Hindu Armour and the Katar?

B.I · 28th April 2006, 09:24 AM

not sure how much interest this will be to others, but it was a track i have been looking into for quite a long time. i have had an ongoing arguement/debate/discussion with a published islamic academic, about whether the hindus wore armour before the advent of islam (ie was armour introduced to the hindus by the muslims). iconography has always gone against me, as hindu sculpture represents a mythological mix of religion and history, and most warriors are represented in a semi-naked (pure) form.
however, i have found this useful piece of information.
i read through a translation of 2 12th century hindu texts (written in 1880), which, amongst other things, touches on army and weapons. it says this -

armour consists of scales, the breath of a grain of wheat, is of metal and firm, and is ornamented on the upper part of the body.

this is important to me, as it not only shows a complex armour srtucture (lamelar metal scales) but it also shows that it wasnt crude, but ornamented.
i know that my islamic friend will find a good way to twist this around, but it is still an important piece of information about early hindu armour.
also, for jens, it says this -

the maustika (fist sword, dagger) - has a good hilt, is a span long and ornamented. its end is sharp, it has a high neck, is broad in the midst and dark coloured. it can make all sorts of movements, as it is a small and handy weapon.

i know this is very loose, and purely speculative, but this could refer to an early version of the katar. a fist dagger points out it was held in a different way, and pointing out it can make all sorts of movements distinguishes it away from normally held daggers.
whether it is what i speculate it to be, its still intriguing enough to look into further.

28th April 2006, 09:24 AM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hindu Armour and the Katar? not sure how much interest this will be to others, but it was a track i have been looking into for quite a long time. i have had an ongoing arguement/debate/discussion with a published islamic academic, about whether the hindus wore armour before the advent of islam (ie was armour introduced to the hindus by the muslims). iconography has always gone against me, as hindu sculpture represents a mythological mix of religion and history, and most warriors are represented in a semi-naked (pure) form. however, i have found this useful piece of information. i read through a translation of 2 12th century hindu texts (written in 1880), which, amongst other things, touches on army and weapons. it says this - armour consists of scales, the breath of a grain of wheat, is of metal and firm, and is ornamented on the upper part of the body. this is important to me, as it not only shows a complex armour srtucture (lamelar metal scales) but it also shows that it wasnt crude, but ornamented. i know that my islamic friend will find a good way to twist this around, but it is still an important piece of information about early hindu armour. also, for jens, it says this - the maustika (fist sword, dagger) - has a good hilt, is a span long and ornamented. its end is sharp, it has a high neck, is broad in the midst and dark coloured. it can make all sorts of movements, as it is a small and handy weapon. i know this is very loose, and purely speculative, but this could refer to an early version of the katar. a fist dagger points out it was held in a different way, and pointing out it can make all sorts of movements distinguishes it away from normally held daggers. whether it is what i speculate it to be, its still intriguing enough to look into further.