![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,459
|
![]()
Again, always interesting to see these old threads, and great participants who brought amazing perspectives into the fold. Unfortunately far too many of them no longer frequent here.
The topic on the effectiveness of the katar as an armor piercing weapon it seems had some pretty brisk traffic back in those days ,c.2005. Since most of it is of course hypothetical and speculative, it was always great for spirited debate. If I understand correctly mail was not issued to the rank and file masses, in fact it was an expensive commodity typically worn by the professional or hereditary warriors and higher echelon figures. I know that in certain degree larger numbers of troops might have had mail and familiar weaponry, but these 'standing' forces were largely outnumbered by the conscripted 'cannon fodder'. In India, it does not seem that mail was as present in certain regions and times, but heavy textiles being worn surely offered protection again sword cuts and other weapon threats. I think one of the main issues with mail was its maintenance. As it became rusted or corroded it became brittle and subject to breakage impacted, especially when a point entered the ring and expanded it. While this topic is interesting, it seems that the actual results were circumstantial and the condition of the mail, the strength of the user often highly augmented with the typical adrenalin etc. and such factors would determine the viability of the katar as questioned. If the use of a thickened point on these was not effectively proven, it does not seem likely the feature would have continued in the production of its blades. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() Quote:
Very true. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 428
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,459
|
![]() Quote:
No not really, I meant that large numbers of 'rank and file' forces may have ranged from peasantry with little more than tools or implements, while numbers of others may have had all manner of captured or surplus equipment. While artwork suggests that things were like modern military and soldiers stood in line to receive 'government issue' goods that seems pretty infeasible given the cost and production demands for these kinds of equipment. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 428
|
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Mercenary; 31st October 2018 at 09:28 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 428
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,459
|
![]() Quote:
It was indeed, and there are many reports of complaints by British troopers that their swords would not cut into or penetrate in many cases due to these kinds of matters with heavy textile material worn by other forces. In the Crimea, the Russian great coats, as you know, were also highly impenetrable. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 428
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
What do you mean by “another”, “ other ways” and absence of “special tools”? You seem to speak in riddles.
I am at a loss. And quite intrigued. Last edited by ariel; 1st November 2018 at 08:23 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
All warfare is an unceasing competition between a blade and a shield: I.e. between attack and defense. Any improvement in the offensive capability causes major efforts in the improvement of defensive equipment, and vice versa. And every time each side tries to make an extra leap not only to preserve the balance, but to outperform the opponent. This is the reason why Indian stabbing blades had reinforced point: to guarantee their ability to overcome defensive parameters of any potential protection of not only textile garb, but also of any metal armor, irrespective of the statistical likelihood of its existence on the battlefield. Forewarned is forearmed.
I looked at the collection of katars in Jens’ book: virtually all of them are “Zirah Bouk-ish”, guaranteeing their penetrating potential of the ( unlikely but possible) metal component. Thus, any argument that by the 19 century mail has become “obsolete, rare and limited only to the upper 5% of the opponents” ignores the golden rule of the battlefield: the only good kill is an overkill. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 428
|
![]()
The Thin Red Line instead of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
It is need to consider the statistics of military casualties due to the use of cold weapons. In India such percentage was higher, but no too much. In the classic mass fighting of Indian infantry with cold weapons (talwar+dhal against talwar+dhal) the penetration of armor (which in most cases was absent) by some kind of dagger was excluded. Of course, someone once could pierce someone else using a dagger with a strong tip. But it was most likely cloth armor of infantryman and it was not a traditional warfare. There is no evidence of this in the chronicles yet. Heavily armed horsemen were being knocked off from the horse to the ground and then a throat was being cut. And then - a head. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 428
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|