Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
May i fully disagree, Jim. On the contrary, patas were mainly used in the field, despite requiring exclusively oriented training on their own, the reason why these formidable Mahrata swords were not adopted by other nations. Prestige orientation was not the issue.
The deliberate flexibility of the blade, with a length varying from 120 to a 150 centimeters, was an added advantage, because if it hit across a hard or resistant object, it merely bent over and thus prevented the rider from being unhorsed. You are surely aware of Egerton quoting Capt. Mundys journal, recounting a demonstration of the pata: The gauntlet sword whose blade fully 5 feet long in the hands of a practiced swordsman appears a terrible weapon, though to those unaccustomed to its use, it is but an awkward instrument ... the performer describing a variety of revolutions, not unlike an exaggerated waltz.
These assumptions are not distant from those of Rainer Daehnhardt, who also emphasizes the need for special training of these ideal (SIC) swords.
|
Are we still talking about European 'rapier blades'??? These thin blades for civilian combat/dueling/fencing were entirely inadequate on the battlefield, which was why swords with similar hilts/guards began having 'arming' blades. These were heavier blades, wider and still flexible.
I have no problem with the actual viability and skills of Indian swordsmen with pata and khanda, but with narrow, thin rapier blades (as in cup hilt rapiers)? I have seen and had many 'firangi' pata and khanda with good size blades, and have always been impressed with the way they were used as such. From what I have understood, the Marathas had great disdain for the thrust, which of course was the primary function of the rapier blades I was referring to.