Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jens Nordlunde · 22nd August 2005, 07:51 PM

Hi Tim,

This question has, as you most likely know, been discussed several times, and will no doubt be discussed again later.

It is likely that the Indians used big boys for soldiers, when they could not get others, but I doubt very much that the small hilts were made be course of that, as most of the soldiers were grown up men.

I don’t think the hilts were made small be course the swords were not supposed to be used, as all Indian swords were made to be used, although I grant you, that some were not made for battle, but their hilts were of the same size as the swords used for battle.

At one point it was suggested that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon, I have never seen this grip on the miniatures I have seen, and to do this, is to ‘ask’ to get it cut off. Should the man survive the wound/operation, the hilt would of course fit – but still. Besides should this have been the case, they would no doubt have had a ring attached to the quillon for protection of the index finger.

It has also been suggested that the hilt had to be narrow so the hand was forced into a tight grip. This is not likely, as I don’t think anyone would be able to fight for a whole day with his finger pressed together like that.

Another suggestion is, that people in India, just like in Europe, were smaller two hundred years ago than they are now. This is true, and could be part of the answer, another part of the answer could be, that the Indians maybe have a finer bone structure than most Europeans, but if we go back to the eight grains being the average of a finger, the hand would still be too broad – so, so far the answer is open.

BTW try to measure the hilts of the European swords from the same period, and why you are at it, try to measure the hilts of pesh kabz and other knifes – why are these hilts bigger?

Maybe it is a combination of the above mentioned, although I don’t buy the one with the trigger finger.

22nd August 2005, 07:51 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Tim, This question has, as you most likely know, been discussed several times, and will no doubt be discussed again later. It is likely that the Indians used big boys for soldiers, when they could not get others, but I doubt very much that the small hilts were made be course of that, as most of the soldiers were grown up men. I don’t think the hilts were made small be course the swords were not supposed to be used, as all Indian swords were made to be used, although I grant you, that some were not made for battle, but their hilts were of the same size as the swords used for battle. At one point it was suggested that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon, I have never seen this grip on the miniatures I have seen, and to do this, is to ‘ask’ to get it cut off. Should the man survive the wound/operation, the hilt would of course fit – but still. Besides should this have been the case, they would no doubt have had a ring attached to the quillon for protection of the index finger. It has also been suggested that the hilt had to be narrow so the hand was forced into a tight grip. This is not likely, as I don’t think anyone would be able to fight for a whole day with his finger pressed together like that. Another suggestion is, that people in India, just like in Europe, were smaller two hundred years ago than they are now. This is true, and could be part of the answer, another part of the answer could be, that the Indians maybe have a finer bone structure than most Europeans, but if we go back to the eight grains being the average of a finger, the hand would still be too broad – so, so far the answer is open. BTW try to measure the hilts of the European swords from the same period, and why you are at it, try to measure the hilts of pesh kabz and other knifes – why are these hilts bigger? Maybe it is a combination of the above mentioned, although I don’t buy the one with the trigger finger.