Hi B.I,
I appreciate your comments, and understand your views. First of all I did say 'I MAY have the answer' , I didn't define it as 'THE' answer......I wanted to 'draw out' peoples views.
As regards the small hilts....small hands theory. I can see that this may have been the case in the Tulwars 'infancy'. But my understanding is that the Tulwar was quickly adopted by neighbouring cultures and races, whom did not have small hands. Surely, logically speaking, the hilt would have been extended. The hilt would have evolved, a restrictive hilt would be a disadvantage on the battle field and yet, as far as I know this did not happen. So, if this is the case, you have to ask yourself ....Why? The only explaination I can see is, so far, is that the hilt design is dictated by how the sword is used. It seems that the relative smallness of the hilt and the disc pommel 'trap' the hand, assuming this is deliberate, then the design function must be to insure the sword/hand do not part company, which suggests the Tulwar 'technique' is dis-similar to 'normal' swordplay.
The fact that we view this issue from differing perspectives is, I believe,
vitally important......a theory has to be constantly 'attacked' before it can be considered a fact.
|