This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blades, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BladesWikipedia:WikiProject BladesTemplate:WikiProject BladesBlades articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
A nicely written article, this seems, upon a quick scan, to cover the majority of what I'd imagine one would need to say on the subject. But this needs a picture. While I like all articles to have pictures, it is particularly essential for an article on a particular style or type of weapon with a distinctive appearance. Words can only describe it so well, especially if the reader has never heard of a shamshir or a kilic. I think this article also needs to have some further explanation of the terms used; I am an Asian studies major, with a focus on classical/feudal military history, and I do not recognize more than half the terms used here. Clarity to the average, uninformed, reader is the goal here. Proper, technical, and accurate terminology is essential to a good article, but so is clarity. LordAmeth 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Over half of the whole article is video game references. Are they really notable enough to warrant a mention? And I agree with LordAmeth, this article needs a picture.130.234.5.136 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that the comment by LordAmeth is over two years old. That is because there has been an image for some time now, after he mentioned it, but the image that goes with this article is repeatedly removed or replaced with unrelated images by this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.60.229.114
Take a look at his history of edits. All are on this article, and the one that isn't was to add "Tulwar"/"Talwar" to the other article.
Talwar with sheath
This is the image (to the right) that is supposed to be used with this article, and I link to it here in hopes that he will not remove it, so that the next person to notice the lack of a picture will be able to see what is going on.
As you can see, I've attempted to let him know via his talk page that he ought not be doing this, but he doesn't seem to read it. He also doesn't leave edit summaries, making things confusing.
My latest edit restores this image, but if you happen across this article again, and it's missing... You know what's happened.
Also, I find the list of video game references to be silly, but I leave that in there because people are so adamant about adding to it, and keeping it accurate. It's hardly encyclopedic information, and I'd like to see it gone, but I don't think I am the one to make the decision to get rid of it.
The article said: "when a blow was struck by a skilled warrior limbs could be amputated and heads decapitated."
I changed "decapitated" to the correct "severed". A head cannot be decapitated unless it has another head on it. It is the body that is decapitated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.105.186 (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking logic to its extreme the neck is severed, not the head. Achieving precision of expression is not so straightforward, is it?Urselius (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not! But we're getting closer. Now, I don't agree that only necks are severed. A "severed head" is one that has been separated from its body, whereas a "decapitated body" is a body that is missing its head. On that basis, I think my phrasing is close to 100% better than what it was before I fixed it.76.113.105.186 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! You can, of course have a "severed head" post fact, and the phrase "severing the head from the body" is accurate, but if a sentence describes the action of decapitation then it is the neck itself which is severed.Urselius (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, are we splitting -- or "severing" hairs here ? (hee hee)76.113.105.186 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, a rather important characteristic is missing from this article..... How big is it????? Seriously. Is it 3 feet long....6 feet long...what??? Even the picture doesn't show a good referent of size. How about a picture of a person holding it? That isn't perfect, but it would be better....Or at least list some dimensions. I'm aware that there were probably variations through time, but how about dimensions for the most common variant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.135.206 (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They vary in blade length, from about 25in to 34in, average probably 28-30in.Urselius (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting collections of talwars (19th century) [1]. Blade length between 720 mm and 805 mm. -- Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent unhelpful edits have raised the possibility of an Indian origin for sabre-like swords.
Early Indian curved swords are indeed shown in sculpture, however, they were sharp on the inside of the curve, they were 'sickle-swords' not unlike the Ancient Egyptian khopesh. The sabre-like sword, with the cutting edge on the outside of the curve, originated in Turkish Central Asia from about 600AD onwards, ALL sabre-like swords are descended from these early examples. It entered the Middle East when used by Turkish mercenaries employed by the Abbasid Caliphate in the 9th century. At about the same period the sabre entered Europe, introduced by the Magyars. The introduction of the sabre to India would seem to coincide with Mongol and Muslim incursions from Afghanistan and Iran where sabre use was already established.Urselius (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kushite sword depicted in Persepolis, Iran Kushite sword in 500 BC, depicted in Persopolis Iran is neither a sickle sword, or kopesh, it is a perfect form of a sabre, so sabres did exist far back in antiquity and wont be surprised they existed even further back since bronze age. these indian swords are not sickle swords nor kopesh but perfectly sabres ajanta painting 4th-6th Century AD, pallava mahabalipuram, south india 7th Century AD extreme top left, these are the examples of indian indian 1sickle sword, indian sickle like sword 2 but this is not a sickle sword, so ancient indians do have a variety of curved swords and one of them happens to be a sabre. 115.135.118.112 (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the illustrations show swords that are most probably sharp on the inner side of the curve - you do not rest the sharp edge of a sword on your shoulder, for example. They are all held with the inner curve facing the knuckles and forward of the holder. There are plenty of archaeological examples of true sabres from the last part of the 7th century connected with the Onugurs, Volga Bulgars and Khazars of the steppes. Urselius (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you do have a point, but then it can be argued that they have their scabbard on, the sabre blades are clearly depicted in the art, so it means sabre blades did exist before the alleged nomads from central asia who are given too much credit for every pre modern weapon 115.135.118.112 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For early sabres to be unambiguously identified in India there would have to be securely datable archaeological remains found. Even an image showing an apparent cut being made with the outside edge of a curved sword would not be unambiguous, as parries using the blunt back of a single-edged blade are commonly described in literature and history. Urselius (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has attracted a number of unregisterd editors bent on making it a nationalistic point-scoring exercise.
Please have the courtesy of placing any material you wish to add or change on this page for open discussion before you change the article itself. Wikipedia is intended to be factual and bias-free. Urselius (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At present the introduction has languages and countries listed in order from those of greatest population to least, this seems to me as an impartial contributor to be the most equitable. Any rearrangements of this order, or of the text in general, for nationalistic point scoring purposes will be reverted. Urselius (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Talwar with a wootz blade in the picture is no wootz! It is probably a modern pattern welded steel with a birds eye pattern as very often seen on ebay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.153.238.117 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, it looks pattern welded, but it does not have to be modern to be pattern welded. Unfortunately the image originates from Wikipedia Commons and it is described there as being damascus, the description on Commons should be changed first before the description here is changed.70.196.133.254 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A talwar can have many different blade types, some of these have a yelmen, it is not unusual at all, Indian sword makers often used blades from other cultures and fitted them with a talwar hilt. it is the hilt that is distintive. Put a pulwar hilt on a talwar blade and it instantly becomes a pulwar. If you search online for "talwar yelmen" or "tulwar yelmen" you will see many such examples, also both images used in the article have yelman so how unusual is it really?70.196.133.254 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more information on the variety of blades on what could be deemed "talwar" swords, some I have seen are quite bizarre - double tips and wavy-blades - I have even seen one with a katar blade attached to the knucklebow. Also, there are many, as you say, with expanded tips to the blades - but I would not (supported by most sword collectors and authors) call the type where there is no step on the back of the blade a yelman. Unfortunately there is no term that I know of to describe a sabre blade (like many talwars and the British 1796 LC sabre) that increases in width near the tip in a gradual manner, with no actual step. I have tried to describe this type of blade in the text and differentiate it from what I termed "a Turkish-style expanded yelman." The disc-hilt is distinctive and I think that the combination of the disc-hilt and a sabre-style curved blade makes a sword a talwar. There are, unfortunately, too many things with disc-hilts that are so obviously not talwars, that the use of the hilt on its own as a defining feature is not supportable. I have seen sosoun pata (reverse curved blades like a yataghan), kora (reverse curved hacking weapons with axe-like cutting edges), kukri and even Indian maces with talwar-style disc hilts. Incidentally, yelman just means the part of the back of a curved blade near the tip that is sharpened in Turkish (I have a friend who is a Professor in Ankara), hence my use of the term "expanded yelman".Urselius (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talwar like blade depicted in ajantha painting 4th-6th Century AD[edit]
From the way the sword is held, the cutting edge is on the concave side of the blade and therefore is not a talwar or any type of sabre. Urselius (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forged in Fire: Bonus - What Is the Talwar? (Season 4) | History, says tulwar was brought to India by Muslim travellers in 700 AD, Forged In Fire confirmed that the verification was done by the History Channel .Mig Pilot (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would opine that this is not a reputable source. While Nicolle is a scholar specialising in Medieval warfare, armour and weapons. Urselius (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talwar brought by the Khalji Dynasty and the Tughlaq Dynasty[edit]
These were the only dynasties ruling the Indian subcontinent during the 14th century, before them, there were no tulwars found in the Indian subcontinent, so they are the ones who brought the tulwar originally. Mig Pilot (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'Talwar' means 'Sword' in Urdu and Hindi also, and there is a similar word called 'Tolowar' or 'Tolwar' which also means sword in Bangla. Mig Pilot (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the following statement needing a reference: "Until the late 16th century it was common for the talwar to have a spherical or semi-spherical hilt, instead of the classic disc hilt, as depicted in manuscripts such as Akbarnama."
Academic work on the arms and armor present in Akbar era manuscripts is difficult to come by, however a large number of the manuscripts themselves do survive. This includes those from Baburnama, Akbarnama, and Hamznama, which extensively depict these style of hilts. This includes the first image on Wikipedia's article for Akbarnama. My question is if it would be appropriate in this instance to reference the historical manuscript itself, rather than a secondary source which discusses them? Esaiiii (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An example from Hamznama at the Met, as well the the miniature from the V&A's collection which was used for Wikipedia's Akbarnama article for reference.
Manuscript illustrations are problematic, as the small scale of details is inevitable. The images on the links you have provided can be interpreted as showing spherical pommels, but also wheel-shaped or cup-shaped pommels could be being depicted. Another problem is that in Western scholarship, museum inventories and in collector's usage it is the disc pommel that defines the 'tulwar'. Swords with tulwar-style blades that have hilts of a different form are usually known by other names: pulwar, Indo-Persian shamshir, firangi etc. I think, in the absence of quality secondary sources that call sabres without the typical disc-hilt, 'tulwars', adding anything other than: "tulwar-like swords with pommel shapes other than the typical disc-shape are shown in illustrations of [insert period and geographical locations]". Anything else would be personal observation, which is identical to 'own research', which is a big no-no on Wikipedia. Urselius (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point regarding that they would not be considered tulwar under contemporary western definition. Regarding the period in which these swords appear I am aware they appear extensively in Mughal artwork produced during the mid to late 16th century. Given that I'll leave it up to you, whether you consider their mention to be fit or not, for this article. Esaiiii (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomenclature for Indo-Persian weaponry is not entirely logical or well-systematised. Swords with disc-hilts but with straight blades tend to be called 'straight-bladed tulwars', but ones with forward curved blades are termed 'sosun pata'. Also Nepalese kora, kukri and even a few maces are known with disc-hilts, which just confuses things even further. If you can find anything with usable citations on the development of sabre-bladed swords in South Asia, prior to the appearance of the classic disc-hilt tulwar, that would be a useful addition. Urselius (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As study of indian arms and armor is dominated by focus on examples from the 16th century and onwards, due to the lack of extensive examples prior to that date, I have limited access to secondary sources on anything prior to that date. The only thing we do have an abundance of is artwork. I have listed the following I am aware of Chronologically, related to the use of the Talwar. I apologize for the limited amount of secondary sources, despite that hopefully something here is useful for the article, in relation to the adoption and development of the Talwar.
I have just ordered the book, "By My Sword and Shield: Traditional Weapons of the Indian Warrior" by Paul, E Jaiwant, should arrive late this month. It does seem to cover Indian weapons back to the Medieval period, so may be some help. Urselius (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Urselius, you recently reverted my edit, where I changed the s/d from "sword" (not very useful) to something more specific. Why did you undo it under the pretense that it was an unhelpful edit? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
You removed useful text. If I come across an edit or series of edits that are on balance more harmful than useful I revert back to an edit that appears sound, sometimes I may not be accurate in the cut-off point. Feel free to reintroduce your edits. Urselius (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of having removed any useful text. Can you point it out to me? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the edit history, I think I see what happened. In your attempt to undo the edit that followed mine, by an unregistered user, which did in fact remove a chunk of text, you undid my edit instead. Is this correct? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Defend your position, 'that neutrality is more important than accuracy'. Please note that it is usual for someone who has changed the wording to defend their change, not someone who has reverted the text to its original form. Furthermore, it is usual for someone defending a change they have made not to revert before a discussion has occurred. Rather high-handed behaviour, all in all. Urselius (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Urselius, in future, please make a point of addressing the user your comments are intended for (i.e., me). Additionally, this will be a more fruitful conversation if we avoid accusing each other of "high-handed behaviour" et al. My position is not that neutrality is more important than accuracy; please avoid strawmanning. The claim that something is unfortunate is not an instance of accuracy but rather non-neutrality, so this is not a strong argument on your part. In my understanding, an encyclopedia should strive to avoid language such as "unfortunately", as that represents the subjective opinion of one or several editors and not an objective appraisal of a situation. That is my position. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
