Very Old Firangi with Rapier blade in need of restoration.

Jens Nordlunde · 2nd December 2007, 09:55 PM

Hi David,

How many Indian firangis have you seen with a rapier blade?

If you have not seen many, what gives you the thought that the Indians had adopted the rapier?

I don’t think they had, and if a few Indians, maybe, had learned to fight with a blade like that, does not mean that they could/would have used this skill when it came to a battle, where all the others fought in another way. Until further I would think it is a sword for show, more than a fighting sword.

Jens

Jim McDougall · 3rd December 2007, 01:46 AM

Is it possible that a Portuguese official might have chosen to adopt a native hilt to his rapier blade. In colonial situations many occupying forces, and officials involved either as diplomats or merchants seem to have adopted the elements of costume and weapons of the local population. This was often prevalent during the British Raj, and even English diplomats from the 17th century trading with Morocco can be seen in portraits wearing the nimcha.

fernando · 3rd December 2007, 01:13 PM

Hi David ... Jens ... Jim,

Amazing thing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Is it possible that a Portuguese official might have chosen to adopt a native hilt to his rapier blade.

.

Last night ( over here ) i was rehearsing my english for posting such hypothesis, but i have given it up as not consistent, coming from my layman knowledge

.
Obviously it sounds more plausible, coming from Jim. It is indeed a strong possibility. Remember that rapier fencing requires a lot of school.
Talking about rapiers, this is a name that covers quite a lot of diverse sword stuff, just because blades are narrow, or the hilt is worked up. Even being an actual rapier, there are distinct versions of it.
Tell me David, is the blade on your firangi a stiff one ? It must be, with is flattened hexagonal cross section. I would say it is decidedly a thrusting device, not currently within the habits of India peoples. And you don't learn these fencing techniques overnight ... right Jens ?
But then, tell me another thing, David: Is the grip large enough to acomodate an European hand ? You know the usual problem with this subject.
Fernando

Jim McDougall · 4th December 2007, 03:43 AM

Hi Fernando
I'm glad you were thinking the same thing. The more I think of it, indeed the skill of rapier technique required lengthy and intense training, and it would be unlikely for someone unskilled to use one. In actuality, the Mahrattas and certainly other groups in degree were against the use of the thrust, favoring slashing cuts.
This interesting hybrid seems likely to have been either for a civil official or as noted an influental merchant, but hard to determine whether Indian or possibly European. As you have noted, the often discussed observation on hilt size would seem to have some indication, despite the often noted suggestion that even Europeans were smaller then. In either case, this sword was likely a weapon intended as an element of prestige, not necessarily for combat use.

All very best,
Jim

katana · 4th December 2007, 01:33 PM

Hi Jens, Fernando and Jim,
Thank you for your thoughts

Although it is possible that this Firangi was created for a European, I think it unlikely.

First of all the hilt is small, the actual handle section is only 3" (7.5 cms) 'suggesting', if the 'small hand debate' is correct, that this was for use by a native warrior.

Secondly, the hilt design is 'restrictive' compared with a typical Rapier hilt and would not allow the 'normal' sword technique associated with the Rapier. Therefore it is unlikely a European would carry this sword for defence, as the hilt would make it difficult to use, with the sword technique that was known to him. A potentially lethal mistake.

Thirdly, there is no evidence of any decoration or embellishment......surely a Dignitary or rich merchant would 'require' this, to enhance his status. To me this is a functional, basic sword for use, not personal adornment.

Fourthly, I have learned that the fencing 'cut and thrust' we associate with Rapiers is a 'Hollywood' exaggeration. A Rapier had minimal cutting ability, cuts received from a Rapier tend to be 'superficial', used to distract, annoy and confuse your opponent. A true Rapier was a thrust weapon, plain and simple.
Training in the more 'advanced' use of the Rapier would be required if your opponents were also expected to be armed with a Rapier.

Fifthly, Indian soldiers were very used to employing a Dhal to parry sword blows. Much of their sword technique require this and would be an easy transition to the use of a Dhal and Rapier (Rapier vs. Rapier, the main gauche or small buckler was not as important, but against heavier swords it was essential)

Sixthly, not all Indian weapons were for the 'cut', the Pata would mainly be used as a thrust weapon, as were the long bladed Kata

Seventh, Indian swordsman, knowing the sword technique for Tulwar/Khanda would surely 'create' their own technique (with the Rapier bladed Firangi) against them. Bearing in mind the Portuguese, a number armed with Rapiers, had taken Goa, and was established there by military force. The locals would have seen the Rapier in action.

I believe that the Indians did find a niche for the long thrusting blade, attacking horse mounted soldiers 'springs to mind', lighter, longer and easier to use than a heavy Khanda. In the descriptions of a few Rapier bladed Firangi I have seen, many stated that the blades are edge sharpened for most of their length (as is mine) This was likely an Indian modification because true Rapiers, at most, had 1/3 of the blade sharp edged (from the tip), if at all.

I agree that there are very few Firangi of this type, bearing in mind the Rapier was losing favour in Europe (early 18thC) due to Social/fashionable reasons (rather than the effectiveness of the Rapier) could be a reason for the blades decline in India. Obviously the 'other end of the story' could easily be that these were not as popular with Indian soldiers

I cannot find any references to the use of this type of Firangi in India, and could be any number of reasons.

Kind Regards David

Pukka Bundook · 4th December 2007, 02:09 PM

Hi David,
I'm no expert here, but you mention the Pata being mainly a thrust weapon.
What I have read, indicates the Pata was a cutting/slicing weapon, and had a springy, thin blade.

You may of heard of the Pata demonstration, where the small limes are set on the ground in a circle, and the sword wielder chops them neatly in two, without breaking his wild dance steps.

All the best,
Richard.

Jens Nordlunde · 4th December 2007, 02:39 PM

David,

I am with you a long part of the way, and agree with you; but I don’t agree with you, when you say that the pata was mainly used for thrusting. Remember that at least some of the patas were mounted with flexible blades, not at all suited for trusting against a chain mail.

There is, however, one type of ‘sword’, which I thought of when you showed the rapier blade (see the picture). It was used for only one thing, to kill an opponent dressed in a mail shirt, or maybe in plates, trying to find a weak point. The blade is not sharp at all, on the contrary, it is squarish/roundish, but the tip is made for stabbing and it is not flexible at all. I can only remember to have seen one single one before, in the Army Museum in Istanbul.

Richard, the lime cutting - excelent.

Jens

4th December 2007, 02:39 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	David, I am with you a long part of the way, and agree with you; but I don’t agree with you, when you say that the pata was mainly used for thrusting. Remember that at least some of the patas were mounted with flexible blades, not at all suited for trusting against a chain mail. There is, however, one type of ‘sword’, which I thought of when you showed the rapier blade (see the picture). It was used for only one thing, to kill an opponent dressed in a mail shirt, or maybe in plates, trying to find a weak point. The blade is not sharp at all, on the contrary, it is squarish/roundish, but the tip is made for stabbing and it is not flexible at all. I can only remember to have seen one single one before, in the Army Museum in Istanbul. Richard, the lime cutting - excelent. Jens Attached Images

2nd December 2007, 09:55 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi David, How many Indian firangis have you seen with a rapier blade? If you have not seen many, what gives you the thought that the Indians had adopted the rapier? I don’t think they had, and if a few Indians, maybe, had learned to fight with a blade like that, does not mean that they could/would have used this skill when it came to a battle, where all the others fought in another way. Until further I would think it is a sword for show, more than a fighting sword. Jens

3rd December 2007, 01:46 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Is it possible that a Portuguese official might have chosen to adopt a native hilt to his rapier blade. In colonial situations many occupying forces, and officials involved either as diplomats or merchants seem to have adopted the elements of costume and weapons of the local population. This was often prevalent during the British Raj, and even English diplomats from the 17th century trading with Morocco can be seen in portraits wearing the nimcha.

4th December 2007, 03:43 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Hi Fernando I'm glad you were thinking the same thing. The more I think of it, indeed the skill of rapier technique required lengthy and intense training, and it would be unlikely for someone unskilled to use one. In actuality, the Mahrattas and certainly other groups in degree were against the use of the thrust, favoring slashing cuts. This interesting hybrid seems likely to have been either for a civil official or as noted an influental merchant, but hard to determine whether Indian or possibly European. As you have noted, the often discussed observation on hilt size would seem to have some indication, despite the often noted suggestion that even Europeans were smaller then. In either case, this sword was likely a weapon intended as an element of prestige, not necessarily for combat use. All very best, Jim

4th December 2007, 01:33 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Jens, Fernando and Jim, Thank you for your thoughts Although it is possible that this Firangi was created for a European, I think it unlikely. First of all the hilt is small, the actual handle section is only 3" (7.5 cms) 'suggesting', if the 'small hand debate' is correct, that this was for use by a native warrior. Secondly, the hilt design is 'restrictive' compared with a typical Rapier hilt and would not allow the 'normal' sword technique associated with the Rapier. Therefore it is unlikely a European would carry this sword for defence, as the hilt would make it difficult to use, with the sword technique that was known to him. A potentially lethal mistake. Thirdly, there is no evidence of any decoration or embellishment......surely a Dignitary or rich merchant would 'require' this, to enhance his status. To me this is a functional, basic sword for use, not personal adornment. Fourthly, I have learned that the fencing 'cut and thrust' we associate with Rapiers is a 'Hollywood' exaggeration. A Rapier had minimal cutting ability, cuts received from a Rapier tend to be 'superficial', used to distract, annoy and confuse your opponent. A true Rapier was a thrust weapon, plain and simple. Training in the more 'advanced' use of the Rapier would be required if your opponents were also expected to be armed with a Rapier. Fifthly, Indian soldiers were very used to employing a Dhal to parry sword blows. Much of their sword technique require this and would be an easy transition to the use of a Dhal and Rapier (Rapier vs. Rapier, the main gauche or small buckler was not as important, but against heavier swords it was essential) Sixthly, not all Indian weapons were for the 'cut', the Pata would mainly be used as a thrust weapon, as were the long bladed Kata Seventh, Indian swordsman, knowing the sword technique for Tulwar/Khanda would surely 'create' their own technique (with the Rapier bladed Firangi) against them. Bearing in mind the Portuguese, a number armed with Rapiers, had taken Goa, and was established there by military force. The locals would have seen the Rapier in action. I believe that the Indians did find a niche for the long thrusting blade, attacking horse mounted soldiers 'springs to mind', lighter, longer and easier to use than a heavy Khanda. In the descriptions of a few Rapier bladed Firangi I have seen, many stated that the blades are edge sharpened for most of their length (as is mine) This was likely an Indian modification because true Rapiers, at most, had 1/3 of the blade sharp edged (from the tip), if at all. I agree that there are very few Firangi of this type, bearing in mind the Rapier was losing favour in Europe (early 18thC) due to Social/fashionable reasons (rather than the effectiveness of the Rapier) could be a reason for the blades decline in India. Obviously the 'other end of the story' could easily be that these were not as popular with Indian soldiers I cannot find any references to the use of this type of Firangi in India, and could be any number of reasons. Kind Regards David

4th December 2007, 02:09 PM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Hi David, I'm no expert here, but you mention the Pata being mainly a thrust weapon. What I have read, indicates the Pata was a cutting/slicing weapon, and had a springy, thin blade. You may of heard of the Pata demonstration, where the small limes are set on the ground in a circle, and the sword wielder chops them neatly in two, without breaking his wild dance steps. All the best, Richard.