Another tulwar

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

katana · 19th November 2007, 12:40 PM

As resin was used to fix the blades ...it is not surprising that Tulwars could easily be re-hilted. Damaged hilts (broken knuckle guards, cracked quillions etc.) could quickly be 'fixed' in the 'field'. All you would need is a fire (to gently heat the blade), a replacement hilt and some resin. In a prolonged conflict this must have been an advantage to keep swords serviceable. It would also be easy to 'up grade' the hilt in peacetime. Bearing in mind many early European swords were rattailed which were 'peened' over at the pommel, hilt replacement would require skilled hands to replace.

Another, interesting property of the resin is it had 'shock absorbing' qualities relieving 'shock' to the arm as the blade made contact.

Jim, it has just occured to me.....could the choil be there ...so that the blade could be held securely whilst rehilting !!! Or is this idea not new.

Regards David

Jens Nordlunde · 19th November 2007, 02:54 PM

That tulwars should have been kept disassembled due to fear of rebellion is something I don’t believe in, although I can’t prove it, if they were; it could be for other reasons, like lack of space. It must also be taken in consideration, that some of the tulwar hilts were not only fastened with resin, but also with pins going from hilt side to hilt side piercing the tang, and hidden in the floral decoration of the hilt. It is however likely, that the less decorated hilts were only fastened to the blade with resin.

The blade is relatively short, as most of the tulwar blades are 10-15 cm longer, but this does not mean much, as the blades are found in many sizes, and from what Fernando writes, the tulwar seems to be in good balance, and if the edge is sharp, like Rick suggest that it most likely is, it would still be a good fighting tulwar.

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

fernando · 19th November 2007, 07:30 PM

Hi Jim,
Thanks a lot for your comprehensive input

.
You and others will know better, but the purpose for the hole in current tulwar hilt finials is, or also is, that of fitting the hanging ring, for the use of a lanyard or the like.
As for my example, and to be precise, its finial is more a rectangular piece than a square one ... crudely made, so not impeaching the intention to have made it square. I wonder why it is split in two halves, at least in all its visible part.
In view of that, at first sight i don't see in this device a mechanical convenience for its dismounting by literaly turning it off. It could as well be embodied to the hilt, the disc and dome (pommel) being the moveable parts, both held by the dome, fixed by hammering ( welding ) it to the finial.
On the other hand, this assembly is restricted to the hilt per se, as the "hilting" of the tulwar is an operation that joins the blade with the allready set up hilt ... the tang not trespassing the whole grip, ending somewhere inside it.
As for marks, what i have in this specimen are certainly not explicit Ordenance marks, and maybe neither Armoury ones. Assuming they are not graphic symbols, they surely are intentional marks, with three repeated equal rows of dots ... not just steel or handling defects; possibly some maker's code ... what do i know.
I hope i made myself understood and with a low % of nonsense

.
Kind regards
Fernando
PS
Here are pictures with different light ... and maybe some more accurate

fernando · 19th November 2007, 07:32 PM

Hi David
I follow your wise thaughts

.
Concerning the blade choil, i guess it may have purposes other than facilitating the hilting, like not being practical to sharpen the blade too close from the langets, or also even some kind of external influence.
It doesn't take much grip to introduce the blade, as you hold the hilt upright with one hand and, with the other, you let the blade penetrate, with the help of its weight and gravity, while the pitch is still liquid ... apparently a smooth operation

All the best
Fernando

fernando · 19th November 2007, 08:09 PM

Hi Jens
Thanks for your considerations.
I have visited Rainer Daehnhardt shops in Lisbon, and i had in mind to ask him to coment on some parts of his book that have been considered discusseable.
Concerning the tulwars being stored in separate places, he stil assumes what he has written in the book. But i have learnt that he was referring to a specific case, and not to generality. In one of his (three?) visits to India, around 1970, he met a certain Maharaja in the north whom, at time of visiting his arsenal, asked him whether he wanted to see the blades first, or the hilts. For the case, they were kept in two towers, located about one kilometer away from each other.
The reason explained for such attitude was the one we already know.
He said ( i didn't ask him ) that the Maharaja's name was complex and dificult to memorize ... "Bija" something or the like.
Naturaly this is a facultative situation, nobody has to beleive in it.
Concerning yours and Jim observations on this tulwar type, it certainly is for infantry, due to the blade length. With its slight curve and false edge, it functions well as a thrusting weapon.
Best regards
Fernando

19th November 2007, 07:30 PM	#8
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Jim, Thanks a lot for your comprehensive input . You and others will know better, but the purpose for the hole in current tulwar hilt finials is, or also is, that of fitting the hanging ring, for the use of a lanyard or the like. As for my example, and to be precise, its finial is more a rectangular piece than a square one ... crudely made, so not impeaching the intention to have made it square. I wonder why it is split in two halves, at least in all its visible part. In view of that, at first sight i don't see in this device a mechanical convenience for its dismounting by literaly turning it off. It could as well be embodied to the hilt, the disc and dome (pommel) being the moveable parts, both held by the dome, fixed by hammering ( welding ) it to the finial. On the other hand, this assembly is restricted to the hilt per se, as the "hilting" of the tulwar is an operation that joins the blade with the allready set up hilt ... the tang not trespassing the whole grip, ending somewhere inside it. As for marks, what i have in this specimen are certainly not explicit Ordenance marks, and maybe neither Armoury ones. Assuming they are not graphic symbols, they surely are intentional marks, with three repeated equal rows of dots ... not just steel or handling defects; possibly some maker's code ... what do i know. I hope i made myself understood and with a low % of nonsense . Kind regards Fernando PS Here are pictures with different light ... and maybe some more accurate Attached Images

18th November 2007, 03:19 PM	#1
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,238	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	#2
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	#3
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	Hey, nice sword there Fernando!

19th November 2007, 12:55 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	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

19th November 2007, 12:40 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	As resin was used to fix the blades ...it is not surprising that Tulwars could easily be re-hilted. Damaged hilts (broken knuckle guards, cracked quillions etc.) could quickly be 'fixed' in the 'field'. All you would need is a fire (to gently heat the blade), a replacement hilt and some resin. In a prolonged conflict this must have been an advantage to keep swords serviceable. It would also be easy to 'up grade' the hilt in peacetime. Bearing in mind many early European swords were rattailed which were 'peened' over at the pommel, hilt replacement would require skilled hands to replace. Another, interesting property of the resin is it had 'shock absorbing' qualities relieving 'shock' to the arm as the blade made contact. Jim, it has just occured to me.....could the choil be there ...so that the blade could be held securely whilst rehilting !!! Or is this idea not new. Regards David

19th November 2007, 02:54 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	That tulwars should have been kept disassembled due to fear of rebellion is something I don’t believe in, although I can’t prove it, if they were; it could be for other reasons, like lack of space. It must also be taken in consideration, that some of the tulwar hilts were not only fastened with resin, but also with pins going from hilt side to hilt side piercing the tang, and hidden in the floral decoration of the hilt. It is however likely, that the less decorated hilts were only fastened to the blade with resin. The blade is relatively short, as most of the tulwar blades are 10-15 cm longer, but this does not mean much, as the blades are found in many sizes, and from what Fernando writes, the tulwar seems to be in good balance, and if the edge is sharp, like Rick suggest that it most likely is, it would still be a good fighting tulwar.

19th November 2007, 07:32 PM	#9
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi David I follow your wise thaughts . Concerning the blade choil, i guess it may have purposes other than facilitating the hilting, like not being practical to sharpen the blade too close from the langets, or also even some kind of external influence. It doesn't take much grip to introduce the blade, as you hold the hilt upright with one hand and, with the other, you let the blade penetrate, with the help of its weight and gravity, while the pitch is still liquid ... apparently a smooth operation All the best Fernando

19th November 2007, 08:09 PM	#10
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Jens Thanks for your considerations. I have visited Rainer Daehnhardt shops in Lisbon, and i had in mind to ask him to coment on some parts of his book that have been considered discusseable. Concerning the tulwars being stored in separate places, he stil assumes what he has written in the book. But i have learnt that he was referring to a specific case, and not to generality. In one of his (three?) visits to India, around 1970, he met a certain Maharaja in the north whom, at time of visiting his arsenal, asked him whether he wanted to see the blades first, or the hilts. For the case, they were kept in two towers, located about one kilometer away from each other. The reason explained for such attitude was the one we already know. He said ( i didn't ask him ) that the Maharaja's name was complex and dificult to memorize ... "Bija" something or the like. Naturaly this is a facultative situation, nobody has to beleive in it. Concerning yours and Jim observations on this tulwar type, it certainly is for infantry, due to the blade length. With its slight curve and false edge, it functions well as a thrusting weapon. Best regards Fernando