Indian bagh nakh (tiger claws)

[Emanuel]

I disagree with you Eric but I'll leave it at that.
It remains that these are fascinating weapons

[Pukka Bundook]

Gentlemen,

I know little of these weapons, but as a bagh nakh is a concealed weapon, I do not think we can call the weapon in question by this name, and as it would appear to be a secondary weapon, with say a longer blade in the other hand, I would say its use was for parrying.

I do hope other examples of this type can be found, as I have never seen one in Egerton or Elgood or anywhere else. There surely had to be a name for this, as it does appear to have some age to it.

Best regards Richard.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.

[estcrh]

There seems to be some difference in how people define a "parrying weapon", to me it needs to have a long blade or bar to parry a sword such as the example below.

[VANDOO]

HERE ARE A FEW MORE I HAVE PICTURES OF NONE OF THEM ARE MINE.
#1. bagh nakh circa 1800
#2 " " 20 th. century, 12 cm.
#3. & #4. " " circa 1900, 10.2 cm.
#5. " "
#6. " " ready for use.
#7. & #8 bagh nakh two that belonged to Lew.
# 9. a picture of a weapon similar to the one you show i had it listed as a 5 bladed armored hand and forearm with a katar type grip.
# 10, #11. & #12. a odd India weapon with multiple blades and a katar grip and hand guard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

# 9. a picture of a weapon similar to the one you show i had it listed as a 5 bladed armored hand and forearm with a katar type grip.

Artzi has an even different description for his.

This very rare form of dagger is Indian, probably 18 century, from the family of the kattar push daggers. It employs five heavy blades 4 and 8 inches long, with thickened armor piercing tips, riveted to a semi cylindrical shaped handle 14 inches long. The two holding bars are mounted inside the handle. Bothe the blades and the handle are forged from very fine laminated steel. A fine rare piece in very good condition.

[Emanuel]

Concealed or not is ultimately irrelevant Eric.

The bagh nakh is held in the hand and basically mimics a tiger's paw and claws.

The weird thing we're arguing about is likely held like a buckler but maybe also like a gauntlet, used to block, catch enemy's sword, parry, stab, similar to European parrying daggers and sword catchers. The jamadhars with side blades are a similar concept, as are some of the madu. Something to block/parry with, that also has an offensive element to stab or cut with when the opportunity arises.

If anything, this reminds me of Santal shields or even European Renaissance lantern shields.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.

Jens, there is no rule that I know of that bagh nakh had to be hideable, many bagh nakh that I have seen could not actually have been hidden due to their size except maybe in the dark, some were smaller or had folding blades so it could be hidden but most that I have seen had several claws sticking out, not exactly something you could put into your front pocket. My bagh nakh is 5.25 in long with 1.5 in claws, not something you could easly hide. The word that Stone uses is "concealed", other descriptions do not mention "hidden" or "concealed" at all. Some bagh nakh did have blades attached making this form not hideable at all, these types maybe need a hyphenated name like the tabar-zaghnal but they are just as much a bagh nakh as a dagger.

A few references that do not mention "concealed" or "hidden".

On the left from "Chambers's Journal", W. & R. Chambers, 1892.

On the right from "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations" Richard Bentley, 1852.

On the bottom from George Stone.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jens, there is no rule that I know of that bagh nakh had to be hideable, many bagh nakh that I have seen could not actually have been hidden due to their size except maybe in the dark, some were smaller or had folding blades so it could be hidden but most that I have seen had several claws sticking out, not exactly something you could put into your front pocket. My bagh nakh is 5.25 in long with 1.5 in claws, not something you could easly hide. The word that Stone uses is "concealed", other descriptions do not mention "hidden" or "concealed" at all. Some bagh nakh did have blades attached making this form not hideable at all, these types maybe need a hyphenated name like the tabar-zaghnal but they are just as much a bagh nakh as a dagger.

A few references that do not mention "concealed" or "hidden".

On the left from "Chambers's Journal", W. & R. Chambers, 1892.

On the right from "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations" Richard Bentley, 1852.

On the bottom from George Stone.

When it comes to the wide spectrum of innovative and varying types of weapons in India, there really are no 'rules' or specific guidelines. What Jens was referring to with the bagh nakh corresponds more to its use as a 'weapon' by assassins which suggests an offensive (vs. defensive) and often 'concealed' item.
I think that the suggestion of being 'hidden' is one widely held, as seen by comments of numerous participants here.

The idea of this being 'ceremonial' I think corresponds well to that most unforgettable image of the 'prickly' executioner at durbar. It seems to me that these durbars, and exhibitions often during the reign of Queen Victoria in the Raj were the source for a good number of 'innovative' creations in weaponry intended to showcase the skills of Indian armourers.

In many cases these unusual weapons were meant to appear threatening or formidable, though their often vestigial features would likely have been quite impractical in actual combat or use.

I think that the item posted here in the thread topic is as has been noted, more aligned with a parry weapon, and with blades for thrust supported by the transverse grip as in katar. The bagh nakh is obviously intended for slashing and tearing, and clearly insufficient for any type of parry as would be expected in a covertly used weapon against unsuspecting victim.

While not large (as many 'bucklers' were small) this has arm guards akin to the vambrace, which could offer protection in degree as used. Many Indian shields had spear points at the boss used in much the same way.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

When it comes to the wide spectrum of innovative and varying types of weapons in India, there really are no 'rules' or specific guidelines. What Jens was referring to with the bagh nakh corresponds more to its use as a 'weapon' by assassins which suggests an offensive (vs. defensive) and often 'concealed' item.
I think that the suggestion of being 'hidden' is one widely held, as seen by comments of numerous participants here.

Jim, the impression that the bagh nakh was a hidden weapon comes from its most well known use, when Shivaji managed to kill Afzal Khan in 1659, it is said that Shivaji attacked with a bagn nakh hidden in his hand, but it is also said that he followed up with a bichawa dagger, which he had hidden in his sleeve. Proving that both of these weapons could be hidden in the right circumstances.

Where the bagn nakh came from and what it primary use was in not easy to identify. There are a few different accounts, some say that the bagn nakh was not used in warfare, while another says it was, some mention it as a concealed or hidden weapon, others do not, a couple of references mention its use in feuds or ritual fighting, which may be were it originated.

Here are a couple of quotes that mention this type of fighting with claws.

The first is from "My year in an Indian fort, Volume 1", Katharine Blanche, 1877.

The second is from "The Captivity, Sufferings, and Escape, of James Scurry: Who Was Detained A Prisoner During Ten Years, in the Dominions of Hyder Ali" (1824), James Scurry.

[estcrh]

Below is an print titled The Nucki-ka-koosti at Baroda: the Fight with Claws.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, the impression that the bagh nakh was a hidden weapon comes from its most well known use, when Shivaji managed to kill Afzal Khan in 1659, it is said that Shivaji attacked with a bagn nakh hidden in his hand, but it is also said that he followed up with a bichawa dagger, which he had hidden in his sleeve. Proving that both of these weapons could be hidden in the right circumstances.

Where the bagn nakh came from and what it primary use was in not easy to identify. There are a few different accounts, some say that the bagn nakh was not used in warfare, while another says it was, some mention it as a concealed or hidden weapon, others do not, a couple of references mention its use in feuds or ritual fighting, which may be were it originated.

Here are a couple of quotes that mention this type of fighting with claws.

The first is from "My year in an Indian fort, Volume 1", Katharine Blanche, 1877.

The second is from "The Captivity, Sufferings, and Escape, of James Scurry: Who Was Detained A Prisoner During Ten Years, in the Dominions of Hyder Ali" (1824), James Scurry.

It seems that we have been scurrying down the wrong path here concerning the notion of 'hiding' the bagh nagh. In rereading the post by Jens, I clearly misunderstood that what he actually said was that this weapon was 'hidden in the hand'......meaning the 'claws' were enclosed in the closed hand and projecting between the fingers.
It would seem that was indeed how the weapon was used, and has nothing to do with whether it was concealed prior to its actual use.
I just wanted to clarify that aspect of the discussion at this point.

I would like to thank you for the well thought out comments and especially the supporting and well cited material you add to your posts. I cannot emphasize how helpful that is in learning more on these weapons in these kinds of discussions. These entries are fascinating and really add to the various examples included by everyone on the thread!!!

Getting back to the concealment of weapons, as you well point out, there are really no set guidelines or expectations as far as incidental use or carry of these kinds of weapons. As far as these pitched combats using these clawed weapons, clearly these kinds of 'duels' using like weapons would be occasionally seen.
It seems that such 'combats' outside of normal warfare in more of a 'civilian' tone were well known in many cultures, and somewhat unconventional weapons augmented the more expected forms. In Africa, there were wrist knives, and finger knives worn like a ring to slash with much in the manner of the left hand dagger and rapier in European fencing.

The origins of many weapon forms is fascinating, especially in India, where it seems the deep associations with certain animal features is clear. The haladie parrying knives came from pairs of buffalo horns, which later became metal blades. The recurve on blade forms such as the bichwa seem to recall the curvature of these horns, though the term describing them in metaphor is 'scorpions sting' .
I have always been under the impression that the bagh nagh might have originally been intended to mask the dispatch of a victim by making it appear the work of a tiger. I was thinking of the covert actions of the mysterious thuggee in their unusual 'highwayman' activities, though they actually used strangulation and buried their victims with special axes and ceremony.
The idea was toward the assassination concept, to blame the death on the tiger etc but perhaps simply favoring the effective nature of the natural weapons of these animals as with the horns.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

I do hope other examples of this type can be found, as I have never seen one in Egerton or Elgood or anywhere else. There surely had to be a name for this, as it does appear to have some age to it.

Best regards Richard.

Richard here is one more, this has seven pattern welded blades. These hybred type weapons are a bit hard to categorize.

[Emanuel]

Beautiful example Eric!

We're getting farther from the bagh nakh discussion but I wonder if this multi-bladed thing wasn't part of some ceremonial accoutrements like the garb of the High Executioner at the Delhi Durbar (attached pic). His arm guards look similar.

These things look very well built and to be made entirely from crucible steel must say something about their importance.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

We're getting farther from the bagh nakh discussion

Emanuel, the bladed bagh nakh were mentioned, there are some that were definately bagh nakh with a blade added, then there are daggers with bagh nakh type claws, its fairly easy to distinguish between the two types. I have not seen a bagh nakh with a fixed blade at both ends but there are examples with two fixed blades, one in the middle and one at the end. Bottom right, George Stones description of bichwa-bagh nakh.

[machinist]

Here is a fairly unusual one, the pic is a webfind, I forgot where from. I suppose it could possibly have a more domestic use but I think it is a weapon. I think bagh nakh are best used not to make a killing blow but to secure and hold a victim while your partner in crime finishes him.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by machinist

Here is a fairly unusual one, the pic is a webfind, I forgot where from. I suppose it could possibly have a more domestic use but I think it is a weapon. I think bagh nakh are best used not to make a killing blow but to secure and hold a victim while your partner in crime finishes him.

This is the only one I have seen with a single claw, the image is from a 2012 auction, here is the description. They are ofen described as having four to five claws but Brian posted an image of one with two large claws and a third smaller one, his also has a small side blade.

http://auctionsimperial.hibid.com/lo...ian-bagh-nakh/

A RARE NORTH INDIAN BAGH NAKH
An authentic example, very rarely encountered. Finely handforged throughout, with a robust hooked central blade that emulates the tiger’s claw for which it is named, flanked by two rings. With a profiled central plate, hinged and set with an eyelet to allow it to be lashed to the palm. Latter 17th century. Patinated overall. The Maratha ruler Shivaji famously defended himself against an assassination attempt by the Bijapur general Afzal Khan, using a baghnakh in 1659. Overall length 9.2 cm.

As for being a killing weapon, I think that in the right circumstances, such as taking someone by surprise and raking the unprotected neck area, arm, etc these would be effective, you would just have to inflict a damaging wound and step back until the victim bled to death.