How many of the katars we know were court katars?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Checking back through library I note the detail regarding decoration and style on~

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20514

That thread addresses many of the factors concerning highly ornate Katar although I cannot see from paintings of the time any solid evidence of long or short arm bar protectors as a trend in fighting versus court arms....and some may well have been older weapons ornately refabricated or blinged up as court weapons...others perhaps made to order.

In the picture below of the armed warriors in battle order one carrying the head of an opponent it would seem logical that the katar on his belt was a fighting weapon...but it has not particularly long arm guards..neither have many seemingly worn at court (akhbars court is seen in the other two pictures) though these are paintings thus artistic licence may not be relied upon as absolute...it remains a guide.

May it not simply be personal preference why the longer/shorter arm guards appear on some weapons but not all?

It would seem obvious that if a weapon was decorated in very ornate style that it would be a court adornment.

[mariusgmioc]

One can experiment easily with different Katars and I am pretty sure the conclusion would be that a Katar with longer and stronger arms like the one in Jen's posting no. 7 is much more stable in the hand than one with shorter side arms like the one in Jen's posting no. 20.

Longer arms would ensure better alignment of the blade with the forearm (notice how the longer arms slightly converge opposite to the blade in order to give a firmer prop against the bearer's arm - the same reason why some Katars have the side arms slightly bent inwards, not as a result of a blow, but to ensure better contact with the arm) and through their weight will also serve as a counterbalance to the blade improving the handling of the Katar. The wide four transverse bars will also contribute to the stability of the grip and prevent the rotation in the hand.

The same thing cannot be said for the second Katar that would be rather difficult to use as the very short and rather widely spread side arms would offer no alignment and balance to the blade. At the same time the two transverse bars would ensure a rather narrow grip prone to rotate in the hand.

So, the first Katar would definitely be a functional weapon, while the second one would be more like a dress Katar. And here I contradict my own statement above (second part of it) when I said that "there are some Katars more suitable for combat than others, however, this doesn't mean they were deliberately designed for combat."

As with regards with the illustrations, they are extremely important for general assessment of the presence and use of the Katar on the battlefield, but I believe they are of less value for making an accurate assessment of the proportions of the weapons used, as the artist's focus was certainly not on illustrating the precise proportions of the sidearms.

[Jim McDougall]

A most interesting discussion, and in the end, there is of course a great deal of assumption involved as we have to rely on the dynamics of the designs, and just how much the katar was used and how.
We can only presume how much license is at hand in paintings, and artists are known to have adjusted size and perspective to favor composition. It renders reasonable plausibility, but not necessarily specific accuracy.

The case for stability in the use of the katar relying on the side guards is of course quite debatable. Obviously these are key in the structure supporting the transverse grips, but I wonder on just how much length is required being based on method of use.

While many consider the katar as only a 'punch dagger', for the thrust, the much larger manner of use was in slashing cuts. In the thrust, a great deal of stability is required with the impact of the blade with the target.
I do not fully understand martial dynamics, but would longer side bars impede the arc of slashing swing? I think it makes sense that the side guards would he heavier in less ornate fighting examples.

However, is it feasible that some side guards were larger, longer to serve as a more accommodating palette for decorative motif?

The long 'gauntlet' sword, pata, evolved from the largely covered hand style katars of Tanjore if I understand correctly, though there are sword katars or pata which are open hilt in the true manner. The gauntlet or enclosure which had a bar supporting the forearm, would have been the support needed for slashing.
I am not certain, but I have always understood that Mahrattas, those who were primary users as the katar (later pata) evolved, disfavored the thrust.
The pata in my view, simply offered longer reach from horseback.

I think the katar would have been a secondary weapon to the sword, and used mostly in close quarters combat, not in the shock action preceding a melee. The shield was for the parry. A blow to the fighting hand with a mace or battle axe would be deadly regardless of what the weapon held was I would think.

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Jim,

While quite specifically designed for stabbing/punching blows, the Katar in skilled hands can also deliver strong slashing blows. However, the technique is quite specific to the Katar and involves movement of the whole arm, keeping the wrist rigid to maintain the alignment of the blade with the forearm. If during one blow the Katar is taken out of alignment, its use is severely compromised.

You can experiment yourself with a Katar (provinding you can find one that fits your hand as Indians have much smaller hands than Europeans) and after a few moves, you will understand what I mean.

Regards,

Marius

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

It may be remembered that the katar developed from an earlier form which had an almost gauntlet form hand cover. I suggest it changed into the shorter arm bar version so that it could be pulled faster.lt may have been down to fashion..the long bar style for older statesmen and the short bar type for the young blades at court. I still suspect the short bar form was quicker to deploy.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

It may be remembered that the katar developed from an earlier form which had an almost gauntlet form hand cover. I suggest it changed into the shorter arm bar version so that it could be pulled faster.lt may have been down to fashion..the long bar style for older statesmen and the short bar type for the young blades at court. I still suspect the short bar form was quicker to deploy.

Quicker to deploy for what, if the Katar was not suitable for fighting?!

Much more likely it had shorter side arms to be more confortable to wear in the sash, as two long protruding side arms would have caused significant disconfort (by interfering with the movement of the left arm).

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Marius,
It would seem you have indeed done some homework on katars, and thank you for the informational prod on the manner of use intended for these unusual style daggers. It has always been a puzzle at just how these transverse grip weapons may have evolved. It has been considered that perhaps evolution from the bladed boss on some shields (which are held with similar grip method or on arm) used in a punching blow; or further on the parrying 'saintie' with two opposing blades and a central forward one, resulting in a central 'push' dagger.

Returning to the original thought here posted by Jens, pertaining to the differences between 'court' and fighting types of katar, you noted, and Jens corrected accordingly, this is a term as embellished it seems as the type of highly decorated katar itself.
Just the same, highly ornate examples, while intended for upper echelon figures were certainly worn in regal settings, and accordingly by key individuals at events and ceremonial occasions.

I do not believe that anyone has suggested that the katar is not a fighting weapon, it most certainly is, but that the highly decorated examples were most often worn in these kinds of circumstances, but not taken on campaign or hunting forays.

As with the 'court' weapon concept in western context, these often much embellished weapons, while considered ostentatious accoutrements in most cases, remained quite able to fulfill their deadly purpose if called upon.
One would never know when subversive action might take place, and such volatility was always a clear and present danger.

The question of impairment in 'deploying' is therefore I think a valid one, and in my opinion , an unusually long side arm guard would be a hindrance much in the way an exceptionally long bladed sword would be in such settings. The notion of variation in the length of side guards seems also a valid note, as such attentions I think are sometimes at play with the weaponry of status, and indeed in some cases, 'size does matter'.
The idea of course needs more research but is worthy of note here as pertains to katars .

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes the katar could be used for slashing - at least some of them.
Here is an early description of a katar from my catalogue A Passion for Indian weapons p. 10.

Gustav Oppert, a scholar of ancient Sanskrit manuscripts, offers a reference under the subject Amukta, a description of a weapon,
which is likely to be a katar.
“The Maustika (fist-sword, dagger) has a good hilt, is a span [circa 20-22 cm] long and ornamented. Its end is sharp, it has a high neck15, is broad in the midst and dark coloured.
It can make all sorts of movements, as it is a small and very handy weapon. Its qualities are enlarged upon by Vaisampayana”. In the above quoted text there is a footnote to a Sanskrit text, translated here. “The hilt of the Moushtika is easy to hold and gives a tight grip. Both sides of the hilt are large and with attractive designs. The tip is wide and is sharp and shining. The centre [of the blade] is thick and shining.
It can be held and circled. While turning it, number of points on it can be observed. As with the curve that cows urine makes while falling on the ground, the moushtika can also make similar curves and can be turned. It can be thrust forward and reverse, left and right, zigzag, curvy and also in a circle. It can also be thrown, turned fast and can be thrust to the ground. It can be reversed and struck to the back. We can rotate ourselves [our body] while using it. We can hit from near and hit from a
distance. It shivers, and these are the different methods of using the weapon.
This is the speciality of this weapon, O King.” This was a conversation between someone who was a master of this weapon to the king to whom he was explaining it in 2 parts; firstly its description and then on how to use it.
That the weapon “can make all sorts of movements” is an interesting observation, and the author continues to describe other weapons in a similar way – the kunta [lance] can only be handled in six ways whilst the gada [club] has twenty different motions.