A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[Aqtai]

Those 4 photos are all of 1 sword . It is the only one of of that type on display at the Royal Armouries.

It seems to be designed for cutting and thrusting like a European zwei-hander.

[B.I]

i cant offer any more real information on these two handed swords, of which aqtais is a great example. most of the ones known, were of a later date, and relatively crude. most had a khanda style blade, and were of no real importance. this example is about as good as they ever got. as the armouries description says, its form is remeniscent of an early indian rapier (single handed). a small collection of these rapiers appeard some years ago, the best of which is shown in the paris 1988 exhibition. another of similar style, and great quality is in elgoods new book and is from the met. robert denotes a few pages on these, with an early 17thC image of them being fenced with.
the overall style of pommel and guard in the two-handed armouries piece is a direct influence from these earlier pieces. i would agree with their date of late 18thC, due to the similarity of the reinforced langets with the same found on firangis. the rapiers date from the late 16thC and so its strange (or not, given its india) to see such a similar style 200 years later.

the armouries piece came from the a.d.white collection, which was sold in almost complete state through a london saleroom in the early 80's. i say almost, as the best was hand picked out first ad went into a private collection before the sale. the collection was of immense importance, and has now spread into some of the most important collections, both national and private in existence today.
aqtai, if you go through khalilis collection, you will see pieces attributed to the same collection.

the armouries have a few pieces from this sale, as stated in the decription cards you show in the images.

[Tim Simmons]

I would have to agree with Aqtai that these heavy bladed knives and katars may have originated as mail piercing weapons but became just other versions of bladed weapon that to us are of unusual form. Something I proposed on page one. This water colour of an unidentified, unarmoured, middleaged nobleman painted circa 1750? illustrates quite well. Tim

[B.I]

i think the problem is that the study of indian arms is difficult, and cannot be put into the same dating structure as european arms.
you may well be right about the katar, but the problem is we will never really know. i think this is why these posts veer off in a tangent, as there is only so much you can speculate without running out of actual information.
the miniature you show is moghul, and 18thC. the painting shows court wear, and not armour. unfortunately, moghul is not the whole of india, and their style of dress and tactics of war differ from other regions of india of the same period. also the katar was so widely used in india, buy different races, over different centuries and for both full battle and court/social scenes.
we can only look at what survives, in written accounts, actual pieces and iconography. the written accounts (european) rarely ventured past the trading ports, or into the battlefield. when they did (Tavernier, for example) it was normally with the mughals. the 'local' accounts rarely described past terminology. of miniatures, we only really have the moghul and rajput style, both of which were very similar, despite the difference in religion. the deccani sultanates showed their own style of miniature, which, until very recently was ignored. there is very little drawn accounts of india, past the moghul and deccani dynasties. there is a 'culture' of maharatha frescos, but these are way too crude to offer any real information. there is early sculpture, and this is really all we have to try and fill in the gaps, especially in hindu southern india.
the katar existed in its fully developed form in the 16thC, both in moghul miniatures and southern hindu sculpture. none of this shows the point as being armour piercing, but this isnt conclusive as the katar was always a secondary weapon in art and the nature of indian miniatures is to draw flat on, and not in perspective. so we know the katar existed in the 16thC. the early 17thC offers pieces that have survived, and some of the these were thickened at the tip to reinforce the blade. whether the earlier examples were can only be speculative.
the southern examples shown in 16thC sculpture in the tamil nadu region were not thickened but reinforced with thickened ribs along the length of the blade, as actual examples do exist of the same style.
indian armour itself seems to lead many people astray. the post on the other forum just went in circles, as it was dominated by renegade academics and european armour enthusiasts, all of which, by their own admission, had no experience with indian pieces. this means that they can only see with european eyes and so their assumptions hold no merit at all. this mode of thinking says that early armour was plate and riveted mail, which developed into lighter fabric and butted mail. the difference in armour is not stated, and when chainmail is mentioned, the style, type and date is forgotten. this is where they fell flat, in roping all chainmail in one category.
there were heavy mail and plate shirts in the 16thC, by i think these were influenced directly by the ottoman armour of the same style. the influence existed in culture, so why not arms.
i dont think the moghuls ever wore heavy armour, even in the 16thC. if they did, it is not shown in the miniatures which have survived in abundance. the moghul style of armour was heavily padded, with possibly a scale or mail undershirt. the char aina was not really introduced until the 18thC, although the late 16th and into the 17th depictions show rounded plates sewn onto fabric armour, which was probably where they were influenced from.
so, both padded fabric and mail and late existed at the same time. also, full riveted chainmail shorts existed, which could possibly have been worn under the fabric armour, hence the absence of 'metal' torso armour in mughal miniatures.
one thing that has been ignored it the structure of the armour used, and that of the weapons in question (ie the katar).
Islamic armour was well constructed, but the actual metal was not of a great hardened quality. wootz, by its very nature is of much harder quality. if you think that most katars are made of wootz, and virtually all early mail/plate was weaker steel, than the picture becomes slightly different. there are tests being done, but a diagnosis has been done on various styles of ottoman armour which i believe were a direct influence on the slightly later deccani shirts. if you transfer these results to the indian shirts, then the european view goes completely out of the window.
whether the katar was first made to pierce armour is something that can only ever be speculated. it appeared in its fully developed form, and if an earlier transitional form showed itself, then the question can be taken further.
the question of whether it can actually pierce chainmail is pointless. the answer is of course it can. the question itself leads to extremes, and if you take an exceptionally thickened and sturdy katar, made from high quality wootz and tried to pierce an inferior quality mail shirt, made of un-hardened steel then the answer is clear. any other variations can only be speculative, without destructive tests, which themselves will never be conclusive and will always lend themselves to doubt.
Tim, i agree that the katar could have been constructed for ultimate penetrative use, but it is only an opinion, and i am always willing to listen to others. the last decade or so has unearthed information, theories and conclusions that have been overlooked for many years before. so, its by bringing up the same questions over and over again, that we may one day yield something new. the best thing about this forum is that we can do this, without academic bullies and bruised egos.
incidentally, mail production was still being done in the Sudan in the late 19thC. it is recorded that one armourer and 6 assistants took 12 days to make one shirt. the pitt rivers have examples taken from the sudanese wars and they were crude examples of armour.
also, the are 18thC accounts of the cuirass being the only able to repel the thrust of these daggers. by the cuirass, we can assume it was the char aina, which were mostly made of wootz, hence the hardened ability to withstand the daggers.

[Tim Simmons]

Hello B.I
This picture from the India Office Library And Records, which I have post on this site before might be of interest to you. Armed knights in the service of the Raja of Samthar in Central India possibly 1870s? It is rather posed note the chakram round one chaps ankle, the armour looks real enough which seems a trade off between protection and mobility. To me it looks like it has a main function against slashing weapons but sure it would also deflect some stabbing thrusts. When I was a little boy my mother would take me to the museum at Sandhurst, you could just walk in those days, wonderful Indian collection which I believe is now in the Army museum Chelsea. Tim

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by B.I

...incidentally, mail production was still being done in the Sudan in the late 19thC. it is recorded that one armourer and 6 assistants took 12 days to make one shirt. the pitt rivers have examples taken from the sudanese wars and they were crude examples of armour...

Whoa! That sounds pretty fast. Are we talking rivetted or butted mail here? I have seen sudanese mail, and don't know what the quality was like metalurgically, but a lot of it doesn't look particularly crude.

This is an old photo of a 19th century Sudanese mail shirt, taken when the Royal Armouries were still in the Tower of London.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Aqtai,

For Indian two hand swords, see Elgood’s ‘Hindu Arms and Ritual’ pages 94 and 95, read also the text on page 211. On page 97 you can see two tappash, or sword hilted spears. In the Glossary on page 264 Elgood writes, “Tappash. The author of the ‘Nujum al-Ulum’ (1570) describes it as having a covered grip and a spear (barchi) and says that in common language it is a pata and that it is a weapon ‘suited to the man whose hand is defective or injured’. There are examples of this rare weapon in Bikaner.”

What he means by writing ‘suited to the man whose hand is defective or injured’, I don’t know, by maybe he means someone who can’t swing a sword, but who can still stab.

[Tim Simmons]

I just thought this picture of a late 19th century sikh priest rather interesting, note the katar and other weapons in his belt. Tim

[Jens Nordlunde]

I dont know how often you search, but now and again it is worth to do so.

I think this old thread is well worth to be read, as it gives a lot of interesting informations.

[ariel]

Agree.

Thirteen years have passed and this thread still reads kind of " unfinished".

Any additional comments on the topic?

[Lee]

Just an aside that this page of this thread in and of itself explains and justifies the Moderator Team's strict enforcement of the image upload policy.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Has it ever been testet with which power a katar can hit its target?
If it has, it should give en idea, although not proven in reality, if it is possible to penetrade a mail shirt.
There are a relatively big number of katars with a blade like the one to the left, and they were not made for fun.

[ariel]

As a matter of fact, other objects give support to the mail-piercing ability of bladed Indian ( or thereabouts) weapons.
Not long ago we have discussed the so-called Zirah Bouk, a " mail-piercer" in translation. The only qualification of that khanjar-like weapon is the reinforced tip, either as a diamond-shaped or as a prominent central rib. The very name of it is an incontrovertible evidence.

I have a likely Afghani Tulwar with the same feature, and katars with diamond-shaped tips are dime a dozen. Afghani Khybers solved the same engineering problem by their T-section.

These are the examples of a mandatory mechanical engineering course on the strength of construction materials.

Thus, Indian weapons with the ability to penetrate mail were in abundance.

Whether a straight stab with katar or a more circular one with a dagger-like weapon ( khanjar) is more economical and effective is above my paygrade.

Looking for a katar with obvious mail-induced damage to the tip is, IMHO, an exercise in futility. A stuck one would remain on the battlefield, a lightly damaged would be fixed and a badly damaged would be discarded. In any case, none of them would be preserved in the armoury or sold to a collector.

BI is 100% correct: the success of an attempt to penetrate mail depends on relative qualities of a blade vs. mail. What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object is a question better left to philosophers or theologians.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes Ariel is right when he writes, and so is B.I.
"Looking for a katar with obvious mail-induced damage to the tip is, IMHO, an exercise in futility. A stuck one would remain on the battlefield, a lightly damaged would be fixed and a badly damaged would be discarded. In any case, none of them would be preserved in the armoury or sold to a collector.

BI is 100% correct: the success of an attempt to penetrate mail depends on relative qualities of a blade vs. mail. What happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object is a question better left to philosophers or theologians."


Although some of us struggle to find out how it all worked, a lot is still a very big question to us.
Small pieces are now and again found here and there - but the riddle is big, very big.


Another thing is, that the knowledge of South Indian and Rajasthan katars seems to be a riddle to some members - even the early ones.
When making a search it should be possible to get an idea of the difference, so please use the 'search' funcion.

[Mercenary]

It is still necessary to understand why would anyone have to try to penetrate a mail shirt. If he is not from "Cold steel" company of course.
I think in India warriors did a great job without it.

[ariel]

Well, the reason is rather simple: if your immediate opponent wears a mail and as they say in Texas “ needs killing”, you kind of wish your weapon had a reinforced tip, be it a Katar, a Zirah Bouk, or an Afghani ch’hura. Any implements that are flat and bendable need not apply.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, the reason is rather simple: if your immediate opponent wears a mail and as they say in Texas “ needs killing”, you kind of wish your weapon had a reinforced tip, be it a Katar, a Zirah Bouk, or an Afghani ch’hura. Any implements that are flat and bendable need not apply.

To attack the enemy through his armor? On the horse? By knife or dagger? Only if someone does not love his hand and decided to part with it. And even in this case, our choice:

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Very true.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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...

You mean to say that mail shirt, char-aina, helmets, bazubands and so on were exclusively for elite horse riders?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...but heavy textiles being worn surely offered protection again sword cuts and other weapon threats

Quite so. Thanks. It was a big problem. For British.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

You mean to say that mail shirt, char-aina, helmets, bazubands and so on were exclusively for elite horse riders?

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.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Quite so. Thanks. It was a big problem. For British.

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.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

There were hired armies. And infantry were the least paid troops. The most part of them were peasants. There was no need to pierce mail everyday and possesed for it some kind of special "penetrating" daggers.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Thanks again. Actually it was not a big problem for British - inability to cut through Indian coats or turban or Russian greatcoat or shako or Cossacks papakha. They won because of another. Indian warriors also didn't need to pierce armor or drilling charaina and helmets - they were able to reach the result on the foot or on the horse by other ways and without any special tools.

[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.