Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David R
Thanks for showing off such a nice sword, for some reason we don't see many around.
I was at one Militaria fair and a dealer had a box full of these style hilts, I bought a number of them off him. Most of them battered and mutilated, some better than others, and I still have the best two of the bunch.
I think the "problem" with the European bladed ones is that the blades are often taken out, and then fitted up with Western hilts to sell as original 16th and 17th century rapiers and basket hilts.
The same is also done with good 1796 light cavalry blades in Tulwar hilts.......
|
These are excellent observations in my opinion, and the constant refurbishing and re-assembly of hilts, whether contemporary in working life of the weapons, or more modern production of industrious sellers is hard to say.
We know that the movement of blades in trade networks has been a most standard commodity, and so much so that viable identification of a weapon is complicated and typically relies mostly on hilt style.
The note on removal of European blades from ethnographic weapons is well placed, and Oakeshott commented on how many 'kaskara' from Sudan in early 20th c. were dismantled to have such blades remounted in European medieval style hilts for obvious reasons.
I have seen many Indian tulwars sporting British blades, and authentically as it was noted by Nolan (famed for his part in Light Brigade charge) that the British were intrigued by the effectively deadly use of sabers by Indian warriors in Sikh wars. They were horrified when they discovered that the blades were actually from earlier British M1796 sabers, but honed to razor sharpness and held in wood scabbards.
Thus the penchant for European and often British blades ( despite some derisive regard for British ones) was well established in India, with German blades most preferred. Much of the attraction seems to have been status oriented, particularly obvious with rapier blades, which of course were designed for sword play not characteristic of Indian versions (the thrust was not much favored in India).
The trade and use of blades, regardless of original source, was vaguely defined at best, and alliances, agreements (?) and exchange could not be accurately observed. Commodities, including blades, often exchanged through various entrepots and intermediaries making distinct attribution difficult if not nearly impossible.
I would say the markings on the Indian 'firangi' in the OP, which is what I would consider a handsome example, resemble many of the combinations used on North Italian blades, and these were produced for schiavona and other swords typically like this in early 17th c. +
The application of the 'star' by Indian artisans would typically not be added to the familiar 'eyelash'/'sickle mark, but was well known on true Italian blades (see Boccia & Coelho, "Armi Bianchi Italiene").
The term 'firangi' , as well 'beaten to death' by collectors, is simply the term used to describe a European(or foreign) blade in an Indian hilt form.
This style sword shown in OP was the 'Hindu basket hilt' which derived from the old Indian sword known dialectically as 'khanda'.
Technically even tulwars with European or British blades might be considered 'firangi'. However, even the term tulwar is a broad term used not only to describe the familiar Indo-Persian hilt version, but 'shamshir' hilted versions or even actual shamshirs in Indian context. In the British Raj, regulation British sabers for native regiments were called tulwars!