Indian bagh nakh (tiger claws)
 

I just ran into some unusual examples, if anyone has some other images I would like to see them.

Tiger Claw Daggers
 

Images of my two Tiger Claw Daggers.
Best regards to all.
Brian

Hello,

I think the top piece with the half-gauntlet is more of a parrying weapon like the saintie than a bagh nakh.

Emanuel

Emanual, a tiger claw emulates the claws of a tiger, a saintie is more of a spear. The one you question is listed by the owner as bagh nakh type weapon, it looks to me like it has more in common with a bagh nakh than either a saintie or sainti but it could have its own seperate name that I am not aware of.

Here are images of a saintie (lt) and a sainti (rt), both rather rare parrying weapons. Then you have the haladie (bottom).

Brian really nice examples, the one with the folding side blades looks a lot like the one I posted.

The example I question is a basically a small shield with blades on it. The bagh nakh is a small "glove" with claws hidden in the hand. One is a parrying weapon, the other is a small concealed weapon.

Santie/saintie may not be the name for it, but it is a parrying weapon.

I won't repost them here but I think you added some awesome parrying weapons on your Pinterest. They do seem to vary a lot, some more like the madu or the haladie, others more like jamadhar.

Emanuel, Indian parrying weapons have one thing in common, side bars for parrying, the weapon you are questioning has no side bars so how can you parry a weapon with it. To me it appears to be an evolved type of bagh nakh, it has five blades instead of claws and it is grasped by bars instead of rings and and it shields the holders hand but its basic purpose seems to be the same.

I disagree with you Eric but I'll leave it at that.
It remains that these are fascinating weapons :)

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, and as it would appear to be a secondary weapon, with say a longer blade in the other hand, I would say its use was for parrying.

I do hope other examples of this type can be found, as I have never seen one in Egerton or Elgood or anywhere else. There surely had to be a name for this, as it does appear to have some age to it.

Best regards Richard.

Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
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.

There seems to be some difference in how people define a "parrying weapon", to me it needs to have a long blade or bar to parry a sword such as the example below.

Jens, there is no rule that I know of that bagh nakh had to be hideable, many bagh nakh that I have seen could not actually have been hidden due to their size except maybe in the dark, some were smaller or had folding blades so it could be hidden but most that I have seen had several claws sticking out, not exactly something you could put into your front pocket. My bagh nakh is 5.25 in long with 1.5 in claws, not something you could easly hide. The word that Stone uses is "concealed", other descriptions do not mention "hidden" or "concealed" at all. Some bagh nakh did have blades attached making this form not hideable at all, these types maybe need a hyphenated name like the tabar-zaghnal but they are just as much a bagh nakh as a dagger.

A few references that do not mention "concealed" or "hidden".

On the left from "Chambers's Journal", W. & R. Chambers, 1892.

On the right from "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations" Richard Bentley, 1852.

On the bottom from George Stone.

HERE ARE A FEW MORE I HAVE PICTURES OF NONE OF THEM ARE MINE.
#1. bagh nakh circa 1800
#2 " " 20 th. century, 12 cm.
#3. & #4. " " circa 1900, 10.2 cm.
#5. " "
#6. " " ready for use.
#7. & #8 bagh nakh two that belonged to Lew.
# 9. a picture of a weapon similar to the one you show i had it listed as a 5 bladed armored hand and forearm with a katar type grip.
# 10, #11. & #12. a odd India weapon with multiple blades and a katar grip and hand guard.

Artzi has an even different description for his.

Concealed or not is ultimately irrelevant Eric.

The bagh nakh is held in the hand and basically mimics a tiger's paw and claws.

The weird thing we're arguing about is likely held like a buckler but maybe also like a gauntlet, used to block, catch enemy's sword, parry, stab, similar to European parrying daggers and sword catchers. The jamadhars with side blades are a similar concept, as are some of the madu. Something to block/parry with, that also has an offensive element to stab or cut with when the opportunity arises.

If anything, this reminds me of Santal shields or even European Renaissance lantern shields.

Richard here is one more, this has seven pattern welded blades. These hybred type weapons are a bit hard to categorize.

Beautiful example Eric!

We're getting farther from the bagh nakh discussion but I wonder if this multi-bladed thing wasn't part of some ceremonial accoutrements like the garb of the High Executioner at the Delhi Durbar (attached pic). His arm guards look similar.

These things look very well built and to be made entirely from crucible steel must say something about their importance.

Emanuel, the bladed bagh nakh were mentioned, there are some that were definately bagh nakh with a blade added, then there are daggers with bagh nakh type claws, its fairly easy to distinguish between the two types. I have not seen a bagh nakh with a fixed blade at both ends but there are examples with two fixed blades, one in the middle and one at the end. Bottom right, George Stones description of bichwa-bagh nakh.

Here is a fairly unusual one, the pic is a webfind, I forgot where from. I suppose it could possibly have a more domestic use but I think it is a weapon. I think bagh nakh are best used not to make a killing blow but to secure and hold a victim while your partner in crime finishes him.

I wonder how the first weapon will be used.


One of my books says, that the intention of the bagh nakh is to simulate a tiger attack, to hide an assassination.


Roland

This is the only one I have seen with a single claw, the image is from a 2012 auction, here is the description. They are ofen described as having four to five claws but Brian posted an image of one with two large claws and a third smaller one, his also has a small side blade.

http://auctionsimperial.hibid.com/lo...ian-bagh-nakh/

As for being a killing weapon, I think that in the right circumstances, such as taking someone by surprise and raking the unprotected neck area, arm, etc these would be effective, you would just have to inflict a damaging wound and step back until the victim bled to death.

Roland I have read this is a couple of 1800s references. If you were an Indian national and you planned on killing a Britich national it would have made sense to try to make your crime look like the work of an animal.

I have also read that the bagh nakh was used in a type of one on one ritual combat.

"The Art of Attack: Being a Study in the Development of Weapons and Appliances of Offence, from the Earliest Times to the Age of Gunpowder", by Henry Swainson Cowper W. Holmes, Limited, Printers, 1906.

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


Some strange mix of a parrying shield, bazu band and multi blade katar.
India is full of bizarre combination weapons. Perhaps, this one was not very handy and the pattern withered away; hence the rarity.

Might have been devilishly hard to invent a name for such a mutt. Maltipoo or goldendoodle must have been child plays in comparison:-)

It has its charm, however.

Ariel, there is no rule that bagh nakh have to be hidden, while some are small enough to wrap a hand around others are not, I do not believe that the ability to hide one in your hand determines whether a weapon is a bagh nakh/bagh nakh varient.

Manner of using the wagnuk, from: "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations", Richard Bentley, 1852.

Dear Estcrh,

I see no reason for you insisting that the weapon in the opening post of this thread is a bagh nakh, as it bears no resemblance to the small hidden devices by that name.
Neither can such a weapon be used as is a bagh nakh. Totally different.

Best wishes,
Richard.

But the ergonomics of this thing are all wrong for most any use that I can imagine. :confused:
I would love to see an illustration of exactly how this is deployed as a weapon.

Richard, I could ask why you insist that the bagh nakh is a small hidden weapon, many are not that small and can not be hidden at all.

I am not insisting that the weapon you are referring to is a bagh nakh, to me it looks like an Indian weapons maker invented a souped up bagh nakh, replacing the claws with blades, the rings with a bar and adding a shield, thats how I see it, one mans evolved, improved version of the bagh nakh.

The one Artzi sold was 14 inches long, which means that there would 7 inches on each side of the handle, this is not long enough to be an effective parrying weapon but some people insist that it is a parrying weapon, that is how they see it.

That is the purpose of forum discussions, people post their theories, references, research etc, which helps put a lot of information on a particular subject in one place, sometimes nothing is solved other times the results are quite good.

Thank you for your reply Eric.

To me this weapon appears made for parrying, but with a sting attached!
Bucklers can be Very small, some the size of a tea -plate, and yet are (Were) used for parrying.
Whatever is was called, it cannot have been common.
I Theorize (!) that it could have been made to keep a Prince or wealthy man happy. A man who owned all other weaponry already!

Must state again though, I see No connection to the tiger claw weapon, other than the fact it has more than one cutting edge............Actually!...(and here I wander off into fantasy)....
I suppose under this category also fits my old sickle mower!

Best wishes,
Richard.

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.

It would be a brave man who would go up against an Indian warrior with a "tea plate" sized piece of metal.

Seems pretty easy to visualize, you grasp the handle and punch or slash with it.

But, there is nothing to stop it twisting in one's hand Eric. It's all wrong.

best regards,
Richard.

In my eyes this thing works just like a buckler :shrug:you parry with it and stab,cut opportunistically.

When it comes to the wide spectrum of innovative and varying types of weapons in India, there really are no 'rules' or specific guidelines. What Jens was referring to with the bagh nakh corresponds more to its use as a 'weapon' by assassins which suggests an offensive (vs. defensive) and often 'concealed' item.
I think that the suggestion of being 'hidden' is one widely held, as seen by comments of numerous participants here.

The idea of this being 'ceremonial' I think corresponds well to that most unforgettable image of the 'prickly' executioner at durbar. It seems to me that these durbars, and exhibitions often during the reign of Queen Victoria in the Raj were the source for a good number of 'innovative' creations in weaponry intended to showcase the skills of Indian armourers.

In many cases these unusual weapons were meant to appear threatening or formidable, though their often vestigial features would likely have been quite impractical in actual combat or use.

I think that the item posted here in the thread topic is as has been noted, more aligned with a parry weapon, and with blades for thrust supported by the transverse grip as in katar. The bagh nakh is obviously intended for slashing and tearing, and clearly insufficient for any type of parry as would be expected in a covertly used weapon against unsuspecting victim.

While not large (as many 'bucklers' were small) this has arm guards akin to the vambrace, which could offer protection in degree as used. Many Indian shields had spear points at the boss used in much the same way.

Given the number of Indian shields in the 8" to 12" diameter range, there were plenty of men willing to go against Indian warriors with quite small shields. It's not a bad size for duels or other 1-to-1 fights. Not so good on the battlefield, since it doesn't offer as much protection against arrows. Against swords, a small shield is light and fast, doesn't get in the way of your own weapon, is less likely to get trapped/grabbed by the opponent, is less vulnerable to being hooked/pressed by the opponent's weapon. Also easier to carry around all day.

The popularity of little shields across multiple continents suggest that they work well enough.

Jim, the impression that the bagh nakh was a hidden weapon comes from its most well known use, when Shivaji managed to kill Afzal Khan in 1659, it is said that Shivaji attacked with a bagn nakh hidden in his hand, but it is also said that he followed up with a bichawa dagger, which he had hidden in his sleeve. Proving that both of these weapons could be hidden in the right circumstances.

Where the bagn nakh came from and what it primary use was in not easy to identify. There are a few different accounts, some say that the bagn nakh was not used in warfare, while another says it was, some mention it as a concealed or hidden weapon, others do not, a couple of references mention its use in feuds or ritual fighting, which may be were it originated.

Here are a couple of quotes that mention this type of fighting with claws.

The first is from "My year in an Indian fort, Volume 1", Katharine Blanche, 1877.

The second is from "The Captivity, Sufferings, and Escape, of James Scurry: Who Was Detained A Prisoner During Ten Years, in the Dominions of Hyder Ali" (1824), James Scurry.

Below is an print titled The Nucki-ka-koosti at Baroda: the Fight with Claws.

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.

I would like to thank you for the well thought out comments and especially the supporting and well cited material you add to your posts. I cannot emphasize how helpful that is in learning more on these weapons in these kinds of discussions. These entries are fascinating and really add to the various examples included by everyone on the thread!!!

Getting back to the concealment of weapons, as you well point out, there are really no set guidelines or expectations as far as incidental use or carry of these kinds of weapons. As far as these pitched combats using these clawed weapons, clearly these kinds of 'duels' using like weapons would be occasionally seen.
It seems that such 'combats' outside of normal warfare in more of a 'civilian' tone were well known in many cultures, and somewhat unconventional weapons augmented the more expected forms. In Africa, there were wrist knives, and finger knives worn like a ring to slash with much in the manner of the left hand dagger and rapier in European fencing.

The origins of many weapon forms is fascinating, especially in India, where it seems the deep associations with certain animal features is clear. The haladie parrying knives came from pairs of buffalo horns, which later became metal blades. The recurve on blade forms such as the bichwa seem to recall the curvature of these horns, though the term describing them in metaphor is 'scorpions sting' .
I have always been under the impression that the bagh nagh might have originally been intended to mask the dispatch of a victim by making it appear the work of a tiger. I was thinking of the covert actions of the mysterious thuggee in their unusual 'highwayman' activities, though they actually used strangulation and buried their victims with special axes and ceremony.
The idea was toward the assassination concept, to blame the death on the tiger etc but perhaps simply favoring the effective nature of the natural weapons of these animals as with the horns.

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.

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.