A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

Mercenary · 31st October 2018, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...but heavy textiles being worn surely offered protection again sword cuts and other weapon threats

Quite so. Thanks. It was a big problem. For British.

Jim McDougall · 31st October 2018, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Quite so. Thanks. It was a big problem. For British.

It was indeed, and there are many reports of complaints by British troopers that their swords would not cut into or penetrate in many cases due to these kinds of matters with heavy textile material worn by other forces. In the Crimea, the Russian great coats, as you know, were also highly impenetrable.

Mercenary · 31st October 2018, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It was indeed, and there are many reports of complaints by British troopers that their swords would not cut into or penetrate in many cases due to these kinds of matters with heavy textile material worn by other forces. In the Crimea, the Russian great coats, as you know, were also highly impenetrable.

Thanks again. Actually it was not a big problem for British - inability to cut through Indian coats or turban or Russian greatcoat or shako or Cossacks papakha. They won because of another. Indian warriors also didn't need to pierce armor or drilling charaina and helmets - they were able to reach the result on the foot or on the horse by other ways and without any special tools.

ariel · 31st October 2018, 11:04 PM

What do you mean by “another”, “ other ways” and absence of “special tools”? You seem to speak in riddles.

I am at a loss. And quite intrigued.

ariel · 1st November 2018, 08:15 AM

All warfare is an unceasing competition between a blade and a shield: I.e. between attack and defense. Any improvement in the offensive capability causes major efforts in the improvement of defensive equipment, and vice versa. And every time each side tries to make an extra leap not only to preserve the balance, but to outperform the opponent. This is the reason why Indian stabbing blades had reinforced point: to guarantee their ability to overcome defensive parameters of any potential protection of not only textile garb, but also of any metal armor, irrespective of the statistical likelihood of its existence on the battlefield. Forewarned is forearmed.

I looked at the collection of katars in Jens’ book: virtually all of them are “Zirah Bouk-ish”, guaranteeing their penetrating potential of the ( unlikely but possible) metal component.

Thus, any argument that by the 19 century mail has become “obsolete, rare and limited only to the upper 5% of the opponents” ignores the golden rule of the battlefield: the only good kill is an overkill.

Mercenary · 1st November 2018, 06:13 PM

The Thin Red Line instead of the Charge of the Light Brigade.

It is need to consider the statistics of military casualties due to the use of cold weapons. In India such percentage was higher, but no too much.

In the classic mass fighting of Indian infantry with cold weapons (talwar+dhal against talwar+dhal) the penetration of armor (which in most cases was absent) by some kind of dagger was excluded.

Of course, someone once could pierce someone else using a dagger with a strong tip. But it was most likely cloth armor of infantryman and it was not a traditional warfare. There is no evidence of this in the chronicles yet.

Heavily armed horsemen were being knocked off from the horse to the ground and then a throat was being cut. And then - a head.

Mercenary · 1st November 2018, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

All warfare is an unceasing competition between a blade and a shield: I.e. between attack and defense.

This is true only for battleships or tanks: the competition between armor and guns. But not in relation to the traditional culture. There were talwar and dhal and nothing had changed.

ariel · 1st November 2018, 10:28 PM

Disagree on both points.
Mutual adaptation of blades and armor ( including shields, helmets, body defense etc) is as old as warfare itself. Take for example the transition of Japanese swords post encounter with the Mongolian army sporting thick leather/ mail armor. Straight swords virtually disappeared, the blades became thicker and stronger and differential hardening became a norm. Also, tanto became a real fighting weapon as a result of widespread hand-to- hand infantry combat.

As to battleships and tanks, the list is bigger by orders of magnitude and this is true from times immemorial till now. How about anti-tank hedgehogs? Land mines? Calthrops? Misericords? Estocs? First-strike nuclear attacks and missile defense? Submarines and sonars? Simple bows were sufficient for unprotected opponents, but the invention of metal armor was rapidly followed by the manufacture of crossbows. Large simple bows of the early infantry were replaced by the small composite ones for the use by cavalry.this was true about military architecture as well: the attacker uses battle towers, rams and ladders? The defender builds a glacis.

As to the Brits vs. Indians, katars preceded Wellington by centuries. Daggers and katars were irreplaceable for hand-to-hand fights. Starting to view military value of mail-piercing daggers from Assaye is a big mistake.

Jim McDougall · 1st November 2018, 10:40 PM

If I am following the discussion correctly, the general talking point (no pun intended) was/is whether or not the katar (or other stabbing weapons) needed a reinforced point to effectively penetrate armor.....that is mail.

While the pragmatic digressions are interesting, as are the philosophical perspectives......I would say again, it seems that bolstering the point of an edged weapon would make sense if at any point (there I go again

...the weapon would be used in a thrust vs. armor or heavy clothing.

While the katar in most instances, especially early examples in the south (Vijayanagara etc, Maratha etc.) were used in slashing cuts....their use to the north began such bolstering as mail was often present in combat.

In studies on mail used in New Spain in colonial times from the conquistadors through 19th century, it seems that this defensive armor was in use even after it had become largely obsolete in Europe with the advent of firearms. However, lack of proper armorers to maintain and repair the old coats of mail led to its becoming unserviceable in time with corrosion and breakage.

The biggest problem was its lack of effectiveness again the deadly arrows of the American Indian tribes. The 'point' of the arrow would enter the ring of the link, and expand it and break in, especially with the force of the arrow vs. a compromised (rusty or broken) link. Further and worse, the debris was carried by the arrow into the wound, with obvious result.

These dynamics are what I was referring to earlier regarding how effective a katar would be vs. mail, and how the reinforced point would react in a thrust. However, if the mail was sturdy and sound, relatively new or well maintained, the result would not be favorable for the user of the katar.

In the more probable case, with heavy or padded clothing, a sharp reinforced point would certainly penetrate with effect. With these circumstances in mind, the reinforced point would not necessarily be intended against armor, but vs heavy clothing as well.

The use of mail prevailed in archaic situations into the 20th century (Khevsurs ) and through the 19th (in Egypt with the Khedive's 'iron men') and across the Sahara in Bornu and with many tribal groups. In most cases, it was readily discarded as the dramatically increased wounding from bullets were obvious incentive to do so.

31st October 2018, 11:04 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	What do you mean by “another”, “ other ways” and absence of “special tools”? You seem to speak in riddles. I am at a loss. And quite intrigued. Last edited by ariel; 1st November 2018 at 08:23 AM.

1st November 2018, 06:13 PM	#6
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	The Thin Red Line instead of the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is need to consider the statistics of military casualties due to the use of cold weapons. In India such percentage was higher, but no too much. In the classic mass fighting of Indian infantry with cold weapons (talwar+dhal against talwar+dhal) the penetration of armor (which in most cases was absent) by some kind of dagger was excluded. Of course, someone once could pierce someone else using a dagger with a strong tip. But it was most likely cloth armor of infantryman and it was not a traditional warfare. There is no evidence of this in the chronicles yet. Heavily armed horsemen were being knocked off from the horse to the ground and then a throat was being cut. And then - a head. Attached Images

1st November 2018, 08:15 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	All warfare is an unceasing competition between a blade and a shield: I.e. between attack and defense. Any improvement in the offensive capability causes major efforts in the improvement of defensive equipment, and vice versa. And every time each side tries to make an extra leap not only to preserve the balance, but to outperform the opponent. This is the reason why Indian stabbing blades had reinforced point: to guarantee their ability to overcome defensive parameters of any potential protection of not only textile garb, but also of any metal armor, irrespective of the statistical likelihood of its existence on the battlefield. Forewarned is forearmed. I looked at the collection of katars in Jens’ book: virtually all of them are “Zirah Bouk-ish”, guaranteeing their penetrating potential of the ( unlikely but possible) metal component. Thus, any argument that by the 19 century mail has become “obsolete, rare and limited only to the upper 5% of the opponents” ignores the golden rule of the battlefield: the only good kill is an overkill.

1st November 2018, 10:28 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Disagree on both points. Mutual adaptation of blades and armor ( including shields, helmets, body defense etc) is as old as warfare itself. Take for example the transition of Japanese swords post encounter with the Mongolian army sporting thick leather/ mail armor. Straight swords virtually disappeared, the blades became thicker and stronger and differential hardening became a norm. Also, tanto became a real fighting weapon as a result of widespread hand-to- hand infantry combat. As to battleships and tanks, the list is bigger by orders of magnitude and this is true from times immemorial till now. How about anti-tank hedgehogs? Land mines? Calthrops? Misericords? Estocs? First-strike nuclear attacks and missile defense? Submarines and sonars? Simple bows were sufficient for unprotected opponents, but the invention of metal armor was rapidly followed by the manufacture of crossbows. Large simple bows of the early infantry were replaced by the small composite ones for the use by cavalry.this was true about military architecture as well: the attacker uses battle towers, rams and ladders? The defender builds a glacis. As to the Brits vs. Indians, katars preceded Wellington by centuries. Daggers and katars were irreplaceable for hand-to-hand fights. Starting to view military value of mail-piercing daggers from Assaye is a big mistake.

1st November 2018, 10:40 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,295	If I am following the discussion correctly, the general talking point (no pun intended) was/is whether or not the katar (or other stabbing weapons) needed a reinforced point to effectively penetrate armor.....that is mail. While the pragmatic digressions are interesting, as are the philosophical perspectives......I would say again, it seems that bolstering the point of an edged weapon would make sense if at any point (there I go again ...the weapon would be used in a thrust vs. armor or heavy clothing. While the katar in most instances, especially early examples in the south (Vijayanagara etc, Maratha etc.) were used in slashing cuts....their use to the north began such bolstering as mail was often present in combat. In studies on mail used in New Spain in colonial times from the conquistadors through 19th century, it seems that this defensive armor was in use even after it had become largely obsolete in Europe with the advent of firearms. However, lack of proper armorers to maintain and repair the old coats of mail led to its becoming unserviceable in time with corrosion and breakage. The biggest problem was its lack of effectiveness again the deadly arrows of the American Indian tribes. The 'point' of the arrow would enter the ring of the link, and expand it and break in, especially with the force of the arrow vs. a compromised (rusty or broken) link. Further and worse, the debris was carried by the arrow into the wound, with obvious result. These dynamics are what I was referring to earlier regarding how effective a katar would be vs. mail, and how the reinforced point would react in a thrust. However, if the mail was sturdy and sound, relatively new or well maintained, the result would not be favorable for the user of the katar. In the more probable case, with heavy or padded clothing, a sharp reinforced point would certainly penetrate with effect. With these circumstances in mind, the reinforced point would not necessarily be intended against armor, but vs heavy clothing as well. The use of mail prevailed in archaic situations into the 20th century (Khevsurs ) and through the 19th (in Egypt with the Khedive's 'iron men') and across the Sahara in Bornu and with many tribal groups. In most cases, it was readily discarded as the dramatically increased wounding from bullets were obvious incentive to do so.