European blades in India

[sirupate]

From Swordsman in the British Empire
1.Maj. Waller Ashe (King’s Dragoon Guards) observed that most sowars or Indian cavalrymen were “far better swordsmen than our own troopers, whose cumbersome sabres, that won’t cut and cannot point, with their heavy steel scabbards, are not to be compared with the native tulwar, whose keen razor-like edge enables its owner to lop off a head or a limb as easily as cutting a cabbage. Our English regulation scabbards are heavy, difficult to clean, blunt the sword, and make such a rattle that a secret reconnaissance with them is impossible. These sowars have scabbards of solid brown leather, lined thinly with wood.” (Personal Records of the Kandahar Campaign, 1881.)
2. Col. Richard Bayly, 12th Foot: “To give an idea of the temper, sharpness, and weight of the swords of all these [Mysorean] men, I have only to mention that the barrel of one of the men’s muskets was completely cut in two by one stroke.” (Diary of Colonel Bayly, 1896.)
3. “Major Hunter, 41st Native Infantry, advanced a few paces in front of his men [during the storming of Bhurtpore in 1826] and offered him [Khoosial Singh, a Jat chief] quarter; when, with warlike fury, Khoosial Singh replied to the speaker by a terrific blow. Major Hunter put up his scabbard as a guard; but such was the stoutness of arm of the gallant Jat, so great the sharpness of his sword, that the scabbard was cut through as if it had been paper, and Major Hunter’s left arm nearly severed. Our men then rushed on Khoosial Singh, who fell pierced with innumerable bayonet wounds.” (Viscountess Combermere & Capt. W. W. Knollys, Memoirs and Correspondence of Field Marshal Viscount Combermere, 1866.)
4. Regarding a mutiny of sowars or troopers of the Hyderabad Contingent Cavalry in 1827: “Lieut. Stirling, whilst making a thrust at one of the mutineers, had his sword arm cut to the bone, just above the wrist; and his arm would probably have been taken off had not Lieut. Harrington’s sword, which was cut half through by the same blow, received a great part of the weight of it; whilst he, at the same instant, ran the desperado through the body.” (Asiatic Journal, 1827.)
5. Regarding Lt. & Adjt. C. D. La Touche of the Southern Mahratta Horse: “He had a narrow escape; a matchlock was leveled directly at his face, when a ressaldar [captain] made a cut at it with his sword, severing the barrel at a blow.” (Telegraph and Courier, Dec. 9, 1857.)
6. Maj. Gen. Osborn Wilkinson, Indian Army: “One day, during the siege of Lucknow, I met my old friend [Lt. M. M.] Prendergast who unsheathed his weapon [a Wilkinson] and laughingly showed me the remains of it. It had just been cut clean in two by a slash from a native tulwar, and [Lt. T. C.] Graham’s sword [a Prosser] was broken in an encounter he had with a Pandy [mutineer]—the sword having been smashed in his hand.” (Memoirs, 1896.) 7. Among others, Ensign Augustus H. Alexander (a cavalry brigadier’s a.d.c.) noted that in the 1st Sikh War “we are no match for them in hand-to- hand work. They use their swords and manage their horses a great deal better than we do.” (New Zealand Spectator, Sept. 26, 1846.)
8. “The enemy exhibited frightful ferocity, and with their sharp tulwars (or native swords) hewed off heads and hands and arms by a single blow.” And regarding “the deficiency of our cavalry in proper weapons”, “the weight, badness of balance, and the wretched steel
of which their swords were made gave the enemy a vast superiority over them at close quarters. Like most Asiatics, the Sikhs kept their short handy swords as keen as razors— swords that sliced at every stroke; and we are told that ‘our poor fellows laboured in vain with their long, awkward, and blunt sabres to draw blood’.” (James Grant, British Battles on Land and Sea, 1889.)
9. Lt. E. J. Thackwell, 3rd Dragoons: “The tulwar has a broader back, thicker blade, and keener edge [than the British regulation sword]; and the enemy are in the habit of delivering the drawing cut, a most cutting kind of blow. That flimsy piece of steel called the regulation sword the powerful tulwar of the Sikh shivered to atoms with a blow.
10. Whilst [the leading squadron of the 3rd Dragoons under Captain] Unett was charging [at Chillianwallah in 1849], a Sikh cut at him from behind. A private dragoon, close behind his gallant leader, interposed his sword; the Sikh’s tulwar not only shivered it to pieces, but penetrating Unett’s pouch, entered his back. On several occasions, the English steel was found inferior. Moreover, the enemy were almost invulnerable from the shields, armour, and wadded clothes they wore. The men of the 9th Lancers often failed to pierce them [with their lances].” (Narrative of the Second Sikh War, 1851.) 11. “Single combats were of no unfrequent occurrence [during the battle of Chillianwallah], and in these the Sikh soldier not unfrequently had the advantage. The weapon with which he is armed has a broader back, a thicker blade, as well as a keener edge than ours, and affords him a signal advantage. The gashes inflicted by the tulwar, beneath the stroke of which our steel was shivered to splinters, were frightful.” (E. J. Thackwell, “Confessions of an Old Dragoon,” Colburn’s United Service Magazine, 1854.)
12. John Ship fighting a Gorkha Sobar
With this I was obliged to act on the defensive, till I could catch my formidable opponent off his guard. He cut, I guarded; he thrust, I parried; until he became aggravated and set to work with that impetuosity and determination pretty generally understood by the phrase ‘hammer and tongs’; in the course of which he nearly cut my poor twenty-fourther in pieces.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by sirupate

From Swordsman in the British Empire

Million thanks! And it is only the small part of citations from this excellent book.
But I still believe in the decency of some participants and look forward to seeing some citations:
Ariel, could you post some citations about

In fact, they were the object of awe and desire among the locals

[mahratt]

Mercenary, Ariel just did not see your post.

I can not believe that Ariel has no citations in support of what he says in this thread ...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Sirupate,
Thank you very much for your quotes - they are very interesting.
They are very interesting, and shows that even quite late in history the Indian blades could fully compare to the European blades.
Quite early the English writers started to tell that the Indian blades could not compare to the European blades, and it may have been so in some cases, but far from in all cases.
European marks were used a lot on Indian weapons, but this does not mean that the Indian blades were of a lesser quality.
I too have a number of Indian blades with European markings, but as far as I can judge of a very high quality.

Jim, You have seen pictures of some of my swords, and know that they have European markings, although they are TrueIndian, and of a very high quality as well.
I think good and bad quality of blades were made in most countries. Many exporting countries saw no reason why they should export high quality blades, when other blades sold, till they did not sell any more, so I find it wrong to say, that the European blades were of a higher quality than the Indian ones. True that the metal scabbards did not help the Euorpeans.
Jens

[Mercenary]

Jim, many thanks!
But I prefer links:
Pattern 1821 Indian Army Officer's Sword used by Brigadier-General Sir Henry Lawrence, 1855 (c).

Like many officers who served in India, Lawrence preferred an Indian blade for his sword. These blades, which were more curved than the British pattern, were better suited to the kind of combat encountered in India. This particular sword has a typical Indian blade similar to those used on the native tulwars, while retaining the regulation three-bar hilt.
http://www.nam.ac.uk/online-collecti...c=1988-08-29-1

[Mercenary]

This sword belonged to General Sir John Hearsey (1793-1865). He carried it as a junior officer in 1817 while capturing a Pindari battery at Seetabuldee near Nagpur during the 3rd Maratha War (1816-1819). Hearsey later commanded the Dinapore Division and was in that post in March 1857 when the 34th Bengal Native Infantry revolted at Barrackpore at the start of the Indian Mutiny (1857-1859).
http://victoriansword.tumblr.com/pos...rd-belonged-to

[Jim McDougall]

Actually what I was trying to say was not that the British blades were superior to Indian blades, but that many of these M1796 blades found their way into Indian hands. The rest of the story had nothing to do with the quality of the British blades....but the care in maintaining them. In a further quote it was stated, the British troops learned the importance of SHARP swords.

Ironically, the British swords throughout the 19th century were constantly maligned for their poor quality and complaints from troops using them. In the latter 18th into the 19th this was the reason for the so called sword scandals in England with makers like John Gill, Henry Osborn, and others contesting the favor shown to German blades.

Actually I have never known of any such complaints against Indian blades, quite the contrary. While the Indians copied many foreign blade styles it does seem curious that they often used spurious European marks which have always been thought of as quality symbols. These blades were significantly of quality on their own merit.

The use of high quality wootz and other Indian blades were of course confined to officers who had carte blanche on their weapons, while rank and file accepted issued arms of regulation form.

I think what I was trying to address here was the mistaken notion that European blades were regarded derisively by Indians, and that actually European blades were often dispersed considerably among those in many regions in India. In my opinion, it had nothing to do with quality as much as pure availability. In the case of an abundance of blades coming in from abroad it does seem they would be used if others were not readily available or not yet produced.

In the situation with native military units in the British Raj, the units were each permitted to choose the weapons (within regulation parameters) which were of British pattern swords. In many cases the Indian troopers preferred their traditional tulwars, and I have seen a number produced, in Indian fashion, by Mole of Birmingham. Again, nothing to do with quality, it had to do with regulation and military control.

There is also the perspective of novelty or simple emulation between cultures. The British officers adopted Indian fashions in their uniforms, so the adoption of native weapons is quite understood. With Indian warriors, blades taken as trophies were certainly among those remounted, and this was quite possibly the case I referred to in remarks by Nolan.

There are far too many variables and situations to categorically specify that Indians disliked European blades, it is stated too broadly. What I wanted to point out is that instances regarding these blades need to be considered based on the merits of the circumstances at hand.

[ariel]

As regard to the relative quality of Indian vs. British swords, one needs to remember that Indian swords were very heterogeneous: from superb quality to a very poor one. Even now we regularly see native blades of poor temper, haphazardous fullers, forging flaws and patches of burnt steel. Those were the weapons of the rank and file, whereas the high stratum enjoyed superb wootz, elegant decorations and tons of rubies on the handle (BTW, making holding them rather uncomfortable). Those were stored in special rooms and never were bared in anger. This is why we see quantities of them in the museums.
In contrast, industrial production of British swords was aimed at (and actually achieved) complete uniformity, solid quality and reliability. They were used without modifications by everybody.

Perhaps, this was why Indians wanted to have European blades and put fake markings on locally-made ones: the owner might not have an Assadulla, but would certainly have gotten ( or hoped to get) no lemon:-)

In might be amusing to know whether horrifying damages inflicted by the Indians on the Brits ( see references by Sirupate) were not in fact made by the old and retired 1796 blades, sharpened properly and struck hard, as conveyed by poor Lew Nolan :-)

[Jim McDougall]

One of the reasons we initiated the European forum in 2008 is because of the very fact that so many European blades are found mounted in ethnographic context, and India was profoundly one of these.
We opened that forum in order not only to discuss European arms and armor themselves but to become a cross reference to the many weapons cross diffused.

As far as I know, that quote noted from 1750 by Grose (it seems it was in Pant where it is cited) is indeed the only detrimental reference to the European or particularly English blades. Elgood notes the profusion of blades from Europe which flowed in India in the 17th and 18th c. (Hindu Arms and Ritual). The Mahrattas were pronounced traders who brought in European blades in propensity, hence the development of the basket hilt on the traditional khanda and the noted term 'firangi' loosely used in variation in a number of languages to refer to foreign blades.

While the English blades may have been less than favored in the Deccan southward and in the Malabar and Mahratta regions, in the northwest there was a distinct favor for the M1796 light cavalry blade. In the many narratives noting the horrific results of attacks with native tulwars (in Sirupates post inclusive) I recall comments from Capt. Lewis Nolan ('Charge of the Light Brigade fame who had served in India) who stated the same comments about the dreadful effectiveness of the native warriors' and their use of their tulwars.
He then described how horrified the British were when they discovered that the blades in these very tulwars were their own discarded M1796 cavalry sabre blades!
Apparantly the secret was that these warriors constantly sharpened their blades to razor sharpness then carried them constantly oiled and cared for in wooden scabbards (contrary to the dulling iron of British regulation patterns).

The British M1796 light cavalry blades remained in favor of many of the native cavalry units into the 1930s (I have seen and handled a number of these) and versions of these were produced into the 1880s and later specifically in England for these units.

I have seen many Indian tulwars with British blades of Osborn and other M1796 makers, and have an Indian tulwar with a M1788 blade (an exception to the 1796s). The later British blades were not as favored, however many of the M1853 pattern swords found use in Indian units.

Getting back to the western regions and Mahrattas as well as Malabar trade. Many blades from the 'Red Sea' trade carrying mostly German blades but naturally others which became mingled from Italy and others certainly entered these regions. That they were much favored is combined with the fact the the 'Alemani' (=German) swords were much present with the mercenary forces of Europe in the Deccan. Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sahib used these forces constantly as well as their weapons.
Tipu had an 'ANDREA FERARA' bladed sword which he much favored.

The pata shown at the top in post #2 does indeed have a Sudanese kaskara blade (I have had with similar blade for many years) and have not yet found evidence that these 'dukari' (moons) are ever placed on European blades in this parallel fashion. Therefore it seems curious to see movement of these blades OUT of the North African sphere.

Indian makers who produced blades directly in imitation of European blades often applied copying of the inscriptions and markings to represent the quality of the European blades imbued into their own.

I have never been focused on one field of study and have always followed ethnographic as well as European , and the profound connections and mystery in all combined has been constant fascination in all counts!