A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

B.I · 28th July 2005, 08:18 PM

hi,
i am not sure if this is acceptable to do, so please moderate as you see fit.
i would like to question and hopefully discuss this post from another forum.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...threadid=54178

i definatetly dont want to talk about the initial enquiry. 'weapons vs mail' is way too loose a subject to corner any real information. however, it seems to have been diverted into indian arms, and i am very surprised of the outcomes and statements being made.
except jens' short but sweet point, the rest seem to flounder on a very strange tangent.
there is very little actually known about indian arms and armour, and not much more written and speculated. however, there are some facts that are accepted as a basis, from which many discussions can stem from and end up who knows where.
these few facts seem to be ignored here, and some very strange opinions have been offered and i cant seem to understand where them have come from.
the points i have picked up on as as follows, and i am sure there are more that others will question.
firstly, indian mail was as heavy and useful as european. this is a fact from the many surviving examples. ok, european plate was of a slightly heavier gauge, but the mail construction was of a very similar nature. ok, if you look at the 18thC examples they were light, but if you are comparing at a time when the europeans were wearing heavy armour (late medievel to early post medievel) then there was very little difference.
if anything, heavy mail was much more in use in southern india than it the north, where fabric was more often used.
mail and plate was not necessarily introduced by 'hindusthan' as it was a very islamic style, possibly borne from an ottoman influence. there were other people in india other than hindus and moghuls.
katars did not dominate in the middle of the 17thC, as their form, both in the north and south was fully developed after the middle of the 16thC, and possibly even earlier.
as for the use of the thickened tip of the katar, i am sure many members here will elaborate. the katar was made for use and commom sense would attibute a thickened point can steer to only one conclusion. why have a weapon, widely used, if it couldnt do the job. indian was a very martial country and the reason that indian wepaons have been almost ignored until relatively recently is because europeans could not understand their weapons, being so unlike their own.
it seems as always, critical thinking overtakes and ignores critical observation and discusions end up confusing all that try to join in with big words and little actual information.
speculation and opinion have a very valid place in any discussion, as long as this is clearly stated and stemmed from the facts known. this is critical.........i think

Rick · 28th July 2005, 10:00 PM

Speaking as staff I would not like to see any criticism of other fora on this site .

Hopefully those with enough interest will follow Jens advice and the link to this forum that he posted on SFI .

Feel free though to discuss the ideas expressed in that thread here or on SFI .

Rick

Aqtai · 28th July 2005, 11:31 PM

I used to be under the impression that Medieval Western European mail and Islamic/Oriental mail were virtually identical, however I recently received a gentle rap on the knuckle on another forum (which shall remain nameless and linkless

) for daring to suggest this.

The consensus on that forum was that European mail was superior. This is probably true up to a point, there is an article on The Wallace Collection's website which suggests that there was a lot of variability in post-17th century Indian mail and that a lot of it was inferior to Western European mail. However I will cling to my belief that Ottoman and Mamluk mail at least was equal in quality to most Western European mail.

Link to that Wallace Museum article:
http://www.wallacecollection.org/i_s...truction.htm#1

B.I · 29th July 2005, 12:31 AM

hi aqtai,
you were not wrong in your initial assumption. most people judge indian mail by the later pieces. as david says in his article, his assessment changed when he examined the 'bikanir' shirts. these are of a much earlier date and the links were forged. the mail construction is different to european mail but the 'usefullness' is matched.
the wallace collection does not have any early indian or ottoman armour. the links he mentions in some camails that are riveted are of a different gauge than the mail/plate shirts. david does own an early shirt himself, and it is this examination that he takes his data from.
these shirts were similar in costruction to the earlier ottoman shirts and i am pretty sure this is where the influence had come from. people tend to ignore the deccan and the influences and ancestral history that dominated the ruling class. the bijapur dynasty owed its roots directly from the ottoman lineage, and it was during this dynasty that the shirts date from.
if i showed you a great example of an indian shirt, with exceptionally large links around the upper torso for extra protection, you would see the ottoman influence and soon forget the later, butted link shirts that people tend to refer to.

Aqtai · 29th July 2005, 08:32 PM

Thanks for that info B.I. and Ham, very helpful.

I have to admit I am still smarting after being dismissed with the following statements on another forum (which shall remain nameless and linkless

)

Quote:

...European armor had become superior, both in terms of the general quality or effectiveness, and perhaps as importantly, of coverage. Lets not forget around the time of the first crusade is roughly analagous to when the first head to toe mail armor started to appear in Europe...Eastern Armor in general, including Russian Armor, was generally inferior in terms of the quality of the iron used, and that this was part of the reason so much more integrated mail and plate forms are seen particularly in Turkish and Russian armor...I always understood this was a major reason for the success of the European heavy cavalry in all engagements where they were able to come to grips with enemy forces. The Arab, Turkish, Kurdish, Egyptian etc. heavy cavalry was simply not in the same league, largely due to equipment...

There was a whole lot more in the same vein. You could say I've come here to lick my wounds

.

I have seen a fair bit of Mamluk and Ottoman mail in museums, superficially at least it looks equal to Western European mail. Indeed according to H. R. Robinson Mamluk mail rings were often double rivetted and had inscriptions! I was wondering though, have there been any metallurgical analyses of Mamluk and Ottoman mail? And have there been any studies published which compare pre-17th century Middle-Eastern mail to pre-17th century European mail?

Since this thread could do with some pics, I've got some pictures of 15th-16th century Mamluk mail which I took in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo many, many years ago. I was going through a black and white photography phase at the time.

The mail shirt in the 2nd picture had a collar reinforced with leather strips similar to the one described by Ham.

kai · 29th July 2005, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

indian was a very martial country and the reason that indian wepaons have been almost ignored until relatively recently is because europeans could not understand their weapons, being so unlike their own.
it seems as always, critical thinking overtakes and ignores critical observation

I believe it's a good rule of thumb that if I see a weapon and can't figure out a really devastating use for it, chances are that my martial knowledge sucks rather than the weapon...

From what little I know of Indo-Persian martial arts I wouldn't want to mess with sincere practitioners much less armed folks...

I guess the situation is similar with Southeast Asian weapons. Some of them may not look too impressive to the uniniated. But once you receive some decent hands-on knowledge, small side-arms like keris or tiny blades like kerambit become really scary weapons!

Same-o with other examples all over the world, I guess.

Regards,
Kai

VANDOO · 29th July 2005, 05:47 AM

IN MY OPINION THE TWO COUNTRYS WITH THE WIDEST AND MOST VARIED WEAPONS ARE INDIA AND AFRICA. I AM NOT SURE WHY THIS IS SO BUT SUSPECT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF TRIBES AND BELIEFS IN THOSE AREAS AND THEIR LONG HISTORYS. I DON'T HAVE A LIBRARY ON INDIAN WEAPONS AND THE REFRENCES I HAVE SEEN USUALLY DEAL WITH THE VERY TOP OF THE LINE WEAPONS OF THE RULING AND WEALTHY CLASS. STONES LISTS A IMPRESSIVE AND VARIED NUMBER OF TYPES AND I HAVE SEEN SOME VERY UNUSUAL THINGS FROM INDIA OVER THE YEARS.

THE WEAPONS USED IN ACTUAL COMBAT MOSTLY APPEAR TO BE MORE PLAIN, I SUPPOSE BECAUSE THEY WERE SUPPLYED TO THE SOLDIERS BY THE RULER. THOSE CARRIED BY THE RULER ALTHOUGH FINE WEAPONS WERE MOSTLY FOR A LAST RESORT AS THEIR ARMYS AND GARDS USUALLY WERE SUPPOSED TO TEND TO THE REAL FIGHTING. THERE ARE MANY HONORABLE WEAPONS USED FOR WAR AND MANY FOR LESS HONORABLE PURPOSES SUCH AS ASSISINATION OR MURDER. SOME OF THE LESS HORNORABLE ONES WERE USED IN SPECIAL WAYS BUT WERE ONLY GOOD AGAINST A UNSUSPECTING OR UNPREPAIRED TARGET AND WOULD NOT STAND IN A ARMED CONFRONTATION.A WIDE RANGE OF VERY FANCY CEREMONIAL WEAPONS CAN ALSO BE FOUND. WITH ITS LONG HISTORY AND MANY TRIBES, RELIGIONS AND CULTS INDIA HAS A TRULY REMARKABLE RANGE OF WEAPON TYPES AND STYLES.

AS TO CHAIN MAIL I AM LIKE SHULTZ ON HOGANS HERO'S "I KNOW NOTHING"

ariel · 29th July 2005, 02:25 PM

Interestingly, the arrows were rarely lethal outright, unless they penetrated deeply into a vital organ: heart, head, major arteries etc. The main problem with them was that the barbs prevented their safe removal: pulling them introduced very extensive crushing damage to the surrounding tissues and pushing them through was also traumatic. Having an infected foreign body stuck within a dead tissue is a prescription for disaster: the wound got infected and the warriors died later of sepsis.
Mongols had an ingenious solution: every warrior wore a shirt made of silk. This fabric is strong, light and pliable. Thus, the arrow did not penetrate the silk but rather carried it into the wound. Since the arrowhead rotated, the silk got wrapped around it and "padded" the barbs. A skilled doctor could then safely remove the arrow by pulling and then use such powerful anti-infection remedies as cobwebs, dirt, boiled cow urine etc.

Jens Nordlunde · 29th July 2005, 04:14 PM

True what Brian writes, the katars were mail ‘openers’, and some of them were even specialised for doing the work. I doubt, that there was a mail shirt, which one of these specialised katars could not open. Unfortunately it has not been proven yet, as far as I know, as the museums and the collectors don’t want to deliver the test shirts – sadly, as it is in the interest of a scientific experiment

.

Rivkin · 29th July 2005, 04:46 PM

Dear All,

My opinion, as much as it ignorant, will probably be insulting to most of the members, for that I'm sorry.

It's one thing to scream on top of your lungs, madly shaking your hands, while hanging by nearly invisible threads on a movie set. It's a different thing to have a duel - a ritualized fight in between of two individuals. It's a completely different thing to have an effective army.

Nowadays it's believed that those cultures that are famous for martial arts had good soldiers. It's incomprehensible for many how precursors of shao-lin monks with their secret knowledge of chi used nomad mercenaries for their best units. How the all feared samurai had tremendous problems with their empire building in Korea (not to mention same old bad nomads).

On the other hand mongols were what is considered by modern standards complete loosers. They did not know how to kill people with their own hair (they preferred to use bows), they did not know about deep spirituality of the pose of five winds in the style of three monkies, they did not have elaborate weapons, all of the warriors carrying the same simple set of very basic weapons - bow, lance, mace and sword - when you know which weapons work, and which don't you tend to stick with the ones that do, rather than with the ones that don't but definitely 'cool'.

Tim Simmons · 29th July 2005, 07:55 PM

I read somewhere that arrows can be removed by studying the wound and then inserting sticks of wood into the wound either side of the arrow shaft to locate onto the barbs and pulling the whole assembly out. I think this would only work with arrows designed for long distance or very accurate flight that have a simple head with the standard two barbs. Arrows shot at short range and for ambush as in the forests and jungles of Africa and other countries often have many barbs not just on the head but also on the shaft making the above mention process of removal impossible. Some people are just not very nice

Tim

ariel · 29th July 2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I read somewhere that arrows can be removed by studying the wound and then inserting sticks of wood into the wound either side of the arrow shaft to locate onto the barbs and pulling the whole assembly out. I think this would only work with arrows designed for long distance or very accurate flight that have a simple head with the standard two barbs. Arrows shot at short range and for ambush as in the forests and jungles of Africa and other countries often have many barbs not just on the head but also on the shaft making the above mention process of removal impossible. Some people are just not very nice

Tim

The nastiest buggers made the joint between the head and the shaft deliberately weak. Any attempt to manipulate the arrow broke the joint and left the head (often deliberately smeared with feces ).
As to Aqtai's lamentations, the unmentioned (and unmentionable)- other-Forum-ite's claim that "Eastern" mail was grossly inferior to "Western" is just plain silly. In Europe, mail was affordable only to the upper crust of warriors and cost an arm and a leg (pun intended). In the East, mail was worn by the majority of the active armies. Of course, the one-of-a-kind mail might have been better than the mass produced one. But try to compare apples with apples, ie high class mails from both groups: Turkish, Caucasian and Russian mails will hold against any Italian or French ones.
Moreover, who said that the quality of mail should be the standard of military sophistication?
This is exactly what Rivkin was saying earlier: a Mongolian cavalryman had a minimalistic set of eqipment and superb military leadership and tactic. This allowed him to defeat lavishly equipped Western Knights (wearing ma-h-vellous mail shirts, no doubt). Mongolian bow beat German armour any time.

ham · 29th July 2005, 11:38 PM

Gentlemen,

The photos above are very useful-- the upper image of a heavy coat appears to be Mamluk though it is hard to tell without seeing the rings in better detail. The second, however is clearly Ottoman of the latter 16th c. together with a misrka type helmet. These were popular until the latter 18th century, in more isolated areas (such as the Caucasus) they was used into the 20th. The Circassians valued coats of mail by the distance at which they could stop a rifle ball.
Mail was the standard of military sophistication to a great extent-- the best required as many tools, skills and technical knowledge to make as the finest blades did-- some examples have even come to light which were tempered.

Sincerely,

Ham

B.I · 29th July 2005, 11:39 PM

i must say, indian armour tends to draw the short straw in most discussions. instead, when refering to 'eastern' armour, we tend to fall back to ottoman armour, as if the indian armour was of no consequence. i completely disagree as early indian armour was every bit as useful and well constructed as turkish armour, as i am sure this is where the influence originated from.
in reference, early indian armour was pretty much overlooked as there were not enough of it around to make a proper study. instead, the more 'common' 18thC armour and later was discussed.
however, with the introduction of a 'hoarde' of early armour onto the european market 10 or so years ago, we have finally been able to see the true nature of early mail that was not known or covered before.
these shirts were dated (by inscription) to the end of the 17thC but a general consensus is to believe they were of a much earleir date, possibly and probably at least one hundred years earlier. these shirts held old repairs, done in there working life and the nature of bijapur seemed to hint at them being the development of the ottoman armour worn by the original rulers of the deccan, who owe their ancestry to the ottoman 'monarchy'.
these shirts told a wealth of information, as they ranged from relatively crude, to the highest quality.
on the higher end, the links were beautifully crafted, some with shamfered edges, still sharp 500 years later. some held 'theta' links which it has recently been clarified as being forged and not cut out from sheet, as was previously thought. this meant that a lot of thought and design (as well as time) was put into the construction of these shirts.
also, it has also been found that some of these shirts had 'galvanised' links, which was a big surprise as zinc was not introduced into europe until the 17thC (i believe) but was discovered and used in india a good few hundred years before.
i dont really get involved in 'data' so please excuse any innacuracies. i have compared (physically) indian and ottoman shirts and the construction was not that dissimilar.
also, indian 'heavy' armour was well used in the 16th anf 17thC. they were also used upto the 19thC, but not in general. the introduction of firearms did the same to india as it did to europe, and armour adapted itself accordingly.
look at the 'sind' armour. i put this in inverted commas as i am not convinced this style of armour originated from that region, as refered to by egerton and subsequently robinson etc. however, i cannot question the dating of late 18th and maybe even early 19thC. this was riveted mail. although the plates were of a lighter construction, the mail was still heavy. there are enough early accounts (verified by surviving examples) of the plates beings an outer coating, and the actual protection being the heavy padded lining, thought and proved (in 18thC accounts) to protect against sword blows by itself.
heavy armour was also seen at seringapatam, which was of a later date.
also, there are late 18thC miniatures showing heavy mail/plate shirts, but these were too close to the early deccani shirts to believe they were made at the time of the miniatures. these had to be old shirts, worn at a later time.
although in peacetime, this also happened by the camel corps of bikaner in 1903, who paraded in fully heavy armour at the dehli durbar.
as for the katar, i really dont know what to say. heavy spears had the same thickened point, as did some sword blades. there are enough illustrations and sculpture showing it as a lethal stabbing weapon. if not for armour piercing, then what is the point (no pun intended

)

aqtai, please PM me your email address.

andrew, i have refrained from refering any more to the other post, out of respect for this forum, and i suppose because it would be a cheap shot to criticise people who are not willing to defend themselves here. however, i applaud your patience on that forum. i can only put this down to your work experience. i am constantly surprised how academically wrong a supposedly academic can be. i am glad i am just a lowly collector, not used to big words and books and things.

Aqtai · 30th July 2005, 12:08 AM

Ham, thanks for the additional info on those two mail shirts. They are both labelled as "Mamluk", although seeing as the mamluks continued to play an important role in Ottoman Egypt perhaps that's not totally inaccurate. It does solve a small mystery though. That medallion on the chest of the 2nd shirt has the name "Ahmed El-Gaabi" on it. The mamluks favoured Turkish names and Ahmed is an Arabic name, so I couldn't figure out what it was doing on the shirt. BTW El-Gaabi means "the tax-collector", judging by the fact he had to wear armour, it was a pretty dangerous job!

B.I. thanks for the info on early Indian armour, a subject about which I know nothing. These early Deccani armours sound fascinating. I will also refrain from any further criticism of people who aren't here to defend themselves.

ham · 30th July 2005, 12:27 AM

Aqtai,

Regarding the medallion on the Ottoman shirt-- Arabic was the language of the Egyptian Province as you know. Mamluks were acquired from the Caucasus and Anatolia primarily, hence they spoke their native language, as well as Osmanlici and Arabic. Arabic titles were typical for Mamluks even under the Ottomans-- the Mamluk governor continued to be known as the Shaykh al-Beled until after Abu Kir. A Mamluk who went by the title al-Gaabi is not unusual. And tax collecting was a highly profitable position to which one was appointed as an honor there.

Sincerely,

Ham

Jens Nordlunde · 27th October 2018, 10:09 PM

I dont know how often you search, but now and again it is worth to do so.

I think this old thread is well worth to be read, as it gives a lot of interesting informations.

ariel · 28th October 2018, 03:23 PM

Agree.

Thirteen years have passed and this thread still reads kind of " unfinished".

Any additional comments on the topic?

Lee · 28th October 2018, 03:33 PM

Just an aside that this page of this thread in and of itself explains and justifies the Moderator Team's strict enforcement of the image upload policy.

Jens Nordlunde · 28th October 2018, 03:52 PM

Has it ever been testet with which power a katar can hit its target?
If it has, it should give en idea, although not proven in reality, if it is possible to penetrade a mail shirt.
There are a relatively big number of katars with a blade like the one to the left, and they were not made for fun.

ariel · 28th October 2018, 07:27 PM

As a matter of fact, other objects give support to the mail-piercing ability of bladed Indian ( or thereabouts) weapons.
Not long ago we have discussed the so-called Zirah Bouk, a " mail-piercer" in translation. The only qualification of that khanjar-like weapon is the reinforced tip, either as a diamond-shaped or as a prominent central rib. The very name of it is an incontrovertible evidence.

I have a likely Afghani Tulwar with the same feature, and katars with diamond-shaped tips are dime a dozen. Afghani Khybers solved the same engineering problem by their T-section.

These are the examples of a mandatory mechanical engineering course on the strength of construction materials.

Thus, Indian weapons with the ability to penetrate mail were in abundance.

Whether a straight stab with katar or a more circular one with a dagger-like weapon ( khanjar) is more economical and effective is above my paygrade.

Looking for a katar with obvious mail-induced damage to the tip is, IMHO, an exercise in futility. A stuck one would remain on the battlefield, a lightly damaged would be fixed and a badly damaged would be discarded. In any case, none of them would be preserved in the armoury or sold to a collector.

BI is 100% correct: the success of an attempt to penetrate mail depends on relative qualities of a blade vs. mail. What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object is a question better left to philosophers or theologians.

28th July 2005, 10:00 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,262	Gently Speaking as staff I would not like to see any criticism of other fora on this site . Hopefully those with enough interest will follow Jens advice and the link to this forum that he posted on SFI . Feel free though to discuss the ideas expressed in that thread here or on SFI . Rick Last edited by Rick; 1st August 2005 at 04:57 PM. Reason: Edited for clarity

29th July 2005, 04:14 PM	#9
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	True what Brian writes, the katars were mail ‘openers’, and some of them were even specialised for doing the work. I doubt, that there was a mail shirt, which one of these specialised katars could not open. Unfortunately it has not been proven yet, as far as I know, as the museums and the collectors don’t want to deliver the test shirts – sadly, as it is in the interest of a scientific experiment. Attached Images

29th July 2005, 07:55 PM	#11
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,739	Removing arrows I read somewhere that arrows can be removed by studying the wound and then inserting sticks of wood into the wound either side of the arrow shaft to locate onto the barbs and pulling the whole assembly out. I think this would only work with arrows designed for long distance or very accurate flight that have a simple head with the standard two barbs. Arrows shot at short range and for ambush as in the forests and jungles of Africa and other countries often have many barbs not just on the head but also on the shaft making the above mention process of removal impossible. Some people are just not very nice Tim

30th July 2005, 12:27 AM	#16
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Aqtai, Regarding the medallion on the Ottoman shirt-- Arabic was the language of the Egyptian Province as you know. Mamluks were acquired from the Caucasus and Anatolia primarily, hence they spoke their native language, as well as Osmanlici and Arabic. Arabic titles were typical for Mamluks even under the Ottomans-- the Mamluk governor continued to be known as the Shaykh al-Beled until after Abu Kir. A Mamluk who went by the title al-Gaabi is not unusual. And tax collecting was a highly profitable position to which one was appointed as an honor there. Sincerely, Ham Last edited by ham; 30th July 2005 at 06:13 AM.

28th October 2018, 03:33 PM	#19
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 891	Administrative comment Just an aside that this page of this thread in and of itself explains and justifies the Moderator Team's strict enforcement of the image upload policy.

28th July 2005, 08:18 PM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons hi, i am not sure if this is acceptable to do, so please moderate as you see fit. i would like to question and hopefully discuss this post from another forum. http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...threadid=54178 i definatetly dont want to talk about the initial enquiry. 'weapons vs mail' is way too loose a subject to corner any real information. however, it seems to have been diverted into indian arms, and i am very surprised of the outcomes and statements being made. except jens' short but sweet point, the rest seem to flounder on a very strange tangent. there is very little actually known about indian arms and armour, and not much more written and speculated. however, there are some facts that are accepted as a basis, from which many discussions can stem from and end up who knows where. these few facts seem to be ignored here, and some very strange opinions have been offered and i cant seem to understand where them have come from. the points i have picked up on as as follows, and i am sure there are more that others will question. firstly, indian mail was as heavy and useful as european. this is a fact from the many surviving examples. ok, european plate was of a slightly heavier gauge, but the mail construction was of a very similar nature. ok, if you look at the 18thC examples they were light, but if you are comparing at a time when the europeans were wearing heavy armour (late medievel to early post medievel) then there was very little difference. if anything, heavy mail was much more in use in southern india than it the north, where fabric was more often used. mail and plate was not necessarily introduced by 'hindusthan' as it was a very islamic style, possibly borne from an ottoman influence. there were other people in india other than hindus and moghuls. katars did not dominate in the middle of the 17thC, as their form, both in the north and south was fully developed after the middle of the 16thC, and possibly even earlier. as for the use of the thickened tip of the katar, i am sure many members here will elaborate. the katar was made for use and commom sense would attibute a thickened point can steer to only one conclusion. why have a weapon, widely used, if it couldnt do the job. indian was a very martial country and the reason that indian wepaons have been almost ignored until relatively recently is because europeans could not understand their weapons, being so unlike their own. it seems as always, critical thinking overtakes and ignores critical observation and discusions end up confusing all that try to join in with big words and little actual information. speculation and opinion have a very valid place in any discussion, as long as this is clearly stated and stemmed from the facts known. this is critical.........i think

28th July 2005, 11:31 PM	#3
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I used to be under the impression that Medieval Western European mail and Islamic/Oriental mail were virtually identical, however I recently received a gentle rap on the knuckle on another forum (which shall remain nameless and linkless ) for daring to suggest this. The consensus on that forum was that European mail was superior. This is probably true up to a point, there is an article on The Wallace Collection's website which suggests that there was a lot of variability in post-17th century Indian mail and that a lot of it was inferior to Western European mail. However I will cling to my belief that Ottoman and Mamluk mail at least was equal in quality to most Western European mail. Link to that Wallace Museum article: http://www.wallacecollection.org/i_s...truction.htm#1

29th July 2005, 12:31 AM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi aqtai, you were not wrong in your initial assumption. most people judge indian mail by the later pieces. as david says in his article, his assessment changed when he examined the 'bikanir' shirts. these are of a much earlier date and the links were forged. the mail construction is different to european mail but the 'usefullness' is matched. the wallace collection does not have any early indian or ottoman armour. the links he mentions in some camails that are riveted are of a different gauge than the mail/plate shirts. david does own an early shirt himself, and it is this examination that he takes his data from. these shirts were similar in costruction to the earlier ottoman shirts and i am pretty sure this is where the influence had come from. people tend to ignore the deccan and the influences and ancestral history that dominated the ruling class. the bijapur dynasty owed its roots directly from the ottoman lineage, and it was during this dynasty that the shirts date from. if i showed you a great example of an indian shirt, with exceptionally large links around the upper torso for extra protection, you would see the ottoman influence and soon forget the later, butted link shirts that people tend to refer to.

29th July 2005, 05:47 AM	#7
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	IN MY OPINION THE TWO COUNTRYS WITH THE WIDEST AND MOST VARIED WEAPONS ARE INDIA AND AFRICA. I AM NOT SURE WHY THIS IS SO BUT SUSPECT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF TRIBES AND BELIEFS IN THOSE AREAS AND THEIR LONG HISTORYS. I DON'T HAVE A LIBRARY ON INDIAN WEAPONS AND THE REFRENCES I HAVE SEEN USUALLY DEAL WITH THE VERY TOP OF THE LINE WEAPONS OF THE RULING AND WEALTHY CLASS. STONES LISTS A IMPRESSIVE AND VARIED NUMBER OF TYPES AND I HAVE SEEN SOME VERY UNUSUAL THINGS FROM INDIA OVER THE YEARS. THE WEAPONS USED IN ACTUAL COMBAT MOSTLY APPEAR TO BE MORE PLAIN, I SUPPOSE BECAUSE THEY WERE SUPPLYED TO THE SOLDIERS BY THE RULER. THOSE CARRIED BY THE RULER ALTHOUGH FINE WEAPONS WERE MOSTLY FOR A LAST RESORT AS THEIR ARMYS AND GARDS USUALLY WERE SUPPOSED TO TEND TO THE REAL FIGHTING. THERE ARE MANY HONORABLE WEAPONS USED FOR WAR AND MANY FOR LESS HONORABLE PURPOSES SUCH AS ASSISINATION OR MURDER. SOME OF THE LESS HORNORABLE ONES WERE USED IN SPECIAL WAYS BUT WERE ONLY GOOD AGAINST A UNSUSPECTING OR UNPREPAIRED TARGET AND WOULD NOT STAND IN A ARMED CONFRONTATION.A WIDE RANGE OF VERY FANCY CEREMONIAL WEAPONS CAN ALSO BE FOUND. WITH ITS LONG HISTORY AND MANY TRIBES, RELIGIONS AND CULTS INDIA HAS A TRULY REMARKABLE RANGE OF WEAPON TYPES AND STYLES. AS TO CHAIN MAIL I AM LIKE SHULTZ ON HOGANS HERO'S "I KNOW NOTHING"

29th July 2005, 02:25 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Interestingly, the arrows were rarely lethal outright, unless they penetrated deeply into a vital organ: heart, head, major arteries etc. The main problem with them was that the barbs prevented their safe removal: pulling them introduced very extensive crushing damage to the surrounding tissues and pushing them through was also traumatic. Having an infected foreign body stuck within a dead tissue is a prescription for disaster: the wound got infected and the warriors died later of sepsis. Mongols had an ingenious solution: every warrior wore a shirt made of silk. This fabric is strong, light and pliable. Thus, the arrow did not penetrate the silk but rather carried it into the wound. Since the arrowhead rotated, the silk got wrapped around it and "padded" the barbs. A skilled doctor could then safely remove the arrow by pulling and then use such powerful anti-infection remedies as cobwebs, dirt, boiled cow urine etc.

29th July 2005, 04:46 PM	#10
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Dear All, My opinion, as much as it ignorant, will probably be insulting to most of the members, for that I'm sorry. It's one thing to scream on top of your lungs, madly shaking your hands, while hanging by nearly invisible threads on a movie set. It's a different thing to have a duel - a ritualized fight in between of two individuals. It's a completely different thing to have an effective army. Nowadays it's believed that those cultures that are famous for martial arts had good soldiers. It's incomprehensible for many how precursors of shao-lin monks with their secret knowledge of chi used nomad mercenaries for their best units. How the all feared samurai had tremendous problems with their empire building in Korea (not to mention same old bad nomads). On the other hand mongols were what is considered by modern standards complete loosers. They did not know how to kill people with their own hair (they preferred to use bows), they did not know about deep spirituality of the pose of five winds in the style of three monkies, they did not have elaborate weapons, all of the warriors carrying the same simple set of very basic weapons - bow, lance, mace and sword - when you know which weapons work, and which don't you tend to stick with the ones that do, rather than with the ones that don't but definitely 'cool'.

29th July 2005, 11:38 PM	#13
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, The photos above are very useful-- the upper image of a heavy coat appears to be Mamluk though it is hard to tell without seeing the rings in better detail. The second, however is clearly Ottoman of the latter 16th c. together with a misrka type helmet. These were popular until the latter 18th century, in more isolated areas (such as the Caucasus) they was used into the 20th. The Circassians valued coats of mail by the distance at which they could stop a rifle ball. Mail was the standard of military sophistication to a great extent-- the best required as many tools, skills and technical knowledge to make as the finest blades did-- some examples have even come to light which were tempered. Sincerely, Ham

29th July 2005, 11:39 PM	#14
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i must say, indian armour tends to draw the short straw in most discussions. instead, when refering to 'eastern' armour, we tend to fall back to ottoman armour, as if the indian armour was of no consequence. i completely disagree as early indian armour was every bit as useful and well constructed as turkish armour, as i am sure this is where the influence originated from. in reference, early indian armour was pretty much overlooked as there were not enough of it around to make a proper study. instead, the more 'common' 18thC armour and later was discussed. however, with the introduction of a 'hoarde' of early armour onto the european market 10 or so years ago, we have finally been able to see the true nature of early mail that was not known or covered before. these shirts were dated (by inscription) to the end of the 17thC but a general consensus is to believe they were of a much earleir date, possibly and probably at least one hundred years earlier. these shirts held old repairs, done in there working life and the nature of bijapur seemed to hint at them being the development of the ottoman armour worn by the original rulers of the deccan, who owe their ancestry to the ottoman 'monarchy'. these shirts told a wealth of information, as they ranged from relatively crude, to the highest quality. on the higher end, the links were beautifully crafted, some with shamfered edges, still sharp 500 years later. some held 'theta' links which it has recently been clarified as being forged and not cut out from sheet, as was previously thought. this meant that a lot of thought and design (as well as time) was put into the construction of these shirts. also, it has also been found that some of these shirts had 'galvanised' links, which was a big surprise as zinc was not introduced into europe until the 17thC (i believe) but was discovered and used in india a good few hundred years before. i dont really get involved in 'data' so please excuse any innacuracies. i have compared (physically) indian and ottoman shirts and the construction was not that dissimilar. also, indian 'heavy' armour was well used in the 16th anf 17thC. they were also used upto the 19thC, but not in general. the introduction of firearms did the same to india as it did to europe, and armour adapted itself accordingly. look at the 'sind' armour. i put this in inverted commas as i am not convinced this style of armour originated from that region, as refered to by egerton and subsequently robinson etc. however, i cannot question the dating of late 18th and maybe even early 19thC. this was riveted mail. although the plates were of a lighter construction, the mail was still heavy. there are enough early accounts (verified by surviving examples) of the plates beings an outer coating, and the actual protection being the heavy padded lining, thought and proved (in 18thC accounts) to protect against sword blows by itself. heavy armour was also seen at seringapatam, which was of a later date. also, there are late 18thC miniatures showing heavy mail/plate shirts, but these were too close to the early deccani shirts to believe they were made at the time of the miniatures. these had to be old shirts, worn at a later time. although in peacetime, this also happened by the camel corps of bikaner in 1903, who paraded in fully heavy armour at the dehli durbar. as for the katar, i really dont know what to say. heavy spears had the same thickened point, as did some sword blades. there are enough illustrations and sculpture showing it as a lethal stabbing weapon. if not for armour piercing, then what is the point (no pun intended ) aqtai, please PM me your email address. andrew, i have refrained from refering any more to the other post, out of respect for this forum, and i suppose because it would be a cheap shot to criticise people who are not willing to defend themselves here. however, i applaud your patience on that forum. i can only put this down to your work experience. i am constantly surprised how academically wrong a supposedly academic can be. i am glad i am just a lowly collector, not used to big words and books and things.

30th July 2005, 12:08 AM	#15
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Ham, thanks for the additional info on those two mail shirts. They are both labelled as "Mamluk", although seeing as the mamluks continued to play an important role in Ottoman Egypt perhaps that's not totally inaccurate. It does solve a small mystery though. That medallion on the chest of the 2nd shirt has the name "Ahmed El-Gaabi" on it. The mamluks favoured Turkish names and Ahmed is an Arabic name, so I couldn't figure out what it was doing on the shirt. BTW El-Gaabi means "the tax-collector", judging by the fact he had to wear armour, it was a pretty dangerous job! B.I. thanks for the info on early Indian armour, a subject about which I know nothing. These early Deccani armours sound fascinating. I will also refrain from any further criticism of people who aren't here to defend themselves.

27th October 2018, 10:09 PM	#17
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	I dont know how often you search, but now and again it is worth to do so. I think this old thread is well worth to be read, as it gives a lot of interesting informations.

28th October 2018, 03:23 PM	#18
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Agree. Thirteen years have passed and this thread still reads kind of " unfinished". Any additional comments on the topic?

28th October 2018, 03:52 PM	#20
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Has it ever been testet with which power a katar can hit its target? If it has, it should give en idea, although not proven in reality, if it is possible to penetrade a mail shirt. There are a relatively big number of katars with a blade like the one to the left, and they were not made for fun. Attached Images

28th October 2018, 07:27 PM	#21
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	As a matter of fact, other objects give support to the mail-piercing ability of bladed Indian ( or thereabouts) weapons. Not long ago we have discussed the so-called Zirah Bouk, a " mail-piercer" in translation. The only qualification of that khanjar-like weapon is the reinforced tip, either as a diamond-shaped or as a prominent central rib. The very name of it is an incontrovertible evidence. I have a likely Afghani Tulwar with the same feature, and katars with diamond-shaped tips are dime a dozen. Afghani Khybers solved the same engineering problem by their T-section. These are the examples of a mandatory mechanical engineering course on the strength of construction materials. Thus, Indian weapons with the ability to penetrate mail were in abundance. Whether a straight stab with katar or a more circular one with a dagger-like weapon ( khanjar) is more economical and effective is above my paygrade. Looking for a katar with obvious mail-induced damage to the tip is, IMHO, an exercise in futility. A stuck one would remain on the battlefield, a lightly damaged would be fixed and a badly damaged would be discarded. In any case, none of them would be preserved in the armoury or sold to a collector. BI is 100% correct: the success of an attempt to penetrate mail depends on relative qualities of a blade vs. mail. What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object is a question better left to philosophers or theologians.