A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[B.I]

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

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

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