Non European forces proving themselves Vs European military might

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by katana

Agreed, very eloquently put Gene

It is all too easy for political talk to get out of hand ....especially events that are still in 'living memory' for a number of people.

We had a discussion on the forum regarding the 'effectiveness' of Tulwars against British steel in battle. If memory serves, references suggested that the Indians ensured their swords were well maintained, razor sharp and housed in wooden cored scabbards. The British seemed the opposite, complacent about their sword care and using metal scabbards ....which helped to blunt the sword when withdrawing/replacing.

Also, the British expected to swordfight with their 'drilled', practiced techniques...expecting their opponents to do the same........however, their technique was different and alien, and caused problems because of the unpredictability (to the British) of the Indians sword use.

I'll try and find the thread.

Regards David

Thank you David!
Your example of Tulwar Vs Sabre is exactly what I was hoping for to start this discussion.

There is an ancient Indian expression 'There is nothing so shameful as a blunt sword'.

No two fencing styles are more alien (and more refined) than European and Indian.

From fencing myself I can imagine how how the close style and rigid wrist of tulwar fencing must have been a revelation to European opponents.

Gene

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks David and Gene! I think the example of tulwar vs. British regulation sabres is a great one to follow the thesis of the topic here, and using the weapons as our focus, which is exactly what places this in the theme of our forum.

I recall the great discussion that David refers to, and it was a thread by Pukka Bundook (Richard, Feb. 24, 2007, "Tulwar vs. Sabre"). In the discussion was reference to the key importance of sharp blades, noted by Louis Nolan (an enthusiastic young British cavalry officer known for his attention to improving many aspects of military thought, before his death in the immortal charge at Balaklava October, 25,1854). He was a cavalry officer in India prior to that event, and spent keen attention in studying the effectiveness of the deadly swordsmanship of native Indian warriors, with special interest in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had read reports of an engagement against a force of Rohillas describing horrendous results to the British troopers. When he looked further into the weapons these Rohilla forces had used, he was astounded to find they were old British M1796 blades discarded by the British and cut to razor edge, kept in wooden scabbards. When asking one of the British allied troopers of Nizams unit about what was unique about the skill of these warriors, and was struck by the simple reply, "...we never teach them any way Sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyones hand". Nolan never forgot the lesson of the importance of the sharp blade.
"Nolan of Balaklava" H.Moyse-Barnett, London, 1971, p.121

It was clear that maintaining the servicability of ones weapon, was most certainly a key factor in effectiveness in battle. With regard to this aspect, I will note that the quality of the weapons is obviously important as well. It is noted that these 'old' discarded blades were from the M1796 pattern cavalry sabres, which had wide, heavy blades with heavy 'hatchet' type points which radiused into widened slashing tips. The British blades of the end of the 18th into early 19th century were also largely products of intense scrutiny in the competitive conflict between English bladesmiths and German imported blades in what became known as the 'sword scandals'.

The blades produced in this period in England were profoundly sound, and only found obsolescence with the familiar advent of 'improved' commerce.
I have known many examples of Indian tulwars with both M1796 and M1788 light cavalry blades. In his post in the previously mentioned thread, Richard cites a book titled "Sahib" by Richard Holmes, noting (p.351) that a young British officer had a sword custom made by Wilkinson to regular pattern, and honed to razor edge, polished to mirror finish, but that it would not effectively cut.
While this would seem to defy the previous discussion noting the use of British blades to new effect by simply sharpening them, I would point out that by the time Wilkinson was producing swords, it was much later in the century. The custom making of swords by Wilkinson was not unusual, most of thier swords for officers were, and polishing and decoration were more the norm, as swords for officers were more traditional accoutrement. Times had dramatically changed with the advanced technology of firearms, and the sound blades of earlier swords were roughly comparable in analogy of the construction of vintage autos opposed to modern production examples.

I think the next point of focus would be as noted by David, that of technique. While it is previously noted that the Indian warriors did not receive any special training with thier weapons, it is important to note that the weapon was an instrumental part of thier culture. They became personally involved with thier own weapons, from iconic symbolism with manhood and strength to sometimes spritual and religious perspective. The weapon was afforded respect, and treated accordingly, almost lovingly cared for, and seldom ever drawn out of its protective scabbard except for use in action or obviously maintainance.

As has often been shown, the standing military, in this case of Great Britain, were often reluctant participants simply complying with orders and mundane existance. They were not typically empassioned in following a particular ideal and seemingly in most cases regarded their weapons impersonally as assigned tools, used as necessities in accomplishing thier compliance in battle while simply hoping to survive. This is of course a rather bland assessment of the business of warfare that in no way is meant to diminish the courage, and acts of heroism that often evolve out of it, nor the integrity of the sturdy men who fulfill thier duty regardless of personal view or acceptance of circumstances.

They were trained in repititious, mechanical drill that was of course not possible to factor in the unexpected variables encountered in many cases of actual battle, and using such structured techniques in order to be effective, required specified and expected techniques from the opposing participants.

I always think of the humor noted regarding the American Revolution, where the British marched in line wearing red uniforms outlining them as perfectly lined targets for the virtually camouflaged colonists attacking from the underbrush surrounding. Another instance I read concerned a British cavalry trooper who encountering an enemy cavalry trooper, struck at him with the prescribed drill manuever in number, and was outraged when his opponent responded with a cut entirely out of order, knocking him off his horse!

Before allowing this post to enter Tolstoy proportions, I'll end here

With all best regards,
Jim

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thanks David and Gene! I think the example of tulwar vs. British regulation sabres is a great one to follow the thesis of the topic here, and using the weapons as our focus, which is exactly what places this in the theme of our forum.

I recall the great discussion that David refers to, and it was a thread by Pukka Bundook (Richard, Feb. 24, 2007, "Tulwar vs. Sabre"). In the discussion was reference to the key importance of sharp blades, noted by Louis Nolan (an enthusiastic young British cavalry officer known for his attention to improving many aspects of military thought, before his death in the immortal charge at Balaklava October, 25,1854). He was a cavalry officer in India prior to that event, and spent keen attention in studying the effectiveness of the deadly swordsmanship of native Indian warriors, with special interest in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had read reports of an engagement against a force of Rohillas describing horrendous results to the British troopers. When he looked further into the weapons these Rohilla forces had used, he was astounded to find they were old British M1796 blades discarded by the British and cut to razor edge, kept in wooden scabbards. When asking one of the British allied troopers of Nizams unit about what was unique about the skill of these warriors, and was struck by the simple reply, "...we never teach them any way Sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyones hand". Nolan never forgot the lesson of the importance of the sharp blade.
"Nolan of Balaklava" H.Moyse-Barnett, London, 1971, p.121

It was clear that maintaining the servicability of ones weapon, was most certainly a key factor in effectiveness in battle. With regard to this aspect, I will note that the quality of the weapons is obviously important as well. It is noted that these 'old' discarded blades were from the M1796 pattern cavalry sabres, which had wide, heavy blades with heavy 'hatchet' type points which radiused into widened slashing tips. The British blades of the end of the 18th into early 19th century were also largely products of intense scrutiny in the competitive conflict between English bladesmiths and German imported blades in what became known as the 'sword scandals'.

The blades produced in this period in England were profoundly sound, and only found obsolescence with the familiar advent of 'improved' commerce.
I have known many examples of Indian tulwars with both M1796 and M1788 light cavalry blades. In his post in the previously mentioned thread, Richard cites a book titled "Sahib" by Richard Holmes, noting (p.351) that a young British officer had a sword custom made by Wilkinson to regular pattern, and honed to razor edge, polished to mirror finish, but that it would not effectively cut.
While this would seem to defy the previous discussion noting the use of British blades to new effect by simply sharpening them, I would point out that by the time Wilkinson was producing swords, it was much later in the century. The custom making of swords by Wilkinson was not unusual, most of thier swords for officers were, and polishing and decoration were more the norm, as swords for officers were more traditional accoutrement. Times had dramatically changed with the advanced technology of firearms, and the sound blades of earlier swords were roughly comparable in analogy of the construction of vintage autos opposed to modern production examples.

I think the next point of focus would be as noted by David, that of technique. While it is previously noted that the Indian warriors did not receive any special training with thier weapons, it is important to note that the weapon was an instrumental part of thier culture. They became personally involved with thier own weapons, from iconic symbolism with manhood and strength to sometimes spritual and religious perspective. The weapon was afforded respect, and treated accordingly, almost lovingly cared for, and seldom ever drawn out of its protective scabbard except for use in action or obviously maintainance.

As has often been shown, the standing military, in this case of Great Britain, were often reluctant participants simply complying with orders and mundane existance. They were not typically empassioned in following a particular ideal and seemingly in most cases regarded their weapons impersonally as assigned tools, used as necessities in accomplishing thier compliance in battle while simply hoping to survive. This is of course a rather bland assessment of the business of warfare that in no way is meant to diminish the courage, and acts of heroism that often evolve out of it, nor the integrity of the sturdy men who fulfill thier duty regardless of personal view or acceptance of circumstances.

They were trained in repititious, mechanical drill that was of course not possible to factor in the unexpected variables encountered in many cases of actual battle, and using such structured techniques in order to be effective, required specified and expected techniques from the opposing participants.

I always think of the humor noted regarding the American Revolution, where the British marched in line wearing red uniforms outlining them as perfectly lined targets for the virtually camouflaged colonists attacking from the underbrush surrounding. Another instance I read concerned a British cavalry trooper who encountering an enemy cavalry trooper, struck at him with the prescribed drill manuever in number, and was outraged when his opponent responded with a cut entirely out of order, knocking him off his horse!

Before allowing this post to enter Tolstoy proportions, I'll end here

With all best regards,
Jim

Ah Jim!

Of course!!!! LOL, You have given me a 'DOH' moment!
You make a great many fantastic points there!!!

But the one that made me blush with embarrasment is that of course you are right and a great many of the combatants would be 'average joes'.

I think I was assuming everyone wouold be at least 'quite good' with a sword!

A little training and a poorly maintained weapon would be a disaster for the Brit troopers under those circumstances!

But a little training and a razor sharp Tulwar would give the Indian 'joe' a big advantage!

[katana]

Hi Gene,
worth a look ......

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ht=tulwar+hilt

and Tulwar Vs sabre. ..

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ht=tulwar+hilt

Regards David

[Atlantia]

Brilliant! Well thats certainly fleshed out that Vs match somewhat!!!


Fantastic thread.


Its a little dissapointing to see how big a role poor training and maintenance played in the examples documented.
But of course thats a symptom of the sword already being in decline in Europe and regarded as a secondary weapon.

Thanks
Gene

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

... rigid wrist of tulwar fencing must have been a revelation to European opponents ...

I thought the revelation was more in the contrary direction .
Rigid wrist sword handling wouldn't proprerly be called fencing
Wasn't the advantage of malleable wrist fencing (recazo, thrust and all that) a score against talwar and scimitar rigid moves?
Oh, why should i, such an ingnorant, interfere in this discussion ?
Just forget it .
Fernando

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by fernando

I thought the revelation was more in the contrary direction .
Rigid wrist sword handling wouldn't proprerly be called fencing
Wasn't the advantage of malleable wrist fencing (recazo, thrust and all that) a score against talwar and scimitar rigid moves?
Oh, why should i, such an ingnorant, interfere in this discussion ?
Just forget it .
Fernando

You are certainly not ignorant, nor interfering Fernando, and as usual you make a good point.

LOL, I didn't word it very well I'm afraid.

I was envisioning battles on foot only, rather than from horseback as well.

I have often wondered how the two styles would 'clash'
In European fencing the correct distance is critical and the the wrist is key to many moves (in the up/down motion which is restricted by a sword with a large disk pomel). Being engaged by an opponent using a semi-rigid wrist style would (I assume) mean they would be constantly trying to move into 'your space' and in those circumstances the automatic response is to lunge for the kill, slash with the front third of the blade for a disabling wound or step back to maintain distance.
Sooooooo, if the Indian warriors defence is good, and an opening is not clear, then the British soldier would be constantly 'on the back foot' seeking to maintain distance and stab/slash, while the Indian Warrior would constantly be moving in to close the gap to their effective 'kill zone'.

I meant that (if my assumptions are right) having skilled opponents using these tactics which must have seemed both alien and very aggresive would have been a huge shock to the Brits (a revelation!).
I am of course assuming that both combatants are skilled with their weapon and using a practiced technique.


Hopefully someone can comment further on Tulwar fencing techniques, I've probobly got it all wrong!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

... I was envisioning battles on foot only, rather than from horseback as well

I was actually referring to infantry.

Originally Posted by Atlantia

I have often wondered how the two styles would 'clash'

According to certain sources, they didn't actually clash; that was precisely the aledged advantage of European swording.
Well i wasn't properly thinking Brits swords versus talwars, but more in line with the generic subject of the thread.
I was thinking of the discoveries period Portuguese (and immediate European followers) using swords provided with the ricasso, handling them with a 160º angle (second half XV century) and later rapiers opening at 180º (second half XVI century), able to blow a direct stab against the open chest of the 'Moor', busy brandishing his 'terçado' (talwar, scimitar) up in the air, for the viable slash.
In any case, we all know that actual fighting wasn't at all a swording procedure like they do in schools ... with all the catalogue gestures. In the heat of battle, if you could avoid clashing with all imaginable evasive moves and stab your foe by the side door, you would sure do it ... the hell with the catalogue.

Enough of bs.

Fernando

.

[Jim McDougall]

I'm glad you joined in Fernando, and nicely presented description of the earlier swordsmanship, which certainly does fall within the scope of this thread.....except the bs note The valued information you always provide is anything but! and as I have noted many times, your knowledge and sharing of historical material with keenly applied and important Portuguese perspective is outstanding. Thank you.

Thank you David, for the links to those threads, which really were interesting and apply nicely here.

Gene, I have more 'doh' moments than I can recall, and my little knowledge of fencing was more years ago than I care to admit, there was a guy named Cyrano hanging around
Regarding the military, again way back when, from what I can recall, in the other ranks, carrying out drill, inspections and all manner of military daily humdrum...guys did what they had to to avoid discipline or conflict, and avoided whatever they could get away with. In the times we are discussing, the 19th century, it was certainly the same from most accounts. The swords issued to troopers were an issued encumbrance, and were likely used in the field in all manner of utility as a matter of convenience, with little thought of dulling the blade as chopping a bit of firewood etc. They were then slid back into the unprotected iron scabbard, probably not oiled or especially cleaned off from whatever use they had been subjected.

Leaving for a moment, the complacency being described toward issued swords in the British ranks, we can look to the use of the sword in America in the 19th century. The cavalry tried to maintain the tradition of the sword, but firearms had established their superiority. One of the primary regulation troopers swords, though other forms had existed earlier, was the M1840 cavalry sabre. It is a well known collaquialism that these became termed 'the old wristbreaker'. The reason for this is that the men were so poorly trained in the use of these heavy sabres, that when they did try to use them, in the presumed fashion, they did not properly understand the dynamics, and thus probably did injure themselves.
During the Civil War, the few recorded wounds resulting from sabres were actually blunt force trauma, as the swords were so dull they seldom ever penetrated skin in the slashing blows.
The only reason for including this along with the European theme here, is to show that the regulation military apathy toward the issued swords in the 19th century was quite widespread.

All best regards,
Jim

[Gonzalo G]

I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles. I also think cavaly and infantry used more the lance in this period. Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields, and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers. I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.
Regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles...

Lances, classic swords, two handed swords (montantes), rapiers and even halberds, according to chronicles; each one was a primary weapon ,depending on the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields ...

Correct.

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers.

I guess the concept of troops was rather distinct in earlier days .
I may be mixing things, but it seems as combat fencing (manouverable sword and rapier) was schooled among nobles, a lot much earlier than that .

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

... I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.

I guess they wouldn't stop them with the rapier, but with their left hand dagger. Besides, warlike rapier blades were not so fragile as those from street fighting.

But don't hit me hard, Gonzalo; i wouldn't resist a serious test in the subject

Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=Gonzalo G]I am under the impression that you give much importance to the swords, which I believe were not a primary weapon in those times, nor they decided the result of the battles. I also think cavaly and infantry used more the lance in this period. Also, you have to take on account that tulwars or shamshir were used in combination with shields, and fencing was not made mainly as among 19th Century european troops, or as in a civil fight with rapiers. I don´t believe a classic rapier is capable to stop heavy weapons without been seriousy damaged.
Regards

Gonzalo[/QUOTE


I think that the lance was indeed a key weapon in European vs. European warfare, and the rapier was certainly a primarily civilian weapon from what I understand. In military context, the heavier bladed arming swords were used, as combat with armoured combatants would find little use for the more delicate blades of the rapier. The deadly estoc, was the sword emplaced in these situations.
The lance was, if I understand correctly, used in primarily shock action, and typically was either broken, or thrown down as the melee ensued following initial shock action. It was of little use in close quarters combat with its typically extensive length.

I believe the Spaniards used the lance differently in most cases, particularly in colonial settings. It seems that in New Spain, the primary use of the lance was more a result of lack of ammunition and servicable weapons in many locations of the frontier regions. These lances were shorter than their European predecessors, and were used as thrusting and stabbing weapons to extend reach from horseback. The Comanche tribes and soon other American Indian tribes adopted the use of the lance from thier contact with Spanish using them.

With the Portuguese in India, I'm not sure that the lance would have had the same employment as in the more standardized inter-European combat. It would seem that battles were likely more often defensive with Europeans dismounted in many of the battles and combat interactions.
In the case of most colonial powers entering native environments, it was presumed that they had superiority over what were thought to be simpler and savage populations with little understanding of warfare. In addition to the presumption of superiority in the sense of warfare, the Europeans were typically also driven by religious concept, considering themselves intrinsically more powerful than the populations they perceived as merely heathen in nature.

These perceptions of course became quickly reconsidered as it was realized that these native populations were far more advanced than imagined, and their spirit far more powerful as they defended themselves from incursions into thier lands.

I think much of this is described in a number of titles which focus on the concept of 'the noble savage'.

In sum, I would say that the lance was not typically the key weapon in European vs. Native warfare, with the exceptions noted in Colonial New Spain.

I would also include, in just recalling, the instance of the lance by the British cavalry in India, with one of the premier episodes being the charge of the 16th Lancers against the Sikhs at Aliwal, I believe 1846. There were of course the famed 'Bengal Lancers' as well, but trying to use these examples would seem to throw the discussion of course, as these were native regiments in the service of the British during the Raj. The focus here is on European weapons and use opposed to native weapons in kind.

All best regards,
Jim