A very special 'tulwar'

[NavdeepBal]

Originally Posted by fernando

So it would be a Sikh weapon, said (quoting) to be made up of thin, sharp iron rod with a handle at one end, very dangerous. It is used to pierce in the human body...

It could also be from the Deccan. But a possibility of it being a Punjabi weapon is also very high, because two most common names for swords are still found in local Punjabi Lingo, Khirch and Tulwar. Khirch was very popular in Punjab, and this might jus be some variation although it is more of a rod rather than a blade.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Fernando, I dont remember it to be sharp, the one I saw in Istanbul. Also I think it is of European origin.

Maybe the one in Istambul was a variation of the same device ?; or maybe the term "sharp" must be subject to interpretation...

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

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

Roland, i am a bit hesitant at continuing with this interesting conversation, as by now is established that the example posted by Jen's that gave place to the present topic is navigating in a different direction, but here goes my last approach ...
There is a Spanish saying that, roughly translated, says:
I don't believe there are witches ... although they exist .
For each article or chronicle or video clip that we take account, there is another one that admits that, a good (cross) bow shot, well directed and at a close distance may perforate plate armour, not to mention mail armour. For each battle they recall about bows having not been effective as expected, another author argues that the opponent's victory was due to other factors, like in the context, archers not having reach the kill line distance in the terrain, for one.
Not that the primary intention of crossbows was that of armour perforation, but still was considered as complementary. We must not forget that not all armour had the same thickness, or temper, or deflecting angles. All in all, i am not ready to be subject to such life test myself; would only care to have a real early crossbow in my collection .


-

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, I remember it to have been a long rod, pointet at one end and a hilt at the other end, just like the one Tirri shows..

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Fernando, I remember it to have been a long rod, pointet at one end and a hilt at the other end, just like the one Tirri shows..

Maybe the example at Istambul is something for a different purpose, only the rod shape being coincidental. Having or not a sharp point could be due to time wearing or some accident make them becoming blunt.
Judging by NavdeepBal's words Tirri's example was more directed to human (unarmoured) combat. We akso know that a Kirch doesn't have to have a talwar hilt mounted in it. But it is also true that the term has been vulgarized and its attribution corrupted trough time; you may read the term nowadays in the Indian press about people been currently attacked with Kirch, as meaning a "small rapier", a "knife like weapon" a "sharp edged weapon" and other. The only picture available of what seems to be a Kirch in its original attribution, produced by Sikh sources is a rather poor one; in any case i will upload it here.
On the other hand, i have captured parts of what seems to be a rather consensual description of what a French estoc or English tuck would be, (courtesy of Blood & Bourbon) as partly already approached in here before, as being a type of sword in use from the 14th to 17th centuries, characterized as having a cruciform hilt with a grip for two handed use and a straight, edgeless, but sharply pointed blade of around 36-52 inches in length. Such swords averaged about 4 pounds with no specimen weighing more than 6 pounds. The estoc was a variation of the longsword designed for fighting against mail or plate armor. It was long, straight, and stiff with no cutting edge, just a point. As armor improved, so did the methods of attacking the armor .....Thrusting weapons that could split the rings of mail, or find the joints and crevices of plate armor, like the estoc, were employed....
Whereas the example in Istambul was brought from India or belongs in the family of European estocs, a so called Mec, is something for you Jens, or any of our members to figure out.


.

[Jens Nordlunde]

No Fernando, it was described to me as a Panzersteker, by someone who knew what he was talking about - unfortunately he is dead now.

[Victrix]

As pointed out earlier, Panzerstecher is just German for armour piercing sword. In French it’s estoc and in Hungarian it’s hegyestor, etc.

If the sword in Istanbul looked like this, it’s likely a Turkish/Ottoman armour piercing sword. This particular item is displayed at the Imperial Armoury in Vienna. It’s war booty and was captured from Mikailoglu Kasim Bey outside Vienna in 1532.

The Tulwar above looks like it could be an armour piercing sword, but the tip seems surprisingly obtuse if designed to penetrate chinks in chainmail. Perhaps it’s just a decorative item used for display or rituals?

[fernando]

Is that you holding that beautiful estoc Victrix ? Have you borrowed it from the Imperial Armoury ? Did you already return it

[Victrix]

I wish it was me but unfortunately it’s from this website: http://www.harmankaya.net/KasimBeyPanzerstecher.html
It must be some fortunate museum curator fellow handling the beautiful sword

But the same sword appears on the right in my previous post from a picture taken by me through the glass of the display case at the Imperial Armoury in Vienna during my visit last December. I wanted to show more details of the sword by adding the photos from the website. Note how long the sword is, and that the blade is reinforced for greater strength and rigidity required to penetrate chainmail.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Victrix, the 'sword' I saw in Istanbul was like the one Tirri shows, not like the one yoou show - desværre.

[ariel]

Energy is a product of mass times speed squared.
Energy of a thrust by an experienced cavalryman is a mass times the sum squared of speed of the thrust+ speed of the horse.

[Victrix]

Jens, I know very little about Indian swords unfortunately (but willing to learn). As I mentioned the length of the tulwar makes it look like an estoc but the tip should be sharper and the blade should have a slight taper to penetrate and expand the chinks in the chainmail. The steel also needs to be very hard. I know they used chainmail in India which is helpful in hot climates as air is allowed to circulate. Guess there would be a Mughal connection. Det kanske finns ett online foto från samlingen på svärdet du såg?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Victrix, jeg har ledt på millitærmuseets og Topkapis hjemmesider - ingen billeder.
I have been looking at the homepages of The Millitary museum, and the one of Topkapi, but found very few pictures, and most certainly not of the 'sword' discussed.
A search at the homepage of the MET give no result.

[midelburgo]

I think the ones really enjoying this kind of weapon were the Polish. Here says that inventories give near parity with broadswords (sabers?), as the weapon to be used after a lance charge.

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Koncerz.htm

About crossbows and bows losing ground to fire weapons, what it is often not realized is that you can have a bag with a kilo of arquebus balls and that will give you some 40 shots. But to have 40 arrows or bolts is much more encumbering. So the rate of fire is secondary. Of course, you can recover some, but only when the fight is over...if you win.

In his memories, Marshall Monluc describes how he became behind the Spanish lines in Fuenterrabia in 1521 with a band of crossbowmen for a couple of days. Trying to return they were very afraid of encountering Spanish cavalry because their bolts could not penetrate and they were wasting them fast. Their only hope was a small group of Navarrese shotgunners. 4 years later at Pavia, the French were still hardly using arquebuses.

[Jens Nordlunde]

midelburgo, it is interesting that you mention a Polish link, but I am not quite sure why you do so, as I would have said Germany.
But I do agree with you, that they likely were used after a cavallery attack.
We do, however, know very little about these weapons, and they are seldom seen/shown.
A weapon like this one would have been very rare, as it would have cost a lot of money, and it would have been in use very seldom.
Jim shows pictures of some, but they are not quite like the one Tirri shows.

[Victrix]

There are estocs in different shapes, and the hilts in particular tended to be adapted to suit local customs as Jim mentioned above. The function to penetrate chainmail remained the same. But chainmail ceased to be used in Europe in the 16thC (?) due to the advent of the firearm so estocs became redundant there. Except in Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland,...) the use of estocs continued because their adversaries the Ottomans continued to use chainmail because in their part of the world the bow and arrow continued to be in use.

The kismeta.com page linked to by Midelburgo included this: ”Polish cavalry sometimes used it like a short pike - putting the hilt between arm and chest and holding the blade a third of the way down.” Indian cavalry might have done the same. So the round twisted area between the hilt and the blade proper on the thrusting tulwar might be designed to steady the blade as much as possible on impact to enhance its penetrating capability.

[ariel]

In Turkey these "estocs" are called "meç" or "Meç -Kiliç": pronounced as mech ( "ch" as in cheese).

The word "mech" or "mach" comes from slavic group of languages, and means just " sword".

One possibility is that the Ottomans got this weapon from the Balkans ( Serbia?) and preserved the original sounding.

However, similar thrusting Mamluk examples are present in Askeri Muze ( Yucel, plates 61-63) and are dated to 15th century.

Here is yet another conundrum: at that time Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt was ruled by Burji dynasty, that was Circassian in origin. Circassians and Crimean Tatars, with whom the former were very close, had very long sabers with bayonet points designed specifically for thrusting. Was the idea of a purely thrusting sword in Mamluk( and later, Ottoman) military imported from the Northern shore of Black Sea, the main source of acquiring slave soldiers?

Marsigli in his accounts of the Ottoman Empire, mentioned this " meç", but did not know how to transliterate sound "ch". So, he used "gg". Russian researcher Astvatsaturyan, an author of their famous book "Turkish weapons", not knowing any foreign languages, rendered its sounding in a typical Russian fashion as "мегг" ( pronounced as "meg" with hard "g" at the end).
That is how in Russian weapon history books appeared yet another genuine Ottoman weapon : "meg".

Another story from the " karud" series:-)

[Victrix]

Ariel, great to learn about the mec-kilic. I think these chainmail piercing swords have been around almost as long as chainmail itself. In Europe estocs were used in medieaval times but in islamic (for want of a more appropriate word?) lands they continued in use longer presumably because chainmail continued in use, probably because of a greater traditional attachment to archery?

The use of the Slavic word mach for this type of sword could be that the Ottomans first encountered these weapons during the conquest of the Balkans. This does not have to mean the swords originated here but that they were manufactured in the traditional centres in Passau and Brescia etc and imported to the Balkans which was the first point of contact for the Ottomans with European warfare. It makes you wonder if the crusaders did not use these weapons in which case they might have been called franji-kilic (Frankish sword) instead? Also I would be surprised if the mongols and tatars did not have chainmail piercing swords in which case the Turks would have adopted these swords alng with curved sabres. Not sure Circassians or Crimean Tatars spoke Slavic languages?

There was an earlier discussion about estocs here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21249 . You may find posts #13 and 16 in particular interesting.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Victrix

...I think these chainmail piercing swords have been around almost as long as chainmail itself.. .

So it seems indeed. As for origin, looking at the perspective of various Spanish sources, they have no doubt that the "estoc" (a term of old french origin, meaning the 'point of a sword') if not invented by the French, was certainly by them popularized. It appeared for the first time in the Peninsula in 1275, specifically in Cataluña, on its way from France.This may bee seen in contemporaneous paints and texts of the 100 years war. Like in many occasions, the invention of a weapon may be attributed to a people, a nation or person depending on historians and specialists works, but in the case of the estoc, results curious emphasizing the following text from Góngora (1561-1627):

"Cuyas armas siempre fueron,
aunque abolladas, triunfantes
de los franceses estoques
y de los turcos alfanjes"

Consensualy its development followed military evolution to face new defensive weapons (armour); Sancho IV of Castille harness dates from 1285, this weapon then having to be effective in penetrating armour weak points. It seems as the estoc was a must in wealthy Spaniards war gear, as established in the Cortes of Valladolid in 1385:
"All men that have each one an amount of twenty thousand maravedis or more, be obliged of having long harness with all armour parts, basinet or brimmed hat with its gorget, or helmet, and breeches and estoc and axe and dagger".

On the other hand, from all many examples from various origins so far shown here, not one is a little close from the the talwar hilted specimen shown in Tirri's. Whether its purpose is one of punching into unarmoured bodies, or that of a non lethal martial combat, or just a cremimonial item, it sure carries for the time being some enigma to it, not strange to the intricate & imaginative arsenal the India Subcontinent.

.