Hunting Tigers with Katars: Fact or fiction?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

... WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CONSIDER HUNTING IN THE JUNGLE WITH A KNIFE OF ANY SORT.
PERHAPS SOMEONE WAS ATTACKED AND SURVIVED AND KILLED A TIGER AND THE LEGENDS AND STORIES GREW. ANYONE WITH A CLEAR MIND WOULD NOT RISK LIFE AND LIMB ON SUCH A HUNT ESPECIALLY RAJAHS AND KINGS WHO HAD MUCH TO LOSE. RULERS ARE USUALLY SMART OR THEY WOULDN'T BECOME RULERS OR REMAIN IN POWER LONG.

Mostly true,
Still we have to consider that the sense of survival and all those values weren't so extreme a few centuries ago.
Leaders used to go into battle in front of their troops and only 'the other day' they started positioning themselves in the back stage.
You take Rajputs, the originators of the katar; for them, war was almost a sport. In the 1490's Rana Kombah sent his son Prithi Raj put down a rebellion started by the Rana's brother Soorajmal. During battle, at the end of the day, uncle and nephew camped in sight of each other, the nephew visiting his uncle's tent, asking him for his wounds, and eating dinner off the same platter. When leaving the tent,the nephew assured his uncle that they would finish their battle in the morning and the uncle recomended him to be early on the field.
I wouldn't be surprised if guys with such life disdain would engage a fight with a tiger bearing only blades ... if circumstances arose.
Ah, by the way, Prithi Raj won the battle.

[David]

"... WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CONSIDER HUNTING IN THE JUNGLE WITH A KNIFE OF ANY SORT."

Exactly Fernando, which is why "which one of YOU" is not the kind of question we need to ask here.

[fearn]

I'd point out (again) that there's an enormous difference between *killing* a tiger with a katar, and hunting a tiger *armed only* with a katar or a kukri.

I can believe the first one, for reasons cited by others. It's certainly possible to kill a tiger with a large blade, especially if the tiger is immobilized or seriously injured. The second one? That's in the crazy/brave category.

Best,

F

[kronckew]

tiger killed with a khukuri: .Linky

some true khukuri vs. animals stories:

Linky

info on gurkhas

Linky

one instance of a man & knife vs. a bear. it was an underweight black bear & weakened by starvation. still not a mean feat with a 3.5in. puma folder. Linky

the grizzly vs. man with 12" bladed knife: Linky

in alabama, it is common to hunt wild boar with knives and dogs. the dogs are usually armoured (heavy leather and chunks of steel belted tire) and the dogs grab the piggy by the nose and hind quarters and hold it for the hunter who stabs it in the heart. they also use boar spears sometimes, especially if mr. piggy doesn't have enough dogs hangin' off him

[spiral]

Well said David!

Originally Posted by fearn

I'd point out (again) that there's an enormous difference between *killing* a tiger with a katar, and hunting a tiger *armed only* with a katar or a kukri.

I can believe the first one, for reasons cited by others. It's certainly possible to kill a tiger with a large blade, especially if the tiger is immobilized or seriously injured. The second one? That's in the crazy/brave category.

F

In both WW1 & WW2 & even in malaya, Gurkhas of whom the majority during war time, were young ,illiterate, uneducated,religios & fearlessly proud highlanders from the most out of the way back of beyond hamlets of the Himalayas, & who were so brave & fatalistc that the idea of throwing your rifle on the ground & running screaming at the enemy machine gunners waving thier kukri in the air screaming , "Ayo Gurkhaliiiiii " [ Basicaly "Here come the Gurkhaaaaasssss"} Before so many of them fell to the ground to never rise again. Seemed sensible. Of course those who succeded & survived proved such bravery could work.

This in part may have been fosterd by thier religios fatalism as well as thier natural mountain mans pride, as they truly believed you would only die when the Gods intended you to play that role in your wheel of life.

Even 6 years ago in rural Nepal, it was recounted to me that for many if a 3 year old was killed by a poiseness snake or tiger people would say the child had obviously done something very bad in a prievios life & it was karma.

People with that sort of belief make dangerous adversouries. Religion has sent many men to die & kill.

Today most serving Gurkhas are probably more somewhat more western in outlook & somewhat more akin to special forces. One a few years ago said to me, "We are not the illiterate men our fathers or grandfathers were, we wouldnt run at machine guns anymore, we would call for air support, then go in & clear up."

But of course there still a very proud group of people & when called upon to fight toe to toe with kukri in hand I am sure they would still do it with systematic effiency as did thier forefathers.

My point bieng what may seem foolhardy to us today didnt for men of yesteryear.

spiral

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by spiral

Well said David!




In both WW1 & WW2 & even in malaya, Gurkhas of whom the majority during war time, were young ,illiterate, uneducated,religios & fearlessly proud highlanders from the most out of the way back of beyond hamlets of the Himalayas, & who were so brave & fatalistc that the idea of throwing your rifle on the ground & running screaming at the enemy machine gunners waving thier kukri in the air screaming , "Ayo Gurkhaliiiiii " [ Basicaly "Here come the Gurkhaaaaasssss"} Before so many of them fell to the ground to never rise again. Seemed sensible. Of course those who succeded & survived proved such bravery could work.

This in part may have been fosterd by thier religios fatalism as well as thier natural mountain mans pride, as they truly believed you would only die when the Gods intended you to play that role in your wheel of life.

Even 6 years ago in rural Nepal, it was recounted to me that for many if a 3 year old was killed by a poiseness snake or tiger people would say the child had obviously done something very bad in a prievios life & it was karma.

People with that sort of belief make dangerous adversouries. Religion has sent many men to die & kill.

Today most serving Gurkhas are probably more somewhat more western in outlook & somewhat more akin to special forces. One a few years ago said to me, "We are not the illiterate men our fathers or grandfathers were, we wouldnt run at machine guns anymore, we would call for air support, then go in & clear up."

But of course there still a very proud group of people & when called upon to fight toe to toe with kukri in hand I am sure they would still do it with systematic effiency as did thier forefathers.

My point bieng what may seem foolhardy to us today didnt for men of yesteryear.

spiral

Hi Spiral,

I see what you mean, but do you think those attitudes extended to the sons of wealthy Indian families?
Or do you think the Katar stories are exagerated?
Because part of me wonders if these tales came from rich Brits on the grand tour regaling the sons of upper class Indians with tales of exaggerated bravery only to be told: 'thats interesting, did you know we hunt tigers with these'?

Hunting is a fairly common theme in designs on Indian metalwork, but I've never seen any depictions of people hunting tigers with Katars?


Best
Gene

[spiral]

In truth Gene, I dont know!

I do see your point, but many Mararajah types certanly did fight from the front in battle & many had dozens of sons. {as well as wives & concubines.} Who needed to stand out from the crowd.

I think Indian Royal politics was very machevelion at the time, with intrigue,poisening & murder,bieng common. It was tough to get to the top.

I wouldnt be surprised if some sons prooved thier fitness by such deeds. Common? I doubt it, but thats all just conjecture I have no proof.

Interesting discusian though!

spiral

[stephen wood]

interesting