Indian sword blades

Jens Nordlunde · 23rd August 2005, 05:14 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, 06:33 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, 07:23 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, 09:48 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, 08:10 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, 09:49 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.

Jens Nordlunde · 24th August 2005, 04:53 PM

Hi Rick and Ian,

I am 72’’ small, I don’t know how many feet that makes, and my hand is 4’’ across, so Ian is right, we come in all sizes (I think it is English inches, but I am not quite sure).

BTW can anyone tell me, why English and American feet, inches are different? It would be easier if everyone on this forum used metres, centimetres and millimetres, then measurers given on the forum would be the same – now one can’t be sure if the measurers given are in English feet, inches or in American, as nothing is noted – just 3’ 4’’ – sigh.

Hi Brian,

You are right these measurers were used in shipbuilding, architecture, bridge building and in a lot of other places, like maybe carpet making, or they would not have been able to say ‘so and so many knots pr finger’. Only here it was not grains, but feet – Indian feet – but the ground structure of this measure must have been grains. It is the first time I have seen grains mentioned when it comes to measures, so it is interesting to see one of their smaller measures being mentioned. It is mentioned that the tip of the index finger should be equivalent to eight grains (2.3-2.5 cm), the problem occurs if a hands width is mentioned/used, as not all the fingers have the same size, or maybe they had a standard for a hand (but if they had, why say fifty fingers, why not say so and so many hands?), like they must have had for a foot. If they had not had measures like that, a building like Taj Mahal would never have been build, nor would all the forts and, and, and…

Rick · 24th August 2005, 08:12 PM

Hi Jens , you are six feet tall ( 6' ) .

In England and America the inch is the same ; 12 inches (symbol " ) make one foot (symbol ' ) .

I have to use a conversion table for meters , centimeters , and millimeters as I suppose you must have to also for feet and inches .

I am by no means any kind of a mathemetician so the whole concept makes my brain melt .

And now we talk of grains of unknown origin and size .

Now I must ask a question ; we are reading from a Muslim manuscript, yes ?

Is this a Muslim translation from a Hindu manuscript or an arbitrary Muslim ideal ?

I find myself further confused by the term 'sword' as a sword is not just a blade alone but incorporates a hilt to make it functional ; so when we talk about this subject of length is it really just the blade or is this just an assumption because nowhere have I seen the term blade used in the original quote .

Addendum :

I did a little googling on Hindu weights and measures :
http://tinyurl.com/bgxxf

Jens Nordlunde · 24th August 2005, 09:41 PM

Hi Rich, you area beaty, and I will read the link to morrow

. Jens

24th August 2005, 08:12 PM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	Hi Jens , you are six feet tall ( 6' ) . In England and America the inch is the same ; 12 inches (symbol " ) make one foot (symbol ' ) . I have to use a conversion table for meters , centimeters , and millimeters as I suppose you must have to also for feet and inches . I am by no means any kind of a mathemetician so the whole concept makes my brain melt . And now we talk of grains of unknown origin and size . Now I must ask a question ; we are reading from a Muslim manuscript, yes ? Is this a Muslim translation from a Hindu manuscript or an arbitrary Muslim ideal ? I find myself further confused by the term 'sword' as a sword is not just a blade alone but incorporates a hilt to make it functional ; so when we talk about this subject of length is it really just the blade or is this just an assumption because nowhere have I seen the term blade used in the original quote . Addendum : I did a little googling on Hindu weights and measures : http://tinyurl.com/bgxxf Last edited by Rick; 24th August 2005 at 08:23 PM.

24th August 2005, 09:41 PM	#9
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Rich, you area beaty, and I will read the link to morrow. Jens

23rd August 2005, 05:14 PM	#1
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, 06:33 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	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, 07:23 PM	#3
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, 09:48 PM	#4
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, 09:49 AM	#6
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.

24th August 2005, 04:53 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Rick and Ian, I am 72’’ small, I don’t know how many feet that makes, and my hand is 4’’ across, so Ian is right, we come in all sizes (I think it is English inches, but I am not quite sure). BTW can anyone tell me, why English and American feet, inches are different? It would be easier if everyone on this forum used metres, centimetres and millimetres, then measurers given on the forum would be the same – now one can’t be sure if the measurers given are in English feet, inches or in American, as nothing is noted – just 3’ 4’’ – sigh. Hi Brian, You are right these measurers were used in shipbuilding, architecture, bridge building and in a lot of other places, like maybe carpet making, or they would not have been able to say ‘so and so many knots pr finger’. Only here it was not grains, but feet – Indian feet – but the ground structure of this measure must have been grains. It is the first time I have seen grains mentioned when it comes to measures, so it is interesting to see one of their smaller measures being mentioned. It is mentioned that the tip of the index finger should be equivalent to eight grains (2.3-2.5 cm), the problem occurs if a hands width is mentioned/used, as not all the fingers have the same size, or maybe they had a standard for a hand (but if they had, why say fifty fingers, why not say so and so many hands?), like they must have had for a foot. If they had not had measures like that, a building like Taj Mahal would never have been build, nor would all the forts and, and, and…