XXL size

ariel · 9th April 2005, 02:53 AM

The size of tulwar handles was always a topic of discussions. The idea that the tight fit gave the warrior a certain jolt of aggressiveness ("josh") as per E. Jaiwant Paul ("By my sword and shield") always amused me: people all over the world got physically bigger after their nutritional status got better. Modern Japanese teenager is about 15-20 cm (10-12") taller than his counterpart from 1930s. I have a Pata and cannot stick my hand into the gauntlet at all.
I just got back from England and at Leeds Armoury here are plenty of complete sets of knights' armour. Some would fit a 6 footer, but most were built for a 5'2"- 5'7" man. Every time somebody complains about McDonalds, remember that Lancelot might have easily been a runt and Indian heroes just midgets

tom hyle · 9th April 2005, 06:48 AM

May I suggest PI "bolos" and panabas as weapons with often large, thick, "beefy" (no horn pun intended) handles and thick, very solid blades, many of which might suit you. Just something that comes instantly to mind. These still aren't large people compared to N Americans, but their hilts surprisingly often are of a large size that might partly contribute to N Americans' enjoyment of them.

Jens Nordlunde · 9th April 2005, 11:05 AM

It is interesting questions you raise, which, no doubt, have made quite a lot of others wonder too.

In Anthony C.Tirri’s book Islamic Weapons, page 329, Figure 249D, a tulwar hilt is shown, and the text to the picture is ‘ Tulwar with pommel removed for a large hand’. Firstly, it is rather removal of the disc, which would give more room for a big hand, and secondly I don’t know from where Tirri knows this, as he does not give any reference to his knowledge.

In Des Armes Orientales by P.Holstein, 1931, volume II, plate 1 and 6, another tulwar hilt without disc is shown (see the picture, showing both sides of the hilt). Holstein gives the place of origin as Katch. The strange think here is, that when looking closely is seems as if there never was a disc, but there are slits on each side of the hilt where it should have been, but the slit does not seem to go the whole way around the hilt, only on each side. If the hilt was not meant to have a disc, why make the slits?

I have never seen a tulwar hilt without a disc, other that on these pictures, but I have heard about two more. They were taken, after a one of the last English cavalry attacks, close to the Khyber Pass in the 1930’ies.

At a time when a sword was important to the owner, not only to keep him alive, but also as a status symbol, I doubt very much, that someone would remove the disc and pommel on a hilt as by doing this reduce the value. I can’t say that it was not done, but so far I have problems believing in it. It would seem more likely that the owner would have the sword rehilted with a hilt in the right size. It could of course be, that the sword was part of a loot, and that the owner was a very poor man with big hands – who knows?

tom hyle · 9th April 2005, 11:44 AM

what I note about this is that it is the same style of hilt with the less common type of quillons as one we recently discussed mainly over the variantness of its assembly.

Battara · 9th April 2005, 03:32 PM

Working with some smaller Filipinos at the hospital, I noticed that they can fit into my Moro armour, something I could never do.

tom hyle · 9th April 2005, 03:40 PM

That is one thing with someone else's old armour; a sword you can usually at least hold wrong somehow if the hilt is too small for you.....

Jens Nordlunde · 9th April 2005, 04:45 PM

I think it is interesting what Ariel writes, and I have seen hints at this before about Europeans, but there must also be a ‘minimum’ size from the start – at least within the span of time where we operate.

I have seen discussions, where it was suggested, that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon. To my opinion that would not last long in a fight, the hand would be ‘made’ to fit the hilt – one finger lost.

Amongst the Indians I have meet, there are small ones and tall ones, just like with the Europeans, but I also think that they had a finer bone structure, which of course would give a less ‘beefy’ hand.

Is this true, or do I only think it is?

9th April 2005, 11:05 AM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	It is interesting questions you raise, which, no doubt, have made quite a lot of others wonder too. In Anthony C.Tirri’s book Islamic Weapons, page 329, Figure 249D, a tulwar hilt is shown, and the text to the picture is ‘ Tulwar with pommel removed for a large hand’. Firstly, it is rather removal of the disc, which would give more room for a big hand, and secondly I don’t know from where Tirri knows this, as he does not give any reference to his knowledge. In Des Armes Orientales by P.Holstein, 1931, volume II, plate 1 and 6, another tulwar hilt without disc is shown (see the picture, showing both sides of the hilt). Holstein gives the place of origin as Katch. The strange think here is, that when looking closely is seems as if there never was a disc, but there are slits on each side of the hilt where it should have been, but the slit does not seem to go the whole way around the hilt, only on each side. If the hilt was not meant to have a disc, why make the slits? I have never seen a tulwar hilt without a disc, other that on these pictures, but I have heard about two more. They were taken, after a one of the last English cavalry attacks, close to the Khyber Pass in the 1930’ies. At a time when a sword was important to the owner, not only to keep him alive, but also as a status symbol, I doubt very much, that someone would remove the disc and pommel on a hilt as by doing this reduce the value. I can’t say that it was not done, but so far I have problems believing in it. It would seem more likely that the owner would have the sword rehilted with a hilt in the right size. It could of course be, that the sword was part of a loot, and that the owner was a very poor man with big hands – who knows? Attached Images

9th April 2005, 02:53 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The size of tulwar handles was always a topic of discussions. The idea that the tight fit gave the warrior a certain jolt of aggressiveness ("josh") as per E. Jaiwant Paul ("By my sword and shield") always amused me: people all over the world got physically bigger after their nutritional status got better. Modern Japanese teenager is about 15-20 cm (10-12") taller than his counterpart from 1930s. I have a Pata and cannot stick my hand into the gauntlet at all. I just got back from England and at Leeds Armoury here are plenty of complete sets of knights' armour. Some would fit a 6 footer, but most were built for a 5'2"- 5'7" man. Every time somebody complains about McDonalds, remember that Lancelot might have easily been a runt and Indian heroes just midgets

9th April 2005, 06:48 AM	#2
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	May I suggest PI "bolos" and panabas as weapons with often large, thick, "beefy" (no horn pun intended) handles and thick, very solid blades, many of which might suit you. Just something that comes instantly to mind. These still aren't large people compared to N Americans, but their hilts surprisingly often are of a large size that might partly contribute to N Americans' enjoyment of them.

9th April 2005, 11:44 AM	#4
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	what I note about this is that it is the same style of hilt with the less common type of quillons as one we recently discussed mainly over the variantness of its assembly.

9th April 2005, 03:32 PM	#5
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,280	Working with some smaller Filipinos at the hospital, I noticed that they can fit into my Moro armour, something I could never do.

9th April 2005, 03:40 PM	#6
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	That is one thing with someone else's old armour; a sword you can usually at least hold wrong somehow if the hilt is too small for you.....

9th April 2005, 04:45 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I think it is interesting what Ariel writes, and I have seen hints at this before about Europeans, but there must also be a ‘minimum’ size from the start – at least within the span of time where we operate. I have seen discussions, where it was suggested, that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon. To my opinion that would not last long in a fight, the hand would be ‘made’ to fit the hilt – one finger lost. Amongst the Indians I have meet, there are small ones and tall ones, just like with the Europeans, but I also think that they had a finer bone structure, which of course would give a less ‘beefy’ hand. Is this true, or do I only think it is?