Very Old Firangi with Rapier blade in need of restoration.

katana · 5th February 2008, 06:46 PM

Because the blade of a 'Mel puttah bemoh' is relatively thin and light, you surely would not need to hold it two handed, yes it would give greater power with the 'cut' but the blade design is not ideal. I am thinking that this may have been used by foot soldiers against cavalry because of the 'long reach'.

I have only seen one example of a 'Mel puttah bemoh' in Stone's and a number of the 'Rapier bladed Firangi' on the net etc. Not one pocesses a scabbard, perhaps none of them had one originally

To my mind, this type of sword may have been carried onto the battlefield whilst still carrying a Tulwar/Dhal. After the Cavalry charges ...the sword discarded....and the Tulwar/Dhal used in the melee

Anyone ...any thoughts

Regards David

Jim McDougall · 6th February 2008, 12:36 AM

I think you're right David, and without going headlong into research at this point, it does seem I have seen something to that effect mentioned in a discussion on these some time ago. It is not at all unusual to have certain weapon forms that were essentially expendable after initial shock in combat. Firearms were very much in that category into the 19th century, and even pistols were useless (except in some cases as bludgeons) after thier single discharge. Lances were obviously useless after the charge, in the ensuing melee, and swords such as the estoc were used separately from the sabre.

I think that these two handed swords, were probably anti cavalry and likely used in bringing down horses, and as I mentioned, it seems there were groups assigned specifically assigned for this gruesome task. I hope I can find more on this in either notes or reference, so I will leave it as an unsupported suggestion at this point.

All best regards,
Jim

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

5th February 2008, 06:46 PM	#1
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Because the blade of a 'Mel puttah bemoh' is relatively thin and light, you surely would not need to hold it two handed, yes it would give greater power with the 'cut' but the blade design is not ideal. I am thinking that this may have been used by foot soldiers against cavalry because of the 'long reach'. I have only seen one example of a 'Mel puttah bemoh' in Stone's and a number of the 'Rapier bladed Firangi' on the net etc. Not one pocesses a scabbard, perhaps none of them had one originally To my mind, this type of sword may have been carried onto the battlefield whilst still carrying a Tulwar/Dhal. After the Cavalry charges ...the sword discarded....and the Tulwar/Dhal used in the melee Anyone ...any thoughts Regards David

6th February 2008, 12:36 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	I think you're right David, and without going headlong into research at this point, it does seem I have seen something to that effect mentioned in a discussion on these some time ago. It is not at all unusual to have certain weapon forms that were essentially expendable after initial shock in combat. Firearms were very much in that category into the 19th century, and even pistols were useless (except in some cases as bludgeons) after thier single discharge. Lances were obviously useless after the charge, in the ensuing melee, and swords such as the estoc were used separately from the sabre. I think that these two handed swords, were probably anti cavalry and likely used in bringing down horses, and as I mentioned, it seems there were groups assigned specifically assigned for this gruesome task. I hope I can find more on this in either notes or reference, so I will leave it as an unsupported suggestion at this point. All best regards, Jim