XXL size

tom hyle · 10th April 2005, 05:15 AM

I pretty much follow and agree. I've seen some BIG Sikhs. There is also the legend (which actually doesn't seem right to me, because of the numbers and multi-caste ownership of tulwars (?)) of the tulwar as a sword of aristocrats who never work, and work makes your hands larger and flatter, like an unbound foot, over time. They guy with the Guiness book fingernails is/was a Hindoo aristocrat following (to an extreme) a tradition of displaying the non-use of one's hands. I can hold at least 1/2 of tulwars reasonably well, though tightly gripped by disc and quillons, and about 1/4 of those comfortably and not tightly. I am a fairly large human. You've seen me next to Therion, but you might not know that Therion is at least a 1/2 giant. My sister, say, a slim and athletic woman (Down youse! Down, I say!) could probably hold any tulwar I've seen comfortably. I call her slim and athletic, but she is about the size of most "natural" normal size olden days men. Then there's this; the tulwars I've handled have all been brought to US, and may be unduly biased by the large hands of Americans, if you see what I mean.

Jens Nordlunde · 10th April 2005, 10:23 AM

Let us move to another kind of sword, the one on the picture. It is from the Malabar Coast (Stone, page 594, #4). This hilt is even narrower than the tulwar hilt, but if you watch old paintings and sculptures, you will notice that it is held with three fingers, plus the thumb, around the grip, and the rest of the hand around the pommel. Why it is like that I don’t know.

tom hyle · 10th April 2005, 10:33 AM

Wow, real bizarro; switching to a 1/2 push-dagger type grip, as seen in a variety of styles re smallsword? Some African swords have these like 2 inch handles where I can only imagine the usually but not always small pommel resting within the hand, even in like the hollow of the center of the palm; I mean, normal or small size humans like the W/C African aborigines (pygmies)aren't THAT small; about nipple high on me, usually, and then the much more nunerous Bantu race is a genetically large and also a beef eating people, not unlike (and in many other ways not unlike) Europeans.......a notably k(e)ris panjang-like blade there, I think, BTW.

Federico · 11th April 2005, 10:53 PM

One thing I would like to note, the size difference has often been over-exaggerated. At the turn of the century (Im forgetting the text, maybe its in History of Sulu by Saleeby), in PI the average height of a "Moro" male was 5'4", and of course there were taller guys around. Now Im only 5'8" and most of my Moro swords fit quite well, Im sure if youre 6'6" the difference may be severe, but Ive often heard people complain about size differences when they are 5'6" using a sword made for someone only a little bit smaller than them. I just dont see 2" in height making drastic hand size differences. Then you got guys who are small with big hands (my hands are just as big as my 6'4" room-mate), so the way I figure it, while certainly as people got larger grips probably grew, I just dont see small height differences (of course this is not always the case) making huge hilt differences. Anyways, just my opinion for what its worth. Excellent discussion so far.

Jens Nordlunde · 12th April 2005, 01:43 PM

On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt.
The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century.

tom hyle · 13th April 2005, 01:31 AM

hey! That one's even more k(e)ris-like!

fearn · 13th April 2005, 02:24 AM

Then there are the old bronze swords. I'm trying to remember where I read it (was it Ewart Oakeshotte's book?), but those old blades had ridiculously short hilts by modern standards. This was attributed (as we do here) to the Bronze Age greeks having tiny hands. Oakeshotte (assuming he wrote it) actually tried handling an accurate reconstruction, and found something very simple: the hilt was held by the last three fingers, while the thumb and forefinger fit very nicely on that round base of the leaf-shaped blade. When held that way, the old swords were actually very easy to use.

Since I just got hold of Waffen aus Zentral-Afrika, I'm looking at pictures of dozens of short swords with ridiculously short handles--as Tom mentions above. No one can hold a sword with a three inch handle, unless theyu're grabbing the base of the blade as well. In these cases, I suspect they were. I'd ask those of you with the African swords to try it out and see, personally. I suspect that's also what's going on with that Malabar rapier.

As for the problem of getting your finger lopped off if it's looped around the hilt, I'd say--yep, it's possible, but that doesn't stop most people who use sais from doing that very thing. Something to think about.

Fearn

Ian · 13th April 2005, 08:23 PM

Hi Jens:

When looking at the statuary of Hindu gods, and perhaps some Buddhist works as well, it is common to see the forefinger and little finger raised, even when holding certain objects (as in this picture). I believe this representation has some religious significance. Similar hand postures are seen among traditional dancers in India, Thailand and elsewhere in SE Asia, where the third and fourth fingers are flexed towards the thumb, forming a C-shape, and the forefinger and little finger are extended. I don't know the name for this posture, but it seems to have been around for a long time and must have a particular significance.

Ian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt.
The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century.

Jens Nordlunde · 13th April 2005, 09:38 PM

Ian, you are right of course, but this does not change the size of the grip/hilt. I still think the flat pommel rested against the palm of the hand - just like Tom described it.
If the grip on the hilt was like this, the ' freedom' to move the sword in any direction would be the best possible, and I don't think the strokes would be less fatal.

BTW - calling Rivkin - HALLO, do you hear me?

Jens

10th April 2005, 10:23 AM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Let us move to another kind of sword, the one on the picture. It is from the Malabar Coast (Stone, page 594, #4). This hilt is even narrower than the tulwar hilt, but if you watch old paintings and sculptures, you will notice that it is held with three fingers, plus the thumb, around the grip, and the rest of the hand around the pommel. Why it is like that I don’t know. Attached Images

12th April 2005, 01:43 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt. The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century. Attached Images

10th April 2005, 05:15 AM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I pretty much follow and agree. I've seen some BIG Sikhs. There is also the legend (which actually doesn't seem right to me, because of the numbers and multi-caste ownership of tulwars (?)) of the tulwar as a sword of aristocrats who never work, and work makes your hands larger and flatter, like an unbound foot, over time. They guy with the Guiness book fingernails is/was a Hindoo aristocrat following (to an extreme) a tradition of displaying the non-use of one's hands. I can hold at least 1/2 of tulwars reasonably well, though tightly gripped by disc and quillons, and about 1/4 of those comfortably and not tightly. I am a fairly large human. You've seen me next to Therion, but you might not know that Therion is at least a 1/2 giant. My sister, say, a slim and athletic woman (Down youse! Down, I say!) could probably hold any tulwar I've seen comfortably. I call her slim and athletic, but she is about the size of most "natural" normal size olden days men. Then there's this; the tulwars I've handled have all been brought to US, and may be unduly biased by the large hands of Americans, if you see what I mean.

10th April 2005, 10:33 AM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Wow, real bizarro; switching to a 1/2 push-dagger type grip, as seen in a variety of styles re smallsword? Some African swords have these like 2 inch handles where I can only imagine the usually but not always small pommel resting within the hand, even in like the hollow of the center of the palm; I mean, normal or small size humans like the W/C African aborigines (pygmies)aren't THAT small; about nipple high on me, usually, and then the much more nunerous Bantu race is a genetically large and also a beef eating people, not unlike (and in many other ways not unlike) Europeans.......a notably k(e)ris panjang-like blade there, I think, BTW.

11th April 2005, 10:53 PM	#4
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	One thing I would like to note, the size difference has often been over-exaggerated. At the turn of the century (Im forgetting the text, maybe its in History of Sulu by Saleeby), in PI the average height of a "Moro" male was 5'4", and of course there were taller guys around. Now Im only 5'8" and most of my Moro swords fit quite well, Im sure if youre 6'6" the difference may be severe, but Ive often heard people complain about size differences when they are 5'6" using a sword made for someone only a little bit smaller than them. I just dont see 2" in height making drastic hand size differences. Then you got guys who are small with big hands (my hands are just as big as my 6'4" room-mate), so the way I figure it, while certainly as people got larger grips probably grew, I just dont see small height differences (of course this is not always the case) making huge hilt differences. Anyways, just my opinion for what its worth. Excellent discussion so far.

13th April 2005, 01:31 AM	#6
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	hey! That one's even more k(e)ris-like!

13th April 2005, 02:24 AM	#7
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Then there are the old bronze swords. I'm trying to remember where I read it (was it Ewart Oakeshotte's book?), but those old blades had ridiculously short hilts by modern standards. This was attributed (as we do here) to the Bronze Age greeks having tiny hands. Oakeshotte (assuming he wrote it) actually tried handling an accurate reconstruction, and found something very simple: the hilt was held by the last three fingers, while the thumb and forefinger fit very nicely on that round base of the leaf-shaped blade. When held that way, the old swords were actually very easy to use. Since I just got hold of Waffen aus Zentral-Afrika, I'm looking at pictures of dozens of short swords with ridiculously short handles--as Tom mentions above. No one can hold a sword with a three inch handle, unless theyu're grabbing the base of the blade as well. In these cases, I suspect they were. I'd ask those of you with the African swords to try it out and see, personally. I suspect that's also what's going on with that Malabar rapier. As for the problem of getting your finger lopped off if it's looped around the hilt, I'd say--yep, it's possible, but that doesn't stop most people who use sais from doing that very thing. Something to think about. Fearn

13th April 2005, 09:38 PM	#9
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Ian, you are right of course, but this does not change the size of the grip/hilt. I still think the flat pommel rested against the palm of the hand - just like Tom described it. If the grip on the hilt was like this, the ' freedom' to move the sword in any direction would be the best possible, and I don't think the strokes would be less fatal. BTW - calling Rivkin - HALLO, do you hear me? Jens