Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubur
Sorry Jim, I should have said thrust.
In fact, I was just refering to the sword posted, but also to the similarities with Persian and Ottoman hilts from 15-16th c., even if they had typical saber blades, so maybe two uses, slashing and thrust, if I'm not mistaken yelman is done for thrust.
For the pata, I know that I'll be alone on this one... as all specialists and collectors think that they were used in slashing cuts. I don't believe in that. Were katar and rapiers used in slashing cuts? I have a pata, it's too long and too heavy for slashing cuts, plus as you wrote in Indian artwork, mounted riders, Mughal and Rajput are seen with pata.
|
Thank you Kubur, I thought that thrust was what was meant, but wanted to be clear.
The swords used across the steppes by nomadic tribes were originally long straight swords, but the prevalence of slashing cuts from horseback often in movement led to the evolution of the saber or curved blade. As these tribes, moved westward some of these sabers developed the widening at the tip, which we now term the yelman.
While these Turkic tribes spread into varied regions, the yelman remained with those moving into what is now Turkey (giving us the kilij type saber known as the pala, while the kilij itself had less of this feature.
In Persia however, the sharply radiused to point blade known as the shamshir, clearly without yelman, was the preferred form.
Here I would point out that the yelman was not (as sometimes presumed) added for thrusting, in fact as I was told by a Polish fencing master and arms historian regarding Polish sabers used in 17th c, the yelman was to add weight to the distal end of the blade to add impetus to the slashing cut (as previously noted by Norman). There were examples as Norman pointed out with the British in the ever present effort to combine cut and thrust, with these 'quill points'.
The Polish expert also noted, almost humorously, that in fact the 'yelman' was termed 'the feather' expressly regarding its purpose to add weight to the cut. Here I would note that East European sword blades and forms were adapted from the Turkic models, which of course included the yelman.
In the type of combat typical of mounted forces, the thrust is seldom used as the dynamics and movement inherent in those situations mostly negate the potential for thrusting, as well as leaving the rider either momentarily or longer , without a weapon, and wide open for being attacked without defense. Again, this is the purpose and advantage of cutting blades, and the human inclination long standing, of hacking cuts with swords.
Although the thrust was, as long agreed, far more deadly, it had those kinds of drawbacks in application and opportunity.
The Ottoman's and cases of others, typically used sabers in slashing cuts, not for thrusting, but as I mentioned, there were some narrow (rapier like) bladed swords known as 'mec' used in dismounted fighting (in Europe these were the estoc, mounted under the saddle, also called a 'tuck').
With the 'pata', you are hardly alone, and there is always consternation about the use of these distinctive transverse grip weapons. In reality, it very much 'depends' on regional preferences in accord with tribal or ethnic circumstances as well as of course, the time period and circumstances. While it is possible they may have found thrusting use, it was most likely incidental and not usual.
Here I would add that in material on the khanda (Hindu basket hilt, also 'firangi') at European contact, the introduction of European blades (firangi) in addition to enhancing the hilt provided some blades of rapier form. While these were used in some cases on the Indian khanda, they were more a novelty as 'the thrust was virtually unknown in Indian swordsmanship (I cannot recall the exact references but think it was Pant, 1980).
As noted, the transverse grip is an anomaly in the character of most edged weapons, and its development is unclear though long studied. It is generally thought it evolved from perhaps the cases on shields (held transversely) which had spear points on the boss, and could be used for stabbing. This also was seen on the Indian parrying wesapon called the madu (joined opposing blades for alternate slashing) with a central stabbing blade.
The katar (actual term jamhdhar) developed in southern India, where these transverse grip daggers were perhaps intended for both slashing and stabbing (they had triangular blades) but evolved into heavier bladed form to which a gauntlet type 'hood' was added for hand protection.
As the form diffused into regions to the west, with the Mahrattas, and blades became longer, the PATA evolved as a sword rather than the katar, which remained in dagger accord.
As I had noted, the Mahratta disdained the thrust, considering it abhorrent and for lack of better explanation, unworthy of the skills of a warrior.
As the pata came into presence with Rajputs as well as in cases, Mughals, the use of them seems to have retained the slashing preference. While it is known these are seen in miniatures (art) held by riders on horseback, these depictions characterize parade or ceremonial situations typically. In battle situations (noting the typical license in such artwork) I do not recall seeing them shown in thrusting, and would be skeptical if they were.
The use of a sword in a thrust in a 'charge' is suspect on the face of it.
At impact, the rider would be either unhorsed by the dynamic result of the impalement of the target at best, or weaponless in the least result.
The lance was used as a shock weapon, and expected to be lost in the initial collision with enemy forces, where in the melee they were useless anyway.
I realize I have turned this into a bit of a treatise
but I wanted to express my own understanding of these areas in hopes you and others might find the information useful if agreed, or of course add views opposing if not.
It is a lot of material, bit I think salient in the understanding of the curiously angled hilts on these Georgian (and Tatar) sabers.