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

Jens Nordlunde · 8th December 2006, 07:33 PM

Thank you Katana, this question has been discussed on and off for a long time, here and on other forums, and what you have found, is very interesting - just along the line that I 'postulated' it would be

.

katana · 8th December 2006, 07:56 PM

Hi Jens,
I found a reference to this fact originally through Wikipedia and posted it, Jim (McDougall)
also refered to a reference from Brian Robson ("Swords of the British Army", 1975, p.57). I found this reference ...whilst looking for info. on a different topic ...but felt that this re-inforces the previous references....
Hopefully, these are independent statements about a historical fact and not references from one individual's opinion.....

Also, interestingly, I mentioned that I would be more 'comfortable' if the hilts were 1/2" longer..........which is the exact difference between the modified hilts and that of the British version.

katana · 10th December 2006, 01:26 PM

More evidence about the small hand size of Indian Warriors.. this is an extract from "The Uncivilized Races of Men in All Countries of the World", by J.G. Wood, M.A., F.L.S.; Vol.2 of 2 volumes; J.B. Burr Publishing Co., Hartford, Connecticut, 1878. Mr. Wood appears to be an Englishman, and has written a prodigious number of books on all manner of very interesting subjects.

Here he is refering to the Kukri....

" The handle is made after a very remarkable fashion, and the portion, which forms the hilt is so small that it shows the size of the hand for which it was intended. This smallness of hilt is common to all Indian swords, which cannot be grasped by an ordinary English soldier. My own hand is a small one, but it is too large even for the heavy sabre or "tulwar," while the handle of the kookery looks as if the weapon were intended for a boy of six or seven years old. Indeed, the Ghoorkas are so small, that their hands, like those of all Indian races, are very delicate, about the same size as those of an English boy of seven. "

Link below
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/ghurka_wood.htm

katana · 10th December 2006, 01:44 PM

And here....possibly...further explaination as to the design of the restrictive hilt/pommel . An extract from A New System of Sword Exercise for Infantry
By Richard F. Burton
London: Printed and Published by William Clowes and Sons, 13 Charing Cross, 1876

"The Sliding Cut, common throughout the East. In this movement the elbow and wrist are held stiff and the blow is given from the strong muscles of the back and shoulder, nearly ten times larger than the muscles of the arm, while the whole force and weight of the body are thrown in. Hence the people of India use small hilts with mere crutch-guards, which confine the hand and prevent the play of the wrist; the larger grip required for the Chopping Cut only lessens the cutting force. The terrible effect of these cuts is well known. "

The whole article shows various sword cuts, parries etc. link below

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_burtonnewsword_0200.htm

Jens Nordlunde · 10th December 2006, 02:02 PM

Katana, you really have done a lot of ‘homework’, thank you for taking the time to find these interesting links. I always felt that this must be the answer to the question, as all the Indians I have met have much slimmer hands than the Europeans I know. This does not mean that all Indians have slim hands, as I am sure one can find Indians with big hands, but in general the hands are slim.

katana · 10th December 2006, 03:25 PM

Hi Jens, I agree that we are talking the 'average' size of hands. I have a Tulwar which has a hilt slightly larger than the average.

It certainly seems to be true that the small hilts are attributed to the smaller (on average) hand size of most Indian fighters.

The form of the Tulwar hilt (the disc pommel especially) seems to suit the 'style' of the sword technique used. Which I suspected from the beginning and which started this thread.

The 'riccasso' question is the 'only fly in the ointment', IMHO risking unprotected fingers to gain more control of the blade seems unlikely. If good sword technique required this technique .....protection would have been 'incorperated' into the design. Afterall if your soldiers were losing 'digits' in battle, assuming they survived the conflict, they would have lost the abillity to 'control' the blade in future fights. If this 'fingering' technique was important to Tulwar use......protection would have evolved.....it didn't.

So it seems almost certain that Tulwar sword technique did not need extra control of the blade (using the ricasso). This sword, I feel, has been 'viewed' with 'Western eyes' with western sword techniques 'imposed' on an Eastern sword. Possibly 'blinding' the likely and obvious truth........after all the simplist answer is quite often the right one ......Occam's Razor seems to have cut through (pun intended) this 'clouded' issue

Jens Nordlunde · 10th December 2006, 04:41 PM

Hi Katana,

I agree very much with you. As I believe the ‘fingering’ technique could/would only lead to a missing finger, and who would want that in the middle of a battle?

The Europeans made use of the ‘fingering’ technique, but they fought in a different way, and the finger was protected. Had the Indians used this technique, they would at least have made sure the finger had some protection.

When this is said, I must add, that we have another question. We have tulwars with or without ricasso (shamshir/tulwar blades), but why did the Indian blades have a ricasso? Sometimes it is short, and sometimes it is rather long – but why is it there?

Could it be from ancient times, before they used quillons, if the hand slipped a bit, you did not cut your fingers at once, only if it slipped a lot? After they got the quillons, they still made the ricasso – be course that was the way blades were made. A lot of the things done when making blades or marks on blades, had no doubt a meaning, but I also think it was used long after the original meaning was forgotten - it was tradition.

8th December 2006, 07:33 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you Katana, this question has been discussed on and off for a long time, here and on other forums, and what you have found, is very interesting - just along the line that I 'postulated' it would be.

8th December 2006, 07:56 PM	#2
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Jens, I found a reference to this fact originally through Wikipedia and posted it, Jim (McDougall) also refered to a reference from Brian Robson ("Swords of the British Army", 1975, p.57). I found this reference ...whilst looking for info. on a different topic ...but felt that this re-inforces the previous references.... Hopefully, these are independent statements about a historical fact and not references from one individual's opinion..... Also, interestingly, I mentioned that I would be more 'comfortable' if the hilts were 1/2" longer..........which is the exact difference between the modified hilts and that of the British version.

10th December 2006, 01:26 PM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	More evidence about the small hand size of Indian Warriors.. this is an extract from "The Uncivilized Races of Men in All Countries of the World", by J.G. Wood, M.A., F.L.S.; Vol.2 of 2 volumes; J.B. Burr Publishing Co., Hartford, Connecticut, 1878. Mr. Wood appears to be an Englishman, and has written a prodigious number of books on all manner of very interesting subjects. Here he is refering to the Kukri.... " The handle is made after a very remarkable fashion, and the portion, which forms the hilt is so small that it shows the size of the hand for which it was intended. This smallness of hilt is common to all Indian swords, which cannot be grasped by an ordinary English soldier. My own hand is a small one, but it is too large even for the heavy sabre or "tulwar," while the handle of the kookery looks as if the weapon were intended for a boy of six or seven years old. Indeed, the Ghoorkas are so small, that their hands, like those of all Indian races, are very delicate, about the same size as those of an English boy of seven. " Link below http://www.arco-iris.com/George/ghurka_wood.htm

10th December 2006, 01:44 PM	#4
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	And here....possibly...further explaination as to the design of the restrictive hilt/pommel . An extract from A New System of Sword Exercise for Infantry By Richard F. Burton London: Printed and Published by William Clowes and Sons, 13 Charing Cross, 1876 "The Sliding Cut, common throughout the East. In this movement the elbow and wrist are held stiff and the blow is given from the strong muscles of the back and shoulder, nearly ten times larger than the muscles of the arm, while the whole force and weight of the body are thrown in. Hence the people of India use small hilts with mere crutch-guards, which confine the hand and prevent the play of the wrist; the larger grip required for the Chopping Cut only lessens the cutting force. The terrible effect of these cuts is well known. " The whole article shows various sword cuts, parries etc. link below http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_burtonnewsword_0200.htm

10th December 2006, 02:02 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Katana, you really have done a lot of ‘homework’, thank you for taking the time to find these interesting links. I always felt that this must be the answer to the question, as all the Indians I have met have much slimmer hands than the Europeans I know. This does not mean that all Indians have slim hands, as I am sure one can find Indians with big hands, but in general the hands are slim.

10th December 2006, 03:25 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Jens, I agree that we are talking the 'average' size of hands. I have a Tulwar which has a hilt slightly larger than the average. It certainly seems to be true that the small hilts are attributed to the smaller (on average) hand size of most Indian fighters. The form of the Tulwar hilt (the disc pommel especially) seems to suit the 'style' of the sword technique used. Which I suspected from the beginning and which started this thread. The 'riccasso' question is the 'only fly in the ointment', IMHO risking unprotected fingers to gain more control of the blade seems unlikely. If good sword technique required this technique .....protection would have been 'incorperated' into the design. Afterall if your soldiers were losing 'digits' in battle, assuming they survived the conflict, they would have lost the abillity to 'control' the blade in future fights. If this 'fingering' technique was important to Tulwar use......protection would have evolved.....it didn't. So it seems almost certain that Tulwar sword technique did not need extra control of the blade (using the ricasso). This sword, I feel, has been 'viewed' with 'Western eyes' with western sword techniques 'imposed' on an Eastern sword. Possibly 'blinding' the likely and obvious truth........after all the simplist answer is quite often the right one ......Occam's Razor seems to have cut through (pun intended) this 'clouded' issue

10th December 2006, 04:41 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Katana, I agree very much with you. As I believe the ‘fingering’ technique could/would only lead to a missing finger, and who would want that in the middle of a battle? The Europeans made use of the ‘fingering’ technique, but they fought in a different way, and the finger was protected. Had the Indians used this technique, they would at least have made sure the finger had some protection. When this is said, I must add, that we have another question. We have tulwars with or without ricasso (shamshir/tulwar blades), but why did the Indian blades have a ricasso? Sometimes it is short, and sometimes it is rather long – but why is it there? Could it be from ancient times, before they used quillons, if the hand slipped a bit, you did not cut your fingers at once, only if it slipped a lot? After they got the quillons, they still made the ricasso – be course that was the way blades were made. A lot of the things done when making blades or marks on blades, had no doubt a meaning, but I also think it was used long after the original meaning was forgotten - it was tradition.