Pata sword with European blade

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

That was exactly what I was talking about :-))

I know you were, Ariel; i was more focusing on that part of the Mahratta cavalry being irregular, and poorly disciplined. Apparently Shivaji has inovated military tactics of the period, being the pioneer of guerilla tactics "Shiva sutra" or Ganimi Kava.

[fernando]

Interesting image of 'SIVAJI ON THE MARCH', Jim. Note the few infantry men also armed with a pata, suggesting that this weapon was not exclusive of Cavalry.
Here is a portrait of the man alone, holding a pata; surely the image previously mentioned by Ariel.

.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I remembered taking these pictures ...Early forms if I remember rightly...and exploring something of the Ethnographic as one seems to be a training stick version whilst the other looks to be wood carved in the hand/arm-guard. It could be argued that the older or more animalistic shaped the arm and handguard ...The more Zoomorphic ~ the older the weapon...and the more geometric the design the less old the weapon.
Looking at the baseline..for the basics... I illustrate what Wikipedia says viz
Quote"History
Created during the Mughal period, the pata's use in warfare appears to be mostly restricted to the 17th century when the Marathas came into prominence. Ranging in length from 10 to 44 inches, it was considered to be a highly effective weapon for infantrymen against heavily armoured cavalry. Folklore has it that a Maratha soldier would use the dandpatta when encircled, so as to maximize the casualties on the opposition, before he fell. The founder of the Maratha Empire, Emperor Shivaji, was reputedly trained in the art of fighting with pata. One of his generals, Tanaji Malusare, wielded the weapon with both hands during the Battle of Sinhagad, before one of his hands was cut off by the Rajput Udaybhan Singh Rathod".Unquote.

Once again refering to the basic note... From The Caravana collection I Quote"The Patta Sword;
The pata, patta, dand patta or dandpatta is an Indian sword with a gauntlet integrated as a handguard. Basically the sword has a wide and long hilt where the blade is integrated. The use of the term Patta or Patá is possibly linked to Portuguese terminology regarding what the sword resembles – a paw (pata in Portuguese) or a quadruped member.
This is a notable example of a Patta the most characteristic Maratha weapon and exclusively used in the Indian subcontinent. It has a double edged blade, made of steel originating in Europe, which is quite common in high quality Pattas.

The Patta was the most used weapon by Hindu fighting monks. These made battle on foot and could easily decapitate a horseman who attacked them. There were, however, many Mughal noblemen who used them when horse riding, as is possible to observe in miniatures from the 1700s.

Portuguese armies did not get to use the Patta, but they were used by many of the auxiliary Hindu forces which fought as allies to the Portuguese viceroys of India. Although it is the edged weapon with the largest action radius ever made, it is also a hard to handle weapon, which demanded not only physical strength but also prolonged training".Unquote.


From http://www.runjeetsingh.com/cat-2015-winter/14 I note an interesting potential mixture perhaps pointing toward a relationship between the Kattar dagger and the Pata or Dandpata...here...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Interesting image of 'SIVAJI ON THE MARCH', Jim. Note the few infantry men also armed with a pata, suggesting that this weapon was not exclusive of Cavalry.
Here is a portrait of the man alone, holding a pata; surely the image previously mentioned by Ariel.

.

\

Thank you Fernando, what a fantastic portrait!!
It is interesting, as Ariel has noted, how many of these powerful historic figures were indeed diminutive in size, and notably 'embellished' accordingly larger in artwork of the times.
Also, it does seem that of course, the length of these 'extended katars' would have been well used by infantry. In this regard, I wonder about Rajput use, as it seems that their standard of combat was geared toward dismounting to fight.
As in the detail added by Ibrahiim notes, these longer swords could easily reach horsemen. I would imagine in a melee, that would be possible if the rider were maneuvering and in downward posture for any reason.
Hard to imagine all the probabilities.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In The Antiquities of Orissa, vol. I. Rajendralala Mitra on page 198 writes something I find quite interesting.

"The Marhattas had a large steel gauntlet, but it has no ancient name."

We must remember that Mitra wrote about ancient Orissa temple statue decorations, and not about such 'modern' weapons as the ones from the 16th or 17 th century:-).

This leads me to think that the gauntles sword/dagger maybe could be from the 16th century, and not much earlier - if earlier at all.

[mahratt]

One more image SIVAJI

[Jens Nordlunde]

Interesting pictures. From where are they?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Interesting pictures. From where are they?

This miniaturepaintings my friend bought in London by the well-known collector of miniatures - Piter.

[Jerseyman]

Hi Marius,

Sorry for taking so long to respond - you're absolutely right in your observation, very few strikes will be absolutely perpendicular to the target. Consequently there will always be some flex in the blade - my doubt resides in the assertion that blades were deliberately made very flexible as a positive asset.

It seems to me that a certain amount of flex is to be desired, but too much flex would be extremely detrimental to the power and accuracy of the attack or its follow-up. And I assume that historically, various armourers must have made a study of the compromise between stiffness/flexibility, hardness/strength, edge-holding capability etc.

Quite a few antique blades I've handled of generic 'european' sword length seem to be tempered to a moderate flex where the top half of the blade will bend to roughly 30º then snap back to true. Certainly not all - and I suspect that might be a reflection of function - some blades are obviously designed to be stiffer. Taking the various British cavalry sabres of the 19C as an example - to my very untutored eyes they seem to get stiffer through the century - perhaps adjusting to the changing role of cavalry? Or simply the gradual straightening of the design? I acknowledge that I am speculating about something of which I know little. I have both a parang nabur and a shotel with moderately stiff blades and a full-length flyssa with a blade that I couldn't bend if I tried. Is stiffness v. flex down to function or choice?

I seem to recall seeing a tv series on weapons by Mike Loades in which there was a demonstration of cavalrymen cutting cabbages/melons. The cuts were then shown in extreme slow-motion and the amount of cavitation/flex in what seemed to be very stiff blades was extraordinary. Which seemed to suggest that no matter how stiff the blade the impact of a strike will have a massive impact on it - at a speed too fast for the eye to follow. I cannot now recollect which blades they were using. Unfortunately I can't find that footage anywhere - if anyone else can find it please do post it as it's fascinating.

I'm about to post a single-edged pata on a new thread with a well-tempered blade that bends as I describe above and snaps back to straight.

I guess to finish up, I just don't buy that a very flexible blade is more effective in attack.

Happy to be shown the error of my ways....