A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

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.:

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.

1st August 2005, 12:00 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,587	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	#3
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	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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

7th August 2005, 05:03 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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

31st July 2005, 11:04 PM	#1
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	#4
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".