A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[ariel]

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.

[ariel]

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.

[Mercenary]

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.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

All warfare is an unceasing competition between a blade and a shield: I.e. between attack and defense.

This is true only for battleships or tanks: the competition between armor and guns. But not in relation to the traditional culture. There were talwar and dhal and nothing had changed.

[ariel]

Disagree on both points.
Mutual adaptation of blades and armor ( including shields, helmets, body defense etc) is as old as warfare itself. Take for example the transition of Japanese swords post encounter with the Mongolian army sporting thick leather/ mail armor. Straight swords virtually disappeared, the blades became thicker and stronger and differential hardening became a norm. Also, tanto became a real fighting weapon as a result of widespread hand-to- hand infantry combat.

As to battleships and tanks, the list is bigger by orders of magnitude and this is true from times immemorial till now. How about anti-tank hedgehogs? Land mines? Calthrops? Misericords? Estocs? First-strike nuclear attacks and missile defense? Submarines and sonars? Simple bows were sufficient for unprotected opponents, but the invention of metal armor was rapidly followed by the manufacture of crossbows. Large simple bows of the early infantry were replaced by the small composite ones for the use by cavalry.this was true about military architecture as well: the attacker uses battle towers, rams and ladders? The defender builds a glacis.

As to the Brits vs. Indians, katars preceded Wellington by centuries. Daggers and katars were irreplaceable for hand-to-hand fights. Starting to view military value of mail-piercing daggers from Assaye is a big mistake.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

As to the Brits vs. Indians, katars preceded Wellington by centuries. Daggers and katars were irreplaceable for hand-to-hand fights. Starting to view military value of mail-piercing daggers from Assaye is a big mistake.

I, actually, do not mind this. I will be glad if there will be any witnesses. Our thoughts and ideas are good, but, as you yourself say, they should not be broader than facts.

[Jim McDougall]

If I am following the discussion correctly, the general talking point (no pun intended) was/is whether or not the katar (or other stabbing weapons) needed a reinforced point to effectively penetrate armor.....that is mail.

While the pragmatic digressions are interesting, as are the philosophical perspectives......I would say again, it seems that bolstering the point of an edged weapon would make sense if at any point (there I go again ...the weapon would be used in a thrust vs. armor or heavy clothing.

While the katar in most instances, especially early examples in the south (Vijayanagara etc, Maratha etc.) were used in slashing cuts....their use to the north began such bolstering as mail was often present in combat.


In studies on mail used in New Spain in colonial times from the conquistadors through 19th century, it seems that this defensive armor was in use even after it had become largely obsolete in Europe with the advent of firearms. However, lack of proper armorers to maintain and repair the old coats of mail led to its becoming unserviceable in time with corrosion and breakage.


The biggest problem was its lack of effectiveness again the deadly arrows of the American Indian tribes. The 'point' of the arrow would enter the ring of the link, and expand it and break in, especially with the force of the arrow vs. a compromised (rusty or broken) link. Further and worse, the debris was carried by the arrow into the wound, with obvious result.


These dynamics are what I was referring to earlier regarding how effective a katar would be vs. mail, and how the reinforced point would react in a thrust. However, if the mail was sturdy and sound, relatively new or well maintained, the result would not be favorable for the user of the katar.


In the more probable case, with heavy or padded clothing, a sharp reinforced point would certainly penetrate with effect. With these circumstances in mind, the reinforced point would not necessarily be intended against armor, but vs heavy clothing as well.



The use of mail prevailed in archaic situations into the 20th century (Khevsurs ) and through the 19th (in Egypt with the Khedive's 'iron men') and across the Sahara in Bornu and with many tribal groups. In most cases, it was readily discarded as the dramatically increased wounding from bullets were obvious incentive to do so.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In the more probable case, with heavy or padded clothing, a sharp reinforced point would certainly penetrate with effect. With these circumstances in mind, the reinforced point would not necessarily be intended against armor, but vs heavy clothing as well.

In order to pierce a mail shirt or clothing, the dagger must be keeping in hand. The talwar is in one hand, the dagger is in the other hand. There is only one and very late similar image with a small degree of confidence.

[Jim McDougall]

I think that while philosophical debate is often in degree entertaining as it is largely often speculative in use of analogy and comparative circumstance, in the analysis of weaponry used in earlier times we must realize the boundaries that exist in reality.

Using artwork, or even photography (in the instances described here earlier) as supportive evidence is only effective in degree, and accordingly only provides a degree of plausibility.

For example, the famed painting of the charge of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo by Lady Butler in the 1880s ("Scotland Forever") is only mildly accurate. It shows the troopers charging at speed almost wildly, with Highland infantrymen clinging to the stirrups of the cavalrymen charging into the French.
The truth was that the Scots Greys were not charging in this manner, but were at the trot, moving through sodden, muddy earth and moving through retreating Highlanders on thoroughly blown horses. The Highlanders were not clinging to the stirrups, but trying to get out of the way. The Greys were never ordered to charge, only advance.....and the immortal outcome was from failure to regroup in the confusion and scattering of troopers as many of the officers had been killed. Most fatalities were from the deadly crossfire during the advance, then from French lancers picking off the scattered troopers one at a time.

There are many cases of art having the presumption of accuracy, but artists tend to embellish, especially when the actual work is often done years after the event .

As mentioned, photography, particularly early examples, was often staged and using props and even costumes. As with art, these were intended to elicit a certain theme or perspective. They cannot typically be viewed as completely accurate.....though in cases, plausible.

Obviously, before cameras, and absence of an artist on site.....the call for witnesses is another means for evidence. In dramatic and often traumatic events, people are not sitting there taking notes, they are trying to survive.
As any police investigator will tell you...various witnesses....equal possibility of variation on accounts.

Narratives and accounts are typically written or gathered after an event, often years, sometimes many, later. Memories become clouded, often tainted by other accounts that are shared later. Post recognition is in effect prompted by suggestion.

Obviously, this is a digression as we are discussing hypothetical situations, but since it that very tract, it seemed that this perspective might better define the ineffectuality of art, photos and 'witnesses' overall. Also, in considering these elements, there is no substitute for research, cross reference and corriborstion and as always, common sense in evaluation.

[ariel]

Bladed weapons with reinforced points are seen in multiple cultures.
During their attack Circassians, it was said, "first stabbed and then slashed". Their sabers with bayonet points are well known . Some of these blades ( or perhaps even all of them) were made by Crimean Tatars ( see attached).
Lately, I went berserk for nomadic sabers. I just bought a Mongol-Tatar nomadic one 12-14 century, also attached. As I said, I have a tulwar with Zira-Bouk-ish point ( I am at work and will try to find time to photograph it)

The common denominator for all such blades is the intent of their owners to stab the opponent without a risk to bend the blade.

[Jim McDougall]

These Tatar sabres with their distinctive needle points( by the hilts termed 'ordynka' ) are fascinating, and I always marveled at how these ultra thin points could be used without snapping off. While in pitched or standing combat is one thing, but on horseback even in position the dynamic movements of the horse and the opponent would seem bad for a blade imbedded through mail.

With this type point, that brings me to the fabled 'flyssa' of the Kabyles in Algeria, and with the Ottoman presence there I always wondered if the Circassian elements among Ottoman forces brought such influence to the needle points on many flyssa.

While again digressing geographically it goes to the effect of armor piercing blades.

[Funkmachine7]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The use of mail prevailed in archaic situations into the 20th century (Khevsurs ) and through the 19th (in Egypt with the Khedive's 'iron men') and across the Sahara in Bornu and with many tribal groups. In most cases, it was readily discarded as the dramatically increased wounding from bullets were obvious incentive to do so.

Here is if (i've got the uploading thing to work properly ) on the mail shirts made for Khedive's Zirkhagi, by the Wilkinson Sword Company in a around 1880.
You'll note that is made of split rings, a
The armour did against guns prove to be " proved worse than useless" with the brittle rings shattereing which caused appalling wounds.
(A similar problem to the mail veils on WW1 tankers anti-spall masks.)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Funkmachine7

Here is if (i've got the uploading thing to work properly ) on the mail shirts made for Khedive's Zirkhagi, by the Wilkinson Sword Company in a around 1880.
You'll note that is made of split rings, a
The armour did against guns prove to be " proved worse than useless" with the brittle rings shattereing which caused appalling wounds.
(A similar problem to the mail veils on WW1 tankers anti-spall masks.)

Thank you so much for posting this!! It is rare to see an actual example of the British made mail made for the Khedive's 'iron men'. It seems that Arkell wrote a paper on mail making in the Sudan and they did learn how to produce their own in degree, but as noted, with firearms the wounding potential was enhanced by the mail itself shattering.

It would be interesting to start a new thread on this topic, as well as some of the unusual armor and helmets etc. used in the Sudan and Sahara.

One of the intriguing fascinations of the European forces and travelers who went to these North African regions was the anachronistic appearance of the 'natives' who seem to have existed right out of the crusades into then modern times. Actually it seems that the Mamluks had a great deal to do with the appearance of mail and broadswords in these regions, and while they were overtaken of course by Ottomans their descendants diffused and remained throughout areas in Sudan and elsewhere.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I must say like B.I. did years ago - A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons