European blades in India

Jim McDougall · 10th January 2016, 01:12 AM

Actually what I was trying to say was not that the British blades were superior to Indian blades, but that many of these M1796 blades found their way into Indian hands. The rest of the story had nothing to do with the quality of the British blades....but the care in maintaining them. In a further quote it was stated, the British troops learned the importance of SHARP swords.

Ironically, the British swords throughout the 19th century were constantly maligned for their poor quality and complaints from troops using them. In the latter 18th into the 19th this was the reason for the so called sword scandals in England with makers like John Gill, Henry Osborn, and others contesting the favor shown to German blades.

Actually I have never known of any such complaints against Indian blades, quite the contrary. While the Indians copied many foreign blade styles it does seem curious that they often used spurious European marks which have always been thought of as quality symbols. These blades were significantly of quality on their own merit.

The use of high quality wootz and other Indian blades were of course confined to officers who had carte blanche on their weapons, while rank and file accepted issued arms of regulation form.

I think what I was trying to address here was the mistaken notion that European blades were regarded derisively by Indians, and that actually European blades were often dispersed considerably among those in many regions in India. In my opinion, it had nothing to do with quality as much as pure availability. In the case of an abundance of blades coming in from abroad it does seem they would be used if others were not readily available or not yet produced.

In the situation with native military units in the British Raj, the units were each permitted to choose the weapons (within regulation parameters) which were of British pattern swords. In many cases the Indian troopers preferred their traditional tulwars, and I have seen a number produced, in Indian fashion, by Mole of Birmingham. Again, nothing to do with quality, it had to do with regulation and military control.

There is also the perspective of novelty or simple emulation between cultures. The British officers adopted Indian fashions in their uniforms, so the adoption of native weapons is quite understood. With Indian warriors, blades taken as trophies were certainly among those remounted, and this was quite possibly the case I referred to in remarks by Nolan.

There are far too many variables and situations to categorically specify that Indians disliked European blades, it is stated too broadly. What I wanted to point out is that instances regarding these blades need to be considered based on the merits of the circumstances at hand.

ariel · 10th January 2016, 02:58 AM

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 · 10th January 2016, 04:05 AM

"...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 · 10th January 2016, 10:34 AM

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 · 10th January 2016, 09:21 AM

Quote:

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 · 10th January 2016, 02:18 PM

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 · 10th January 2016, 03:02 PM

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 · 10th January 2016, 03:33 PM

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 · 10th January 2016, 04:05 PM

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 · 10th January 2016, 05:01 PM

Quote:

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

Jim McDougall · 10th January 2016, 04:01 PM

Quote:

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!

10th January 2016, 01:12 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Actually what I was trying to say was not that the British blades were superior to Indian blades, but that many of these M1796 blades found their way into Indian hands. The rest of the story had nothing to do with the quality of the British blades....but the care in maintaining them. In a further quote it was stated, the British troops learned the importance of SHARP swords. Ironically, the British swords throughout the 19th century were constantly maligned for their poor quality and complaints from troops using them. In the latter 18th into the 19th this was the reason for the so called sword scandals in England with makers like John Gill, Henry Osborn, and others contesting the favor shown to German blades. Actually I have never known of any such complaints against Indian blades, quite the contrary. While the Indians copied many foreign blade styles it does seem curious that they often used spurious European marks which have always been thought of as quality symbols. These blades were significantly of quality on their own merit. The use of high quality wootz and other Indian blades were of course confined to officers who had carte blanche on their weapons, while rank and file accepted issued arms of regulation form. I think what I was trying to address here was the mistaken notion that European blades were regarded derisively by Indians, and that actually European blades were often dispersed considerably among those in many regions in India. In my opinion, it had nothing to do with quality as much as pure availability. In the case of an abundance of blades coming in from abroad it does seem they would be used if others were not readily available or not yet produced. In the situation with native military units in the British Raj, the units were each permitted to choose the weapons (within regulation parameters) which were of British pattern swords. In many cases the Indian troopers preferred their traditional tulwars, and I have seen a number produced, in Indian fashion, by Mole of Birmingham. Again, nothing to do with quality, it had to do with regulation and military control. There is also the perspective of novelty or simple emulation between cultures. The British officers adopted Indian fashions in their uniforms, so the adoption of native weapons is quite understood. With Indian warriors, blades taken as trophies were certainly among those remounted, and this was quite possibly the case I referred to in remarks by Nolan. There are far too many variables and situations to categorically specify that Indians disliked European blades, it is stated too broadly. What I wanted to point out is that instances regarding these blades need to be considered based on the merits of the circumstances at hand. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 10th January 2016 at 01:28 AM.

10th January 2016, 02:58 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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 :-) Last edited by ariel; 10th January 2016 at 04:08 AM.

10th January 2016, 04:05 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	"...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'.

10th January 2016, 10:34 AM	#4
Helleri Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Chino, CA. Posts: 219	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?

10th January 2016, 02:18 PM	#6
sirupate Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England Posts: 373	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'

10th January 2016, 03:02 PM	#7
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	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. :-)

10th January 2016, 03:33 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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:-)

10th January 2016, 04:05 PM	#9
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 426	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.