A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons - Page 2

Rivkin · 31st July 2005, 04:03 AM

Roustam says they spoke kartli (mainstream georgian). Concerning the influence, it's in some sence truly hard to see the connection with earlier sultans in this ragtagged force, filled with russian POWs from 1779 war, french deserters from Napoleon's army, german gangsters and so on. However it's interesting that till the very end mamluks retained the exclusive status of their units under the Ottomans, being separated from sipahis or yeni chari. There is an information that during 1779 war it was said that mamluks retained old education - instead of being send to the front there were performing archery and lanceship for the sultan.

Concerning mamluks in pre-mamluk period I would reference the collection of articles of Ayulon "Malmluk studies ...", who goes into long discussions. He says that while typical number of mamluks per se in the army of Baghdad Caliph/Sultans appears small at the first sight (500 personal mamluks of Salahdin) he makes the case that it can be deceptive:

a. Mamluks numerically never were able to exceed certain number even during the sultanate, with rest being filled with free turkoman and kurds, halqa and bedouin irregulars.
b. Nevertheless there are some references that even at that time mamluks were considered the decisive force in battle - being elite squadron there were specifically meant to make the day.
c. No one mentions the ratio of mamluks to non-mamluks in the pre-sultanate armies, usually limiting oneself to simply describe the number of royal mamluks.
d. It's often that while 500 or 1000 mamluks are specifically mentioned, the rest of the army is not mentioned at all. For example, it's repeatedly mentioned how many mamluks Salahadin inherited, while for the rest of the army (supposedly inherited as well), one does not see even an explicit size estimate.

Now to the topic of mails - it's well reported ("Turkish archery" by Klopsteg) that turkish bow penetrated nearly all the armor. Together with mamluk training, emphasizing shooting at small targets while riding a horse, one can see not only standart "anti-horse" use of bows, but the great danger for the rider as well.

B.I · 31st July 2005, 11:51 AM

what happened to katars and INDIAN chainmail??

i am not complaining as i have a good interest in ottoman and mumluk armour and am enjoyng reading the posts, but its a shame that, as always, indian pieces are overlooked or sidelined.
i know jens is on a road trip but jim??

aqtai and krill, please dont stop but i hope others will pick up the indian side.

Jim McDougall · 31st July 2005, 10:15 PM

Hi Brian,
I have to admit I've been pretty much 'out of the loop'

on this oustanding discussion on mail and katars the past week, although I have read this thread as well as the one on the other forum. I think your discussion on Indian armour was very nicely stated and well placed, bringing up material on this armour that illustrates that there was a distinct spectrum of quality in the forms found. This suggests of course that some Indian armour certainly did parallel European quality. I think Ham made a particularly important comment concerning the validity of comparisons when significant difference in period are involved. Weapons and armour of later period that maintain certain traditional style or form vestigially, as their expectation of meeting the combat situations intended for original design is negligible, seem hardly worthy of such comparison.

The study of armour has admittedly been far outside my field of study, but in reviewing these discussions I cannot help but become profoundly intrigued and realize how important and relevant its study is to our more focused study on ethnographic weapons. The paper "Demystifying Chain Mail and Ring Mail" by Dan Howard that is linked in the thread is nicely written and beautifully referenced, informative and most helpful in getting the proper perspective in understanding this topic from the European forms. I agree with your note that most study of weaponry and armour does defer to Ottoman and Mamluk material when 'Eastern' examples are discussed, while Indian forms are relegated to broad assumptions and nearly cliche' interpretations. I think one of the most important qualities of Robert Elgood's magnificent new book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (London, 2004, ISBN 81-88204-44-7), is that he brilliantly examines how to understand the symbolism imbued in the weapons and armour, an extremely important perspective that has typically eluded the scope of arms and armour study in the west. His work will stand as the renaissance of the study of Indian weaponry.

Returning to the topic of mail and katars, on the mail I would defer to the advanced knowledge of you and the others on these threads, and hope the discussions will continue as the material is fascinating and its great to learn more on this!
On the katar and it's use as a mail piercing weapon. You, Jens and I have of course discussed these often, and there have been countless posts over the years on these forums. With the limited material available on these, most of the discussion is naturally speculative. The suggestion that the katar was not intended for use against mail needs qualification. This is a weapon that evolved over a long period and seems to have remained indiginous to the Indian sphere, however with the development came of course variations. It seems to me that in its development in Southern India it was likely not meant to pierce armour originally. Much like the pata, its gauntleted sword big brother, it was used in slashing manner as much as in thrusting. It is important to note that the Mahratta versions after the arrival of Europeans often used the straight broadsword blades from Europe. These blades would have not been suited for mail piercing in India any more than they would have been in Europe.

In later development of course, encroaching influences brought the well known reinforced points seen on many of these katars that would suggest the potential for armour piercing. Obviously such a feature would not guarantee that it would be used for such purpose any more than it would preclude its use in any manner dictated by circumstances. With that consideration, it seems worthy of note that the absence of combat damage on existing katar examples that would indicate contact with armour does not necessarily provide evidence that such use was not intended. It must be remembered that most Indian weapons that survive are typically those found in collections acquired during the British Raj, and these were often armoury items or from gatherings from diplomatic interaction. The weaponry of the rank and file and with combat history typically ended up in scrap heaps and were disposed of. This severely impedes the possibility of combat damage on examples found for examination, much as in considerable weaponry usually found by collectors. It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage.

I think that the katar was a weapon form that like most others, experienced variation, and while there were certainly examples that carried blades that were reinforced for mail piercing, this was not an exclusive consideration.
As far as the most effective attack against mail, it seems that in the heat of combat, the most instinctive action in the melee would be a powerful blow with a zaghnal, battle axe or mace. It would seem that in using blades against mail the primary concern would be in the blade breaking. Here I would ask those more advanced in armour...would there have been a construction location in the coats or shirts that were more vulnerable? It is of course said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Also, would heavy blows from mace or axe sufficiently weaken areas of the mail to allow better penetration of a bladed weapon?

This has been an outstanding discussion, and I very much admire the prudent demeanor employed by you and everyone on this thread in discussing a concurrent thread from the other forum and avoiding direct criticism of its participants. Very nicely done!

With all best regards,
Jim

Aqtai · 31st July 2005, 10:57 PM

Sorry for going off-topic. My fascination with the mamluks got the better of me

.

I have to admit I also know hardly anything about Katars so I didn't feel qualified to comment on that part of the the discussion. I think one would have to go to descriptions of battles fought in the Mughul era and Indian equivalents of the Mamluk Furuseya manuals to get more info. I must concur with Jim that to me personally the katar has never really "felt" like a military weapon. It has struck me more as a weapon to be used in streetfights, self-defense and by assasins. In battle I personally can only envision it as a secondary weapon. I would imagine the main hand-to-hand weapons used on the battlefield would have been the lance, axe, mace and Tulwar. The longer reach of these weapons would have made a man armed only with a katar very vulnerable. But like I said, what do I know

.

The only real way to test it would be to stab a mannequin wearing an antique Indian mail shirt and gambeson with a katar. Frankly that would be absolutely criminal and the worst sort of vandalism!

not2sharp · 31st July 2005, 11:04 PM

It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage.

This should be a topic for discussion on its own. Spotting abuse is straight forward, but trying to find legitimate combat damage is difficult at best.

n2s

Jim McDougall · 1st August 2005, 12:00 AM

Aqtai and N2S,
Thanks very much for the responses

What Aqtai notes on the katar is well placed, it does seem a secondary weapon, although not specifically military it likely was found in such situations. The secondary weapon was important in close quarters melee as combatants closed on each other and there was limited space for momentum oriented use of weapons. It is interesting to note the possible use as an assassins weapon also, most presumably of course the smaller and short bladed examples. It seems there have been discussions on a number of edged weapons that have been suggested were too small or 'fragile' to have been actually used as weapons. I think one of them was the 'lohar' of Afghan regions. While these were relatively small and seemed unlikely for combat weapons, it is known that many NW frontier tribes favored stealth attacks in the night and even such a small weapon would be extremely effective against a nondefensive victim.

The katar also has been the topic of many discussions here concerning its use in the hunt. Here it seems likely as a secondary weapon also, although there have been accounts of displays of prowess in using the weapon to hunt tigers for one example. Many katars carry shikarga motif with hunting scenes.

N2S, absolutely!! Such a topic as genuine combat damaged weapons would be fascinating. I still have visions of one guy who had an outstanding Caucasian shashka and his son had it in the back yard whacking weeds with it! auugghh!! Such is probably the source of much of the 'combat' damage found on many collected weapons.
Again, returning to the katar, it would be interesting to find examples of early katars to find evidence of combat use. As discussed, these will be hard to find as these were those souveniers brought home by soldiers and later travellers from bazaars, typically now lost in obscure private estates. Every so often someone will find one of these treasures, and hopefully will be shared here.

All the best,
Jim

B.I · 1st August 2005, 09:47 PM

a great assessment, jim, of which i fully expected and enjoy every time :-)
i think the problem with a 'western' assessment of indian arms is the difficulty in understand what we would class as 'clumsy' or strange weapons. to us they have always seemed cumbersome and inefficient, but this is because we were not trained with their use from a very young age. whilst there are numerous accounts of the 'strange' weapons of the native in british 19thC accounts, there are also a few admissions of the expertise these natives had when wielding these weapons - the katar and pata being good examples.
and so, i think a western martial aspect falls foul of a true assessment. this is because it is too easy to generalise indian weapons.
all this could be heresay except for a very lucky fact. the antique arms world was lucky enough to experience a hoard of these early armoured shirts, which was something noteable academics and museums never had a chance to do., before this, these armours were rare, and so diagnosis of any kind could only be led by speculaton.
however, when you have 800 chainmail shirts, a comparison can be made.
for some unknown reason, when people mention indian armour, we tend to think of the lighter armour of the 18thC. when we think of european armour, we think of the heavy medievel and post medieval suits.
indian armour developed according to whoever was wearing it and whoever they were fighting at the time. for this reason, the heavy armour tended to generate from the south, where the ottoman influence was very strong. the moghuls took there style of fighting from the persian, with other ancestery influences. however, the deccan had direct links with the ottoman empire, with bijapur being ruled by an ottoman prince, who brought this own culture into these foreign lands.
as for the katar and the chainmail shirts, this is a double ended arguement. some katars couldnt pierce chainmail, and some could. some chainmail could protect against a katar and some couldnt.
this is because no two shirts of the 800 were the same. the best fo them had two solid, heavy gauge plates at the front, with 3 rows of 'lamellar' plates at the back. the mail above the front plates (up to the neck area) were of a much heavier gauge and thickened for strength. each link was well crafted, and some chamfered to an almost sharp point, like mini chackrams. the mail reduced in size (evenly) down the arms and towards the bottom of the tunic. some had a mail collar, which doubled over the neck area. some had a seperate section, like a bishops mantle. these were the best of the lot and each shirt could match the quality of european shirts and repel even the thickest of katars. also, some had interspersed links with koranic verses (again, like the earlier ottoman shirts) which provided a talismatic feel for the wearer.
all the above description was not the majority of the shirts, but a large handful.
more than half were relatively crude. the front plates were thinner, the rear smaller plates of lighter gauge, the links uneven and poorly made, even small and light. i have seen a riveted chainmail shirt of the same period with some of the links of absolutely tiny size, giving a feeling of 'silk' when holding it.
a good, thickened katar, wielded by an expert could not only punch through the chainmail, but maybe even the front plates as well.
it is for this reason i dont think a modern armourer can give an accurate assessment, as it would fully depend on both the offensive and defensive weapon in mind. a katar vs chainmail is way too vague.
a good katar vs a poor chainmail - yes.
a poor katar vs a good chainmail - no
a good katar vs a good chainmail, well life is too short to speculate on an arguement that will never have any conclusive answer :-)

as for the katar being purely civilian, or secondary, or not meant for battle - i think definately not. the katar was as much the national weapon of india as the tulwar was, maybe even more so. known in miniatures and sculpture since the second half of the 16thC, its form remained so for over 400 years. whilst the south and north both adapted there own style of sword (in the 16th/early 17thC), the katar remained the second weapon.
of course it could not be a primary weapon, as its a dagger and no warrior would go into battle holding a dagger first. however, it features in almost every 'battle' miniature throughout the moughul empire. there is no reason for them to carry it unless it was of some use. unfortunately most miniature show the warriors carrying a sword, but the katar is prominent in their belts, ready for use.
i have attached 4 images. the first 3 are circa 1570 and show 'battle' scenes. the first image is stroming a citadel, and shows a warrior holding a katar.
the forth image is dated 1602 and is amidst a battle. the two main warriors have discarded their swords and are fighting to the death. the warrior holding the katar is fully armoured. his opponent is wearing a shirt, but another warrior wearing a similar shirt shows what could be a chainmail shirt beneath it (the shirt opens at the front, centred by a medalion, as you can just about see on this warrior). his horse is armoured and you would think he would be too. whether he is or isnt is immaterial, as the nature of miniatures are always open to arguemnets about artistic license. however, the moguls emerors took both their martial art and decorative art very seriously and a gross mistake to a court painting would not do overlooked. a warrior would not be shown using a civilian dagger in war.
miniatures should be taken for what they are. there are period depictions and all we have, given the religeous nature of most sculpture. so, to dismiss them completely would end all research before it begins. they should be given the benefit of the doubt, but with a pinch of salt in mind.

Aqtai · 1st August 2005, 11:35 PM

Very instructive pictures Brian, they also show how completely wrong I was

. Please feel free to tell me off if I go around airily speculating again!

That 4th picture is particularly fascinating, not only does it show a katar and dagger in action in what is clearly a battlefield situation, but it also seems to show stylised representations of well known types of Indian armour. The chap in the foreground seems to be wearing a mail and plate armour of the type you have just described, with the 3 rows of plates down his back. The other warrior seems to have studs on his coat and a disc on his chest, I wonder (yes, I'm speculating again) if that could be an early version of the chihal'ta hazar masha or "coat of a thousand nails".

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd August 2005, 05:18 PM

Excellent Jim, and yes katars were used in battle and when hunting, just like the swords, lances, bows and other weapons used in battles.

Well done Brian that you corrected the mistake, that the katar was not used for war, it most certainly was – as a second weapon of course, but still used.

The katar on the picture is rather special, and I doubt that it can have been meant used for other things than to open mails and wound/kill the opponent. If used on someone not wearing a mail, the risk that it would get stuck between two ribs was big, and the strength it would take to get it free plus the time, would most likely mean that the user would leave it to fight off other enemies – a katar lost. In such a case a flat bladed katar would be far better. You must also remember, that a katar was used with great force by trained worriers.

Jens Nordlunde · 7th August 2005, 05:03 PM

One of the ‘swords’, seldom seen, is shown in Tirri’s book ‘Islamic Weapons’, page 331, figure 251. I have only seen only one other ‘sword’ like this, it was either at the Top Kapi Museum, or at the Army Museum in Istanbul, the hilt was different, but the ‘blade’ was like the one shown. These swords were made for penetrating mail or plates, or to find a weak point in the armour.

Aqtai · 7th August 2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

One of the ‘swords’, seldom seen, is shown in Tirri’s book ‘Islamic Weapons’, page 331, figure 251. I have only seen only one other ‘sword’ like this, it was either at the Top Kapi Museum, or at the Army Museum in Istanbul, the hilt was different, but the ‘blade’ was like the one shown. These swords were made for penetrating mail or plates, or to find a weak point in the armour.

I was at the Royal armouries in Leeds yesterday (I've not been to the Royal armouries since 1989, when they were still based in the Tower of London), and I saw a similar weapon. Unfortunately I didn't photograph it. According to the caption it was an "Indian two-handed sword", or words to that effect. It was about 4 feet (120 cm) long and like a European 2-hander it seems it was designed so a second hand could hold the actual blade below the hilt. It seemed to be designed mainly for thrusting rather that hacking or slashing, the blade was quite narrow and thick.

What i did photograph, among other things, was an 18th century "coat of 1000 nails" one quite similar to the ones in B.I.'s miniature paintings.

And a helmet similar to the ones in the lower two pictures posted by B.I.:

Jim McDougall · 7th August 2005, 08:38 PM

Hi Jens,
As always, a very excellent photo of a beautiful katar which clearly has a defined intent as a piercing weapon, with this observation based entirely on the pronounced, ribbed cross-section of the quatrefoil blade. I wanted to be sure to qualify that after the dynamically inflated discussion that remains concurrent on another forum. I think physics is quite interesting, but feel that it is in large degree as superfluous as elevated academic procedure in basic friendly discussion.

While Indian armourers were clearly extremely innovative in weapons design and production, with some of questionable practibility,it would be naieve to presume that many katars were not intended for, and actually used to pierce mail or especially that they did not find use in combat. The absence of battle damaged katars reflecting damage at the point that would suggest impact with armour is hardly evidence that such use did not occur. It has been well established that vast quantities of weapons were gathered and scrapped during the British Raj, presumably in most cases to deprive potential insurgents of weaponry. The majority of weapons now found in significant collections were collected from armouries of important royal figures or attractive examples chosen by impressive appearance rather than 'fighting' or 'damaged' items...primarily to serve as distinguished decorations or souveniers.

The interesting Indian sword you have shown for piercing seems very equivilent to the European 'estoc' that was essentially a hilted lance to pierce armour , and seems to have had Islamic counterparts in the 'mec' as well as Chinese rapier type examples. The Tatars had the armour piercing needle type blades on many examples of the sabres of the 17th century known as 'ordynka', and in Russia and the Caucusus, the 'malle perce' (mail piercing) blade was well known. It would seem that in North Africa, the needle point sword distinctively known as the 'flyssa' was intended to pierce mail, which had become well established in use in both western and eastern Sudanese regions, as well as with Ottomans in North African regions. While the actual method of combat for these swords remains obscure, the suggested use for mail piercing seems plausible.

Despite the academic analysis concerning physics and evidential criteria that attempts to suggest against mail piercing use of the katar, it seems to me that specialized weapons intended to pierce armour were well known and represented in various cultural spheres. Such diversity would seem to increase the believability of such use, and that such application would be afforded to a weapon primarily associated with the thrust seems compellingly probable.

I think your note on the possibility of the weapon becoming lodged in either bone or complex anatomy is well placed, and this is one of the arguments against thrust weapons with serration or barbed configuration, that withdrawal would be a problem.

Whether or not these piercing weapons could actually pierce mail or other armour.....this cannot really be effectively determined using physics or typical scientific approach in all cases. The reason for this is that the factor that cannot be accurately measured in these dynamics is that of the nearly unfathomable magnitude of human ferocity in the heat of combat. It is well known that the power of adrenaline in extreme situations can reach unbelievable levels. In such cases there can be little doubt that penetration could be accomplished, the only question would be if the weapon itself could survive the force of the thrust.

I think it must also be considered that the rank and file in combat, if wearing armour at all, would have had that of munitions grade quality at best, and that would have been likely poorly maintained. Judging the integrity of the higher quality mail armour that still exists to determine the potential of armour piercing thrusts would be inconsistant with accurate standards.

All the best,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 7th August 2005, 08:52 PM

Hi Aqtai,

What a beauty, thank you for showing it.

The ‘sword’ shown in the Tirri book, has doubtfully been used as a two hand swords, but I have never seen the one in Leeds. You could have used it as a mace, but I doubt very much how big a help it would have be, and used as a two hand ‘sword’, what would the point be? Other maybe, than you could steer the sword better.

I find the discussion most interesting, but one must remember that in the Worlds at that time, the Oriental and the European, mails as well as weapons were made in many qualities, which would fit the buyers wallet, so one can’t say that European mails were better than mails from India, not can one say the opposite – it all depended of the buyer – not on the mail smiths, as they could make whatever you wanted.

Jens

B.I · 8th August 2005, 11:58 PM

sorry to have been absent on this topic. i have been reading the other discussion on SFI and must agree that i still dont agree with whats being said.
i think the reason i feel the post goes astray, is that indian armour is still being classified as a whole. this isnt the case, and never has been. i dont see the point of testing against a similar, or even antique piece of mail. would you choose a high quality one or a poor one. which type of katar would you use? i true reading would be a poor piece of mail against a very good katar, as this would prove it can be penetrated but this is hardly accurate, nor is there much point in doing so. the answer doesnt require any tests, nor a scientific analysis. the proof is apparant in surviving examples, of which there are enough around to make a visual inspection and conclusion. if visually, there is no doubt, then i dont particularly see the point in taking the conversation further. the slightest doubt would induce a further anaysis but in my humble opinion, i feel this isnt needed.
attached is an image of two types of mail. both are from the same region and probably the same date (give or take..) the katar is roughly the same date as well. the katar is relatively standard in form ie. not excessively thickened as jens' example, but just the tip, as found in earlier examples. the section of mail shown is of the upper torso section, which is normally heavier duty due to the vital organs that needed protection.
the katar is early 17thC. the mail is dated 17thC but could possible be 100 years earlier. to me (again, humble opinion) this katar would sail through the lighter mail, but would struggle against the heavier mail. (the blacker mail on the top right is ottoman and just for comparative size)
all opinions can only be asthetic. as jim rightly says, we could not imagine the ferocity of 17thC battle and so any scientific test, whether on paper or physical would be tainted.
jens also notes that mail shirts were commonly worn (more so that in europe) and the quality was related the the wealth of the owner. in europe, only a wealthy man could afford armour but the quantities of indian armour that survived, and the range of quality tends to paint a different picture.
i dont think indian mail can ever be compared to european because the culture, people and art of war was completely different.

Aqtai · 9th August 2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

sorry to have been absent on this topic. i have been reading the other discussion on SFI and must agree that i still dont agree with whats being said.
i think the reason i feel the post goes astray, is that indian armour is still being classified as a whole. this isnt the case, and never has been. i dont see the point of testing against a similar, or even antique piece of mail. would you choose a high quality one or a poor one. which type of katar would you use? i true reading would be a poor piece of mail against a very good katar, as this would prove it can be penetrated but this is hardly accurate, nor is there much point in doing so. the answer doesnt require any tests, nor a scientific analysis. the proof is apparant in surviving examples, of which there are enough around to make a visual inspection and conclusion. if visually, there is no doubt, then i dont particularly see the point in taking the conversation further. the slightest doubt would induce a further anaysis but in my humble opinion, i feel this isnt needed.
attached is an image of two types of mail. both are from the same region and probably the same date (give or take..) the katar is roughly the same date as well. the katar is relatively standard in form ie. not excessively thickened as jens' example, but just the tip, as found in earlier examples. the section of mail shown is of the upper torso section, which is normally heavier duty due to the vital organs that needed protection.
the katar is early 17thC. the mail is dated 17thC but could possible be 100 years earlier. to me (again, humble opinion) this katar would sail through the lighter mail, but would struggle against the heavier mail. (the blacker mail on the top right is ottoman and just for comparative size)
all opinions can only be asthetic. as jim rightly says, we could not imagine the ferocity of 17thC battle and so any scientific test, whether on paper or physical would be tainted.
jens also notes that mail shirts were commonly worn (more so that in europe) and the quality was related the the wealth of the owner. in europe, only a wealthy man could afford armour but the quantities of indian armour that survived, and the range of quality tends to paint a different picture.
i dont think indian mail can ever be compared to european because the culture, people and art of war was completely different.

I like the pictures you posted, they illustrate very nicely the differences between different types of mail. I also suggested on the SFI forum that an experiment would be useful

, but I have changed my mind since then. Like you said, there was lot of variation from one mail shirt to another, not just in the size of the links but also in the quality of the iron used. Furthermore an antique mail shirt will have degraded over the centuries.

My own personnal conclusion is that the katar is a traditional weapon not specifically designed to penetrate mail, although variants do exist which have designed for that purpose. I also have concluded that a good quality ordinary katar, if used with sufficient force, will penetrate most mail shirts although probably not high quality mail with thick links over the chest.

B.I · 9th August 2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aqtai

I like the pictures you posted, they illustrate very nicely the differences between different types of mail. I also suggested on the SFI forum that an experiment would be useful

, but I have changed my mind since then. Like you said, there was lot of variation from one mail shirt to another, not just in the size of the links but also in the quality of the iron used. Furthermore an antique mail shirt will have degraded over the centuries.

My own personnal conclusion is that the katar is a traditional weapon not specifically designed to penetrate mail, although variants do exist which have designed for that purpose. I also have concluded that a good quality ordinary katar, if used with sufficient force, will penetrate most mail shirts although probably not high quality mail with thick links over the chest.

hi aqtai,
i completely agree with you and i think that the arguements generated on the other post were more borne from either a european perspective or an academic need to dominate conversations, no matter what the subject. it seemed clear that the armour in question had never been examined and so all analysis should not have gone past polite speculation.
i dont for one minute include you in this, as the post was on a more general armour forum, and not one that caters for an eastern perspective.
some of the conclusions were acceptable, some surprising and some just ludicrous. indian armour has been overlooked for a long time but, as i said before, 'recent' events have enabled us to study it at a more in depth level and most museums now have good examples that can be accessed. many of the major museums aquired these shirts from (near enough) the same source, although some already had examples in their inventory.
also, i'm not sure about the degrading of mail. this point was made on the other forum and i cant see that this could be a valid point. of course, in some or even most occasions, but never all and so this shouldnt be said as a sweeping statement. the mail i show at the bottom is in fabulous condition. each link still has a sharp ridge, often worn in other examples. the nature of ferrous metal is the erroding effect nature and time has. but, the nature of something 'expensive' is that it is looked after. look at most of the european armour in old collections and the preserved condition. i am not a metalurgist, but know that cast metal becomes more brittle with age but am not aware of this happening to armour. the best thing about ignorance is being blissfully unaware so someone please feel free to educate me. i know that asthetically a lot of armour hasnt degraded but anything more is out of my sphere.

Jens Nordlunde · 9th August 2005, 03:27 PM

Very nice, and well composed, pictures. A very good way to illustrate your point of view.

Of the katars I have, there are only two, which does not have a reinforced tip. Not that the reinforcement itself means that could, or was meant for piercing mails. Here is another one.

B.I · 9th August 2005, 04:15 PM

very nice jens. although not as excessive as your other example, this one also overstresses the thickened tip as if the weapon was being adapted for a purpose.
both you and aqtai has expressed that the thickened point 'could' have been used to penetrate armour and i think it good to stress this. at the end of the day, all we can do is speculate and it seems that a thickened point could well have been included for this purpose, given the style of armour in that time.
also, something that has been overlooked is that many spears also had this reinforced tip, as did (on rare occasion) a sword blade. again, we have to think why this was so and conclusions veer towards the armour piercing. not a debate that will ever be conclusive, but i am glad to be on a forum that listens politely to all opinions and happily agrees to disagree.

Mark · 9th August 2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

again, we have to think why this was so and conclusions veer towards the armour piercing. not a debate that will ever be conclusive, but i am glad to be on a forum that listens politely to all opinions and happily agrees to disagree.

That is what makes it such a great forum!

It would be great if someone could locate a damaged piece of Indian armor. If it has a katar-sized hole punched in it, this would tend to show that regardless of whether or not the katar was designed to pierce mail, it was able to. On the other hand, if all that one sees in the way of armor damage is slashing damage, or piercing by larger dimension blades (how would one tell that, BTW, just to be my own Devil's Advocate?), that might be an indication that the katar was not used to pierce armor. Hm ... how would you tell the difference between a katar hole and a war-hammer spike hole? Its always such a challenge to reconstruct the past.

I recall some posts of contemporary paintings and/or sculpture showing battle scenes with katar. Perhaps they show whether or not the opponent was mailed. I will try and locate them.

Mark · 9th August 2005, 11:18 PM

This is all that I could find in the UBB archives. There is an illustration in one of the posts showing a man on horseback surrounded by attendents. He carries both a pata and a katar, and a few of the attendants carry katars in their belts (as well as various swords in their hands). No one is wearing armor, but the scene looks more like an afternoon ride in the country than a march to war.

http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001837.html

B.I · 10th August 2005, 12:00 AM

hi mark,
there may well be images of the 'perfect' battle scene and we can hope that one can be found. it wont be conclusive, but will be nice to see. the image you mentioned was early 18thC (circa 1700) and examples can be found that date somewhat earlier. unfortunately, as the katar was a secondary weapon in battle, most miniatures show the katar sheathed.
the katar does appear in sculpture as well, but is harder to find due to the religious taint most sculpture lends to, but tamil nadu temples show it very clearly.
i have always felt that the evidence would lie in surviving examples and iconography can only back up what seems clearly evident. without actual pieces to study, the importance of iconography raises higher.

Jens Nordlunde · 13th August 2005, 03:25 PM

Somewhere in one of my books I read, that a silk shirt was often worn over the mail shirt, if that is so, we are not likely to find miniatures showing someone wearing a mail shirt, as those being painted were those how could afford to wear a silk shirt. On the other hand, we wont find anything if we don’t look.

A blade like the one shown has been made for a reason, and it is true that I can’t prove it was to pierce a mail, but it is the only logical use for a blade like that. Used against a man without a mail, it would go right through to the hilt, as the narrowest point on the blade is at the hilt, it would likely be jammed between two ribs, and be very difficult to get loose, not a situation one would like surrounded by enemies. Used against someone with a mail shirt, it would, if it penetrated the mail, maybe go halfway in and wound the man – or with a bit of luck kill him. Proof is a good thing to have, but unfortunately we don’t always have it when we want it, and sometimes we will never get it, then we will have to do with the old books and logic, although that is no exchuse to stop looking.

Aqtai · 13th August 2005, 03:53 PM

That is a beautiful katar Jens.

There is the kazaghand, a form of armour which consisted of mail shirt covered with silk. This type of armour was worn as early as the 12th century in the Middle-East (Salaheddin is supposed to have worn one), and continued to be worn by the Ottomans in the 16th century. I believe there were a few kazaghands in the Bikanir armoury as well. The only picture I have ever seen of one is on plate VIII of H. Russell Robinson's Oriental Armour.

That picture posted by Mark Bowditch of Sivaji comes from "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", by Lord Egerton of Tatton, published in 1896. The same book mentions how Sivaji went to meet the Afghan warlord Afdal Khan with a

Quote:

...steel chain cap and chain armour under his turban and cotton gown, concealed a a crooked dagger or "bichwa" in his right sleeve, and on the fingers of his left hand he fixed a "waghnak"... ...in the midst of the customary embrace, Sivaji struck the waghnak into the bowels of Afdal Khan... The Khan had drawn his sword and made a cut at Sivaji, but the concealed armour was proof against the blow.

The story has no real bearing on the current discussion, but I like it!

I am also embarrassed to admit that I live less than a half hour drive from Tatton hall, were presumably Lord Egerton's collection is housed, and I have never seen it

. I will go, one day.

B.I · 13th August 2005, 07:27 PM

hi aqtai,
dont get your hopes up and dig out your camera too soon, as egertons arms collection isnt at tatton park. i believe other things are (so still worth a visit), but the arms collection was moved to manchester some time ago, and is buried deep in the reserves there.
i too like the shivaji story, as it gave the baghnak and bichwa legendary status. do you know that we have shivaji's sword in england.

Aqtai · 13th August 2005, 09:59 PM

Thanks for letting me know Brian, I managed to persuade my other half to go tomorrow with me, at least I won't be chasing all over the house looking for the collection.

I didn't know about Shivaji's sword, where is it now, not buried deep in some museums reserves I hope?

B.I · 14th August 2005, 09:51 AM

hi aqtai,
worse, i'm afraid. its in the royal collection. there are two shivaji swords, one still in india and the other given to the prince of wales (i think) by shivajis descendents. its either in sandringhan or marlborough house but i dont think its on display.
it has caused controversy for many years of course, as it has been asked to be returned to india, but thats a political conversation that needs avoiding

sandringham is worth a visit, but take binoculars (no joke).

Aqtai · 14th August 2005, 09:41 PM

I am aware that Sandringham has a huge collection of Indian weapons and armour (I suppose HRH could try experiments with katars and Indian mail whenever he feels like it

), I remember seeing an old book with black and white photos of the collection a few years ago. I wasn't aware that Sandringham is open to the public, or is that why I need binoculars

.

I had a wander around Tatton Hall today, all that is left are a few African weapons.

B.I · 14th August 2005, 10:43 PM

hi aqtai,
the royal collections are really worth seeing. sandringham and windsor both have a fair amount on show, but they have much more that is inaccessable. the frustrating thing is you pass corridors full of weapons that are cordoned off.
there are some great displays in sandringham, but much is mounted very high on the wall, hence the need for binoculors. honestly, if you do go you will really regret not taking them.
marlborough house isnt open to the public, as far as i know.
the queens armourer is a really nice guy, and used to work in the V&A. he has a vested interest in indian arms from his previous post, so maybe displays or exhibitions can happen in the future.

Aqtai · 18th August 2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

One of the ‘swords’, seldom seen, is shown in Tirri’s book ‘Islamic Weapons’, page 331, figure 251. I have only seen only one other ‘sword’ like this, it was either at the Top Kapi Museum, or at the Army Museum in Istanbul, the hilt was different, but the ‘blade’ was like the one shown. These swords were made for penetrating mail or plates, or to find a weak point in the armour.

Hi Jens,

I've got some photos of that Indian 2-handed sword in the Royal Armouries. I'm afraid it looks nothing like the one you posted.

Jens Nordlunde · 19th August 2005, 01:14 PM

Hi Aqtai,

I like the swords you show, and hopefully I will one day see the museum in Leeds. The ‘sword’ I show in mail #40 is quite different from the swords you show. The blade is square or round, and not sharp at all, but it is pointed and the tip is reinforced. Once I was told, that ‘swords’ like this one was used to penetrate mail, when the enemy was laying on the ground.

Can anyone confirm that The Army Museum in Istanbul has such a ‘Panzerstecker’ in the collections? If yes, would it be possible to get a photo?

1st August 2005, 12:00 AM	#36
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,739	Aqtai and N2S, Thanks very much for the responses What Aqtai notes on the katar is well placed, it does seem a secondary weapon, although not specifically military it likely was found in such situations. The secondary weapon was important in close quarters melee as combatants closed on each other and there was limited space for momentum oriented use of weapons. It is interesting to note the possible use as an assassins weapon also, most presumably of course the smaller and short bladed examples. It seems there have been discussions on a number of edged weapons that have been suggested were too small or 'fragile' to have been actually used as weapons. I think one of them was the 'lohar' of Afghan regions. While these were relatively small and seemed unlikely for combat weapons, it is known that many NW frontier tribes favored stealth attacks in the night and even such a small weapon would be extremely effective against a nondefensive victim. The katar also has been the topic of many discussions here concerning its use in the hunt. Here it seems likely as a secondary weapon also, although there have been accounts of displays of prowess in using the weapon to hunt tigers for one example. Many katars carry shikarga motif with hunting scenes. N2S, absolutely!! Such a topic as genuine combat damaged weapons would be fascinating. I still have visions of one guy who had an outstanding Caucasian shashka and his son had it in the back yard whacking weeds with it! auugghh!! Such is probably the source of much of the 'combat' damage found on many collected weapons. Again, returning to the katar, it would be interesting to find examples of early katars to find evidence of combat use. As discussed, these will be hard to find as these were those souveniers brought home by soldiers and later travellers from bazaars, typically now lost in obscure private estates. Every so often someone will find one of these treasures, and hopefully will be shared here. All the best, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 1st August 2005 at 12:22 AM.

1st August 2005, 09:47 PM	#37
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	a great assessment, jim, of which i fully expected and enjoy every time :-) i think the problem with a 'western' assessment of indian arms is the difficulty in understand what we would class as 'clumsy' or strange weapons. to us they have always seemed cumbersome and inefficient, but this is because we were not trained with their use from a very young age. whilst there are numerous accounts of the 'strange' weapons of the native in british 19thC accounts, there are also a few admissions of the expertise these natives had when wielding these weapons - the katar and pata being good examples. and so, i think a western martial aspect falls foul of a true assessment. this is because it is too easy to generalise indian weapons. all this could be heresay except for a very lucky fact. the antique arms world was lucky enough to experience a hoard of these early armoured shirts, which was something noteable academics and museums never had a chance to do., before this, these armours were rare, and so diagnosis of any kind could only be led by speculaton. however, when you have 800 chainmail shirts, a comparison can be made. for some unknown reason, when people mention indian armour, we tend to think of the lighter armour of the 18thC. when we think of european armour, we think of the heavy medievel and post medieval suits. indian armour developed according to whoever was wearing it and whoever they were fighting at the time. for this reason, the heavy armour tended to generate from the south, where the ottoman influence was very strong. the moghuls took there style of fighting from the persian, with other ancestery influences. however, the deccan had direct links with the ottoman empire, with bijapur being ruled by an ottoman prince, who brought this own culture into these foreign lands. as for the katar and the chainmail shirts, this is a double ended arguement. some katars couldnt pierce chainmail, and some could. some chainmail could protect against a katar and some couldnt. this is because no two shirts of the 800 were the same. the best fo them had two solid, heavy gauge plates at the front, with 3 rows of 'lamellar' plates at the back. the mail above the front plates (up to the neck area) were of a much heavier gauge and thickened for strength. each link was well crafted, and some chamfered to an almost sharp point, like mini chackrams. the mail reduced in size (evenly) down the arms and towards the bottom of the tunic. some had a mail collar, which doubled over the neck area. some had a seperate section, like a bishops mantle. these were the best of the lot and each shirt could match the quality of european shirts and repel even the thickest of katars. also, some had interspersed links with koranic verses (again, like the earlier ottoman shirts) which provided a talismatic feel for the wearer. all the above description was not the majority of the shirts, but a large handful. more than half were relatively crude. the front plates were thinner, the rear smaller plates of lighter gauge, the links uneven and poorly made, even small and light. i have seen a riveted chainmail shirt of the same period with some of the links of absolutely tiny size, giving a feeling of 'silk' when holding it. a good, thickened katar, wielded by an expert could not only punch through the chainmail, but maybe even the front plates as well. it is for this reason i dont think a modern armourer can give an accurate assessment, as it would fully depend on both the offensive and defensive weapon in mind. a katar vs chainmail is way too vague. a good katar vs a poor chainmail - yes. a poor katar vs a good chainmail - no a good katar vs a good chainmail, well life is too short to speculate on an arguement that will never have any conclusive answer :-) as for the katar being purely civilian, or secondary, or not meant for battle - i think definately not. the katar was as much the national weapon of india as the tulwar was, maybe even more so. known in miniatures and sculpture since the second half of the 16thC, its form remained so for over 400 years. whilst the south and north both adapted there own style of sword (in the 16th/early 17thC), the katar remained the second weapon. of course it could not be a primary weapon, as its a dagger and no warrior would go into battle holding a dagger first. however, it features in almost every 'battle' miniature throughout the moughul empire. there is no reason for them to carry it unless it was of some use. unfortunately most miniature show the warriors carrying a sword, but the katar is prominent in their belts, ready for use. i have attached 4 images. the first 3 are circa 1570 and show 'battle' scenes. the first image is stroming a citadel, and shows a warrior holding a katar. the forth image is dated 1602 and is amidst a battle. the two main warriors have discarded their swords and are fighting to the death. the warrior holding the katar is fully armoured. his opponent is wearing a shirt, but another warrior wearing a similar shirt shows what could be a chainmail shirt beneath it (the shirt opens at the front, centred by a medalion, as you can just about see on this warrior). his horse is armoured and you would think he would be too. whether he is or isnt is immaterial, as the nature of miniatures are always open to arguemnets about artistic license. however, the moguls emerors took both their martial art and decorative art very seriously and a gross mistake to a court painting would not do overlooked. a warrior would not be shown using a civilian dagger in war. miniatures should be taken for what they are. there are period depictions and all we have, given the religeous nature of most sculpture. so, to dismiss them completely would end all research before it begins. they should be given the benefit of the doubt, but with a pinch of salt in mind. Attached Images

3rd August 2005, 05:18 PM	#39
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Excellent Jim, and yes katars were used in battle and when hunting, just like the swords, lances, bows and other weapons used in battles. Well done Brian that you corrected the mistake, that the katar was not used for war, it most certainly was – as a second weapon of course, but still used. The katar on the picture is rather special, and I doubt that it can have been meant used for other things than to open mails and wound/kill the opponent. If used on someone not wearing a mail, the risk that it would get stuck between two ribs was big, and the strength it would take to get it free plus the time, would most likely mean that the user would leave it to fight off other enemies – a katar lost. In such a case a flat bladed katar would be far better. You must also remember, that a katar was used with great force by trained worriers. Attached Images

8th August 2005, 11:58 PM	#44
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	sorry to have been absent on this topic. i have been reading the other discussion on SFI and must agree that i still dont agree with whats being said. i think the reason i feel the post goes astray, is that indian armour is still being classified as a whole. this isnt the case, and never has been. i dont see the point of testing against a similar, or even antique piece of mail. would you choose a high quality one or a poor one. which type of katar would you use? i true reading would be a poor piece of mail against a very good katar, as this would prove it can be penetrated but this is hardly accurate, nor is there much point in doing so. the answer doesnt require any tests, nor a scientific analysis. the proof is apparant in surviving examples, of which there are enough around to make a visual inspection and conclusion. if visually, there is no doubt, then i dont particularly see the point in taking the conversation further. the slightest doubt would induce a further anaysis but in my humble opinion, i feel this isnt needed. attached is an image of two types of mail. both are from the same region and probably the same date (give or take..) the katar is roughly the same date as well. the katar is relatively standard in form ie. not excessively thickened as jens' example, but just the tip, as found in earlier examples. the section of mail shown is of the upper torso section, which is normally heavier duty due to the vital organs that needed protection. the katar is early 17thC. the mail is dated 17thC but could possible be 100 years earlier. to me (again, humble opinion) this katar would sail through the lighter mail, but would struggle against the heavier mail. (the blacker mail on the top right is ottoman and just for comparative size) all opinions can only be asthetic. as jim rightly says, we could not imagine the ferocity of 17thC battle and so any scientific test, whether on paper or physical would be tainted. jens also notes that mail shirts were commonly worn (more so that in europe) and the quality was related the the wealth of the owner. in europe, only a wealthy man could afford armour but the quantities of indian armour that survived, and the range of quality tends to paint a different picture. i dont think indian mail can ever be compared to european because the culture, people and art of war was completely different. Attached Images

9th August 2005, 03:27 PM	#47
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Very nice, and well composed, pictures. A very good way to illustrate your point of view. Of the katars I have, there are only two, which does not have a reinforced tip. Not that the reinforcement itself means that could, or was meant for piercing mails. Here is another one. Attached Images

31st July 2005, 04:03 AM	#31
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Roustam says they spoke kartli (mainstream georgian). Concerning the influence, it's in some sence truly hard to see the connection with earlier sultans in this ragtagged force, filled with russian POWs from 1779 war, french deserters from Napoleon's army, german gangsters and so on. However it's interesting that till the very end mamluks retained the exclusive status of their units under the Ottomans, being separated from sipahis or yeni chari. There is an information that during 1779 war it was said that mamluks retained old education - instead of being send to the front there were performing archery and lanceship for the sultan. Concerning mamluks in pre-mamluk period I would reference the collection of articles of Ayulon "Malmluk studies ...", who goes into long discussions. He says that while typical number of mamluks per se in the army of Baghdad Caliph/Sultans appears small at the first sight (500 personal mamluks of Salahdin) he makes the case that it can be deceptive: a. Mamluks numerically never were able to exceed certain number even during the sultanate, with rest being filled with free turkoman and kurds, halqa and bedouin irregulars. b. Nevertheless there are some references that even at that time mamluks were considered the decisive force in battle - being elite squadron there were specifically meant to make the day. c. No one mentions the ratio of mamluks to non-mamluks in the pre-sultanate armies, usually limiting oneself to simply describe the number of royal mamluks. d. It's often that while 500 or 1000 mamluks are specifically mentioned, the rest of the army is not mentioned at all. For example, it's repeatedly mentioned how many mamluks Salahadin inherited, while for the rest of the army (supposedly inherited as well), one does not see even an explicit size estimate. Now to the topic of mails - it's well reported ("Turkish archery" by Klopsteg) that turkish bow penetrated nearly all the armor. Together with mamluk training, emphasizing shooting at small targets while riding a horse, one can see not only standart "anti-horse" use of bows, but the great danger for the rider as well.

31st July 2005, 11:51 AM	#32
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	what happened to katars and INDIAN chainmail?? i am not complaining as i have a good interest in ottoman and mumluk armour and am enjoyng reading the posts, but its a shame that, as always, indian pieces are overlooked or sidelined. i know jens is on a road trip but jim?? aqtai and krill, please dont stop but i hope others will pick up the indian side.

31st July 2005, 10:15 PM	#33
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,739	Hi Brian, I have to admit I've been pretty much 'out of the loop' on this oustanding discussion on mail and katars the past week, although I have read this thread as well as the one on the other forum. I think your discussion on Indian armour was very nicely stated and well placed, bringing up material on this armour that illustrates that there was a distinct spectrum of quality in the forms found. This suggests of course that some Indian armour certainly did parallel European quality. I think Ham made a particularly important comment concerning the validity of comparisons when significant difference in period are involved. Weapons and armour of later period that maintain certain traditional style or form vestigially, as their expectation of meeting the combat situations intended for original design is negligible, seem hardly worthy of such comparison. The study of armour has admittedly been far outside my field of study, but in reviewing these discussions I cannot help but become profoundly intrigued and realize how important and relevant its study is to our more focused study on ethnographic weapons. The paper "Demystifying Chain Mail and Ring Mail" by Dan Howard that is linked in the thread is nicely written and beautifully referenced, informative and most helpful in getting the proper perspective in understanding this topic from the European forms. I agree with your note that most study of weaponry and armour does defer to Ottoman and Mamluk material when 'Eastern' examples are discussed, while Indian forms are relegated to broad assumptions and nearly cliche' interpretations. I think one of the most important qualities of Robert Elgood's magnificent new book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (London, 2004, ISBN 81-88204-44-7), is that he brilliantly examines how to understand the symbolism imbued in the weapons and armour, an extremely important perspective that has typically eluded the scope of arms and armour study in the west. His work will stand as the renaissance of the study of Indian weaponry. Returning to the topic of mail and katars, on the mail I would defer to the advanced knowledge of you and the others on these threads, and hope the discussions will continue as the material is fascinating and its great to learn more on this! On the katar and it's use as a mail piercing weapon. You, Jens and I have of course discussed these often, and there have been countless posts over the years on these forums. With the limited material available on these, most of the discussion is naturally speculative. The suggestion that the katar was not intended for use against mail needs qualification. This is a weapon that evolved over a long period and seems to have remained indiginous to the Indian sphere, however with the development came of course variations. It seems to me that in its development in Southern India it was likely not meant to pierce armour originally. Much like the pata, its gauntleted sword big brother, it was used in slashing manner as much as in thrusting. It is important to note that the Mahratta versions after the arrival of Europeans often used the straight broadsword blades from Europe. These blades would have not been suited for mail piercing in India any more than they would have been in Europe. In later development of course, encroaching influences brought the well known reinforced points seen on many of these katars that would suggest the potential for armour piercing. Obviously such a feature would not guarantee that it would be used for such purpose any more than it would preclude its use in any manner dictated by circumstances. With that consideration, it seems worthy of note that the absence of combat damage on existing katar examples that would indicate contact with armour does not necessarily provide evidence that such use was not intended. It must be remembered that most Indian weapons that survive are typically those found in collections acquired during the British Raj, and these were often armoury items or from gatherings from diplomatic interaction. The weaponry of the rank and file and with combat history typically ended up in scrap heaps and were disposed of. This severely impedes the possibility of combat damage on examples found for examination, much as in considerable weaponry usually found by collectors. It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage. I think that the katar was a weapon form that like most others, experienced variation, and while there were certainly examples that carried blades that were reinforced for mail piercing, this was not an exclusive consideration. As far as the most effective attack against mail, it seems that in the heat of combat, the most instinctive action in the melee would be a powerful blow with a zaghnal, battle axe or mace. It would seem that in using blades against mail the primary concern would be in the blade breaking. Here I would ask those more advanced in armour...would there have been a construction location in the coats or shirts that were more vulnerable? It is of course said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Also, would heavy blows from mace or axe sufficiently weaken areas of the mail to allow better penetration of a bladed weapon? This has been an outstanding discussion, and I very much admire the prudent demeanor employed by you and everyone on this thread in discussing a concurrent thread from the other forum and avoiding direct criticism of its participants. Very nicely done! With all best regards, Jim

31st July 2005, 10:57 PM	#34
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Sorry for going off-topic. My fascination with the mamluks got the better of me . I have to admit I also know hardly anything about Katars so I didn't feel qualified to comment on that part of the the discussion. I think one would have to go to descriptions of battles fought in the Mughul era and Indian equivalents of the Mamluk Furuseya manuals to get more info. I must concur with Jim that to me personally the katar has never really "felt" like a military weapon. It has struck me more as a weapon to be used in streetfights, self-defense and by assasins. In battle I personally can only envision it as a secondary weapon. I would imagine the main hand-to-hand weapons used on the battlefield would have been the lance, axe, mace and Tulwar. The longer reach of these weapons would have made a man armed only with a katar very vulnerable. But like I said, what do I know . The only real way to test it would be to stab a mannequin wearing an antique Indian mail shirt and gambeson with a katar. Frankly that would be absolutely criminal and the worst sort of vandalism!

31st July 2005, 11:04 PM	#35
not2sharp Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 210	It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage. This should be a topic for discussion on its own. Spotting abuse is straight forward, but trying to find legitimate combat damage is difficult at best. n2s

1st August 2005, 11:35 PM	#38
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Very instructive pictures Brian, they also show how completely wrong I was . Please feel free to tell me off if I go around airily speculating again! That 4th picture is particularly fascinating, not only does it show a katar and dagger in action in what is clearly a battlefield situation, but it also seems to show stylised representations of well known types of Indian armour. The chap in the foreground seems to be wearing a mail and plate armour of the type you have just described, with the 3 rows of plates down his back. The other warrior seems to have studs on his coat and a disc on his chest, I wonder (yes, I'm speculating again) if that could be an early version of the chihal'ta hazar masha or "coat of a thousand nails".

7th August 2005, 05:03 PM	#40
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	One of the ‘swords’, seldom seen, is shown in Tirri’s book ‘Islamic Weapons’, page 331, figure 251. I have only seen only one other ‘sword’ like this, it was either at the Top Kapi Museum, or at the Army Museum in Istanbul, the hilt was different, but the ‘blade’ was like the one shown. These swords were made for penetrating mail or plates, or to find a weak point in the armour. Attached Images

7th August 2005, 08:38 PM	#42
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,739	Hi Jens, As always, a very excellent photo of a beautiful katar which clearly has a defined intent as a piercing weapon, with this observation based entirely on the pronounced, ribbed cross-section of the quatrefoil blade. I wanted to be sure to qualify that after the dynamically inflated discussion that remains concurrent on another forum. I think physics is quite interesting, but feel that it is in large degree as superfluous as elevated academic procedure in basic friendly discussion. While Indian armourers were clearly extremely innovative in weapons design and production, with some of questionable practibility,it would be naieve to presume that many katars were not intended for, and actually used to pierce mail or especially that they did not find use in combat. The absence of battle damaged katars reflecting damage at the point that would suggest impact with armour is hardly evidence that such use did not occur. It has been well established that vast quantities of weapons were gathered and scrapped during the British Raj, presumably in most cases to deprive potential insurgents of weaponry. The majority of weapons now found in significant collections were collected from armouries of important royal figures or attractive examples chosen by impressive appearance rather than 'fighting' or 'damaged' items...primarily to serve as distinguished decorations or souveniers. The interesting Indian sword you have shown for piercing seems very equivilent to the European 'estoc' that was essentially a hilted lance to pierce armour , and seems to have had Islamic counterparts in the 'mec' as well as Chinese rapier type examples. The Tatars had the armour piercing needle type blades on many examples of the sabres of the 17th century known as 'ordynka', and in Russia and the Caucusus, the 'malle perce' (mail piercing) blade was well known. It would seem that in North Africa, the needle point sword distinctively known as the 'flyssa' was intended to pierce mail, which had become well established in use in both western and eastern Sudanese regions, as well as with Ottomans in North African regions. While the actual method of combat for these swords remains obscure, the suggested use for mail piercing seems plausible. Despite the academic analysis concerning physics and evidential criteria that attempts to suggest against mail piercing use of the katar, it seems to me that specialized weapons intended to pierce armour were well known and represented in various cultural spheres. Such diversity would seem to increase the believability of such use, and that such application would be afforded to a weapon primarily associated with the thrust seems compellingly probable. I think your note on the possibility of the weapon becoming lodged in either bone or complex anatomy is well placed, and this is one of the arguments against thrust weapons with serration or barbed configuration, that withdrawal would be a problem. Whether or not these piercing weapons could actually pierce mail or other armour.....this cannot really be effectively determined using physics or typical scientific approach in all cases. The reason for this is that the factor that cannot be accurately measured in these dynamics is that of the nearly unfathomable magnitude of human ferocity in the heat of combat. It is well known that the power of adrenaline in extreme situations can reach unbelievable levels. In such cases there can be little doubt that penetration could be accomplished, the only question would be if the weapon itself could survive the force of the thrust. I think it must also be considered that the rank and file in combat, if wearing armour at all, would have had that of munitions grade quality at best, and that would have been likely poorly maintained. Judging the integrity of the higher quality mail armour that still exists to determine the potential of armour piercing thrusts would be inconsistant with accurate standards. All the best, Jim

7th August 2005, 08:52 PM	#43
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Hi Aqtai, What a beauty, thank you for showing it. The ‘sword’ shown in the Tirri book, has doubtfully been used as a two hand swords, but I have never seen the one in Leeds. You could have used it as a mace, but I doubt very much how big a help it would have be, and used as a two hand ‘sword’, what would the point be? Other maybe, than you could steer the sword better. I find the discussion most interesting, but one must remember that in the Worlds at that time, the Oriental and the European, mails as well as weapons were made in many qualities, which would fit the buyers wallet, so one can’t say that European mails were better than mails from India, not can one say the opposite – it all depended of the buyer – not on the mail smiths, as they could make whatever you wanted. Jens

9th August 2005, 04:15 PM	#48
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	very nice jens. although not as excessive as your other example, this one also overstresses the thickened tip as if the weapon was being adapted for a purpose. both you and aqtai has expressed that the thickened point 'could' have been used to penetrate armour and i think it good to stress this. at the end of the day, all we can do is speculate and it seems that a thickened point could well have been included for this purpose, given the style of armour in that time. also, something that has been overlooked is that many spears also had this reinforced tip, as did (on rare occasion) a sword blade. again, we have to think why this was so and conclusions veer towards the armour piercing. not a debate that will ever be conclusive, but i am glad to be on a forum that listens politely to all opinions and happily agrees to disagree.

9th August 2005, 11:18 PM	#50
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	This is all that I could find in the UBB archives. There is an illustration in one of the posts showing a man on horseback surrounded by attendents. He carries both a pata and a katar, and a few of the attendants carry katars in their belts (as well as various swords in their hands). No one is wearing armor, but the scene looks more like an afternoon ride in the country than a march to war. http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001837.html

10th August 2005, 12:00 AM	#51
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi mark, there may well be images of the 'perfect' battle scene and we can hope that one can be found. it wont be conclusive, but will be nice to see. the image you mentioned was early 18thC (circa 1700) and examples can be found that date somewhat earlier. unfortunately, as the katar was a secondary weapon in battle, most miniatures show the katar sheathed. the katar does appear in sculpture as well, but is harder to find due to the religious taint most sculpture lends to, but tamil nadu temples show it very clearly. i have always felt that the evidence would lie in surviving examples and iconography can only back up what seems clearly evident. without actual pieces to study, the importance of iconography raises higher.

13th August 2005, 03:25 PM	#52
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Somewhere in one of my books I read, that a silk shirt was often worn over the mail shirt, if that is so, we are not likely to find miniatures showing someone wearing a mail shirt, as those being painted were those how could afford to wear a silk shirt. On the other hand, we wont find anything if we don’t look. A blade like the one shown has been made for a reason, and it is true that I can’t prove it was to pierce a mail, but it is the only logical use for a blade like that. Used against a man without a mail, it would go right through to the hilt, as the narrowest point on the blade is at the hilt, it would likely be jammed between two ribs, and be very difficult to get loose, not a situation one would like surrounded by enemies. Used against someone with a mail shirt, it would, if it penetrated the mail, maybe go halfway in and wound the man – or with a bit of luck kill him. Proof is a good thing to have, but unfortunately we don’t always have it when we want it, and sometimes we will never get it, then we will have to do with the old books and logic, although that is no exchuse to stop looking. Attached Images Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 13th August 2005 at 03:38 PM.

13th August 2005, 07:27 PM	#54
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi aqtai, dont get your hopes up and dig out your camera too soon, as egertons arms collection isnt at tatton park. i believe other things are (so still worth a visit), but the arms collection was moved to manchester some time ago, and is buried deep in the reserves there. i too like the shivaji story, as it gave the baghnak and bichwa legendary status. do you know that we have shivaji's sword in england.

13th August 2005, 09:59 PM	#55
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Thanks for letting me know Brian, I managed to persuade my other half to go tomorrow with me, at least I won't be chasing all over the house looking for the collection. I didn't know about Shivaji's sword, where is it now, not buried deep in some museums reserves I hope?

14th August 2005, 09:51 AM	#56
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi aqtai, worse, i'm afraid. its in the royal collection. there are two shivaji swords, one still in india and the other given to the prince of wales (i think) by shivajis descendents. its either in sandringhan or marlborough house but i dont think its on display. it has caused controversy for many years of course, as it has been asked to be returned to india, but thats a political conversation that needs avoiding sandringham is worth a visit, but take binoculars (no joke).

14th August 2005, 09:41 PM	#57
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I am aware that Sandringham has a huge collection of Indian weapons and armour (I suppose HRH could try experiments with katars and Indian mail whenever he feels like it ), I remember seeing an old book with black and white photos of the collection a few years ago. I wasn't aware that Sandringham is open to the public, or is that why I need binoculars . I had a wander around Tatton Hall today, all that is left are a few African weapons.

14th August 2005, 10:43 PM	#58
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi aqtai, the royal collections are really worth seeing. sandringham and windsor both have a fair amount on show, but they have much more that is inaccessable. the frustrating thing is you pass corridors full of weapons that are cordoned off. there are some great displays in sandringham, but much is mounted very high on the wall, hence the need for binoculors. honestly, if you do go you will really regret not taking them. marlborough house isnt open to the public, as far as i know. the queens armourer is a really nice guy, and used to work in the V&A. he has a vested interest in indian arms from his previous post, so maybe displays or exhibitions can happen in the future.

19th August 2005, 01:14 PM	#60
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Hi Aqtai, I like the swords you show, and hopefully I will one day see the museum in Leeds. The ‘sword’ I show in mail #40 is quite different from the swords you show. The blade is square or round, and not sharp at all, but it is pointed and the tip is reinforced. Once I was told, that ‘swords’ like this one was used to penetrate mail, when the enemy was laying on the ground. Can anyone confirm that The Army Museum in Istanbul has such a ‘Panzerstecker’ in the collections? If yes, would it be possible to get a photo?