Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Tulwar hilt and disc pommel.....the reason for their design

B.I · 4th July 2006, 07:31 AM

hi katana,
this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question

the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories.
i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion.
your original question said -

Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer

i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us.
i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine.
not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller.
sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows.
i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

4th July 2006, 07:31 AM	#23
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi katana, this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories. i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion. your original question said - Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us. i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine. not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller. sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows. i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.