View Single Post
Old 6th November 2016, 07:24 PM   #17
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando
But while short grips in Indian swords were a (sort of) standard situation, i believe the majority of cup hilt swords grips had normal lengths, notwithstanding relatively short ones were so because as, the manner to hold the sword with finger/s wraping the front section, would not need them to be made larger. Still you have extreme situations, where pondering on such fashion results in examples like the one attached, where only three fingers could hold the actual grip. The civilian that owned this sword was certainly a short fellow, its blade only measuring 83 cms.

.

Well observed, and good insight toward these situational matters in cuphilts. As you say, the Indian situation was far more 'standardized' as clearly the general size of Indian hands was of course smaller as a rule. This was indeed so much so that even British production of swords for native forces had 'Indian' pattern regulation swords with smaller hilts .
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote