A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[Jim McDougall]

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.

Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.

Excellent insight. Indeed I recall the word talwar is pretty much generally a term for sword not otherwise specified, but perhaps you can fill us in on the proper etymology use of the word. While the hilt form we are familiar with with disc pommel etc. is called Indo-Persian tulwar......we know there are hilts with 'shamshir' like hilts (again the word is simply Persian for sabre)....and these in India are also called Tulwar.
In the British Native cavalry units the British regulation swords used by them are also commonly referred to as 'tulwar'.

I was not aware that the Turkic and Steppes tribes or the Mongols engaged in sword to sword combat, and thought the cut and run method using the sweeping draw cut was thier way, if I am understanding what you are saying.

Of course with the EIC presence in the 18th century, European style sword combat methods became known, but not too sure that tribal warriors bought into it.

In Maratha India, there are examples of 'khandas' with European rapier blades, but I am pretty certain the Hindu basket hilt khanda was not used in fencing.

In the south the term khanda refers to sword in a general sense much in the way tulwar is used in the north, but these became called Hindu basket hilts with the larger hilt used post contact (with Europe in 16th c but not clarifying other possible contacts etc. ).

[ariel]

As far as I remember, stories about Indian swordplay ( no parrying, just shield and jumping) came from the Brits as well.
But I am not sure it has any relations to the topic of this discussion. Aren't we talking about stabbing competence of katars with reinforced points?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

As far as I remember, stories about Indian swordplay ( no parrying, just shield and jumping) came from the Brits as well.
But I am not sure it has any relations to the topic of this discussion. Aren't we talking about stabbing competence of katars with reinforced points?

Exactly, well noted Ariel, we have digressed from that topic enough. Back to the dynamics of the katar in use for penetration.

[ariel]

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.


Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.


Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

Well! Alrighty then!!!!