When is a Tulwar not a Tulwar?

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd August 2013, 05:03 PM

'A tulwar is a tulwar, when it is a tulwar' - quite simple, dont you think?
The shown sword I will leave to Jim, and expect a lecture from him on the subject

.
Tulwars are mostly described as having a relatively broad, slightly curved blade with a ricasso and a false edge. This is important, but what seems to be more important, is the tulwar hilt, as any sword with this kind of blade, but without the tulwar hilt is not a tulwar.
Some blades are slightly curved, while others are very curved - shamshir blades. Some have a ricasso while others dont - but they are still called tulwars. To this comes that there are other blade types used, but they are still called tulwars.
One type, where the hilt type does not make it a tulwar is, the belt sword. Here the blade is so flexible, that it can be used for a belt. This kind of sword is due to the flexibility very difficult to fight with, but the ones I have seen all have the tulwar hilt.

Jim McDougall · 4th August 2013, 06:43 AM

LOL!!!

Chris ya got me there!!!! the 'bookmobile' it is Mark!
As Jens has fairly warned, a lecture could break out here.....while I couldnt put a dent in the true tulwar case compared to his expertise...I do know some on the British Raj history.

Actually Mark has hit it quite well, and these British M1853's were provided for the Indian native units, typically into 1870s and 80s, possibly longer.
As far as I have known, these were like the regulation 1853s but most of the ones I recall were of the number made by Rodwell & Co. (if memory serves) and were for private units some assoc. with Baroda, I think a railway outfit.

The hilts on those though seemed flimsier, and this one more substantial, more like an actual surplus hilt. Clearly the blade is different, and seems remounted. These swords were aready being replaced by 1864 with full sheet guards and many of the native units selected certain British patterns which remained in use into the 20th century.
Actually the M1796 stirrup hilt light cavalry sabre remained in use and limited production specifically for Indian units past the 1880s.

Yes, Mole (a subcontractor for Wilkinson) did produce various swords for India, including three bar hilt sabres and actually true tulwars with Indo-Persian hilts in steel or brass. I once had two of these with Mole on the blade back.

As far as I know, 'tulwar' is an Indian term for sword, and does not necessarily apply to a specific form in actuality, though collectors typically insist on categoric classification. Many shamshir hilt sabres used in India are termed 'tulwar' (as seen in Rawson), and presumably even these British hilt sabres might be regarded as tulwars in Indian parlance.

Im not sure what the mark at the forte is, but possibly an armoury or issue type mark?

drac2k · 4th August 2013, 12:28 PM

Great information and all answers are deeply appreciated !So it seems,based on your post I can conclude that all Indian swords are tulwars or "Indian x sword =tulwar ."
David

Jens Nordlunde · 4th August 2013, 05:07 PM

Sorry Jim, but I think you are going too far, if you say, that the sword shown at the top is a tulwar.
In my opinion you can have a tulwar with a shamshir blade, a tulwar with an Afghan blade, a tulwar with a European blade or a tulwar with an Indian blade - mostly slightly curved. So it seems as if the hilt is more important than the blade form. To this comes, that whatever the blade form/place of origin is, a special name is attached to the tulwar.
When this is said, I may as well add, that you can find tulwar hilts with kukri blades, just as you will find Sosun Patta's with a tulwar hilt - but none of them are tulwars.
Jens

Jim McDougall · 5th August 2013, 07:05 AM

Actually what I said was that, as far as I have understood, the term used in many of the North Indian dialects to describe sword pictured (not otherwise described) is often 'tulwar'. Therefore what we think of as a shamshir, when in use in Indian context, may be called a tulwar by speakers of these dialects, while those speaking English may called it a saber.

Since I am not a linguist, nor authority on Indian arms such as tulwar, I suppose what the sword pictured would depend on who is describing it....but no matter what name it is called by, it is still a sword in function. So that is what I meant......not that it IS a tulwar, but that is what it might be called in Indian terms.

Just think of how many years of entertainment we have had with these classification terms, and the convoluted distortions that have risen from transliteration, semantics, misperceptions and outright errors (such as the jamadhar/katar mishap in Egerton). The 'collectors terms' in many other cases are an entirely other field day!

3rd August 2013, 05:03 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	'A tulwar is a tulwar, when it is a tulwar' - quite simple, dont you think? The shown sword I will leave to Jim, and expect a lecture from him on the subject. Tulwars are mostly described as having a relatively broad, slightly curved blade with a ricasso and a false edge. This is important, but what seems to be more important, is the tulwar hilt, as any sword with this kind of blade, but without the tulwar hilt is not a tulwar. Some blades are slightly curved, while others are very curved - shamshir blades. Some have a ricasso while others dont - but they are still called tulwars. To this comes that there are other blade types used, but they are still called tulwars. One type, where the hilt type does not make it a tulwar is, the belt sword. Here the blade is so flexible, that it can be used for a belt. This kind of sword is due to the flexibility very difficult to fight with, but the ones I have seen all have the tulwar hilt.

4th August 2013, 06:43 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	LOL!!! Chris ya got me there!!!! the 'bookmobile' it is Mark! As Jens has fairly warned, a lecture could break out here.....while I couldnt put a dent in the true tulwar case compared to his expertise...I do know some on the British Raj history. Actually Mark has hit it quite well, and these British M1853's were provided for the Indian native units, typically into 1870s and 80s, possibly longer. As far as I have known, these were like the regulation 1853s but most of the ones I recall were of the number made by Rodwell & Co. (if memory serves) and were for private units some assoc. with Baroda, I think a railway outfit. The hilts on those though seemed flimsier, and this one more substantial, more like an actual surplus hilt. Clearly the blade is different, and seems remounted. These swords were aready being replaced by 1864 with full sheet guards and many of the native units selected certain British patterns which remained in use into the 20th century. Actually the M1796 stirrup hilt light cavalry sabre remained in use and limited production specifically for Indian units past the 1880s. Yes, Mole (a subcontractor for Wilkinson) did produce various swords for India, including three bar hilt sabres and actually true tulwars with Indo-Persian hilts in steel or brass. I once had two of these with Mole on the blade back. As far as I know, 'tulwar' is an Indian term for sword, and does not necessarily apply to a specific form in actuality, though collectors typically insist on categoric classification. Many shamshir hilt sabres used in India are termed 'tulwar' (as seen in Rawson), and presumably even these British hilt sabres might be regarded as tulwars in Indian parlance. Im not sure what the mark at the forte is, but possibly an armoury or issue type mark?

4th August 2013, 12:28 PM	#3
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,258	Great information and all answers are deeply appreciated !So it seems,based on your post I can conclude that all Indian swords are tulwars or "Indian x sword =tulwar ." David

4th August 2013, 05:07 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Sorry Jim, but I think you are going too far, if you say, that the sword shown at the top is a tulwar. In my opinion you can have a tulwar with a shamshir blade, a tulwar with an Afghan blade, a tulwar with a European blade or a tulwar with an Indian blade - mostly slightly curved. So it seems as if the hilt is more important than the blade form. To this comes, that whatever the blade form/place of origin is, a special name is attached to the tulwar. When this is said, I may as well add, that you can find tulwar hilts with kukri blades, just as you will find Sosun Patta's with a tulwar hilt - but none of them are tulwars. Jens

5th August 2013, 07:05 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Actually what I said was that, as far as I have understood, the term used in many of the North Indian dialects to describe sword pictured (not otherwise described) is often 'tulwar'. Therefore what we think of as a shamshir, when in use in Indian context, may be called a tulwar by speakers of these dialects, while those speaking English may called it a saber. Since I am not a linguist, nor authority on Indian arms such as tulwar, I suppose what the sword pictured would depend on who is describing it....but no matter what name it is called by, it is still a sword in function. So that is what I meant......not that it IS a tulwar, but that is what it might be called in Indian terms. Just think of how many years of entertainment we have had with these classification terms, and the convoluted distortions that have risen from transliteration, semantics, misperceptions and outright errors (such as the jamadhar/katar mishap in Egerton). The 'collectors terms' in many other cases are an entirely other field day!