Thanks David and Gene! I think the example of tulwar vs. British regulation sabres is a great one to follow the thesis of the topic here, and using the weapons as our focus, which is exactly what places this in the theme of our forum.
I recall the great discussion that David refers to, and it was a thread by Pukka Bundook (Richard, Feb. 24, 2007, "Tulwar vs. Sabre"). In the discussion was reference to the key importance of sharp blades, noted by Louis Nolan (an enthusiastic young British cavalry officer known for his attention to improving many aspects of military thought, before his death in the immortal charge at Balaklava October, 25,1854). He was a cavalry officer in India prior to that event, and spent keen attention in studying the effectiveness of the deadly swordsmanship of native Indian warriors, with special interest in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had read reports of an engagement against a force of Rohillas describing horrendous results to the British troopers. When he looked further into the weapons these Rohilla forces had used, he was astounded to find they were old British M1796 blades discarded by the British and cut to razor edge, kept in wooden scabbards. When asking one of the British allied troopers of Nizams unit about what was unique about the skill of these warriors, and was struck by the simple reply, "...we never teach them any way Sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyones hand". Nolan never forgot the lesson of the importance of the sharp blade.
"Nolan of Balaklava" H.Moyse-Barnett, London, 1971, p.121
It was clear that maintaining the servicability of ones weapon, was most certainly a key factor in effectiveness in battle. With regard to this aspect, I will note that the quality of the weapons is obviously important as well. It is noted that these 'old' discarded blades were from the M1796 pattern cavalry sabres, which had wide, heavy blades with heavy 'hatchet' type points which radiused into widened slashing tips. The British blades of the end of the 18th into early 19th century were also largely products of intense scrutiny in the competitive conflict between English bladesmiths and German imported blades in what became known as the 'sword scandals'.
The blades produced in this period in England were profoundly sound, and only found obsolescence with the familiar advent of 'improved' commerce.
I have known many examples of Indian tulwars with both M1796 and M1788 light cavalry blades. In his post in the previously mentioned thread, Richard cites a book titled "Sahib" by Richard Holmes, noting (p.351) that a young British officer had a sword custom made by Wilkinson to regular pattern, and honed to razor edge, polished to mirror finish, but that it would not effectively cut.
While this would seem to defy the previous discussion noting the use of British blades to new effect by simply sharpening them, I would point out that by the time Wilkinson was producing swords, it was much later in the century. The custom making of swords by Wilkinson was not unusual, most of thier swords for officers were, and polishing and decoration were more the norm, as swords for officers were more traditional accoutrement. Times had dramatically changed with the advanced technology of firearms, and the sound blades of earlier swords were roughly comparable in analogy of the construction of vintage autos opposed to modern production examples.
I think the next point of focus would be as noted by David, that of technique. While it is previously noted that the Indian warriors did not receive any special training with thier weapons, it is important to note that the weapon was an instrumental part of thier culture. They became personally involved with thier own weapons, from iconic symbolism with manhood and strength to sometimes spritual and religious perspective. The weapon was afforded respect, and treated accordingly, almost lovingly cared for, and seldom ever drawn out of its protective scabbard except for use in action or obviously maintainance.
As has often been shown, the standing military, in this case of Great Britain, were often reluctant participants simply complying with orders and mundane existance. They were not typically empassioned in following a particular ideal and seemingly in most cases regarded their weapons impersonally as assigned tools, used as necessities in accomplishing thier compliance in battle while simply hoping to survive. This is of course a rather bland assessment of the business of warfare that in no way is meant to diminish the courage, and acts of heroism that often evolve out of it, nor the integrity of the sturdy men who fulfill thier duty regardless of personal view or acceptance of circumstances.
They were trained in repititious, mechanical drill that was of course not possible to factor in the unexpected variables encountered in many cases of actual battle, and using such structured techniques in order to be effective, required specified and expected techniques from the opposing participants.
I always think of the humor noted regarding the American Revolution, where the British marched in line wearing red uniforms outlining them as perfectly lined targets for the virtually camouflaged colonists attacking from the underbrush surrounding. Another instance I read concerned a British cavalry trooper who encountering an enemy cavalry trooper, struck at him with the prescribed drill manuever in number, and was outraged when his opponent responded with a cut entirely out of order, knocking him off his horse!
Before allowing this post to enter Tolstoy proportions, I'll end here
With all best regards,
Jim