European blades in India

[Mercenary]

I just wanted to know were there any mentions of the fact that the Indians valued European blades in general . As I understand it now, we do not have any references at all.
The links that prove the opposite opinion I posted above.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

I just wanted to know were there any mentions of the fact that the Indians valued European blades in general . As I understand it now, we do not have any references at all.
The links that prove the opposite opinion I posted above.

I am unclear on this. You are looking for specific quotations which state that the Indians favored European blades?

With the General's sword of 1821 ('Gothic' hilt or three bar)you posted with the Indian blade.....it is quite understandable that he would prefer an Indian blade as this particular pattern was quite plagued with complaints. In Brian Robson's "Swords of the British Army" (1975) this dilemma is summed up describing their use in the Crimean war where blades bent or broke, and were generally inadequate. This was partly why the '1821' patterns' production was interrupted by around 1823 and did not resume until 1829.

With this reputation, and the fact that officers had more leeway in their choice of weapons, the General no doubt favored the Indian made blades over the questionable British ones...the rank and file had no choice.

As far as Indians 'favoring' or extolling the virtues of 'European' blades, I feel sure we can probably find a quote somewhere where this expressed verbatim, however the evidence of constant use of European blades would seem to suggest that they used them considerably..like them or not.

I think in Pant ("Indian Arms and Armor') it decribes Tipu Sahib as being quite fond of his 'ANDREA FERARA' sword, and with the German blades used these were termed 'Alemani' and again quite favored in Deccani context.
With the Mahratta, the adoption of the basket hilt form from Europeans to their traditional khanda and the use of European blades seem to have virtually cemented the term 'firangi' in place with the preponderance of these swords extant. So the swords known as 'alemani' and 'firangi', both representing foreign or European bladed swords seems prevalent......thus implying that the Indian's probably were 'OK' with European blades.

As for an exact quote to support this demonstrative evidence, it may take some time but perhaps can be found somewhere.......maybe in an ad in Indian media of the time merchandizing European blades

[ariel]

Jim,
Not to forget that Henry Lawrence was born in Ceylon, spent virtually all his life in India ( with the exception of a short stint in England) and even died at the siege of Lucknow.

His allegiance was impeccably British, but a sentiment toward all things Indian was very strong.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
Not to forget that Henry Lawrence was born in Ceylon, spent virtually all his life in India ( with the exception of a short stint in England) and even died at the siege of Lucknow.

His allegiance was impeccably British, but a sentiment toward all things Indian was very strong.

Good point! Still interesting that he used a British hilt when officers had a choice. In some cases I have seen British blades with Hindu basket hilts
It is hard to use these personal preferences to support broader sentiments, but as always, most interesting.

[Mercenary]

Dear Jim

Many thanks for so many information and your opinion.
But there is a bit difference between "using" European blades and "preference" ones.
My car is "Honda" but I prefer "Bentley". The fact that I am using "Honda" can tell us about what? I have not enough money, and only ))))))

[Jim McDougall]

Well made point Mercenary, and very good analogy.
I'd like to have a Ferrari but I drive an older jeep

As you say, the Indians certainly used European blades significantly, but probably did so out of convenience in most cases. I most cases trade blades were conveniently available but probably they preferred their own blades as a rule as they knew well what quality they put into them. It still does seem interesting that they used European markings to their own blades though.
Why, if they had such high regard for their own blades, would they add spurious European marks and inscriptions to imply 'quality' ?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Why, if they had such high regard for their own blades, would they add spurious European marks and inscriptions to imply 'quality' ?

My "Honda" again - cheap but reliable.
It is not the watered blade. But not the "village" one. It is a normal quality and inexpensive European blade (counterfeit of cause).

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Why, if they had such high regard for their own blades, would they add spurious European marks and inscriptions to imply 'quality' ?

A good question and i think, that an european blade has an exotic flair for an Indian warrior.
What i can say from my own collection is, that a well made pattern welded Indian sword easily reaches european quality in toughness and flexibility but with a higher sharpness.
Many of the famous Indian wootz-blades (woodgrain wootz) are trash from the technical point of view compared to european blades or well made Indian pattern welded steel.

Roland

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

With the Mahratta, the adoption of the basket hilt form from Europeans to their traditional khanda and the use of European blades seem to have virtually cemented the term 'firangi' in place with the preponderance of these swords extant. So the swords known as 'alemani' and 'firangi', both representing foreign or European bladed swords seems prevalent......thus implying that the Indian's probably were 'OK' with European blades.

Hi, Jim!

And how do you feel about the opinion of Rawson, who believes that the basket hilt form is of Indian origin?

"The Hindu Basket hilt was developed in the West Deccan round about 1500 AD. It is a formal development from the Old Indian, in that the fundamental pattern of grip, guard, seating process and pommel is preserved "

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Hi, Jim!

And how do you feel about the opinion of Rawson, who believes that the basket hilt form is of Indian origin?

"The Hindu Basket hilt was developed in the West Deccan round about 1500 AD. It is a formal development from the Old Indian, in that the fundamental pattern of grip, guard, seating process and pommel is preserved "

Actually, your note, as I highly respect your skills at research, made me think to reconfirm what I said. So I spent several hours with Pant, Rawson and Elgood
In Pant (p.49) he notes that Rawson indeed did state the basket hilt was of Indian origin.
"..it is probable that this development took place in the western Deccan about 1600AD and was promoted by contacts with European basket hilted swords".
I then went to Rawson, who indeed did discuss the pata and khanda (p.45) where he notes both of these straight blade swords were invented in the west Deccan and diffused into other regions by the Marathas.
Further, "...the Hindu basket hilt, a development of the old Indian, was foreshadowed in the hilts of the sukhelas illustrated in the miniatures of the Deccan sultanates".
Then on p,44 re:sukhelas
"...the hilts of the sukhelas shown in the miniatures from the sultanates are of varied forms and have the traditional circular Indian pommel with dome as the old Indian and Indo-Muslim hilts have, but they have a broad knuckle guard , NO DOUBT IMITATED FROM EUROPEAN EXAMPLES". (my caps).

Elgood ("Hindu Arms & Ritual", 2004, p.39) notes, "...the 'Nujum al Ulum' illustrates a Spanish or Portuguese sword of about 1570 with its distinctive European hilt, and describing it as 'A GOOD SWORD'. "

Elgood (op.cit. p.39) notes, ",,,giving arms as diplomatic gifts was commonplace and it seems a reasonable assumption *that European blades were reaching Vijayanagara via the Portuguese on the coast from the beginning of the 16th c. and judging from the number mounted on the best worked hilts in the kingdom, THEY WERE MUCH APPRECIATED AT COURT".

* this assumption is indeed reasonable with the number of European blades found in the Tanjore katars.

Pant (1980, p.61),
"...Rawson calls dhup, sukhela as the same weapon and says that if the blade is of foreign origin the term phirangi is applied to such a sword. The blades of this type were continuously imported throughout the late 16th c into the 17th by the European factories on the west coast .
It is probable that the European blades were FAVORED first because their form was long familiar in the Deccan and because there was little good iron and steel working in this part of India (ref. Rawson p85)".

Pant (op.cit. p.42) re: firangi,
"..literally it means 'the Portuguese' since it was first introduced by them in India but later on it was successfully adopted by the Marathas".

So apparently, the khanda/firangi basket hilt did in fact ORIGINATE in India..but the point was that it was developed from the old Indian sword, but INFLUENCED by the European styles.

Thank you Mahratt for prompting this recheck on this detail !

[Jim McDougall]

Richard, I know you do, that is one thing I appreciate most about you!!!!

Concerning the quality of Indian blades, as always there are varying aspects which derive from period, region and many other factors . In my last post I tried to include some published notations on the favor of European blades, but also found these comments:

I had noted the so called alemani swords as representing the powerful number of German blades in the Deccan with the mercenary forces there.
In Rawson (p.48) it states that "...Hyder and Tipu seem not to have relied much on the import of foreign blades , though some were in use in their armies",
It does note further that, "..the quality, particularly the aesthetic quality of swords of this period are not high". Indicating that the locally produced swords were as he describes, clumsy and of variable proportion.

Also, I had presumed that the term 'alemani' in the manner of 'firangi' meant this was a German bladed sword. Stone (1934, p.6) describes as :...an Indian sabre LIKE the old German hussar sword".
Here it seems the term refers to a sabre of like form, not necessarily with German blade.

Turning to the derogatory comment from Grose in the original post here which includes British blades and I checked the reference in Pant (p43).
Re: dhup sukhela and firangi blades.
"...There is no doubt that the English blades were bought by the Marathas, the factory correspondence shows they were highly unsatisfactory and were progressively in less demand" (Rawson p.87).

This is somewhat curious as Elgood (p.202) notes:
"...Terry describes in 1612 how the Indian swords are very sharp, but far for want of skill in those who temper them, will break rather than bend".
"..DeLaet comments that local shamshirs were often badly tempered and that therefore was a demand for European swords".

* this seems to apply further north as shamshirs are mentioned

Further p202 (Elgood)
"Bronson has argued that Indian blades were brittle and unstatisfactory, finding confirmation in the numerous European blades sold in India and fitted to India hilts".
"..long firangi blades became a STATUS SYMBOL in the 17th century and ENGLISH swords would bow an become straight again. In 1660s Thevenot remarks that Indian blades are too brittle and the good ones come from England".

Interesting perspective revealing the many points of view held by historians and contemporaries and recounted by the most known writers on the topic .

[Helleri]

Could it be that the high quality Indian blades were superior to the British ones specifically. But that in general (excepting the instance of a British blade) Euro blades were largely preferred?

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you for all the leg-work in looking up these references Jim!

I see no problem with these differing views of foreign and 'home grown' swords.
It could well be that a country supplying India with good blades in the 17th C. may not be doing so in the 19th century, and visa -versa.

Also, India throughout several centuries has produced excellent blades, But! not maybe Everywhere at the same time, and not always for all ranks.

These things happen in most countries, European or not. :-)

RE bending;
I had a painful lesson in this some time ago;

Had purchased what had been a lovely N. Indian sword, but had been 'cleaned' in an acid bath. (not good)
It had a bend in the blade, and I straightened it over my knee. To my surprise, it straightened out very easily, Too easily as it happened, and had a slight bend the Other way.
I think you know what's coming.
Yes, I nudged it back a little and it fell in two pieces!
The steel looked crystalized and of a very fine grain.
I still remember how I felt at the time. (!)
Anyhow, I contacted a very clever chap in the Czech republic, (who wished to remain anonymous) and he re-joined the blade so one could not tell it was ever broken.
He said the hardness on the Rockwell scale was about 56.

Richard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

* this assumption is indeed reasonable with the number of European blades found in the Tanjore katars.

The Met has some very nice katar that are described as having European blades, several others appear to have them as well but it is not mentioned in the description.

[ariel]

We need to be precise in our definition of the question: are we asking whether European bladed were USED of PREFERRED?

The USE is indisputable. The PREFERENCE is unprovable: it depended on personal circumstances of the owner ( individual or his sovereign). We cannot get into heads of people dead for 200-300 years. Limited number of individual opinions or testimonies cannot reflect prevailing attitude of the entire society. Moreover, such individual snippets are reasonably evenly divided between pros and cons. This is a dead end.

Were European blades POPULAR in India? But of course. Wre Indian blades popular among the Europeans? Not very. Was it because of their quality or simply because EIC or (later) The Crown supplied their British soldiers with regulation, British-made, weapons? Probably both.

The reference to Rawson re. Basket Hilt misses the point: it is a mix of a modified Old Indian hilt and a European D-guard. It is the latter that largely transformed the older version into a new pattern. Elgood discussed ~ 12th century ( have no book nearby) temple depiction of warriors wielding swords with D-guards ( i.e. well before the contact with the Portugese), but doubts them because there are no ancient actual examples. I am a bit uneasy with that, but can't argue with the fact: no similar feature prior to 16th century is known. In general, I would hesitate using Rawson as the final evidence: his book is full of statements that are no longer considered valid by the contemporary body of knowledge. Suffice it to say that he did not know the difference between wootz and mechanical damascus. He should get full credit as the author of the first systematic book on Indian swords, but his materials and conclusions are significantly outdated and cannot be viewed as 100% reliable without further confirmation. Well, this is the fate of almost every book :-)

[Jim McDougall]

You are most welcome Richard! It was as always very much my pleasure.

Actually I think Ariel has summed this up perfectly in his last post.
The differences between use and preference as well as the diversity of one of the most complex subcontinents in so many aspects. Indeed we cannot know what was in the minds people in this hugely broad spectrum over considerable time and vast regions.
I know the question was directed at finding written evidence in the literature but again , it will vary considerably depending on circumstances as shown.