Wootz afghan knife for komments

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Marius,
Please read my post carefully: “ massive reinforced tip”.
Your example has a tiny pimple, no more. It is most likely a tourist version, totally unsuitable for the job of armor/ mail piercing. Just like some examples shown by Mahratt.

Unless my eyes deceive me the original example shown by Rumpel9 has “ massive reinforced tip”. So it qualifies according to the definition of Stone, Elgood and Artzi. Perhaps the owner, Rumpel9, can tell us whether I am wrong about this feature. If the blade is not significantly reinforced in its terminal half/third but flat and plain throughout, I would admit my error.

The blade is just recurved, so I am also puzzled by your use of “ clipped”. You may use this term if you wish, but again it does not make a difference: see my post again, where I mentioned the irrelevance of the blade geometry ( straight, recurved), a feature not even mentioned by Stone and Elgood. In Artzi’s collection # # 1405 and 12604 are almost straight, and he still calls them ZB.

So, what is the purpose of this discussion/argument? To reach a correct conclusion or to inflate egos? If the latter, I am out. I am too old to need proving myself.

Hello Ariel,

I am saying that the knife in the original posting is by no means a Zirah Bouk because it does not have a reinforced/strengthened tip, but a tip shaped into a false edge/clipped. Besides that I consider it a Pesh-kabz.

And by the way, I am by no means the holder of the truth. Just that I am of the oppinion the shape of the knife does have importance, and it is the shape of the whole knife that defines the knife not just the tip alone.

Best regards,

Marius

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Ariel,

I am saying that the knife in the original posting is by no means a Zirah Bouk because it does not have a reinforced/strengthened tip, but a tip shaped into a false edge/clipped. Besides that I consider it a Pesh-kabz.

I have already asked Rumpel9 to tell us more about this feature. If he says there is no reinforced tip suitable for mail piercing, you will be correct, and I shall be wrong.

Simple as that.

[Rick]

Could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn; and that this might also be a contributing factor to the geometry of these blades?

Examples of this garb can be seen on the cover of Hopkirk's book The Great Game.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Rick

Could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn?

Yes, could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn. But this led to the widespread use of such a knife as a Karud. It is more convenient for penetration through dense and thick clothes.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Yes, could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn. But this led to the widespread use of such a knife as a Karud. It is more convenient for penetration through dense and thick clothes.

Absolutely!

From the mechanical point of view, the very narrow pointed triangular tip of the Karud or Pesh-kabz is the perfect armour piercing weapon, equalled only by the infamous Italian Stiletto. Note that the Japanese zirah bouk, the Yoroi Doshi, also has triangular pointed tip.

From the very same mechanical reason, the diamond thickened tip of some oriental zirah bouk knives is much less efficient, being too thick to penetrate chainmail.

Note that I used the term "zirah bouk" as an adjective together with "knife", in the sense of "armour piercing"..."knife."

And here I believe lays the confusion, as we can have zirah bouk Kard, zirah bouk Khanjar, zirah bouk Jambyia or zirah bouk Pesh-kabz. But calling all these, obviously very different types of knives, simply "Zirah Bouk" would be definitely extremely imprecise and confusing if not incorrect. As the term "zirah bouk" defines solely the purpose of the knife, without giving any information about its shape.

So there is one thing to say "zirah bouk + something" (like zirah bouk Kard), when we will immediately know that it is a straight-bladed, single-edged knife with armour-piercing reinforced tip, and

another thing to say "Zirah Bouk," when we will only know it is a knife or dagger with reinforced tip, and nothing more (is it single-edged? is it double-edged? is it straight? is it curved? Etc.).

And I think this difference is clearly noticeable in Artzi's examples, as he frequently uses the term "zirah bouk" as an adjective.

[rumpel9]

Honestly, I did not expect that my question would cause such a discussion. Concerning the end of the knife blade (the first one) I can say that it is not strengthened. As for the hilt, I have carefully examined it several times. Maybe it was mounted later. But if this was the case, then a long time ago.

[ariel]

Well, as I said earlier, if the distant part of the blade is not thickened, it is not a Zirah Bouk.