My first Tulwar

spiral · 14th September 2007, 11:29 AM

Yes indeed , appologies for my unprovoked & ignorant outburst.

Spiral

fernando · 14th September 2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiral

Yes indeed , appologies for my unprovoked & ignorant outburst.

Spiral

Hi Spiral
I fail to discern within the might of your inteligence quoficient a consistent reason to deny my quotation of a book of historical events written by an internationaly credited guy, without something solid to counter propose.
I wonder who you were trying to belittle, the book author or myself.
If it was the writer, he will probably not hear about your so called outburst, nor will i tell him when i see him. If it was my humble person, those were bullets that skipped over the cuirasse of my indiference ... sorry for the ready made phrase.
So you needn't apologise in either case, unless you are adressing the Forum members or and moderators, as probably that was your intention after all.
I try and keep in mind Egberto Gismonti's statement that the quality of the answer resides in the time of sedimentation of the question, but i fail to do that, as i don't have such wisdom profile.
I will nevertheless refrain from answering to your other insinuations. I do not have your assumed intelectual obligations, but will obey to the moderators message to "keep it civil".
I am sorry for anything said above that you or the other Forumites may dislike.
fernando

Jim McDougall · 14th September 2007, 11:10 PM

Thanks so much guys for the added input which include some outstanding observations!
Emanuel I appreciate your notes on the tulwars you have and agree that the Indians did not need to modify the tulwar to adjust to certain preferences in using it, and that there were probably considerable numbers without the ricasso. As rick has noted, the Persian shamshir blades were without ricasso, and obviously with Mughal courts highly influenced by Persia, of course these blades would have been mounted in tulwars.

Kai, thank you for the observation on the flower on the blade being quite possibly a lotus seedpot, and for including the botanical reference. The lotus would of course be very logical in representation here. I had thought there were too many petals for a lotus, and your observation would resolve that.

Ariel, you have added an extremely valid purpose for the ricasso that I had honestly not thought of, adding strength to the root of the blade. Your comment on the purpose of the guard to separate the hand from the blade is of course clear and well established as several others have noted. This is one of the reasons that make the extended and wrapped forefinger so questionable, but all possibilities must be considered.

It does seem that it was commonly accepted that the hands of Indian warriors were indeed smaller and that the hilts were made to more firmly accommodate them, as evidenced by the size of hilts of other Indian sword forms as well. As Katana has very well pointed out, and I believe the reference he cites is from Robson ("British Military Swords") where it is noted that swords made for Indian troopers were made with smaller hilts. It is important to note as Katana has, that there is no evidence of that particular action being based on any actual study, but probably a simple assumption.

The reference that Fernando included suggesting that weapons in armouries were often kept disassembled is most interesting, and I am glad that he noted the source as Mr. Daehnhardt's book. The author is indeed a highly respected authority on arms and armour and I would consider references found in his work quite valid. Just as most references however,it must be remembered that often new evidence is presented that could requalify material in most any resource.

Thanks for patching up the slight derailment there guys!

All very best regards,
Jim

14th September 2007, 11:29 AM	#1
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	Yes indeed , appologies for my unprovoked & ignorant outburst. Spiral

14th September 2007, 11:10 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Thanks so much guys for the added input which include some outstanding observations! Emanuel I appreciate your notes on the tulwars you have and agree that the Indians did not need to modify the tulwar to adjust to certain preferences in using it, and that there were probably considerable numbers without the ricasso. As rick has noted, the Persian shamshir blades were without ricasso, and obviously with Mughal courts highly influenced by Persia, of course these blades would have been mounted in tulwars. Kai, thank you for the observation on the flower on the blade being quite possibly a lotus seedpot, and for including the botanical reference. The lotus would of course be very logical in representation here. I had thought there were too many petals for a lotus, and your observation would resolve that. Ariel, you have added an extremely valid purpose for the ricasso that I had honestly not thought of, adding strength to the root of the blade. Your comment on the purpose of the guard to separate the hand from the blade is of course clear and well established as several others have noted. This is one of the reasons that make the extended and wrapped forefinger so questionable, but all possibilities must be considered. It does seem that it was commonly accepted that the hands of Indian warriors were indeed smaller and that the hilts were made to more firmly accommodate them, as evidenced by the size of hilts of other Indian sword forms as well. As Katana has very well pointed out, and I believe the reference he cites is from Robson ("British Military Swords") where it is noted that swords made for Indian troopers were made with smaller hilts. It is important to note as Katana has, that there is no evidence of that particular action being based on any actual study, but probably a simple assumption. The reference that Fernando included suggesting that weapons in armouries were often kept disassembled is most interesting, and I am glad that he noted the source as Mr. Daehnhardt's book. The author is indeed a highly respected authority on arms and armour and I would consider references found in his work quite valid. Just as most references however,it must be remembered that often new evidence is presented that could requalify material in most any resource. Thanks for patching up the slight derailment there guys! All very best regards, Jim