Monstrous Indian Sword

Valjhun · 9th June 2006, 07:55 PM

No, I'm not the owner. However I know the guy who made the last bid on that. He is not a member of this forum.

I havent got your point....

"maybe even wootz the owner will have to ethch it" - I said that 'cos it the material looks like welded steel, but maybe a wootz pattern will show up if the buyer decides to etch it.

"as I haven't handled it" - Well, I haven't had that particular sword in my hand. I sad that, 'cos I'd liked to accenuate that my opinions about the fighting qualities of that sword are mere speculation based on logic.

I really don't know what have you meant with your Sherlock Holmes post.

B.I · 9th June 2006, 09:22 PM

hi valjhun,
i didnt mean anything bad by it, but was just a little confused.
by looking at the winners history, he was the same guy that won this sword

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2511

in that thread, you mentioned that you had bought the sword.

so, sherlock holmes put the two together and figured that you were the winning bidder.

i wouldnt be surprised if i was wrong, as i always thought that watson was the brains anyway.

no offence meant.

Valjhun · 9th June 2006, 09:33 PM

In fact he bought it for me toghether with some other items, 'cos I had probblems the last month with my credit card issuer, according to paypal. wich is not the case with that dhul fagar, I'm affraid (and frustrated

)

B.I · 9th June 2006, 09:43 PM

did your friend decide to keep it himself

nothing worse than a collector/dealer as he will only sell things that he doesnt like himself! personally, i prefer someone that will sell his right arm for a profit as at least you get a chance for the good stuff.
appologies for the accusations

Valjhun · 9th June 2006, 09:55 PM

Yes, you're right Brian, but the worst thing is maybe that at the end it's me the seller who sometime sells his "mistakes", well for a profit at least.

Now, about that sword, what do you think about its practical implementation?

Rick · 9th June 2006, 10:49 PM

If I might offer an observation in a somewhat humorous light ; when you get down to the split the blade looks 'too light to fight , and too thin to win'.

I would think that if one were lucky enough to get a blade trapped in the split area and tried to twist it out their opponent's hand they might well end up with two very unaligned points ; the area (IMO) lacks 'beef'.

I just wonder if this is an old hilt married to a newer blade and meant to be brought back from Indja with a Britisher during the late 19th .

As a matter of fact I'm doubting any of this piece is "17th C."

B.I · 9th June 2006, 11:43 PM

hi,
again, purely speculative and only an opinion. i have handled a few of these and they are of a type. most of them had similar basket hilts, so i dont feel its a marriage (unless evidence hints that way). also, if you ignore the blade, and judge the hilt, it seems late 18thC and not any earlier. tirri was not privy to any information past personal opinion, and his opinion is as valid as mine, but i just dont agree with it (the nature of speculation).
if it werent for the hilt i would think it a 19thC ceremonial piece. the hilt form hints at an earlier age. i dont find it plausable that a collection of these all had their hilts changed in a similar way, so i am going with the assumption that if i feel the hilt is 18thC, then the blade is probably of a same age.
even with this age, i still feel it was of a ceremonial origin. duplicating an opinion of what a 'holy' sword looked like hints at this, as i dont feel that battle asthetics would be sacrificed for a holy look.
i cant judge martial aspects, as i have never held an interest or opinion on this, and others are more suited to do so. i dont hold to opinions on the split or hole being created as a sword catcher as this thought process doesnt exist on any other swords of this culture, so why this one?
the hilt is southern but i cant think of which region would produce such a weapon. the presence of the split indicates an islamic nature. it is not deccani at all, so which culture embraced islam in the south. a mystery. maybe it is maharathan and the split being a zulfigar is misleading. or, maybe they are from a part of the south that embraced islam, but were not powerful enough to leave an imprint on history. we too easily assume an origin of known cultures, and ignore the smaller, less distinct ones.
i put this type of weapon in the same catgegory as huge teghas (with a t-section back-edge) ie made for a use other than fighting.
they dont exist in large numbers so it was not a 'fashionable' weapon.
sorry i cant offer more.

9th June 2006, 07:55 PM	#1
Valjhun Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 692	No, I'm not the owner. However I know the guy who made the last bid on that. He is not a member of this forum. I havent got your point.... "maybe even wootz the owner will have to ethch it" - I said that 'cos it the material looks like welded steel, but maybe a wootz pattern will show up if the buyer decides to etch it. "as I haven't handled it" - Well, I haven't had that particular sword in my hand. I sad that, 'cos I'd liked to accenuate that my opinions about the fighting qualities of that sword are mere speculation based on logic. I really don't know what have you meant with your Sherlock Holmes post.

9th June 2006, 09:22 PM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi valjhun, i didnt mean anything bad by it, but was just a little confused. by looking at the winners history, he was the same guy that won this sword http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2511 in that thread, you mentioned that you had bought the sword. so, sherlock holmes put the two together and figured that you were the winning bidder. i wouldnt be surprised if i was wrong, as i always thought that watson was the brains anyway. no offence meant.

9th June 2006, 09:33 PM	#3
Valjhun Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 692	In fact he bought it for me toghether with some other items, 'cos I had probblems the last month with my credit card issuer, according to paypal. wich is not the case with that dhul fagar, I'm affraid (and frustrated )

9th June 2006, 09:43 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	did your friend decide to keep it himself nothing worse than a collector/dealer as he will only sell things that he doesnt like himself! personally, i prefer someone that will sell his right arm for a profit as at least you get a chance for the good stuff. appologies for the accusations

9th June 2006, 09:55 PM	#5
Valjhun Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 692	Yes, you're right Brian, but the worst thing is maybe that at the end it's me the seller who sometime sells his "mistakes", well for a profit at least. Now, about that sword, what do you think about its practical implementation?

9th June 2006, 10:49 PM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,365	If I might offer an observation in a somewhat humorous light ; when you get down to the split the blade looks 'too light to fight , and too thin to win'. I would think that if one were lucky enough to get a blade trapped in the split area and tried to twist it out their opponent's hand they might well end up with two very unaligned points ; the area (IMO) lacks 'beef'. I just wonder if this is an old hilt married to a newer blade and meant to be brought back from Indja with a Britisher during the late 19th . As a matter of fact I'm doubting any of this piece is "17th C."

9th June 2006, 11:43 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi, again, purely speculative and only an opinion. i have handled a few of these and they are of a type. most of them had similar basket hilts, so i dont feel its a marriage (unless evidence hints that way). also, if you ignore the blade, and judge the hilt, it seems late 18thC and not any earlier. tirri was not privy to any information past personal opinion, and his opinion is as valid as mine, but i just dont agree with it (the nature of speculation). if it werent for the hilt i would think it a 19thC ceremonial piece. the hilt form hints at an earlier age. i dont find it plausable that a collection of these all had their hilts changed in a similar way, so i am going with the assumption that if i feel the hilt is 18thC, then the blade is probably of a same age. even with this age, i still feel it was of a ceremonial origin. duplicating an opinion of what a 'holy' sword looked like hints at this, as i dont feel that battle asthetics would be sacrificed for a holy look. i cant judge martial aspects, as i have never held an interest or opinion on this, and others are more suited to do so. i dont hold to opinions on the split or hole being created as a sword catcher as this thought process doesnt exist on any other swords of this culture, so why this one? the hilt is southern but i cant think of which region would produce such a weapon. the presence of the split indicates an islamic nature. it is not deccani at all, so which culture embraced islam in the south. a mystery. maybe it is maharathan and the split being a zulfigar is misleading. or, maybe they are from a part of the south that embraced islam, but were not powerful enough to leave an imprint on history. we too easily assume an origin of known cultures, and ignore the smaller, less distinct ones. i put this type of weapon in the same catgegory as huge teghas (with a t-section back-edge) ie made for a use other than fighting. they dont exist in large numbers so it was not a 'fashionable' weapon. sorry i cant offer more.