A very special 'tulwar'

Kubur · 25th June 2018, 10:01 PM

Hi
For me estoc is not a weapon.
It's a way of striking an opponant.
But even the rapiers used for the estoc have sharp edges.
Is it possible to have close ups of the Indian mysterious weapon?

Jens Nordlunde · 25th June 2018, 10:08 PM

Kubur, you can see that the picture I have shown is from the book, and this is not too good, so to make a blow up would not help.

fernando · 26th June 2018, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

...For me estoc is not a weapon...

I would understand that some forms of estocs are not swords but, they are certainly weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

...It's a way of striking an opponant...

There could be a question of terminology depending in the various languages but, "estoc" would be the weapon, a strike (blow) with it, would be an "estocada".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

...But even the rapiers used for the estoc have sharp edges...

Perhaps not all had or needed sharp edges; it is a question of going back in time, when the true rapier was a long, narrow, rigid, nearly edgeless single-hand thrusting blade with a thick, tapering cross-section and very narrow and sharp point.
And if you go further back in time, prior to rapiers, you would find that, there were special Medieval thrusting swords, called estocs or tucks which were used since the 1300s. They were large, heavy, stiff, two-handed blades specifically designed to puncture or beat on plate armor. They were not handled like rapiers but are directly related to the use of Medieval swords held by the blade (what was called at the “half-sword”). Yet, it is conceivable that the idea for a rapier could have developed from an estoc or tuck.
They had many names in different countries and were essentially just sharp metal rods with square or triangular cross-sections and typically two large, round hand guards.
(Part of the above, courtesy of Arma Association)

Kubur · 26th June 2018, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

They had many names in different countries and were essentially just sharp metal rods with square or triangular cross-sections and typically two large, round hand guards.
(Part of the above, courtesy of Arma Association)

Of course, you are perfectly right.
My only problem here is that I'm not sure that the weapon presented above is a sword. To me it's a spear with an handle...
I'm not sure that it was used with two hands, the forte has a twisted part and it's not very user friendly...

Roland_M · 26th June 2018, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

And if you go further back in time, prior to rapiers, you would find that, there were special Medieval thrusting swords, called estocs or tucks which were used since the 1300s. They were large, heavy, stiff, two-handed blades specifically designed to puncture or beat on plate armor.

Hi Fernando,

your explanation is almost perfectly right. But with a long Estoc or "Panzerstecher" it is nearly impossible to puncture a hardened quality iron plate armor. Even a 1000 pound crossbow from a distance of 10-15 meters, hardly manage it, to cut deeper than one inch into a hardened iron plate armor.

So the Estoc or Panzerstecher is designed to find the gaps and holes in the enemys armor. The armpits are never fully protected for example. So it was a most important technique, to find the gaps in the armor around the armpits.

By the way, the Tulwar here is a battlefield sword, as a hunting sword it needs a stopper, as on boar spears, ~25cm away from the point. Otherwise it would be a deadly exercisze to catch a boar with this sword. It will probably run completely through the blade, even when the heart is punctured, and hurt or kill the hunter.

The Tular is either a weapon for the battlefield or maybe has been used for the finishing stroke (coup de grâce) for badly hurted enemys and/or own soldiers after the battle.

Roland

fernando · 26th June 2018, 02:44 PM

Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts.
I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880.
On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though.

.

Kubur · 26th June 2018, 03:08 PM

Ok just to be more clear
I also think that this weapon was for the Maratha...

Roland_M · 26th June 2018, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts.
I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880.
On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though.

.

Hi Fernando,

I only claimed that a crossbow is too weak to penetrate plate armor efficiently, because i saw that on Youtube a few weeks ago:

350 lb only dents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ
1200 lb a little bit of a puncture but the bolt wont stuck in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byc887HmUdc

The bolt is too slow with ~200fps for more effectiveness.

Plate armor for the battlefield was between 1.5 and 3mm thick and hardened.

As far as i know long bows are unable to deeply penetrate every kind of armor exept the weakest ones.

I have read in another comment that this Tulwar could be a hunting sword and this was just my poorly placed answer to that.

Best wishes,
Roland

fernando · 26th June 2018, 04:14 PM

Roland, i was following considerations from allegedly knowledge people, based more on historical records than on current tests, whatever difference that makes. However plate as thick as 3 m/m would have been used for jousting & tournament armour. But then again, i couldn't resist a skilled confrontation with my jazz talk ... and surely your approaches are not poorer than mine

.

Victrix · 26th June 2018, 06:06 PM

I’m not sure estocs were designed to penetrate plate armour but they look like they could be used to stab any vulnerable gaps in the armour. Estocs were more likely designed specifically to penetrate chain mail. The sharp narrow tip would enter a chink in the mail and then the momentum from the charging rider would force the tapering blade through the ring and expand this until it burst and enabling the blade to penetrate deeper. I believe sometimes the estoc would be held against the side when charging, in which case it would be used a bit like a lance. The tulwar above looks like that although the tip doesn’t look very sharp.

Estocs were used well into the 18thC in E.Europe because the Ottomans continued to use chainmail until quite late, probably because they and the Persians continued to use bow and arrow. Chainmail protects against arrows but not bullets I believe. So the Hungarian and Polish hussars would carry an estoc strapped to the side of the saddle in addition to their sabre personal side arm, as Jim showed above (and see attached picture).

I also attach two pictures from the Imperial Armoury in Vienna. The first shows a knight in armour with what appears to be a huge estoc (?) two-hand sword strapped to the saddle under the leg. The other picture shows some interesting Turkish estocs, as worn by Sipahis, with what appears to be characteristic hilts. A description at the museum explicitly mentions that these swords were designed to penetrate chinks in chainmail.

Roland_M · 26th June 2018, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Roland, i was following considerations from allegedly knowledge people, based more on historical records than on current tests, whatever difference that makes. However plate as thick as 3 m/m would have been used for jousting & tournament armour. But then again, i couldn't resist a skilled confrontation with my jazz talk ... and surely your approaches are not poorer than mine

.

Hi Fernando,

i was looking for old sources and i found one but in German language only (http://www.larpwiki.de/Panzerbrechend). On a modern reproduction plate armor a crossbow with 500 pounds left a dent of 2cm. In medieval this armor would have not reached the mimimum requirement of a medieval plate armor guild. This plate was 2mm thick and unhardened.

Here is a interesting study in English: Peter N. Jones: "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." in "Materials Characterization".

Bow and crossbow against chainmail armor are good to very effective but almost useless against plate armor.

Roland

26th June 2018, 02:44 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Isn't this what they call the arms race ? Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts. I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880. On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though. . Last edited by fernando; 26th June 2018 at 02:56 PM.

26th June 2018, 03:08 PM	#7
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Ok just to be more clear I also think that this weapon was for the Maratha... Attached Images

26th June 2018, 06:06 PM	#10
Victrix Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Sweden Posts: 755	I’m not sure estocs were designed to penetrate plate armour but they look like they could be used to stab any vulnerable gaps in the armour. Estocs were more likely designed specifically to penetrate chain mail. The sharp narrow tip would enter a chink in the mail and then the momentum from the charging rider would force the tapering blade through the ring and expand this until it burst and enabling the blade to penetrate deeper. I believe sometimes the estoc would be held against the side when charging, in which case it would be used a bit like a lance. The tulwar above looks like that although the tip doesn’t look very sharp. Estocs were used well into the 18thC in E.Europe because the Ottomans continued to use chainmail until quite late, probably because they and the Persians continued to use bow and arrow. Chainmail protects against arrows but not bullets I believe. So the Hungarian and Polish hussars would carry an estoc strapped to the side of the saddle in addition to their sabre personal side arm, as Jim showed above (and see attached picture). I also attach two pictures from the Imperial Armoury in Vienna. The first shows a knight in armour with what appears to be a huge estoc (?) two-hand sword strapped to the saddle under the leg. The other picture shows some interesting Turkish estocs, as worn by Sipahis, with what appears to be characteristic hilts. A description at the museum explicitly mentions that these swords were designed to penetrate chinks in chainmail. Attached Images Last edited by fernando; 26th June 2018 at 06:57 PM. Reason: Pictures adjustment

25th June 2018, 10:01 PM	#1
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Hi For me estoc is not a weapon. It's a way of striking an opponant. But even the rapiers used for the estoc have sharp edges. Is it possible to have close ups of the Indian mysterious weapon?

25th June 2018, 10:08 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Kubur, you can see that the picture I have shown is from the book, and this is not too good, so to make a blow up would not help.

26th June 2018, 04:14 PM	#9
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Roland, i was following considerations from allegedly knowledge people, based more on historical records than on current tests, whatever difference that makes. However plate as thick as 3 m/m would have been used for jousting & tournament armour. But then again, i couldn't resist a skilled confrontation with my jazz talk ... and surely your approaches are not poorer than mine .