Pata sword with European blade

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Cathey

Hi Guys

Pata's are one of my favourite Indian weapons. However, when it comes to the blades they where often battle field pick ups recycled hence usually 17th Century or earlier. Given there length potentially started life as European Riding swords, hand and a half or even two handed swords.

We have four Pata's in our collection and all appear to have European blades. European blades from the 17th Century or earlier are also extremely flexible and whilst some Pata blades may feature eastern designs these could simply have been added latter and may not have been original to the blade when forged.

The patta was used by all military classes, particularly by experienced swordsmen. For one who is inexperienced with the patta it can be difficult to use but it is the most effective of all Indian swords. It is wielded by the strong muscles of the fore and upper arm, and not by the wrist. This allows the sword to deliver more powerful blows and thrusts at any angle. This method also greatly reduces the amount of fatigue, due to the use of the upper arm muscles (Rawson 46).

Cheers Cathey and Rex

Hello Cathey and Rex,

Thank you very much for the photos and info you provided!

I found rather confusing you mentioning that 17 century or earlier European sword were very flexible.

From all that I know European swords were exactly the contrary. They were very stiff and heavy as they were designed to deliver powerful blows against heavily armoured oponents. Powerful blows that were not necessarily supposed to cause any cuts but to shatter bones and throw opponents out of balance. Practically none of the European swords I know (and I handled quite a few) had blades flexible enough to be suitable for Patas.

Second, the citation you give from Rawson is very misleading at least.

Patas may have been effective weapons in certain circumstances but they are extremely ineffective in others. For example, Patas are effective fighting multiple enemies wearing no armour in relatively wide open spaces but are very ineffective in crammed battles or against armoured opponents. Moreover, Patas are effective at delivering slashing/whipping blows, but are definitely not effective at thrusting/stabbing as their greater flexibility and length will make them easily bend if they encounter the slightest resistance like chainmail or even bone. Also the whole arm grip, makes the Pata very unsuitable for close combat in crammed spaces because of difficulties in handling the blade.

So, I believe Rawson got his information from anecdotal sources that cannot stand thorough scrutiny, and this would be a good example where flawed information has become to be considered as reference.

It would be interesting to see what others have to say about this subject.

Regards,

Marius

[Jens Nordlunde]

Marius,
I am with you. In another thread long ago it was suggested that the pata could be used as a lance. No it cant. The blade is far too flexible, and should you stab a man with a pata, you are likely to break your arm/shoulder or get the arm ripped off, as you can not let go of a pata as easily as you can with a tulwar.

Jim,
In the article Robert writes in Sultans of the South (pp. 218-233), he discusses the Indian and the European blades, and he ends the article by writing: "The Nomerous weapons of the Deccan reflect this diversity, and it remains difficult at attribute arms to a spacific court or to determine with certainty the origin of many of the firangi blades that are mounted on Indian gilts."
Francois Bernier who stayed in India from 1656 to 1668 writes: "...some Indian craftsmen can imitate European blades that the difference between the original and the copy can hardly be discerned." This quote is also from Robert's article.

Kubur.
You are right that Robert does not show the flower, so I did Google the name, here it is.

[fernando]

I bet you guys are familiar with Elgood's work "Swords in the Deccan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cenmturies: Their Manufacture and Influence of European Imports."
I know this is a recurrent approach, but ...
Among the various interesting passages, i would venture this one to be of some opportunity here:

.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Fernando :-),
Your quote is, of course, from Sultans of the South - goes without saying :-).
Did you also read where it says, that the swords from EAC can not be sold in India, as the quality is too low????
You can find quotes matching most arguments - so why argue, as non of us lived then, and our knowledge comes from books written by someone living, and travelling in India at the time.
We do know, however, from several collections that Indian sword smiths did make both genuine Indian, as well as copies of European blade, of a very high quality.
We now discuss the high quality of the European blades, but I am sure that you will be able to find blades made in Germany of a lower/low quality than the ones from Solingen, and the same goes for the other blade exporting countries.

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Jens and Fernando,

My issue is not so much related to the quality of the blades as high quality blades were manufactured both in Europe and in India, but more with the TYPE of blades manufactured.

My point is that the Pata requires a very specific type of blade, long, wide and very, very elastic that is incompatible with any type of European or otherwise sword I know.

Now Jim has mentioned the Kattara (sounds like a type of Katar ), but I am not familiar with this type of sword and I am planning to research more about it. However, there might be the possibility those swords use imported Indian blades, rather than the other way around.

In my line of logic, I believe that since the Pata blades were that peculiar and specific, it would be most logical they were manufactured locally, even if some of them were adorned with European-like decorations and markings. In other words, I find hard to concieve that European swordsmiths were producing this type of very special blades specifically for export to India.

Yes, there are some, maybe many, examples with Patas fitted with European rigid blades, but those Patas would have been extremely difficult, impractical and ineffective as weapons.

[fernando]

Hi Marius,
I will not contest your knowledge of how patas were used in combat, in such way that they had to have extremily flexible blades, otherwise becoming impractical. I do not possess or have read any literature on that specific field, other than a written work mentioning that they required an intense school training.
But i make a point in questioning that the majority of pata blades were manufactured locally, as what i heard is the contrary.
In HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES by Rainer Daehnhardt he pretends that the majority pata blades were European, deliberately imported for such purpose, being brought by Portuguese and Venetian traders ... notwithstanding that the earlier examples of pata the author knows are from the end XV century and, in such cases, blades may have been repurposed from captured swords. Interesting to notice that, from the nine examples from the author's collection that illustrate the quoted book, only two are of Indian manufacture.
Of course this is worth what is worth.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Marius,

But i make a point in questioning that the majority of pata blades were manufactured locally, as what i heard is the contrary.
In HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES by Rainer Daehnhardt he pretends that the majority pata blades were European, deliberately imported for such purpose, being brought by Portuguese and Venetian traders ... notwithstanding that the earlier examples of pata the author knows are from the end XV century and, in such cases, blades may have been repurposed from captured swords. Interesting to notice that, from the nine examples from the author's collection that illustrate the quoted book, only two are of Indian manufacture.
Of course this is worth what is worth.

Well Fernando and Jim it is precisely this common established knowledge, that I am challenging based on logic and common practical sense.

It is precisely this common knowledge that very often can be fundamentally flawed as it was based on flawed original information.

Now what if Rainer Daehnhardt is wrong about this information (I don't say that he is)?! You get one piece of information like this from here, one from there and have a well founded and accepted opinion that may be considered by some as irrefutable truth... yet, be fundamentally wrong.

I do not challenge that many Tulwars or Pulwars have European blades, as they were common blades that could be used with diferent mounts, and thus it would be normal to be widely traded as a much demanded commodity. Moreover, at the time this trade occurred, much of Indian local production was shut down by the deliberate colonial policy.

However, with the Pata is something particular: it requires a particular type of blade, and a blade that isn't useful in any other mount and fighting style. So I find highly improbable the Indians invented the Pata and the fighting style associated to it while having to rely on imports from Europe of precisely that type of blades, made to order...
... all while they had at hand, capable bladesmiths and know-how to produce those blades themselves.

And I believe that here is a mistake in over generalizing. If many European blades were imported in India and mounted in local mounts, does this automatically imply that this is true for the Patas as well?! Based on what since Elgood seems to refer to blades in general?! And there is a long way between a generic sabre blade and Pata.

Dubito, ergo cogito.

[mariusgmioc]

Pata sword with European blade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7niTpIW7dEk

Pata sword with Indian blade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QHTBq2DzSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTwVfHkLtK0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkakKuGuI3s

With the Pata with stiff European blade the parry of a full blow will result in a dislodged elbow or shoulder or, in best case scenario with the wielder seriously out of balance and vulnerable.

With a Pata with flexible Indian blade the parry of a full blow would have almost no impact on the wielder as the blade will elastically bend and absorb the shock, allowing the wielder to continue his movement and deliver a second and third blow, while continuously moving so not to be vulnerable to a quick approach attack.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Well Fernando and Jim it is precisely this common established knowledge, that I am challenging based on logic and common practical sense.

It is precisely this common knowledge that very often can be fundamentally flawed as it was based on flawed original information.

Now what if Rainer Daehnhardt is wrong about this information (I don't say that he is)?! You get one piece of information like this from here, one from there and have a well founded and accepted opinion that may be considered by some as irrefutable truth... yet, be fundamentally wrong.

I do not challenge that many Tulwars or Pulwars have European blades, as they were common blades that could be used with diferent mounts, and thus it would be normal to be widely traded as a much demanded commodity. Moreover, at the time this trade occurred, much of Indian local production was shut down by the deliberate colonial policy.

However, with the Pata is something particular: it requires a particular type of blade, and a blade that isn't useful in any other mount and fighting style. So I find highly improbable the Indians invented the Pata and the fighting style associated to it while having to rely on imports from Europe of precisely that type of blades, made to order...
... all while they had at hand, capable bladesmiths and know-how to produce those blades themselves.

And I believe that here is a mistake in over generalizing. If many European blades were imported in India and mounted in local mounts, does this automatically imply that this is true for the Patas as well?! Based on what since Elgood seems to refer to blades in general?! And there is a long way between a generic sabre blade and Pata.

Dubito, ergo cogito.

I would note here that this is a great discussion, and fantastic to have this traffic and interest in Indian arms. Typically through the years, it seems many collectors and historians have avoided this field probably due to the exact complexities we are tenaciously challenging.

I will also note that Dr. Robert Elgood is probably one of the most thorough and aggressive researchers in his chosen subjects that I have known (besides Jens of course!). I do not know Mr. Daehnhardt as Fernando does, but over many years, his observations and opinions have always proven sound. I note this as we have all been connected variably in these studies on these arms for well over 15+ years, and of course Robert Elgood's book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" has served as a landmark study since its release in 2004.

In trying address these points, first I would say that while both the pata and khanda had distinct southern origins, they typically would not necessarily have been appointed with the same type 'firangi' blades. The khanda, which was a purely Indian sword which developed the 'Hindu basket hilt' with the progression of European swords into India at the beginning of the 16th century, evolved characteristically by the 17thc into a backsword.
These moved northward into the Rajput sphere with their victory at Adoni in 1689, when huge volumes of arms etc were taken to Bikaner in Rajasthan.
Here the Hindu basket hilt became a well known Rajput weapon along with their familiar tulwars.

The pata was a quite different sword, though its areas of use were throughout the south. These evolved from the katars of Vijayanagara and Tanjore in around 16th century (with earlier cases still somewhat unresolved but pending, though recorded) which were essentially long bladed daggers using volumes of cut down European blades (Elgood p.145). These early katars were hooded and also used Indian made blades, but were notably slashing weapons.
These transverse grip slashing daggers by the early 17th c. evolved into what Deraniyagala termed 'equestrian swords' but were these 'gauntlet' swords using full length sword blades. This was the 'pata' and despite the bizarre notion these were used as a lance, this was not possible for rational reasons.
Therefore, the transverse grip dictated mostly the same slashing use as the katar, its dagger length predecessor.

As such, these pata required broadsword blades as the alternating slashing cuts would be more suitably effected with double edges.

The pata however, was not as widely diffused in number as the khanda (firangi basket hilt) and while remaining primarily in the Deccan and Southern regions, moved northward in degree via Mughal courts.

I think one of the most salient points regarding estimating the use of these weapons is to remember that parrying, and European style swordsmanship was not in Indian form. Parrying was the work of the shield, not the sword.
This is not to say it could never happen (to disclaim the inevitable exceptions), but that in general, it was not in place.
It is interesting to note that the ancestor or counterpart of the pata, the katar, did move northward with use by Mughals, Rajputs and others but gained the notable feature of reinforced blade tips for armor piercing.
These continued as well to be mounted with European blades cut down just as in the earliest beginnings, however it is doubtful that these blades could have succeeded in that capacity, while the Indian made ones would.

Returning to the pata, it seems Elgood notes in the article on the Deccan linked by Fernando, that the preponderance of pata blades were indeed European, and in fact only a few were known to have had Indian blades.

I think it is important to agree that these kinds of observations must be relegated to their context and the period in which they are discussed. There were clearly large numbers of European blades arriving in India 16th and 17th century, probably well into 18th. The British campaigns in the latter 18th certainly impacted trade and normal commerce, and the resumption of blade traffic probably resumed in degree in various areas in the 19th.
The British intervention was in wootz production and that was in the 19th century.

In the south, the preference of Mahrattas and other regional instances were straight blades. The larger volume of sabre blades was situated more in the entrepots on the west and north. As mentioned in the 17th century long firangi blades were a status symbol as at the time Indian swords were brittle, so the flexible blades brought by the English (probably German) went for high prices. Most of these issues with Indian blades had I think mostly to do with ill forged wootz, and it is noted that Jahangir as well as followed by Shah Jahan favored 'Almaine' (German) swords. These would have been probably sabre blades of course in Mughal tulwars.

BTW, on the worn motif on Kuburs blade (OP), the cartouches are likely worn away from the constant burnishing of the blade, apparently a key affectation of Indian blades to be of high polish. The upper one is still discernible nearest and under the langet.


Cogito ergo sum

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ok Marius, I agree with you when you say 'local' - if it can be meant in a broader sence in India.
I do also believe that there must have been a number of firangi pata blades, although I do not have any idea how widely they were spread.

[ariel]

AFAIK, Pata was a predominantly Mahratta weapon ( even Shivaji was portrayed carrying one).

Mahratta cavalry was irregular, and poorly disciplined. Their tactics was a rapid attack, one or two uncoordinated slashes and speedy withdrawal. For that , Pata was a very appropriate weapon: far-reaching, with wide area of potential damage, powerful strokes ( driven by the entire arm rather than just elbow or wrist) and a built-in arm protection. No fancy fencing here :-)))
The elasticity of the Pata blade was a very Southern feature, reaching its apogee in Urumi, also not designed for any precise cuts, but for rapid and unpredictable slashing.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

AFAIK, Pata was a predominantly Mahratta weapon ( even Shivaji was portrayed carrying one)...

Well noted 'predominantely', if i may; Sikhs and Rajputs also gave it a little hand. And, confirming that the exception makes the rule, there is a XVIII century beautiful Pata at the Met, doubtlessly made for a Muslim, inscribed with Qur'anic verse and a reference to Dhu'l faqar ... and with an XVI century European blade, for a change.

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratta cavalry was irregular, and poorly disciplined. Their tactics was a rapid attack, one or two uncoordinated slashes and speedy withdrawal.

Interesting approach ! A different version may also be concluded from written stuff and historical evidence.
Shivaji is said to have built a disciplined military force. He innovated military tactics, pioneering the guerrilla warfare methods, which leveraged strategic factors like geography, speed, and surprise and focused pinpoint attacks to defeat his larger and more powerful enemies.
If not, history tells us that, at the beginning of the XVIII century, the Marathas led by Chimaji Appa fought several battles against the Portuguese, by then a weakened adversary, managing to drive them out of Western India.


.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by fernando

Interesting approach ! A different version may also be concluded from written stuff and historical evidence.
Shivaji .... innovated military tactics, pioneering the guerrilla warfare methods, which leveraged strategic factors like geography, speed, and surprise and focused pinpoint attacks to defeat his larger and more powerful enemies.


.

That was exactly what I was talking about :-))