Small Katar

Jim McDougall · 25th May 2019, 06:40 PM

Actually both of you have phenomenal command of English, and the skills at parsing wording reaches levels that even native English speakers never attain!
I surely could never reach such levels in Portuguese or Danish (if I did speak them).

Fernando, what I understood from the guy in the video was that the placement of fingers 'outside' the structural elements of the hilt was more an adaptive practice, not widely spread technique. Obviously if a man had a weapon made it would be to suit his own hand, but if it were a weapon obtained otherwise, its use would of course require 'adaption'.

With the katar, this would not be an alternative purpose, and I understood the speaker to be saying it would be feasible adaption to the circumstance for use of a weapon whose grip was too small for the hand of the person using it.
This was more of a suggestion.

With the tulwar, it has been suggested over the years that the forefinger around the quillon strengthened the grasp of the hilt in striking cuts. The speaker noted the position maintained by the forearm dictated by the disc pommel was part of the technique in this system.

The matter of the 'Indian ricasso', that is the blunt choil at the hilt area of the blade, is also supportive of the extended forefinger around the quillon. Clearly this technique would not be feasible if the blade were sharpened all the way to the hilt, as with shamshirs etc.

In European swords, the use of the rapier often had the forefinger extended in this manner, and was protected by the quillons which were part of the developed guard covering the ricasso area. This as previously noted, had nothing to do with the suggested Indian practice of forefinger extension being discussed.

With the tulwar, my question would be, why would the extended forefinger need protection? In Indian swordsmanship they were not fencing, but engaged in sweeping cuts, and parrying used a shield to receive blows.

The khanda, altered into the 'Hindu basket hilt' (post contact) was clearly a different matter, here there was no potential for the extended finger method as the large guard prohibited such a thing. Naturally this is a quite different weapon, and used by people to more southern regions than the tulwar usually. Their techniques were different until melded together with influences from other groups, and those matters exceed this discussion.

25th May 2019, 06:40 PM	#17
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,954	Actually both of you have phenomenal command of English, and the skills at parsing wording reaches levels that even native English speakers never attain! I surely could never reach such levels in Portuguese or Danish (if I did speak them). Fernando, what I understood from the guy in the video was that the placement of fingers 'outside' the structural elements of the hilt was more an adaptive practice, not widely spread technique. Obviously if a man had a weapon made it would be to suit his own hand, but if it were a weapon obtained otherwise, its use would of course require 'adaption'. With the katar, this would not be an alternative purpose, and I understood the speaker to be saying it would be feasible adaption to the circumstance for use of a weapon whose grip was too small for the hand of the person using it. This was more of a suggestion. With the tulwar, it has been suggested over the years that the forefinger around the quillon strengthened the grasp of the hilt in striking cuts. The speaker noted the position maintained by the forearm dictated by the disc pommel was part of the technique in this system. The matter of the 'Indian ricasso', that is the blunt choil at the hilt area of the blade, is also supportive of the extended forefinger around the quillon. Clearly this technique would not be feasible if the blade were sharpened all the way to the hilt, as with shamshirs etc. In European swords, the use of the rapier often had the forefinger extended in this manner, and was protected by the quillons which were part of the developed guard covering the ricasso area. This as previously noted, had nothing to do with the suggested Indian practice of forefinger extension being discussed. With the tulwar, my question would be, why would the extended forefinger need protection? In Indian swordsmanship they were not fencing, but engaged in sweeping cuts, and parrying used a shield to receive blows. The khanda, altered into the 'Hindu basket hilt' (post contact) was clearly a different matter, here there was no potential for the extended finger method as the large guard prohibited such a thing. Naturally this is a quite different weapon, and used by people to more southern regions than the tulwar usually. Their techniques were different until melded together with influences from other groups, and those matters exceed this discussion.