Tulwar Vs sabre.

spiral · 24th February 2007, 11:53 PM

Good video Katana, all the chat passes me by in my ignorance unfortuanatly though...

A good site to watch Gatka vids with less talk is..

http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/

My favorite tulwar video is the first one listed, these videos are always good to show when you meet westerners who finds the handles of tulwar restrictive of movement, or who think their hands are much larger than the average sikh warrier, Generaly the main restriction is in the mind not the sword from my observations.

Their forte is horizontal & circular motions in which they come alive {like most Indo/Persian swords,} rather than the primitive, inexpierienced or untrained, non warrior, semi vertical linear chop that they clearly were never designed for, thats when they feel awkward I find.

Spiral

Pukka Bundook · 25th February 2007, 03:17 AM

Katana,
What percentage of Indian soldiers do you think would actually own their swords?
It is interesting to me, as tulwars appear to come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, as though made for specific individuals.
Would the majority be handed out by the local Newab or whatever, in times of extreme uproar?
Spiral,
Quarter circle does sound like a shamshir doesn't it?

According to "Sahib" it appears that most indian swords (and Afghan too)were of very good quality,.....at least they were in the 1850's
Another loose quote;
Concerning Afghans,.....a Major quotes, "...From the nature of their clothing and headdress, it is difficult to make any impression on them with a sword", Afghan swords, however, "were af native manufacture, and were as sharp as steel should be" (P351)
Also of interest was the Sikh cavalry tactics observed again by Sgt. Forbes Mitchell.

He says they wore voluminous Puggries around their heads that "our blunt swords were unable to cut through"
It appears the Sikh cavalry line on this occasion remained still on their horses, and allowed the British charge to pass through, merely lying with their heads on the horses necks, their backs protected by buffalo-hide shields.
The instant the British soldiers passed through their ranks the Sikhs swooped around on them and struck them back-handed with "their sharp curved swords", In several instances "cutting our cavalrymen in two,...."
He goes on to describe how one officer in this engagement was, "Hewn in two with a back-handed stroke which cut through his ammunition pouch, cleaving the pistol bullets, pouch and belt, the officer's spine and cutting his heart in two."
also a surgeon relates how he saw a single cut go through the crupper of a trooper's saddle and sever the horses spine. (P.360)

This appears serious cutting ability!
I presume these were 'professional' warriors, and not local 'conscripts', but whatever,.. the swords they were using appeared to be of very good quality!

Jim McDougall · 25th February 2007, 04:39 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 thier swords: heads and arms 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 in 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 pointed * blades, the light cavalry sword of 1796, perhaps the finest sword ever used by the British cavalry. He inquired 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 anyones hand", said one of the Nizams seasoned troopers. The lesson of sharp swords was one that Nolan never forgot."
- from "Nolan of Balaklava", H.Moyse-Bartlett, London, 1971,p.121
autobiography of Louis Edward Nolan, key figure in the
charge of the Light Brigade Oct.25,1854

*these were actually hatchet points, not spear points on the M1796

Clearly the British swords were not inadequate, however improper maintainance and servicability of the weapons by many of the troops led to reports of thier poor quality. It seems ironic that in so many cases the blades on native weapons used against British forces were thier own surplus or captured blades.

By the middle of the 19th century onward, the swords used by irregular cavalry units were typically surplus British military examples, and later even examples of tulwars made specifically for native troopers (Mole produced these in latter 1890's). The less dramatic curve of the tulwar blades was likely influenced by European and British sabres of the 19th century whose blades reflected the constant struggle to effectively combine the potential for both cut and thrust. It is important to note that the native troopers favor toward the hatchet pointed M1796 blades continued throughout the 19th century, and British makers produced these blades for India Stores as late as the 1880's, with the swords used into the 20th c. mounted in stirrup hilts.

Incidentally, the term tulwar is applied not only to the familiar disc hilted examples, but to the Persian hilt form which is similar to the shamshir hilt but typically all steel and with the same flueret shaped langets. I have seen these mounted with British M1788 sword blades as well.

Best regards,
Jim

FenrisWolf · 25th February 2007, 08:13 AM

One has to wonder how much of the difference also had to do with the weapons drill as taught to the different soldiers. There is a world of difference in the penetrating power of a simple hack cut, basically using the sword like a long, thin axe, and a drawcut which makes the best use of a blade's razorsharp edge.

Think about carving a roast or a turkey. Do you chop away at it, or do you slide the blade across the meat? (Well, I've seen a few people use the cleaver method, but that neither here nor there...) Simple hacking will get through, but with ten times the effort; a drawcut, though, when done with a decent blade, will slide through like a hot knife through butter.

For the average British foot soldier the sword was definitely a secondary weapon, and I can't imagine that most of them had the chance to learn the fine art of the sword.

Jens Nordlunde · 25th February 2007, 10:41 AM

Hi Katana,

This is a bit complicated. In the start, that is almost two thousand years ago, the Indian Sri Lankan steel was the one most sought after, and also the most expensive. It was exported to the west of the time,west Africa, Arabia, Egypt, Rome and so on, and later it was known as being better than even the Swedish steel which was very famous, but later again it seems as if the European steel was better sold, even in India, at least in the south and on the west coast. Part of this is may be due to the fact that the English forbade ingot making in big parts of Deccan due to deforesting – or maybe the reason was, to be able to sell more blades to the Indians, it is hard to know which version is the right one.

I think you are right, when you write that many, those who could afford it, had their own weapons made, to suite their size and ability, weapons that were treasured in the family, which were inherited from farther to son, but there were still a lot of swords made for the armories – and they would be common size – or whatever you would call it. Read Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood, chapter one and you will see the different ways the Indians and the Europeans regarded swords.

katana · 25th February 2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiral

....westerners who finds the handles of tulwar restrictive of movement, or who think their hands are much larger than the average sikh warrier, Generaly the main restriction is in the mind not the sword from my observations.

Their forte is horizontal & circular motions in which they come alive {like most Indo/Persian swords,} rather than the primitive, inexpierienced or untrained, non warrior, semi vertical linear chop that they clearly were never designed for, thats when they feel awkward I find.

Spiral

Hi Spiral, good link

I have to agree with your comments. There is evidence that the 'smaller hand' theory is possible. I, myself found a reference to British 'pattern' swords that were supplied to the Indian conscripts with smaller hilts to accomodate their smaller hands.

I,personally, am not convinced, I feel the restrictive hilt with the disc pommel aids the technique of Tulwar horizontal and circular cuts. When holding a Tulwar I have found that it can be gripped 'lightly' without fear of losing the sword. This 'relaxed' grip allows more flexibility in the wrist and elbow allowing quicker and more 'fluid' movement. Anyone could try this out with a stick, if you grip it tightly it 'locks' your wrist.....if you slightly relax that grip you can make that stick 'dance'.

...At the point of 'contact' the grip can be tightened to 'accept' the 'shock' of the strike.
If you try this 'loose grip' technigue on later pattern sword,( I have never handled a M1796 sabre

)the hilt slides through the fingers ....making it more likely you would lose the sword and control of the blade. When I referred to Gatka videos in an earlier thread...a number of formites suggested that this was no more than a 'sword dance' ...
I still disagree.

Hi Jim and Jens, thanks for the info....it seems I will have to invest in 'Hindu Arms and Ritual' by Robert Elgood

Pukka Bundook, that book is graphic

Rudyard Kipling springs to mind...

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs ..........."

spiral · 27th February 2007, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Spiral, good link

I have to agree with your comments. There is evidence that the 'smaller hand' theory is possible. I, myself found a reference to British 'pattern' swords that were supplied to the Indian conscripts with smaller hilts to accomodate their smaller hands.

. When I referred to Gatka videos in an earlier thread...a number of formites suggested that this was no more than a 'sword dance' ...
I still disagree.

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs ..........."

Thankyou Katana, Some Indians mays have small hands, most Sikhs dont.

Anyone who calls Gatka a sword dance is ignorant of its basis & judging from ther own limited expieriences.. Its based on flowing movement to fight multiple adversaries.

I worked in a iron Foundry with Sikh extremist militants,warriers & Wrestlers in my teens.. They wernt doing it just for show. Belive me. {I realy do know the differance as well.}
{Incidently They ranged from about 5ft6 to 6 ft 4 but were all sturdy & large boned.} i realise not all Sikhs are that full mentaly on as those of course.

I guess manyToday many have lost thie warrier instinct.}

Nice one Pukka!... Pukka indeed!

Great resources as always Jim! Thankyou.

One assumes the ridiculous English {&_ many westerns nations} military habit of sheathing swords in steel instead of wood or leather also blunted them somewhat.

Always a military hazard that one, the men who buy the weapons on mass have never used one in thier life so often.

Spiral

25th February 2007, 10:41 AM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Katana, This is a bit complicated. In the start, that is almost two thousand years ago, the Indian Sri Lankan steel was the one most sought after, and also the most expensive. It was exported to the west of the time,west Africa, Arabia, Egypt, Rome and so on, and later it was known as being better than even the Swedish steel which was very famous, but later again it seems as if the European steel was better sold, even in India, at least in the south and on the west coast. Part of this is may be due to the fact that the English forbade ingot making in big parts of Deccan due to deforesting – or maybe the reason was, to be able to sell more blades to the Indians, it is hard to know which version is the right one. I think you are right, when you write that many, those who could afford it, had their own weapons made, to suite their size and ability, weapons that were treasured in the family, which were inherited from farther to son, but there were still a lot of swords made for the armories – and they would be common size – or whatever you would call it. Read Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood, chapter one and you will see the different ways the Indians and the Europeans regarded swords. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 25th February 2007 at 12:43 PM.

24th February 2007, 11:53 PM	#1
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	Good video Katana, all the chat passes me by in my ignorance unfortuanatly though... A good site to watch Gatka vids with less talk is.. http://www.warriorsaints.com/media/ My favorite tulwar video is the first one listed, these videos are always good to show when you meet westerners who finds the handles of tulwar restrictive of movement, or who think their hands are much larger than the average sikh warrier, Generaly the main restriction is in the mind not the sword from my observations. Their forte is horizontal & circular motions in which they come alive {like most Indo/Persian swords,} rather than the primitive, inexpierienced or untrained, non warrior, semi vertical linear chop that they clearly were never designed for, thats when they feel awkward I find. Spiral

25th February 2007, 03:17 AM	#2
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Katana, What percentage of Indian soldiers do you think would actually own their swords? It is interesting to me, as tulwars appear to come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, as though made for specific individuals. Would the majority be handed out by the local Newab or whatever, in times of extreme uproar? Spiral, Quarter circle does sound like a shamshir doesn't it? According to "Sahib" it appears that most indian swords (and Afghan too)were of very good quality,.....at least they were in the 1850's Another loose quote; Concerning Afghans,.....a Major quotes, "...From the nature of their clothing and headdress, it is difficult to make any impression on them with a sword", Afghan swords, however, "were af native manufacture, and were as sharp as steel should be" (P351) Also of interest was the Sikh cavalry tactics observed again by Sgt. Forbes Mitchell. He says they wore voluminous Puggries around their heads that "our blunt swords were unable to cut through" It appears the Sikh cavalry line on this occasion remained still on their horses, and allowed the British charge to pass through, merely lying with their heads on the horses necks, their backs protected by buffalo-hide shields. The instant the British soldiers passed through their ranks the Sikhs swooped around on them and struck them back-handed with "their sharp curved swords", In several instances "cutting our cavalrymen in two,...." He goes on to describe how one officer in this engagement was, "Hewn in two with a back-handed stroke which cut through his ammunition pouch, cleaving the pistol bullets, pouch and belt, the officer's spine and cutting his heart in two." also a surgeon relates how he saw a single cut go through the crupper of a trooper's saddle and sever the horses spine. (P.360) This appears serious cutting ability! I presume these were 'professional' warriors, and not local 'conscripts', but whatever,.. the swords they were using appeared to be of very good quality!

25th February 2007, 04:39 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	"...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 thier swords: heads and arms 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 in 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 pointed * blades, the light cavalry sword of 1796, perhaps the finest sword ever used by the British cavalry. He inquired 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 anyones hand", said one of the Nizams seasoned troopers. The lesson of sharp swords was one that Nolan never forgot." - from "Nolan of Balaklava", H.Moyse-Bartlett, London, 1971,p.121 autobiography of Louis Edward Nolan, key figure in the charge of the Light Brigade Oct.25,1854 *these were actually hatchet points, not spear points on the M1796 Clearly the British swords were not inadequate, however improper maintainance and servicability of the weapons by many of the troops led to reports of thier poor quality. It seems ironic that in so many cases the blades on native weapons used against British forces were thier own surplus or captured blades. By the middle of the 19th century onward, the swords used by irregular cavalry units were typically surplus British military examples, and later even examples of tulwars made specifically for native troopers (Mole produced these in latter 1890's). The less dramatic curve of the tulwar blades was likely influenced by European and British sabres of the 19th century whose blades reflected the constant struggle to effectively combine the potential for both cut and thrust. It is important to note that the native troopers favor toward the hatchet pointed M1796 blades continued throughout the 19th century, and British makers produced these blades for India Stores as late as the 1880's, with the swords used into the 20th c. mounted in stirrup hilts. Incidentally, the term tulwar is applied not only to the familiar disc hilted examples, but to the Persian hilt form which is similar to the shamshir hilt but typically all steel and with the same flueret shaped langets. I have seen these mounted with British M1788 sword blades as well. Best regards, Jim

25th February 2007, 08:13 AM	#4
FenrisWolf Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 181	One has to wonder how much of the difference also had to do with the weapons drill as taught to the different soldiers. There is a world of difference in the penetrating power of a simple hack cut, basically using the sword like a long, thin axe, and a drawcut which makes the best use of a blade's razorsharp edge. Think about carving a roast or a turkey. Do you chop away at it, or do you slide the blade across the meat? (Well, I've seen a few people use the cleaver method, but that neither here nor there...) Simple hacking will get through, but with ten times the effort; a drawcut, though, when done with a decent blade, will slide through like a hot knife through butter. For the average British foot soldier the sword was definitely a secondary weapon, and I can't imagine that most of them had the chance to learn the fine art of the sword.