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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here is another sword with reinforced point.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=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'.

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.

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?

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.

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. ).

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.

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!!!! :)

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.

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.

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

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....

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.

...

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.

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.