A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

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 · 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?

Aqtai · 19th August 2005, 07:51 PM

Those 4 photos are all of 1 sword

. It is the only one of of that type on display at the Royal Armouries.

It seems to be designed for cutting and thrusting like a European zwei-hander.

B.I · 19th August 2005, 08:16 PM

i cant offer any more real information on these two handed swords, of which aqtais is a great example. most of the ones known, were of a later date, and relatively crude. most had a khanda style blade, and were of no real importance. this example is about as good as they ever got. as the armouries description says, its form is remeniscent of an early indian rapier (single handed). a small collection of these rapiers appeard some years ago, the best of which is shown in the paris 1988 exhibition. another of similar style, and great quality is in elgoods new book and is from the met. robert denotes a few pages on these, with an early 17thC image of them being fenced with.
the overall style of pommel and guard in the two-handed armouries piece is a direct influence from these earlier pieces. i would agree with their date of late 18thC, due to the similarity of the reinforced langets with the same found on firangis. the rapiers date from the late 16thC and so its strange (or not, given its india) to see such a similar style 200 years later.

the armouries piece came from the a.d.white collection, which was sold in almost complete state through a london saleroom in the early 80's. i say almost, as the best was hand picked out first ad went into a private collection before the sale. the collection was of immense importance, and has now spread into some of the most important collections, both national and private in existence today.
aqtai, if you go through khalilis collection, you will see pieces attributed to the same collection.

the armouries have a few pieces from this sale, as stated in the decription cards you show in the images.

1st August 2005, 09:47 PM	#1
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	#3
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

8th August 2005, 11:58 PM	#8
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

1st August 2005, 11:35 PM	#2
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	#4
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

7th August 2005, 08:38 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,585	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	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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

19th August 2005, 01:14 PM	#10
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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?

19th August 2005, 07:51 PM	#11
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Those 4 photos are all of 1 sword . It is the only one of of that type on display at the Royal Armouries. It seems to be designed for cutting and thrusting like a European zwei-hander.

19th August 2005, 08:16 PM	#12
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i cant offer any more real information on these two handed swords, of which aqtais is a great example. most of the ones known, were of a later date, and relatively crude. most had a khanda style blade, and were of no real importance. this example is about as good as they ever got. as the armouries description says, its form is remeniscent of an early indian rapier (single handed). a small collection of these rapiers appeard some years ago, the best of which is shown in the paris 1988 exhibition. another of similar style, and great quality is in elgoods new book and is from the met. robert denotes a few pages on these, with an early 17thC image of them being fenced with. the overall style of pommel and guard in the two-handed armouries piece is a direct influence from these earlier pieces. i would agree with their date of late 18thC, due to the similarity of the reinforced langets with the same found on firangis. the rapiers date from the late 16thC and so its strange (or not, given its india) to see such a similar style 200 years later. the armouries piece came from the a.d.white collection, which was sold in almost complete state through a london saleroom in the early 80's. i say almost, as the best was hand picked out first ad went into a private collection before the sale. the collection was of immense importance, and has now spread into some of the most important collections, both national and private in existence today. aqtai, if you go through khalilis collection, you will see pieces attributed to the same collection. the armouries have a few pieces from this sale, as stated in the decription cards you show in the images.