How many of the katars we know were court katars?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Most of the katars we see to day have relatively thin side guards, which would disqualify them as fighting weapons.

Jens, I would disagree with this statement. As a close quarters weapon I do not think the thickness of the side bars would make much difference.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Eric, you could be right. Another question is, how many of the persons who could pay for these gold and silver decorated weapons, did take part in the actual battle? Did they sit on their elephants directing all the others?

[mariusgmioc]

From all I know, the main role of the side bars of the Katars is to ensure the stability of the grip by maintaining the alignment between the blade and the forearm and not for parrying blows, albeit they could be used for parry.

If their main purpose would have been parrying, they would have been designed wider, longer and of course thicker, because the way they are, they are simply to short and narrow to effectively block a blow from a Tulwar for example. Any blow from a Tulwar that wouldn't be perfectly perpendicular to the side bar would simply be deflected along the unprotected portion of the arm and cause severe wounding.

Moreover, the Katar was never meant to be a main fighting weapon but a side arm. No Indian soldier would have gone to battle armed with a Katar but with a Tulwar and a shield. The Katar would have stayed sheathed in the sash and pulled out only as a last resort when the wielder has lost his Tulwar, or to deliver a final blow to an incapacitated enemy.

Katars were also used for hunting, exactly the same way the European hunting daggers were used, namely to deliver the final blow to the dying beast.

I know there are many stories about Rajas killing charging tigers and fighting single-handed entire armies armed only with a Katar, but how much truth is in them?!

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes Marius, the sideguards were meant for making stability of the cross bars, but if it was only that, the side bars could have been quite short, as you now and again see them.On other, more fighting style katars, you see the side guards being qiute a bit longer.
Jens

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Yes Marius, the sideguards were meant for making stability of the cross bars, but if it was only that, the side bars could have been quite short, as you now and again see them.On other, more fighting style katars, you see the side guards being qiute a bit longer.
Jens

Nope! If the side bars are shorter, they cannot maintain a stable alignment between the blade and the forearm. They need a certain length for that, a length that extends well above the wrist, and that is exactly about the length they have.

But I agree that there are some Katars more suitable for combat than others, however, this doesn't mean they were deliberately designed for combat.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Checking back through library I note the detail regarding decoration and style on~

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20514

That thread addresses many of the factors concerning highly ornate Katar although I cannot see from paintings of the time any solid evidence of long or short arm bar protectors as a trend in fighting versus court arms....and some may well have been older weapons ornately refabricated or blinged up as court weapons...others perhaps made to order.

In the picture below of the armed warriors in battle order one carrying the head of an opponent it would seem logical that the katar on his belt was a fighting weapon...but it has not particularly long arm guards..neither have many seemingly worn at court (akhbars court is seen in the other two pictures) though these are paintings thus artistic licence may not be relied upon as absolute...it remains a guide.

May it not simply be personal preference why the longer/shorter arm guards appear on some weapons but not all?

It would seem obvious that if a weapon was decorated in very ornate style that it would be a court adornment.

[mariusgmioc]

One can experiment easily with different Katars and I am pretty sure the conclusion would be that a Katar with longer and stronger arms like the one in Jen's posting no. 7 is much more stable in the hand than one with shorter side arms like the one in Jen's posting no. 20.

Longer arms would ensure better alignment of the blade with the forearm (notice how the longer arms slightly converge opposite to the blade in order to give a firmer prop against the bearer's arm - the same reason why some Katars have the side arms slightly bent inwards, not as a result of a blow, but to ensure better contact with the arm) and through their weight will also serve as a counterbalance to the blade improving the handling of the Katar. The wide four transverse bars will also contribute to the stability of the grip and prevent the rotation in the hand.

The same thing cannot be said for the second Katar that would be rather difficult to use as the very short and rather widely spread side arms would offer no alignment and balance to the blade. At the same time the two transverse bars would ensure a rather narrow grip prone to rotate in the hand.

So, the first Katar would definitely be a functional weapon, while the second one would be more like a dress Katar. And here I contradict my own statement above (second part of it) when I said that "there are some Katars more suitable for combat than others, however, this doesn't mean they were deliberately designed for combat."

As with regards with the illustrations, they are extremely important for general assessment of the presence and use of the Katar on the battlefield, but I believe they are of less value for making an accurate assessment of the proportions of the weapons used, as the artist's focus was certainly not on illustrating the precise proportions of the sidearms.