Indian short sabers

Iain · 29th December 2015, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Ariel,

You write about three swords, but you show four - please explain!

The hilt shown in post two looks a lot like the hilts shown in the thread started by Emanuel - is it quite the same decoration?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11025

Jens

Hi Jens, as I understand Ariel's post the top sword in his initial image is a standard sized tulwar intended to give scale to the next three.

The questions Ariel poses are regarding the next three swords (2-4 in his image).

ariel · 29th December 2015, 12:58 AM

Iain,
Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, the uppermost sword is just an example of a standard tulwar, just to give an idea what do I mean talking about "short" sabers ( ##2-4)
My "bad" :-((

Iain · 29th December 2015, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Iain,
Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, the uppermost sword is just an example of a standard tulwar, just to give an idea what do I mean talking about "short" sabers ( ##2-4)
My "bad" :-((

I know the formatting of how the forum displays images can be tricky, but the image of the script on one blade corresponds to sword #2 with the pulwar hilt? Looks like a stamp hiding near the pulwar hilt as well? Or have you IDed that stamp already?

ariel · 29th December 2015, 02:19 AM

Yes, the inscription belongs to the pulwar. And yes, there is a very small fragment of the stamp, literally a sliver of an arcSplinter of a letter, nothing else.

ariel · 29th December 2015, 12:27 PM

Re. similarity between the example by Emanuel and mine ( #4, or the lowermost).
There was a suggestion, that the Emanuel's was decorated with Bidri. Don't know about his, but have doubts re. mine.

AFAIK, the objects to be decorated by Bidri are made of copper-zink alloy, then inlayed with silver and then their copper-zink background is blackened by a secret recipe. Thus, they are non-magnetic. I tested mine: strongly magnetic, i.e. iron , NOT copper-zink.

Jens Nordlunde · 29th December 2015, 04:22 PM

Ariel and Iain,
I should have read the text instead of asking a silly question - sorry.

Ariel, I dont think the first sword you show being about 73.75 cm all in all is 'standard' length. If I remember correctly the 'recommended' length is closer to 90 cm, so the other swords really are quite a bit shorter.
Youi are right that there must be a reason for this, and I dont think the reason is - 'we ran out of iron/steel'.
One possibility could be that they were made for young men, but there are other possibilities. When a certain length of a sword could mean life and death to the user, there must be a specific reason why your are shorter.
I will not start guessing at the moment, but only say that your quess on the Deccani one may be wrong.
Jens

ariel · 29th December 2015, 08:48 PM

Jens,
I measured only blades: straight line from the tip to the quillon block.
I also remeasured several other tulwars , Moroccan nimchas, turkish Shamshirs etc. All of them have blades between 75 and 82 cm.
I could hit the "90 cm" number only when I included the handles .

Size of a cavalry sword was derived from the length of the blade needed for a horse rider to slash at the enemy lying on the ground.

This is why I think the "short" ones were for the infantry. I could bring an argument of very short navy swords, but having "Afghanistan" and "navy" in the same sentence did not sound kosher:-) I hesitate to attribute them to the " youngsters brigade": ## 2 and 4 are very heavy.

What, IMHO, is interesting , is the massive reinforced tip on #4: we were told repeatedly that Indians used only slashing technique, and were not even acquainted with stabbing, and that's why many tulwars have rounded tips etc. What are we to do with this one? :-))

My "Deccani" attribution of #3 was based on the configuration of the handle. I do have my doubts about the blade: it looks kinda like S. Arabian nimcha. Cannot exclude the possibility of a later remounting.

Where did I go wrong with a tilt toward Deccan?

29th December 2015, 12:58 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Iain, Thanks for the explanation. Yes, the uppermost sword is just an example of a standard tulwar, just to give an idea what do I mean talking about "short" sabers ( ##2-4) My "bad" :-((

29th December 2015, 02:19 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Yes, the inscription belongs to the pulwar. And yes, there is a very small fragment of the stamp, literally a sliver of an arcSplinter of a letter, nothing else. Attached Images

29th December 2015, 12:27 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Re. similarity between the example by Emanuel and mine ( #4, or the lowermost). There was a suggestion, that the Emanuel's was decorated with Bidri. Don't know about his, but have doubts re. mine. AFAIK, the objects to be decorated by Bidri are made of copper-zink alloy, then inlayed with silver and then their copper-zink background is blackened by a secret recipe. Thus, they are non-magnetic. I tested mine: strongly magnetic, i.e. iron , NOT copper-zink.

29th December 2015, 04:22 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Ariel and Iain, I should have read the text instead of asking a silly question - sorry. Ariel, I dont think the first sword you show being about 73.75 cm all in all is 'standard' length. If I remember correctly the 'recommended' length is closer to 90 cm, so the other swords really are quite a bit shorter. Youi are right that there must be a reason for this, and I dont think the reason is - 'we ran out of iron/steel'. One possibility could be that they were made for young men, but there are other possibilities. When a certain length of a sword could mean life and death to the user, there must be a specific reason why your are shorter. I will not start guessing at the moment, but only say that your quess on the Deccani one may be wrong. Jens

29th December 2015, 08:48 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jens, I measured only blades: straight line from the tip to the quillon block. I also remeasured several other tulwars , Moroccan nimchas, turkish Shamshirs etc. All of them have blades between 75 and 82 cm. I could hit the "90 cm" number only when I included the handles . Size of a cavalry sword was derived from the length of the blade needed for a horse rider to slash at the enemy lying on the ground. This is why I think the "short" ones were for the infantry. I could bring an argument of very short navy swords, but having "Afghanistan" and "navy" in the same sentence did not sound kosher:-) I hesitate to attribute them to the " youngsters brigade": ## 2 and 4 are very heavy. What, IMHO, is interesting , is the massive reinforced tip on #4: we were told repeatedly that Indians used only slashing technique, and were not even acquainted with stabbing, and that's why many tulwars have rounded tips etc. What are we to do with this one? :-)) My "Deccani" attribution of #3 was based on the configuration of the handle. I do have my doubts about the blade: it looks kinda like S. Arabian nimcha. Cannot exclude the possibility of a later remounting. Where did I go wrong with a tilt toward Deccan?