A 19th century Afghan warrior’s opinion on European blades compared to his own

[Sakalord364]

This is a collection of Afghan proverbs from 1876, compiled by the British. Their territory fell under British jurisdiction, and this is a fairly standard ethnographic book for the period.

What caught my eye was this proverb regarding combat implements, should the proverb be interpreted literally, in that the Afghans preferred “firangi” (British) swords compared to their own?

I do remember a major thread a while back (linked below) discussing how Indians felt about European blades (and vice versa) so a potential Afghan perspective is interesting.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20954

[ausjulius]

The steel in European swords was generally much better .
And remember that the rubbish blades sold for court swords or sold for military contracts that were not always tested..it was not the same quality of blade as what was exported to customers in the east for weapons or to the Americas as machete blades, these were fine hard sharp well tempered well quenched blades.
The European blades sold in India or the middle east or the Caucasus were mostly very good.
People were assembling weapons from these and sharpening them by had they would quickly recognise if the blade was rubbish.
Our opinion of European made blades from blunt mass produced military swords is skewed.
Maybe times these military swords are total rubbish unusable almost when sharpened. Low carbon steel. .. hard like a soft spring that can take a bend even..
Unable to hold an edge.
Others are also damaged further during rough careless grinding. If Yoh have ever sharpened and tested many cheaper military swords you will see it.
It's why the British took great effort to proof military items.
And it's why Europeans developed a negative opinion on some of their swords when using Asian weapons in their place

[Jim McDougall]

From Swordsman in the British Empire
1.Maj. Waller Ashe (King’s Dragoon Guards) observed that most sowars or Indian cavalrymen were “far better swordsmen than our own troopers, whose cumbersome sabres, that won’t cut and cannot point, with their heavy steel scabbards, are not to be compared with the native tulwar, whose keen razor-like edge enables its owner to lop off a head or a limb as easily as cutting a cabbage. Our English regulation scabbards are heavy, difficult to clean, blunt the sword, and make such a rattle that a secret reconnaissance with them is impossible. These sowars have scabbards of solid brown leather, lined thinly with wood.” (Personal Records of the Kandahar Campaign, 1881.)
2. Col. Richard Bayly, 12th Foot: “To give an idea of the temper, sharpness, and weight of the swords of all these [Mysorean] men, I have only to mention that the barrel of one of the men’s muskets was completely cut in two by one stroke.” (Diary of Colonel Bayly, 1896.)
3. “Major Hunter, 41st Native Infantry, advanced a few paces in front of his men [during the storming of Bhurtpore in 1826] and offered him [Khoosial Singh, a Jat chief] quarter; when, with warlike fury, Khoosial Singh replied to the speaker by a terrific blow. Major Hunter put up his scabbard as a guard; but such was the stoutness of arm of the gallant Jat, so great the sharpness of his sword, that the scabbard was cut through as if it had been paper, and Major Hunter’s left arm nearly severed. Our men then rushed on Khoosial Singh, who fell pierced with innumerable bayonet wounds.” (Viscountess Combermere & Capt. W. W. Knollys, Memoirs and Correspondence of Field Marshal Viscount Combermere, 1866.)
4. Regarding a mutiny of sowars or troopers of the Hyderabad Contingent Cavalry in 1827: “Lieut. Stirling, whilst making a thrust at one of the mutineers, had his sword arm cut to the bone, just above the wrist; and his arm would probably have been taken off had not Lieut. Harrington’s sword, which was cut half through by the same blow, received a great part of the weight of it; whilst he, at the same instant, ran the desperado through the body.” (Asiatic Journal, 1827.)
5. Regarding Lt. & Adjt. C. D. La Touche of the Southern Mahratta Horse: “He had a narrow escape; a matchlock was leveled directly at his face, when a ressaldar [captain] made a cut at it with his sword, severing the barrel at a blow.” (Telegraph and Courier, Dec. 9, 1857.)
6. Maj. Gen. Osborn Wilkinson, Indian Army: “One day, during the siege of Lucknow, I met my old friend [Lt. M. M.] Prendergast who unsheathed his weapon [a Wilkinson] and laughingly showed me the remains of it. It had just been cut clean in two by a slash from a native tulwar, and [Lt. T. C.] Graham’s sword [a Prosser] was broken in an encounter he had with a Pandy [mutineer]—the sword having been smashed in his hand.” (Memoirs, 1896.) 7. Among others, Ensign Augustus H. Alexander (a cavalry brigadier’s a.d.c.) noted that in the 1st Sikh War “we are no match for them in hand-to- hand work. They use their swords and manage their horses a great deal better than we do.” (New Zealand Spectator, Sept. 26, 1846.)
8. “The enemy exhibited frightful ferocity, and with their sharp tulwars (or native swords) hewed off heads and hands and arms by a single blow.” And regarding “the deficiency of our cavalry in proper weapons”, “the weight, badness of balance, and the wretched steel
of which their swords were made gave the enemy a vast superiority over them at close quarters. Like most Asiatics, the Sikhs kept their short handy swords as keen as razors— swords that sliced at every stroke; and we are told that ‘our poor fellows laboured in vain with their long, awkward, and blunt sabres to draw blood’.” (James Grant, British Battles on Land and Sea, 1889.)
9. Lt. E. J. Thackwell, 3rd Dragoons: “The tulwar has a broader back, thicker blade, and keener edge [than the British regulation sword]; and the enemy are in the habit of delivering the drawing cut, a most cutting kind of blow. That flimsy piece of steel called the regulation sword the powerful tulwar of the Sikh shivered to atoms with a blow.
10. Whilst [the leading squadron of the 3rd Dragoons under Captain] Unett was charging [at Chillianwallah in 1849], a Sikh cut at him from behind. A private dragoon, close behind his gallant leader, interposed his sword; the Sikh’s tulwar not only shivered it to pieces, but penetrating Unett’s pouch, entered his back. On several occasions, the English steel was found inferior. Moreover, the enemy were almost invulnerable from the shields, armour, and wadded clothes they wore. The men of the 9th Lancers often failed to pierce them [with their lances].” (Narrative of the Second Sikh War, 1851.) 11. “Single combats were of no unfrequent occurrence [during the battle of Chillianwallah], and in these the Sikh soldier not unfrequently had the advantage. The weapon with which he is armed has a broader back, a thicker blade, as well as a keener edge than ours, and affords him a signal advantage. The gashes inflicted by the tulwar, beneath the stroke of which our steel was shivered to splinters, were frightful.” (E. J. Thackwell, “Confessions of an Old Dragoon,” Colburn’s United Service Magazine, 1854.)
12. John Ship fighting a Gorkha Sobar
With this I was obliged to act on the defensive, till I could catch my formidable opponent off his guard. He cut, I guarded; he thrust, I parried; until he became aggravated and set to work with that impetuosity and determination pretty generally understood by the phrase ‘hammer and tongs’; in the course of which he nearly cut my poor twenty-fourther in pieces.

This very comprehensive synopsis of entries on this topic submitted by Sirupate is most interesting and reflects the views toward the swords as wielded by Indian warriors.

I would add that in one reference on Louis Nolan (of Balaklava,1854) in his previous time in India he had noted how deadly the Sikh swords were. The British cavalry were astounded when they discovered that the tulwars the warriors were using were actually old M1796 cavalry blades, honed to remarkable sharpness, and carried in wood lined scabbards.

While the 1796 was replaced in 1821 by a saber with blade intended to be effective in both cut and thrust, it was not nearly as effective a slashing weapon as the 1796, and drew many complaints about the quality of the blade.

In India (with Afghanistan then deemed the Northwest Frontier of India) the blades most highly esteemed were typically the 'alemani' (of German mfg.) but clearly the 1796 light cavalry sabers were much favored. Actually so much so, that later in the 18th century when the British supplied swords to the native forces, the three bar hilts were used, but the blades were more to the 'hatchet point' sabers of the M1796. These were produced and used in the native regiments into early 20th c.
The term 'firangi' is simply to refer to 'foreign' blade, and most commonly used from Deccan into southern areas, particularly by Marathas and toward the Hindu basket hilt (their 'khanda') eith European blades.

In the 18th century, British sword blades (typically Birmingham) had dubious repute, which was the reason for the Hounslow and Shotley enterprises in the 17th century. By the mid 18th century, there were only three recognized British blade makers whose blades were of notable quality, and most of the blades were German imports to cutlers.

The blades produced in Europe, most ubiquitously from Germany, were of high quality steel and forging (as Ausjulius has noted). These German blades were in demand not only in colonial contexts by natives, but throughout Europe.

With Afghanistan, toward the original question. the warriors there clearly had high regard for European blades, though their blade makers, as well as into Rajasthan regions, were also highly skilled at blade production. The attitude toward European blades positively can be seen by the copying of the most commonly seen markings placed on the blades made by these Indian makers.
The familiar Genoan sickle marks are most often seen on Afghan paluoars, which most often seem to have these native made blades, and were used well through the 19th c.
As far as I have known, the term 'firangi' is seldom, if ever used in Afghan context. However in the 19th century India was considered northern India so this cited quote may have come from that circumstance.

In first image: Afghan paluoar, as noted, sickle marks
second: A Persian style shamshir, highly regarded in Afghan regions and Mughal contexts, with British M1788 light cavalry blade augmented with koftgari at forte.
third: A British colonial cavalry saber by J Bourne& Son c. 1890s (a contractor for Wilkinson) and I have confirmed as used by 13th Bengal Lancers.

While the native cavalry were typically supplied with British sabers, some units preferred the tulwar, and I have seen these produced by Mole of Birmingham, and so marked.

Fourth: A Mughal tulwar from northern regions (Delhishahi form) with blade by Henry Osborn, Birmingham, one of the earliest makers of the British M1796 blades.

[Sakalord364]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

From Swordsman in the British Empire
1.Maj. Waller Ashe (King’s Dragoon Guards) observed that most sowars or Indian cavalrymen were “far better swordsmen than our own troopers, whose cumbersome sabres, that won’t cut and cannot point, with their heavy steel scabbards, are not to be compared with the native tulwar, whose keen razor-like edge enables its owner to lop off a head or a limb as easily as cutting a cabbage. Our English regulation scabbards are heavy, difficult to clean, blunt the sword, and make such a rattle that a secret reconnaissance with them is impossible. These sowars have scabbards of solid brown leather, lined thinly with wood.” (Personal Records of the Kandahar Campaign, 1881.)
2. Col. Richard Bayly, 12th Foot: “To give an idea of the temper, sharpness, and weight of the swords of all these [Mysorean] men, I have only to mention that the barrel of one of the men’s muskets was completely cut in two by one stroke.” (Diary of Colonel Bayly, 1896.)
3. “Major Hunter, 41st Native Infantry, advanced a few paces in front of his men [during the storming of Bhurtpore in 1826] and offered him [Khoosial Singh, a Jat chief] quarter; when, with warlike fury, Khoosial Singh replied to the speaker by a terrific blow. Major Hunter put up his scabbard as a guard; but such was the stoutness of arm of the gallant Jat, so great the sharpness of his sword, that the scabbard was cut through as if it had been paper, and Major Hunter’s left arm nearly severed. Our men then rushed on Khoosial Singh, who fell pierced with innumerable bayonet wounds.” (Viscountess Combermere & Capt. W. W. Knollys, Memoirs and Correspondence of Field Marshal Viscount Combermere, 1866.)
4. Regarding a mutiny of sowars or troopers of the Hyderabad Contingent Cavalry in 1827: “Lieut. Stirling, whilst making a thrust at one of the mutineers, had his sword arm cut to the bone, just above the wrist; and his arm would probably have been taken off had not Lieut. Harrington’s sword, which was cut half through by the same blow, received a great part of the weight of it; whilst he, at the same instant, ran the desperado through the body.” (Asiatic Journal, 1827.)
5. Regarding Lt. & Adjt. C. D. La Touche of the Southern Mahratta Horse: “He had a narrow escape; a matchlock was leveled directly at his face, when a ressaldar [captain] made a cut at it with his sword, severing the barrel at a blow.” (Telegraph and Courier, Dec. 9, 1857.)
6. Maj. Gen. Osborn Wilkinson, Indian Army: “One day, during the siege of Lucknow, I met my old friend [Lt. M. M.] Prendergast who unsheathed his weapon [a Wilkinson] and laughingly showed me the remains of it. It had just been cut clean in two by a slash from a native tulwar, and [Lt. T. C.] Graham’s sword [a Prosser] was broken in an encounter he had with a Pandy [mutineer]—the sword having been smashed in his hand.” (Memoirs, 1896.) 7. Among others, Ensign Augustus H. Alexander (a cavalry brigadier’s a.d.c.) noted that in the 1st Sikh War “we are no match for them in hand-to- hand work. They use their swords and manage their horses a great deal better than we do.” (New Zealand Spectator, Sept. 26, 1846.)
8. “The enemy exhibited frightful ferocity, and with their sharp tulwars (or native swords) hewed off heads and hands and arms by a single blow.” And regarding “the deficiency of our cavalry in proper weapons”, “the weight, badness of balance, and the wretched steel
of which their swords were made gave the enemy a vast superiority over them at close quarters. Like most Asiatics, the Sikhs kept their short handy swords as keen as razors— swords that sliced at every stroke; and we are told that ‘our poor fellows laboured in vain with their long, awkward, and blunt sabres to draw blood’.” (James Grant, British Battles on Land and Sea, 1889.)
9. Lt. E. J. Thackwell, 3rd Dragoons: “The tulwar has a broader back, thicker blade, and keener edge [than the British regulation sword]; and the enemy are in the habit of delivering the drawing cut, a most cutting kind of blow. That flimsy piece of steel called the regulation sword the powerful tulwar of the Sikh shivered to atoms with a blow.
10. Whilst [the leading squadron of the 3rd Dragoons under Captain] Unett was charging [at Chillianwallah in 1849], a Sikh cut at him from behind. A private dragoon, close behind his gallant leader, interposed his sword; the Sikh’s tulwar not only shivered it to pieces, but penetrating Unett’s pouch, entered his back. On several occasions, the English steel was found inferior. Moreover, the enemy were almost invulnerable from the shields, armour, and wadded clothes they wore. The men of the 9th Lancers often failed to pierce them [with their lances].” (Narrative of the Second Sikh War, 1851.) 11. “Single combats were of no unfrequent occurrence [during the battle of Chillianwallah], and in these the Sikh soldier not unfrequently had the advantage. The weapon with which he is armed has a broader back, a thicker blade, as well as a keener edge than ours, and affords him a signal advantage. The gashes inflicted by the tulwar, beneath the stroke of which our steel was shivered to splinters, were frightful.” (E. J. Thackwell, “Confessions of an Old Dragoon,” Colburn’s United Service Magazine, 1854.)
12. John Ship fighting a Gorkha Sobar
With this I was obliged to act on the defensive, till I could catch my formidable opponent off his guard. He cut, I guarded; he thrust, I parried; until he became aggravated and set to work with that impetuosity and determination pretty generally understood by the phrase ‘hammer and tongs’; in the course of which he nearly cut my poor twenty-fourther in pieces.

This very comprehensive synopsis of entries on this topic submitted by Sirupate is most interesting and reflects the views toward the swords as wielded by Indian warriors.

I would add that in one reference on Louis Nolan (of Balaklava,1854) in his previous time in India he had noted how deadly the Sikh swords were. The British cavalry were astounded when they discovered that the tulwars the warriors were using were actually old M1796 cavalry blades, honed to remarkable sharpness, and carried in wood lined scabbards.

While the 1796 was replaced in 1821 by a saber with blade intended to be effective in both cut and thrust, it was not nearly as effective a slashing weapon as the 1796, and drew many complaints about the quality of the blade.

In India (with Afghanistan then deemed the Northwest Frontier of India) the blades most highly esteemed were typically the 'alemani' (of German mfg.) but clearly the 1796 light cavalry sabers were much favored. Actually so much so, that later in the 18th century when the British supplied swords to the native forces, the three bar hilts were used, but the blades were more to the 'hatchet point' sabers of the M1796. These were produced and used in the native regiments into early 20th c.
The term 'firangi' is simply to refer to 'foreign' blade, and most commonly used from Deccan into southern areas, particularly by Marathas and toward the Hindu basket hilt (their 'khanda') eith European blades.

In the 18th century, British sword blades (typically Birmingham) had dubious repute, which was the reason for the Hounslow and Shotley enterprises in the 17th century. By the mid 18th century, there were only three recognized British blade makers whose blades were of notable quality, and most of the blades were German imports to cutlers.

The blades produced in Europe, most ubiquitously from Germany, were of high quality steel and forging (as Ausjulius has noted). These German blades were in demand not only in colonial contexts by natives, but throughout Europe.

With Afghanistan, toward the original question. the warriors there clearly had high regard for European blades, though their blade makers, as well as into Rajasthan regions, were also highly skilled at blade production. The attitude toward European blades positively can be seen by the copying of the most commonly seen markings placed on the blades made by these Indian makers.
The familiar Genoan sickle marks are most often seen on Afghan paluoars, which most often seem to have these native made blades, and were used well through the 19th c.
As far as I have known, the term 'firangi' is seldom, if ever used in Afghan context. However in the 19th century India was considered northern India so this cited quote may have come from that circumstance.

In first image: Afghan paluoar, as noted, sickle marks
second: A Persian style shamshir, highly regarded in Afghan regions and Mughal contexts, with British M1788 light cavalry blade augmented with koftgari at forte.
third: A British colonial cavalry saber by J Bourne& Son c. 1890s (a contractor for Wilkinson) and I have confirmed as used by 13th Bengal Lancers.

While the native cavalry were typically supplied with British sabers, some units preferred the tulwar, and I have seen these produced by Mole of Birmingham, and so marked.

Fourth: A Mughal tulwar from northern regions (Delhishahi form) with blade by Henry Osborn, Birmingham, one of the earliest makers of the British M1796 blades.

Perhaps it’s really down to interest in the exotic, while an Afghan might admire a European Spring steel blade for its reliability, an Englishman might like an Afghan blade for its combat capability, even if it’s not flexible. I will attach three European opinions on Afghan blades, notice that two of them mention the “softness” of the blade, I’m assuming they mean it is not flexible as a European spring steel blade, but all sources do praise the Afghan blades combat capabilities

[Jim McDougall]

For me the understanding of metallurgical matters is perplexing, but what I have gathered on 'soft steel' is that it dulls and deforms quickly. This suggests that while Afghan swords described in the excerpt might have been deadly sharp, the durability sounds questionable.

I dont think wootz is part of the equation here, as the rank and file warriors would not have likely had swords with wootz blades. I am not sure that Afghans might likely see British or European blades as 'exotic' but as I noted, they did seem to have some affinity for blades with the 'Genoan' sickle marks.
One of the highly favored blade forms in the Deccan were the 'alemani' (German) examples.

The notion of 'exotica' however was very much favored by British officers during the Raj, and in the native cavalry regiments, they fashionably wore Indian style uniforms complete with turbans. In many cases they had regulation style hilts with Indian or Persian blades, while as shown previously there were many Indian swords with British or other blades.

It seems most of these exchanges had more to do with diplomatic and cultural exchanges rather than combat durability.

Regarding wootz, it does seem that the British made notable efforts to eliminate the materials, shops and all related to its production. Presumably this was due to its potential as a deadly weapon element. Much of this effort indeed contributed to the loss of the art of the forging of wootz in the early years of the British Raj.

Again, not sure of that impact of that concerning the Afghan swords, but seemed salient enough to mention.

[Sakalord364]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

For me the understanding of metallurgical matters is perplexing, but what I have gathered on 'soft steel' is that it dulls and deforms quickly. This suggests that while Afghan swords described in the excerpt might have been deadly sharp, the durability sounds questionable.

I dont think wootz is part of the equation here, as the rank and file warriors would not have likely had swords with wootz blades. I am not sure that Afghans might likely see British or European blades as 'exotic' but as I noted, they did seem to have some affinity for blades with the 'Genoan' sickle marks.
One of the highly favored blade forms in the Deccan were the 'alemani' (German) examples.

The notion of 'exotica' however was very much favored by British officers during the Raj, and in the native cavalry regiments, they fashionably wore Indian style uniforms complete with turbans. In many cases they had regulation style hilts with Indian or Persian blades, while as shown previously there were many Indian swords with British or other blades.

It seems most of these exchanges had more to do with diplomatic and cultural exchanges rather than combat durability.

Regarding wootz, it does seem that the British made notable efforts to eliminate the materials, shops and all related to its production. Presumably this was due to its potential as a deadly weapon element. Much of this effort indeed contributed to the loss of the art of the forging of wootz in the early years of the British Raj.

Again, not sure of that impact of that concerning the Afghan swords, but seemed salient enough to mention.

Here is another British Opinion on Afghan blades, by one British veteran. Did the British generally have the same opinion on Indian blades as well?


For what it’s worth I have seen Indian blades described by British as brittle, yet here the speaker explicitly states that Afghan blades were not brittle, though rather soft. It seems extolling the Deadliness of the blade and describing the blade as rather soft are common in these British descriptions of Afghan blades.

Also notice how he states the Afghan blade holds its edge, in spite of the softness of the steel

[Chris Tubman]

A Tulwar that I recently acquired.
Appears to have a shortened 20" 1796 Pattern light cavalry or M1811 “Blücher” blade.
Hilt shows remnants of silver inlay in a flower and foliage design and is stamped 4 P.I, probably 4th Punjab Infantry.

[Jim McDougall]

I think the references to brittle blades from India likely referred to wootz, which if improperly forged was indeed brittle. While many of the wootz blades were of course beautifully finished and impressive for the weapons of those of status, these were not necessarily used in combat.

Great entry Chris! nice example, and as discussed, the British M1796 light cavalry sabre blades were highly favored by Indian warriors, with notable use by Sikhs, but that extended to others as well. This example had had the blade considerably reduced, with very nice hilt likely for ranking figure.

[Chris Tubman]

The shortened Tulwar next to a M1811 “Blücher” for comparison.
The 4th Punjab Infantry were certainly a renowned regiment who amongst other actions were involved in the relief of Lucknow.

[Jim McDougall]

This is remarkable Chris!!! and the markings 4 P.I. are most telling, as you have noted for the unit 4th Punjab Infantry. Those singular markings unleash the 'story' of this tulwar, and its part in the incredibly complex and fascinating history of the British Raj in India.

As you have noted, this unit participated in the Relief of Lucknow in 1857, during the Indian Mutiny, one of the most historic events in this sector of Indian history. In this action the 4th were with the 93rd Highlanders.

I must thank you as you have piqued my interest in this history, which took me to a number of weapons which have been held for years in my collection, while I have studied in other areas. Your tulwar has totally rekindled my interest in returning to their incomplete documentation.

The 4th Punjab Infantry was formed in 1849, along with 9 other units, totaling five cavalry and five infantry, all becoming what comprised the Punjab Irregular Force in 1851.

Ironically, many of the components of these forces were Sikh, and had joined British forces at the end of the Anglo-Sikh war in 1849, along with Pathans from Afghanistan, and some Hindu's from southerly regions.

In 1849, the Kingdom of Punjab was annexed into British East India territory so the idea was to have native forces patrol these vast areas.

I have a cavalry saber by Mole, to the 21st cavalry (Dalys Horse) which was also part of this irregular force from 1849, but was not known by the 21st cavalry designator until 1903. This would seem to fall in place with these type sabers which seem to have become prevalent around late 1880s.

This unit was formed by Lt.H.Daly in 1849, and later became known as 'Daly's Horse' in the convention of the times recognizing the founders of the regiments.

Apparently both the 4th Punjab infantry and the 1st Punjab Cavalry (as Daly's Horse was known then) participated in the actions at Lucknow noted.

While I realize my saber was certainly not present in 1857 but later, yours might have been of that period.....despite the unit designator not being the same after 1851. On the frontiers these peculiarities did not change that quickly.

SIDE NOTE: These irregular units were known initially as the Transfrontier Brigade informally, and were the first military to adopt khaki (called drab) to align with the rugged regions they were situated in.

[Jim McDougall]

As noted in earlier posts, there was a propensity with the use of British M1796 blades in Indian tulwars, most noted during the Anglo-Sikh wars, when British cavalry found that the deadly tulwars used against them were actually old British blades honed razor sharp.

The convention seems to have continued in the Punjab regions after that, and other areas under East India Company dominion. I posted earlier a Mughal court type tulwar likely from Delhi mounted with an Osborn M1796 blade.

Also posted an Indian tulwar with steel Persian shamshir style hilt which also in this category of East India Company associated blade mountings, perhaps from Deccan, but at this point also the Punjab regions as well. This one has a British M1788 style blade. In the late 19th century, East India Company was contracting many blades of M1788 form to British makers. The foremost was Thomas Gill of Birmingham, but this blade is unmarked.
It is however decorated with koftgari which seems to align with the ad hoc ruling classes developing in the principalities in Punjabi areas housing the many mercenaries from Europe and Portugal.

One of these was Firingipura, outside Delhi during the reign of Shah Jahan with mostly French and other European mercenaries. There were Germans among these, and another of such 'foreign' principalities was situated in the Doab, north of Delhi.

While I had always focused on the use of the British blades in use, and thought perhaps these mounted in much more status oriented versions of tulwar might be diplomatically associated. I now see that perhaps the heirarchy of these foreign principalities might well be the solution to the examples I have.

With the example tulwar to the 4th Punjab Infantry, it would seem that the foreign blades circulating in these regions through the large numbers of European mercenaries in these times might account for the M1811 Blucher blade in this example.

As we see, a most historically pertinent example!!
Well done Chris!!!