Strtaight Blade Tulwar

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Jim,
I agree for the scabbard. The scabbard is an useful information to complete other observations. For the Ottomans, I think it's an useful term and the ethnic terms are not perfect either, for example the so-called Kurdish dagger means nothing. You have Iranian, Iraki, Syrian and Turkish Kurds...and their daggers are slightly different depending of the area...

Well noted Kubur, and the term Ottoman, for example, does denote certain stylistic characteristics and themes, and from that standpoint is useful, however for more specific classification purposes it is more so if properly qualified.
I recall quite some time ago for example in the case of the now properly classified laz bichagi, earlier in the century these were termed Kurdish-Armenian yataghans. Obviously these were not 'yataghans' by definition (and that is another troublesome term) but the term later adopted, 'Black Sea yataghan' was equally ineffective.
Though situated geographically in Ottoman territory, clearly these did not fall under the Ottoman style or conventions as they were obviously of ethnic groups outside that classification. The term 'Black Sea' was far too broad to effectively denote region or the ethnic character of the weapons.

Robert, please pardon the digression into classification terminology and the complexities of proper terms describing weapons. Your sword posted here is a great example for us to discuss this very topic, and I hope we can all learn more as we probe into various circumstances. This may also offer a better perspective on what your sword may best be classified.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Robert,
Here are some photos of my straight bladed Indian sword. The blade on mine is definitely not European and as yours looks like a very close relative I would suggest neither is yours. The hilt on mine was gilded at some point so not a munitions grade weapon. The hilt on yours is of a low quality as I'm sure you know but as has been said previously blades were rehilted as and when necessary so the hilt your blade now sports is not necessarily the one it started out with. I tried to look into this type of blade as much as the internet and the books I have would let me and I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that this is a Sukhela primarily because of the straightness and flexibility of the blade rather than any other attribute. I also think that my blade and I suspect yours do have a bit of age, at least the early to middle 190thC if not a bit earlier. I think these are good blades, light and fast, and my example is one of my favourite pieces.
Regards,
Norman.

[Rick]

And submitting this example for the umpteenth time.
Very fine grained wootz; light and flexible.

[RobertGuy]

Wow, thank you all for your replies. A lot of information there. I guess that teminology can be a bit of a minefield in this area. Straight bladed tulwar , firangi (firanghi?) or Sukhela. This is facinating stuff, especially when fired up by a £40 sword.
Norman, your blade does look identical although mated to a nicer hilt.
Rick , I have tried to dupicate your picture with a little success. These really are nice blades.
I have tried to get a better closeup and include a picture taken with a USB microscope. I think the blade is mono steel but the pattination and pitting makes it difficult for me to tell as I have no experiance of wootz in the flesh as it were.

[Rick]

Def. the same blade characteristics.
From my experience these swords are uncommon.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Rick

Def. the same blade characteristics.
From my experience these swords are uncommon.

Yup and Yup

[RobertGuy]

I've been thinking about Wootz and have tried to get some better pictures. I buffed up a portion of the blade and applied ferric chloride etchant to the blade edge.. Here are closeups with different filters applied.There mis a structure to be seen but is it Wootz? I do not have the expertise to judge. What do you all think?