The use of European RAPIER blades in Maratha Pata and Khanda swords

[Nihl]

Hi all,

I think one thing this thread could benefit from is a visual gallery of sorts, like with the pictures that Fernando has already posted. This should help everyone get a better understanding of the swords that we are talking about, as no doubt everyone has a different image of with a specific sword looks like in their mind (I know I personally imagine a swept hilt when thinking of a rapier, but only nebulously imagine the blade as being long, pointy, and thin).

To that extent with a pata I personally have the image of a generic (flat/smooth) gauntlet hilt with a broad blade, as best represented by the first image I've attached below.

To somewhat diverge from my point, I feel like it is necessary to ask: has anyone seen a pata with a definite rapier (super thin & pointy) blade? I feel like the claim that "rapier blades were mounted on patas" can be debunked simply by a lack of physical, documented evidence of the practice. Though of course more swords have been produced in India than have been photographed, it is still valid (I think) to expect at least a couple of these "pata-rapiers" to be documented. More likely I think this is just a case of the previously discussed name-game, with the use of the term "rapier" meant more generically at the time, and only later misinterpreted by us forumites.

As a bit of an exercise, I'd invite everyone to post images of the closest thing to a rapier-bladed pata they can find - whoever finds one mounted with a smallsword blade wins! Of course then there will no doubt be the argument over how thin a blade can be to still be able to cut well in the "Indian style"

Either way, here's my pick (the second & third images) - a pata with a pretty decently thin tapering blade, allegedly native-made from the 17th century.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Nihl

Hi all,

I think one thing this thread could benefit from is a visual gallery of sorts, like with the pictures that Fernando has already posted. This should help everyone get a better understanding of the swords that we are talking about, as no doubt everyone has a different image of with a specific sword looks like in their mind (I know I personally imagine a swept hilt when thinking of a rapier, but only nebulously imagine the blade as being long, pointy, and thin).

To that extent with a pata I personally have the image of a generic (flat/smooth) gauntlet hilt with a broad blade, as best represented by the first image I've attached below.

To somewhat diverge from my point, I feel like it is necessary to ask: has anyone seen a pata with a definite rapier (super thin & pointy) blade? I feel like the claim that "rapier blades were mounted on patas" can be debunked simply by a lack of physical, documented evidence of the practice. Though of course more swords have been produced in India than have been photographed, it is still valid (I think) to expect at least a couple of these "pata-rapiers" to be documented. More likely I think this is just a case of the previously discussed name-game, with the use of the term "rapier" meant more generically at the time, and only later misinterpreted by us forumites.

As a bit of an exercise, I'd invite everyone to post images of the closest thing to a rapier-bladed pata they can find - whoever finds one mounted with a smallsword blade wins! Of course then there will no doubt be the argument over how thin a blade can be to still be able to cut well in the "Indian style"

Either way, here's my pick (the second & third images) - a pata with a pretty decently thin tapering blade, allegedly native-made from the 17th century.

Nihl, its nice to have you posting on this, and thank you for observing and reiterating exactly what I had queried in this thread in the beginning.....were there actually these THIN narrow rapier blades ever used in khanda and pata.

One of the problems we had discussed, was the dilemma of the insistence on occasion of earlier writers using the term rapier (which brings to mind the VERY narrow blades used in civilian examples) to describe blades which were actually heavier 'arming ' blades. While I agree the name game is an aggravating nuisance in many cases, when you are relying on unillustrated written sources it can be most misleading.

If you have noted in the ensuing discussion, this very aspect was the source of considerable consternation, and in my post #19, I added illustrations of one pata with what appears a 'heavy rapier' blade (Rawson, 1969. #22) of the 18th c.; and a drawing of a khanda with VERY narrow rapier blade (Pant, 1980, fig. 54) among four others with wider blades.

I think one of the problems with the term rapier may be that as you note, many have an image of a swept HILT...…..actually the rapier term is referring to the blade, the hilts vary. You are right though, more pictures are helpful .

Thank you for noticing my question and appeal for any examples of these NARROW rapier blades. Many of the aspects concerning this dilemma are included in the text of the entries here, but so far without compelling result.

[fernando]

These are the pictures i can recover from the pata i used to have ...
Visibly a field weapon, not one for parade or big shot's show off.
A lenticular blade, not so sharp double edged, one fuller in the first third, slightly tapering towards the end, but not so pointy.
Length 96 cms. width 25 m/m. No marks.
This is to some, what would (could) be called a rapier blade. I will leave it to your discretion.
On a different note, one thing that occurs is that, the smith already has to have the blade in his hands to then design the 'forte' where it is going to be mounted.


.

[Jim McDougall]

In keeping with the previous train of thought , Pant (1980, p.70) has noted, "...some of the Indo-British RAPIERS, kept in the Indian museums belonging to the 18-19th c. have LONG HEAVY BLADES and very elaborate guards made up of cups, shells and loops".

Here we see that there are references to heavy blades swords, with elaborate guards made up of cups, shells and loops (rapier hilts?) which are termed 'rapier' probably due to the perception described regarding the 'hilt' but considering the entire sword a 'rapier'.

This is the circumstance I was referring to in application or 'mis-application' of the term in some of the descriptions of rapier blades occurring in khanda and pata.

It appears that Indian smiths were fully capable of producing very narrow blades of rapier type.

Elgood (2004, p.149, 15.11) shows a katar using a cut down European rapier blade.

While such narrow blades were in what I have seen, more of an anomaly, it does seem that some degree of thrusting must have been favored, as per personal preference.

[fernando]

Could it be that Mr. Pant is another fan of the term rapier in its non intrinsic acceptation, as so many ?. I wonder whether he is familiar with A.V.B. Norman's work which, by the way, is called the Rapier and Small Sword.
In pages 19-28 Norman weaves extensive considerations on the rapier which, not approaching their possible use in Indian patas, hopefully helps demystifying such controversial term.

[Mercenary]

from "Jamdhar katari - a theory"
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...7&page=8&pp=30

Just some comments:

Originally Posted by fernando

May i fully disagree, Jim. On the contrary, patas were mainly used in the field, despite requiring exclusively oriented training on their own, the reason why these formidable Mahrata swords were not adopted by other nations. Prestige orientation was not the issue.
The deliberate flexibility of the blade, with a length varying from 120 to a 150 centimeters, was an added advantage, because if it hit across a hard or resistant object, it merely bent over and thus prevented the rider from being unhorsed. You are surely aware of Egerton quoting Capt. Mundys journal, recounting a demonstration of the pata: The gauntlet sword whose blade fully 5 feet long in the hands of a practiced swordsman appears a terrible weapon, though to those unaccustomed to its use, it is but an awkward instrument ... the performer describing a variety of revolutions, not unlike an exaggerated waltz.
These assumptions are not distant from those of Rainer Daehnhardt, who also emphasizes the need for special training of these ideal (SIC) swords.

The patas were not only Mahrata swords. In the 18th patas were primarily swords for horsemen used by Muslims, Rajputs and so. As well as tulwars, khandas, jamdhars and so... By this time, there was already the weapons complex common to all Indian states with few exceptions. I think before that patas were used in Deccan sultanates where Marathi people were one of the most numerous population and served in Sutanates armies. We can easily guess where patas come to Deccan from.

Originally Posted by ariel

I am with Fernando.
Their mass-produced Patas ( Portuguese “paws”? Fernando, how am I doing?) were very flexible , designed to slash and bounce, distantly reminiscent of South Indian/ Sri Lankan Urumi.
My Pata is so flexible, that if an opponent tries to parry the cut with his sword, my blade will just bend around it and hit him behind the block.
These attacks must have left behind very few dead , but multiple wounded and disabled men and horses.

Real battle patas never were very flexible. Very flexible are patas from 1 to 200-years old used exceptionally for shows.

The European rapier blade is the best for the real pata. It is flexible enough for

Originally Posted by fernando

prevented the rider from being unhorsed.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Could it be that Mr. Pant is another fan of the term rapier in its non intrinsic acceptation, as so many ?. I wonder whether he is familiar with A.V.B. Norman's work which, by the way, is called the Rapier and Small Sword.
In pages 19-28 Norman weaves extensive considerations on the rapier which, not approaching their possible use in Indian patas, hopefully helps demystifying such controversial term.

Well noted, Norman's work in this book describing the variant use of the term rapier in European parlance is brilliant. I think it does explain the use of the term in often broader sense, and I think Pant simply used the wordage in the references indiscriminately and though Norman is in his bibliography, not sure he read this part.
He seems to have carefully scrutinized both Egerton and Rawson toward Indian sword details, but clearly he did not approach Norman's work in this regard.