Tulwar hilt and disc pommel.....the reason for their design

micas · 3rd July 2006, 09:28 AM

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

Flavio · 3rd July 2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micas

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

YEAH!!!!!

kronckew · 3rd July 2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micas

Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu'

"at 200 yards, independant quick FIRE"
"at 100 yards, volley by ranks, first rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"second rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"third rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"

where did all them natives go?

remember, those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.

Flavio · 3rd July 2006, 11:31 AM

[QUOTE=kronckew]me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu' [QUOTE]

Yeah, great movie!!!

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd July 2006, 02:12 PM

If you really are interested in the subject, you should go back, looking for signs, when the tulwar hilt started to look like it has for several hundreds of years, and why you are at it, you should also take an interest in the very early hilts. Maybe this will tell you more than watching the video clips. Although they are interesting, and the movements very elegant, they are hardly fighting technique.

S.Al-Anizi · 3rd July 2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

If you really are interested in the subject, you should go back, looking for signs, when the tulwar hilt started to look like it has for several hundreds of years, and why you are at it, you should also take an interest in the very early hilts. Maybe this will tell you more than watching the video clips. Although they are interesting, and the movements very elegant, they are hardly fighting technique.

I must agree with you Jens, this looks more like dancing and stage fighting swordplay rather than fighting techniques, pretty much like the Syrian "hakam" sword dancing we saw a long time ago on SFI.

katana · 3rd July 2006, 03:21 PM

In my experience of Martial Arts, whether with weapons or not, stylised routines were developed which incorperated 'moves' and techniques. These are generally know as 'forms'.
Many of the 'forms' seem little more than a sequence of movement: however ....this is usually far from the truth.
What I see is fast coordination between body movement and sword movement, the practice of deadly slashing cuts....this is the function of the 'dance', obviously you would not run into the battle field and then re-enact it.....this is practice ...in fluid movement.
The movements may seem dance-like but it develops balance, coordination and technique.............. this concept is well understood by many Eastern cultures and practioners of their Martial Arts in the West.

Rick · 3rd July 2006, 03:26 PM

I caught a glimpses of a very functional thrust, parries and draw cuts from those vids .
The rest , possibly some elements of positioning for the strike ; most everything else seemed like frosting on the cake .

Titus Pullo · 4th July 2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu'

"at 200 yards, independant quick FIRE"
"at 100 yards, volley by ranks, first rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"second rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"third rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"

where did all them natives go?

remember, those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.

That's partly true, but I think it's largely because they were not modernized and organized like western powers. They didn't have time to set up there own government and united under one government and organize and modernize their army. And they had no real naval power, which can cut off trade (a blockade) which can cripple their ability to wage war. REmember when Vietnam was united under one leader, Hochimin, they were able to easily beat the French. The French was fighting a defensive war and set up a trape to lure them in, but inspite of it they lost badly because the people were united and their army more orgainized.

B.I · 4th July 2006, 07:31 AM

hi katana,
this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question

the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories.
i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion.
your original question said -

Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer

i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us.
i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine.
not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller.
sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows.
i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

MABAGANI · 4th July 2006, 09:57 AM

The tulwar disc pommel works well during close quarter fighting with or without a shield.

katana · 4th July 2006, 12:18 PM

Hi B.I,
I appreciate your comments, and understand your views. First of all I did say 'I MAY have the answer' , I didn't define it as 'THE' answer......I wanted to 'draw out' peoples views.

As regards the small hilts....small hands theory. I can see that this may have been the case in the Tulwars 'infancy'. But my understanding is that the Tulwar was quickly adopted by neighbouring cultures and races, whom did not have small hands. Surely, logically speaking, the hilt would have been extended. The hilt would have evolved, a restrictive hilt would be a disadvantage on the battle field and yet, as far as I know this did not happen. So, if this is the case, you have to ask yourself ....Why? The only explaination I can see is, so far, is that the hilt design is dictated by how the sword is used. It seems that the relative smallness of the hilt and the disc pommel 'trap' the hand, assuming this is deliberate, then the design function must be to insure the sword/hand do not part company, which suggests the Tulwar 'technique' is dis-similar to 'normal' swordplay.

The fact that we view this issue from differing perspectives is, I believe,
vitally important......a theory has to be constantly 'attacked' before it can be considered a fact.

katana · 24th November 2006, 04:08 PM

I found this while surfing......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_an...Cavalry_Swords

About half way down the page.

[edit] Variants
The Army of India variant of the 1908 sword featured a smaller grip to match the generally smaller hands of cavalry troopers recruited in the sub-continent.

It seems small hands could be the reason for the small hilts afterall.....

3rd July 2006, 09:28 AM	#1
micas Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 30	Reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where that sword twirler does his thing right before Indy shoots him.

3rd July 2006, 11:31 AM	#4
Flavio Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Italia Posts: 1,243	[QUOTE=kronckew]me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu' [QUOTE] Yeah, great movie!!!

3rd July 2006, 02:12 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	If you really are interested in the subject, you should go back, looking for signs, when the tulwar hilt started to look like it has for several hundreds of years, and why you are at it, you should also take an interest in the very early hilts. Maybe this will tell you more than watching the video clips. Although they are interesting, and the movements very elegant, they are hardly fighting technique.

3rd July 2006, 03:21 PM	#7
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	In my experience of Martial Arts, whether with weapons or not, stylised routines were developed which incorperated 'moves' and techniques. These are generally know as 'forms'. Many of the 'forms' seem little more than a sequence of movement: however ....this is usually far from the truth. What I see is fast coordination between body movement and sword movement, the practice of deadly slashing cuts....this is the function of the 'dance', obviously you would not run into the battle field and then re-enact it.....this is practice ...in fluid movement. The movements may seem dance-like but it develops balance, coordination and technique.............. this concept is well understood by many Eastern cultures and practioners of their Martial Arts in the West.

3rd July 2006, 03:26 PM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	I caught a glimpses of a very functional thrust, parries and draw cuts from those vids . The rest , possibly some elements of positioning for the strike ; most everything else seemed like frosting on the cake .

4th July 2006, 07:31 AM	#10
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi katana, this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories. i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion. your original question said - Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us. i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine. not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller. sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows. i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

4th July 2006, 09:57 AM	#11
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	The tulwar disc pommel works well during close quarter fighting with or without a shield.

4th July 2006, 12:18 PM	#12
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi B.I, I appreciate your comments, and understand your views. First of all I did say 'I MAY have the answer' , I didn't define it as 'THE' answer......I wanted to 'draw out' peoples views. As regards the small hilts....small hands theory. I can see that this may have been the case in the Tulwars 'infancy'. But my understanding is that the Tulwar was quickly adopted by neighbouring cultures and races, whom did not have small hands. Surely, logically speaking, the hilt would have been extended. The hilt would have evolved, a restrictive hilt would be a disadvantage on the battle field and yet, as far as I know this did not happen. So, if this is the case, you have to ask yourself ....Why? The only explaination I can see is, so far, is that the hilt design is dictated by how the sword is used. It seems that the relative smallness of the hilt and the disc pommel 'trap' the hand, assuming this is deliberate, then the design function must be to insure the sword/hand do not part company, which suggests the Tulwar 'technique' is dis-similar to 'normal' swordplay. The fact that we view this issue from differing perspectives is, I believe, vitally important......a theory has to be constantly 'attacked' before it can be considered a fact.

24th November 2006, 04:08 PM	#13
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	I found this while surfing...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_an...Cavalry_Swords About half way down the page. [edit] Variants The Army of India variant of the 1908 sword featured a smaller grip to match the generally smaller hands of cavalry troopers recruited in the sub-continent. It seems small hands could be the reason for the small hilts afterall.....