Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mercenary
Thank you. The quote explains why we have a lot of katars now (and so few tigers) and why there are so many small sizes among them. All of this becouse later katars were used as articles of clothing for Indian and souveniers for Evropean unlike real battle or hunting katars.
By the way how many do you know katars decorated with the battle scene or on the contrary with the hunting scene? I cheked this - 1:10.
|
This is all astounding! and I had no idea just how deadly the katar was, in a conconcurrent thread we have a katar wielding guy mounting a berserk (musth driven) elephant and killing it by piercing his temple with a katar!
So the idea that a man with one of these deadly daggers could dispatch a 400 pound vicious killing machine tiger is perhaps feasible in such light. However, in my thinking if the tiger is close enough to stab, his teeth are likely firmly emplaced in some part of the guys body, not to mention the weight overpowering him. It is hard to imagine the presence of mind to thrust in such a situation, especially to a 'kill' rather than wounding spot.
Still, how can we dispute such compelling evidence? as well as the fact that the northern Indian tiger was driven into extinction by tiger hunts by katar wielding royal and court figures. If I understand correctly only these people were permitted the priviledge of hunting....the average guy was only 'hunted' by the tigers, and not having katars of course, were just fair game.
I have indeed seen 'shikargar' (=hunting scenes) on katars in some limited degree, so certainly again this must be proof of their use accordingly. We already know that shamshirs and tulwars were for hunting as such motif is seen on them as well. ....at least in following with that theory.
I dont think I have ever seen a katar with a battle scene though..........does this mean they were not used in battle?
Most interesting perspective.