Indian Parrying Shield

Battara · 2nd January 2008, 07:13 PM

Impressive - never seen one with a spike before, many thanks!

Norman McCormick · 2nd January 2008, 08:07 PM

Hello,
With reference to the paired horns used by fakirs and medicants, if the horns were mounted with spikes would this not negate the ' forbidden weapon' categorization. I can see the thinking if it were just the horns, although by mounting them as a pair it would indicate premeditation, but as soon as you embellish them with spikes it can have no other use other than the obvious. Actually having an example to handle I can attest to the usefulness of such an item even without a weapon in the other hand. I presume as with most things where there are no hard and fast rules, or is there, everything is open to interpretation ie. metal spikes or not. Without stepping on toes I would like to hear from anyone who has knowledge of the scriptural history which might through some light on the above. Holy men throughout the world have by necessity had to have the ability to defend themselves, defence rather than offence may be the way to get around some of the weapon carrying rules, wooden staffs seem the obvious way round as a walking aid but also really useful in a fight eg., English quarterstaff, Japanese Bo etc. Am interested in any thoughts on the above.
Regards,
Norman.

Jim McDougall · 2nd January 2008, 08:40 PM

Thank you so much for posting the example of horns paired together as used by the fakirs and mendicants Montino, indeed very much appreciated.

I realize that these horns mounted with buckler and spike are obviously construed as a weapon, and fabricated in this manner would not have been used by these Holy individuals. The reason I wanted an illustration of the horns mounted this way was to illustrate the wider range of this weapon application.
In looking further, I found a reference ( the title of which I would rather not relay with certain hypersensitivities evidenced by some individuals here of late) written by John George Wood in 1883. The author relates a description of the horns we are discussing as "...a dagger made from the two horns of an Indian antelope. In the simplest form of this curious weapon, the horns are arranged with thier bases crossing each other for about six inches".
Further, "...the curvature of the bases thus furnishes a sort of a handle, which can be grasped in such a way that the holder of the weapon can strike right and left with it, and among a number of people, could do a vast amount of damage in a very short time. A dagger such as has been described could be made in a half an hour and, indeed a temporary weapon might be made in a few minutes by lashing the horns together".

Clearly, such a weapon would serve its purpose well in the crowded streets of cities where the volatility and mayhem potential was constantly heightened by such crowding, and religious mendicants might suddenly be targeted by conflicts against them.
These ascetics and mendicants seem to have been prevalent not only in the major religions, but in varying factions and even associated cults, so it would be difficult to find specific references to doctrine or dogma concerning use of weapons, but it does seem generally well understood in the prohibition.

All very best regards,
Jim

Montino Bourbon · 2nd January 2008, 09:08 PM

Was the instrument ("Honest, it ain't a weapon...") of choice for certain European clerics, because it could not shed blood, having no cutting edge.

VANDOO · 2nd January 2008, 09:58 PM

MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT MANY GROUPS IN MANY PLACES AND TIMES DID NOT WANT TO APPEAR TO BE WARRIORS SO DID NOT WANT TO CARRY THE WEAPONS OF WARRIORS. THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THIS BUT THE GENERAL IDEA WAS TO SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO FIGHT.
BUT JUST BECAUSE A PERSON OR GROUP DOES NOT WANT TO FIGHT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN REMAIN NEUTRAL AND NEVER NEED TO FIGHT. SO WAYS WERE FOUND TO DEFEND THEMSELVES THAT DID NOT COMPROMISE THEIR BELIEFS OR LAWS. WHILE THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT FORBID THE SPILLING OF BLOOD DURING CERTIAN CELIBRATIONS OR IN CERTIAN PLACES. IN ALL CASES I KNOW OF THE SPILLING OF BLOOD WAS NOT A PROBLEM IN AN OPEN FIGHT ESPECIALLY IN SELF DEFENSE. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR OF ANY OTHER GROUPS WHO HAD WEAPONS OR FIGHTING STYLES DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE SPILLING OF BLOOD EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE.

THE TUGS AS MENTIONED IN OTHER POSTS DID HAVE A PROHIBITION AGAINST SPILLING BLOOD WHEN THEY WERE KILLING OTHER TRAVELERS. THE REASON FOR THIS WAS THEIR BELIEF THAT KALI WAS DELIVERING THESE PEOPLE TO THEM AND SHE WOULD HIDE THE KILLINGS IF NO BLOOD WAS SPILLED OR WOMEN KILLED. SO IT WAS LIKE A KIND OF SACRIFICE AND RITUAL KILLING NOT A FIGHT.

AS TO A WEAPON MADE OF HORNS WITH SHARP POINTS , ITS NOT A VERY GOOD DESIGN FOR NOT SPILLING BLOOD, JUST ASK A MATADOR

Jim McDougall · 2nd January 2008, 10:03 PM

The non-shedding of blood was indeed a tenet of much religious dogma in many religions, however an 'instrument' such as a mace would not be very effective in such use as bloodshed would be inevitable. In the case of the use of the horns, the effect would be clear as well.

In the case of the cult known as 'thuggee' which we have discussed on a concurrent thread, the 'weapon' used was the noose, strategically used to avoid the spilling of blood as dictated in thier religious dogma.

Jim McDougall · 2nd January 2008, 10:05 PM

Hi Vandoo,
We must have posted at the same time. Very well said, and I especially like your matador analogy!!

All the best,
Jim

Norman McCormick · 2nd January 2008, 10:28 PM

I would suspect any sharp and pointy object wielded by man to be capable of spilling copious amounts of blood, just ask any bull.
Regards,
Norman.

2nd January 2008, 09:08 PM	#4
Montino Bourbon Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, California Posts: 301	A lead-weighed mace... Was the instrument ("Honest, it ain't a weapon...") of choice for certain European clerics, because it could not shed blood, having no cutting edge.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2nd January 2008, 07:13 PM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	Impressive - never seen one with a spike before, many thanks!

2nd January 2008, 08:07 PM	#2
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	Hello, With reference to the paired horns used by fakirs and medicants, if the horns were mounted with spikes would this not negate the ' forbidden weapon' categorization. I can see the thinking if it were just the horns, although by mounting them as a pair it would indicate premeditation, but as soon as you embellish them with spikes it can have no other use other than the obvious. Actually having an example to handle I can attest to the usefulness of such an item even without a weapon in the other hand. I presume as with most things where there are no hard and fast rules, or is there, everything is open to interpretation ie. metal spikes or not. Without stepping on toes I would like to hear from anyone who has knowledge of the scriptural history which might through some light on the above. Holy men throughout the world have by necessity had to have the ability to defend themselves, defence rather than offence may be the way to get around some of the weapon carrying rules, wooden staffs seem the obvious way round as a walking aid but also really useful in a fight eg., English quarterstaff, Japanese Bo etc. Am interested in any thoughts on the above. Regards, Norman.

2nd January 2008, 08:40 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Thank you so much for posting the example of horns paired together as used by the fakirs and mendicants Montino, indeed very much appreciated. I realize that these horns mounted with buckler and spike are obviously construed as a weapon, and fabricated in this manner would not have been used by these Holy individuals. The reason I wanted an illustration of the horns mounted this way was to illustrate the wider range of this weapon application. In looking further, I found a reference ( the title of which I would rather not relay with certain hypersensitivities evidenced by some individuals here of late) written by John George Wood in 1883. The author relates a description of the horns we are discussing as "...a dagger made from the two horns of an Indian antelope. In the simplest form of this curious weapon, the horns are arranged with thier bases crossing each other for about six inches". Further, "...the curvature of the bases thus furnishes a sort of a handle, which can be grasped in such a way that the holder of the weapon can strike right and left with it, and among a number of people, could do a vast amount of damage in a very short time. A dagger such as has been described could be made in a half an hour and, indeed a temporary weapon might be made in a few minutes by lashing the horns together". Clearly, such a weapon would serve its purpose well in the crowded streets of cities where the volatility and mayhem potential was constantly heightened by such crowding, and religious mendicants might suddenly be targeted by conflicts against them. These ascetics and mendicants seem to have been prevalent not only in the major religions, but in varying factions and even associated cults, so it would be difficult to find specific references to doctrine or dogma concerning use of weapons, but it does seem generally well understood in the prohibition. All very best regards, Jim

2nd January 2008, 09:58 PM	#5
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT MANY GROUPS IN MANY PLACES AND TIMES DID NOT WANT TO APPEAR TO BE WARRIORS SO DID NOT WANT TO CARRY THE WEAPONS OF WARRIORS. THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THIS BUT THE GENERAL IDEA WAS TO SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO FIGHT. BUT JUST BECAUSE A PERSON OR GROUP DOES NOT WANT TO FIGHT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN REMAIN NEUTRAL AND NEVER NEED TO FIGHT. SO WAYS WERE FOUND TO DEFEND THEMSELVES THAT DID NOT COMPROMISE THEIR BELIEFS OR LAWS. WHILE THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT FORBID THE SPILLING OF BLOOD DURING CERTIAN CELIBRATIONS OR IN CERTIAN PLACES. IN ALL CASES I KNOW OF THE SPILLING OF BLOOD WAS NOT A PROBLEM IN AN OPEN FIGHT ESPECIALLY IN SELF DEFENSE. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR OF ANY OTHER GROUPS WHO HAD WEAPONS OR FIGHTING STYLES DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE SPILLING OF BLOOD EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE. THE TUGS AS MENTIONED IN OTHER POSTS DID HAVE A PROHIBITION AGAINST SPILLING BLOOD WHEN THEY WERE KILLING OTHER TRAVELERS. THE REASON FOR THIS WAS THEIR BELIEF THAT KALI WAS DELIVERING THESE PEOPLE TO THEM AND SHE WOULD HIDE THE KILLINGS IF NO BLOOD WAS SPILLED OR WOMEN KILLED. SO IT WAS LIKE A KIND OF SACRIFICE AND RITUAL KILLING NOT A FIGHT. AS TO A WEAPON MADE OF HORNS WITH SHARP POINTS , ITS NOT A VERY GOOD DESIGN FOR NOT SPILLING BLOOD, JUST ASK A MATADOR

2nd January 2008, 10:03 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	The non-shedding of blood was indeed a tenet of much religious dogma in many religions, however an 'instrument' such as a mace would not be very effective in such use as bloodshed would be inevitable. In the case of the use of the horns, the effect would be clear as well. In the case of the cult known as 'thuggee' which we have discussed on a concurrent thread, the 'weapon' used was the noose, strategically used to avoid the spilling of blood as dictated in thier religious dogma.

2nd January 2008, 10:05 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Hi Vandoo, We must have posted at the same time. Very well said, and I especially like your matador analogy!! All the best, Jim

2nd January 2008, 10:28 PM	#8
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	I would suspect any sharp and pointy object wielded by man to be capable of spilling copious amounts of blood, just ask any bull. Regards, Norman.