A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[B.I]

hi,
i am not sure if this is acceptable to do, so please moderate as you see fit.
i would like to question and hopefully discuss this post from another forum.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=54178

i definatetly dont want to talk about the initial enquiry. 'weapons vs mail' is way too loose a subject to corner any real information. however, it seems to have been diverted into indian arms, and i am very surprised of the outcomes and statements being made.
except jens' short but sweet point, the rest seem to flounder on a very strange tangent.
there is very little actually known about indian arms and armour, and not much more written and speculated. however, there are some facts that are accepted as a basis, from which many discussions can stem from and end up who knows where.
these few facts seem to be ignored here, and some very strange opinions have been offered and i cant seem to understand where them have come from.
the points i have picked up on as as follows, and i am sure there are more that others will question.
firstly, indian mail was as heavy and useful as european. this is a fact from the many surviving examples. ok, european plate was of a slightly heavier gauge, but the mail construction was of a very similar nature. ok, if you look at the 18thC examples they were light, but if you are comparing at a time when the europeans were wearing heavy armour (late medievel to early post medievel) then there was very little difference.
if anything, heavy mail was much more in use in southern india than it the north, where fabric was more often used.
mail and plate was not necessarily introduced by 'hindusthan' as it was a very islamic style, possibly borne from an ottoman influence. there were other people in india other than hindus and moghuls.
katars did not dominate in the middle of the 17thC, as their form, both in the north and south was fully developed after the middle of the 16thC, and possibly even earlier.
as for the use of the thickened tip of the katar, i am sure many members here will elaborate. the katar was made for use and commom sense would attibute a thickened point can steer to only one conclusion. why have a weapon, widely used, if it couldnt do the job. indian was a very martial country and the reason that indian wepaons have been almost ignored until relatively recently is because europeans could not understand their weapons, being so unlike their own.
it seems as always, critical thinking overtakes and ignores critical observation and discusions end up confusing all that try to join in with big words and little actual information.
speculation and opinion have a very valid place in any discussion, as long as this is clearly stated and stemmed from the facts known. this is critical.........i think :)

[Rick]

Speaking as staff I would not like to see any criticism of other fora on this site .

Hopefully those with enough interest will follow Jens advice and the link to this forum that he posted on SFI .

Feel free though to discuss the ideas expressed in that thread here or on SFI .

Rick

[Aqtai]

I used to be under the impression that Medieval Western European mail and Islamic/Oriental mail were virtually identical, however I recently received a gentle rap on the knuckle on another forum (which shall remain nameless and linkless :)) for daring to suggest this.

The consensus on that forum was that European mail was superior. This is probably true up to a point, there is an article on The Wallace Collection's website which suggests that there was a lot of variability in post-17th century Indian mail and that a lot of it was inferior to Western European mail. However I will cling to my belief that Ottoman and Mamluk mail at least was equal in quality to most Western European mail. :D

Link to that Wallace Museum article:
http://www.wallacecollection.org/i_s/publications/mail_construction.htm#1

[B.I]

hi aqtai,
you were not wrong in your initial assumption. most people judge indian mail by the later pieces. as david says in his article, his assessment changed when he examined the 'bikanir' shirts. these are of a much earlier date and the links were forged. the mail construction is different to european mail but the 'usefullness' is matched.
the wallace collection does not have any early indian or ottoman armour. the links he mentions in some camails that are riveted are of a different gauge than the mail/plate shirts. david does own an early shirt himself, and it is this examination that he takes his data from.
these shirts were similar in costruction to the earlier ottoman shirts and i am pretty sure this is where the influence had come from. people tend to ignore the deccan and the influences and ancestral history that dominated the ruling class. the bijapur dynasty owed its roots directly from the ottoman lineage, and it was during this dynasty that the shirts date from.
if i showed you a great example of an indian shirt, with exceptionally large links around the upper torso for extra protection, you would see the ottoman influence and soon forget the later, butted link shirts that people tend to refer to.

[kai]

indian was a very martial country and the reason that indian wepaons have been almost ignored until relatively recently is because europeans could not understand their weapons, being so unlike their own.
it seems as always, critical thinking overtakes and ignores critical observation

I believe it's a good rule of thumb that if I see a weapon and can't figure out a really devastating use for it, chances are that my martial knowledge sucks rather than the weapon... ;)

From what little I know of Indo-Persian martial arts I wouldn't want to mess with sincere practitioners much less armed folks... :rolleyes:

I guess the situation is similar with Southeast Asian weapons. Some of them may not look too impressive to the uniniated. But once you receive some decent hands-on knowledge, small side-arms like keris or tiny blades like kerambit become really scary weapons!

Same-o with other examples all over the world, I guess.

Regards,
Kai

[VANDOO]

IN MY OPINION THE TWO COUNTRYS WITH THE WIDEST AND MOST VARIED WEAPONS ARE INDIA AND AFRICA. I AM NOT SURE WHY THIS IS SO BUT SUSPECT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF TRIBES AND BELIEFS IN THOSE AREAS AND THEIR LONG HISTORYS. I DON'T HAVE A LIBRARY ON INDIAN WEAPONS AND THE REFRENCES I HAVE SEEN USUALLY DEAL WITH THE VERY TOP OF THE LINE WEAPONS OF THE RULING AND WEALTHY CLASS. STONES LISTS A IMPRESSIVE AND VARIED NUMBER OF TYPES AND I HAVE SEEN SOME VERY UNUSUAL THINGS FROM INDIA OVER THE YEARS.

THE WEAPONS USED IN ACTUAL COMBAT MOSTLY APPEAR TO BE MORE PLAIN, I SUPPOSE BECAUSE THEY WERE SUPPLYED TO THE SOLDIERS BY THE RULER. THOSE CARRIED BY THE RULER ALTHOUGH FINE WEAPONS WERE MOSTLY FOR A LAST RESORT AS THEIR ARMYS AND GARDS USUALLY WERE SUPPOSED TO TEND TO THE REAL FIGHTING. THERE ARE MANY HONORABLE WEAPONS USED FOR WAR AND MANY FOR LESS HONORABLE PURPOSES SUCH AS ASSISINATION OR MURDER. SOME OF THE LESS HORNORABLE ONES WERE USED IN SPECIAL WAYS BUT WERE ONLY GOOD AGAINST A UNSUSPECTING OR UNPREPAIRED TARGET AND WOULD NOT STAND IN A ARMED CONFRONTATION.A WIDE RANGE OF VERY FANCY CEREMONIAL WEAPONS CAN ALSO BE FOUND. WITH ITS LONG HISTORY AND MANY TRIBES, RELIGIONS AND CULTS INDIA HAS A TRULY REMARKABLE RANGE OF WEAPON TYPES AND STYLES.

AS TO CHAIN MAIL I AM LIKE SHULTZ ON HOGANS HERO'S "I KNOW NOTHING" :D

[ariel]

Interestingly, the arrows were rarely lethal outright, unless they penetrated deeply into a vital organ: heart, head, major arteries etc. The main problem with them was that the barbs prevented their safe removal: pulling them introduced very extensive crushing damage to the surrounding tissues and pushing them through was also traumatic. Having an infected foreign body stuck within a dead tissue is a prescription for disaster: the wound got infected and the warriors died later of sepsis.
Mongols had an ingenious solution: every warrior wore a shirt made of silk. This fabric is strong, light and pliable. Thus, the arrow did not penetrate the silk but rather carried it into the wound. Since the arrowhead rotated, the silk got wrapped around it and "padded" the barbs. A skilled doctor could then safely remove the arrow by pulling and then use such powerful anti-infection remedies as cobwebs, dirt, boiled cow urine etc.

[Jens Nordlunde]

True what Brian writes, the katars were mail ‘openers’, and some of them were even specialised for doing the work. I doubt, that there was a mail shirt, which one of these specialised katars could not open. Unfortunately it has not been proven yet, as far as I know, as the museums and the collectors don’t want to deliver the test shirts – sadly, as it is in the interest of a scientific experiment;).

[Rivkin]

Dear All,

My opinion, as much as it ignorant, will probably be insulting to most of the members, for that I'm sorry.

It's one thing to scream on top of your lungs, madly shaking your hands, while hanging by nearly invisible threads on a movie set. It's a different thing to have a duel - a ritualized fight in between of two individuals. It's a completely different thing to have an effective army.

Nowadays it's believed that those cultures that are famous for martial arts had good soldiers. It's incomprehensible for many how precursors of shao-lin monks with their secret knowledge of chi used nomad mercenaries for their best units. How the all feared samurai had tremendous problems with their empire building in Korea (not to mention same old bad nomads).

On the other hand mongols were what is considered by modern standards complete loosers. They did not know how to kill people with their own hair (they preferred to use bows), they did not know about deep spirituality of the pose of five winds in the style of three monkies, they did not have elaborate weapons, all of the warriors carrying the same simple set of very basic weapons - bow, lance, mace and sword - when you know which weapons work, and which don't you tend to stick with the ones that do, rather than with the ones that don't but definitely 'cool'.

[Rick]

Hi Kirill, I'm not insulted by your post but I admit that I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here .

How does this relate to mail and katars and whether their purpose was to defeat mail or not ? :confused:

[Rivkin]

no relation :). Just seen a comment on martial arts and variety of indian weapons, and wanted to take a long held opinion from my chest.

[ham]

Gentlemen,

Those of us who grew up in Western Europe or America learned from museums, books and films that European mail was stronger than that used in the Islamic and Hindu East, as were the swords. That isn't true unless, as I believe has been stated above, one is comparing European mail from the period when it represented a primary defense-- say 11th- 13th c., and Indian or Persian mail of the 19th century, by which time it hardly represents armor at all anymore, with rings often made of soft iron wire that have been butted together to close them-- a classic case of apples and oranges.
Worthier of comparison with the finest European mail was a coat of Mamluk mail which I had the opportunity to examine recently, dating between the 14th-15th century. A conservative group, the Mamluks maintaned arms and methods of warfare from at least the mid 12th c. down to the 16th, including the use of straight, double-edged swords and rather distinctive coats of mail (this is not of course, to ignore the introduction of sabers as well as occasional variations in armor apparent during the course of Mamluk history.) The coat I examined had rings 5/8" or 1.5 cm in diameter. These rings were relatively thick (approx. 2 mm) and stamped with 2 concentric lines which I suspect served to flatten as well as harden them. Each ring was closed with a rectangular rivet which was peaned on both sides. The shirt had a high collar laced with leather to stiffen it, a short overlapping opening at the neck which ran down about 20 cm and a hem with a single vent front and rear, which would reach to about mid-thigh on a man of average height. It had 3/4 length sleeves. It weighed roughly 25 pounds (12 kg.)
This coat, worn by a well-trained man who was likewise protected by a shield and helmet, arm- and legguards, could stand up to considerable force, by lance, bow, axe or hammer/mace or even katar. But I must stress that training, particularly for a horseman, would be at least as important in protecting a warrior as the quality of his mail, as was also true for the European knight. Such coats were likewise worn in Russia up to the 17th century, usually over yet another coat of smaller rings-- this may be a particularly Russian affectation or may provide some indication of how mail was used as protection in the Near East as well.
In all cases but the Japanese, the material record of Eastern weapons is far outnumbered by the European-- this inequity has led arms historians to make many errors in the past 150 years, particulary when drawing comparisons between the two. Such errors, sometimes so obvious as to be funny, should really remind us to be sure of our own comparisons... and comments.
Sincerely,

Ham

[Tim Simmons]

I read somewhere that arrows can be removed by studying the wound and then inserting sticks of wood into the wound either side of the arrow shaft to locate onto the barbs and pulling the whole assembly out. I think this would only work with arrows designed for long distance or very accurate flight that have a simple head with the standard two barbs. Arrows shot at short range and for ambush as in the forests and jungles of Africa and other countries often have many barbs not just on the head but also on the shaft making the above mention process of removal impossible. Some people are just not very nice :( Tim

[Aqtai]

Thanks for that info B.I. and Ham, very helpful.

I have to admit I am still smarting after being dismissed with the following statements on another forum (which shall remain nameless and linkless :D)...European armor had become superior, both in terms of the general quality or effectiveness, and perhaps as importantly, of coverage. Lets not forget around the time of the first crusade is roughly analagous to when the first head to toe mail armor started to appear in Europe...Eastern Armor in general, including Russian Armor, was generally inferior in terms of the quality of the iron used, and that this was part of the reason so much more integrated mail and plate forms are seen particularly in Turkish and Russian armor...I always understood this was a major reason for the success of the European heavy cavalry in all engagements where they were able to come to grips with enemy forces. The Arab, Turkish, Kurdish, Egyptian etc. heavy cavalry was simply not in the same league, largely due to equipment... There was a whole lot more in the same vein. You could say I've come here to lick my wounds ;).

I have seen a fair bit of Mamluk and Ottoman mail in museums, superficially at least it looks equal to Western European mail. Indeed according to H. R. Robinson Mamluk mail rings were often double rivetted and had inscriptions! I was wondering though, have there been any metallurgical analyses of Mamluk and Ottoman mail? And have there been any studies published which compare pre-17th century Middle-Eastern mail to pre-17th century European mail?

Since this thread could do with some pics, I've got some pictures of 15th-16th century Mamluk mail which I took in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo many, many years ago. I was going through a black and white photography phase at the time.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Oriental/Mamluk_mail_15th-16th_C_001.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Oriental/mail_mamluk_001.jpg

The mail shirt in the 2nd picture had a collar reinforced with leather strips similar to the one described by Ham.

[ariel]

I read somewhere that arrows can be removed by studying the wound and then inserting sticks of wood into the wound either side of the arrow shaft to locate onto the barbs and pulling the whole assembly out. I think this would only work with arrows designed for long distance or very accurate flight that have a simple head with the standard two barbs. Arrows shot at short range and for ambush as in the forests and jungles of Africa and other countries often have many barbs not just on the head but also on the shaft making the above mention process of removal impossible. Some people are just not very nice :( Tim

The nastiest buggers made the joint between the head and the shaft deliberately weak. Any attempt to manipulate the arrow broke the joint and left the head (often deliberately smeared with feces ).
As to Aqtai's lamentations, the unmentioned (and unmentionable)- other-Forum-ite's claim that "Eastern" mail was grossly inferior to "Western" is just plain silly. In Europe, mail was affordable only to the upper crust of warriors and cost an arm and a leg (pun intended). In the East, mail was worn by the majority of the active armies. Of course, the one-of-a-kind mail might have been better than the mass produced one. But try to compare apples with apples, ie high class mails from both groups: Turkish, Caucasian and Russian mails will hold against any Italian or French ones.
Moreover, who said that the quality of mail should be the standard of military sophistication?
This is exactly what Rivkin was saying earlier: a Mongolian cavalryman had a minimalistic set of eqipment and superb military leadership and tactic. This allowed him to defeat lavishly equipped Western Knights (wearing ma-h-vellous mail shirts, no doubt). Mongolian bow beat German armour any time.

[ham]

Gentlemen,

The photos above are very useful-- the upper image of a heavy coat appears to be Mamluk though it is hard to tell without seeing the rings in better detail. The second, however is clearly Ottoman of the latter 16th c. together with a misrka type helmet. These were popular until the latter 18th century, in more isolated areas (such as the Caucasus) they was used into the 20th. The Circassians valued coats of mail by the distance at which they could stop a rifle ball.
Mail was the standard of military sophistication to a great extent-- the best required as many tools, skills and technical knowledge to make as the finest blades did-- some examples have even come to light which were tempered.

Sincerely,

Ham

[B.I]

i must say, indian armour tends to draw the short straw in most discussions. instead, when refering to 'eastern' armour, we tend to fall back to ottoman armour, as if the indian armour was of no consequence. i completely disagree as early indian armour was every bit as useful and well constructed as turkish armour, as i am sure this is where the influence originated from.
in reference, early indian armour was pretty much overlooked as there were not enough of it around to make a proper study. instead, the more 'common' 18thC armour and later was discussed.
however, with the introduction of a 'hoarde' of early armour onto the european market 10 or so years ago, we have finally been able to see the true nature of early mail that was not known or covered before.
these shirts were dated (by inscription) to the end of the 17thC but a general consensus is to believe they were of a much earleir date, possibly and probably at least one hundred years earlier. these shirts held old repairs, done in there working life and the nature of bijapur seemed to hint at them being the development of the ottoman armour worn by the original rulers of the deccan, who owe their ancestry to the ottoman 'monarchy'.
these shirts told a wealth of information, as they ranged from relatively crude, to the highest quality.
on the higher end, the links were beautifully crafted, some with shamfered edges, still sharp 500 years later. some held 'theta' links which it has recently been clarified as being forged and not cut out from sheet, as was previously thought. this meant that a lot of thought and design (as well as time) was put into the construction of these shirts.
also, it has also been found that some of these shirts had 'galvanised' links, which was a big surprise as zinc was not introduced into europe until the 17thC (i believe) but was discovered and used in india a good few hundred years before.
i dont really get involved in 'data' so please excuse any innacuracies. i have compared (physically) indian and ottoman shirts and the construction was not that dissimilar.
also, indian 'heavy' armour was well used in the 16th anf 17thC. they were also used upto the 19thC, but not in general. the introduction of firearms did the same to india as it did to europe, and armour adapted itself accordingly.
look at the 'sind' armour. i put this in inverted commas as i am not convinced this style of armour originated from that region, as refered to by egerton and subsequently robinson etc. however, i cannot question the dating of late 18th and maybe even early 19thC. this was riveted mail. although the plates were of a lighter construction, the mail was still heavy. there are enough early accounts (verified by surviving examples) of the plates beings an outer coating, and the actual protection being the heavy padded lining, thought and proved (in 18thC accounts) to protect against sword blows by itself.
heavy armour was also seen at seringapatam, which was of a later date.
also, there are late 18thC miniatures showing heavy mail/plate shirts, but these were too close to the early deccani shirts to believe they were made at the time of the miniatures. these had to be old shirts, worn at a later time.
although in peacetime, this also happened by the camel corps of bikaner in 1903, who paraded in fully heavy armour at the dehli durbar.
as for the katar, i really dont know what to say. heavy spears had the same thickened point, as did some sword blades. there are enough illustrations and sculpture showing it as a lethal stabbing weapon. if not for armour piercing, then what is the point (no pun intended :) )

aqtai, please PM me your email address.

andrew, i have refrained from refering any more to the other post, out of respect for this forum, and i suppose because it would be a cheap shot to criticise people who are not willing to defend themselves here. however, i applaud your patience on that forum. i can only put this down to your work experience. i am constantly surprised how academically wrong a supposedly academic can be. i am glad i am just a lowly collector, not used to big words and books and things.

[Aqtai]

Ham, thanks for the additional info on those two mail shirts. They are both labelled as "Mamluk", although seeing as the mamluks continued to play an important role in Ottoman Egypt perhaps that's not totally inaccurate. It does solve a small mystery though. That medallion on the chest of the 2nd shirt has the name "Ahmed El-Gaabi" on it. The mamluks favoured Turkish names and Ahmed is an Arabic name, so I couldn't figure out what it was doing on the shirt. BTW El-Gaabi means "the tax-collector", judging by the fact he had to wear armour, it was a pretty dangerous job!

B.I. thanks for the info on early Indian armour, a subject about which I know nothing. These early Deccani armours sound fascinating. I will also refrain from any further criticism of people who aren't here to defend themselves.

[ham]

Aqtai,

Regarding the medallion on the Ottoman shirt-- Arabic was the language of the Egyptian Province as you know. Mamluks were acquired from the Caucasus and Anatolia primarily, hence they spoke their native language, as well as Osmanlici and Arabic. Arabic titles were typical for Mamluks even under the Ottomans-- the Mamluk governor continued to be known as the Shaykh al-Beled until after Abu Kir. A Mamluk who went by the title al-Gaabi is not unusual. And tax collecting was a highly profitable position to which one was appointed as an honor there.


Sincerely,

Ham

[Rivkin]

What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc.

Concerning titles, indeed they carried titles in arabic, for example an honorary title yaqtaq (sorry, don't speak arabic and cite by memory, but it's supposed to be the butcher ? The title of Murad, Ibrahim and Mehmed and all others who killed 72).

Now on mail - afaik the subject of armour is even less understood than that of weapons. During the last few days I had the opportunity to speak with a few historians of mamluk period and I've got a very certain impression that they know the words of furisiyya, but have no ideas how these "swords", "bows" etc. look like - well many historians out there certainly do, but it's not a very common knowladge. For example one can look at Ayn-Jalat by Smith and "Mongol-Ilkhanid war" by Amitai-Preiss. The latter one quite honestly admits that there is no depiction of Ilkhanid armor, weaponry or tactics of the time. The description they use is due to Marco Polo (!), who obviously did not have anything to do with Mongol-Mamluk wars. The rest (and it's like 100 pages in these manuscripts) is an open speculation. For example Smith claims that Mongols used georgian/armenian cavalry because of it's shock power, but Amitai-Preiss counteracts with the statement that there is not a single (!) depictions of georgian or armenian cavalry of the time.

One of the most puzzling things to me was that no one in the middle ages seemed to be interested in for example testing a typical "mamluk" armor against a bow in order for example to determine the effective range of their weapons, or may be no one was interested in recording this for posterity, which is not unusual, taking in mind that 90% of books on mamluks will reference same works - Maqrizi, Ibn-Iyas, Ibn-Khaldan, Bar Hebraus, Rash-Al-Din, Furisiyya and may be 5 to 10 lesser known volumes.

In light of this there is a lot of speculation when it comes to "what was the difference in armor between royal and amir mamluks ?" "Did halqa use mails ?" and so on.

[Rivkin]

Concerning katars - sorry, don't think it's gonna work - if one has a mail, chanse he has a horse. If one has a horse, chanse he has a lance/sword. Would not be wise to try to use a katar.

Additionally I would refer to mail-ripping kindjals - they are usually on the big side (20 inches) with a stiletto-like extremely thin "spike" on top of them. Unfortunately Astvatsaturjan does not have a picture, somewhere I had the one of my own...

[ham]

[QUOTE=Rivkin]What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc.

Respectfully Rivkin, I doubt very much whether that is what Aqtai meant; it is patently untrue. Mamluks regularly took Arabic names from the time they were brought to Baghdad under the Abbasid sultans in the bloody ninth century, to say nothing of the fact that literally every Egyptian Mamluk Sultan had an Arabic name as well. And as far as giving a Mamluk an Arabic name in order to Ottomanize him...? You'll have to explain that one.

Despite the scarcity of data on arms and armor of the Mamluks, Mamluk arms in Egypt are not entirely occluded by the mists of time. Excellent research has been done and continues to be done by European, Arab and Turkish arms historians. What Mamluk arms and armor were like is not the realm of Islamic, Ottoman, Egyptian or Mamluk historians, nor is it ever but rarely touched upon by military historians. It is arms historians who specialize in this esoteric area which requires a background in numerous languages, history, metalurgy and extensive experience with the artifacts themselves-- and while their research may be found in arms journals such as the newly revived GLADIUS, the best way to fill gaps in one's own knowledge is to examine the material record itself-- museums in both Cairo and Istanbul have numerous examples of Mamluk arms and armor identified by the names of their owners and the rulers under whom they fought-- for the present,the most reliable method of attribution known.

[Rivkin]

[QUOTE=Rivkin]What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc.

Respectfully Rivkin, I doubt very much whether that is what Aqtai meant; it is patently untrue. Mamluks regularly took Arabic names from the time they were brought to Baghdad under the Abbasid sultans in the bloody ninth century, to say nothing of the fact that literally every Egyptian Mamluk Sultan had an Arabic name as well. And as far as giving a Mamluk an Arabic name in order to Ottomanize him...? You'll have to explain that one.


Not pretending to be a specialist, and being too lazy to go to the library and pick up the book:

Concerning the names, I can't say I remeber "literally every" Sultan, but from the names I remember : Baybars, Qutuz, Qautbay, Barsbay, Tumanbay, Qalawun, Yilbay, Temur-Buga, semi-sultan Khairbek do not sound to me anything like arabic names. Is Inal an arabic name ? I'm sure they had long, arabic titles and aliases, al-rachman, al-malek, al-dawla something (did they Abdallah to signify their way to Islam ?) and that's may be even the way ulema called them, here I'm at complete ignorance, but I don't remember, may be to my shame, any sultan who would have an explicitly arabic name.
As far as I remember the point was specifically that even Circassians (and their names are very unturkish) always took a turkish (atrak) name when becoming a mamluk. Btw it's a surprise for me that you say they used ottoman, I always thought they used more "classical" turkish.

P.S. may be I was not exactly correct in phrasing my statement - not that they could not have arabic names, titles and aliases, but one of the main symbols of being mamluk was being given a turkish name during the process.

P.P.S. After writing this I went through my books and indeed found Muhammed ibn-Qalawun. No turkish name, only arabic. Interesting, did he go through a traditional mamluk education ?

[Aqtai]

Rivkin, that is exactly what I meant:).

Mamluks during the Mamluk period used Turkish names like Baybars, Qalawun, Khushqadam, Qaitbay and Tumanbay. As Rivkin said this even carried on after mamluks were no longer Turkish and recruited from the Caucasus. I assume it was some kind of tradition. Indeed mamluks actually spoke the Qipchaq dialect, for example Sultan Qansuh El-Ghuri, who was of Circassian erigin, commissioned a Turkish translation of the Shah-nameh so that other mamluks could understand it! BTW this Mamluk shahnameh remains a useful source of information on the appearence of mamluks. During the Ottoman period, as Rivkin pointed out, the mamluks started using Arabic names.

With regards to Muhammad ibn Qalawun, the children of mamluks who were born and brought up in Egypt always had Arabic names and were excluded from military careers, although they may have been allowed to join the halaqa in the early Mamluk period. Yusef Ibn Taghri-birdi and Mohammed Ibn Ahmed Ibn Iyas were sons and grandsons of mamluks. However children of mamluks were entitled to a state pension, which is probably why these two had the time to become historians, they also had access to many mamluk emirs and even the sultan himself. AFAIK the only two mamluk sultans of mamluk origin, not the sons of a previous sultan, who didn't have Turkish names I can think of are Sultan Barquq (which means plum) and Sultan Al-Mu'ayyad Sheikh.

Ham, thanks for letting me know about the research carried out on Mamluk and Ottoman armour. Is any of it being published in English or available to the public?

[Rivkin]

Thank you Aqtai !
btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate:

1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these.

It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it.

Did someone see something on this issue ?

2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

[fearn]

Concerning katars - sorry, don't think it's gonna work - if one has a mail, chanse he has a horse. If one has a horse, chanse he has a lance/sword. Would not be wise to try to use a katar.

Additionally I would refer to mail-ripping kindjals - they are usually on the big side (20 inches) with a stiletto-like extremely thin "spike" on top of them. Unfortunately Astvatsaturjan does not have a picture, somewhere I had the one of my own...


Hi Rivkin,

I'd suggest that, once you get someone off the horse, an armor-piercing knife is useful. After all, that's what the European misericorde was for.

On the other hand, I do agree with you: I don't know much about Indian martial arts, but I certainly wouldn't want to count on a katar as a main battle weapon. However, off the battlefield (i.e. in a dark alley, an ambush, a skirmish, or whatever), I suspect it was quite useful. After all, the thickened point doesn't prevent it from being used on unarmored foes as well as armored ones. I'd suggest we simply look at it as an Indian version of a cinqueda and go with it.

Otherwise, I'm quite enjoying the discussion of indian armor, so I'll fade back into the woodwork.

F

[Tim Simmons]

Small heavy bladed knives and katars would be very useful getting through heavy and padded cotton armour as Fearn says. By the mid to late 19th century some oriental metal armour had become quite light and only partially protecting the torso. These knives might well never have been expected to be in use against metal armour around the close of the 19th century. Tim

[Aqtai]

Thank you Aqtai !
btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate:

1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these.

It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it.

Did someone see something on this issue ?

2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin


Hi Rivkin, I have never heard this story about Circassian mamluks being buried in trees, from what I know of the mamluks and the Mamluk sultanate, I think it would be highly unlikely. For all their frequent lapses (such as murdering each other, drinking wine and qumiz, love of fine clothing and over-taxing the native peoples of their kingdom :D) the mamluks were pretty orthodox and overall quite sincere Muslims. Those kind of pagan practices would simply not have been tolerated. I don't know were the ordinary mamluks were buried, but certainly Cairo is littered with the splendid tombs of emirs and sultans, many of which I have visited. I assume the tombs of ordinary mamluks would have ressembled those of their contemporary middle-class Egyptians. In fact there is a lot we don't know about mamluks.

I'm not sure what you mean by pre-Mamluk era? certainly until the reign of the penultimate Ayyubid Sultan Es-Salih Ayyub, Mamluks would have been a tiny elite minority in an army made up largely of free-born Turks, Kurds and the occasional Arab tribesman. Even during Ayyub's reign the Bahri mamluks would probably only have numbered a couple of thousand at most. What distinguished Ayyub is he promoted his mamluks over the heads of free-born emirs. Indeed by the time he died all the emirs seem to have been of Mamluk origin. What also distinguished the Bahris is that they were nearly all of Qipchaq Turkish origin and were extremely loyal to each other as well as their sultan, whereas previously mamluks came from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds and included Turks, Armenians and Slavs. With regards to Armour and weapon virtually nothing survives which can be positively identified as Ayyubid or early Mamluk. As far as I know the earliest swords and helmets, apart from the sword of Ayyub, date to the late 13th and early 14th century.

This picture of a helmet and aventail comes from an Arabic translation of L. A. Mayer's "Mamluk Costume", A book I would love to own but which is terrifyingly expensive. The helmet is early 14th century and is attributed to Sultan Muhammad ibn Qalawun. If that mail is genuine (which I doubt), then it is the earliest piece of Mamluk mail I know of. These 2 pieces were in the Porte de Hal museum in Brussels.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Oriental/Mamluk_helmet_14th_C.jpg

I've not heard of Rustam's autobiography, what is it?

[Rivkin]

I was also puzzled by this tree story. I'll try to get my hands on the book and see if he provides any references.

Rustam's memoirs unfortunately have not been translated into english (to my knowladge), it's an autobiography by Napoleon's mamluk bodyguard. While it's relatively short it was extremely educating for me, for it's may be the only autobiography of this kind I know about. There is a french version:

Roustam Raza
"Souvenirs de Roustam, mamelouck de Napoléon", 1er.
Introduction et notes de Paul Cottin. Préface de Frédéric Masson (Paris, 1911) 302p.

Here is Napoleon with Roustam in the background:
http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/napoleon/images/big/8NIII058.jpg

[Aqtai]

That would be an interesting book to read. I think in terms of material culture however early 19th century mamluks would have been more influenced by Ottoman culture than 13th-16th century Mamluke sultanate culture. Certainly the costumes worn by the mamluks of this period were Ottoman.

I'll see if I can get hold of it. My French is bit rusty now, but hopefully i should still be able to read a book :D.

BTW what language were the mamluks speaking among themselves in Rustam's time? Were they still speaking Qipchaq?

[Rivkin]

Roustam says they spoke kartli (mainstream georgian). Concerning the influence, it's in some sence truly hard to see the connection with earlier sultans in this ragtagged force, filled with russian POWs from 1779 war, french deserters from Napoleon's army, german gangsters and so on. However it's interesting that till the very end mamluks retained the exclusive status of their units under the Ottomans, being separated from sipahis or yeni chari. There is an information that during 1779 war it was said that mamluks retained old education - instead of being send to the front there were performing archery and lanceship for the sultan.

Concerning mamluks in pre-mamluk period I would reference the collection of articles of Ayulon "Malmluk studies ...", who goes into long discussions. He says that while typical number of mamluks per se in the army of Baghdad Caliph/Sultans appears small at the first sight (500 personal mamluks of Salahdin) he makes the case that it can be deceptive:

a. Mamluks numerically never were able to exceed certain number even during the sultanate, with rest being filled with free turkoman and kurds, halqa and bedouin irregulars.
b. Nevertheless there are some references that even at that time mamluks were considered the decisive force in battle - being elite squadron there were specifically meant to make the day.
c. No one mentions the ratio of mamluks to non-mamluks in the pre-sultanate armies, usually limiting oneself to simply describe the number of royal mamluks.
d. It's often that while 500 or 1000 mamluks are specifically mentioned, the rest of the army is not mentioned at all. For example, it's repeatedly mentioned how many mamluks Salahadin inherited, while for the rest of the army (supposedly inherited as well), one does not see even an explicit size estimate.

Now to the topic of mails - it's well reported ("Turkish archery" by Klopsteg) that turkish bow penetrated nearly all the armor. Together with mamluk training, emphasizing shooting at small targets while riding a horse, one can see not only standart "anti-horse" use of bows, but the great danger for the rider as well.

[B.I]

what happened to katars and INDIAN chainmail??

i am not complaining as i have a good interest in ottoman and mumluk armour and am enjoyng reading the posts, but its a shame that, as always, indian pieces are overlooked or sidelined.
i know jens is on a road trip but jim??

aqtai and krill, please dont stop but i hope others will pick up the indian side.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Brian,
I have to admit I've been pretty much 'out of the loop' :) on this oustanding discussion on mail and katars the past week, although I have read this thread as well as the one on the other forum. I think your discussion on Indian armour was very nicely stated and well placed, bringing up material on this armour that illustrates that there was a distinct spectrum of quality in the forms found. This suggests of course that some Indian armour certainly did parallel European quality. I think Ham made a particularly important comment concerning the validity of comparisons when significant difference in period are involved. Weapons and armour of later period that maintain certain traditional style or form vestigially, as their expectation of meeting the combat situations intended for original design is negligible, seem hardly worthy of such comparison.

The study of armour has admittedly been far outside my field of study, but in reviewing these discussions I cannot help but become profoundly intrigued and realize how important and relevant its study is to our more focused study on ethnographic weapons. The paper "Demystifying Chain Mail and Ring Mail" by Dan Howard that is linked in the thread is nicely written and beautifully referenced, informative and most helpful in getting the proper perspective in understanding this topic from the European forms. I agree with your note that most study of weaponry and armour does defer to Ottoman and Mamluk material when 'Eastern' examples are discussed, while Indian forms are relegated to broad assumptions and nearly cliche' interpretations. I think one of the most important qualities of Robert Elgood's magnificent new book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (London, 2004, ISBN 81-88204-44-7), is that he brilliantly examines how to understand the symbolism imbued in the weapons and armour, an extremely important perspective that has typically eluded the scope of arms and armour study in the west. His work will stand as the renaissance of the study of Indian weaponry.

Returning to the topic of mail and katars, on the mail I would defer to the advanced knowledge of you and the others on these threads, and hope the discussions will continue as the material is fascinating and its great to learn more on this!
On the katar and it's use as a mail piercing weapon. You, Jens and I have of course discussed these often, and there have been countless posts over the years on these forums. With the limited material available on these, most of the discussion is naturally speculative. The suggestion that the katar was not intended for use against mail needs qualification. This is a weapon that evolved over a long period and seems to have remained indiginous to the Indian sphere, however with the development came of course variations. It seems to me that in its development in Southern India it was likely not meant to pierce armour originally. Much like the pata, its gauntleted sword big brother, it was used in slashing manner as much as in thrusting. It is important to note that the Mahratta versions after the arrival of Europeans often used the straight broadsword blades from Europe. These blades would have not been suited for mail piercing in India any more than they would have been in Europe.

In later development of course, encroaching influences brought the well known reinforced points seen on many of these katars that would suggest the potential for armour piercing. Obviously such a feature would not guarantee that it would be used for such purpose any more than it would preclude its use in any manner dictated by circumstances. With that consideration, it seems worthy of note that the absence of combat damage on existing katar examples that would indicate contact with armour does not necessarily provide evidence that such use was not intended. It must be remembered that most Indian weapons that survive are typically those found in collections acquired during the British Raj, and these were often armoury items or from gatherings from diplomatic interaction. The weaponry of the rank and file and with combat history typically ended up in scrap heaps and were disposed of. This severely impedes the possibility of combat damage on examples found for examination, much as in considerable weaponry usually found by collectors. It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage.

I think that the katar was a weapon form that like most others, experienced variation, and while there were certainly examples that carried blades that were reinforced for mail piercing, this was not an exclusive consideration.
As far as the most effective attack against mail, it seems that in the heat of combat, the most instinctive action in the melee would be a powerful blow with a zaghnal, battle axe or mace. It would seem that in using blades against mail the primary concern would be in the blade breaking. Here I would ask those more advanced in armour...would there have been a construction location in the coats or shirts that were more vulnerable? It is of course said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Also, would heavy blows from mace or axe sufficiently weaken areas of the mail to allow better penetration of a bladed weapon?

This has been an outstanding discussion, and I very much admire the prudent demeanor employed by you and everyone on this thread in discussing a concurrent thread from the other forum and avoiding direct criticism of its participants. Very nicely done!

With all best regards,
Jim

[Aqtai]

Sorry for going off-topic. My fascination with the mamluks got the better of me :D.

I have to admit I also know hardly anything about Katars so I didn't feel qualified to comment on that part of the the discussion. I think one would have to go to descriptions of battles fought in the Mughul era and Indian equivalents of the Mamluk Furuseya manuals to get more info. I must concur with Jim that to me personally the katar has never really "felt" like a military weapon. It has struck me more as a weapon to be used in streetfights, self-defense and by assasins. In battle I personally can only envision it as a secondary weapon. I would imagine the main hand-to-hand weapons used on the battlefield would have been the lance, axe, mace and Tulwar. The longer reach of these weapons would have made a man armed only with a katar very vulnerable. But like I said, what do I know :).

The only real way to test it would be to stab a mannequin wearing an antique Indian mail shirt and gambeson with a katar. Frankly that would be absolutely criminal and the worst sort of vandalism!

[not2sharp]

It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage.

This should be a topic for discussion on its own. Spotting abuse is straight forward, but trying to find legitimate combat damage is difficult at best.

n2s

[Jim McDougall]

Aqtai and N2S,
Thanks very much for the responses :)
What Aqtai notes on the katar is well placed, it does seem a secondary weapon, although not specifically military it likely was found in such situations. The secondary weapon was important in close quarters melee as combatants closed on each other and there was limited space for momentum oriented use of weapons. It is interesting to note the possible use as an assassins weapon also, most presumably of course the smaller and short bladed examples. It seems there have been discussions on a number of edged weapons that have been suggested were too small or 'fragile' to have been actually used as weapons. I think one of them was the 'lohar' of Afghan regions. While these were relatively small and seemed unlikely for combat weapons, it is known that many NW frontier tribes favored stealth attacks in the night and even such a small weapon would be extremely effective against a nondefensive victim.

The katar also has been the topic of many discussions here concerning its use in the hunt. Here it seems likely as a secondary weapon also, although there have been accounts of displays of prowess in using the weapon to hunt tigers for one example. Many katars carry shikarga motif with hunting scenes.

N2S, absolutely!! Such a topic as genuine combat damaged weapons would be fascinating. I still have visions of one guy who had an outstanding Caucasian shashka and his son had it in the back yard whacking weeds with it! auugghh!! Such is probably the source of much of the 'combat' damage found on many collected weapons.
Again, returning to the katar, it would be interesting to find examples of early katars to find evidence of combat use. As discussed, these will be hard to find as these were those souveniers brought home by soldiers and later travellers from bazaars, typically now lost in obscure private estates. Every so often someone will find one of these treasures, and hopefully will be shared here.

All the best,
Jim

[B.I]

a great assessment, jim, of which i fully expected and enjoy every time :-)
i think the problem with a 'western' assessment of indian arms is the difficulty in understand what we would class as 'clumsy' or strange weapons. to us they have always seemed cumbersome and inefficient, but this is because we were not trained with their use from a very young age. whilst there are numerous accounts of the 'strange' weapons of the native in british 19thC accounts, there are also a few admissions of the expertise these natives had when wielding these weapons - the katar and pata being good examples.
and so, i think a western martial aspect falls foul of a true assessment. this is because it is too easy to generalise indian weapons.
all this could be heresay except for a very lucky fact. the antique arms world was lucky enough to experience a hoard of these early armoured shirts, which was something noteable academics and museums never had a chance to do., before this, these armours were rare, and so diagnosis of any kind could only be led by speculaton.
however, when you have 800 chainmail shirts, a comparison can be made.
for some unknown reason, when people mention indian armour, we tend to think of the lighter armour of the 18thC. when we think of european armour, we think of the heavy medievel and post medieval suits.
indian armour developed according to whoever was wearing it and whoever they were fighting at the time. for this reason, the heavy armour tended to generate from the south, where the ottoman influence was very strong. the moghuls took there style of fighting from the persian, with other ancestery influences. however, the deccan had direct links with the ottoman empire, with bijapur being ruled by an ottoman prince, who brought this own culture into these foreign lands.
as for the katar and the chainmail shirts, this is a double ended arguement. some katars couldnt pierce chainmail, and some could. some chainmail could protect against a katar and some couldnt.
this is because no two shirts of the 800 were the same. the best fo them had two solid, heavy gauge plates at the front, with 3 rows of 'lamellar' plates at the back. the mail above the front plates (up to the neck area) were of a much heavier gauge and thickened for strength. each link was well crafted, and some chamfered to an almost sharp point, like mini chackrams. the mail reduced in size (evenly) down the arms and towards the bottom of the tunic. some had a mail collar, which doubled over the neck area. some had a seperate section, like a bishops mantle. these were the best of the lot and each shirt could match the quality of european shirts and repel even the thickest of katars. also, some had interspersed links with koranic verses (again, like the earlier ottoman shirts) which provided a talismatic feel for the wearer.
all the above description was not the majority of the shirts, but a large handful.
more than half were relatively crude. the front plates were thinner, the rear smaller plates of lighter gauge, the links uneven and poorly made, even small and light. i have seen a riveted chainmail shirt of the same period with some of the links of absolutely tiny size, giving a feeling of 'silk' when holding it.
a good, thickened katar, wielded by an expert could not only punch through the chainmail, but maybe even the front plates as well.
it is for this reason i dont think a modern armourer can give an accurate assessment, as it would fully depend on both the offensive and defensive weapon in mind. a katar vs chainmail is way too vague.
a good katar vs a poor chainmail - yes.
a poor katar vs a good chainmail - no
a good katar vs a good chainmail, well life is too short to speculate on an arguement that will never have any conclusive answer :-)

as for the katar being purely civilian, or secondary, or not meant for battle - i think definately not. the katar was as much the national weapon of india as the tulwar was, maybe even more so. known in miniatures and sculpture since the second half of the 16thC, its form remained so for over 400 years. whilst the south and north both adapted there own style of sword (in the 16th/early 17thC), the katar remained the second weapon.
of course it could not be a primary weapon, as its a dagger and no warrior would go into battle holding a dagger first. however, it features in almost every 'battle' miniature throughout the moughul empire. there is no reason for them to carry it unless it was of some use. unfortunately most miniature show the warriors carrying a sword, but the katar is prominent in their belts, ready for use.
i have attached 4 images. the first 3 are circa 1570 and show 'battle' scenes. the first image is stroming a citadel, and shows a warrior holding a katar.
the forth image is dated 1602 and is amidst a battle. the two main warriors have discarded their swords and are fighting to the death. the warrior holding the katar is fully armoured. his opponent is wearing a shirt, but another warrior wearing a similar shirt shows what could be a chainmail shirt beneath it (the shirt opens at the front, centred by a medalion, as you can just about see on this warrior). his horse is armoured and you would think he would be too. whether he is or isnt is immaterial, as the nature of miniatures are always open to arguemnets about artistic license. however, the moguls emerors took both their martial art and decorative art very seriously and a gross mistake to a court painting would not do overlooked. a warrior would not be shown using a civilian dagger in war.
miniatures should be taken for what they are. there are period depictions and all we have, given the religeous nature of most sculpture. so, to dismiss them completely would end all research before it begins. they should be given the benefit of the doubt, but with a pinch of salt in mind.

[Aqtai]

Very instructive pictures Brian, they also show how completely wrong I was :). Please feel free to tell me off if I go around airily speculating again! :D

That 4th picture is particularly fascinating, not only does it show a katar and dagger in action in what is clearly a battlefield situation, but it also seems to show stylised representations of well known types of Indian armour. The chap in the foreground seems to be wearing a mail and plate armour of the type you have just described, with the 3 rows of plates down his back. The other warrior seems to have studs on his coat and a disc on his chest, I wonder (yes, I'm speculating again) if that could be an early version of the chihal'ta hazar masha or "coat of a thousand nails".

[Jens Nordlunde]

Excellent Jim, and yes katars were used in battle and when hunting, just like the swords, lances, bows and other weapons used in battles.

Well done Brian that you corrected the mistake, that the katar was not used for war, it most certainly was – as a second weapon of course, but still used.

The katar on the picture is rather special, and I doubt that it can have been meant used for other things than to open mails and wound/kill the opponent. If used on someone not wearing a mail, the risk that it would get stuck between two ribs was big, and the strength it would take to get it free plus the time, would most likely mean that the user would leave it to fight off other enemies – a katar lost. In such a case a flat bladed katar would be far better. You must also remember, that a katar was used with great force by trained worriers.

[Jens Nordlunde]

One of the ‘swords’, seldom seen, is shown in Tirri’s book ‘Islamic Weapons’, page 331, figure 251. I have only seen only one other ‘sword’ like this, it was either at the Top Kapi Museum, or at the Army Museum in Istanbul, the hilt was different, but the ‘blade’ was like the one shown. These swords were made for penetrating mail or plates, or to find a weak point in the armour.

[Aqtai]

One of the ‘swords’, seldom seen, is shown in Tirri’s book ‘Islamic Weapons’, page 331, figure 251. I have only seen only one other ‘sword’ like this, it was either at the Top Kapi Museum, or at the Army Museum in Istanbul, the hilt was different, but the ‘blade’ was like the one shown. These swords were made for penetrating mail or plates, or to find a weak point in the armour.

I was at the Royal armouries in Leeds yesterday (I've not been to the Royal armouries since 1989, when they were still based in the Tower of London), and I saw a similar weapon. Unfortunately I didn't photograph it. According to the caption it was an "Indian two-handed sword", or words to that effect. It was about 4 feet (120 cm) long and like a European 2-hander it seems it was designed so a second hand could hold the actual blade below the hilt. It seemed to be designed mainly for thrusting rather that hacking or slashing, the blade was quite narrow and thick.

What i did photograph, among other things, was an 18th century "coat of 1000 nails" one quite similar to the ones in B.I.'s miniature paintings.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Royal%20Armouries/mughul_coat_of_1000_nails.jpg

And a helmet similar to the ones in the lower two pictures posted by B.I.:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Royal%20Armouries/Indian_helmet_18th_c.jpg

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jens,
As always, a very excellent photo of a beautiful katar which clearly has a defined intent as a piercing weapon, with this observation based entirely on the pronounced, ribbed cross-section of the quatrefoil blade. I wanted to be sure to qualify that after the dynamically inflated discussion that remains concurrent on another forum. I think physics is quite interesting, but feel that it is in large degree as superfluous as elevated academic procedure in basic friendly discussion.

While Indian armourers were clearly extremely innovative in weapons design and production, with some of questionable practibility,it would be naieve to presume that many katars were not intended for, and actually used to pierce mail or especially that they did not find use in combat. The absence of battle damaged katars reflecting damage at the point that would suggest impact with armour is hardly evidence that such use did not occur. It has been well established that vast quantities of weapons were gathered and scrapped during the British Raj, presumably in most cases to deprive potential insurgents of weaponry. The majority of weapons now found in significant collections were collected from armouries of important royal figures or attractive examples chosen by impressive appearance rather than 'fighting' or 'damaged' items...primarily to serve as distinguished decorations or souveniers.

The interesting Indian sword you have shown for piercing seems very equivilent to the European 'estoc' that was essentially a hilted lance to pierce armour , and seems to have had Islamic counterparts in the 'mec' as well as Chinese rapier type examples. The Tatars had the armour piercing needle type blades on many examples of the sabres of the 17th century known as 'ordynka', and in Russia and the Caucusus, the 'malle perce' (mail piercing) blade was well known. It would seem that in North Africa, the needle point sword distinctively known as the 'flyssa' was intended to pierce mail, which had become well established in use in both western and eastern Sudanese regions, as well as with Ottomans in North African regions. While the actual method of combat for these swords remains obscure, the suggested use for mail piercing seems plausible.

Despite the academic analysis concerning physics and evidential criteria that attempts to suggest against mail piercing use of the katar, it seems to me that specialized weapons intended to pierce armour were well known and represented in various cultural spheres. Such diversity would seem to increase the believability of such use, and that such application would be afforded to a weapon primarily associated with the thrust seems compellingly probable.

I think your note on the possibility of the weapon becoming lodged in either bone or complex anatomy is well placed, and this is one of the arguments against thrust weapons with serration or barbed configuration, that withdrawal would be a problem.

Whether or not these piercing weapons could actually pierce mail or other armour.....this cannot really be effectively determined using physics or typical scientific approach in all cases. The reason for this is that the factor that cannot be accurately measured in these dynamics is that of the nearly unfathomable magnitude of human ferocity in the heat of combat. It is well known that the power of adrenaline in extreme situations can reach unbelievable levels. In such cases there can be little doubt that penetration could be accomplished, the only question would be if the weapon itself could survive the force of the thrust.

I think it must also be considered that the rank and file in combat, if wearing armour at all, would have had that of munitions grade quality at best, and that would have been likely poorly maintained. Judging the integrity of the higher quality mail armour that still exists to determine the potential of armour piercing thrusts would be inconsistant with accurate standards.

All the best,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Aqtai,

What a beauty, thank you for showing it.

The ‘sword’ shown in the Tirri book, has doubtfully been used as a two hand swords, but I have never seen the one in Leeds. You could have used it as a mace, but I doubt very much how big a help it would have be, and used as a two hand ‘sword’, what would the point be? Other maybe, than you could steer the sword better.

I find the discussion most interesting, but one must remember that in the Worlds at that time, the Oriental and the European, mails as well as weapons were made in many qualities, which would fit the buyers wallet, so one can’t say that European mails were better than mails from India, not can one say the opposite – it all depended of the buyer – not on the mail smiths, as they could make whatever you wanted.

Jens

[B.I]

sorry to have been absent on this topic. i have been reading the other discussion on SFI and must agree that i still dont agree with whats being said.
i think the reason i feel the post goes astray, is that indian armour is still being classified as a whole. this isnt the case, and never has been. i dont see the point of testing against a similar, or even antique piece of mail. would you choose a high quality one or a poor one. which type of katar would you use? i true reading would be a poor piece of mail against a very good katar, as this would prove it can be penetrated but this is hardly accurate, nor is there much point in doing so. the answer doesnt require any tests, nor a scientific analysis. the proof is apparant in surviving examples, of which there are enough around to make a visual inspection and conclusion. if visually, there is no doubt, then i dont particularly see the point in taking the conversation further. the slightest doubt would induce a further anaysis but in my humble opinion, i feel this isnt needed.
attached is an image of two types of mail. both are from the same region and probably the same date (give or take..) the katar is roughly the same date as well. the katar is relatively standard in form ie. not excessively thickened as jens' example, but just the tip, as found in earlier examples. the section of mail shown is of the upper torso section, which is normally heavier duty due to the vital organs that needed protection.
the katar is early 17thC. the mail is dated 17thC but could possible be 100 years earlier. to me (again, humble opinion) this katar would sail through the lighter mail, but would struggle against the heavier mail. (the blacker mail on the top right is ottoman and just for comparative size)
all opinions can only be asthetic. as jim rightly says, we could not imagine the ferocity of 17thC battle and so any scientific test, whether on paper or physical would be tainted.
jens also notes that mail shirts were commonly worn (more so that in europe) and the quality was related the the wealth of the owner. in europe, only a wealthy man could afford armour but the quantities of indian armour that survived, and the range of quality tends to paint a different picture.
i dont think indian mail can ever be compared to european because the culture, people and art of war was completely different.

[Aqtai]

sorry to have been absent on this topic. i have been reading the other discussion on SFI and must agree that i still dont agree with whats being said.
i think the reason i feel the post goes astray, is that indian armour is still being classified as a whole. this isnt the case, and never has been. i dont see the point of testing against a similar, or even antique piece of mail. would you choose a high quality one or a poor one. which type of katar would you use? i true reading would be a poor piece of mail against a very good katar, as this would prove it can be penetrated but this is hardly accurate, nor is there much point in doing so. the answer doesnt require any tests, nor a scientific analysis. the proof is apparant in surviving examples, of which there are enough around to make a visual inspection and conclusion. if visually, there is no doubt, then i dont particularly see the point in taking the conversation further. the slightest doubt would induce a further anaysis but in my humble opinion, i feel this isnt needed.
attached is an image of two types of mail. both are from the same region and probably the same date (give or take..) the katar is roughly the same date as well. the katar is relatively standard in form ie. not excessively thickened as jens' example, but just the tip, as found in earlier examples. the section of mail shown is of the upper torso section, which is normally heavier duty due to the vital organs that needed protection.
the katar is early 17thC. the mail is dated 17thC but could possible be 100 years earlier. to me (again, humble opinion) this katar would sail through the lighter mail, but would struggle against the heavier mail. (the blacker mail on the top right is ottoman and just for comparative size)
all opinions can only be asthetic. as jim rightly says, we could not imagine the ferocity of 17thC battle and so any scientific test, whether on paper or physical would be tainted.
jens also notes that mail shirts were commonly worn (more so that in europe) and the quality was related the the wealth of the owner. in europe, only a wealthy man could afford armour but the quantities of indian armour that survived, and the range of quality tends to paint a different picture.
i dont think indian mail can ever be compared to european because the culture, people and art of war was completely different.

I like the pictures you posted, they illustrate very nicely the differences between different types of mail. I also suggested on the SFI forum that an experiment would be useful :), but I have changed my mind since then. Like you said, there was lot of variation from one mail shirt to another, not just in the size of the links but also in the quality of the iron used. Furthermore an antique mail shirt will have degraded over the centuries.

My own personnal conclusion is that the katar is a traditional weapon not specifically designed to penetrate mail, although variants do exist which have designed for that purpose. I also have concluded that a good quality ordinary katar, if used with sufficient force, will penetrate most mail shirts although probably not high quality mail with thick links over the chest.

[B.I]

I like the pictures you posted, they illustrate very nicely the differences between different types of mail. I also suggested on the SFI forum that an experiment would be useful :), but I have changed my mind since then. Like you said, there was lot of variation from one mail shirt to another, not just in the size of the links but also in the quality of the iron used. Furthermore an antique mail shirt will have degraded over the centuries.

My own personnal conclusion is that the katar is a traditional weapon not specifically designed to penetrate mail, although variants do exist which have designed for that purpose. I also have concluded that a good quality ordinary katar, if used with sufficient force, will penetrate most mail shirts although probably not high quality mail with thick links over the chest.

hi aqtai,
i completely agree with you and i think that the arguements generated on the other post were more borne from either a european perspective or an academic need to dominate conversations, no matter what the subject. it seemed clear that the armour in question had never been examined and so all analysis should not have gone past polite speculation.
i dont for one minute include you in this, as the post was on a more general armour forum, and not one that caters for an eastern perspective.
some of the conclusions were acceptable, some surprising and some just ludicrous. indian armour has been overlooked for a long time but, as i said before, 'recent' events have enabled us to study it at a more in depth level and most museums now have good examples that can be accessed. many of the major museums aquired these shirts from (near enough) the same source, although some already had examples in their inventory.
also, i'm not sure about the degrading of mail. this point was made on the other forum and i cant see that this could be a valid point. of course, in some or even most occasions, but never all and so this shouldnt be said as a sweeping statement. the mail i show at the bottom is in fabulous condition. each link still has a sharp ridge, often worn in other examples. the nature of ferrous metal is the erroding effect nature and time has. but, the nature of something 'expensive' is that it is looked after. look at most of the european armour in old collections and the preserved condition. i am not a metalurgist, but know that cast metal becomes more brittle with age but am not aware of this happening to armour. the best thing about ignorance is being blissfully unaware so someone please feel free to educate me. i know that asthetically a lot of armour hasnt degraded but anything more is out of my sphere.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Very nice, and well composed, pictures. A very good way to illustrate your point of view.

Of the katars I have, there are only two, which does not have a reinforced tip. Not that the reinforcement itself means that could, or was meant for piercing mails. Here is another one.

[B.I]

very nice jens. although not as excessive as your other example, this one also overstresses the thickened tip as if the weapon was being adapted for a purpose.
both you and aqtai has expressed that the thickened point 'could' have been used to penetrate armour and i think it good to stress this. at the end of the day, all we can do is speculate and it seems that a thickened point could well have been included for this purpose, given the style of armour in that time.
also, something that has been overlooked is that many spears also had this reinforced tip, as did (on rare occasion) a sword blade. again, we have to think why this was so and conclusions veer towards the armour piercing. not a debate that will ever be conclusive, but i am glad to be on a forum that listens politely to all opinions and happily agrees to disagree.

[Mark]

again, we have to think why this was so and conclusions veer towards the armour piercing. not a debate that will ever be conclusive, but i am glad to be on a forum that listens politely to all opinions and happily agrees to disagree.

That is what makes it such a great forum! :D

It would be great if someone could locate a damaged piece of Indian armor. If it has a katar-sized hole punched in it, this would tend to show that regardless of whether or not the katar was designed to pierce mail, it was able to. On the other hand, if all that one sees in the way of armor damage is slashing damage, or piercing by larger dimension blades (how would one tell that, BTW, just to be my own Devil's Advocate?), that might be an indication that the katar was not used to pierce armor. Hm ... how would you tell the difference between a katar hole and a war-hammer spike hole? Its always such a challenge to reconstruct the past. :o

I recall some posts of contemporary paintings and/or sculpture showing battle scenes with katar. Perhaps they show whether or not the opponent was mailed. I will try and locate them.

[Mark]

This is all that I could find in the UBB archives. There is an illustration in one of the posts showing a man on horseback surrounded by attendents. He carries both a pata and a katar, and a few of the attendants carry katars in their belts (as well as various swords in their hands). No one is wearing armor, but the scene looks more like an afternoon ride in the country than a march to war.

http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001837.html

[B.I]

hi mark,
there may well be images of the 'perfect' battle scene and we can hope that one can be found. it wont be conclusive, but will be nice to see. the image you mentioned was early 18thC (circa 1700) and examples can be found that date somewhat earlier. unfortunately, as the katar was a secondary weapon in battle, most miniatures show the katar sheathed.
the katar does appear in sculpture as well, but is harder to find due to the religious taint most sculpture lends to, but tamil nadu temples show it very clearly.
i have always felt that the evidence would lie in surviving examples and iconography can only back up what seems clearly evident. without actual pieces to study, the importance of iconography raises higher.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Somewhere in one of my books I read, that a silk shirt was often worn over the mail shirt, if that is so, we are not likely to find miniatures showing someone wearing a mail shirt, as those being painted were those how could afford to wear a silk shirt. On the other hand, we wont find anything if we don’t look.

A blade like the one shown has been made for a reason, and it is true that I can’t prove it was to pierce a mail, but it is the only logical use for a blade like that. Used against a man without a mail, it would go right through to the hilt, as the narrowest point on the blade is at the hilt, it would likely be jammed between two ribs, and be very difficult to get loose, not a situation one would like surrounded by enemies. Used against someone with a mail shirt, it would, if it penetrated the mail, maybe go halfway in and wound the man – or with a bit of luck kill him. Proof is a good thing to have, but unfortunately we don’t always have it when we want it, and sometimes we will never get it, then we will have to do with the old books and logic, although that is no exchuse to stop looking.

[Aqtai]

That is a beautiful katar Jens.

There is the kazaghand, a form of armour which consisted of mail shirt covered with silk. This type of armour was worn as early as the 12th century in the Middle-East (Salaheddin is supposed to have worn one), and continued to be worn by the Ottomans in the 16th century. I believe there were a few kazaghands in the Bikanir armoury as well. The only picture I have ever seen of one is on plate VIII of H. Russell Robinson's Oriental Armour.

That picture posted by Mark Bowditch of Sivaji comes from "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", by Lord Egerton of Tatton, published in 1896. The same book mentions how Sivaji went to meet the Afghan warlord Afdal Khan with a ...steel chain cap and chain armour under his turban and cotton gown, concealed a a crooked dagger or "bichwa" in his right sleeve, and on the fingers of his left hand he fixed a "waghnak"... ...in the midst of the customary embrace, Sivaji struck the waghnak into the bowels of Afdal Khan... The Khan had drawn his sword and made a cut at Sivaji, but the concealed armour was proof against the blow.

The story has no real bearing on the current discussion, but I like it! :D

I am also embarrassed to admit that I live less than a half hour drive from Tatton hall, were presumably Lord Egerton's collection is housed, and I have never seen it :(. I will go, one day.

[B.I]

hi aqtai,
dont get your hopes up and dig out your camera too soon, as egertons arms collection isnt at tatton park. i believe other things are (so still worth a visit), but the arms collection was moved to manchester some time ago, and is buried deep in the reserves there.
i too like the shivaji story, as it gave the baghnak and bichwa legendary status. do you know that we have shivaji's sword in england.

[Aqtai]

Thanks for letting me know Brian, I managed to persuade my other half to go tomorrow with me, at least I won't be chasing all over the house looking for the collection. :)

I didn't know about Shivaji's sword, where is it now, not buried deep in some museums reserves I hope?

[B.I]

hi aqtai,
worse, i'm afraid. its in the royal collection. there are two shivaji swords, one still in india and the other given to the prince of wales (i think) by shivajis descendents. its either in sandringhan or marlborough house but i dont think its on display.
it has caused controversy for many years of course, as it has been asked to be returned to india, but thats a political conversation that needs avoiding :)
sandringham is worth a visit, but take binoculars (no joke).

[Aqtai]

I am aware that Sandringham has a huge collection of Indian weapons and armour (I suppose HRH could try experiments with katars and Indian mail whenever he feels like it :D), I remember seeing an old book with black and white photos of the collection a few years ago. I wasn't aware that Sandringham is open to the public, or is that why I need binoculars ;).

I had a wander around Tatton Hall today, all that is left are a few African weapons.

[B.I]

hi aqtai,
the royal collections are really worth seeing. sandringham and windsor both have a fair amount on show, but they have much more that is inaccessable. the frustrating thing is you pass corridors full of weapons that are cordoned off.
there are some great displays in sandringham, but much is mounted very high on the wall, hence the need for binoculors. honestly, if you do go you will really regret not taking them.
marlborough house isnt open to the public, as far as i know.
the queens armourer is a really nice guy, and used to work in the V&A. he has a vested interest in indian arms from his previous post, so maybe displays or exhibitions can happen in the future.

[Aqtai]

One of the ‘swords’, seldom seen, is shown in Tirri’s book ‘Islamic Weapons’, page 331, figure 251. I have only seen only one other ‘sword’ like this, it was either at the Top Kapi Museum, or at the Army Museum in Istanbul, the hilt was different, but the ‘blade’ was like the one shown. These swords were made for penetrating mail or plates, or to find a weak point in the armour.

Hi Jens,

I've got some photos of that Indian 2-handed sword in the Royal Armouries. I'm afraid it looks nothing like the one you posted.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Royal%20Armouries/Indian2-handswordRA048.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Royal%20Armouries/Indian2-handswordRA050.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Royal%20Armouries/Indian2-handswordRA049.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Royal%20Armouries/Indian2-handswordRA047.jpg

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Aqtai,



I like the swords you show, and hopefully I will one day see the museum in Leeds. The ‘sword’ I show in mail #40 is quite different from the swords you show. The blade is square or round, and not sharp at all, but it is pointed and the tip is reinforced. Once I was told, that ‘swords’ like this one was used to penetrate mail, when the enemy was laying on the ground.

Can anyone confirm that The Army Museum in Istanbul has such a ‘Panzerstecker’ in the collections? If yes, would it be possible to get a photo?

[Aqtai]

Those 4 photos are all of 1 sword :). It is the only one of of that type on display at the Royal Armouries.

It seems to be designed for cutting and thrusting like a European zwei-hander.

[B.I]

i cant offer any more real information on these two handed swords, of which aqtais is a great example. most of the ones known, were of a later date, and relatively crude. most had a khanda style blade, and were of no real importance. this example is about as good as they ever got. as the armouries description says, its form is remeniscent of an early indian rapier (single handed). a small collection of these rapiers appeard some years ago, the best of which is shown in the paris 1988 exhibition. another of similar style, and great quality is in elgoods new book and is from the met. robert denotes a few pages on these, with an early 17thC image of them being fenced with.
the overall style of pommel and guard in the two-handed armouries piece is a direct influence from these earlier pieces. i would agree with their date of late 18thC, due to the similarity of the reinforced langets with the same found on firangis. the rapiers date from the late 16thC and so its strange (or not, given its india) to see such a similar style 200 years later.

the armouries piece came from the a.d.white collection, which was sold in almost complete state through a london saleroom in the early 80's. i say almost, as the best was hand picked out first ad went into a private collection before the sale. the collection was of immense importance, and has now spread into some of the most important collections, both national and private in existence today.
aqtai, if you go through khalilis collection, you will see pieces attributed to the same collection.

the armouries have a few pieces from this sale, as stated in the decription cards you show in the images.

[Tim Simmons]

I would have to agree with Aqtai that these heavy bladed knives and katars may have originated as mail piercing weapons but became just other versions of bladed weapon that to us are of unusual form. Something I proposed on page one. This water colour of an unidentified, unarmoured, middleaged nobleman painted circa 1750? illustrates quite well. Tim
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/jamhappy/katar.jpg

[B.I]

i think the problem is that the study of indian arms is difficult, and cannot be put into the same dating structure as european arms.
you may well be right about the katar, but the problem is we will never really know. i think this is why these posts veer off in a tangent, as there is only so much you can speculate without running out of actual information.
the miniature you show is moghul, and 18thC. the painting shows court wear, and not armour. unfortunately, moghul is not the whole of india, and their style of dress and tactics of war differ from other regions of india of the same period. also the katar was so widely used in india, buy different races, over different centuries and for both full battle and court/social scenes.
we can only look at what survives, in written accounts, actual pieces and iconography. the written accounts (european) rarely ventured past the trading ports, or into the battlefield. when they did (Tavernier, for example) it was normally with the mughals. the 'local' accounts rarely described past terminology. of miniatures, we only really have the moghul and rajput style, both of which were very similar, despite the difference in religion. the deccani sultanates showed their own style of miniature, which, until very recently was ignored. there is very little drawn accounts of india, past the moghul and deccani dynasties. there is a 'culture' of maharatha frescos, but these are way too crude to offer any real information. there is early sculpture, and this is really all we have to try and fill in the gaps, especially in hindu southern india.
the katar existed in its fully developed form in the 16thC, both in moghul miniatures and southern hindu sculpture. none of this shows the point as being armour piercing, but this isnt conclusive as the katar was always a secondary weapon in art and the nature of indian miniatures is to draw flat on, and not in perspective. so we know the katar existed in the 16thC. the early 17thC offers pieces that have survived, and some of the these were thickened at the tip to reinforce the blade. whether the earlier examples were can only be speculative.
the southern examples shown in 16thC sculpture in the tamil nadu region were not thickened but reinforced with thickened ribs along the length of the blade, as actual examples do exist of the same style.
indian armour itself seems to lead many people astray. the post on the other forum just went in circles, as it was dominated by renegade academics and european armour enthusiasts, all of which, by their own admission, had no experience with indian pieces. this means that they can only see with european eyes and so their assumptions hold no merit at all. this mode of thinking says that early armour was plate and riveted mail, which developed into lighter fabric and butted mail. the difference in armour is not stated, and when chainmail is mentioned, the style, type and date is forgotten. this is where they fell flat, in roping all chainmail in one category.
there were heavy mail and plate shirts in the 16thC, by i think these were influenced directly by the ottoman armour of the same style. the influence existed in culture, so why not arms.
i dont think the moghuls ever wore heavy armour, even in the 16thC. if they did, it is not shown in the miniatures which have survived in abundance. the moghul style of armour was heavily padded, with possibly a scale or mail undershirt. the char aina was not really introduced until the 18thC, although the late 16th and into the 17th depictions show rounded plates sewn onto fabric armour, which was probably where they were influenced from.
so, both padded fabric and mail and late existed at the same time. also, full riveted chainmail shorts existed, which could possibly have been worn under the fabric armour, hence the absence of 'metal' torso armour in mughal miniatures.
one thing that has been ignored it the structure of the armour used, and that of the weapons in question (ie the katar).
Islamic armour was well constructed, but the actual metal was not of a great hardened quality. wootz, by its very nature is of much harder quality. if you think that most katars are made of wootz, and virtually all early mail/plate was weaker steel, than the picture becomes slightly different. there are tests being done, but a diagnosis has been done on various styles of ottoman armour which i believe were a direct influence on the slightly later deccani shirts. if you transfer these results to the indian shirts, then the european view goes completely out of the window.
whether the katar was first made to pierce armour is something that can only ever be speculated. it appeared in its fully developed form, and if an earlier transitional form showed itself, then the question can be taken further.
the question of whether it can actually pierce chainmail is pointless. the answer is of course it can. the question itself leads to extremes, and if you take an exceptionally thickened and sturdy katar, made from high quality wootz and tried to pierce an inferior quality mail shirt, made of un-hardened steel then the answer is clear. any other variations can only be speculative, without destructive tests, which themselves will never be conclusive and will always lend themselves to doubt.
Tim, i agree that the katar could have been constructed for ultimate penetrative use, but it is only an opinion, and i am always willing to listen to others. the last decade or so has unearthed information, theories and conclusions that have been overlooked for many years before. so, its by bringing up the same questions over and over again, that we may one day yield something new. the best thing about this forum is that we can do this, without academic bullies and bruised egos.
incidentally, mail production was still being done in the Sudan in the late 19thC. it is recorded that one armourer and 6 assistants took 12 days to make one shirt. the pitt rivers have examples taken from the sudanese wars and they were crude examples of armour.
also, the are 18thC accounts of the cuirass being the only able to repel the thrust of these daggers. by the cuirass, we can assume it was the char aina, which were mostly made of wootz, hence the hardened ability to withstand the daggers.

[Tim Simmons]

Hello B.I
This picture from the India Office Library And Records, which I have post on this site before might be of interest to you. Armed knights in the service of the Raja of Samthar in Central India possibly 1870s? It is rather posed note the chakram round one chaps ankle, the armour looks real enough which seems a trade off between protection and mobility. To me it looks like it has a main function against slashing weapons but sure it would also deflect some stabbing thrusts. When I was a little boy my mother would take me to the museum at Sandhurst, you could just walk in those days, wonderful Indian collection which I believe is now in the Army museum Chelsea. Tim
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/jamhappy/katar001.jpg

[Aqtai]

...incidentally, mail production was still being done in the Sudan in the late 19thC. it is recorded that one armourer and 6 assistants took 12 days to make one shirt. the pitt rivers have examples taken from the sudanese wars and they were crude examples of armour...

Whoa! That sounds pretty fast. Are we talking rivetted or butted mail here? I have seen sudanese mail, and don't know what the quality was like metalurgically, but a lot of it doesn't look particularly crude.

This is an old photo of a 19th century Sudanese mail shirt, taken when the Royal Armouries were still in the Tower of London.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Oriental/SudanesemailandMamlukhelmet_R.jpg

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Aqtai,

For Indian two hand swords, see Elgood’s ‘Hindu Arms and Ritual’ pages 94 and 95, read also the text on page 211. On page 97 you can see two tappash, or sword hilted spears. In the Glossary on page 264 Elgood writes, “Tappash. The author of the ‘Nujum al-Ulum’ (1570) describes it as having a covered grip and a spear (barchi) and says that in common language it is a pata and that it is a weapon ‘suited to the man whose hand is defective or injured’. There are examples of this rare weapon in Bikaner.”

What he means by writing ‘suited to the man whose hand is defective or injured’, I don’t know, by maybe he means someone who can’t swing a sword, but who can still stab.

[Tim Simmons]

I just thought this picture of a late 19th century sikh priest rather interesting, note the katar and other weapons in his belt. Tim
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/jamhappy/katar002.jpg

[Jens Nordlunde]

I dont know how often you search, but now and again it is worth to do so.

I think this old thread is well worth to be read, as it gives a lot of interesting informations.

[ariel]

Agree.

Thirteen years have passed and this thread still reads kind of " unfinished".

Any additional comments on the topic?

[Lee]

Just an aside that this page of this thread in and of itself explains and justifies the Moderator Team's strict enforcement of the image upload policy.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Has it ever been testet with which power a katar can hit its target?
If it has, it should give en idea, although not proven in reality, if it is possible to penetrade a mail shirt.
There are a relatively big number of katars with a blade like the one to the left, and they were not made for fun.

[ariel]

As a matter of fact, other objects give support to the mail-piercing ability of bladed Indian ( or thereabouts) weapons.
Not long ago we have discussed the so-called Zirah Bouk, a " mail-piercer" in translation. The only qualification of that khanjar-like weapon is the reinforced tip, either as a diamond-shaped or as a prominent central rib. The very name of it is an incontrovertible evidence.

I have a likely Afghani Tulwar with the same feature, and katars with diamond-shaped tips are dime a dozen. Afghani Khybers solved the same engineering problem by their T-section.

These are the examples of a mandatory mechanical engineering course on the strength of construction materials.

Thus, Indian weapons with the ability to penetrate mail were in abundance.

Whether a straight stab with katar or a more circular one with a dagger-like weapon ( khanjar) is more economical and effective is above my paygrade.

Looking for a katar with obvious mail-induced damage to the tip is, IMHO, an exercise in futility. A stuck one would remain on the battlefield, a lightly damaged would be fixed and a badly damaged would be discarded. In any case, none of them would be preserved in the armoury or sold to a collector.

BI is 100% correct: the success of an attempt to penetrate mail depends on relative qualities of a blade vs. mail. What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object is a question better left to philosophers or theologians.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes Ariel is right when he writes, and so is B.I.
"Looking for a katar with obvious mail-induced damage to the tip is, IMHO, an exercise in futility. A stuck one would remain on the battlefield, a lightly damaged would be fixed and a badly damaged would be discarded. In any case, none of them would be preserved in the armoury or sold to a collector.

BI is 100% correct: the success of an attempt to penetrate mail depends on relative qualities of a blade vs. mail. What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object is a question better left to philosophers or theologians."


Although some of us struggle to find out how it all worked, a lot is still a very big question to us.
Small pieces are now and again found here and there - but the riddle is big, very big.


Another thing is, that the knowledge of South Indian and Rajasthan katars seems to be a riddle to some members - even the early ones.
When making a search it should be possible to get an idea of the difference, so please use the 'search' funcion.

[Mercenary]

It is still necessary to understand why would anyone have to try to penetrate a mail shirt. If he is not from "Cold steel" company of course.
I think in India warriors did a great job without it.

[ariel]

Well, the reason is rather simple: if your immediate opponent wears a mail and as they say in Texas “ needs killing”, you kind of wish your weapon had a reinforced tip, be it a Katar, a Zirah Bouk, or an Afghani ch’hura. Any implements that are flat and bendable need not apply.

[Mercenary]

Well, the reason is rather simple: if your immediate opponent wears a mail and as they say in Texas “ needs killing”, you kind of wish your weapon had a reinforced tip, be it a Katar, a Zirah Bouk, or an Afghani ch’hura. Any implements that are flat and bendable need not apply.
To attack the enemy through his armor? On the horse? By knife or dagger? Only if someone does not love his hand and decided to part with it. And even in this case, our choice:

[Jim McDougall]

Again, always interesting to see these old threads, and great participants who brought amazing perspectives into the fold. Unfortunately far too many of them no longer frequent here.

The topic on the effectiveness of the katar as an armor piercing weapon it seems had some pretty brisk traffic back in those days ,c.2005. Since most of it is of course hypothetical and speculative, it was always great for spirited debate.

If I understand correctly mail was not issued to the rank and file masses, in fact it was an expensive commodity typically worn by the professional or hereditary warriors and higher echelon figures. I know that in certain degree larger numbers of troops might have had mail and familiar weaponry, but these 'standing' forces were largely outnumbered by the conscripted 'cannon fodder'.

In India, it does not seem that mail was as present in certain regions and times, but heavy textiles being worn surely offered protection again sword cuts and other weapon threats. I think one of the main issues with mail was its maintenance. As it became rusted or corroded it became brittle and subject to breakage impacted, especially when a point entered the ring and expanded it.

While this topic is interesting, it seems that the actual results were circumstantial and the condition of the mail, the strength of the user often highly augmented with the typical adrenalin etc. and such factors would determine the viability of the katar as questioned.

If the use of a thickened point on these was not effectively proven, it does not seem likely the feature would have continued in the production of its blades.

[ariel]

If the use of a thickened point on these was not effectively proven, it does not seem likely the feature would have continued in the production of its blades.


Very true.

[Mercenary]

If I understand correctly mail was not issued to the rank and file masses, in fact it was an expensive commodity typically worn by the professional or hereditary warriors and higher echelon figures...
You mean to say that mail shirt, char-aina, helmets, bazubands and so on were exclusively for elite horse riders?

[Mercenary]

...but heavy textiles being worn surely offered protection again sword cuts and other weapon threats
Quite so. Thanks. It was a big problem. For British.

[Jim McDougall]

You mean to say that mail shirt, char-aina, helmets, bazubands and so on were exclusively for elite horse riders?



No not really, I meant that large numbers of 'rank and file' forces may have ranged from peasantry with little more than tools or implements, while numbers of others may have had all manner of captured or surplus equipment. While artwork suggests that things were like modern military and soldiers stood in line to receive 'government issue' goods that seems pretty infeasible given the cost and production demands for these kinds of equipment.

[Jim McDougall]

Quite so. Thanks. It was a big problem. For British.


It was indeed, and there are many reports of complaints by British troopers that their swords would not cut into or penetrate in many cases due to these kinds of matters with heavy textile material worn by other forces. In the Crimea, the Russian great coats, as you know, were also highly impenetrable.

[Mercenary]

No not really, I meant that large numbers of 'rank and file' forces may have ranged from peasantry with little more than tools or implements, while numbers of others may have had all manner of captured or surplus equipment. While artwork suggests that things were like modern military and soldiers stood in line to receive 'government issue' goods that seems pretty infeasible given the cost and production demands for these kinds of equipment.
There were hired armies. And infantry were the least paid troops. The most part of them were peasants. There was no need to pierce mail everyday and possesed for it some kind of special "penetrating" daggers.

[Mercenary]

It was indeed, and there are many reports of complaints by British troopers that their swords would not cut into or penetrate in many cases due to these kinds of matters with heavy textile material worn by other forces. In the Crimea, the Russian great coats, as you know, were also highly impenetrable.
Thanks again. Actually it was not a big problem for British - inability to cut through Indian coats or turban or Russian greatcoat or shako or Cossacks papakha. They won because of another. Indian warriors also didn't need to pierce armor or drilling charaina and helmets - they were able to reach the result on the foot or on the horse by other ways and without any special tools.

[ariel]

What do you mean by “another”, “ other ways” and absence of “special tools”? You seem to speak in riddles.

I am at a loss. And quite intrigued.

[ariel]

All warfare is an unceasing competition between a blade and a shield: I.e. between attack and defense. Any improvement in the offensive capability causes major efforts in the improvement of defensive equipment, and vice versa. And every time each side tries to make an extra leap not only to preserve the balance, but to outperform the opponent. This is the reason why Indian stabbing blades had reinforced point: to guarantee their ability to overcome defensive parameters of any potential protection of not only textile garb, but also of any metal armor, irrespective of the statistical likelihood of its existence on the battlefield. Forewarned is forearmed.

I looked at the collection of katars in Jens’ book: virtually all of them are “Zirah Bouk-ish”, guaranteeing their penetrating potential of the ( unlikely but possible) metal component.

Thus, any argument that by the 19 century mail has become “obsolete, rare and limited only to the upper 5% of the opponents” ignores the golden rule of the battlefield: the only good kill is an overkill.

[Mercenary]

The Thin Red Line instead of the Charge of the Light Brigade.

It is need to consider the statistics of military casualties due to the use of cold weapons. In India such percentage was higher, but no too much.

In the classic mass fighting of Indian infantry with cold weapons (talwar+dhal against talwar+dhal) the penetration of armor (which in most cases was absent) by some kind of dagger was excluded.

Of course, someone once could pierce someone else using a dagger with a strong tip. But it was most likely cloth armor of infantryman and it was not a traditional warfare. There is no evidence of this in the chronicles yet.

Heavily armed horsemen were being knocked off from the horse to the ground and then a throat was being cut. And then - a head.

[Mercenary]

All warfare is an unceasing competition between a blade and a shield: I.e. between attack and defense.
This is true only for battleships or tanks: the competition between armor and guns. But not in relation to the traditional culture. There were talwar and dhal and nothing had changed.

[ariel]

Disagree on both points.
Mutual adaptation of blades and armor ( including shields, helmets, body defense etc) is as old as warfare itself. Take for example the transition of Japanese swords post encounter with the Mongolian army sporting thick leather/ mail armor. Straight swords virtually disappeared, the blades became thicker and stronger and differential hardening became a norm. Also, tanto became a real fighting weapon as a result of widespread hand-to- hand infantry combat.

As to battleships and tanks, the list is bigger by orders of magnitude and this is true from times immemorial till now. How about anti-tank hedgehogs? Land mines? Calthrops? Misericords? Estocs? First-strike nuclear attacks and missile defense? Submarines and sonars? Simple bows were sufficient for unprotected opponents, but the invention of metal armor was rapidly followed by the manufacture of crossbows. Large simple bows of the early infantry were replaced by the small composite ones for the use by cavalry.this was true about military architecture as well: the attacker uses battle towers, rams and ladders? The defender builds a glacis.

As to the Brits vs. Indians, katars preceded Wellington by centuries. Daggers and katars were irreplaceable for hand-to-hand fights. Starting to view military value of mail-piercing daggers from Assaye is a big mistake.

[Jim McDougall]

If I am following the discussion correctly, the general talking point (no pun intended) was/is whether or not the katar (or other stabbing weapons) needed a reinforced point to effectively penetrate armor.....that is mail.

While the pragmatic digressions are interesting, as are the philosophical perspectives......I would say again, it seems that bolstering the point of an edged weapon would make sense if at any point (there I go again:) ...the weapon would be used in a thrust vs. armor or heavy clothing.

While the katar in most instances, especially early examples in the south (Vijayanagara etc, Maratha etc.) were used in slashing cuts....their use to the north began such bolstering as mail was often present in combat.


In studies on mail used in New Spain in colonial times from the conquistadors through 19th century, it seems that this defensive armor was in use even after it had become largely obsolete in Europe with the advent of firearms. However, lack of proper armorers to maintain and repair the old coats of mail led to its becoming unserviceable in time with corrosion and breakage.


The biggest problem was its lack of effectiveness again the deadly arrows of the American Indian tribes. The 'point' of the arrow would enter the ring of the link, and expand it and break in, especially with the force of the arrow vs. a compromised (rusty or broken) link. Further and worse, the debris was carried by the arrow into the wound, with obvious result.


These dynamics are what I was referring to earlier regarding how effective a katar would be vs. mail, and how the reinforced point would react in a thrust. However, if the mail was sturdy and sound, relatively new or well maintained, the result would not be favorable for the user of the katar.


In the more probable case, with heavy or padded clothing, a sharp reinforced point would certainly penetrate with effect. With these circumstances in mind, the reinforced point would not necessarily be intended against armor, but vs heavy clothing as well.



The use of mail prevailed in archaic situations into the 20th century (Khevsurs ) and through the 19th (in Egypt with the Khedive's 'iron men') and across the Sahara in Bornu and with many tribal groups. In most cases, it was readily discarded as the dramatically increased wounding from bullets were obvious incentive to do so.

[Mercenary]

As to the Brits vs. Indians, katars preceded Wellington by centuries. Daggers and katars were irreplaceable for hand-to-hand fights. Starting to view military value of mail-piercing daggers from Assaye is a big mistake.
I, actually, do not mind this. I will be glad if there will be any witnesses. Our thoughts and ideas are good, but, as you yourself say, they should not be broader than facts.

[Mercenary]

In the more probable case, with heavy or padded clothing, a sharp reinforced point would certainly penetrate with effect. With these circumstances in mind, the reinforced point would not necessarily be intended against armor, but vs heavy clothing as well.
In order to pierce a mail shirt or clothing, the dagger must be keeping in hand. The talwar is in one hand, the dagger is in the other hand. There is only one and very late similar image with a small degree of confidence.

[Jim McDougall]

I think that while philosophical debate is often in degree entertaining as it is largely often speculative in use of analogy and comparative circumstance, in the analysis of weaponry used in earlier times we must realize the boundaries that exist in reality.

Using artwork, or even photography (in the instances described here earlier) as supportive evidence is only effective in degree, and accordingly only provides a degree of plausibility.

For example, the famed painting of the charge of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo by Lady Butler in the 1880s ("Scotland Forever") is only mildly accurate. It shows the troopers charging at speed almost wildly, with Highland infantrymen clinging to the stirrups of the cavalrymen charging into the French.
The truth was that the Scots Greys were not charging in this manner, but were at the trot, moving through sodden, muddy earth and moving through retreating Highlanders on thoroughly blown horses. The Highlanders were not clinging to the stirrups, but trying to get out of the way. The Greys were never ordered to charge, only advance.....and the immortal outcome was from failure to regroup in the confusion and scattering of troopers as many of the officers had been killed. Most fatalities were from the deadly crossfire during the advance, then from French lancers picking off the scattered troopers one at a time.

There are many cases of art having the presumption of accuracy, but artists tend to embellish, especially when the actual work is often done years after the event .

As mentioned, photography, particularly early examples, was often staged and using props and even costumes. As with art, these were intended to elicit a certain theme or perspective. They cannot typically be viewed as completely accurate.....though in cases, plausible.

Obviously, before cameras, and absence of an artist on site.....the call for witnesses is another means for evidence. In dramatic and often traumatic events, people are not sitting there taking notes, they are trying to survive.
As any police investigator will tell you...various witnesses....equal possibility of variation on accounts.

Narratives and accounts are typically written or gathered after an event, often years, sometimes many, later. Memories become clouded, often tainted by other accounts that are shared later. Post recognition is in effect prompted by suggestion.

Obviously, this is a digression as we are discussing hypothetical situations, but since it that very tract, it seemed that this perspective might better define the ineffectuality of art, photos and 'witnesses' overall. Also, in considering these elements, there is no substitute for research, cross reference and corriborstion and as always, common sense in evaluation.

[ariel]

Bladed weapons with reinforced points are seen in multiple cultures.
During their attack Circassians, it was said, "first stabbed and then slashed". Their sabers with bayonet points are well known . Some of these blades ( or perhaps even all of them) were made by Crimean Tatars ( see attached).
Lately, I went berserk for nomadic sabers. I just bought a Mongol-Tatar nomadic one 12-14 century, also attached. As I said, I have a tulwar with Zira-Bouk-ish point ( I am at work and will try to find time to photograph it)

The common denominator for all such blades is the intent of their owners to stab the opponent without a risk to bend the blade.

[Jim McDougall]

These Tatar sabres with their distinctive needle points( by the hilts termed 'ordynka' ) are fascinating, and I always marveled at how these ultra thin points could be used without snapping off. While in pitched or standing combat is one thing, but on horseback even in position the dynamic movements of the horse and the opponent would seem bad for a blade imbedded through mail.

With this type point, that brings me to the fabled 'flyssa' of the Kabyles in Algeria, and with the Ottoman presence there I always wondered if the Circassian elements among Ottoman forces brought such influence to the needle points on many flyssa.

While again digressing geographically it goes to the effect of armor piercing blades.

[ariel]

Well, Jim, first we do not have to invike the Ottomans as stand-up for Golden Horde nomads ( see the Mongol saber ). Second, I have no recollection where I read it, but really old flissas were very much yataghan-like ( I have one of those), without the exaggerated point of the newer and longer flissas..

But here are promised pics of the Tulwar, with suspiciously Afghani blade and reinforced point. Somehow I do not believe it was constructed with a spit in mind:-)

[Jim McDougall]

Well, Jim, first we do not have to invike the Ottomans as stand-up for Golden Horde nomads ( see the Mongol saber ). Second, I have no recollection where I read it, but really old flissas were very much yataghan-like ( I have one of those), without the exaggerated point of the newer and longer flissas..

But here are promised pics of the Tulwar, with suspiciously Afghani blade and reinforced point. Somehow I do not believe it was constructed with a spit in mind:-)

I guess the point was that influences in weapons diffuse and transcend all boundaries (much as digressions as seen here).....and I too recall the many discussions where it was largely agreed that the 'flyssa' probably evolved from early yataghan forms. The mention of the 'ordynka' term was referring to the needle point example pictured. ....simply a term noted in the Ostrowski article among others used in Polish parlance for this hilt form.

As you note, the 'newer' form which had the 'needle' point seems to have been from somewhat pre-1850s (the earliest example I found with provenance was a French Foreign Legion museum in France, 1857).


Thanks for the photo of this outstanding tulwar, with what you accurately note as Afghan or northwest India blade (the Persian influence). The bolstered point as seen on katars seems way incongruent with a slashing sabre. I honestly have not heard of warriors using tulwars 'giving point'...and a blade as wide as this would not split mail....but may penetrate heavy cloth. Ponderous example.

[ariel]

If we went so far in our digressions, any documented evidence in favor ( or against) flissa being a stabbing weapon? Or slashing?
Maghribean cavalry ( just like Aravian) was riding camels and the very height of that obnoxious creature may explain the length of " newer" flissas. But I have a problem imagining flissas as slashers. May be totally wrong, though.

[Jim McDougall]

If we went so far in our digressions, any documented evidence in favor ( or against) flissa being a stabbing weapon? Or slashing?
Maghribean cavalry ( just like Aravian) was riding camels and the very height of that obnoxious creature may explain the length of " newer" flissas. But I have a problem imagining flissas as slashers. May be totally wrong, though.


With the forbearance of Jens and the mods, the 'stabbing'capacity of the 'needle pointed' swords including the Tatar sabres and flyssa is being considered with regard to that of bolstered blades on katars.


It seems the conundrum of the flyssa, much as with any of these needle pointed edged weapons remains unresolved. Even in the French campaigns in and near Kabylia in 1857, while these were captured, there is no known mentio of their manner of use. The long, heavy and unwieldy blade (handling one of these is anything but balanced) seems extremely unlikely for either thrust or slashing.

In most of what I have learned on these, they seem more a traditional 'rite of passage' weapon than actual combat piece. Again, in the theme of the discussion here, we simply do not know.

[Rick]

Well, Jim, first we do not have to invike the Ottomans as stand-up for Golden Horde nomads ( see the Mongol saber ). Second, I have no recollection where I read it, but really old flissas were very much yataghan-like ( I have one of those), without the exaggerated point of the newer and longer flissas..

But here are promised pics of the Tulwar, with suspiciously Afghani blade and reinforced point. Somehow I do not believe it was constructed with a spit in mind:-)

Here is another sword with reinforced point.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=683&highlight=kirach

[Jim McDougall]

Here is another sword with reinforced point.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=683&highlight=kirach


This 'reinforced' look at the point, now that I look at it more, is very much like British cavalry sabres of M1821 and later. The general idea of these was that they were functional for both cut and thrust, the ridge at the point extended as far as the hollowed out fuller of the blade all the way to the forte.


There were a lot of problems with these swords as they often bent and broke in these uses and a lot of 'retooling' was needed. The 1821s didnt get back into production until 1829 after several years hiatus.


Perhaps these Indian tulwar blades are taken after the British cavalry blades, as there were outfitters privately supplying units in India.

The ridged reinforcement feature at the tip seems to correspond to those on katars and the concept was intended for the thrust.


If I can recall correctly, in 1962 Gerhard Seifert ("Schert Degen Sabel") tried to classify some features of cavalry sabres, and this type was termed 'CENTER POINT' as opposed to the simple point 'spear point'.

[ariel]

Very interesting.
As I recall, there are descriptions of Indian swordplay by the Brits: according to them , Indians did not parry and did not use the thrust.
And here are two quintessential Indian blades with a deliberate thrusting feature.

[Jim McDougall]

Very interesting.
As I recall, there are descriptions of Indian swordplay by the Brits: according to them , Indians did not parry and did not use the thrust.
And here are two quintessential Indian blades with a deliberate thrusting feature.



That is true, in true Indian combat techniques, it was considered that the dhal shield was for the parry, and of course the sabre (tulwar) was used for cutting and slashing attack. However, the Native Indian cavalry units in the British Raj, used the British swords in many cases.


Actually, these units often selected their types of swords and while some wanted their native tulwars (I have seen examples made by Mole in Birmingham) and these may have been produced in some degree by military outfitters in India.


One of the most favored sabres was the British M1796, and often there were tulwars carrying these older blades....so much so that the British producers in England kept producing stirrup hilt form M1796 well into 1880s+

Some of the Native units however chose the M1821 sabres......which of course seemed contrary to the typical Indian type of use as they usually favored the heavy slashing blades of the 1796. Even the colonial model three bar hilts like the 1821 made in the 1880s had a 'hatchet point' blade.

The appearance of this 'center point' tip on these Indian sabres is truly an anamoly, and in my thinking must have some influence from British military swords as noted. Still the idea of the thrust was not normally considered favorably in India, so these points are as previously noted, unusual.

[Mercenary]

In India (how boldly we are speaking about the whole subcontinent and 1000 years of documented history) used talwar for thrust and parrying, Hanuman had not forbidden this, but do not forget about the peasants who seasonally engaged in military service - to cut with a talwar and to parry with a dhal - what could be more reliable?

[Jim McDougall]

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.

[Mercenary]

I guess I should have qualified I thought we were talking about the period which obviously applies to these two sabres and in context with the bolstered point on katars. The katar, while of yet to be determined antiquity is at least 500 years old + and the tulwar about 400 but again undetermined exactly.

Obviously comments toward parrying with shield and not tulwar blade cannot mean 1000 years ago, nor the ENTIRE subcontinent as the tulwar did not find use in that scope.

I often forget the scrutiny toward such comments so I must apologize if they were confusing. Too often I forget everyone is not always on the same page.
Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.

Excellent insight. Indeed I recall the word talwar is pretty much generally a term for sword not otherwise specified, but perhaps you can fill us in on the proper etymology use of the word. While the hilt form we are familiar with with disc pommel etc. is called Indo-Persian tulwar......we know there are hilts with 'shamshir' like hilts (again the word is simply Persian for sabre)....and these in India are also called Tulwar.
In the British Native cavalry units the British regulation swords used by them are also commonly referred to as 'tulwar'.

I was not aware that the Turkic and Steppes tribes or the Mongols engaged in sword to sword combat, and thought the cut and run method using the sweeping draw cut was thier way, if I am understanding what you are saying.

Of course with the EIC presence in the 18th century, European style sword combat methods became known, but not too sure that tribal warriors bought into it.

In Maratha India, there are examples of 'khandas' with European rapier blades, but I am pretty certain the Hindu basket hilt khanda was not used in fencing.

In the south the term khanda refers to sword in a general sense much in the way tulwar is used in the north, but these became called Hindu basket hilts with the larger hilt used post contact (with Europe in 16th c but not clarifying other possible contacts etc. ).

[ariel]

As far as I remember, stories about Indian swordplay ( no parrying, just shield and jumping) came from the Brits as well.
But I am not sure it has any relations to the topic of this discussion. Aren't we talking about stabbing competence of katars with reinforced points?

[Jim McDougall]

As far as I remember, stories about Indian swordplay ( no parrying, just shield and jumping) came from the Brits as well.
But I am not sure it has any relations to the topic of this discussion. Aren't we talking about stabbing competence of katars with reinforced points?


Exactly, well noted Ariel, we have digressed from that topic enough. Back to the dynamics of the katar in use for penetration.

[ariel]

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.


Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

[Jim McDougall]

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.


Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.



Well! Alrighty then!!!! :)

[Mercenary]

I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated .
And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt.

[Mercenary]

It would also be useful to find such a dagger before the 19th century at least. Although "to penetrate armor" already in the second half of the 18th was hardly necessary.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I am sorry, but I do not understand your last two mails.

[ariel]

I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated .
And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt.


Do not despair. It is in the Glossary in the Jaipur book by Elgood. Since his academic credentials are not too shabby, I tend to rely on him more than I would on Russian policemen. I agree it is a an artificial term: it describes not the object itself, but its function. By the same token, as per Khorasani, a Pesh Kabz with straight blade was popularly called a Shotorkosh, i.e. camel killer, in Iran.

And if we have touched this topic, Russian policemen would have hard time proving that Zirah Bouk had no protection against hand sliding: the same construction (bolster only ) is seen in each and every Pesh Kabz and Afghani Ch'hura. And your buddy Mahratt argued repeatedly that Karud ( Shotorkosh:-)) was designed for armour piercing, while Ch'hura was good for penetrating padded garb. I could never understand the logic of it, but be it as it may.

Although my experience with Russian policemen was admittedly limited, I have no doubt they could prove anything in the Russian court:-) But would the judge accept their claim that Caucasian kindjal is also not a weapon? After all it also had no crossguard.

You cannot blame Urdu for not having a word Zirah Bouk: it is in Persian. Different languages, you know....

[Mercenary]

I am sorry, but I do not understand your last two mails.
Jens,
I suppose that before telling us how to pierce mail with zirah bouk it is needed to be explained:
1. Could such a term as "zirah bouk" exist in the historical reality?
2. I can imagine how to pierce the mail with jamdhar, but I can not imagine how to pierce the mail with the force without hand sliding from the grip to the blade if use a dagger like peshkabz .
3. The most part of zirah bouk I have seen were from 19th. I doubt that in 19th in India men chased each other trying to pierce the armour. On the other hand, other men brought from India to Europe a lot of exotic objects which have an unusual shape, such as "executioner's swords", "mail piercer", "head cutters" and other trash in gold.

[Mercenary]

It is in the Glossary in the Jaipur book by Elgood.
Russian policemen would have hard time proving that Zirah Bouk had no protection against hand sliding
But would the judge accept their claim that Caucasian kindjal is also not a weapon? After all it also had no crossguard.
You cannot blame Urdu for not having a word Zirah Bouk: it is in Persian. Different languages, you know....
...

[Jim McDougall]

To move beyond the developing nonsense of the last posts, I would like to join Ariel in sensibly evaluating the topic material.
In reference to stabbing potential of a weapon, in this case specifically armor piercing.....that is of course mail......while mail was indeed obsolete essentially in Europe.....it remained very much in use an such a number of ethnographic spheres that it would be hard to list them all here, and even into the 20th c.

I always remember first hearing of the Khevsurs years ago, reading Halliburton's "Seven League Boots", describing how these anachronistic warriors rode into Tiflis during WWI, armed cap a' pie wearing mail and old helmets looking like medieval warriors.

Iaroslav Lebedynsky used the term malle pierce in his references to certain bolstered and thin blades on kindjhal and others. It was not used in the 'title' of the weapon, only in its description.

In the Sudan and Egypt at the end of the 19th century, they were not only wearing mail, but making it there. It was used by Moros in the Spanish American war.

Despite the fact that firearms rendered this protection useless, it was still stubbornly retained by many and the idea of mail piercing weapons was not entirely lost, especially in remote regions where the materials needed for firearms were not always available.

These are simply assessments based on many years of intrigued study on these things, and not quite as 'first hand' as some who seem as if they had been there in real time. I only wish I had the ability to travel in time.

Here I would point out also that terms are usually less than viable as far as supportive evidence, but the more corroboration and cross referenced accounts, the higher degree of plausibility. I have always respected the nearly three decades that Robert Elgood has been traveling into India to field research for his valuable references, and also regard them as quite irrefutable. The mark of a true scholar and professional is to be able to remain open for new evidence or even correction, which is very much who he is.
Lesser 'scholars' will argue their position into the ground without any allowance or recognition of other views or suggestions, denying the possibility of learning from the many other deviations that may exist toward the subject matter.


The use of fanciful terms toward 'exotic' weaponry often collected is of course very expected, such as a huge blade...must be an executioners etc. but is hardly the kind of term responsible students of arms recognize.


Terms that are colloquially applied such as zirah bouk, pesh kabz, karud, churra etc etc etc should be recognized as just that, and the entire description of the weapon should note the variations accordingly. For our purposes in discussion we often defer to commonly used terms for the sake of convenience, but sort of footnote the proper term as possible.


For the most part, this 'strange' discussion has had some very worthy exchanges of information. Thank you to those staying objective.

[Mercenary]

If we do not discuss matters of faith (this is not a religious forum I hope?), let me summarize:
1. We do not have evidences of using term "zirah bouk" in real history.
2. We do not have writting sources mentioned the term.
3. The term is absent in Urdu, the language of the military camps of Persian-speaking armies, in which most military and weapon terms were Persian-speaking.
4. R.Elgood in the Glossary where for example in the article about katar he quoted ALL sources he had known but in the article about zirah bouk he quoted nothing at all. Maybe because he had not heard and read about it during his 30+ years (God bless him, we need more good pictures) travelling into India?
5. We do not have any information about using zirah bouk against armour.
6. We know nothing if it possible technically and physically to pierce with zirah bouk not a mail but... half inch wooden plank.

We know nothing at all... but we write a lot and defiantly argue.

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting rebuttal, so I think at this impasse the discussion has reached its level of useful exchange. I have very much enjoyed the information which has been exchanged since reopening this old thread, and from all of this we can see where continued research might present better understanding of the issues at hand in resolving these questions. Thank you.

[Ian]

Jim has suggested, very reasonably, that the present discussion has reached an impasse. The original title of this thread seems very apt. An odd recent discussion indeed.

Unless someone has a different line of discussion, it’s time to let this thread return to the archives.

Ian

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Ian.
Jens

[Victrix]

And just when we had Comrade Lenin on-line... :D

[ariel]

This is not yet another focused note on katars, Zirah Bouks and the armor.
Just some musings on the origins of some terminology mentioned in this thread.

Let’s trace the word “ ordynka”, a Tatar/ Polish saber.
The entire word as we know it, is Polish and can be roughly translated as “ of Orda origin” .
The word “orda” is Turkic, meaning Army. In Turkey proper it sounds orta: remember different services of the Janissary corps ( not to confuse with corpse!)

In Slavic languages it was written and pronounced as ... you guess: Orda, but in Western Europe it mutated into Horde , and somehow started to define a very large, wild, barbaric and very malicious warlike force. Which is historically incorrect, because the original Orda encountered by the West Europeans, I.e. the Mongol army, was no less well-organized and disciplined than the Roman or Victorian one. The Orda that subjugated Russia and went as far as the Adriatic coast was the so-called Golden Horde, part of Ulus Juchi, I.e. Juchi’s Fiefdom..
It included the Crimea and nearby areas of the Ukraine, and Crimean Khans regularly invaded Russian dukedoms and occasionally served for the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom. Part of them even settled in what now is Belarus, Lithuania and Poland proper . From them, their saber came to the Polish armamentarium and acquired the Polish name. As a matter of fact Russian language contains enormous number of Tatar words and their derivatives, the patrimony of peacefully living under the so-called “Mongol yoke” for more than 3 centuries.


But the Mongolian influence spread far away in a different direction , with the Babur invasion into the NW India. Originally, the language of it was called Hindustani. Then, the division between the Muslim ( largely ethnic Turkic Uzbek) and the Hindu populations divided it into Hindi and Urdu . The only difference between them is the alphabet, with NW Muslim India ( now largely Pakistan) adopting Perso-Arabic one, while the rest largely stuck with Sanskritic one. And the name of the NW Hindustani became Urdu: from the same Proto-Uzbek Turkic dialect ( Chagatai language) that gave us the word Orda: army language. In fact, both speaking Hindi and Urdu are virtually identical: my Indian and Pakistani colleagues freely speak to each other without any problems. But Urdu brought in some Persianized and Chagatai words and has several specific ( although barely perceptible) sounds. This is why Urdu alphabet contains 39 basic letters ( and additional 19 secondary ones), whereas Arabic manages quite nicely with only 28 and Persian with 32.

This is how Mongol army became responsible for the languages spreading from Eastern Europe to the Indian subcontinent. Not a miracle : about 10% of men currently living in what used to be the mighty Mongol Empire have the genetic imprint of a single progenitor. Likely, Chingiz Khan himself. The guy was rather busy:-) And just to think of it: no Viagra.

[Funkmachine7]

The use of mail prevailed in archaic situations into the 20th century (Khevsurs ) and through the 19th (in Egypt with the Khedive's 'iron men') and across the Sahara in Bornu and with many tribal groups. In most cases, it was readily discarded as the dramatically increased wounding from bullets were obvious incentive to do so.

Here is if (i've got the uploading thing to work properly ) on the mail shirts made for Khedive's Zirkhagi, by the Wilkinson Sword Company in a around 1880.
You'll note that is made of split rings, a
The armour did against guns prove to be " proved worse than useless" with the brittle rings shattereing which caused appalling wounds.
(A similar problem to the mail veils on WW1 tankers anti-spall masks.)

[Jim McDougall]

Here is if (i've got the uploading thing to work properly ) on the mail shirts made for Khedive's Zirkhagi, by the Wilkinson Sword Company in a around 1880.
You'll note that is made of split rings, a
The armour did against guns prove to be " proved worse than useless" with the brittle rings shattereing which caused appalling wounds.
(A similar problem to the mail veils on WW1 tankers anti-spall masks.)


Thank you so much for posting this!! It is rare to see an actual example of the British made mail made for the Khedive's 'iron men'. It seems that Arkell wrote a paper on mail making in the Sudan and they did learn how to produce their own in degree, but as noted, with firearms the wounding potential was enhanced by the mail itself shattering.

It would be interesting to start a new thread on this topic, as well as some of the unusual armor and helmets etc. used in the Sudan and Sahara.

One of the intriguing fascinations of the European forces and travelers who went to these North African regions was the anachronistic appearance of the 'natives' who seem to have existed right out of the crusades into then modern times. Actually it seems that the Mamluks had a great deal to do with the appearance of mail and broadswords in these regions, and while they were overtaken of course by Ottomans their descendants diffused and remained throughout areas in Sudan and elsewhere.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I must say like B.I. did years ago - A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1024)

[Jim McDougall]

I must say like B.I. did years ago - A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1024)


Those were the good ole days!