A very special 'tulwar'

Kubur · 25th June 2018, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Yes, Tirri doesn't give dimensions but, looks like a very large and heavy weapon.
I wonder why he gives Aurangzeb reference only to the the hilt style and not to the whole sword ... providing we can call it a sword.

Question: some Indian maces have tulwar handles but they are not called tulwar, right?
Do you think that your weapon is a tulwar - a sword - or a spear?
It looks like a spear to me...

Jens Nordlunde · 25th June 2018, 02:59 PM

Thank you Roland:-).

Tirri calls it a 'Trusting Tulwar'. Which I find is wrong, that is why I wrote 'tulwar', as I did, as I did not know what it was called in English - I only knew the German name.

ariel · 25th June 2018, 04:12 PM

Interesting....

Many authors assert that stabbing with swords was not a part of fencing techniques used in India. This one seems to contradict their statements. One possible explanation might be an idea borrowed from the Turks?

But then, I have a typical Pulwar-like sword with strongly reinforced point: a "stabber" if I ever saw one.

Jim McDougall · 25th June 2018, 06:01 PM

I think avoiding the name game is advisable, as has been noted, these type blades (i.e. stabbing, thrusting, armor piercing etc.) have been known in various countries and cultures. As with blades of all kinds, they are typically mounted with localized styles of hilts, which has little effect on the character of the weapon overall.

As noted by Jens, the term 'panzer steicher' (loosely armor piercing in German) is used descriptively there, while in France it is an 'estoc'; in Poland a 'koncerz' and in English often termed a 'tuck'. These were as noted, usually secondary weapons carried under the saddle and used as required.

They were on occasion quite long, in Poland as long as 62" blades, ranging to more manageable 36" in other cases, seldom ever weighing over 4 lbs. The section on these blades for thrusting was triangular, squared, or a flattened hexagon and some rhomboid....and I would imagine the variations were in accord with intended manner of use......however in no cases were these made for cutting and edges were not sharpened.

I would point out here that in many cases these were much akin to the zweihander in their uses, one being that of hunting. The so called parry hooks on these swords blades were actually to prevent the advance of a wounded animal up the blade rather than parry in combat.

Many of these estocs similarly had two hand hilts, so might have been used in many ways depending on circumstances.

In the hunt, it would seem feasible that a weapon such as this with notable length might be used to 'spear' an animal such as boar etc. though it would be challenging despite the reach with a hilt of the 'tulwar' form. These were not designed in what I have understood on swordsmanship in their use, as intended for thrusting but only slashing cuts. Though it would seem that if properly held with finger around guard it might be possible.

fernando · 25th June 2018, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Question: some Indian maces have tulwar handles but they are not called tulwar, right?
Do you think that your weapon is a tulwar - a sword - or a spear?
It looks like a spear to me...

For me, i would refer to the blade as the name giver and would call it an Estoc with a Talwar hilt ... while regarding the different spells of Estoc (tock, tuck, tucke ) .
In Norman's page 22-23 we can read how Sir John Smithe deals with this weapon typology.
«tocks very conveniently worne after the Hongarian and Turkie manner under their thighs which tocks are long narrow stiffe swords onlie for the thrust»
Whether the hilt type varies among countries/cultures and blade differs in profile and cross section (almost a rod some times ?) is another business. So happens with their purpose to perforate mail or only bodies, i guess.
The name Mec is apparently modern Turkish, pairing with European Panzerstecher or Hegyestor.

Kubur · 25th June 2018, 10:01 PM

Hi
For me estoc is not a weapon.
It's a way of striking an opponant.
But even the rapiers used for the estoc have sharp edges.
Is it possible to have close ups of the Indian mysterious weapon?

Jens Nordlunde · 25th June 2018, 10:08 PM

Kubur, you can see that the picture I have shown is from the book, and this is not too good, so to make a blow up would not help.

fernando · 26th June 2018, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

...For me estoc is not a weapon...

I would understand that some forms of estocs are not swords but, they are certainly weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

...It's a way of striking an opponant...

There could be a question of terminology depending in the various languages but, "estoc" would be the weapon, a strike (blow) with it, would be an "estocada".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

...But even the rapiers used for the estoc have sharp edges...

Perhaps not all had or needed sharp edges; it is a question of going back in time, when the true rapier was a long, narrow, rigid, nearly edgeless single-hand thrusting blade with a thick, tapering cross-section and very narrow and sharp point.
And if you go further back in time, prior to rapiers, you would find that, there were special Medieval thrusting swords, called estocs or tucks which were used since the 1300s. They were large, heavy, stiff, two-handed blades specifically designed to puncture or beat on plate armor. They were not handled like rapiers but are directly related to the use of Medieval swords held by the blade (what was called at the “half-sword”). Yet, it is conceivable that the idea for a rapier could have developed from an estoc or tuck.
They had many names in different countries and were essentially just sharp metal rods with square or triangular cross-sections and typically two large, round hand guards.
(Part of the above, courtesy of Arma Association)

Kubur · 26th June 2018, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

They had many names in different countries and were essentially just sharp metal rods with square or triangular cross-sections and typically two large, round hand guards.
(Part of the above, courtesy of Arma Association)

Of course, you are perfectly right.
My only problem here is that I'm not sure that the weapon presented above is a sword. To me it's a spear with an handle...
I'm not sure that it was used with two hands, the forte has a twisted part and it's not very user friendly...

Roland_M · 26th June 2018, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

And if you go further back in time, prior to rapiers, you would find that, there were special Medieval thrusting swords, called estocs or tucks which were used since the 1300s. They were large, heavy, stiff, two-handed blades specifically designed to puncture or beat on plate armor.

Hi Fernando,

your explanation is almost perfectly right. But with a long Estoc or "Panzerstecher" it is nearly impossible to puncture a hardened quality iron plate armor. Even a 1000 pound crossbow from a distance of 10-15 meters, hardly manage it, to cut deeper than one inch into a hardened iron plate armor.

So the Estoc or Panzerstecher is designed to find the gaps and holes in the enemys armor. The armpits are never fully protected for example. So it was a most important technique, to find the gaps in the armor around the armpits.

By the way, the Tulwar here is a battlefield sword, as a hunting sword it needs a stopper, as on boar spears, ~25cm away from the point. Otherwise it would be a deadly exercisze to catch a boar with this sword. It will probably run completely through the blade, even when the heart is punctured, and hurt or kill the hunter.

The Tular is either a weapon for the battlefield or maybe has been used for the finishing stroke (coup de grâce) for badly hurted enemys and/or own soldiers after the battle.

Roland

fernando · 26th June 2018, 02:44 PM

Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts.
I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880.
On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though.

.

Kubur · 26th June 2018, 03:08 PM

Ok just to be more clear
I also think that this weapon was for the Maratha...

Roland_M · 26th June 2018, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts.
I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880.
On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though.

.

Hi Fernando,

I only claimed that a crossbow is too weak to penetrate plate armor efficiently, because i saw that on Youtube a few weeks ago:

350 lb only dents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ
1200 lb a little bit of a puncture but the bolt wont stuck in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byc887HmUdc

The bolt is too slow with ~200fps for more effectiveness.

Plate armor for the battlefield was between 1.5 and 3mm thick and hardened.

As far as i know long bows are unable to deeply penetrate every kind of armor exept the weakest ones.

I have read in another comment that this Tulwar could be a hunting sword and this was just my poorly placed answer to that.

Best wishes,
Roland

26th June 2018, 02:44 PM	#11
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Isn't this what they call the arms race ? Roland, i confess i could not sustain this discussion in skilled terms but i believe that, in certain circumstances and time stage longbows and crossbows were capable of piercing armour plate, providing they had an appropriate arrowhead and managed a direct hit; this is why breastplate central quills were implemented in the XVI century, to deflect the arrow impact, so as flutes in other susceptible armour parts. I guess you would also have to ponder on the steel thickness and its temper; early plate 16 to 18 gauge (1.6 - 1.3 m/m) soft iron used in field armour was not properly the 5 m/m thick plate apparatus used by Ned Kelly in 1880. On the other hand, i fail to see the similarity between the need for a stopper in a hunting sword and this tulwar hilted estoc, or other of the kind. A man with his chest armour punctured doesn't have the strength to run through the blade like a wounded boar; but i might be wrong, though. . Last edited by fernando; 26th June 2018 at 02:56 PM.

26th June 2018, 03:08 PM	#12
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Ok just to be more clear I also think that this weapon was for the Maratha... Attached Images

25th June 2018, 02:59 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you Roland:-). Tirri calls it a 'Trusting Tulwar'. Which I find is wrong, that is why I wrote 'tulwar', as I did, as I did not know what it was called in English - I only knew the German name.

25th June 2018, 04:12 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Interesting.... Many authors assert that stabbing with swords was not a part of fencing techniques used in India. This one seems to contradict their statements. One possible explanation might be an idea borrowed from the Turks? But then, I have a typical Pulwar-like sword with strongly reinforced point: a "stabber" if I ever saw one.

25th June 2018, 06:01 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	I think avoiding the name game is advisable, as has been noted, these type blades (i.e. stabbing, thrusting, armor piercing etc.) have been known in various countries and cultures. As with blades of all kinds, they are typically mounted with localized styles of hilts, which has little effect on the character of the weapon overall. As noted by Jens, the term 'panzer steicher' (loosely armor piercing in German) is used descriptively there, while in France it is an 'estoc'; in Poland a 'koncerz' and in English often termed a 'tuck'. These were as noted, usually secondary weapons carried under the saddle and used as required. They were on occasion quite long, in Poland as long as 62" blades, ranging to more manageable 36" in other cases, seldom ever weighing over 4 lbs. The section on these blades for thrusting was triangular, squared, or a flattened hexagon and some rhomboid....and I would imagine the variations were in accord with intended manner of use......however in no cases were these made for cutting and edges were not sharpened. I would point out here that in many cases these were much akin to the zweihander in their uses, one being that of hunting. The so called parry hooks on these swords blades were actually to prevent the advance of a wounded animal up the blade rather than parry in combat. Many of these estocs similarly had two hand hilts, so might have been used in many ways depending on circumstances. In the hunt, it would seem feasible that a weapon such as this with notable length might be used to 'spear' an animal such as boar etc. though it would be challenging despite the reach with a hilt of the 'tulwar' form. These were not designed in what I have understood on swordsmanship in their use, as intended for thrusting but only slashing cuts. Though it would seem that if properly held with finger around guard it might be possible.

25th June 2018, 10:01 PM	#6
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Hi For me estoc is not a weapon. It's a way of striking an opponant. But even the rapiers used for the estoc have sharp edges. Is it possible to have close ups of the Indian mysterious weapon?

25th June 2018, 10:08 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Kubur, you can see that the picture I have shown is from the book, and this is not too good, so to make a blow up would not help.