Small Katar

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Norman, that really is a fascinating talk, and this guy is pretty good. He always well explains things and I like the way he uses actual examples of weapons as he describes how they were used.

I think one of the most salient points he brings up, and most pertinent to the hilt size issue, is the notion of one finger 'outside' the grip area. While this has often been contested, it seems most logical and that it is supported by evidence (or suggestion in artwork) which has been noted by many researchers.

With the tulwar, it is noted that the forefinger was wrapped around the guard quillon, and in describing the method of use of the tulwar, the disc pommel is also an element of the arm position dictating the position of the arm in the strike and cut.
While many suggest that the forefinger would be threatened by the sword of the opponent in parry, it is remembered that the shield was used to parry in Indian swordsmanship. The idea of the forefinger around the quillon was to strengthen the integrity of the strike and cut at impact.

The extending of forefinger around quillon in the case of European swordsmanship and the rapier, while similar, really does not apply to the case of same with Indian tulwar in my opinion.

Returning to the question of 'narrow' hilt on katar of the topic here, in the video linked by Norman, the speaker notes that the grip of the weapon in such narrow hilts could be accommodated by extending the 'pinky' finger outside the grip in similar manner as that mentioned on tulwar.

This would seem a viable solution, however it would seem a weapon that was specifically made for an individual would be made to be of adequate size for the entire hand. It seemed worthy of note here that the finger extension might be considered, even if tenuously.