Short-bladed Indo-Afghani sabers

[ariel]

The overall length of tulwar was about 90 cm, i.e. 35". But that includes the handle. I was talking about the blades. Over the past ~10 years average height of an urban Indian man was 174 cm, the rural one 161.5 cm, all-country 166 cm. 200-300 years ago they must have been shorter ( secular trend). Thus, a tulwar with ~30" blade would not fit your criterion for a standing Indian.

Indians imported horses from Arabia and Persia. Those were definitely not " donkey-sized":-).

As to the configuration of infantry swords, please see H. Withers "World swords 1400-1945". Both infantry and cavalry European regulation swords were either straight or curved.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Over the past ~10 years average height of an urban Indian man was 174 cm, the rural one 161.5 cm, all-country 166 cm. 200-300 years ago they must have been shorter ( secular trend).

I apologize, I do not believe in it

Originally Posted by ariel

Indians imported horses from Arabia and Persia. Those were definitely not " donkey-sized":-).

I talked about exactly Indian horses. Not all Indians rode horses from Central Asia or especially from Arabia, such horses were very expensive.

Originally Posted by ariel

As to the configuration of infantry swords, please see H. Withers "World swords 1400-1945". Both infantry and cavalry European regulation swords were either straight or curved.

We were talking about Indian swords and in mass.

[ariel]

1.You do not have to believe, just Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averag...ght_by_country

2. As to Indian horse height: Arabian 57-61"; Akhal-Teke 58-64"; Marwari ( Malani) , the quintessential Indian horse 56-64". Most horses in India stem from Arabian and Central Asian breeds, they were imported en masse.

3. See famous miniature " Sivaji on the march" ( you can find it in Egerton, Plate II, between pp.26-27). Half of infantry escort carries curved sabers. I did not even mention weights.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

1.You do not have to believe, just Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averag...ght_by_country

mean body temperature of patients throughout the hospital

Tamils, Khonds, hill tribes, nomads, Rajputs, Jains, Gujaratis, Turks, Mughals, Afghans, Tajiks, Iranians, Nepalese, Arabs, Africans and more.... All of them were and are Indian.... the average value ...

Originally Posted by ariel

2. As to Indian horse height: Arabian 57-61"; Akhal-Teke 58-64"; Marwari ( Malani) , the quintessential Indian horse 56-64". Most horses in India stem from Arabian and Central Asian breeds, they were imported en masse.

In India there were a lot of local horses, small due to natural conditions and not hybridized with the Arabian horses like Marwari or other.

Originally Posted by ariel

3. See famous miniature " Sivaji on the march" ( you can find it in Egerton, Plate II, between pp.26-27). Half of infantry escort carries curved sabers. I did not even mention weights.

I do not draw my conclusions from one miniature or one book.
The criterion may be as follows: a more straightened talwar would be primarily a weapon of a foot warrior, and a shorter curved saber (and heavier) is a weapon of a rider. There may be other assumptions, I do not argue, but I am ready to justify my own, but not here.

[ariel]

OK, having spent some time on personal impressions, height of S. Indian tribesmen, average body temperature in the hospital and other profound issues, can we go back to the original question: does the difference in the blade length imply differential use by cavalry/infantry? Short-bladed #3 ( the lowest) has a mail-piercing ( zirah bouk-ish) tip, implying stabbing as its significant function. Any thoughts?

[shayde78]

Originally Posted by ariel

Short-bladed #3 ( the lowest) has a mail-piercing ( zirah bouk-ish) tip, implying stabbing as its significant function. Any thoughts?

Not that your original question want a good one, but I find this question very compelling. I am sure there are plenty of examples and that I have simply not thought to pay attention, but I don't think I've seen a zirah bouk tip on a curved blade (of sword length) of a form typically associated with slashing cuts. Is this at all common and does it prove the thrust was part of established tulwar play?

[ariel]

You are correct: “ zirah bouk-ish” Indo-Afghani swords ( not daggers!) are very rare. I can recall seeing maybe 3-4, no more. But they do exist. One could entertain an idea that they might have come to Persia/India from the nomads: kind of atavistic feature, akin to our coccyx:-) By many accounts piercing/stabbing was not a part of Indian swordplay.

Were the short-bladed swords merely individual orders for especially short individuals? Why all 3 have very broad and as a result heavy blades?
Usually we assume that short-bladed sword from N. Africa/Arabia belong to a “naval” group; tough to include the Afghani ones in it.

A whole bunch of open questions.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

OK, having spent some time on personal impressions, height of S. Indian tribesmen, average body temperature in the hospital and other profound issues, can we go back to the original question: does the difference in the blade length imply differential use by cavalry/infantry? Short-bladed #3 ( the lowest) has a mail-piercing ( zirah bouk-ish) tip, implying stabbing as its significant function. Any thoughts?

In no way a blade with such curvature and width, could possibly penetrate even modest armour.

The shape of the tip is most certainly purely decorative.

As with regards to the blades size/weight, cavalry blades tend to be somehow longer and heavier.

However, this is valid ONLY when talking about regular, standardized military European units.