I think Jim has it summed up pretty well.
The English swords were consistent, not as good as the best tulwar maybe, but much better than the worst! Therefore an object of desire for the lower Indian ranks who would otherwise be possibly stuck with one of the latter.
The exception was the 1796, as mentioned above, and a great favourite everywhere.
The key was the blade being Sharp though, as mentioned numerous times above, And the fact that a blade with more curve will slice better, particularly if the 'target' is festooned in multiple layers of cloth.
Much first -hand material could be added to Sirupate' interesting list, if we referenced the book "Sahib".
Time after time we see references to the native tulwar chopping off arms and legs at a blow, as well as slicing clean through a torso at one stroke.
These blows were sometimes described as delivered "with a hissing sound" ......in other words, the sword wielder was giving it all he had.(And That will also make a difference in how effective a cut is!!)
One more point re. how effective a sword may be, is the amount of training or use the individual has had. A person who has grown up wielding one will be more comfortable (and better) with it than a man trained in later years.
We know how the steel scabbard dulls the blade, but sometimes even tulwars in their wooden sheathes were worn "sharp side up" so as to keep the cutting edge as keen as possible.
It may be that though the English blades in the O.P. "would not cut butter", this problem could have been rectified easily with a good sharpening.
My own pocket knife can get dull at times. :-)
|