Short-bladed Indo-Afghani sabers

[ariel]

1.You do not have to believe, just Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averag...ght_by_country

2. As to Indian horse height: Arabian 57-61"; Akhal-Teke 58-64"; Marwari ( Malani) , the quintessential Indian horse 56-64". Most horses in India stem from Arabian and Central Asian breeds, they were imported en masse.

3. See famous miniature " Sivaji on the march" ( you can find it in Egerton, Plate II, between pp.26-27). Half of infantry escort carries curved sabers. I did not even mention weights.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

1.You do not have to believe, just Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averag...ght_by_country

mean body temperature of patients throughout the hospital

Tamils, Khonds, hill tribes, nomads, Rajputs, Jains, Gujaratis, Turks, Mughals, Afghans, Tajiks, Iranians, Nepalese, Arabs, Africans and more.... All of them were and are Indian.... the average value ...

Originally Posted by ariel

2. As to Indian horse height: Arabian 57-61"; Akhal-Teke 58-64"; Marwari ( Malani) , the quintessential Indian horse 56-64". Most horses in India stem from Arabian and Central Asian breeds, they were imported en masse.

In India there were a lot of local horses, small due to natural conditions and not hybridized with the Arabian horses like Marwari or other.

Originally Posted by ariel

3. See famous miniature " Sivaji on the march" ( you can find it in Egerton, Plate II, between pp.26-27). Half of infantry escort carries curved sabers. I did not even mention weights.

I do not draw my conclusions from one miniature or one book.
The criterion may be as follows: a more straightened talwar would be primarily a weapon of a foot warrior, and a shorter curved saber (and heavier) is a weapon of a rider. There may be other assumptions, I do not argue, but I am ready to justify my own, but not here.

[ariel]

OK, having spent some time on personal impressions, height of S. Indian tribesmen, average body temperature in the hospital and other profound issues, can we go back to the original question: does the difference in the blade length imply differential use by cavalry/infantry? Short-bladed #3 ( the lowest) has a mail-piercing ( zirah bouk-ish) tip, implying stabbing as its significant function. Any thoughts?

[shayde78]

Originally Posted by ariel

Short-bladed #3 ( the lowest) has a mail-piercing ( zirah bouk-ish) tip, implying stabbing as its significant function. Any thoughts?

Not that your original question want a good one, but I find this question very compelling. I am sure there are plenty of examples and that I have simply not thought to pay attention, but I don't think I've seen a zirah bouk tip on a curved blade (of sword length) of a form typically associated with slashing cuts. Is this at all common and does it prove the thrust was part of established tulwar play?

[ariel]

You are correct: “ zirah bouk-ish” Indo-Afghani swords ( not daggers!) are very rare. I can recall seeing maybe 3-4, no more. But they do exist. One could entertain an idea that they might have come to Persia/India from the nomads: kind of atavistic feature, akin to our coccyx:-) By many accounts piercing/stabbing was not a part of Indian swordplay.

Were the short-bladed swords merely individual orders for especially short individuals? Why all 3 have very broad and as a result heavy blades?
Usually we assume that short-bladed sword from N. Africa/Arabia belong to a “naval” group; tough to include the Afghani ones in it.

A whole bunch of open questions.

[Nihl]

Just to inject another "IMO" in here about sword tips & shapes & all:
In regards to the "zirah bouk-ish" sword I would point out that the blade shape is both in form and decoration blatantly 19th century - which is to say it was made during the "twilight of the sword" when such weapons were more often carried for display & status than for anticipation of combat. Don't get me wrong, of course plenty of people were still using swords to fight and kill each other on every corner of the planet - and this blade is by no means an exception, I'm sure it could be quite deadly when properly used & sharpened - but this use was quite limited by the extensive colonization and use of firearms that defined the era. As a result, I would argue that this Afghan trade blade (as I have seen this particular blade type identified as) was made primarily with show in mind, and not to demonstrate or emphasize any particular martial concept.

In regards to blade length and curvature (in general), I would just say "different strokes for different folks." Some people fought more in close quarters, and as a result needed smaller blades. Given the emphasis of draw-cutting in Indian swordsmanship, it makes sense that the curve of these swords - as well as their weight - would be condensed to match their size, so as to not throw off the user when handling them (or at least that sounds like a logical reason for the proportions in my mind). Overall they're just Indian/Indo-Persian cutlasses, not much more to 'em.

[ariel]

To summarize:
A weapon for close quarters fights , I.e. infantry ?

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

OK, having spent some time on personal impressions, height of S. Indian tribesmen, average body temperature in the hospital and other profound issues, can we go back to the original question: does the difference in the blade length imply differential use by cavalry/infantry? Short-bladed #3 ( the lowest) has a mail-piercing ( zirah bouk-ish) tip, implying stabbing as its significant function. Any thoughts?

In no way a blade with such curvature and width, could possibly penetrate even modest armour.

The shape of the tip is most certainly purely decorative.

As with regards to the blades size/weight, cavalry blades tend to be somehow longer and heavier.

However, this is valid ONLY when talking about regular, standardized military European units.