A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated .
And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt.

Do not despair. It is in the Glossary in the Jaipur book by Elgood. Since his academic credentials are not too shabby, I tend to rely on him more than I would on Russian policemen. I agree it is a an artificial term: it describes not the object itself, but its function. By the same token, as per Khorasani, a Pesh Kabz with straight blade was popularly called a Shotorkosh, i.e. camel killer, in Iran.

And if we have touched this topic, Russian policemen would have hard time proving that Zirah Bouk had no protection against hand sliding: the same construction (bolster only ) is seen in each and every Pesh Kabz and Afghani Ch'hura. And your buddy Mahratt argued repeatedly that Karud ( Shotorkosh:-)) was designed for armour piercing, while Ch'hura was good for penetrating padded garb. I could never understand the logic of it, but be it as it may.

Although my experience with Russian policemen was admittedly limited, I have no doubt they could prove anything in the Russian court:-) But would the judge accept their claim that Caucasian kindjal is also not a weapon? After all it also had no crossguard.

You cannot blame Urdu for not having a word Zirah Bouk: it is in Persian. Different languages, you know....