Pata sword with European blade

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

This is extremely interesting, it could mean that these European blades came from Egypt, maybe via Alexandria...



I think that one of your first post was correct: a lot of fakes were made from the relics of the British colonial empire: Sudan & India... Then of course, Indians imported European trade blades.

Well observed Kubur, actually the Arabic term 'masri' means loosely 'Egyptian' as found with many instances of the Mamluk swords in the outstanding reference by Yucel .
What was meant by post Omdurman refers to the British and French condominium occupying Egypt and Sudan after 1898. Certainly these Saharan and Sudanese swords which had moved into those regions could well have transmitted to India just as they arrived in England. Oakeshott in his "Records of the Medieval Sword" describes how many instances of contrived 'medieval' swords actually were mounted with blades from these cannibalized swords of Africa that had been brought back by the thousands.

[fernando]

Hi Marius,
I will not contest your knowledge of how patas were used in combat, in such way that they had to have extremily flexible blades, otherwise becoming impractical. I do not possess or have read any literature on that specific field, other than a written work mentioning that they required an intense school training.
But i make a point in questioning that the majority of pata blades were manufactured locally, as what i heard is the contrary.
In HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES by Rainer Daehnhardt he pretends that the majority pata blades were European, deliberately imported for such purpose, being brought by Portuguese and Venetian traders ... notwithstanding that the earlier examples of pata the author knows are from the end XV century and, in such cases, blades may have been repurposed from captured swords. Interesting to notice that, from the nine examples from the author's collection that illustrate the quoted book, only two are of Indian manufacture.
Of course this is worth what is worth.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

First, it's good to laugh, a lot of people take it too seriously. I don't.
In fact, I don't care if it's a flower or a cross. I just wrote and drawn that the motive is different from the one that you described. Apparently you didn't notice my comments and drawings (1 point each).
It's about what you see. And i don't agree about your African connexions. But I like your idea of the British colonial links between Sudan and India. In general, Jim, you stay my main source of inspiration on this forum!
Indian or European blade, I'll take it, but I need evidences...

Thank you Kubur, clearly I did misunderstand, and absolutely right, it is good to maintain a good perspective through humor and patience as these complicated matters are difficult enough to sort through.
Having noted that, thank you for the compliment as well, though quite honestly I am no guru and my 'knowledge' is simply the cumulation of the hours I spend sorting through notes and references before I write.

You are exactly right to expect evidence, the mark of a sound researcher. Also, it is important to often alter opinions and views on subjects as that becomes available, that is if what is presented is viable or compelling, if not positively resounding.
That is the reason for our forums, to discuss and share information and work together in finding resolutions. As Marius has well noted, the absolute answers may not be found....YET....but we never stop trying!

As seen with the excellent entries by Jens with views of this important four petal flower, now that is compelling!!!
There are most certainly NO flowers like that growing in the Sahara!
Therefore, it would seem likely such a design would have diffused FROM Indian to the African sphere, which as earlier noted, is profoundly recognized with weapon forms as well as instances of blades etc.

As Jens also notes, he is yet unconvinced of this blade being European, and I also must note that my theory on that is surely not yet firm. The only thing on the blade which leads me toward European origin is the notable outlining of the sides of the blade, which if I recall was occasioned on certain blades of Spanish and Italian origin. This would be in line with the notes on 'firangi' (Elgood, 2004, p.245), which notes the volume of blades in India on katars in Tanjore (usually cut down of course) bearing the names from Italy, Portugal, German and England. Obviously Spanish would also be present but blades were often of the markets for other countries.

There are numbers of other references concerning the use of 'foreign' blades in India, even before the opening of Portuguese sea routes in the early 16th century (narratives dating pre 1507) (Elgood, 2004, p39).

On p.12, Elgood notes the volume of foreign goods sought and the enthusiastic adoption of European steel blades by Hindus, then mounted in local hilts. In fact, it is noted that in these early times arms were included in the volumes of goods from Venice to India. The numbers of 16th and 17th century blades present in a wide scope of decorated hilts varying in style suggest according to Elgood, that they had clearly been in use in India for some time and cannot be from a single shipment or victory.
Here, I would suggest that the option of surplus or worn blades from Europe might well have been exported, much as with the post crusades swords out of Malta into North Africa.

Which brings me to the flower/cross dilemma.
Actually when I first saw these floral designs on takouba hilts, I actually first saw the Maltese cross!!!! That was years ago, and I recall thinking that perhaps these were a native allusion to the cross pattee known to have been used by the crusaders. One of the longest lived notions of European writers was that the swords of the natives WERE the swords of the crusaders!
Actually the earliest volume of broadswords coming into Africa via the ports and entrepots of the littoral from Tunisia to Algeria was from Malta, which was an interim port carrying surplus goods from Europe and trade ports in those networks.

Later I saw the figure as a four petal flower, and regarded this symbol as another means of conveying the key device in Saharan, and much of these native folk traditions and religions as representing the four cardinal directions in an ecumenical sense.

Admittedly, at that point the possibility of connection to India had not yet been considered.
So Kubur, thank you for the drawings and perspective, and as always, Jens for your ever keen insights into the mysteries of Indian arms.

I wanted to write on some of the other aspects, but this treatise has turned into another Indian epic already!!! So many talking points and had to write to get them together, so thank you for those of you with the endurance to read this.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Marius,

But i make a point in questioning that the majority of pata blades were manufactured locally, as what i heard is the contrary.
In HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES by Rainer Daehnhardt he pretends that the majority pata blades were European, deliberately imported for such purpose, being brought by Portuguese and Venetian traders ... notwithstanding that the earlier examples of pata the author knows are from the end XV century and, in such cases, blades may have been repurposed from captured swords. Interesting to notice that, from the nine examples from the author's collection that illustrate the quoted book, only two are of Indian manufacture.
Of course this is worth what is worth.

Well Fernando and Jim it is precisely this common established knowledge, that I am challenging based on logic and common practical sense.

It is precisely this common knowledge that very often can be fundamentally flawed as it was based on flawed original information.

Now what if Rainer Daehnhardt is wrong about this information (I don't say that he is)?! You get one piece of information like this from here, one from there and have a well founded and accepted opinion that may be considered by some as irrefutable truth... yet, be fundamentally wrong.

I do not challenge that many Tulwars or Pulwars have European blades, as they were common blades that could be used with diferent mounts, and thus it would be normal to be widely traded as a much demanded commodity. Moreover, at the time this trade occurred, much of Indian local production was shut down by the deliberate colonial policy.

However, with the Pata is something particular: it requires a particular type of blade, and a blade that isn't useful in any other mount and fighting style. So I find highly improbable the Indians invented the Pata and the fighting style associated to it while having to rely on imports from Europe of precisely that type of blades, made to order...
... all while they had at hand, capable bladesmiths and know-how to produce those blades themselves.

And I believe that here is a mistake in over generalizing. If many European blades were imported in India and mounted in local mounts, does this automatically imply that this is true for the Patas as well?! Based on what since Elgood seems to refer to blades in general?! And there is a long way between a generic sabre blade and Pata.

Dubito, ergo cogito.

[mariusgmioc]

Pata sword with European blade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7niTpIW7dEk

Pata sword with Indian blade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QHTBq2DzSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTwVfHkLtK0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkakKuGuI3s

With the Pata with stiff European blade the parry of a full blow will result in a dislodged elbow or shoulder or, in best case scenario with the wielder seriously out of balance and vulnerable.

With a Pata with flexible Indian blade the parry of a full blow would have almost no impact on the wielder as the blade will elastically bend and absorb the shock, allowing the wielder to continue his movement and deliver a second and third blow, while continuously moving so not to be vulnerable to a quick approach attack.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ok Marius, I agree with you when you say 'local' - if it can be meant in a broader sence in India.
I do also believe that there must have been a number of firangi pata blades, although I do not have any idea how widely they were spread.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Well Fernando and Jim it is precisely this common established knowledge, that I am challenging based on logic and common practical sense.

It is precisely this common knowledge that very often can be fundamentally flawed as it was based on flawed original information.

Now what if Rainer Daehnhardt is wrong about this information (I don't say that he is)?! You get one piece of information like this from here, one from there and have a well founded and accepted opinion that may be considered by some as irrefutable truth... yet, be fundamentally wrong.

I do not challenge that many Tulwars or Pulwars have European blades, as they were common blades that could be used with diferent mounts, and thus it would be normal to be widely traded as a much demanded commodity. Moreover, at the time this trade occurred, much of Indian local production was shut down by the deliberate colonial policy.

However, with the Pata is something particular: it requires a particular type of blade, and a blade that isn't useful in any other mount and fighting style. So I find highly improbable the Indians invented the Pata and the fighting style associated to it while having to rely on imports from Europe of precisely that type of blades, made to order...
... all while they had at hand, capable bladesmiths and know-how to produce those blades themselves.

And I believe that here is a mistake in over generalizing. If many European blades were imported in India and mounted in local mounts, does this automatically imply that this is true for the Patas as well?! Based on what since Elgood seems to refer to blades in general?! And there is a long way between a generic sabre blade and Pata.

Dubito, ergo cogito.

I would note here that this is a great discussion, and fantastic to have this traffic and interest in Indian arms. Typically through the years, it seems many collectors and historians have avoided this field probably due to the exact complexities we are tenaciously challenging.

I will also note that Dr. Robert Elgood is probably one of the most thorough and aggressive researchers in his chosen subjects that I have known (besides Jens of course!). I do not know Mr. Daehnhardt as Fernando does, but over many years, his observations and opinions have always proven sound. I note this as we have all been connected variably in these studies on these arms for well over 15+ years, and of course Robert Elgood's book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" has served as a landmark study since its release in 2004.

In trying address these points, first I would say that while both the pata and khanda had distinct southern origins, they typically would not necessarily have been appointed with the same type 'firangi' blades. The khanda, which was a purely Indian sword which developed the 'Hindu basket hilt' with the progression of European swords into India at the beginning of the 16th century, evolved characteristically by the 17thc into a backsword.
These moved northward into the Rajput sphere with their victory at Adoni in 1689, when huge volumes of arms etc were taken to Bikaner in Rajasthan.
Here the Hindu basket hilt became a well known Rajput weapon along with their familiar tulwars.

The pata was a quite different sword, though its areas of use were throughout the south. These evolved from the katars of Vijayanagara and Tanjore in around 16th century (with earlier cases still somewhat unresolved but pending, though recorded) which were essentially long bladed daggers using volumes of cut down European blades (Elgood p.145). These early katars were hooded and also used Indian made blades, but were notably slashing weapons.
These transverse grip slashing daggers by the early 17th c. evolved into what Deraniyagala termed 'equestrian swords' but were these 'gauntlet' swords using full length sword blades. This was the 'pata' and despite the bizarre notion these were used as a lance, this was not possible for rational reasons.
Therefore, the transverse grip dictated mostly the same slashing use as the katar, its dagger length predecessor.

As such, these pata required broadsword blades as the alternating slashing cuts would be more suitably effected with double edges.

The pata however, was not as widely diffused in number as the khanda (firangi basket hilt) and while remaining primarily in the Deccan and Southern regions, moved northward in degree via Mughal courts.

I think one of the most salient points regarding estimating the use of these weapons is to remember that parrying, and European style swordsmanship was not in Indian form. Parrying was the work of the shield, not the sword.
This is not to say it could never happen (to disclaim the inevitable exceptions), but that in general, it was not in place.
It is interesting to note that the ancestor or counterpart of the pata, the katar, did move northward with use by Mughals, Rajputs and others but gained the notable feature of reinforced blade tips for armor piercing.
These continued as well to be mounted with European blades cut down just as in the earliest beginnings, however it is doubtful that these blades could have succeeded in that capacity, while the Indian made ones would.

Returning to the pata, it seems Elgood notes in the article on the Deccan linked by Fernando, that the preponderance of pata blades were indeed European, and in fact only a few were known to have had Indian blades.

I think it is important to agree that these kinds of observations must be relegated to their context and the period in which they are discussed. There were clearly large numbers of European blades arriving in India 16th and 17th century, probably well into 18th. The British campaigns in the latter 18th certainly impacted trade and normal commerce, and the resumption of blade traffic probably resumed in degree in various areas in the 19th.
The British intervention was in wootz production and that was in the 19th century.

In the south, the preference of Mahrattas and other regional instances were straight blades. The larger volume of sabre blades was situated more in the entrepots on the west and north. As mentioned in the 17th century long firangi blades were a status symbol as at the time Indian swords were brittle, so the flexible blades brought by the English (probably German) went for high prices. Most of these issues with Indian blades had I think mostly to do with ill forged wootz, and it is noted that Jahangir as well as followed by Shah Jahan favored 'Almaine' (German) swords. These would have been probably sabre blades of course in Mughal tulwars.

BTW, on the worn motif on Kuburs blade (OP), the cartouches are likely worn away from the constant burnishing of the blade, apparently a key affectation of Indian blades to be of high polish. The upper one is still discernible nearest and under the langet.


Cogito ergo sum

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Jim and thank you for your very interesting comment!

I guess that in the end, we will end up with an open-ended conclusion as it would be probably impossible to establish certainly how many Pata swords had European and how many had Indian blades.

What is certain is they had both types of blades, and they evolved over time. It is quite possible that the earlier Patas had more rigid imported blades but then they evolved and so did the fighting style towards more flexible ones. If you are looking at the modern day Patas, they have a blade that is so flexible that it has become completely ineffective for a real battle, as it cannot deliver neither a thrusting nor a slashing blow strong enough to incapacitate an opponent.

However, I don't think that is really that important to reach a clear cut conclusion, as such a conclusion will carry little if any practical value.

I think the process by which we are trying to reach a conclusion is much more important than the conclusion itself, as this process helps us learn and understand more about this subject.

PS: Now, while I still think that Jens' blade and mine are Indian, I believe that Kubur's blade is European, but has been decorated with some North Indian symbols.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Jim and thank you for your very interesting comment!

I guess that in the end, we will end up with an open-ended conclusion as it would be probably impossible to establish certainly how many Pata swords had European and how many had Indian blades.

What is certain is they had both types of blades, and they evolved over time. It is quite possible that the earlier Patas had more rigid imported blades but then they evolved and so did the fighting style towards more flexible ones. If you are looking at the modern day Patas, they have a blade that is so flexible that it has become completely ineffective for a real battle, as it cannot deliver neither a thrusting nor a slashing blow strong enough to incapacitate an opponent.

However, I don't think that is really that important to reach a clear cut conclusion, as such a conclusion will carry little if any practical value.

I think the process by which we are trying to reach a conclusion is much more important than the conclusion itself, as this process helps us learn and understand more about this subject.

PS: Now, while I still think that Jens' blade and mine are Indian, I believe that Kubur's blade is European, but has been decorated with some North Indian symbols.

Well noted Marius, and thank you.
It seems I recall a very sage comment once read, which said something to the effect, 'the thing I love most about history...is how it's always changing!!!'.
Naturally we cannot paint these kinds of topics with too broad a brush, as there are so many variables and distortions in narratives, records and other forms of evidence.

In Oman, the straight blade sword commonly known as the 'kattara' which has an open cylindrical hilt, developed in that form in the early 19th century, possibly earlier, has become a sword used ceremonially in exhibitions of martial prowess and celebration known as the Funun.
While these spectacular events show amazing skill and dexterity, it is important to note that blades which are deliberately thin and adapted to showcase the movements are used.
These particular versions of these swords mounted with unusually flexible blades for this purpose have in recent years become interpolated with other versions of the same style hilts, which were in earlier times mounted with genuine European blades and worn as status symbols by merchants and figures of key standing.

I know that in Kerala and in Southern India there are martial performances using certain traditional Indian weapons in similar circumstance, and often I have wondered just how connected these kinds of displays are to each other. Even Burton (1885) noted such performances using various weapons in Arab context and others, but as a fencing master of the sword, groused over such performances.

It does seem that one sword used in India in such performances of swordsmanship skill is the pata, and they are used in pairs, creating a spectacular windmill type effect.

I am not saying this is the case with any of the swords we are discussing, but offering the possibility of some explanation for extremely flexible blades which were probably more for effect than combat.

[fernando]

Obviously the blades of those patas Marcus linked to youtube are meant for show business; you would not call them flexible but undulating … or floppy … or whips, a great challenge for cutting apples and lemons, good for tribal rituals but unreal for battle. Certainly the sense of flexible as opposing to stiff was something that period warriors were certainly used to deal with. When we hear that the use of patas required intense training, we may assume that one of the purposes was to prevent users from muscular stress. In paging Elgood’s HINDU ARMS AND RITUAL we see a pata in page 97, quoted as (quote) arguably the earliest example known, in which the (Indian) blade has a pronounced central rib reaching to the point and obviously intended to stiffen the blade.
Certainly patas were not invented to deliberately use import blades but these surely played a substantial role. Obviously Rainer Daehnhardt opinion is worth what is worth (as i cared to mention) but evidence is strong enough to assume that European blades having been largely mounted in patas is not only an association of ideas built from such blades abounding in katars, pulwars and talwars.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I know that in Kerala and in Southern India there are martial performances using certain traditional Indian weapons in similar circumstance, and often I have wondered just how connected these kinds of displays are to each other. Even Burton (1885) noted such performances using various weapons in Arab context and others, but as a fencing master of the sword, groused over such performances.

It does seem that one sword used in India in such performances of swordsmanship skill is the pata, and they are used in pairs, creating a spectacular windmill type effect.

Exactly! One of the links provided in a previous mail is to a video of such a performance. However the Patas used there are so flexible that they are completely useless in a real combat.

[Jim McDougall]

Exactly, and as I noted, the Omani performances called Funun, are actually based on many such tribal rituals before battle, where warriors brandished their swords and built up adrenalin and energy to build up their stamina for combat. This is not confined just to Arabs, Omanis, Baluch and others but seems almost a standard activity in warfare as such preparations are made to face the enemy.

Obviously, as swords became secondary weapons, it is well known that their traditions have remained firmly in place, and there are many 'sword dances' and performances which transcend cultures.

In the Omani Funun, one of the key elements of the performance, is the brandishing and quivering of the blade to produce a resounding whir with many simultaneous blades, and the flash of shining metal.

It is not surprising that such activities with swords, derived from training and practice exercises evolved into startling performances.

In the Elgood reference, it is noted that this katar has a stiffened central rib which clearly would suggest thrust or stab. This of course is keenly the case with this example proposing it as the earliest known example (c 1570).
While this use of the katar may have existed in this time (the deeper origins of the katar form itself may date centuries earlier) it does seem by the time it evolved into even longer versions (up to the pata) it became more a slashing weapon. I believe I earlier mentioned that large numbers of European blades were coming into India by 17th and many were cut down for katars.
The extremely limiting condition of the transversely held grip of the katar and enclosed pata did not lend well to combative action in established swordsmanship techniques, but in the sweeping slashing motions could be quite deadly.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Jim, do not forget to mention that a lot, if not all, of the troops were drugged before figthing.
Few mention it, but some does, and it was no different than with the Vikings and a lot of other fighting nations - but it is not so well know.

[Jerseyman]

Hi Marius - I'd like to comment briefly on the tangential discussion regarding stiff versus flexible blades. I think I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Whether the blade is stiff or flexible you will still cut with the edge. If the blow is blocked then the contact presumably will be made with the edge. I'm not an engineer so don't have the terminology to describe this well I'm afraid, but the energy of the impact will be transmitted edge-to-edge through the blade - not flat to flat.

No matter how flexible a blade is, it is completely rigid in the edge-to-edge plane. So logically there should be little difference in the energy of the impact and its transmission into the attacker's arm, other than that caused by the blade being lighter.

Indeed, if the flexible blade had the effect you describe it would actually minimise the percussive power of the blow reducing its effect as a weapon.

If you were describing an angled deflection strike rather than a completely perpendicular one I could see some of what you're describing - but then you'd be minimising the effectiveness of the blow it seems to me as the blade would want to flex away from the target greatly reducing the power of the impact. Would that logically be a choice one would make?

Bear in mind also that the fixed grip on the forearm would dictate a different positional use of the body in creating the strikes - so the impact of a blocked blow would be absorbed in the body slightly differently, and I would suggest, more efficiently - less likely to create the potential damage you describe.

Having worked with flexible blades a couple of times I can tell you that the energetic rebound through the weapon is as strong as a stiff blade but transmits with what I can only describe as an odd 'wobble' effect which can momentarily adjust your balance more strongly than the impact of a stiff blade. Primarily because of the randomness of the effect, so it can't be completely planned for.

Another thought regarding flexibility - in my experience, very often the longer the blade the more flexible it appears (or perhaps is) as its own weight causes it to bend. Outside my field of knowledge, but perhaps there's a correlation between flexibility-length-poorer quality steel? Which might be pertinent to the local v. imported blade debate perhaps?

In all of this I am of course talking about period weaponry, not the modern items produced for demonstration/performance.

Hi Jim - maybe one might draw parallels in the sweeping slashing actions to the Germanic doppelhander fighting styles?

Happy to have any of my assertions proved wrong or point out if I've misunderstood anything - just my tuppence...

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jens,
Very well noted on the 'priming' of warriors before battle, and this seems always to have been the case where sometimes simply adrenalin is not enough, at least at the outset.

Jerseyman, thank you so much for your most interesting and well explained dynamics concerning these blades. It certainly adds perspective to the kind of circumstances which might have brought certain types of blades into favor over others, and the ultimate outcome in their use.

Indeed, the tandem use of two swords, daggers etc. does bring to mind the early fight studies of medieval Europe. It is always interesting to consider the aspects of cross cultural influences as the post exploration period led to colonization of so many continents.

In India, we know that the development of the Hindu basket hilt from the incorporation of the concept of developed hilts of Europe with the already established khanda certainly reflected a physical change in the weapon.
However it does not seem that the styles of swordsmanship changed to adopt European forms.
The longer 'firangi' blades became more of a status symbol and though these carried rapier blades, it does not seem sword to sword fencing became known to the Indians.

[ariel]

AFAIK, Pata was a predominantly Mahratta weapon ( even Shivaji was portrayed carrying one).

Mahratta cavalry was irregular, and poorly disciplined. Their tactics was a rapid attack, one or two uncoordinated slashes and speedy withdrawal. For that , Pata was a very appropriate weapon: far-reaching, with wide area of potential damage, powerful strokes ( driven by the entire arm rather than just elbow or wrist) and a built-in arm protection. No fancy fencing here :-)))
The elasticity of the Pata blade was a very Southern feature, reaching its apogee in Urumi, also not designed for any precise cuts, but for rapid and unpredictable slashing.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jerseyman

Hi Marius - I'd like to comment briefly on the tangential discussion regarding stiff versus flexible blades. I think I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Whether the blade is stiff or flexible you will still cut with the edge. If the blow is blocked then the contact presumably will be made with the edge. I'm not an engineer so don't have the terminology to describe this well I'm afraid, but the energy of the impact will be transmitted edge-to-edge through the blade - not flat to flat.

No matter how flexible a blade is, it is completely rigid in the edge-to-edge plane. So logically there should be little difference in the energy of the impact and its transmission into the attacker's arm, other than that caused by the blade being lighter.

Indeed, if the flexible blade had the effect you describe it would actually minimise the percussive power of the blow reducing its effect as a weapon.

If you were describing an angled deflection strike rather than a completely perpendicular one I could see some of what you're describing - but then you'd be minimising the effectiveness of the blow it seems to me as the blade would want to flex away from the target greatly reducing the power of the impact. Would that logically be a choice one would make?

Thank you very much for your observation!

You are right that for a perfectly straight blow the impact forces will be transmitted through the width of the blade, but how many blows are PERFECTLY perpendicular to the target surface in a real battle?! Even the slightest minute inclination would generate a transverse force that will tend to bend the blade. And even for a perfectly straight blow, at the moment of the impact the wielding arm will continue movement and necessarily have to change the angle, and then the blade will bend allowing the arm to continue the movement.

Regarding the relationship between elasticity and length, there is none. Elasticity is an intrinsic property of the material and is independent of the size or shape of the object. However, deformation is dependent on size an shape. So a coin will not bend even if you apply a huge force, but a long stripe made of exactly the same material will bend easily with the lightest force.

[kronckew]

more opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7niTpIW7dEk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1uo8Y1Mz2c

he discusses flexible blades used in the dancing demos and fruit cuttings. reminds me of shinese dao, the fighting ones have stiff thick blades and the ones used in wushu 'dancing' have very flexible ones, especially near the tips, because they make a cool sound as they wobble & thus enhance the dance.

i have examples of both & yes, if sharpened the wushu one will cut, but i'd rather have the thicker dao if i were in serious need.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...In the Elgood reference, it is noted that this katar has a stiffened central rib which clearly would suggest thrust or stab. This of course is keenly the case with this example proposing it as the earliest known example (c 1570).
While this use of the katar may have existed in this time (the deeper origins of the katar form itself may date centuries earlier) ...

The example in fig. 8.58 would be a Pata Jim, not a Katar (Met Museum, 36.25.1534); reason why i thought this was worthy of note.
I wonder on what basis did Elgood quote this example as 'arguably' been the earliest pata known but, for the case, if fits well in Rainer Daehnhardt's assumption (presumption ?) that the earliest known example is in his collection, and should date from the first quarter XVI century; a battle specimen naked of all luxury, with a gauntlet of turned/carved wood, reinforced with iron straps ... again with an European blade, probably from a navigator's sword, from the transiction XV-XVI centuries.


.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

AFAIK, Pata was a predominantly Mahratta weapon ( even Shivaji was portrayed carrying one)...

Well noted 'predominantely', if i may; Sikhs and Rajputs also gave it a little hand. And, confirming that the exception makes the rule, there is a XVIII century beautiful Pata at the Met, doubtlessly made for a Muslim, inscribed with Qur'anic verse and a reference to Dhu'l faqar ... and with an XVI century European blade, for a change.

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratta cavalry was irregular, and poorly disciplined. Their tactics was a rapid attack, one or two uncoordinated slashes and speedy withdrawal.

Interesting approach ! A different version may also be concluded from written stuff and historical evidence.
Shivaji is said to have built a disciplined military force. He innovated military tactics, pioneering the guerrilla warfare methods, which leveraged strategic factors like geography, speed, and surprise and focused pinpoint attacks to defeat his larger and more powerful enemies.
If not, history tells us that, at the beginning of the XVIII century, the Marathas led by Chimaji Appa fought several battles against the Portuguese, by then a weakened adversary, managing to drive them out of Western India.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

The example in fig. 8.58 would be a Pata Jim, not a Katar (Met Museum, 36.25.1534); reason why i thought this was worthy of note.
I wonder on what basis did Elgood quote this example as 'arguably' been the earliest pata known but, for the case, if fits well in Rainer Daehnhardt's assumption (presumption ?) that the earliest known example is in his collection, and should date from the first quarter XVI century; a battle specimen naked of all luxury, with a gauntlet of turned/carved wood, reinforced with iron straps ... again with an European blade, probably from a navigator's sword, from the transiction XV-XVI centuries.


.

Thank you Fernando for adding this! With Mr. Daehnhardt's knowledge and acumen with arms esoterica, it is fascinating to know of this example. At the early date of this blade it does seem to compellingly be presumed a Portuguese blade. While some degree of European blades apparently were coming into India in this early period, the notable volume was more into the beginning of the 17th.
It does seem that the pata itself was primarily a 17th century innovation, and you are right, the image in Elgood 8.58 only shows the hilt and no mention is made of the blade length.
Obviously the hooded katars were already in place by the c. 1570 date placed on this example, and thus it may be a katar, but curious why the 'pata' term was noted.

I know that Jens' extensive research on the katar has projected start dates centuries earlier based on iconographic and other sources still being reviewed. These seem to center on Orissa, and I am wondering when and where the sword length (pata) began (17th century noted).
It is always confusing when we are trying to establish what is a long dagger vs. a short sword.
We know that early katars were using what is noted (Elgood p.245) as volumes of 'cut down' European blades in Vijayanagara and Tanjore in the 17th century, having begun with latter 16th blades.

It would seem as noted by Ariel, the Marathas (Mahratta apparently the archaic spelling used in most western narratives) in fact were likely the innovators of using the entire gauntlet weapon on full length blades . They were as I understand key in trade and maritime activity, thus the European blades were as noted, plentiful by the 17th well through18th .
The pata clearly transmitted into use by Rajputs, as well established, but to lesser degree with Mughals and Sikhs.

With the renowned use of the pata by the Marathas and of course their leader Shivaji, the use as a cavalry weapon is we established. The descriptions of them as a military force of course will vary. It seems that such views were filtered through English narratives often from Rajput perspective, thus probably somewhat biased. In any case, they were it seems a quite formidable force and as noted by Fernando, quite successful in their campaigns.

Clearly the 'gauntlet' emplacement onto a blade must have simply been an innovation of the amalgamation of the vambrace (bazu band) on the forearm with a blade in combined function. In past research on the evolution of a transverse grip weapon, there have been considerations on the concept of that manner in holding the buckler or shield where the boss incorporated a spike or blade, effectively becoming a stabbing arm with opportunity .

Attached are the images of Shivaji and page from Stone (1934).

[ariel]

Actually, it is well recorded that Shivaji was of a very short stature.
His depiction as a giant on a giant horse, surrounded by dwarfish companions, might serve as an illustration of a "napoleonic complex" for a psychology class:-)))

[ariel]

Originally Posted by fernando

Interesting approach ! A different version may also be concluded from written stuff and historical evidence.
Shivaji .... innovated military tactics, pioneering the guerrilla warfare methods, which leveraged strategic factors like geography, speed, and surprise and focused pinpoint attacks to defeat his larger and more powerful enemies.


.

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

[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?