The exhibition oriental weapons "The Mortal Beauty" of private collections in Russia,

mahratt · 20th January 2016, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Just a couple of comments:

First chapter:

1. The issue of Kshatriyas, lower castes, and service of ancient Rajputs, Mahrattas, Gujaratis etc in the navy and airforce. I enjoyed the joke. A very good one!

However, the author mixes two totally unrelated categories. Kshatriyas are members of a religious stratum whereas Rajputs, Gujaratis, Sindhis etc. have nothing to do with belonging to a particular caste: they are members of ethnic/national/ kingdom entities.
Contrasting Kshatriyas and, say, Rajputs is equivalent to stating that medieval European Princes wore armour, but the French, English and Italians did not. Apples and oranges, kind of....

2. Suggest careful re-reading of Elgood's book.

Chakra belonged to the class of weapons called " mukta": released freely.

Chakra was a weapon and abode of Vishnu and was divine by itself. Thus, released, it had freedom of action and choice. When a man was killed by Chakra, it was not a victory or a lucky shot of his enemy, but a will and action of Vishnu, the karma of the victim. We may ruefully shake our heads at that logic, but the Indian metaphysics differs dramatically from the Western one, and judging one by another's criteria guarantees confusion and misunderstanding.

3.The author should kindly consult " "Kauthiliya Arthasastra", transl. by R.P. Kangles ( Motilal Banasidass, Delhi, 2003. ISBN: 81-208-0040-0) Vol 2, p. 132:
Hataka, a spear-like weapon with 3 blades.

Second chapter:

The author states that E. Karlova willfully ".... distorted the quote, changing its meaning to the opposite. Such little thing ))"
I humbly disagree. Her point was to mention that local Rajas proudly showed their weapon collections to visitors and NOT to present personal opinion of Prince Saltykov on the quality of Lahore collection. Thus, a simple description of the event sufficed beautifully.

Personally, I think that Prince S. was exercising the well-known trick of suppressed envy: sour grapes. He wrote that Royal Lahore collection was ".. pile of weapons ( and).... some theatrical weapons without style and taste." At the same time, he was buying a lot of stuff at local bazaars ( same article , p.50). See also book by R. Hales, p. 374, Prince Saltykov buying weapons from a long line of suspiciously-looking denizens of the night.

Perhaps he was just a cheapie, but certainly an awfully bad sport. One does not badmouth the host who graciously invited one to his home and showed him his treasures.

Third chapter:

I am looking at the drawing and still see a mace. Sorry. Can the author elaborate why it is not?

1. I am very glad that you agreed with me (it is no sarcasm - I'm getting closer to paranoia :-) ). For an article named "Military Culture" it is the very superficial article.

2.The chakra was the weapon. Trust me, when it was thrown to the enemies no one thought about "metaphysic" and no one knew that such weapon belongs to the "mukta". And when someone threw the chakra he wanted to kill. There are descriptions of the use of chakra.

3. Again, metaphysics. In "Kauthiliya Arthasastra" was mentioned "an axe with a trident at one end or both ends" also. Can you show this weapon and the description of it use?

4. However the Saltikov's items which were collected buying them on bazaars now are in the Hermitage. Where are the theatrical European items of R.Singh now? And whose are the "sour grapes" then? )))

5. About the picture with mace it would be better to ask Mercenary. He was more interested and he studied the subject.

mahratt · 20th January 2016, 01:37 PM

Photo:

ariel · 20th January 2016, 05:07 PM

1. For the record: I do NOT agree with the author. I stated from the beginning that the chapter was an introductory review designed for local Russian readers who do not know English and have to rely on Russian second, - and third- hand sources, often poorly translated. For that audience it is good.

I guess my comments about the issue of Kshatriyas vs. the Gujaratis go unchallenged :-) Good. Hopefully, the author will not repeat a similar error in the future.

2. Sorry, I cannot and do not "trust" the allegedly mind-reading author. He operates from the Western point of view that is largely inapplicable to the Hindu one.
Again, he is well advised to carefully read Elgood's book specifically addressing the issue of tight bonds between Hindu arms and ritual, and learn something new. This may change his attitude to Indian metaphysics.

3. The author should read the reference I provided and not a third-hand information from the popular-audience Nosov's book in Russian.
At the same time, he may want to look for " hastivaraka" ( same source)

4. First, the author's main line of attack against Ms. Karlova totally misses the point: he just distorted the purpose of her reference. Second, we do not know what was the objective worth and value of Royal Lahori weapons. Does the author? Perhaps, Hermitage examples paled in comparison.

Be it as it may, Prince Saltykov exhibited a totally ungentlemanly and low-class behavior. Feh.....

5. It is the author who brought the mace as an example, and it is his responsibility to defend his statement. Hiding behind other person's back is not a good policy.

In summary, this is a book for general audience and as such it fulfilled its goals admirably. It ain't no monumental treatise like the Elgood's one, but even the author of the review might have learned a lot from it.

In conclusion: I find the author's review of the articles poorly informed, poorly thought through and , - frankly, - biased. I can only wonder, - why?

I firmly stand behind my recommendation to buy this book. Jens Nordlunde is unlikely to find many revelations there :-), but for the rest of us, not deeply dedicated to the study of Indian culture and weapons, this book might be useful.

The additional bonus is the Chinese part of the book, and AFAIK there is no similar source in English.

Jim McDougall · 20th January 2016, 06:54 PM

Mahratt and Ariel,
Thank you so much guys for continuing this review of these references as well as the topic in general from objective point of view. With this you both reveal the attention to detail you have observed to these very complex topics on Indian arms.
While I have studied these weapons for very many years, I confess I have never reached the depth you both have clearly reached, so I would count myself among the many who may benefit from these books.

Again, thank you both for this most useful and informative exchange!

mahratt · 20th January 2016, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Mahratt and Ariel,
Thank you so much guys for continuing this review of these references as well as the topic in general from objective point of view. With this you both reveal the attention to detail you have observed to these very complex topics on Indian arms.
While I have studied these weapons for very many years, I confess I have never reached the depth you both have clearly reached, so I would count myself among the many who may benefit from these books.

Again, thank you both for this most useful and informative exchange!

Dear Jim.

Thank you for the nice words. I believe that everyone should read the book, to make up his mind about what is written in it.

I'm just expressing my opinion about what I read in the book.

mahratt · 20th January 2016, 07:13 PM

"1. For the record: I do NOT agree with the author. I stated from the beginning that the chapter was an introductory review designed for local Russian readers who do not know English and have to rely on Russian second, - and third- hand sources, often poorly translated. For that audience it is good.
I guess my comments about the issue of Kshatriyas vs. the Gujaratis go unchallenged :-) Good. Hopefully, the author will not repeat a similar error in the future."

It is so pity that you are not familiar with the Russian Oriental studies. It is on a par with French or English Oriental studies.
About the Kshatriyas. Of course I agree with you. It is exactly the author of the article in catalog mixed in one pile Kshatriyas with Rajputs, Jats, Dogras and Gurkhas with Coorgs.

"2. Sorry, I cannot and do not "trust" the allegedly mind-reading author. He operates from the Western point of view that is largely inapplicable to the Hindu one.
Again, he is well advised to carefully read Elgood's book specifically addressing the issue of tight bonds between Hindu arms and ritual, and learn something new. This may change his attitude to Indian metaphysics."

About the chakras. There are description of the use of chakras by ascetics in 16th. No metaphysics. They just throw it into the Portuguese who fired at them from muskets. They do not even have prayed before. And in addition to the chakras they had swords and knives.

"3. The author should read the reference I provided and not a third-hand information from the popular-audience Nosov's book in Russian.
At the same time, he may want to look for " hastivaraka" ( same source)"

No problem. On the same page ("Kauthiliya Arthasastra", transl. by R.P. Kangles ( Motilal Banasidass, Delhi, 2003. ISBN: 81-208-0040-0) Vol 2, p. 132

said about "an axe with a trident at one end or both ends". This axe and your "hastivaraka" both are real weapons or only "hastivaraka" is real?

"4. First, the author's main line of attack against Ms. Karlova totally misses the point: he just distorted the purpose of her reference. Second, we do not know what was the objective worth and value of Royal Lahori weapons. Does the author? Perhaps, Hermitage examples paled in comparison.
Be it as it may, Prince Saltykov exhibited a totally ungentlemanly and low-class behavior. Feh....."

No attacks. But it is need accuracy of citation. Prince Saltykov died 157 years ago. And it was amazing man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Saltykov

"but for the rest of us, not deeply dedicated to the study of Indian culture and weapons, this book might be useful"
You should started with this. I would not write so much then

mahratt · 20th January 2016, 07:20 PM

Photo:

ariel · 20th January 2016, 09:15 PM

[QUOTE=mahratt]"1.
It is so pity that you are not familiar with the Russian Oriental studies. It is on a par with French or English Oriental studies.
----------------------------
Russian historians/archeologists are unsurpassable in the field of "nomadic" and "Caucasian" studies.There are some good contributions to the Ottoman and ( less) Persian field. India was not their cup of tea. Except for occasional travellers ( Nikitin, Saltykov) they never ventured there and made no original contribution to the field. The only systematic Russian book about Indian weapons is a relatively new, semi-popular, book by Nosov, with heavy borrowing from Elgood, Pant and Rawson. Comparing Russian contributors to French and, especially, British researchers is impossible. After all, Brits controlled India de facto or de jure for... what? 300 years non stop? Built universities there, sent scientists, published books to no end, assembled collections, had public exhibitions...... Come on, let's not engage in patriotic fantasies:-)

__________________________________________________ ______________

About the Kshatriyas. Of course I agree with you. It is exactly the author of the article in catalog mixed in one pile Kshatriyas with Rajputs, Jats, Dogras and Gurkhas with Coorgs.
-----------------------------
Please, all of us can read here:-)
__________________________________________________ ______________
"2.

About the chakras. There are description of the use of chakras by ascetics in 16th. No metaphysics. They just throw it into the Portuguese who fired at them from muskets. They do not even have prayed before.
----------------------------------------
That is exactly your problem: you equate the act of "releasing" the mukta with the damage it inflicts. Try to understand their metaphysics.
__________________________________________________ _______________
"3. On the same page ("Kauthiliya Arthasastra", transl. by R.P. Kangles ( Motilal Banasidass, Delhi, 2003. ISBN: 81-208-0040-0) Vol 2, p. 132

said about "an axe with a trident at one end or both ends". This axe and your "hastivaraka" both are real weapons or only "hastivaraka" is real?
------------------------------
Where is the mention of a word "axe" in relation to hastivaraka or hataka?
Please do not assign to me any words that I did not even utter.
__________________________________________________ _________
4. Prince Saltykov died 157 years ago. And it was amazing man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Saltykov

---------------------------------------
Yes, a traveller and a dealer in Indian antiques.
And ( based on his letter to his brother) not somebody I would care to invite into my house:-)))))

20th January 2016, 01:37 PM	#2
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Photo: Attached Images

20th January 2016, 05:07 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	1. For the record: I do NOT agree with the author. I stated from the beginning that the chapter was an introductory review designed for local Russian readers who do not know English and have to rely on Russian second, - and third- hand sources, often poorly translated. For that audience it is good. I guess my comments about the issue of Kshatriyas vs. the Gujaratis go unchallenged :-) Good. Hopefully, the author will not repeat a similar error in the future. 2. Sorry, I cannot and do not "trust" the allegedly mind-reading author. He operates from the Western point of view that is largely inapplicable to the Hindu one. Again, he is well advised to carefully read Elgood's book specifically addressing the issue of tight bonds between Hindu arms and ritual, and learn something new. This may change his attitude to Indian metaphysics. 3. The author should read the reference I provided and not a third-hand information from the popular-audience Nosov's book in Russian. At the same time, he may want to look for " hastivaraka" ( same source) 4. First, the author's main line of attack against Ms. Karlova totally misses the point: he just distorted the purpose of her reference. Second, we do not know what was the objective worth and value of Royal Lahori weapons. Does the author? Perhaps, Hermitage examples paled in comparison. Be it as it may, Prince Saltykov exhibited a totally ungentlemanly and low-class behavior. Feh..... 5. It is the author who brought the mace as an example, and it is his responsibility to defend his statement. Hiding behind other person's back is not a good policy. In summary, this is a book for general audience and as such it fulfilled its goals admirably. It ain't no monumental treatise like the Elgood's one, but even the author of the review might have learned a lot from it. In conclusion: I find the author's review of the articles poorly informed, poorly thought through and , - frankly, - biased. I can only wonder, - why? I firmly stand behind my recommendation to buy this book. Jens Nordlunde is unlikely to find many revelations there :-), but for the rest of us, not deeply dedicated to the study of Indian culture and weapons, this book might be useful. The additional bonus is the Chinese part of the book, and AFAIK there is no similar source in English. Last edited by ariel; 20th January 2016 at 05:32 PM.

20th January 2016, 07:20 PM	#7
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Photo: Attached Images

20th January 2016, 06:54 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,340	Mahratt and Ariel, Thank you so much guys for continuing this review of these references as well as the topic in general from objective point of view. With this you both reveal the attention to detail you have observed to these very complex topics on Indian arms. While I have studied these weapons for very many years, I confess I have never reached the depth you both have clearly reached, so I would count myself among the many who may benefit from these books. Again, thank you both for this most useful and informative exchange!

20th January 2016, 07:13 PM	#6
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	"1. For the record: I do NOT agree with the author. I stated from the beginning that the chapter was an introductory review designed for local Russian readers who do not know English and have to rely on Russian second, - and third- hand sources, often poorly translated. For that audience it is good. I guess my comments about the issue of Kshatriyas vs. the Gujaratis go unchallenged :-) Good. Hopefully, the author will not repeat a similar error in the future." It is so pity that you are not familiar with the Russian Oriental studies. It is on a par with French or English Oriental studies. About the Kshatriyas. Of course I agree with you. It is exactly the author of the article in catalog mixed in one pile Kshatriyas with Rajputs, Jats, Dogras and Gurkhas with Coorgs. "2. Sorry, I cannot and do not "trust" the allegedly mind-reading author. He operates from the Western point of view that is largely inapplicable to the Hindu one. Again, he is well advised to carefully read Elgood's book specifically addressing the issue of tight bonds between Hindu arms and ritual, and learn something new. This may change his attitude to Indian metaphysics." About the chakras. There are description of the use of chakras by ascetics in 16th. No metaphysics. They just throw it into the Portuguese who fired at them from muskets. They do not even have prayed before. And in addition to the chakras they had swords and knives. "3. The author should read the reference I provided and not a third-hand information from the popular-audience Nosov's book in Russian. At the same time, he may want to look for " hastivaraka" ( same source)" No problem. On the same page ("Kauthiliya Arthasastra", transl. by R.P. Kangles ( Motilal Banasidass, Delhi, 2003. ISBN: 81-208-0040-0) Vol 2, p. 132 said about "an axe with a trident at one end or both ends". This axe and your "hastivaraka" both are real weapons or only "hastivaraka" is real? "4. First, the author's main line of attack against Ms. Karlova totally misses the point: he just distorted the purpose of her reference. Second, we do not know what was the objective worth and value of Royal Lahori weapons. Does the author? Perhaps, Hermitage examples paled in comparison. Be it as it may, Prince Saltykov exhibited a totally ungentlemanly and low-class behavior. Feh....." No attacks. But it is need accuracy of citation. Prince Saltykov died 157 years ago. And it was amazing man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Saltykov "but for the rest of us, not deeply dedicated to the study of Indian culture and weapons, this book might be useful" You should started with this. I would not write so much then

20th January 2016, 09:15 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	[QUOTE=mahratt]"1. It is so pity that you are not familiar with the Russian Oriental studies. It is on a par with French or English Oriental studies. ---------------------------- Russian historians/archeologists are unsurpassable in the field of "nomadic" and "Caucasian" studies.There are some good contributions to the Ottoman and ( less) Persian field. India was not their cup of tea. Except for occasional travellers ( Nikitin, Saltykov) they never ventured there and made no original contribution to the field. The only systematic Russian book about Indian weapons is a relatively new, semi-popular, book by Nosov, with heavy borrowing from Elgood, Pant and Rawson. Comparing Russian contributors to French and, especially, British researchers is impossible. After all, Brits controlled India de facto or de jure for... what? 300 years non stop? Built universities there, sent scientists, published books to no end, assembled collections, had public exhibitions...... Come on, let's not engage in patriotic fantasies:-) __________________________________________________ ______________ About the Kshatriyas. Of course I agree with you. It is exactly the author of the article in catalog mixed in one pile Kshatriyas with Rajputs, Jats, Dogras and Gurkhas with Coorgs. ----------------------------- Please, all of us can read here:-) __________________________________________________ ______________ "2. About the chakras. There are description of the use of chakras by ascetics in 16th. No metaphysics. They just throw it into the Portuguese who fired at them from muskets. They do not even have prayed before. ---------------------------------------- That is exactly your problem: you equate the act of "releasing" the mukta with the damage it inflicts. Try to understand their metaphysics. __________________________________________________ _______________ "3. On the same page ("Kauthiliya Arthasastra", transl. by R.P. Kangles ( Motilal Banasidass, Delhi, 2003. ISBN: 81-208-0040-0) Vol 2, p. 132 said about "an axe with a trident at one end or both ends". This axe and your "hastivaraka" both are real weapons or only "hastivaraka" is real? ------------------------------ Where is the mention of a word "axe" in relation to hastivaraka or hataka? Please do not assign to me any words that I did not even utter. __________________________________________________ _________ 4. Prince Saltykov died 157 years ago. And it was amazing man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Saltykov --------------------------------------- Yes, a traveller and a dealer in Indian antiques. And ( based on his letter to his brother) not somebody I would care to invite into my house:-)))))