Indian bagh nakh (tiger claws)

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you for your reply Eric.

To me this weapon appears made for parrying, but with a sting attached!
Bucklers can be Very small, some the size of a tea -plate, and yet are (Were) used for parrying.
Whatever is was called, it cannot have been common.
I Theorize (!) that it could have been made to keep a Prince or wealthy man happy. A man who owned all other weaponry already!

Must state again though, I see No connection to the tiger claw weapon, other than the fact it has more than one cutting edge............Actually!...(and here I wander off into fantasy)....
I suppose under this category also fits my old sickle mower!

Best wishes,
Richard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Bucklers can be Very small, some the size of a tea -plate, and yet are (Were) used for parrying.

It would be a brave man who would go up against an Indian warrior with a "tea plate" sized piece of metal.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by estcrh

It would be a brave man who would go up against an Indian warrior with a "tea plate" sized piece of metal.

Given the number of Indian shields in the 8" to 12" diameter range, there were plenty of men willing to go against Indian warriors with quite small shields. It's not a bad size for duels or other 1-to-1 fights. Not so good on the battlefield, since it doesn't offer as much protection against arrows. Against swords, a small shield is light and fast, doesn't get in the way of your own weapon, is less likely to get trapped/grabbed by the opponent, is less vulnerable to being hooked/pressed by the opponent's weapon. Also easier to carry around all day.

The popularity of little shields across multiple continents suggest that they work well enough.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Given the number of Indian shields in the 8" to 12" diameter range, there were plenty of men willing to go against Indian warriors with quite small shields.

Timo, I agree, many Indian shields were small, but I can not remember seeing an 8 inch diameter one that was not a madu, do you have an image of one that size? I still think you would have to be quite brave to face an armed opponent in real combat with such a small sized shield.

Egerton lists one madu that is 7inches but of course madu have two long horns sticking out.

[Pukka Bundook]

Eric,

If a katar can be used for parrying, (which it definitely can!) then so can this mystery weapon with the 5-7 blades.
It would not be as effective as some, but you must remember that the scabbard of a barong is/was Also used for parrying.

Many European bucklers are very small and effective if one knows what he is about. No-one can deny that.

Richard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Eric,

If a katar can be used for parrying, (which it definitely can!) then so can this mystery weapon with the 5-7 blades.
It would not be as effective as some, but you must remember that the scabbard of a barong is/was Also used for parrying.

Many European bucklers are very small and effective if one knows what he is about. No-one can deny that.

Richard.

Richard, not everyone necesssarly agrees with what a parrying weapon is, I personally can not remember a kater being called a parrying weapon , I am not saying that you are wrong, it is just something I have not heard before.

Lord Egerton of Tatton in his book "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" described Indian shields as small as 10 inches as "dhal" but the madu is specifically described as being a "parrying shield".

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Timo, I agree, many Indian shields were small, but I can not remember seeing an 8 inch diameter one that was not a madu, do you have an image of one that size? I still think you would have to be quite brave to face an armed opponent in real combat with such a small sized shield.

Egerton lists one madu that is 7inches but of course madu have two long horns sticking out.

Here's one, from Auctions Imperial Arms & Armor 2014 (lot 232), 20.9cm diameter. 9" and 10" ones are easier to find.

There are two reasons why people might have carried such small shields: either they valued the convenience of a small shield, or they thought that it would probably be more effective. The 2nd isn't a sign of bravery. (But is likely to be a sign of skill.) Sometimes, no shield at all would be carried (and you can't get smaller than that!), and I don't believe such warriors were necessarily regarded as extra-brave.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Here's one, from Auctions Imperial Arms & Armor 2014 (lot 232), 20.9cm diameter.

Timo, thanks, 20.9cm would be 8.22 inches.