A katar is a katar till......

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I wanted to address your post directly...

I was surprised to see one offered in sale which showed the interior, which had a centrally situated transverse handle, and it seems suggested it was used in a slashing manner.
I had always though, with the flueret like fixtures at each end (with apertures which seemed for lashing or securing to the forearm) that perhaps these might have been used in a kind of fearsome armor attire......as seen in the curious figure (attached photo) bristling with blades. This somewhat well known photo seems to have fancifully labeled 'the executioner' but I cannot recall the source (I expect my mention of this will result in scathing rebuttal here) and even more specifically has been claimed to be from a durbar in Delhi. Again, I am simply recounting what I recall of this well known image without suggesting or implying accuracy or meaning or intent. It is for the purpose of illustrating 'possible' applications of such 'innovative weaponry'.
As noted, this would seem aside from the example of these with inner handle which obviously would not be worn on the forearm as a vambrace.

Jim,

Also to address your post directly it seems to me like these things are the indian equivalent of the european "sword breaker" dagger. Though of course it has just about the same capacity to break an opponent's blade (not much), it looks like a formidable trapping weapon, with the projections on either side serving as additional pieces to parry with. The example I posted from arms&antiques (which claims that its example is from the 17th century, possibly making this a less-than-modern invention) also has this katar-style grip, which supports how these are to be held, placing the apparatus over the hand and wrist, and not directly in front of the hand/knuckles. This arrangement (over the hand) would prevent the katar blades from being easily used in their standard punching manner, further supporting that it is an odd parrying weapon, and not necessarily for direct offensive purposes. The multiple blades would make slashing difficult, and further on the punching aspect, thrusting (punching) with the blades seems incredibly awkward and almost pointless. Trapping or deflecting (given the tubular shape of the "guard") would work, but it seems like at best you could only give someone a really painful shove with the thing, assuming their armor doesn't nullify the points of the blades.

To everybody else in the thread, not to be rude, but if we are to keep discussing vague aspects of indian arms research instead of the very real forms of katar that don't even have a name, could we at least try to define the kind of research/information that is to be looked for? Just a simple idea really, but it is easier to discuss/research things when you actually know what those "things" are. Vague mutterings about how "more research can be done" seem rather pointless if said research isn't even talked about, especially in a thread where the whole (original) topic is about clarifying old, obscure information.

I very much appreciate Ariel's quips though .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Nihl

Jim,

Also to address your post directly it seems to me like these things are the indian equivalent of the european "sword breaker" dagger. Though of course it has just about the same capacity to break an opponent's blade (not much), it looks like a formidable trapping weapon, with the projections on either side serving as additional pieces to parry with. The example I posted from arms&antiques (which claims that its example is from the 17th century, possibly making this a less-than-modern invention) also has this katar-style grip, which supports how these are to be held, placing the apparatus over the hand and wrist, and not directly in front of the hand/knuckles. This arrangement (over the hand) would prevent the katar blades from being easily used in their standard punching manner, further supporting that it is an odd parrying weapon, and not necessarily for direct offensive purposes. The multiple blades would make slashing difficult, and further on the punching aspect, thrusting (punching) with the blades seems incredibly awkward and almost pointless. Trapping or deflecting (given the tubular shape of the "guard") would work, but it seems like at best you could only give someone a really painful shove with the thing, assuming their armor doesn't nullify the points of the blades.

To everybody else in the thread, not to be rude, but if we are to keep discussing vague aspects of indian arms research instead of the very real forms of katar that don't even have a name, could we at least try to define the kind of research/information that is to be looked for? Just a simple idea really, but it is easier to discuss/research things when you actually know what those "things" are. Vague mutterings about how "more research can be done" seem rather pointless if said research isn't even talked about, especially in a thread where the whole (original) topic is about clarifying old, obscure information.

I very much appreciate Ariel's quips though .

Hi Nihl,
Very well noted on the often wandering path these threads can take. While the discussion was primarily on katars and resultant vageries of Indian arms nomenclature, this multi bladed vambrace (?) or curiously fashioned gauntlet weapon is a conundrum indeed, and deserves more review. Although of course NOT a katar, the fact that it uses what appear to be katar blades suggests it could be a version of multi bladed katar as it does have a transverse grip.

As you have suggested, there do seem to be certain 'parrying' properties inherent in this curious appliance, despite the degree of actual feasibility. I had always thought of Indian sword fighting techniques as using the shield for parrying, however it does seem that various also 'innovative' Indian arms forms have been considered 'parrying' weapons.
Primary example is the 'madu' , which originally was fashioned with a small shield with roebuck horns extending on either side, these later becoming opposed blades. This weapon later became the 'haladie' dual bladed weapon found in Sudan, but regarded as the 'Syrian knife' (by Stone, 1934) with Rajput origins.

The idea of the sword breaker, as known in European left hand daggers seems apparently a somewhat fanciful notion, as described in "Schools and Masters of Fence" (Egerton Castle, London, 1885, p.246).."...the very vicious looking and somewhat fantastic so called sword breakers represented as usual fencing weapons of the main gauche class by so many arms and armor writers never were at any time but the result of individual fantasy."

While the idea of this weapon being used to catch an opponents weapon in a parry seems unlikely, or of damaging it even more unlikely......the idea of its function in parry seems incidental and not specifically intended.
We know that many shields/bucklers had blades or spikes mounted in the center with the boss, and quite honestly, the transverse grip holding the shield and punching with that blade or spike has been considered as perhaps something to do with origins of the 'punch dagger' (katar)!

It does seem, again looking at the bristly character of the Delhi Durbar (?) with blades projecting all over his person, there does seem to have been a certain penchant for mounting blades all over the place, in seemingly almost wildly positioned locations and configurations. If the multi bladed katars strain our imaginations, some of these bizarre innovations take it to the next level.

The Persians of course even had spikes on their kulah-khud helmets! which became naturally commonly seen in India.

This multi bladed weapon we are looking at, at first glance (before seeing the interior and transverse handle) looked like a vambrace (forearm armor) but in Indo-Persian nomenclature termed a 'bazuband'....the term in that parlance to describe the same type armor element. I would note here (entirely in passing) that this term 'bazuband', is also the name of a village in Razavi Khorasan province in now Iran. Any association between it and the armor item is likely doubtful.

The photos are of course, our mysterious multi bladed 'katar' with the outward appearance of a bazuband.
The haladie which is dual bladed 'parry' weapon, evolved from the madu which was a central shield with roebuck horns on either side.
The santal, shield with spike central, and extending blades
Our 'bristly' friend from Delhi .

[Jens Nordlunde]

I think the thread has taken a turn where I will leave.
Jim could you please make the pictures a bit smaller, so the reader does not have to scroll a lot - thank you.
I am aware of, that some useres of the forum are not the researcher type, as they relay only on the informationms they get from the forum, but you should try to research - it may be hard at the beginning, but it pays.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I think the thread has taken a turn where I will leave.
Jim could you please make the pictures a bit smaller, so the reader does not have to scroll a lot - thank you.
I am aware of, that some useres of the forum are not the researcher type, as they relay only on the informationms they get from the forum, but you should try to research - it may be hard at the beginning, but it pays.

Jens, my apologies for the inconvenience with the photos, which I removed and will resize accordingly.

Adding the photos here for previous post (edit window expired).
the 'madu' which is a dual bladed weapon ostensibly for parrying, note extra blade for stabbing.
the 'bristly' character from Delhi with blades everywhere
the weapon we are discussing which looks like a bazuband (vambrace) but has transverse grips inside (as in gauntlet sword).
The Persian kulah khud helmet with 'stabbing' point on top
shield with stabbing point and blades.

All illustrate the Indian penchant for innovation in combining features of various weapons for optimum combative application, or appearance of.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Jim, dont worry, as I do know that threads tend to change the subject after some posts. You should not have removed the pictures - I am sorry I mentioned it.
My comment on research was meant in generel, as although many interesting pieces of information can be found on the forum, it is hardly research.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Jim, dont worry, as I do know that threads tend to change the subject after some posts. You should not have removed the pictures - I am sorry I mentioned it.
My comment on research was meant in generel, as although many interesting pieces of information can be found on the forum, it is hardly research.

Thanks Jens, no problem. Actually I had noted the size was troublesome but had not yet gotten to resizing (it was aggravating me too as I could not get to the edit box). I have now gotten the hang of resizing so these pics should be OK.
Back to business:


Nihl,
In the photo of this unusual katar, which is clearly from southern India (primarily the use of brass or gold metal which often signals that) it has a slightly curved blade, very much resembling a tooth. We think of the jhamdhar term (= tooth of death etc) and perhaps the symbolism carried.
It also brings to mind the bagh nakh (=tigers claw) which has been mentioned in accord with this multi 'katar' bladed weapon which is mindful of a full set of claws.

When the famed Hindu ruler Shivaji (1627-1680) killed Afzal Khan in 1657, it is generally held that he used a bagh nagh in one hand, and a bichwa dagger in the other.
With the Indian penchant for combining weapons, we see the example of bichwa fashioned with bagh nakh blades in its handle.

We then consider thoughts of these combination weapons, the katar variants and perhaps such events possibly inspiring their creation.

[Jens Nordlunde]

The discussion has been quite interesting, but did any of you notice the difference of the hilt bases of the katars shown in the first picture and in pictures like no 11 and 16?
The 'V' type of base is shown in the Hamza, so it is at least 16th century, but what about the curved base - and how old is the 'V' base?

Was it invented by the Mughals?