Tulwar lite

Timo Nieminen · 10th December 2013, 01:14 AM

I wouldn't call it featherweight. It's on the light side; I'd estimate about 800g to be average (to be more precise, the median weight to be about 800g), with plenty from 700-800g.

The lightest I've heard of is "just over a pound". I'd call that featherweight!

Rick · 10th December 2013, 02:00 AM

I would too .

Timo Nieminen · 10th December 2013, 09:05 PM

Having just played with some lightweight tulwars, I'll change my previous answer. I'm willing to say this is "featherweight". IM(revised)O, a 640g tulwar is sufficiently light so as be qualitatively different, not just quantitatively.

archer · 10th December 2013, 10:21 PM

I now have four Tulwars not enough to really know enough about their normal weights turns out one is atypical wispy blade also about the same 1.5 pound weight. Seems having two at 640 gms is at least one too many to very rare. Maybe the plain iron disk pommel was a personal weigh balancing preference. I can see that more skilled swordsmen could accurately find soft targets on an armored foe.

Timo Nieminen · 11th December 2013, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer

I now have four Tulwars not enough to really know enough about their normal weights turns out one is atypical wispy blade also about the same 1.5 pound weight. Seems having two at 640 gms is at least one too many to very rare. Maybe the plain iron disk pommel was a personal weigh balancing preference. I can see that more skilled swordsmen could accurately find soft targets on an armored foe.

Three! The one in the OP (650g), mine, yours. My 2nd lightest is about 750g, with a heavy hilt; it would easily get below 700g.

As for armour, it isn't like the heavier tulwars will cut through metal armour like mail. Cutting through clothing, pushing through blocks, blocking blows more easily, better cutting with poor technique - all potential benefits of extra weight. Skill will work better.

Lightweight is good, as long as the weapon doesn't become too fragile. Light is fast, speed is life.

archer · 11th December 2013, 04:17 PM

I accidentally found out some information on the stamps on the blade, as usual
the forum came through. Here's the link but the C or G issue isn't helped by this weak triple stamping. at best it sort of says not later than 1858.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=tulwar
photo from Puka Bundook.

Not knowing for sure but, assuming the second sword often carried would be for backup. it now seems likely the backup sword was for a different fighting style or circumstances.

Jim McDougall · 11th December 2013, 04:59 PM

Archer, good work on locating that earlier thread and the comments by Richard (Pukka Bundook) who provided some great discussions on tulwars.
Actually it is regrettable that little work has ever been done to address the many markings and stamps found on Indian blades, though over the years Jens Nordlund (the 'go to guy' on tulwars ) has made numerous initiations on the topic.

As seen in the previous thread linked, these triangular stamps seem to have to do with issuance or inventory matters associated with post East India Co. British Raj. I believe many of these were probably associated with the paramilitary security and patrol forces often employed by large British commercial estates, firms and other such entities, as I mentioned with the railroad example in the thread.

It is interesting to examine the disparity in weights of blades on these as you have pointed out, and I wonder if perhaps the grade of steel being used on blades was not a factor. In the later years of the Raj, early part of the 20th century, a great deal of industrial grade steel, from railroads and other infrastructural activity was recycled for these purposes if I understand correctly . It seems to me that the volume of older arms that remained in circulation despite the clearing of arsenals etc. is far greater than most of us imagine, and remounting of unserviceable blades was quite regular activity particularly with these ersatz forces.
It seems quite possible that the hilt damage seen here was 'post-storage' as often these arms were stored literally in heaps.

It is important to note that little Indian swordsmanship involved any type of sword to sword combat (shields served for parrying) and as pointed out, lighter blades were certainly favored as 'faster' in controlled slashing cuts. Clearly sword blades were not intended to direct at any sort of armor but of course were indeed effective when armor components became compromised or off entirely.

The hilt form indeed is comparable to the typology which Pant worked to establish, but these rather arbitrarily classified examples remain essentially a benchmark to which further research has revealed certain fallibilities.
It does seem that the form of these hilts is typically associated with Rajasthan and regions extending into the Deccan and which became well known in the Northwest Frontier.

10th December 2013, 10:21 PM	#4
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	Comparisons I now have four Tulwars not enough to really know enough about their normal weights turns out one is atypical wispy blade also about the same 1.5 pound weight. Seems having two at 640 gms is at least one too many to very rare. Maybe the plain iron disk pommel was a personal weigh balancing preference. I can see that more skilled swordsmen could accurately find soft targets on an armored foe. Attached Images Last edited by archer; 10th December 2013 at 10:23 PM. Reason: spelliing

11th December 2013, 04:17 PM	#6
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	East India Company Stamps I accidentally found out some information on the stamps on the blade, as usual the forum came through. Here's the link but the C or G issue isn't helped by this weak triple stamping. at best it sort of says not later than 1858. http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=tulwar photo from Puka Bundook. Not knowing for sure but, assuming the second sword often carried would be for backup. it now seems likely the backup sword was for a different fighting style or circumstances. Attached Images

10th December 2013, 01:14 AM	#1
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	I wouldn't call it featherweight. It's on the light side; I'd estimate about 800g to be average (to be more precise, the median weight to be about 800g), with plenty from 700-800g. The lightest I've heard of is "just over a pound". I'd call that featherweight!

10th December 2013, 02:00 AM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	I would too .

10th December 2013, 09:05 PM	#3
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	Having just played with some lightweight tulwars, I'll change my previous answer. I'm willing to say this is "featherweight". IM(revised)O, a 640g tulwar is sufficiently light so as be qualitatively different, not just quantitatively.

11th December 2013, 04:59 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,189	Archer, good work on locating that earlier thread and the comments by Richard (Pukka Bundook) who provided some great discussions on tulwars. Actually it is regrettable that little work has ever been done to address the many markings and stamps found on Indian blades, though over the years Jens Nordlund (the 'go to guy' on tulwars ) has made numerous initiations on the topic. As seen in the previous thread linked, these triangular stamps seem to have to do with issuance or inventory matters associated with post East India Co. British Raj. I believe many of these were probably associated with the paramilitary security and patrol forces often employed by large British commercial estates, firms and other such entities, as I mentioned with the railroad example in the thread. It is interesting to examine the disparity in weights of blades on these as you have pointed out, and I wonder if perhaps the grade of steel being used on blades was not a factor. In the later years of the Raj, early part of the 20th century, a great deal of industrial grade steel, from railroads and other infrastructural activity was recycled for these purposes if I understand correctly . It seems to me that the volume of older arms that remained in circulation despite the clearing of arsenals etc. is far greater than most of us imagine, and remounting of unserviceable blades was quite regular activity particularly with these ersatz forces. It seems quite possible that the hilt damage seen here was 'post-storage' as often these arms were stored literally in heaps. It is important to note that little Indian swordsmanship involved any type of sword to sword combat (shields served for parrying) and as pointed out, lighter blades were certainly favored as 'faster' in controlled slashing cuts. Clearly sword blades were not intended to direct at any sort of armor but of course were indeed effective when armor components became compromised or off entirely. The hilt form indeed is comparable to the typology which Pant worked to establish, but these rather arbitrarily classified examples remain essentially a benchmark to which further research has revealed certain fallibilities. It does seem that the form of these hilts is typically associated with Rajasthan and regions extending into the Deccan and which became well known in the Northwest Frontier.