A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Rick

Here is another sword with reinforced point.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=kirach

This 'reinforced' look at the point, now that I look at it more, is very much like British cavalry sabres of M1821 and later. The general idea of these was that they were functional for both cut and thrust, the ridge at the point extended as far as the hollowed out fuller of the blade all the way to the forte.


There were a lot of problems with these swords as they often bent and broke in these uses and a lot of 'retooling' was needed. The 1821s didnt get back into production until 1829 after several years hiatus.


Perhaps these Indian tulwar blades are taken after the British cavalry blades, as there were outfitters privately supplying units in India.

The ridged reinforcement feature at the tip seems to correspond to those on katars and the concept was intended for the thrust.


If I can recall correctly, in 1962 Gerhard Seifert ("Schert Degen Sabel") tried to classify some features of cavalry sabres, and this type was termed 'CENTER POINT' as opposed to the simple point 'spear point'.

[ariel]

Very interesting.
As I recall, there are descriptions of Indian swordplay by the Brits: according to them , Indians did not parry and did not use the thrust.
And here are two quintessential Indian blades with a deliberate thrusting feature.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Very interesting.
As I recall, there are descriptions of Indian swordplay by the Brits: according to them , Indians did not parry and did not use the thrust.
And here are two quintessential Indian blades with a deliberate thrusting feature.

That is true, in true Indian combat techniques, it was considered that the dhal shield was for the parry, and of course the sabre (tulwar) was used for cutting and slashing attack. However, the Native Indian cavalry units in the British Raj, used the British swords in many cases.


Actually, these units often selected their types of swords and while some wanted their native tulwars (I have seen examples made by Mole in Birmingham) and these may have been produced in some degree by military outfitters in India.


One of the most favored sabres was the British M1796, and often there were tulwars carrying these older blades....so much so that the British producers in England kept producing stirrup hilt form M1796 well into 1880s+

Some of the Native units however chose the M1821 sabres......which of course seemed contrary to the typical Indian type of use as they usually favored the heavy slashing blades of the 1796. Even the colonial model three bar hilts like the 1821 made in the 1880s had a 'hatchet point' blade.

The appearance of this 'center point' tip on these Indian sabres is truly an anamoly, and in my thinking must have some influence from British military swords as noted. Still the idea of the thrust was not normally considered favorably in India, so these points are as previously noted, unusual.

[Mercenary]

In India (how boldly we are speaking about the whole subcontinent and 1000 years of documented history) used talwar for thrust and parrying, Hanuman had not forbidden this, but do not forget about the peasants who seasonally engaged in military service - to cut with a talwar and to parry with a dhal - what could be more reliable?

[Jim McDougall]

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.

Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.

Excellent insight. Indeed I recall the word talwar is pretty much generally a term for sword not otherwise specified, but perhaps you can fill us in on the proper etymology use of the word. While the hilt form we are familiar with with disc pommel etc. is called Indo-Persian tulwar......we know there are hilts with 'shamshir' like hilts (again the word is simply Persian for sabre)....and these in India are also called Tulwar.
In the British Native cavalry units the British regulation swords used by them are also commonly referred to as 'tulwar'.

I was not aware that the Turkic and Steppes tribes or the Mongols engaged in sword to sword combat, and thought the cut and run method using the sweeping draw cut was thier way, if I am understanding what you are saying.

Of course with the EIC presence in the 18th century, European style sword combat methods became known, but not too sure that tribal warriors bought into it.

In Maratha India, there are examples of 'khandas' with European rapier blades, but I am pretty certain the Hindu basket hilt khanda was not used in fencing.

In the south the term khanda refers to sword in a general sense much in the way tulwar is used in the north, but these became called Hindu basket hilts with the larger hilt used post contact (with Europe in 16th c but not clarifying other possible contacts etc. ).