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/y11...1000_nails.jpg

And a helmet similar to the ones in the lower two pictures posted by B.I.:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...met_18th_c.jpg

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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/y11...swordRA048.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...swordRA050.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...swordRA049.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...swordRA047.jpg

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?

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.

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.

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/v4...appy/katar.jpg

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.

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/v4...y/katar001.jpg

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/y11...ukhelmet_R.jpg

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.

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/v4...y/katar002.jpg

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.

Agree.

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

Any additional comments on the topic?

Administrative comment
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Very true.

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