Ethnographic Arms & Armour

Ethnographic Arms & Armour (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/index.php)
-   Ethnographic Weapons (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Indian bagh nakh (tiger claws) (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20702)

estcrh 22nd November 2015 01:38 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook
Eric,

If a katar can be used for parrying, (which it definitely can!) then so can this mystery weapon with the 5-7 blades.
It would not be as effective as some, but you must remember that the scabbard of a barong is/was Also used for parrying.

Many European bucklers are very small and effective if one knows what he is about. No-one can deny that.

Richard.

Richard, not everyone necesssarly agrees with what a parrying weapon is, I personally can not remember a kater being called a parrying weapon , I am not saying that you are wrong, it is just something I have not heard before.

Lord Egerton of Tatton in his book "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" described Indian shields as small as 10 inches as "dhal" but the madu is specifically described as being a "parrying shield". :shrug:

estcrh 22nd November 2015 01:59 AM

11 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
It seems that we have been scurrying down the wrong path here concerning the notion of 'hiding' the bagh nagh. In rereading the post by Jens, I clearly misunderstood that what he actually said was that this weapon was 'hidden in the hand'......meaning the 'claws' were enclosed in the closed hand and projecting between the fingers.
It would seem that was indeed how the weapon was used, and has nothing to do with whether it was concealed prior to its actual use.
I just wanted to clarify that aspect of the discussion at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde
The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel
I am jumping in when all the relevant things were already said. Thus, just my personal opinion. This cannot be a Bagh Nagh, because it is not hidden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook
Gentlemen, I know little of these weapons, but as a bagh nakh is a concealed weapon, I do not think we can call the weapon in question by this name,

Jim, I think these quotes clearly show that there is a perception that the bagh nakh is a "hidden/concealed" weapon, as I stated this is in my opinion primarily due to the most well known and publicized use of the bagh nakh, which was in the killing of Afzal Khan in 1659 by Shivaji. There are many detailed 1800s essays on this event (all of which stress the "hidden/concealed nature of the bagh nagh used by Shivaji) and it was a very important point in Maratha history and National identity as well as the beginning of the Mughal decline.

Unfortunately there have not been a lot of images available online and/or research that is readily available on bagh nagh and other small Indian hand weapons, so how these weapons were used, when they were developed and who used them has been obscured by time.

Some detailed images of the claws.

ariel 22nd November 2015 01:40 PM

The Bagh Nakh is truly a"hand-to-hand" weapon: it offers no advantage of distance. Because of that it was good as a "criminal" weapon. It also offered no protection to the user. The vambrace with blades shown here lacks both features.

Jim McDougall 22nd November 2015 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel
The Bagh Nakh is truly a"hand-to-hand" weapon: it offers no advantage of distance. Because of that it was good as a "criminal" weapon. It also offered no protection to the user. The vambrace with blades shown here lacks both features.

Exactly, which is why its 'concealment' , whether in its use 'hidden' in the hand (not very hidden with protruding claws) or in the folds or pockets of garment is very much a moot point. It was used in an unexpected attack, not pitched combat (usually except in the cases shown previously).

The vambrace of the thread with multiple blades I agree is more akin to 'durbar fashion', as in the prickly guy in post #17, and simply of this spectrum of the innovations of Indian armourers.

estcrh 23rd November 2015 02:55 AM

4 Attachment(s)
The last refuge of claw fighting in Indian takes place in Mysore, the Vajramushti Kalaga is a centuries old traditional wrestling contest held in the courtyard of Mysore Palace during Dasara, each contest ends with the draw of first blood from one of the combatants participating in the duel. Vajra-musti (thunder fist/diamond fist) refers to a spiked, knuckleduster like weapon worn on the right hand.

estcrh 24th November 2015 05:33 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel
We are in agreement. That's exactly what I said about it: not very handy, hence very rare.

Even in India known for her abundance of bizarre forms, weapons that were mechanically unsound did not survive for long.

Bank with an over-curved blade is an example. Indians had a lot of imagination, but they were not dummies and a common sense always prevailed.

When you look at the bank sickle, the blade is very similar in shape with the claw of the bagh nakh. I have seen several bank being described as Maratha in origin. Considering how important the bagh nakh is in the history of the Maratha I wonder if there is some sort of symbolism there.

How common was the bank, who used it and how long was it around for?

Quote:

Indian (central, Maharashtra) bank dagger/sickle, 19th century, steel, bronze, gold, jade, pearls, wood, velvet, overall length, 21.0 cm. The Feldman Collection.

estcrh 25th November 2015 10:05 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Here is an interesting example, it is from the Pitt Rivers Museum. Some effort went into making this bagh nakh look like jewelry instead of a weapon by covering the rings with copper/brass and adding gems to the top of each ring. The Museum also included an essay with some good information.

Timo Nieminen 30th November 2015 03:09 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh
Timo, I agree, many Indian shields were small, but I can not remember seeing an 8 inch diameter one that was not a madu, do you have an image of one that size? I still think you would have to be quite brave to face an armed opponent in real combat with such a small sized shield.

Egerton lists one madu that is 7inches but of course madu have two long horns sticking out.

Here's one, from Auctions Imperial Arms & Armor 2014 (lot 232), 20.9cm diameter. 9" and 10" ones are easier to find.

There are two reasons why people might have carried such small shields: either they valued the convenience of a small shield, or they thought that it would probably be more effective. The 2nd isn't a sign of bravery. (But is likely to be a sign of skill.) Sometimes, no shield at all would be carried (and you can't get smaller than that!), and I don't believe such warriors were necessarily regarded as extra-brave.

estcrh 30th November 2015 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen
Here's one, from Auctions Imperial Arms & Armor 2014 (lot 232), 20.9cm diameter.

Timo, thanks, 20.9cm would be 8.22 inches.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.