Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - How many of the katars we know were court katars?

Jim McDougall · 12th November 2017, 08:39 PM

A most interesting discussion, and in the end, there is of course a great deal of assumption involved as we have to rely on the dynamics of the designs, and just how much the katar was used and how.
We can only presume how much license is at hand in paintings, and artists are known to have adjusted size and perspective to favor composition. It renders reasonable plausibility, but not necessarily specific accuracy.

The case for stability in the use of the katar relying on the side guards is of course quite debatable. Obviously these are key in the structure supporting the transverse grips, but I wonder on just how much length is required being based on method of use.

While many consider the katar as only a 'punch dagger', for the thrust, the much larger manner of use was in slashing cuts. In the thrust, a great deal of stability is required with the impact of the blade with the target.
I do not fully understand martial dynamics, but would longer side bars impede the arc of slashing swing? I think it makes sense that the side guards would he heavier in less ornate fighting examples.

However, is it feasible that some side guards were larger, longer to serve as a more accommodating palette for decorative motif?

The long 'gauntlet' sword, pata, evolved from the largely covered hand style katars of Tanjore if I understand correctly, though there are sword katars or pata which are open hilt in the true manner. The gauntlet or enclosure which had a bar supporting the forearm, would have been the support needed for slashing.
I am not certain, but I have always understood that Mahrattas, those who were primary users as the katar (later pata) evolved, disfavored the thrust.
The pata in my view, simply offered longer reach from horseback.

I think the katar would have been a secondary weapon to the sword, and used mostly in close quarters combat, not in the shock action preceding a melee. The shield was for the parry. A blow to the fighting hand with a mace or battle axe would be deadly regardless of what the weapon held was I would think.

12th November 2017, 08:39 PM	#30
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,732	A most interesting discussion, and in the end, there is of course a great deal of assumption involved as we have to rely on the dynamics of the designs, and just how much the katar was used and how. We can only presume how much license is at hand in paintings, and artists are known to have adjusted size and perspective to favor composition. It renders reasonable plausibility, but not necessarily specific accuracy. The case for stability in the use of the katar relying on the side guards is of course quite debatable. Obviously these are key in the structure supporting the transverse grips, but I wonder on just how much length is required being based on method of use. While many consider the katar as only a 'punch dagger', for the thrust, the much larger manner of use was in slashing cuts. In the thrust, a great deal of stability is required with the impact of the blade with the target. I do not fully understand martial dynamics, but would longer side bars impede the arc of slashing swing? I think it makes sense that the side guards would he heavier in less ornate fighting examples. However, is it feasible that some side guards were larger, longer to serve as a more accommodating palette for decorative motif? The long 'gauntlet' sword, pata, evolved from the largely covered hand style katars of Tanjore if I understand correctly, though there are sword katars or pata which are open hilt in the true manner. The gauntlet or enclosure which had a bar supporting the forearm, would have been the support needed for slashing. I am not certain, but I have always understood that Mahrattas, those who were primary users as the katar (later pata) evolved, disfavored the thrust. The pata in my view, simply offered longer reach from horseback. I think the katar would have been a secondary weapon to the sword, and used mostly in close quarters combat, not in the shock action preceding a melee. The shield was for the parry. A blow to the fighting hand with a mace or battle axe would be deadly regardless of what the weapon held was I would think.