger and little finger raised, even when holding certain objects (as in this picture). I believe this representation has some religious significance. Similar hand postures are seen among traditional dancers in India, Thailand and elsewhere in SE Asia, where the third and fourth fingers are flexed towards the thumb, forming a C-shape, and the forefinger and little finger are extended. I don't know the name for this posture, but it seems to have been around for a long time and must have a particular significance.

Ian.

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt.
The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ian, you are right of course, but this does not change the size of the grip/hilt. I still think the flat pommel rested against the palm of the hand - just like Tom described it.
If the grip on the hilt was like this, the ' freedom' to move the sword in any direction would be the best possible, and I don't think the strokes would be less fatal.

BTW - calling Rivkin - HALLO, do you hear me?

Jens

[Rivkin]

I here ye, loud and clear . I know nothing about indian swords, so I prefer to listen for now, however here is something related to the question - it's understandable why some of the grips are very small, but why there are some classes of swords where the hilt is actually quite comfortable for a big hand:

Hand and a half sword (It was not really designed to be a two handed sword, was not it ?)
Katanas (well, they are two handed, so it's quite ok to use one hand).
Kindjals (you can have a very comfortable kindjal, but shashkas usually do not have a large hilt).

[Conogre]

Good observation Ian and Tom......with many of my African pieces, Poto, just as one example, by holding the flared multi-disc hilts with the thumb and first two or three fingers and extending the pinky, Victorian tea cup fashion, I long ago found that I can get a very secure grip with a LOT of power behind it, plus it automatically tends the make the wrist extremely flexible, wheras it tends to stiffen automatically with a full fist grip.
Justin and I had EXACTLY that same discussion last week, with I the pinky flicker and he the gripper
This same grip works excedingly well with the curved kanjars and khoumiyas, with the curve pointing inward and the point facing backward for the "whirling dervish" (thanks Hal!) fluid style of middle eastern fighting.
When it comes to the actual size of native peoples, keep in mind that while Africa had the Pygmies, they also had the Watusi that regularly stood 7' tall (they did seem to be exceptionally fine boned as well though)...does anyone know or have examples of any Watusi weapons (and no basketball photos, either! **grin**)
Finally, when it comes to tribesman/weapons sizes and correlations, does that have any relevence in relation to the New Guinea gourds?
Mike