Hunting Tigers with Katars: Fact or fiction?

[David]

"... WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CONSIDER HUNTING IN THE JUNGLE WITH A KNIFE OF ANY SORT."

Exactly Fernando, which is why "which one of YOU" is not the kind of question we need to ask here.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by David

... So i don't think we can base the possible practices and actions of these people on what we in our own culture might liken to insane or unnecessarily stupid actions. The answer to this question must come from actual reportage. We cannot overlay our own cultural mores and practices on what may have been done by a culture that is completely foreign to us.

[fearn]

I'd point out (again) that there's an enormous difference between *killing* a tiger with a katar, and hunting a tiger *armed only* with a katar or a kukri.

I can believe the first one, for reasons cited by others. It's certainly possible to kill a tiger with a large blade, especially if the tiger is immobilized or seriously injured. The second one? That's in the crazy/brave category.

Best,

F

[kronckew]

tiger killed with a khukuri: .Linky

some true khukuri vs. animals stories:

Linky

info on gurkhas

Linky

one instance of a man & knife vs. a bear. it was an underweight black bear & weakened by starvation. still not a mean feat with a 3.5in. puma folder. Linky

the grizzly vs. man with 12" bladed knife: Linky

in alabama, it is common to hunt wild boar with knives and dogs. the dogs are usually armoured (heavy leather and chunks of steel belted tire) and the dogs grab the piggy by the nose and hind quarters and hold it for the hunter who stabs it in the heart. they also use boar spears sometimes, especially if mr. piggy doesn't have enough dogs hangin' off him

[spiral]

Well said David!

Originally Posted by fearn

I'd point out (again) that there's an enormous difference between *killing* a tiger with a katar, and hunting a tiger *armed only* with a katar or a kukri.

I can believe the first one, for reasons cited by others. It's certainly possible to kill a tiger with a large blade, especially if the tiger is immobilized or seriously injured. The second one? That's in the crazy/brave category.

F

In both WW1 & WW2 & even in malaya, Gurkhas of whom the majority during war time, were young ,illiterate, uneducated,religios & fearlessly proud highlanders from the most out of the way back of beyond hamlets of the Himalayas, & who were so brave & fatalistc that the idea of throwing your rifle on the ground & running screaming at the enemy machine gunners waving thier kukri in the air screaming , "Ayo Gurkhaliiiiii " [ Basicaly "Here come the Gurkhaaaaasssss"} Before so many of them fell to the ground to never rise again. Seemed sensible. Of course those who succeded & survived proved such bravery could work.

This in part may have been fosterd by thier religios fatalism as well as thier natural mountain mans pride, as they truly believed you would only die when the Gods intended you to play that role in your wheel of life.

Even 6 years ago in rural Nepal, it was recounted to me that for many if a 3 year old was killed by a poiseness snake or tiger people would say the child had obviously done something very bad in a prievios life & it was karma.

People with that sort of belief make dangerous adversouries. Religion has sent many men to die & kill.

Today most serving Gurkhas are probably more somewhat more western in outlook & somewhat more akin to special forces. One a few years ago said to me, "We are not the illiterate men our fathers or grandfathers were, we wouldnt run at machine guns anymore, we would call for air support, then go in & clear up."

But of course there still a very proud group of people & when called upon to fight toe to toe with kukri in hand I am sure they would still do it with systematic effiency as did thier forefathers.

My point bieng what may seem foolhardy to us today didnt for men of yesteryear.

spiral

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by spiral

Well said David!




In both WW1 & WW2 & even in malaya, Gurkhas of whom the majority during war time, were young ,illiterate, uneducated,religios & fearlessly proud highlanders from the most out of the way back of beyond hamlets of the Himalayas, & who were so brave & fatalistc that the idea of throwing your rifle on the ground & running screaming at the enemy machine gunners waving thier kukri in the air screaming , "Ayo Gurkhaliiiiii " [ Basicaly "Here come the Gurkhaaaaasssss"} Before so many of them fell to the ground to never rise again. Seemed sensible. Of course those who succeded & survived proved such bravery could work.

This in part may have been fosterd by thier religios fatalism as well as thier natural mountain mans pride, as they truly believed you would only die when the Gods intended you to play that role in your wheel of life.

Even 6 years ago in rural Nepal, it was recounted to me that for many if a 3 year old was killed by a poiseness snake or tiger people would say the child had obviously done something very bad in a prievios life & it was karma.

People with that sort of belief make dangerous adversouries. Religion has sent many men to die & kill.

Today most serving Gurkhas are probably more somewhat more western in outlook & somewhat more akin to special forces. One a few years ago said to me, "We are not the illiterate men our fathers or grandfathers were, we wouldnt run at machine guns anymore, we would call for air support, then go in & clear up."

But of course there still a very proud group of people & when called upon to fight toe to toe with kukri in hand I am sure they would still do it with systematic effiency as did thier forefathers.

My point bieng what may seem foolhardy to us today didnt for men of yesteryear.

spiral

Hi Spiral,

I see what you mean, but do you think those attitudes extended to the sons of wealthy Indian families?
Or do you think the Katar stories are exagerated?
Because part of me wonders if these tales came from rich Brits on the grand tour regaling the sons of upper class Indians with tales of exaggerated bravery only to be told: 'thats interesting, did you know we hunt tigers with these'?

Hunting is a fairly common theme in designs on Indian metalwork, but I've never seen any depictions of people hunting tigers with Katars?


Best
Gene

[spiral]

In truth Gene, I dont know!

I do see your point, but many Mararajah types certanly did fight from the front in battle & many had dozens of sons. {as well as wives & concubines.} Who needed to stand out from the crowd.

I think Indian Royal politics was very machevelion at the time, with intrigue,poisening & murder,bieng common. It was tough to get to the top.

I wouldnt be surprised if some sons prooved thier fitness by such deeds. Common? I doubt it, but thats all just conjecture I have no proof.

Interesting discusian though!

spiral

[stephen wood]

interesting

[Emanuel]

I recall jamadhars with hunting scenes depicting tigers and lions. If such blades are representative of hunting weapons then perhaps these daggers were in the arsenal of hunters. Probably used much like hunting swords and daggers in Europe though to finish off wounded animals. Packs of dogs would probably be the main hunting weapon against tigers, bears, antelopes, whatever.

As an aside, I finally get Baloo's name in the Jungle Book, Bhalu=bear, simple.

Emanuel

[asomotif]

I finally get Baloo's name in the Jungle Book

A katar as a "bear necessity" in hunting

Interesting theory, but if hunting tigers with katars was something remotely seriously practiced, I am sure it would have been depicted somewhere.
Imagine a hurt and/or angry tiger and maybe 10 till 20 inches of wootz between you and him.
The tiger would probably rip your head of even if you would wound him deadly.
It is like a big cat. If they really start to rumble you need slow motion to follow them.

Ps, bumped into some odd pictures while googling for "big cat fight"

[David]

Originally Posted by stephen wood

interesting

Thanks Stephen. I LOVE the Bonzo Dog Band!

[wepnz]

I remembered someone had posted this picture of stone relief of a tiger being stabbed by katar. however the stabber seems to have other help (as suggested by others) and the tiger would seem to still be able to do major damage if the katar alone were used (seeing as how its gone right through the guys stuck with the tiger now). Also the katar seems to be the south indian hooded type, which are longer and have some guard protection.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...72&postcount=6

[laEspadaAncha]

Originally Posted by wepnz

I remembered someone had posted this picture of stone relief of a tiger being stabbed by katar. however the stabber seems to have other help (as suggested by others) and the tiger would seem to still be able to do major damage if the katar alone were used (seeing as how its gone right through the guys stuck with the tiger now). Also the katar seems to be the south indian hooded type, which are longer and have some guard protection.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...72&postcount=6

Great catch... In fact, this particular carving depicts two warriors, one armed with a katar in each hand, and both engaging the tiger simultaneously.

The temple carving dates to the 16th Century and is located in Srirangam in central Tamil Nadu.

Here's a repost of the pics for reference:

[Atlantia]

It is indeed a great catch! Bravo Wepnz!!

And interesting to see the form of the Katars with hoods and long blades (of short sword proportions!)

[archer]

Emanuel, I ran across this scene last week appears to be someone having a bad day. Pant and Paul mention Jamadhar Swords (Katar swords) 2-3 feet in length. Then there are the Patta Swords up to five feet in length. "Capable of severing a bullocks neck in the right expert hands". One Indian Royal was said to have been so proficient with his katar that he had killed a number of elephant. Fact or fiction I don't know. Mindset and practice can make for fearless people.

Steve

[ORDOVICES]

Dear all

Travelling in northern India many years ago, in one of the major forts, perhaps Jaipur or Jodphur, we were told by the curator of the museum how the Rajput princes would hunt tigers for sport. Firstly they would corral the tiger. This would involve beaters using noise and thousands of metres of cloth to create a “wall” the tiger would turn away from, to bring it to bay. When finally the tiger was cornered, the prince would dismount, and engage the tiger in one-to-one combat.
It seems to our modern sensibilities a foolhardy pursuit but perhaps not as improbable as it first appears. What has not been mentioned is that the prince would be wearing armour. Yes, the cat might be extremely dangerous but the prince would not be in immediate danger of being gutted or de-limbed. (Crushed, broken, face bitten off still an exciting possibility however!) He would also have many armed helpers.
This was also my first introduction to the Katara. It seems to me the perfect weapon of choice to fight a biting animal because of the wrist guards; present a protected limb and then stab underneath. Pure conjecture on my part of course.
With regards to the mind-set of these martial and marital glory-seeking princes, please consider the following story recorded on a plaque on wall on one of these forts. This particular fort gatehouse had a thick block of glass set in it, presumably as a view point. During a conflict, a prince, encamped outside the fort, on being taunted that he would never be able to take said gatehouse, wrapped an extra turban round his head, charged the gate and attacked it with a flying head-butt. He successfully cracked the block of glass along with his head. I am sorry to say that I cannot remember the full details of what happened after apart from his demise. Not the actions of someone concerned with their long term political future methinks.
So did they fight tigers? I believe so. I am only writing this because so many seemed to think it so highly unlikely.
With regards to the original question I would guess the odds were stacked against the tiger. Chased for days, hungry, thirsty, disorientated, cornered then finally confronted by a armoured rajput nutter intent on stabbing it to death, no doubt backed up by an array of spear wielding helpers if it did get the upper hand. Poor thing.

[VANDOO]

ONE POSSIBILITY WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED ON IS MEN FIGHTING TIGERS, LIONS AND OTHER DANGEROUS ANIMALS IN THE ARENA. THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY THOSE WHO WISHED TO AS WELL AS THOSE WHO WERE FORCED TO DO SO. SOME MEN MAY HAVE WON THRU LUCK OR A LOT OF KNOWLEGE ABOUT THE ANIMAL THEY WERE FIGHTING.
MANY TRIBAL PEOPLE FOUND WAYS TO HUNT AND KILL MANY DANGEROUS ANIMALS USUALLY IN GROUPS BUT SOMETIMES ONE ON ONE. THE AFRICAN PYGMIES PREFER TO HUNT AND KILL ELEPHANTS (THE SMALLEST AGAINST THE LARGEST). THEY HAVE METHODS THAT WORK WELL FOR THEM. EITHER A SPEAR WITH A LARGE WIDE BLADE THRUST UP INTO THE BELLY OR A POISONED ARROW. BOTH KILL SLOWLY BUT SURELY, THEY ARE CRUEL BY OUR STANDARDS BUT FEED THEIR TRIBE.
SO ITS POSSIBLE SOME PEOPLE FROM INDIA FOUND A WAY TO HAVE A CHANCE TO FIGHT A TIGER WITH A KNIFE AND HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN AND SURVIVE AND GAIN FAME OR WEALTH.

[Battara]

Originally Posted by stephen wood

interesting

So that's how you hunt tigers! I always wondered.......

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ORDOVICES

Poor thing.

Yes ... poor thing.

.