Another tulwar

fernando · 17th November 2007, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiral

Commercial Nickel plating started in Europe about 1850, so mid 19th century is the earliest possible date. {IMHO]
spiral

Thank you Jonathan.
I suspected so. I wonder wow quick did the nickel plating process reached India. -That would count also.
Fernando

fernando · 18th November 2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Thank you Jonathan.
I suspected so. I wonder wow quick did the nickel plating process reached India. -That would count also.
Fernando

I was thinking ... the hilt could have being plated long after being originaly cast ... not necessarily ... just measuring the possibilities.

Jens Nordlunde · 18th November 2007, 03:06 PM

Fernando,

What should be said about the tulwar has been said already. The square on top of the hilt is however strange. I don’t remember having seen such a square before. The tulwar may not be very old, but I don’t think it is as bad as many other we see, and it does have a nice looking blade with nice fullers like Rick says. It is hard to tell if the plating of the hilt was made when the hilt was made or later, but both are possibilities. We see the pictures but you have the tulwar, how is the balance of the blade?

Jens

kronckew · 18th November 2007, 03:19 PM

tulwars, like kris, were often re-hilted. there was even a thread here discussing that the indian armouries would keep the blades and hilts dismounted until just before a war in order that they were not available to mutineers, casual rioters and revolutionaries.

thus the hilt may not be the one the blade started it's life with.

fernando · 18th November 2007, 10:17 PM

Hi Jens
Thanks for your coments.
Concerning the "cubic" finial on the hilt, i am pleased that, at least something in this tulwar is unusual to your experienced eyes, for the good or for the bad

I must say that, after all, im am not so unsatisfied for having bought this piece. When i feel in doubt about the hilt, i just have to look at its nice blade.
About its balance, i am not a good judge, but i find it quite easy handling, discounting the usual problem with the hilt size.
It is quite a light piece, considering its 68 cms. blade and only 647 grams weight ... the three fullers counting on this.
Hi Kronckew
Thanks for your support

Eventualy it was i who posted about tulwar hilts being stored apart from blades, according to a book i have read and which caused some skepticism from the part of some members. I later had talks with the author of such book, and precisely as you note, he comented that tulwars were often hilted and rehilted with unfamiliar components, something hard to happen with European swords.
All the best
Fernando

S.Al-Anizi · 18th November 2007, 11:27 PM

Hey, nice sword there Fernando!

Jim McDougall · 19th November 2007, 12:55 AM

I just wanted to join in, and as Jens has noted, most that can be said on this sturdy tulwar already has been said. I agree it is of 19th century, probably late, and the blade is of cross section and profile that seem pretty well established on tulwars of this period. By this time, the British Raj had created considerable commercial enterprise with weaponry and outfitting for the occupying forces there.
I wonder also about the square nut on the pommel. It seems tulwars typically had a capstan with pierced hole that I understand was for unscrewing and disassembling the hilt. Is it possible that this square capstan might have been for similar purpose but with more industrial application, a socket or wrench?

If indeed weapons were kept disassembled as has been discussed (I would presume this practice was applied in some cases but certainly not universally in various armouries) then such a feature would better facilitate assembly.
I honestly have not seen the square on tulwars either, but knowing the volume of munitions activity undertaken in arming the many Native Cavalry regiments for many years it was undoubtedly quite an undertaking. There were specific regulations for tulwars to be carried by these cavalry and I have seen listings indicating which type swords were to be carried. Some units had selected the standard tulwar, and blade lengths varied..I believe that Bengal for example were 31" while Madras was 33" or vice versa, cannot recall exactly. While the question concerning military inspection or armoury marks would be valid, many times such markings did not appear on weapons.
If interchanging blades to meet regulation when arms moved to other armoury, perhaps an explanation?
Just thoughts!
In any case, a solid example!

All best regards,
Jim

fernando · 19th November 2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

Hey, nice sword there Fernando!

Thank you so much, Sager ... do i spell it right?

Fernando

18th November 2007, 03:06 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Fernando, What should be said about the tulwar has been said already. The square on top of the hilt is however strange. I don’t remember having seen such a square before. The tulwar may not be very old, but I don’t think it is as bad as many other we see, and it does have a nice looking blade with nice fullers like Rick says. It is hard to tell if the plating of the hilt was made when the hilt was made or later, but both are possibilities. We see the pictures but you have the tulwar, how is the balance of the blade? Jens

18th November 2007, 03:19 PM	#4
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,250	tulwars, like kris, were often re-hilted. there was even a thread here discussing that the indian armouries would keep the blades and hilts dismounted until just before a war in order that they were not available to mutineers, casual rioters and revolutionaries. thus the hilt may not be the one the blade started it's life with.

18th November 2007, 10:17 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Jens Thanks for your coments. Concerning the "cubic" finial on the hilt, i am pleased that, at least something in this tulwar is unusual to your experienced eyes, for the good or for the bad I must say that, after all, im am not so unsatisfied for having bought this piece. When i feel in doubt about the hilt, i just have to look at its nice blade. About its balance, i am not a good judge, but i find it quite easy handling, discounting the usual problem with the hilt size. It is quite a light piece, considering its 68 cms. blade and only 647 grams weight ... the three fullers counting on this. Hi Kronckew Thanks for your support Eventualy it was i who posted about tulwar hilts being stored apart from blades, according to a book i have read and which caused some skepticism from the part of some members. I later had talks with the author of such book, and precisely as you note, he comented that tulwars were often hilted and rehilted with unfamiliar components, something hard to happen with European swords. All the best Fernando

18th November 2007, 11:27 PM	#6
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	Hey, nice sword there Fernando!

19th November 2007, 12:55 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,593	I just wanted to join in, and as Jens has noted, most that can be said on this sturdy tulwar already has been said. I agree it is of 19th century, probably late, and the blade is of cross section and profile that seem pretty well established on tulwars of this period. By this time, the British Raj had created considerable commercial enterprise with weaponry and outfitting for the occupying forces there. I wonder also about the square nut on the pommel. It seems tulwars typically had a capstan with pierced hole that I understand was for unscrewing and disassembling the hilt. Is it possible that this square capstan might have been for similar purpose but with more industrial application, a socket or wrench? If indeed weapons were kept disassembled as has been discussed (I would presume this practice was applied in some cases but certainly not universally in various armouries) then such a feature would better facilitate assembly. I honestly have not seen the square on tulwars either, but knowing the volume of munitions activity undertaken in arming the many Native Cavalry regiments for many years it was undoubtedly quite an undertaking. There were specific regulations for tulwars to be carried by these cavalry and I have seen listings indicating which type swords were to be carried. Some units had selected the standard tulwar, and blade lengths varied..I believe that Bengal for example were 31" while Madras was 33" or vice versa, cannot recall exactly. While the question concerning military inspection or armoury marks would be valid, many times such markings did not appear on weapons. If interchanging blades to meet regulation when arms moved to other armoury, perhaps an explanation? Just thoughts! In any case, a solid example! All best regards, Jim