European blades in India

[ariel]

As regard to the relative quality of Indian vs. British swords, one needs to remember that Indian swords were very heterogeneous: from superb quality to a very poor one. Even now we regularly see native blades of poor temper, haphazardous fullers, forging flaws and patches of burnt steel. Those were the weapons of the rank and file, whereas the high stratum enjoyed superb wootz, elegant decorations and tons of rubies on the handle (BTW, making holding them rather uncomfortable). Those were stored in special rooms and never were bared in anger. This is why we see quantities of them in the museums.
In contrast, industrial production of British swords was aimed at (and actually achieved) complete uniformity, solid quality and reliability. They were used without modifications by everybody.

Perhaps, this was why Indians wanted to have European blades and put fake markings on locally-made ones: the owner might not have an Assadulla, but would certainly have gotten ( or hoped to get) no lemon:-)

In might be amusing to know whether horrifying damages inflicted by the Indians on the Brits ( see references by Sirupate) were not in fact made by the old and retired 1796 blades, sharpened properly and struck hard, as conveyed by poor Lew Nolan :-)

[Jim McDougall]

"...Nolan was particularly interested in Nizams Irregular Horse. He had recently read a medical report of an engagement in which these troops had defeated a superior force of Rohillas and had been astonished by the havoc created by their swords.: heads and arm completely severed, hands cut off at a single blow, and legs above the knee. Was this the work of giants? or of some peculiar quality of the sword blade or its use? The answer surprised him. THE SWORDS TURNED OUT TO BE MERELY OLD BLADES, DISCARDED BY BRITISH DRAGOONS, cut to a razor edge and worn in wooden scabbards from which they were never drawn except in action. But Nolan may have given insufficient credit to these broad, curved spear point * blades the light cavalry sword of 1796. He inquired to the secret of the cavalrymans skill and was struck by the simplicity of the reply.
We never teach them any way sir, a sharp sword will cut in anyone's hand, said one of Nizams seasoned troopers, The lesson of a sharp sword was one that Nolan never forgot".

"Nolan Of Balaclava"
H. Moyse-Bartlett, London 1971 , p.121

* naturally the author is in error re: spear points.....these were referred to as 'hatchet points'.

[Helleri]

I thought Indian Crucible steel was tougher then many Euro Steels? wasn't that why it was being sent to England around 1795 for metallurgical analysis?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

In might be amusing to know whether horrifying damages inflicted by the Indians on the Brits ( see references by Sirupate) were not in fact made by the old and retired 1796 blades, sharpened properly and struck hard, as conveyed by poor Lew Nolan :-)

Ariel, your own thinking - it's great! But perhaps you have other than your words have evidence? For example, citations from the books?
Because those who saw how the Indians used Talwar wrote the following:
«An effective thrust is much more easier learnt that drawing cut which makes the tulwar such a terribly effective weapon in the hand of the expert swordsman». The Earl of Cardigan The Cavalry of the Territorial Army, The Nineteenth Century and After, 1908.

And there are no words about the sabers of the model 1796

I'm sorry my bad english

[sirupate]

An interesting point Mahratt, but in the case of John Ship he was using a 1796 Light Cavalry sabre which according to Ship the Gorkha Chieftain with his Tulwar; 'he nearly cut my poor twenty-fourther in pieces'

[Pukka Bundook]

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. :-)

[ariel]

Yes. That's why I mentioned hard strike together with sharp blade. With these two conditions one can get lucky even if the sword is garage-made:-)

1796 was heavy, not as fast as shashka, but the steel quality was excellent and in the hands of a burly English lad it beat the hell out of every other sharp and pointy thing. This is why it was adopted ( with minor cosmetic modifications) by so many other armies. Kind of AK-47 of the 19th century:-)

[Mercenary]

I just wanted to know were there any mentions of the fact that the Indians valued European blades in general . As I understand it now, we do not have any references at all.
The links that prove the opposite opinion I posted above.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

I just wanted to know were there any mentions of the fact that the Indians valued European blades in general . As I understand it now, we do not have any references at all.
The links that prove the opposite opinion I posted above.

I am unclear on this. You are looking for specific quotations which state that the Indians favored European blades?

With the General's sword of 1821 ('Gothic' hilt or three bar)you posted with the Indian blade.....it is quite understandable that he would prefer an Indian blade as this particular pattern was quite plagued with complaints. In Brian Robson's "Swords of the British Army" (1975) this dilemma is summed up describing their use in the Crimean war where blades bent or broke, and were generally inadequate. This was partly why the '1821' patterns' production was interrupted by around 1823 and did not resume until 1829.

With this reputation, and the fact that officers had more leeway in their choice of weapons, the General no doubt favored the Indian made blades over the questionable British ones...the rank and file had no choice.

As far as Indians 'favoring' or extolling the virtues of 'European' blades, I feel sure we can probably find a quote somewhere where this expressed verbatim, however the evidence of constant use of European blades would seem to suggest that they used them considerably..like them or not.

I think in Pant ("Indian Arms and Armor') it decribes Tipu Sahib as being quite fond of his 'ANDREA FERARA' sword, and with the German blades used these were termed 'Alemani' and again quite favored in Deccani context.
With the Mahratta, the adoption of the basket hilt form from Europeans to their traditional khanda and the use of European blades seem to have virtually cemented the term 'firangi' in place with the preponderance of these swords extant. So the swords known as 'alemani' and 'firangi', both representing foreign or European bladed swords seems prevalent......thus implying that the Indian's probably were 'OK' with European blades.

As for an exact quote to support this demonstrative evidence, it may take some time but perhaps can be found somewhere.......maybe in an ad in Indian media of the time merchandizing European blades

[ariel]

Jim,
Not to forget that Henry Lawrence was born in Ceylon, spent virtually all his life in India ( with the exception of a short stint in England) and even died at the siege of Lucknow.

His allegiance was impeccably British, but a sentiment toward all things Indian was very strong.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

With the Mahratta, the adoption of the basket hilt form from Europeans to their traditional khanda and the use of European blades seem to have virtually cemented the term 'firangi' in place with the preponderance of these swords extant. So the swords known as 'alemani' and 'firangi', both representing foreign or European bladed swords seems prevalent......thus implying that the Indian's probably were 'OK' with European blades.

Hi, Jim!

And how do you feel about the opinion of Rawson, who believes that the basket hilt form is of Indian origin?

"The Hindu Basket hilt was developed in the West Deccan round about 1500 AD. It is a formal development from the Old Indian, in that the fundamental pattern of grip, guard, seating process and pommel is preserved "

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

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. :-)

Richard, thank you so much for the kind note....and especially for reading my post!!! which indeed cites from a book. Your supportive comments are spot on!