A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

ariel · 29th July 2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I read somewhere that arrows can be removed by studying the wound and then inserting sticks of wood into the wound either side of the arrow shaft to locate onto the barbs and pulling the whole assembly out. I think this would only work with arrows designed for long distance or very accurate flight that have a simple head with the standard two barbs. Arrows shot at short range and for ambush as in the forests and jungles of Africa and other countries often have many barbs not just on the head but also on the shaft making the above mention process of removal impossible. Some people are just not very nice

Tim

The nastiest buggers made the joint between the head and the shaft deliberately weak. Any attempt to manipulate the arrow broke the joint and left the head (often deliberately smeared with feces ).
As to Aqtai's lamentations, the unmentioned (and unmentionable)- other-Forum-ite's claim that "Eastern" mail was grossly inferior to "Western" is just plain silly. In Europe, mail was affordable only to the upper crust of warriors and cost an arm and a leg (pun intended). In the East, mail was worn by the majority of the active armies. Of course, the one-of-a-kind mail might have been better than the mass produced one. But try to compare apples with apples, ie high class mails from both groups: Turkish, Caucasian and Russian mails will hold against any Italian or French ones.
Moreover, who said that the quality of mail should be the standard of military sophistication?
This is exactly what Rivkin was saying earlier: a Mongolian cavalryman had a minimalistic set of eqipment and superb military leadership and tactic. This allowed him to defeat lavishly equipped Western Knights (wearing ma-h-vellous mail shirts, no doubt). Mongolian bow beat German armour any time.

ham · 29th July 2005, 11:38 PM

Gentlemen,

The photos above are very useful-- the upper image of a heavy coat appears to be Mamluk though it is hard to tell without seeing the rings in better detail. The second, however is clearly Ottoman of the latter 16th c. together with a misrka type helmet. These were popular until the latter 18th century, in more isolated areas (such as the Caucasus) they was used into the 20th. The Circassians valued coats of mail by the distance at which they could stop a rifle ball.
Mail was the standard of military sophistication to a great extent-- the best required as many tools, skills and technical knowledge to make as the finest blades did-- some examples have even come to light which were tempered.

Sincerely,

Ham

B.I · 29th July 2005, 11:39 PM

i must say, indian armour tends to draw the short straw in most discussions. instead, when refering to 'eastern' armour, we tend to fall back to ottoman armour, as if the indian armour was of no consequence. i completely disagree as early indian armour was every bit as useful and well constructed as turkish armour, as i am sure this is where the influence originated from.
in reference, early indian armour was pretty much overlooked as there were not enough of it around to make a proper study. instead, the more 'common' 18thC armour and later was discussed.
however, with the introduction of a 'hoarde' of early armour onto the european market 10 or so years ago, we have finally been able to see the true nature of early mail that was not known or covered before.
these shirts were dated (by inscription) to the end of the 17thC but a general consensus is to believe they were of a much earleir date, possibly and probably at least one hundred years earlier. these shirts held old repairs, done in there working life and the nature of bijapur seemed to hint at them being the development of the ottoman armour worn by the original rulers of the deccan, who owe their ancestry to the ottoman 'monarchy'.
these shirts told a wealth of information, as they ranged from relatively crude, to the highest quality.
on the higher end, the links were beautifully crafted, some with shamfered edges, still sharp 500 years later. some held 'theta' links which it has recently been clarified as being forged and not cut out from sheet, as was previously thought. this meant that a lot of thought and design (as well as time) was put into the construction of these shirts.
also, it has also been found that some of these shirts had 'galvanised' links, which was a big surprise as zinc was not introduced into europe until the 17thC (i believe) but was discovered and used in india a good few hundred years before.
i dont really get involved in 'data' so please excuse any innacuracies. i have compared (physically) indian and ottoman shirts and the construction was not that dissimilar.
also, indian 'heavy' armour was well used in the 16th anf 17thC. they were also used upto the 19thC, but not in general. the introduction of firearms did the same to india as it did to europe, and armour adapted itself accordingly.
look at the 'sind' armour. i put this in inverted commas as i am not convinced this style of armour originated from that region, as refered to by egerton and subsequently robinson etc. however, i cannot question the dating of late 18th and maybe even early 19thC. this was riveted mail. although the plates were of a lighter construction, the mail was still heavy. there are enough early accounts (verified by surviving examples) of the plates beings an outer coating, and the actual protection being the heavy padded lining, thought and proved (in 18thC accounts) to protect against sword blows by itself.
heavy armour was also seen at seringapatam, which was of a later date.
also, there are late 18thC miniatures showing heavy mail/plate shirts, but these were too close to the early deccani shirts to believe they were made at the time of the miniatures. these had to be old shirts, worn at a later time.
although in peacetime, this also happened by the camel corps of bikaner in 1903, who paraded in fully heavy armour at the dehli durbar.
as for the katar, i really dont know what to say. heavy spears had the same thickened point, as did some sword blades. there are enough illustrations and sculpture showing it as a lethal stabbing weapon. if not for armour piercing, then what is the point (no pun intended

)

aqtai, please PM me your email address.

andrew, i have refrained from refering any more to the other post, out of respect for this forum, and i suppose because it would be a cheap shot to criticise people who are not willing to defend themselves here. however, i applaud your patience on that forum. i can only put this down to your work experience. i am constantly surprised how academically wrong a supposedly academic can be. i am glad i am just a lowly collector, not used to big words and books and things.

Aqtai · 30th July 2005, 12:08 AM

Ham, thanks for the additional info on those two mail shirts. They are both labelled as "Mamluk", although seeing as the mamluks continued to play an important role in Ottoman Egypt perhaps that's not totally inaccurate. It does solve a small mystery though. That medallion on the chest of the 2nd shirt has the name "Ahmed El-Gaabi" on it. The mamluks favoured Turkish names and Ahmed is an Arabic name, so I couldn't figure out what it was doing on the shirt. BTW El-Gaabi means "the tax-collector", judging by the fact he had to wear armour, it was a pretty dangerous job!

B.I. thanks for the info on early Indian armour, a subject about which I know nothing. These early Deccani armours sound fascinating. I will also refrain from any further criticism of people who aren't here to defend themselves.

ham · 30th July 2005, 12:27 AM

Aqtai,

Regarding the medallion on the Ottoman shirt-- Arabic was the language of the Egyptian Province as you know. Mamluks were acquired from the Caucasus and Anatolia primarily, hence they spoke their native language, as well as Osmanlici and Arabic. Arabic titles were typical for Mamluks even under the Ottomans-- the Mamluk governor continued to be known as the Shaykh al-Beled until after Abu Kir. A Mamluk who went by the title al-Gaabi is not unusual. And tax collecting was a highly profitable position to which one was appointed as an honor there.

Sincerely,

Ham

Rivkin · 30th July 2005, 02:35 AM

What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc.

Concerning titles, indeed they carried titles in arabic, for example an honorary title yaqtaq (sorry, don't speak arabic and cite by memory, but it's supposed to be the butcher ? The title of Murad, Ibrahim and Mehmed and all others who killed 72).

Now on mail - afaik the subject of armour is even less understood than that of weapons. During the last few days I had the opportunity to speak with a few historians of mamluk period and I've got a very certain impression that they know the words of furisiyya, but have no ideas how these "swords", "bows" etc. look like - well many historians out there certainly do, but it's not a very common knowladge. For example one can look at Ayn-Jalat by Smith and "Mongol-Ilkhanid war" by Amitai-Preiss. The latter one quite honestly admits that there is no depiction of Ilkhanid armor, weaponry or tactics of the time. The description they use is due to Marco Polo (!), who obviously did not have anything to do with Mongol-Mamluk wars. The rest (and it's like 100 pages in these manuscripts) is an open speculation. For example Smith claims that Mongols used georgian/armenian cavalry because of it's shock power, but Amitai-Preiss counteracts with the statement that there is not a single (!) depictions of georgian or armenian cavalry of the time.

One of the most puzzling things to me was that no one in the middle ages seemed to be interested in for example testing a typical "mamluk" armor against a bow in order for example to determine the effective range of their weapons, or may be no one was interested in recording this for posterity, which is not unusual, taking in mind that 90% of books on mamluks will reference same works - Maqrizi, Ibn-Iyas, Ibn-Khaldan, Bar Hebraus, Rash-Al-Din, Furisiyya and may be 5 to 10 lesser known volumes.

In light of this there is a lot of speculation when it comes to "what was the difference in armor between royal and amir mamluks ?" "Did halqa use mails ?" and so on.

Rivkin · 30th July 2005, 03:30 AM

Concerning katars - sorry, don't think it's gonna work - if one has a mail, chanse he has a horse. If one has a horse, chanse he has a lance/sword. Would not be wise to try to use a katar.

Additionally I would refer to mail-ripping kindjals - they are usually on the big side (20 inches) with a stiletto-like extremely thin "spike" on top of them. Unfortunately Astvatsaturjan does not have a picture, somewhere I had the one of my own...

fearn · 30th July 2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Concerning katars - sorry, don't think it's gonna work - if one has a mail, chanse he has a horse. If one has a horse, chanse he has a lance/sword. Would not be wise to try to use a katar.

Additionally I would refer to mail-ripping kindjals - they are usually on the big side (20 inches) with a stiletto-like extremely thin "spike" on top of them. Unfortunately Astvatsaturjan does not have a picture, somewhere I had the one of my own...

Hi Rivkin,

I'd suggest that, once you get someone off the horse, an armor-piercing knife is useful. After all, that's what the European misericorde was for.

On the other hand, I do agree with you: I don't know much about Indian martial arts, but I certainly wouldn't want to count on a katar as a main battle weapon. However, off the battlefield (i.e. in a dark alley, an ambush, a skirmish, or whatever), I suspect it was quite useful. After all, the thickened point doesn't prevent it from being used on unarmored foes as well as armored ones. I'd suggest we simply look at it as an Indian version of a cinqueda and go with it.

Otherwise, I'm quite enjoying the discussion of indian armor, so I'll fade back into the woodwork.

F

ham · 30th July 2005, 05:53 AM

[QUOTE=Rivkin]What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc.

Respectfully Rivkin, I doubt very much whether that is what Aqtai meant; it is patently untrue. Mamluks regularly took Arabic names from the time they were brought to Baghdad under the Abbasid sultans in the bloody ninth century, to say nothing of the fact that literally every Egyptian Mamluk Sultan had an Arabic name as well. And as far as giving a Mamluk an Arabic name in order to Ottomanize him...? You'll have to explain that one.

Despite the scarcity of data on arms and armor of the Mamluks, Mamluk arms in Egypt are not entirely occluded by the mists of time. Excellent research has been done and continues to be done by European, Arab and Turkish arms historians. What Mamluk arms and armor were like is not the realm of Islamic, Ottoman, Egyptian or Mamluk historians, nor is it ever but rarely touched upon by military historians. It is arms historians who specialize in this esoteric area which requires a background in numerous languages, history, metalurgy and extensive experience with the artifacts themselves-- and while their research may be found in arms journals such as the newly revived GLADIUS, the best way to fill gaps in one's own knowledge is to examine the material record itself-- museums in both Cairo and Istanbul have numerous examples of Mamluk arms and armor identified by the names of their owners and the rulers under whom they fought-- for the present,the most reliable method of attribution known.

Rivkin · 30th July 2005, 06:49 AM

[QUOTE=ham]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc.

Respectfully Rivkin, I doubt very much whether that is what Aqtai meant; it is patently untrue. Mamluks regularly took Arabic names from the time they were brought to Baghdad under the Abbasid sultans in the bloody ninth century, to say nothing of the fact that literally every Egyptian Mamluk Sultan had an Arabic name as well. And as far as giving a Mamluk an Arabic name in order to Ottomanize him...? You'll have to explain that one.

Not pretending to be a specialist, and being too lazy to go to the library and pick up the book:

Concerning the names, I can't say I remeber "literally every" Sultan, but from the names I remember : Baybars, Qutuz, Qautbay, Barsbay, Tumanbay, Qalawun, Yilbay, Temur-Buga, semi-sultan Khairbek do not sound to me anything like arabic names. Is Inal an arabic name ? I'm sure they had long, arabic titles and aliases, al-rachman, al-malek, al-dawla something (did they Abdallah to signify their way to Islam ?) and that's may be even the way ulema called them, here I'm at complete ignorance, but I don't remember, may be to my shame, any sultan who would have an explicitly arabic name.
As far as I remember the point was specifically that even Circassians (and their names are very unturkish) always took a turkish (atrak) name when becoming a mamluk. Btw it's a surprise for me that you say they used ottoman, I always thought they used more "classical" turkish.

P.S. may be I was not exactly correct in phrasing my statement - not that they could not have arabic names, titles and aliases, but one of the main symbols of being mamluk was being given a turkish name during the process.

P.P.S. After writing this I went through my books and indeed found Muhammed ibn-Qalawun. No turkish name, only arabic. Interesting, did he go through a traditional mamluk education ?

30th July 2005, 12:27 AM	#5
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Aqtai, Regarding the medallion on the Ottoman shirt-- Arabic was the language of the Egyptian Province as you know. Mamluks were acquired from the Caucasus and Anatolia primarily, hence they spoke their native language, as well as Osmanlici and Arabic. Arabic titles were typical for Mamluks even under the Ottomans-- the Mamluk governor continued to be known as the Shaykh al-Beled until after Abu Kir. A Mamluk who went by the title al-Gaabi is not unusual. And tax collecting was a highly profitable position to which one was appointed as an honor there. Sincerely, Ham Last edited by ham; 30th July 2005 at 06:13 AM.

30th July 2005, 05:53 AM	#9
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	[QUOTE=Rivkin]What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc. Respectfully Rivkin, I doubt very much whether that is what Aqtai meant; it is patently untrue. Mamluks regularly took Arabic names from the time they were brought to Baghdad under the Abbasid sultans in the bloody ninth century, to say nothing of the fact that literally every Egyptian Mamluk Sultan had an Arabic name as well. And as far as giving a Mamluk an Arabic name in order to Ottomanize him...? You'll have to explain that one. Despite the scarcity of data on arms and armor of the Mamluks, Mamluk arms in Egypt are not entirely occluded by the mists of time. Excellent research has been done and continues to be done by European, Arab and Turkish arms historians. What Mamluk arms and armor were like is not the realm of Islamic, Ottoman, Egyptian or Mamluk historians, nor is it ever but rarely touched upon by military historians. It is arms historians who specialize in this esoteric area which requires a background in numerous languages, history, metalurgy and extensive experience with the artifacts themselves-- and while their research may be found in arms journals such as the newly revived GLADIUS, the best way to fill gaps in one's own knowledge is to examine the material record itself-- museums in both Cairo and Istanbul have numerous examples of Mamluk arms and armor identified by the names of their owners and the rulers under whom they fought-- for the present,the most reliable method of attribution known. Last edited by ham; 30th July 2005 at 06:10 AM.

29th July 2005, 11:38 PM	#2
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, The photos above are very useful-- the upper image of a heavy coat appears to be Mamluk though it is hard to tell without seeing the rings in better detail. The second, however is clearly Ottoman of the latter 16th c. together with a misrka type helmet. These were popular until the latter 18th century, in more isolated areas (such as the Caucasus) they was used into the 20th. The Circassians valued coats of mail by the distance at which they could stop a rifle ball. Mail was the standard of military sophistication to a great extent-- the best required as many tools, skills and technical knowledge to make as the finest blades did-- some examples have even come to light which were tempered. Sincerely, Ham

29th July 2005, 11:39 PM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i must say, indian armour tends to draw the short straw in most discussions. instead, when refering to 'eastern' armour, we tend to fall back to ottoman armour, as if the indian armour was of no consequence. i completely disagree as early indian armour was every bit as useful and well constructed as turkish armour, as i am sure this is where the influence originated from. in reference, early indian armour was pretty much overlooked as there were not enough of it around to make a proper study. instead, the more 'common' 18thC armour and later was discussed. however, with the introduction of a 'hoarde' of early armour onto the european market 10 or so years ago, we have finally been able to see the true nature of early mail that was not known or covered before. these shirts were dated (by inscription) to the end of the 17thC but a general consensus is to believe they were of a much earleir date, possibly and probably at least one hundred years earlier. these shirts held old repairs, done in there working life and the nature of bijapur seemed to hint at them being the development of the ottoman armour worn by the original rulers of the deccan, who owe their ancestry to the ottoman 'monarchy'. these shirts told a wealth of information, as they ranged from relatively crude, to the highest quality. on the higher end, the links were beautifully crafted, some with shamfered edges, still sharp 500 years later. some held 'theta' links which it has recently been clarified as being forged and not cut out from sheet, as was previously thought. this meant that a lot of thought and design (as well as time) was put into the construction of these shirts. also, it has also been found that some of these shirts had 'galvanised' links, which was a big surprise as zinc was not introduced into europe until the 17thC (i believe) but was discovered and used in india a good few hundred years before. i dont really get involved in 'data' so please excuse any innacuracies. i have compared (physically) indian and ottoman shirts and the construction was not that dissimilar. also, indian 'heavy' armour was well used in the 16th anf 17thC. they were also used upto the 19thC, but not in general. the introduction of firearms did the same to india as it did to europe, and armour adapted itself accordingly. look at the 'sind' armour. i put this in inverted commas as i am not convinced this style of armour originated from that region, as refered to by egerton and subsequently robinson etc. however, i cannot question the dating of late 18th and maybe even early 19thC. this was riveted mail. although the plates were of a lighter construction, the mail was still heavy. there are enough early accounts (verified by surviving examples) of the plates beings an outer coating, and the actual protection being the heavy padded lining, thought and proved (in 18thC accounts) to protect against sword blows by itself. heavy armour was also seen at seringapatam, which was of a later date. also, there are late 18thC miniatures showing heavy mail/plate shirts, but these were too close to the early deccani shirts to believe they were made at the time of the miniatures. these had to be old shirts, worn at a later time. although in peacetime, this also happened by the camel corps of bikaner in 1903, who paraded in fully heavy armour at the dehli durbar. as for the katar, i really dont know what to say. heavy spears had the same thickened point, as did some sword blades. there are enough illustrations and sculpture showing it as a lethal stabbing weapon. if not for armour piercing, then what is the point (no pun intended ) aqtai, please PM me your email address. andrew, i have refrained from refering any more to the other post, out of respect for this forum, and i suppose because it would be a cheap shot to criticise people who are not willing to defend themselves here. however, i applaud your patience on that forum. i can only put this down to your work experience. i am constantly surprised how academically wrong a supposedly academic can be. i am glad i am just a lowly collector, not used to big words and books and things.

30th July 2005, 12:08 AM	#4
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Ham, thanks for the additional info on those two mail shirts. They are both labelled as "Mamluk", although seeing as the mamluks continued to play an important role in Ottoman Egypt perhaps that's not totally inaccurate. It does solve a small mystery though. That medallion on the chest of the 2nd shirt has the name "Ahmed El-Gaabi" on it. The mamluks favoured Turkish names and Ahmed is an Arabic name, so I couldn't figure out what it was doing on the shirt. BTW El-Gaabi means "the tax-collector", judging by the fact he had to wear armour, it was a pretty dangerous job! B.I. thanks for the info on early Indian armour, a subject about which I know nothing. These early Deccani armours sound fascinating. I will also refrain from any further criticism of people who aren't here to defend themselves.

30th July 2005, 02:35 AM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	What Aqtai probably meant that until 1517 Mamluk could not have an arabic name - only turkish (independent of his origins). After 1517 in order to "ottomonize" them their were required to take arabic names, so we have Ali-Bey etc. Concerning titles, indeed they carried titles in arabic, for example an honorary title yaqtaq (sorry, don't speak arabic and cite by memory, but it's supposed to be the butcher ? The title of Murad, Ibrahim and Mehmed and all others who killed 72). Now on mail - afaik the subject of armour is even less understood than that of weapons. During the last few days I had the opportunity to speak with a few historians of mamluk period and I've got a very certain impression that they know the words of furisiyya, but have no ideas how these "swords", "bows" etc. look like - well many historians out there certainly do, but it's not a very common knowladge. For example one can look at Ayn-Jalat by Smith and "Mongol-Ilkhanid war" by Amitai-Preiss. The latter one quite honestly admits that there is no depiction of Ilkhanid armor, weaponry or tactics of the time. The description they use is due to Marco Polo (!), who obviously did not have anything to do with Mongol-Mamluk wars. The rest (and it's like 100 pages in these manuscripts) is an open speculation. For example Smith claims that Mongols used georgian/armenian cavalry because of it's shock power, but Amitai-Preiss counteracts with the statement that there is not a single (!) depictions of georgian or armenian cavalry of the time. One of the most puzzling things to me was that no one in the middle ages seemed to be interested in for example testing a typical "mamluk" armor against a bow in order for example to determine the effective range of their weapons, or may be no one was interested in recording this for posterity, which is not unusual, taking in mind that 90% of books on mamluks will reference same works - Maqrizi, Ibn-Iyas, Ibn-Khaldan, Bar Hebraus, Rash-Al-Din, Furisiyya and may be 5 to 10 lesser known volumes. In light of this there is a lot of speculation when it comes to "what was the difference in armor between royal and amir mamluks ?" "Did halqa use mails ?" and so on.

30th July 2005, 03:30 AM	#7
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Concerning katars - sorry, don't think it's gonna work - if one has a mail, chanse he has a horse. If one has a horse, chanse he has a lance/sword. Would not be wise to try to use a katar. Additionally I would refer to mail-ripping kindjals - they are usually on the big side (20 inches) with a stiletto-like extremely thin "spike" on top of them. Unfortunately Astvatsaturjan does not have a picture, somewhere I had the one of my own...