Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kai
Hello Jim,
Looking at those paintings, I get the impression that a majority of the depicted hunters were not entirely happy: even if they managed to fatally wound the tiger or lion (some already wounded during hunting them down), most are shown getting severely scathed and some probably killed. (I rather doubt these paintings were meant as photographic evidence and there may be an element of exaggeration and even display of so-called heroism expected from the artists... 
It certainly needs a lot of courage to face any dangerous and cornered animal with close-distance weapons only. However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...
BTW, despite ample hunting from Indian and English nobility, the tiger was not extinct in northern India during the 19th century.
Regards,
Kai |
Thank you Kai, and I could not agree more with your observations! Of course my note on the use of paintings and other art work as evidence was meant rather tongue in cheek. Art depicting these kinds of themes is invariably based on accounts from persons long after the events and as always, surely embellished as most stories in the telling. I have researched many art works of famous events and the accuracy is ranging from altered to severely compromised, sometimes outlandish.
As you well note, these pictures are clearly well slanted toward the prowess of the 'hunter' and do not portray the probable true character of such an event. I very much like, and agree with your comment ...that only humans kill for sport or to show 'bravery', but in my view such acts of hunting with such an obviously inadequate weapon alone is simply foolhardy. While I can understand that in some cultures these things are viewed differently, I must rely on my own perspective in how I see it personally.
The note on 'extinction' of the North Indian tiger was simply an extension of the quip by Ariel in 2016 about same. Obviously the diminished state of the species was more to natural circumstances, but not during the 19th c.
Mercenary, well noted, the use of the katar, or at least presence of them, was far more common on hunts than in battle. Again, this may have been due to the fact that the Royals and entourage were the ones hunting, and these were favored accoutrements in this group. I can see the katar used as weapon used in a coup de grace type manner, perhaps thus bringing the accounts of 'killing a tiger with a katar'. True, this was the final closure, but after the tiger was down.
Close quarters weapons were not intended as attack weapons for initial impact, but as secondary arms used in close quarters melee or if otherwise compromised as far as I have understood.