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

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.

katana · 10th December 2006, 05:24 PM

Hi Jens,
perhaps the 'ricasso' on Tulwars and similar swords is not a 'ricasso' at all.
As the blade edge does not end at the hilt ....we would assume that it is a ricasso ...as a number of European swords have this feature for a functional reason. Could it be ...simply...that an edge so close to the hilt would have little advantage, as it was almost exclusively a 'slashing' weapon ?

Other 'simple' explainations could be that it allowed safe handling of the sword blade whilst it was being fixed (resin) to the hilt. Or as Jim suggested, made sharpening safer.

Jim McDougall · 10th December 2006, 06:02 PM

Excellent observations Jens, and I am inclined to agree, I would be extremely nervous having my most important finger out there subject to such danger!
While the Europeans did of course fight differently (actually parrying with the sword itself, while Indian combat practice typically seems to have dictated the use of the buckler to parry), it may possibly be a structural feature of the blade taken from the European blades?
Possibly it was perceived that the thickened area at the root of the blade would give more strength to the blade in its seat, and as Katana has mentioned, my suggestion of the 'choil' concept in sharpening the blade.

I think that we have established that there was distinctly a difference in hand size by mention of this in a number of sources, so the idea of the 'finger wrap' has lost a great deal of its feasability in general. There would remain of course a certain selectability, where in key instances it would be quite possible that a warrior might have held the tulwar with finger wrapped to insure firm grip in attack to assure solid hit, and if little or no opposition was seen or expected (i.e.surprise attack on camp etc.). Such application would seem a matter of choice, not necessity.

Again, if sword to sword combat possibility existed, it seems that finger should stay 'inside' the guard!

Best regards,
Jim

BBJW · 30th December 2006, 03:01 AM

I have 16 tulwars and can only get a comfortable grip on one of them. Smaller Asian hands? Perhaps, but I can get a good grip on the 2 koras I have and the Nepalese certainly aren't very big. My kukris also have a comfortable grip for my Western size hands.

30th December 2006, 03:01 AM	#4
BBJW Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Idaho, USA Posts: 230	tulwar grip size I have 16 tulwars and can only get a comfortable grip on one of them. Smaller Asian hands? Perhaps, but I can get a good grip on the 2 koras I have and the Nepalese certainly aren't very big. My kukris also have a comfortable grip for my Western size hands.

10th December 2006, 04:41 PM	#1
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.

10th December 2006, 05:24 PM	#2
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Jens, perhaps the 'ricasso' on Tulwars and similar swords is not a 'ricasso' at all. As the blade edge does not end at the hilt ....we would assume that it is a ricasso ...as a number of European swords have this feature for a functional reason. Could it be ...simply...that an edge so close to the hilt would have little advantage, as it was almost exclusively a 'slashing' weapon ? Other 'simple' explainations could be that it allowed safe handling of the sword blade whilst it was being fixed (resin) to the hilt. Or as Jim suggested, made sharpening safer.

10th December 2006, 06:02 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,584	Excellent observations Jens, and I am inclined to agree, I would be extremely nervous having my most important finger out there subject to such danger! While the Europeans did of course fight differently (actually parrying with the sword itself, while Indian combat practice typically seems to have dictated the use of the buckler to parry), it may possibly be a structural feature of the blade taken from the European blades? Possibly it was perceived that the thickened area at the root of the blade would give more strength to the blade in its seat, and as Katana has mentioned, my suggestion of the 'choil' concept in sharpening the blade. I think that we have established that there was distinctly a difference in hand size by mention of this in a number of sources, so the idea of the 'finger wrap' has lost a great deal of its feasability in general. There would remain of course a certain selectability, where in key instances it would be quite possible that a warrior might have held the tulwar with finger wrapped to insure firm grip in attack to assure solid hit, and if little or no opposition was seen or expected (i.e.surprise attack on camp etc.). Such application would seem a matter of choice, not necessity. Again, if sword to sword combat possibility existed, it seems that finger should stay 'inside' the guard! Best regards, Jim