European blades in India

Mercenary · 9th January 2016, 08:23 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

mahratt · 9th January 2016, 08:43 PM

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 · 9th January 2016, 09:02 PM

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 · 9th January 2016, 09:20 PM

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 · 9th January 2016, 09:21 PM

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 · 10th January 2016, 01:12 AM

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 · 10th January 2016, 02:58 AM

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 · 10th January 2016, 04:05 AM

"...Nolan was particularly interested in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had recently read a medical report of an engagement in which these troops had defeated a superior force of Rohillas and had been astonished by the havoc created by their swords.: heads and arm completely severed, hands cut off at a single blow, and legs above the knee. Was this the work of giants? or of some peculiar quality of the sword blade or its use? The answer surprised him. THE SWORDS TURNED OUT TO BE MERELY OLD BLADES, DISCARDED BY BRITISH DRAGOONS, cut to a razor edge and worn in wooden scabbards from which they were never drawn except in action. But Nolan may have given insufficient credit to these broad, curved spear point * blades the light cavalry sword of 1796. He inquired to the secret of the cavalrymans skill and was struck by the simplicity of the reply.
We never teach them any way sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyone's hand, said one of Nizams seasoned troopers, The lesson of a sharp sword was one that Nolan never forgot".

"Nolan Of Balaclava"
H. Moyse-Bartlett, London 1971 , p.121

* naturally the author is in error re: spear points.....these were referred to as 'hatchet points'.

mahratt · 10th January 2016, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

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 :-)

Ariel, your own thinking - it's great! But perhaps you have other than your words have evidence? For example, citations from the books?
Because those who saw how the Indians used Talwar wrote the following:
«An effective thrust is much more easier learnt that drawing cut which makes the tulwar such a terribly effective weapon in the hand of the expert swordsman». The Earl of Cardigan The Cavalry of the Territorial Army, The Nineteenth Century and After, 1908.

And there are no words about the sabers of the model 1796

I'm sorry my bad english

9th January 2016, 09:02 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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 Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 9th January 2016 at 09:19 PM.

9th January 2016, 09:20 PM	#4
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	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 Attached Images

9th January 2016, 09:21 PM	#5
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	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 Attached Images

10th January 2016, 01:12 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	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. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 10th January 2016 at 01:28 AM.

10th January 2016, 02:58 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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 :-) Last edited by ariel; 10th January 2016 at 04:08 AM.

9th January 2016, 08:43 PM	#2
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	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 ...

10th January 2016, 04:05 AM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	"...Nolan was particularly interested in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had recently read a medical report of an engagement in which these troops had defeated a superior force of Rohillas and had been astonished by the havoc created by their swords.: heads and arm completely severed, hands cut off at a single blow, and legs above the knee. Was this the work of giants? or of some peculiar quality of the sword blade or its use? The answer surprised him. THE SWORDS TURNED OUT TO BE MERELY OLD BLADES, DISCARDED BY BRITISH DRAGOONS, cut to a razor edge and worn in wooden scabbards from which they were never drawn except in action. But Nolan may have given insufficient credit to these broad, curved spear point * blades the light cavalry sword of 1796. He inquired to the secret of the cavalrymans skill and was struck by the simplicity of the reply. We never teach them any way sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyone's hand, said one of Nizams seasoned troopers, The lesson of a sharp sword was one that Nolan never forgot". "Nolan Of Balaclava" H. Moyse-Bartlett, London 1971 , p.121 * naturally the author is in error re: spear points.....these were referred to as 'hatchet points'.