A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

Jim McDougall · 4th November 2018, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

As far as I remember, stories about Indian swordplay ( no parrying, just shield and jumping) came from the Brits as well.
But I am not sure it has any relations to the topic of this discussion. Aren't we talking about stabbing competence of katars with reinforced points?

Exactly, well noted Ariel, we have digressed from that topic enough. Back to the dynamics of the katar in use for penetration.

ariel · 4th November 2018, 08:50 PM

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.

Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

Jim McDougall · 5th November 2018, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.

Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

Well! Alrighty then!!!!

Mercenary · 5th November 2018, 05:45 PM

I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated .
And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt.

Mercenary · 5th November 2018, 07:28 PM

It would also be useful to find such a dagger before the 19th century at least. Although "to penetrate armor" already in the second half of the 18th was hardly necessary.

Jens Nordlunde · 5th November 2018, 09:39 PM

I am sorry, but I do not understand your last two mails.

Mercenary · 6th November 2018, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I am sorry, but I do not understand your last two mails.

Jens,
I suppose that before telling us how to pierce mail with zirah bouk it is needed to be explained:
1. Could such a term as "zirah bouk" exist in the historical reality?
2. I can imagine how to pierce the mail with jamdhar, but I can not imagine how to pierce the mail with the force without hand sliding from the grip to the blade if use a dagger like peshkabz .
3. The most part of zirah bouk I have seen were from 19th. I doubt that in 19th in India men chased each other trying to pierce the armour. On the other hand, other men brought from India to Europe a lot of exotic objects which have an unusual shape, such as "executioner's swords", "mail piercer", "head cutters" and other trash in gold.

ariel · 5th November 2018, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercenary

I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated .
And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt.

Do not despair. It is in the Glossary in the Jaipur book by Elgood. Since his academic credentials are not too shabby, I tend to rely on him more than I would on Russian policemen. I agree it is a an artificial term: it describes not the object itself, but its function. By the same token, as per Khorasani, a Pesh Kabz with straight blade was popularly called a Shotorkosh, i.e. camel killer, in Iran.

And if we have touched this topic, Russian policemen would have hard time proving that Zirah Bouk had no protection against hand sliding: the same construction (bolster only ) is seen in each and every Pesh Kabz and Afghani Ch'hura. And your buddy Mahratt argued repeatedly that Karud ( Shotorkosh:-)) was designed for armour piercing, while Ch'hura was good for penetrating padded garb. I could never understand the logic of it, but be it as it may.

Although my experience with Russian policemen was admittedly limited, I have no doubt they could prove anything in the Russian court:-) But would the judge accept their claim that Caucasian kindjal is also not a weapon? After all it also had no crossguard.

You cannot blame Urdu for not having a word Zirah Bouk: it is in Persian. Different languages, you know....

Mercenary · 6th November 2018, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

It is in the Glossary in the Jaipur book by Elgood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Russian policemen would have hard time proving that Zirah Bouk had no protection against hand sliding

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

But would the judge accept their claim that Caucasian kindjal is also not a weapon? After all it also had no crossguard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

You cannot blame Urdu for not having a word Zirah Bouk: it is in Persian. Different languages, you know....

...

Jim McDougall · 6th November 2018, 08:25 PM

To move beyond the developing nonsense of the last posts, I would like to join Ariel in sensibly evaluating the topic material.
In reference to stabbing potential of a weapon, in this case specifically armor piercing.....that is of course mail......while mail was indeed obsolete essentially in Europe.....it remained very much in use an such a number of ethnographic spheres that it would be hard to list them all here, and even into the 20th c.

I always remember first hearing of the Khevsurs years ago, reading Halliburton's "Seven League Boots", describing how these anachronistic warriors rode into Tiflis during WWI, armed cap a' pie wearing mail and old helmets looking like medieval warriors.

Iaroslav Lebedynsky used the term malle pierce in his references to certain bolstered and thin blades on kindjhal and others. It was not used in the 'title' of the weapon, only in its description.

In the Sudan and Egypt at the end of the 19th century, they were not only wearing mail, but making it there. It was used by Moros in the Spanish American war.

Despite the fact that firearms rendered this protection useless, it was still stubbornly retained by many and the idea of mail piercing weapons was not entirely lost, especially in remote regions where the materials needed for firearms were not always available.

These are simply assessments based on many years of intrigued study on these things, and not quite as 'first hand' as some who seem as if they had been there in real time. I only wish I had the ability to travel in time.

Here I would point out also that terms are usually less than viable as far as supportive evidence, but the more corroboration and cross referenced accounts, the higher degree of plausibility. I have always respected the nearly three decades that Robert Elgood has been traveling into India to field research for his valuable references, and also regard them as quite irrefutable. The mark of a true scholar and professional is to be able to remain open for new evidence or even correction, which is very much who he is.
Lesser 'scholars' will argue their position into the ground without any allowance or recognition of other views or suggestions, denying the possibility of learning from the many other deviations that may exist toward the subject matter.

The use of fanciful terms toward 'exotic' weaponry often collected is of course very expected, such as a huge blade...must be an executioners etc. but is hardly the kind of term responsible students of arms recognize.

Terms that are colloquially applied such as zirah bouk, pesh kabz, karud, churra etc etc etc should be recognized as just that, and the entire description of the weapon should note the variations accordingly. For our purposes in discussion we often defer to commonly used terms for the sake of convenience, but sort of footnote the proper term as possible.

For the most part, this 'strange' discussion has had some very worthy exchanges of information. Thank you to those staying objective.

5th November 2018, 05:45 PM	#4
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated . And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt. Last edited by Mercenary; 5th November 2018 at 06:44 PM.

4th November 2018, 08:50 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer. Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding. Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function. No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

5th November 2018, 07:28 PM	#5
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	It would also be useful to find such a dagger before the 19th century at least. Although "to penetrate armor" already in the second half of the 18th was hardly necessary.

5th November 2018, 09:39 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I am sorry, but I do not understand your last two mails.

6th November 2018, 08:25 PM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,295	To move beyond the developing nonsense of the last posts, I would like to join Ariel in sensibly evaluating the topic material. In reference to stabbing potential of a weapon, in this case specifically armor piercing.....that is of course mail......while mail was indeed obsolete essentially in Europe.....it remained very much in use an such a number of ethnographic spheres that it would be hard to list them all here, and even into the 20th c. I always remember first hearing of the Khevsurs years ago, reading Halliburton's "Seven League Boots", describing how these anachronistic warriors rode into Tiflis during WWI, armed cap a' pie wearing mail and old helmets looking like medieval warriors. Iaroslav Lebedynsky used the term malle pierce in his references to certain bolstered and thin blades on kindjhal and others. It was not used in the 'title' of the weapon, only in its description. In the Sudan and Egypt at the end of the 19th century, they were not only wearing mail, but making it there. It was used by Moros in the Spanish American war. Despite the fact that firearms rendered this protection useless, it was still stubbornly retained by many and the idea of mail piercing weapons was not entirely lost, especially in remote regions where the materials needed for firearms were not always available. These are simply assessments based on many years of intrigued study on these things, and not quite as 'first hand' as some who seem as if they had been there in real time. I only wish I had the ability to travel in time. Here I would point out also that terms are usually less than viable as far as supportive evidence, but the more corroboration and cross referenced accounts, the higher degree of plausibility. I have always respected the nearly three decades that Robert Elgood has been traveling into India to field research for his valuable references, and also regard them as quite irrefutable. The mark of a true scholar and professional is to be able to remain open for new evidence or even correction, which is very much who he is. Lesser 'scholars' will argue their position into the ground without any allowance or recognition of other views or suggestions, denying the possibility of learning from the many other deviations that may exist toward the subject matter. The use of fanciful terms toward 'exotic' weaponry often collected is of course very expected, such as a huge blade...must be an executioners etc. but is hardly the kind of term responsible students of arms recognize. Terms that are colloquially applied such as zirah bouk, pesh kabz, karud, churra etc etc etc should be recognized as just that, and the entire description of the weapon should note the variations accordingly. For our purposes in discussion we often defer to commonly used terms for the sake of convenience, but sort of footnote the proper term as possible. For the most part, this 'strange' discussion has had some very worthy exchanges of information. Thank you to those staying objective.