It is always great to see these old threads again, and often to see these discussions in the light of the often notable advances that have been made in our understanding of various topics and weapon forms.
What is interesting here is seeing the various approaches often taken toward this understanding in observations and discussion. Some go toward structure and features of a form, and lead toward a pragmatic solution as to manner of use while others look to historic and traditional aspects. Gratefully we have serious collectors such as Jens in the Indian arms field, who look into all approaches and writers such as Robert Elgood who peruses the very important symbolic and religious aspects of these arms.
Seeing this topic for example, brings the questions asked then to the fore, and a look into what we have learned since that time years ago. While the term 'tooroom' is essentially irrelevant as focus on these terms often is counter productive. What is important is the history and development of the katar and pata as weapons, which seem to have prevailed primarily in the 17th and 18th centuries. Their finite origins remain clouded and speculative and their use as weapons of course continued nominally after these times, but we look toward the years they were notably in use.
The use of the pata seems to have been primarily for infantry but is noted in some cavalry use. As Jens has well pointed out, use from horseback would be less than effective in stabbing especially if moving …..however used in 'cut and run' slashing as used by Marathas would have been plausible. For infantry, the longer blade would have provided the 'reach' needed.
I think what remains unclear with the katar and pata is whether there is a case for distinct evolution between the two or whether they are simply variations of the same concept. While the earliest known 'pata' or gauntlet 'sword' is believed c. 1570 (Elgood "Hindu Arms and Ritual", 8.58)
it is remarkably similar to the 'katars' used by the figure at the temple in Srirangam mentioned as shown in Elgood (op.cit. p.149). As I have learned from Jens, the case for much earlier katars does exist, and it seems reasonable to expect that to be likely. The idea of a transverse grip may have evolved from the method of holding a shield and the use of a blade in the place of the boss where the wielder could stab using the shield in left hand.
It seems that examples of katar and pata which are typically seen with highly embellished and decorative themes are most likely 'courtly' items. They are perhaps intended to represent these forms in the more rudimentary character probably seen in actual weapons in combat situations.
In actual combat I would point out that most rank and file would not have these weapons, and that in actual combat one would use what weapon they had if attacked. There were no rules toward who attacked who with which weapon, and one would use what they had in defense. While of course staged combat, as in the performances or events using katar and pata dispay martial skills with one in each hand in almost windmill like dynamics.
In actual warfare, it is most likely the katar was used as a close quarters melee type weapon in dismounted situations where longer bladed weapons would have been ineffective without room for swinging cuts. The thrust was it seems disdained by Indian warriors as less than skillful, thus dishonorable I would presume.
|