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).

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:-)))

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.

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.

.

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...

\

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.

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.

One more image SIVAJI

Interesting pictures. From where are they?

This miniaturepaintings my friend bought in London by the well-known collector of miniatures - Piter.

Do you know how old the miniature is?

This is the end of the 18th century, if my memory serves me. When my friend come from vacation, I'll ask him for sure. This miniature was at an exhibition in Brussels:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...light=Brussels

First an interesting look at the choreography of fighting with two Dandpata at the same time; please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV25-ORDeUg and imagine being in the arena trying to fight this technique.

Secondly a look at http://wallacelive.wallacecollection...ype=detailView Abraham Stamm blade on a PATA; By the way PATA means paw in Portuguese) ; The blade clearly marked with Stamm on one blade surface and Solingen on the reverse. Stamm was active between 1700 and 1729.

Finally, Please note ; Another Stamm appears at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=stamm . Quite usually his blade stamp is two; STAMM STAMM. That may also be the case at the bolster at the throat concealing the full inscription at para 2 above..

Thank you Ibrahiim very much, for this magnificent example and for the link to the clip with the fighting style.
:)

Thank you... I hope it was helpful...I just noticed that Stamm is preceeded by a letter M...The blade maker usually placed his name as STAMM STAMM thus, this is the case here. :) Ibrahiim.

I have never seen birds on these weapons before.. :shrug:

Hi Marius,

Sorry for taking so long to respond - you're absolutely right in your observation, very few strikes will be absolutely perpendicular to the target. Consequently there will always be some flex in the blade - my doubt resides in the assertion that blades were deliberately made very flexible as a positive asset.

It seems to me that a certain amount of flex is to be desired, but too much flex would be extremely detrimental to the power and accuracy of the attack or its follow-up. And I assume that historically, various armourers must have made a study of the compromise between stiffness/flexibility, hardness/strength, edge-holding capability etc.

Quite a few antique blades I've handled of generic 'european' sword length seem to be tempered to a moderate flex where the top half of the blade will bend to roughly 30º then snap back to true. Certainly not all - and I suspect that might be a reflection of function - some blades are obviously designed to be stiffer. Taking the various British cavalry sabres of the 19C as an example - to my very untutored eyes they seem to get stiffer through the century - perhaps adjusting to the changing role of cavalry? Or simply the gradual straightening of the design? I acknowledge that I am speculating about something of which I know little. I have both a parang nabur and a shotel with moderately stiff blades and a full-length flyssa with a blade that I couldn't bend if I tried. Is stiffness v. flex down to function or choice?

I seem to recall seeing a tv series on weapons by Mike Loades in which there was a demonstration of cavalrymen cutting cabbages/melons. The cuts were then shown in extreme slow-motion and the amount of cavitation/flex in what seemed to be very stiff blades was extraordinary. Which seemed to suggest that no matter how stiff the blade the impact of a strike will have a massive impact on it - at a speed too fast for the eye to follow. I cannot now recollect which blades they were using. Unfortunately I can't find that footage anywhere - if anyone else can find it please do post it as it's fascinating.

I'm about to post a single-edged pata on a new thread with a well-tempered blade that bends as I describe above and snaps back to straight.

I guess to finish up, I just don't buy that a very flexible blade is more effective in attack.

Happy to be shown the error of my ways....

one of my swords came with a copy of it's british proof test passing. blade was clamped and tip moved to either side 30 degrees and had to spring back to zero each time.

a certain amount of flex is good, for shock absorption, but too much can prevent a thrust or ruin a cut, especially if the opponent has any kind of armour or padding. a wobbly blade is not designed to do either, it's designed that way in a few indian and chinese weapons to enhance the wobble and flutter to make cool noises as it is danced with. some blades, like the pata and wushu dao are degenerate designes based on the older and stiffer weapons actually designed to be used in battle. if ypu see videos of 'stiff' katana cutting stuff, tatami & bamboo, you can be surprised at how much they do wobble during the cut, longitudinally and transverse.

there are still two schools of thought on straight vs. curved blades. straight blades are better for thrusting, curved for cutting. the debate was strong during the latter half of the 19c. people thrust thru tend to die (with certain notable exceptions, like jim bowie in the sandbank via a sword-stick blade), people cut tend to have ghastly disabling wounds, but many with care recover nicely, tho they may remain disabled. modern medicine of course can now save many who would have died, thru techniques learned from past wars. it does take up resources tho.

thus many countries decided to go for straighter blades & emphasized the killing thust. the last cavalry sword design in the USA and the UK were essentially thrusting weapons and were used as short lances, and no emphasis was placed on training to do anything else but poke it into the enemy's body and avoid breaking your wrist as you rode past. cutting emphasizes the exchange of blows and parries in defence, requiring a more static tho fluid movements that need a fair amount of training or experience. in the age of the machine gun, the conscripts had little formal training before they were needed to become cannon fodder in the senseless charges into the spandaus and vickers MGs.

they brutal, facts are tho, that you should try to disable your enemy with a nice gory wound and tie up your enemy with casualties that need manpower to care for, transport and housing, and need precious resources, food and medicines.

a dead man takes no one and needs nothing past his grave digger, while an injured man can take up the precious time of on average 5 people who need food and housing, transport etc. till he is well enough to be sent home to shock his countrymen with his wound scars or missing lopped off limbs.

Hello and thank you Jerseyman and Kronckew for your very interesting postings!

Yes, flexibility of a blade should be optimised.

Too little of it and the blade or arm may break or in the best case throw you out of balance and too much of it would render the blade useless as it won't be able to cut/stab anything because of bending.

Yet, I believe that most of standard European broadsword blades were too stiff for the Pata fighting style.

However, It is possible there were different styles or techniques of fighting adapted to diferent types of blades, but nowdays only the more spectacular swirling style involving extremely flexible (and useless for real combat) blades survived. :shrug:

Fernando,
I am really not sure, as it looks as if on the blade, just under the langet, there is an 'L' - see your detail picture of the blade, post 27. So maybe there is an inscrpition under the langet.
Jens

While this question was from some time back, isnt this pata Fernando is referring to looks like a dramatically cut down European blade and the 'L' is likely the last letter of the name on the blade. The cross and orb device was usually used in a motif fashion to close a phrase or wording or in cases a name. Looks 17th c.

Jens, if i was an imaginative person, and based on the blade being European, i would venture that the "L" is the last letter of Portugal. And this should take me to ask you if there isn't also a letter emerging from the langet on the other side :o.

Yes Jim, a name could be hidden behind the langet - but we will never find out, as I am not going to take it apart - thempting, but no.


Ok Fernando, I have hakan a pictire of the other side, here it is. It looks as if there is an 'E' just under the langet.

Thank you Jens for the great image on this. In seeing these up close it appears these lines, the cross and orb and whatever those letters are have been drawn or inscribed into a kind of simulated fuller. That last letter looks like a lazy 'Y'.
To me this suggests probably an Indian made blade estimating the markings often seen on European ones. The character of the globe and cross is very artistic compared to the European ones, and it seems usually not used as a terminus like this, but appears on its own. I do know of some cases where it does occur like this but usually it is an anchor in this place.

Just as a matter of curiosity would it be possible to get a picture of the inside of the sleeve?

VIVA EL REY
DE PORTUGAL

Helleri, I dont know how to do this, does anyone have an idea?
Would X-ray show anything? If it is possible, there will, no doubt, be so much dirt under the langet, so it will be impossible to see anything.


Fernando, maybe you are right. If you are it would be most interesting.
Do you have a picture showing the text from another blade?
How old would you estimate the blade to be?

As you put it Jens, this is a maybe :shrug:.
Here is a 'bad' example of sword for the case, just to show you the clear text.This sword is from the XVIII century, whereas this type of inscription must have started to appear by the second half XVII century (or post-1640), as a patriotic acclaim during the restoration of the independence.
The inscription 'good' format is in the second set of pictures, where in a cup hilted sword/rapier of my little collection you may (hardly) discern the faded inscription divided one half in each side of the blade.


.

Fernando,

Thank you for the pictures.
Do you have any pictures showing what the inscription on my blade might have looked like?

im not sure you have enough space ,I used white paper with carbon paper and got impression of number 2 under langet

No, idon't !
I even admit that this inscription has been written in different font styles, depending on the smith source and time line. Very often they were not engraved deeply enough to resist time and partly faded way. Here is one in a XVIII century small sword, a so called Quitó.

Thank you for the pictures Fernando.
Having looked at the blade once more, I still think it is an Indian copy of a blade from Portugal
It is interesting to notice that a lot of the blades looking European were in fact made in India.

I very much agree with Jens. The 'globus cruciger" (globe and cross) seems 'artistically' applied in a rendering of that typically seen on German made blades, and probably what can be seen of a notable inscription theme on Portuguese swords. As the Portuguese were key in the post contact trade in India from 16th c. the numbers of blades extant must have been significant and ready subject matter to be copied by skilled Indian smiths. In later situations many of the blades were Solingen made though with the same themes.

I would not mind subscribing your thoughts, Jens. That "Y" looks like a bit of a fantasy ... not to speak of that sort of "cross and orb" symbol approach.

.

"... to notice that a lot of the blades looking European were in fact made in India"

or

"... to notice that a lot of the European blades were in fact made in India"

much like

"... to notice that a lot of the European blades were in fact made in Solingen"

:shrug:

Mmmm the problem with Portugueses, everything has to be Portuguese...
And what about the Spanish??
:)

Would:
VIVA EL REY
DE ESPAÑA
... make you happy ? :cool:

By the way, the inscription on your blade most probably wasn't made by a Spaniard, but by a German (Solingen ?); i wouldn't know of España being written with a double NN ;) .


.

A very nice and enviable pata regardless...
 

I suppose if one had the contacts and resources, X-rays using modern digital detectors to generate images that can then be manipulated on a computer to apply false contrasts or color could disclose what the blade inscription actually says in an entirely non-destructive fashion. Of course, I have a European sword with an earlier medieval blade with what has been assumed in over a hundred years of literature to be the end of a medieval inscription, but I personally suspect it is only initials from the time of remounting and I do not have the contacts to lay that matter to rest. Similarly a couple of unproven possible Ulfberhts also remain in uncertainty. In any case, back on topic, that is one really nice pata!

Actually the concerns over whether this blade is European...….and by the presumed inscription being Portuguese or Spanish seem entirely moot at this point, as has been well pointed out......the blades of both were typically by this period made in Solingen.

The apparent consensus is that the presumed inscription (artfully applied) is most likely on a blade made in India and that it is probably in imitation of something seen often on earlier European blades. As Portugal had presence in India primarily in western littoral in many locations since early 16th c. (known collectively as Goa)….it seems most probable that a Portuguese inscription might be the model for such inscription.

While the cross and orb is most commonly known on German made blades, we can presume that the model being copied is from a German blade.
While possible of course that a Spanish blade might have been at hand....the Spanish had no presence in India directly ….the Portuguese did ….in Southern India …...the regions where the pata prevailed.

As far as radiological examination of the inscription, one of the only enactors of that process that comes to mind is Dr. Cyril Mazansky (author of " British Basket Hilt Swords") who wrote an article on the x-ray examination of a basket hilt sword off a shipwreck in the Caribbean. Other than that the most usual application has been studying the metallurgical properties of blades in the study of wootz by Dr. Ann Fuerbach et al as far as I recall.

As noted , this requires profound connection to those with the very expensive equipment in use, and would be very expensive. As the dismantling of an historic and valuable sword would compromise its integrity in degree, this might be an alternative but with risk, expense and less than guaranteed results not worth it.


As we know the inscription is spurious, and that the blade is almost certainly not European.....I think it best to accept it for what it is....

a beautiful pata with Indian blade and artistically applied European inscription and motif.