Hi Jens,
As always, a very excellent photo of a beautiful katar which clearly has a defined intent as a piercing weapon, with this observation based entirely on the pronounced, ribbed cross-section of the quatrefoil blade. I wanted to be sure to qualify that after the dynamically inflated discussion that remains concurrent on another forum. I think physics is quite interesting, but feel that it is in large degree as superfluous as elevated academic procedure in basic friendly discussion.
While Indian armourers were clearly extremely innovative in weapons design and production, with some of questionable practibility,it would be naieve to presume that many katars were not intended for, and actually used to pierce mail or especially that they did not find use in combat. The absence of battle damaged katars reflecting damage at the point that would suggest impact with armour is hardly evidence that such use did not occur. It has been well established that vast quantities of weapons were gathered and scrapped during the British Raj, presumably in most cases to deprive potential insurgents of weaponry. The majority of weapons now found in significant collections were collected from armouries of important royal figures or attractive examples chosen by impressive appearance rather than 'fighting' or 'damaged' items...primarily to serve as distinguished decorations or souveniers.
The interesting Indian sword you have shown for piercing seems very equivilent to the European 'estoc' that was essentially a hilted lance to pierce armour , and seems to have had Islamic counterparts in the 'mec' as well as Chinese rapier type examples. The Tatars had the armour piercing needle type blades on many examples of the sabres of the 17th century known as 'ordynka', and in Russia and the Caucusus, the 'malle perce' (mail piercing) blade was well known. It would seem that in North Africa, the needle point sword distinctively known as the 'flyssa' was intended to pierce mail, which had become well established in use in both western and eastern Sudanese regions, as well as with Ottomans in North African regions. While the actual method of combat for these swords remains obscure, the suggested use for mail piercing seems plausible.
Despite the academic analysis concerning physics and evidential criteria that attempts to suggest against mail piercing use of the katar, it seems to me that specialized weapons intended to pierce armour were well known and represented in various cultural spheres. Such diversity would seem to increase the believability of such use, and that such application would be afforded to a weapon primarily associated with the thrust seems compellingly probable.
I think your note on the possibility of the weapon becoming lodged in either bone or complex anatomy is well placed, and this is one of the arguments against thrust weapons with serration or barbed configuration, that withdrawal would be a problem.
Whether or not these piercing weapons could actually pierce mail or other armour.....this cannot really be effectively determined using physics or typical scientific approach in all cases. The reason for this is that the factor that cannot be accurately measured in these dynamics is that of the nearly unfathomable magnitude of human ferocity in the heat of combat. It is well known that the power of adrenaline in extreme situations can reach unbelievable levels. In such cases there can be little doubt that penetration could be accomplished, the only question would be if the weapon itself could survive the force of the thrust.
I think it must also be considered that the rank and file in combat, if wearing armour at all, would have had that of munitions grade quality at best, and that would have been likely poorly maintained. Judging the integrity of the higher quality mail armour that still exists to determine the potential of armour piercing thrusts would be inconsistant with accurate standards.
All the best,
Jim
|