Indian bagh nakh (tiger 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 Jim McDougall

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.

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

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.

Originally Posted by ariel

I am jumping in when all the relevant things were already said. Thus, just my personal opinion. This cannot be a Bagh Nagh, because it is not hidden.

Originally Posted by 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,

Jim, I think these quotes clearly show that there is a perception that the bagh nakh is a "hidden/concealed" weapon, as I stated this is in my opinion primarily due to the most well known and publicized use of the bagh nakh, which was in the killing of Afzal Khan in 1659 by Shivaji. There are many detailed 1800s essays on this event (all of which stress the "hidden/concealed nature of the bagh nagh used by Shivaji) and it was a very important point in Maratha history and National identity as well as the beginning of the Mughal decline.

Unfortunately there have not been a lot of images available online and/or research that is readily available on bagh nagh and other small Indian hand weapons, so how these weapons were used, when they were developed and who used them has been obscured by time.

Some detailed images of the claws.

[ariel]

The Bagh Nakh is truly a"hand-to-hand" weapon: it offers no advantage of distance. Because of that it was good as a "criminal" weapon. It also offered no protection to the user. The vambrace with blades shown here lacks both features.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

The Bagh Nakh is truly a"hand-to-hand" weapon: it offers no advantage of distance. Because of that it was good as a "criminal" weapon. It also offered no protection to the user. The vambrace with blades shown here lacks both features.

Exactly, which is why its 'concealment' , whether in its use 'hidden' in the hand (not very hidden with protruding claws) or in the folds or pockets of garment is very much a moot point. It was used in an unexpected attack, not pitched combat (usually except in the cases shown previously).

The vambrace of the thread with multiple blades I agree is more akin to 'durbar fashion', as in the prickly guy in post #17, and simply of this spectrum of the innovations of Indian armourers.