tulwar or talwar

Andrew · 12th June 2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henk

Last but not least, Andrew,

The straight bladed one is edged on both sides. As mentioned above it is sharpened on the tip.
These kind of blades with such a hilt were called "Firangi" according to Stone.
But these weapons used to have a khanda hilt. If i compare a khanda hilt to a tulwar hilt, the main difference is the spike at the end of the pommel. If i look to the end of the pommels of the first and the second one, they are finished off very well with a round knob. It looks to me that some idio... took a metallsaw to cut off the large end because it didn't fit into his ....???

Aparently the sawing work is finished off with a hammer to get rid of the sharp edges that remains after the sawing. I will also try to catch this in a picture. In my opinion this one is really abused by some ........

It's my pleasure to share these ones with you and learn about it.

As I understand it, "firangi" refers to any foreign-bladed Indian sword. If this is, indeed, a European rapier blade, then it would certainly be a firangi.

It just seems like an unlikely mating of handle/blade.

Henk · 12th June 2005, 05:35 PM

You're right Andrew. When I quote Stone: "FIRANGI, FARANG, PHIRANGI. Literally the Portugese, or foreigner. A Mahratta cut-and-thrust, straight bladed sword. The blades were either imported from Europe by the Portugese, or made in imitation of them. Broadsword blades with either three or four shallow grooves were the most common, but rapier blades were also used.The hilts were of the khanda type, with broad guards, and disk pommels with curved spikes on them. Most of the blades are of the 17th century, though some are of the 16th."

Jens Nordlunde · 12th June 2005, 05:40 PM

Hmm, yes well Andrew, I think it is a yes and a no. True that farangi refers to Indian swords with a foreign blade – and this blade surely is foreign – but farangis have khanda hilts, not tulwar hilts, and this is, I think a special tulwar hilt on top of it all, we will see when we get more pictures. What makes a farangi a farangi? Is it the blade or the blade and the hilt? I think we can agree on that a khanda hilt with a foreign blade is a farangi, and maybe this one is too, but it is most unusual to see a blade like this with an unusual tulwar hilt – is this a farangi? Maybe you are right, but I am not quite convinced at the moment.

Henk · 12th June 2005, 05:54 PM

Jens,

Here are the pics of the "firangi" to give this one a name. Is this what you mean and good enough to see something? I'd better first ask before i launch the other pics i made. If not I have to try to make better ones but it isn't easy with flashlight and i'm not a prof.

Jeff D · 12th June 2005, 05:54 PM

I am glad I am not the only one confused on the definition of farangi. I have used the term as Andrew has stated, that being a straight bladed broad sword or backsword, usually with the Hindu basket but not necessarily. I think Andy has posted one with a rapier blade on SFI, for lack of any other term I would also call it a Farangi.

Jeff

Andrew · 12th June 2005, 06:46 PM

Jens, I think you've hit on the source of some of my confusion relating to Henk's sword. The illustration from Stone's posted by Henk gives me some consolation: most of those straight-bladed, khanda-hilted swords make a bit more sense to me, as they appear to be more cut and thrust than Henk's example. I would also note that the downward tilt of the pommel would permit better wrist extension than a standard tulwar hilt. Better, but still not something I'd relish.

Jeff D · 12th June 2005, 08:40 PM

Hi Andrew,

I hate to be a stickler but I think you mean wrist abduction. I personally don't think the tulwar pomel affects this but that is just my opinion.

Jeff

M.carter · 12th June 2005, 09:03 PM

The tulwar's pommel is a pain. It gets in the way of cutting (hurts your wrist veeery bad), and thrusting.

Andrew · 12th June 2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff D

Hi Andrew,

I hate to be a stickler but I think you mean wrist abduction. I personally don't think the tulwar pomel affects this but that is just my opinion.

Jeff

I do, indeed, mean abduction. Thanks for the clarification, and the illustrations!

This is largely all my opinion as well. However, I've never held a tulwar that didn't cause discomfort and pain when trying to abduct my wrist.

Rick · 12th June 2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

I do, indeed, mean abduction. Thanks for the clarification, and the illustrations!

This is largely all my opinion as well. However, I've never held a tulwar that didn't cause discomfort and pain when trying to abduct my wrist.

You guys must have pretty large hands because I find no problems with the way a tulwar handles .

I think the disk is meant to encourage the hand to combine a draw cut with a downward cut . The caveat here is that I am no swordsman but I do believe that the disc is there for a purpose rather than a fashion statement and it must have worked or it would have been quickly abandoned .

I've been using an old Rajastani wootz tulwar with a 'flattened' knucklebow as my test sword .

12th June 2005, 05:35 PM	#2
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	You're right Andrew. When I quote Stone: "FIRANGI, FARANG, PHIRANGI. Literally the Portugese, or foreigner. A Mahratta cut-and-thrust, straight bladed sword. The blades were either imported from Europe by the Portugese, or made in imitation of them. Broadsword blades with either three or four shallow grooves were the most common, but rapier blades were also used.The hilts were of the khanda type, with broad guards, and disk pommels with curved spikes on them. Most of the blades are of the 17th century, though some are of the 16th." Attached Images Last edited by Henk; 12th June 2005 at 05:56 PM.

12th June 2005, 05:54 PM	#4
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Jens, Here are the pics of the "firangi" to give this one a name. Is this what you mean and good enough to see something? I'd better first ask before i launch the other pics i made. If not I have to try to make better ones but it isn't easy with flashlight and i'm not a prof. Attached Images

12th June 2005, 08:40 PM	#7
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Andrew, I hate to be a stickler but I think you mean wrist abduction. I personally don't think the tulwar pomel affects this but that is just my opinion. Jeff Attached Images

12th June 2005, 05:40 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hmm, yes well Andrew, I think it is a yes and a no. True that farangi refers to Indian swords with a foreign blade – and this blade surely is foreign – but farangis have khanda hilts, not tulwar hilts, and this is, I think a special tulwar hilt on top of it all, we will see when we get more pictures. What makes a farangi a farangi? Is it the blade or the blade and the hilt? I think we can agree on that a khanda hilt with a foreign blade is a farangi, and maybe this one is too, but it is most unusual to see a blade like this with an unusual tulwar hilt – is this a farangi? Maybe you are right, but I am not quite convinced at the moment.

12th June 2005, 06:46 PM	#6
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Jens, I think you've hit on the source of some of my confusion relating to Henk's sword. The illustration from Stone's posted by Henk gives me some consolation: most of those straight-bladed, khanda-hilted swords make a bit more sense to me, as they appear to be more cut and thrust than Henk's example. I would also note that the downward tilt of the pommel would permit better wrist extension than a standard tulwar hilt. Better, but still not something I'd relish.

12th June 2005, 09:03 PM	#8
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	The tulwar's pommel is a pain. It gets in the way of cutting (hurts your wrist veeery bad), and thrusting.