Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Emanuel
In regards to ceremonial use, the more decorated the offensive part of the weapon, the less likely it was used in combat. High maintenance and generally less resistant. So heavy koftgari/inlay/carving/engraving on the mace head or the blade, particularly close to the edge indicate less likely combat use.
Emanuel
|
Once again relying on Elgood, I must respectfully disagree.
Of course, richly-decorated weapons must have belonged to the upper crust commanders who, by the very virtue of their rank and military function, were less likely to find themselves in the melee. However, Indian weapons were avatars of deities and as such must have been richly decorated. A Rajah armed with a plain sword could not rely on divine assistance.
Such weapons were not intrinsically wall-hangers: they were just religiously appropriate and possessed mystical content. We see them now well-preserved not for the lack of trying, but because they used to belong to the elite and were stored in royal armories between the campaigns.
And, as in any army, it was the poor schlumps who carried plain weapons into the battle