Indian bagh nakh (tiger claws)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

The example I question is a basically a small shield with blades on it. The bagh nakh is a small "glove" with claws hidden in the hand. One is a parrying weapon, the other is a small concealed weapon.

Santie/saintie may not be the name for it, but it is a parrying weapon.

I won't repost them here but I think you added some awesome parrying weapons on your Pinterest. They do seem to vary a lot, some more like the madu or the haladie, others more like jamadhar.

Emanuel, Indian parrying weapons have one thing in common, side bars for parrying, the weapon you are questioning has no side bars so how can you parry a weapon with it. To me it appears to be an evolved type of bagh nakh, it has five blades instead of claws and it is grasped by bars instead of rings and and it shields the holders hand but its basic purpose seems to be the same.

[Emanuel]

I disagree with you Eric but I'll leave it at that.
It remains that these are fascinating weapons

[Pukka Bundook]

Gentlemen,

I know little of these weapons, but as a bagh nakh is a concealed weapon, I do not think we can call the weapon in question by this name, and as it would appear to be a secondary weapon, with say a longer blade in the other hand, I would say its use was for parrying.

I do hope other examples of this type can be found, as I have never seen one in Egerton or Elgood or anywhere else. There surely had to be a name for this, as it does appear to have some age to it.

Best regards Richard.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.

[estcrh]

There seems to be some difference in how people define a "parrying weapon", to me it needs to have a long blade or bar to parry a sword such as the example below.

[VANDOO]

HERE ARE A FEW MORE I HAVE PICTURES OF NONE OF THEM ARE MINE.
#1. bagh nakh circa 1800
#2 " " 20 th. century, 12 cm.
#3. & #4. " " circa 1900, 10.2 cm.
#5. " "
#6. " " ready for use.
#7. & #8 bagh nakh two that belonged to Lew.
# 9. a picture of a weapon similar to the one you show i had it listed as a 5 bladed armored hand and forearm with a katar type grip.
# 10, #11. & #12. a odd India weapon with multiple blades and a katar grip and hand guard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

# 9. a picture of a weapon similar to the one you show i had it listed as a 5 bladed armored hand and forearm with a katar type grip.

Artzi has an even different description for his.

This very rare form of dagger is Indian, probably 18 century, from the family of the kattar push daggers. It employs five heavy blades 4 and 8 inches long, with thickened armor piercing tips, riveted to a semi cylindrical shaped handle 14 inches long. The two holding bars are mounted inside the handle. Bothe the blades and the handle are forged from very fine laminated steel. A fine rare piece in very good condition.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.

Jens, there is no rule that I know of that bagh nakh had to be hideable, many bagh nakh that I have seen could not actually have been hidden due to their size except maybe in the dark, some were smaller or had folding blades so it could be hidden but most that I have seen had several claws sticking out, not exactly something you could put into your front pocket. My bagh nakh is 5.25 in long with 1.5 in claws, not something you could easly hide. The word that Stone uses is "concealed", other descriptions do not mention "hidden" or "concealed" at all. Some bagh nakh did have blades attached making this form not hideable at all, these types maybe need a hyphenated name like the tabar-zaghnal but they are just as much a bagh nakh as a dagger.

A few references that do not mention "concealed" or "hidden".

On the left from "Chambers's Journal", W. & R. Chambers, 1892.

On the right from "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations" Richard Bentley, 1852.

On the bottom from George Stone.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jens, there is no rule that I know of that bagh nakh had to be hideable, many bagh nakh that I have seen could not actually have been hidden due to their size except maybe in the dark, some were smaller or had folding blades so it could be hidden but most that I have seen had several claws sticking out, not exactly something you could put into your front pocket. My bagh nakh is 5.25 in long with 1.5 in claws, not something you could easly hide. The word that Stone uses is "concealed", other descriptions do not mention "hidden" or "concealed" at all. Some bagh nakh did have blades attached making this form not hideable at all, these types maybe need a hyphenated name like the tabar-zaghnal but they are just as much a bagh nakh as a dagger.

A few references that do not mention "concealed" or "hidden".

On the left from "Chambers's Journal", W. & R. Chambers, 1892.

On the right from "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations" Richard Bentley, 1852.

On the bottom from George Stone.

When it comes to the wide spectrum of innovative and varying types of weapons in India, there really are no 'rules' or specific guidelines. What Jens was referring to with the bagh nakh corresponds more to its use as a 'weapon' by assassins which suggests an offensive (vs. defensive) and often 'concealed' item.
I think that the suggestion of being 'hidden' is one widely held, as seen by comments of numerous participants here.

The idea of this being 'ceremonial' I think corresponds well to that most unforgettable image of the 'prickly' executioner at durbar. It seems to me that these durbars, and exhibitions often during the reign of Queen Victoria in the Raj were the source for a good number of 'innovative' creations in weaponry intended to showcase the skills of Indian armourers.

In many cases these unusual weapons were meant to appear threatening or formidable, though their often vestigial features would likely have been quite impractical in actual combat or use.

I think that the item posted here in the thread topic is as has been noted, more aligned with a parry weapon, and with blades for thrust supported by the transverse grip as in katar. The bagh nakh is obviously intended for slashing and tearing, and clearly insufficient for any type of parry as would be expected in a covertly used weapon against unsuspecting victim.

While not large (as many 'bucklers' were small) this has arm guards akin to the vambrace, which could offer protection in degree as used. Many Indian shields had spear points at the boss used in much the same way.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

When it comes to the wide spectrum of innovative and varying types of weapons in India, there really are no 'rules' or specific guidelines. What Jens was referring to with the bagh nakh corresponds more to its use as a 'weapon' by assassins which suggests an offensive (vs. defensive) and often 'concealed' item.
I think that the suggestion of being 'hidden' is one widely held, as seen by comments of numerous participants here.

Jim, the impression that the bagh nakh was a hidden weapon comes from its most well known use, when Shivaji managed to kill Afzal Khan in 1659, it is said that Shivaji attacked with a bagn nakh hidden in his hand, but it is also said that he followed up with a bichawa dagger, which he had hidden in his sleeve. Proving that both of these weapons could be hidden in the right circumstances.

Where the bagn nakh came from and what it primary use was in not easy to identify. There are a few different accounts, some say that the bagn nakh was not used in warfare, while another says it was, some mention it as a concealed or hidden weapon, others do not, a couple of references mention its use in feuds or ritual fighting, which may be were it originated.

Here are a couple of quotes that mention this type of fighting with claws.

The first is from "My year in an Indian fort, Volume 1", Katharine Blanche, 1877.

The second is from "The Captivity, Sufferings, and Escape, of James Scurry: Who Was Detained A Prisoner During Ten Years, in the Dominions of Hyder Ali" (1824), James Scurry.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

I do hope other examples of this type can be found, as I have never seen one in Egerton or Elgood or anywhere else. There surely had to be a name for this, as it does appear to have some age to it.

Best regards Richard.

Richard here is one more, this has seven pattern welded blades. These hybred type weapons are a bit hard to categorize.

[Emanuel]

Beautiful example Eric!

We're getting farther from the bagh nakh discussion but I wonder if this multi-bladed thing wasn't part of some ceremonial accoutrements like the garb of the High Executioner at the Delhi Durbar (attached pic). His arm guards look similar.

These things look very well built and to be made entirely from crucible steel must say something about their importance.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

We're getting farther from the bagh nakh discussion

Emanuel, the bladed bagh nakh were mentioned, there are some that were definately bagh nakh with a blade added, then there are daggers with bagh nakh type claws, its fairly easy to distinguish between the two types. I have not seen a bagh nakh with a fixed blade at both ends but there are examples with two fixed blades, one in the middle and one at the end. Bottom right, George Stones description of bichwa-bagh nakh.

[machinist]

Here is a fairly unusual one, the pic is a webfind, I forgot where from. I suppose it could possibly have a more domestic use but I think it is a weapon. I think bagh nakh are best used not to make a killing blow but to secure and hold a victim while your partner in crime finishes him.