Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 29th December 2015, 08:48 PM

Jens,
I measured only blades: straight line from the tip to the quillon block.
I also remeasured several other tulwars , Moroccan nimchas, turkish Shamshirs etc. All of them have blades between 75 and 82 cm.
I could hit the "90 cm" number only when I included the handles .

Size of a cavalry sword was derived from the length of the blade needed for a horse rider to slash at the enemy lying on the ground.

This is why I think the "short" ones were for the infantry. I could bring an argument of very short navy swords, but having "Afghanistan" and "navy" in the same sentence did not sound kosher:-) I hesitate to attribute them to the " youngsters brigade": ## 2 and 4 are very heavy.

What, IMHO, is interesting , is the massive reinforced tip on #4: we were told repeatedly that Indians used only slashing technique, and were not even acquainted with stabbing, and that's why many tulwars have rounded tips etc. What are we to do with this one? :-))

My "Deccani" attribution of #3 was based on the configuration of the handle. I do have my doubts about the blade: it looks kinda like S. Arabian nimcha. Cannot exclude the possibility of a later remounting.

Where did I go wrong with a tilt toward Deccan?

29th December 2015, 08:48 PM	#10
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jens, I measured only blades: straight line from the tip to the quillon block. I also remeasured several other tulwars , Moroccan nimchas, turkish Shamshirs etc. All of them have blades between 75 and 82 cm. I could hit the "90 cm" number only when I included the handles . Size of a cavalry sword was derived from the length of the blade needed for a horse rider to slash at the enemy lying on the ground. This is why I think the "short" ones were for the infantry. I could bring an argument of very short navy swords, but having "Afghanistan" and "navy" in the same sentence did not sound kosher:-) I hesitate to attribute them to the " youngsters brigade": ## 2 and 4 are very heavy. What, IMHO, is interesting , is the massive reinforced tip on #4: we were told repeatedly that Indians used only slashing technique, and were not even acquainted with stabbing, and that's why many tulwars have rounded tips etc. What are we to do with this one? :-)) My "Deccani" attribution of #3 was based on the configuration of the handle. I do have my doubts about the blade: it looks kinda like S. Arabian nimcha. Cannot exclude the possibility of a later remounting. Where did I go wrong with a tilt toward Deccan?