Tulwar hilt and disc pommel.....the reason for their design

Titus Pullo · 4th July 2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

me too, also reminds me of michael caine in 'zulu'

"at 200 yards, independant quick FIRE"
"at 100 yards, volley by ranks, first rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"second rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"
"third rank FIRE"
"RELOAD"

where did all them natives go?

remember, those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.

That's partly true, but I think it's largely because they were not modernized and organized like western powers. They didn't have time to set up there own government and united under one government and organize and modernize their army. And they had no real naval power, which can cut off trade (a blockade) which can cripple their ability to wage war. REmember when Vietnam was united under one leader, Hochimin, they were able to easily beat the French. The French was fighting a defensive war and set up a trape to lure them in, but inspite of it they lost badly because the people were united and their army more orgainized.

B.I · 4th July 2006, 07:31 AM

hi katana,
this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question

the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories.
i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion.
your original question said -

Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer

i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us.
i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine.
not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller.
sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows.
i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

MABAGANI · 4th July 2006, 09:57 AM

The tulwar disc pommel works well during close quarter fighting with or without a shield.

katana · 4th July 2006, 12:18 PM

Hi B.I,
I appreciate your comments, and understand your views. First of all I did say 'I MAY have the answer' , I didn't define it as 'THE' answer......I wanted to 'draw out' peoples views.

As regards the small hilts....small hands theory. I can see that this may have been the case in the Tulwars 'infancy'. But my understanding is that the Tulwar was quickly adopted by neighbouring cultures and races, whom did not have small hands. Surely, logically speaking, the hilt would have been extended. The hilt would have evolved, a restrictive hilt would be a disadvantage on the battle field and yet, as far as I know this did not happen. So, if this is the case, you have to ask yourself ....Why? The only explaination I can see is, so far, is that the hilt design is dictated by how the sword is used. It seems that the relative smallness of the hilt and the disc pommel 'trap' the hand, assuming this is deliberate, then the design function must be to insure the sword/hand do not part company, which suggests the Tulwar 'technique' is dis-similar to 'normal' swordplay.

The fact that we view this issue from differing perspectives is, I believe,
vitally important......a theory has to be constantly 'attacked' before it can be considered a fact.

katana · 24th November 2006, 04:08 PM

I found this while surfing......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_an...Cavalry_Swords

About half way down the page.

[edit] Variants
The Army of India variant of the 1908 sword featured a smaller grip to match the generally smaller hands of cavalry troopers recruited in the sub-continent.

It seems small hands could be the reason for the small hilts afterall.....

ariel · 24th November 2006, 04:43 PM

As usually, the Occam's Razor works well: the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one.
A (very lame!) joke:
Question: What do they say about men with big feet?
(Usually, men start grinning here, women start giggling etc, etc)
Answer: They wear big shoes.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!

LabanTayo · 24th November 2006, 05:18 PM

some of the views against how Gatka is not martial but more dancing could be changed if you were to have real edged weapons and stand in front of someone coming at you the way they do. all questions of its effectiveness will be answered. even the Filipino Martial Arts can look flowery, but put yourself at the wrong end of the battle, and you'll see/feel what the motions are meant for. before anyone can give their theory of how a sword is used in martial application, take some lessons in that art first. get a better understanding of how they move and think.
i have heard lots of "theories" of how western fencing is unbeatable against asian fencing. one of my most senior students was invited to "play" with the local fencing club. he played arnis against epee. he now runs that club. the maestre was so impressed with the filipino arts, that he invited my student to train with them and develop tactics for fighting in tournaments.
now, dont get me wrong. i truely respect fencing, and in now way am i saying arnis is better than fencing why? because i was on the wrong end of a battle with a fencer, and saw first hand how their art works.
the tulwar handle is very functional in the way Gatka uses it. put a tulwar in my hands, and i would be lost. it doesnt feel "filipino", so i would have no idea how to use it. but i can understand how the tulwar is used based on design. in this case, form followed function.
in the filipino arts, there are a lot of twirling exercises. all kinds of fancy twirls. theyre not there to impress the girls. theyre there to develop flexibility and strength of the wrist, to understand how the weapon moves with kinetic energy and to develop speed in striking from any postion the weapon may be in.

to put my 2 cents in on why the british may have never mentioned the fighting style of the Sikh's. this comes from my dealings with spanish and american written accounts of their dealings with filipino's.
they either didnt understand the movements, and couldnt put into words what they saw, or, that the only fact that mattered was that they won the battle.
the spanish almost eliminated 400 years of culture in the philippines. the only history of that time era are the spanish accounts. and why would the spanish document their defeats with details.
i do not hold the spaniards of today liable of what happened then.
i do not know how the british documented their occupation of india. so i will not comment directly on it.

katana · 24th November 2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LabanTayo

some of the views against how Gatka is not martial but more dancing could be changed if you were to have real edged weapons and stand in front of someone coming at you the way they do. all questions of its effectiveness will be answered. even the Filipino Martial Arts can look flowery, but put yourself at the wrong end of the battle, and you'll see/feel what the motions are meant for. before anyone can give their theory of how a sword is used in martial application, take some lessons in that art first. get a better understanding of how they move and think.

but i can understand how the tulwar is used based on design. in this case, form followed function.

in the filipino arts, there are a lot of twirling exercises. all kinds of fancy twirls. theyre not there to impress the girls. theyre there to develop flexibility and strength of the wrist, to understand how the weapon moves with kinetic energy and to develop speed in striking from any postion the weapon may be in.

.

I TOTALLY AGREE.....

But although the form of the Tulwar hilt could be reasoned to be designed with the 'style' of its use.....the small size of the hilt is not. It seems a combination of sword 'style' dictated form and the 'smaller hands' theory provides an answer to the size. Especially when the British sabre hilts were made smaller for the Indian Army at the turn of the 19c.

24th November 2006, 05:18 PM	#7
LabanTayo Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kansas City Posts: 177	some of the views against how Gatka is not martial but more dancing could be changed if you were to have real edged weapons and stand in front of someone coming at you the way they do. all questions of its effectiveness will be answered. even the Filipino Martial Arts can look flowery, but put yourself at the wrong end of the battle, and you'll see/feel what the motions are meant for. before anyone can give their theory of how a sword is used in martial application, take some lessons in that art first. get a better understanding of how they move and think. i have heard lots of "theories" of how western fencing is unbeatable against asian fencing. one of my most senior students was invited to "play" with the local fencing club. he played arnis against epee. he now runs that club. the maestre was so impressed with the filipino arts, that he invited my student to train with them and develop tactics for fighting in tournaments. now, dont get me wrong. i truely respect fencing, and in now way am i saying arnis is better than fencing why? because i was on the wrong end of a battle with a fencer, and saw first hand how their art works. the tulwar handle is very functional in the way Gatka uses it. put a tulwar in my hands, and i would be lost. it doesnt feel "filipino", so i would have no idea how to use it. but i can understand how the tulwar is used based on design. in this case, form followed function. in the filipino arts, there are a lot of twirling exercises. all kinds of fancy twirls. theyre not there to impress the girls. theyre there to develop flexibility and strength of the wrist, to understand how the weapon moves with kinetic energy and to develop speed in striking from any postion the weapon may be in. to put my 2 cents in on why the british may have never mentioned the fighting style of the Sikh's. this comes from my dealings with spanish and american written accounts of their dealings with filipino's. they either didnt understand the movements, and couldnt put into words what they saw, or, that the only fact that mattered was that they won the battle. the spanish almost eliminated 400 years of culture in the philippines. the only history of that time era are the spanish accounts. and why would the spanish document their defeats with details. i do not hold the spaniards of today liable of what happened then. i do not know how the british documented their occupation of india. so i will not comment directly on it. Last edited by LabanTayo; 24th November 2006 at 05:32 PM.

4th July 2006, 07:31 AM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi katana, this was your post, so i wouldnt dream of telling you that you are missing the point of the original question the discussion of indian swords has been debated for a long time, and as i said before, certain aspects can only fit into speculation and there comes a point where we have to realise that there is no definate answer, just good theories. i have no interest in the martial aspect of sword play, and look to a weapon as an antique, and to history as a backdrop to my interest. i do understand that this is only of way of seeing it, and learning (or re-learning) how a sword was used could be just as critical to a discussion. your original question said - Comments like these are often mentioned about Tulwar hilts. I think I may have the answer i think maybe if you said 'an' answer, instead of 'the' answer, some of use wouldnt have steered away from the really nice links that you gave us. i dont agree with what you say, but do accept your points as completely valid, and no more or less valid than mine. not all tulwars had the large disc pommel. in fact this exaggerated form went into the 19thC, with earlier forms being somewhat smaller. sikhs in general are not really small people, but then the tulwar is not a sikh weapon. by this reasoning, we could both be right. maybe the small hilt was intended for small hands, but the hilt was adapted by military people (like the sikhs) and they created a form of fighting around it. who knows. i thik that you are covering two individual areas that could easily be debated seperately ie the form of the tulwar, and the martial aspects of the tulwar. i think that joining the two will lead to two different camps debating across both issues.

4th July 2006, 09:57 AM	#3
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	The tulwar disc pommel works well during close quarter fighting with or without a shield.

4th July 2006, 12:18 PM	#4
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi B.I, I appreciate your comments, and understand your views. First of all I did say 'I MAY have the answer' , I didn't define it as 'THE' answer......I wanted to 'draw out' peoples views. As regards the small hilts....small hands theory. I can see that this may have been the case in the Tulwars 'infancy'. But my understanding is that the Tulwar was quickly adopted by neighbouring cultures and races, whom did not have small hands. Surely, logically speaking, the hilt would have been extended. The hilt would have evolved, a restrictive hilt would be a disadvantage on the battle field and yet, as far as I know this did not happen. So, if this is the case, you have to ask yourself ....Why? The only explaination I can see is, so far, is that the hilt design is dictated by how the sword is used. It seems that the relative smallness of the hilt and the disc pommel 'trap' the hand, assuming this is deliberate, then the design function must be to insure the sword/hand do not part company, which suggests the Tulwar 'technique' is dis-similar to 'normal' swordplay. The fact that we view this issue from differing perspectives is, I believe, vitally important......a theory has to be constantly 'attacked' before it can be considered a fact.

24th November 2006, 04:08 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	I found this while surfing...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_an...Cavalry_Swords About half way down the page. [edit] Variants The Army of India variant of the 1908 sword featured a smaller grip to match the generally smaller hands of cavalry troopers recruited in the sub-continent. It seems small hands could be the reason for the small hilts afterall.....

24th November 2006, 04:43 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	As usually, the Occam's Razor works well: the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one. A (very lame!) joke: Question: What do they say about men with big feet? (Usually, men start grinning here, women start giggling etc, etc) Answer: They wear big shoes. Happy Thanksgiving to all!