Pata sword with European blade

Jens Nordlunde · 7th August 2016, 09:00 PM

In The Antiquities of Orissa, vol. I. Rajendralala Mitra on page 198 writes something I find quite interesting.

"The Marhattas had a large steel gauntlet, but it has no ancient name."

We must remember that Mitra wrote about ancient Orissa temple statue decorations, and not about such 'modern' weapons as the ones from the 16th or 17 th century:-).

This leads me to think that the gauntles sword/dagger maybe could be from the 16th century, and not much earlier - if earlier at all.

mahratt · 7th August 2016, 09:24 PM

One more image SIVAJI

Jens Nordlunde · 7th August 2016, 09:39 PM

Interesting pictures. From where are they?

mahratt · 7th August 2016, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Interesting pictures. From where are they?

This miniaturepaintings my friend bought in London by the well-known collector of miniatures - Piter.

Jens Nordlunde · 8th August 2016, 09:05 AM

Do you know how old the miniature is?

mahratt · 8th August 2016, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Do you know how old the miniature is?

This is the end of the 18th century, if my memory serves me. When my friend come from vacation, I'll ask him for sure. This miniature was at an exhibition in Brussels:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...light=Brussels

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 8th August 2016, 12:17 PM

First an interesting look at the choreography of fighting with two Dandpata at the same time; please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV25-ORDeUg and imagine being in the arena trying to fight this technique.

Secondly a look at http://wallacelive.wallacecollection...ype=detailView Abraham Stamm blade on a PATA; By the way PATA means paw in Portuguese) ; The blade clearly marked with Stamm on one blade surface and Solingen on the reverse. Stamm was active between 1700 and 1729.

Finally, Please note ; Another Stamm appears at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=stamm . Quite usually his blade stamp is two; STAMM STAMM. That may also be the case at the bolster at the throat concealing the full inscription at para 2 above..

Jerseyman · 19th August 2016, 09:35 PM

Hi Marius,

Sorry for taking so long to respond - you're absolutely right in your observation, very few strikes will be absolutely perpendicular to the target. Consequently there will always be some flex in the blade - my doubt resides in the assertion that blades were deliberately made very flexible as a positive asset.

It seems to me that a certain amount of flex is to be desired, but too much flex would be extremely detrimental to the power and accuracy of the attack or its follow-up. And I assume that historically, various armourers must have made a study of the compromise between stiffness/flexibility, hardness/strength, edge-holding capability etc.

Quite a few antique blades I've handled of generic 'european' sword length seem to be tempered to a moderate flex where the top half of the blade will bend to roughly 30º then snap back to true. Certainly not all - and I suspect that might be a reflection of function - some blades are obviously designed to be stiffer. Taking the various British cavalry sabres of the 19C as an example - to my very untutored eyes they seem to get stiffer through the century - perhaps adjusting to the changing role of cavalry? Or simply the gradual straightening of the design? I acknowledge that I am speculating about something of which I know little. I have both a parang nabur and a shotel with moderately stiff blades and a full-length flyssa with a blade that I couldn't bend if I tried. Is stiffness v. flex down to function or choice?

I seem to recall seeing a tv series on weapons by Mike Loades in which there was a demonstration of cavalrymen cutting cabbages/melons. The cuts were then shown in extreme slow-motion and the amount of cavitation/flex in what seemed to be very stiff blades was extraordinary. Which seemed to suggest that no matter how stiff the blade the impact of a strike will have a massive impact on it - at a speed too fast for the eye to follow. I cannot now recollect which blades they were using. Unfortunately I can't find that footage anywhere - if anyone else can find it please do post it as it's fascinating.

I'm about to post a single-edged pata on a new thread with a well-tempered blade that bends as I describe above and snaps back to straight.

I guess to finish up, I just don't buy that a very flexible blade is more effective in attack.

Happy to be shown the error of my ways....

kronckew · 20th August 2016, 07:18 AM

one of my swords came with a copy of it's british proof test passing. blade was clamped and tip moved to either side 30 degrees and had to spring back to zero each time.

a certain amount of flex is good, for shock absorption, but too much can prevent a thrust or ruin a cut, especially if the opponent has any kind of armour or padding. a wobbly blade is not designed to do either, it's designed that way in a few indian and chinese weapons to enhance the wobble and flutter to make cool noises as it is danced with. some blades, like the pata and wushu dao are degenerate designes based on the older and stiffer weapons actually designed to be used in battle. if ypu see videos of 'stiff' katana cutting stuff, tatami & bamboo, you can be surprised at how much they do wobble during the cut, longitudinally and transverse.

there are still two schools of thought on straight vs. curved blades. straight blades are better for thrusting, curved for cutting. the debate was strong during the latter half of the 19c. people thrust thru tend to die (with certain notable exceptions, like jim bowie in the sandbank via a sword-stick blade), people cut tend to have ghastly disabling wounds, but many with care recover nicely, tho they may remain disabled. modern medicine of course can now save many who would have died, thru techniques learned from past wars. it does take up resources tho.

thus many countries decided to go for straighter blades & emphasized the killing thust. the last cavalry sword design in the USA and the UK were essentially thrusting weapons and were used as short lances, and no emphasis was placed on training to do anything else but poke it into the enemy's body and avoid breaking your wrist as you rode past. cutting emphasizes the exchange of blows and parries in defence, requiring a more static tho fluid movements that need a fair amount of training or experience. in the age of the machine gun, the conscripts had little formal training before they were needed to become cannon fodder in the senseless charges into the spandaus and vickers MGs.

they brutal, facts are tho, that you should try to disable your enemy with a nice gory wound and tie up your enemy with casualties that need manpower to care for, transport and housing, and need precious resources, food and medicines.

a dead man takes no one and needs nothing past his grave digger, while an injured man can take up the precious time of on average 5 people who need food and housing, transport etc. till he is well enough to be sent home to shock his countrymen with his wound scars or missing lopped off limbs.

mariusgmioc · 20th August 2016, 07:41 AM

Hello and thank you Jerseyman and Kronckew for your very interesting postings!

Yes, flexibility of a blade should be optimised.

Too little of it and the blade or arm may break or in the best case throw you out of balance and too much of it would render the blade useless as it won't be able to cut/stab anything because of bending.

Yet, I believe that most of standard European broadsword blades were too stiff for the Pata fighting style.

However, It is possible there were different styles or techniques of fighting adapted to diferent types of blades, but nowdays only the more spectacular swirling style involving extremely flexible (and useless for real combat) blades survived.

7th August 2016, 09:24 PM	#2
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	One more image SIVAJI Attached Images

8th August 2016, 12:17 PM	#7
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	First an interesting look at the choreography of fighting with two Dandpata at the same time; please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV25-ORDeUg and imagine being in the arena trying to fight this technique. Secondly a look at http://wallacelive.wallacecollection...ype=detailView Abraham Stamm blade on a PATA; By the way PATA means paw in Portuguese) ; The blade clearly marked with Stamm on one blade surface and Solingen on the reverse. Stamm was active between 1700 and 1729. Finally, Please note ; Another Stamm appears at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=stamm . Quite usually his blade stamp is two; STAMM STAMM. That may also be the case at the bolster at the throat concealing the full inscription at para 2 above.. Attached Images Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 8th August 2016 at 01:12 PM.

7th August 2016, 09:00 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	In The Antiquities of Orissa, vol. I. Rajendralala Mitra on page 198 writes something I find quite interesting. "The Marhattas had a large steel gauntlet, but it has no ancient name." We must remember that Mitra wrote about ancient Orissa temple statue decorations, and not about such 'modern' weapons as the ones from the 16th or 17 th century:-). This leads me to think that the gauntles sword/dagger maybe could be from the 16th century, and not much earlier - if earlier at all.

7th August 2016, 09:39 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Interesting pictures. From where are they?

8th August 2016, 09:05 AM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Do you know how old the miniature is?

19th August 2016, 09:35 PM	#8
Jerseyman Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 97	Hi Marius, Sorry for taking so long to respond - you're absolutely right in your observation, very few strikes will be absolutely perpendicular to the target. Consequently there will always be some flex in the blade - my doubt resides in the assertion that blades were deliberately made very flexible as a positive asset. It seems to me that a certain amount of flex is to be desired, but too much flex would be extremely detrimental to the power and accuracy of the attack or its follow-up. And I assume that historically, various armourers must have made a study of the compromise between stiffness/flexibility, hardness/strength, edge-holding capability etc. Quite a few antique blades I've handled of generic 'european' sword length seem to be tempered to a moderate flex where the top half of the blade will bend to roughly 30º then snap back to true. Certainly not all - and I suspect that might be a reflection of function - some blades are obviously designed to be stiffer. Taking the various British cavalry sabres of the 19C as an example - to my very untutored eyes they seem to get stiffer through the century - perhaps adjusting to the changing role of cavalry? Or simply the gradual straightening of the design? I acknowledge that I am speculating about something of which I know little. I have both a parang nabur and a shotel with moderately stiff blades and a full-length flyssa with a blade that I couldn't bend if I tried. Is stiffness v. flex down to function or choice? I seem to recall seeing a tv series on weapons by Mike Loades in which there was a demonstration of cavalrymen cutting cabbages/melons. The cuts were then shown in extreme slow-motion and the amount of cavitation/flex in what seemed to be very stiff blades was extraordinary. Which seemed to suggest that no matter how stiff the blade the impact of a strike will have a massive impact on it - at a speed too fast for the eye to follow. I cannot now recollect which blades they were using. Unfortunately I can't find that footage anywhere - if anyone else can find it please do post it as it's fascinating. I'm about to post a single-edged pata on a new thread with a well-tempered blade that bends as I describe above and snaps back to straight. I guess to finish up, I just don't buy that a very flexible blade is more effective in attack. Happy to be shown the error of my ways....

20th August 2016, 07:18 AM	#9
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	one of my swords came with a copy of it's british proof test passing. blade was clamped and tip moved to either side 30 degrees and had to spring back to zero each time. a certain amount of flex is good, for shock absorption, but too much can prevent a thrust or ruin a cut, especially if the opponent has any kind of armour or padding. a wobbly blade is not designed to do either, it's designed that way in a few indian and chinese weapons to enhance the wobble and flutter to make cool noises as it is danced with. some blades, like the pata and wushu dao are degenerate designes based on the older and stiffer weapons actually designed to be used in battle. if ypu see videos of 'stiff' katana cutting stuff, tatami & bamboo, you can be surprised at how much they do wobble during the cut, longitudinally and transverse. there are still two schools of thought on straight vs. curved blades. straight blades are better for thrusting, curved for cutting. the debate was strong during the latter half of the 19c. people thrust thru tend to die (with certain notable exceptions, like jim bowie in the sandbank via a sword-stick blade), people cut tend to have ghastly disabling wounds, but many with care recover nicely, tho they may remain disabled. modern medicine of course can now save many who would have died, thru techniques learned from past wars. it does take up resources tho. thus many countries decided to go for straighter blades & emphasized the killing thust. the last cavalry sword design in the USA and the UK were essentially thrusting weapons and were used as short lances, and no emphasis was placed on training to do anything else but poke it into the enemy's body and avoid breaking your wrist as you rode past. cutting emphasizes the exchange of blows and parries in defence, requiring a more static tho fluid movements that need a fair amount of training or experience. in the age of the machine gun, the conscripts had little formal training before they were needed to become cannon fodder in the senseless charges into the spandaus and vickers MGs. they brutal, facts are tho, that you should try to disable your enemy with a nice gory wound and tie up your enemy with casualties that need manpower to care for, transport and housing, and need precious resources, food and medicines. a dead man takes no one and needs nothing past his grave digger, while an injured man can take up the precious time of on average 5 people who need food and housing, transport etc. till he is well enough to be sent home to shock his countrymen with his wound scars or missing lopped off limbs.

20th August 2016, 07:41 AM	#10
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,911	Hello and thank you Jerseyman and Kronckew for your very interesting postings! Yes, flexibility of a blade should be optimised. Too little of it and the blade or arm may break or in the best case throw you out of balance and too much of it would render the blade useless as it won't be able to cut/stab anything because of bending. Yet, I believe that most of standard European broadsword blades were too stiff for the Pata fighting style. However, It is possible there were different styles or techniques of fighting adapted to diferent types of blades, but nowdays only the more spectacular swirling style involving extremely flexible (and useless for real combat) blades survived.