Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Mercenary]

...

[Mercenary]

////

[Jim McDougall]

AT LAST!!!! Irrefutable proof that katars WERE used to hunt tigers!



I am unclear on the highlighted quote from Robert Elgood's outstanding book "Rajput Arms and Armour", is this meant to suggest that no katars were made for 'souvenier' markets during the Raj and easily into modern times?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

AT LAST!!!! Irrefutable proof that katars WERE used to hunt tigers!



I am unclear on the highlighted quote from Robert Elgood's outstanding book "Rajput Arms and Armour", is this meant to suggest that no katars were made for 'souvenier' markets during the Raj and easily into modern times?

Thank you. The quote explains why we have a lot of katars now (and so few tigers) and why there are so many small sizes among them. All of this becouse later katars were used as articles of clothing for Indian and souveniers for Evropean unlike real battle or hunting katars.
By the way how many do you know katars decorated with the battle scene or on the contrary with the hunting scene? I cheked this - 1:10.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thank you. The quote explains why we have a lot of katars now (and so few tigers) and why there are so many small sizes among them. All of this becouse later katars were used as articles of clothing for Indian and souveniers for Evropean unlike real battle or hunting katars.
By the way how many do you know katars decorated with the battle scene or on the contrary with the hunting scene? I cheked this - 1:10.

This is all astounding! and I had no idea just how deadly the katar was, in a conconcurrent thread we have a katar wielding guy mounting a berserk (musth driven) elephant and killing it by piercing his temple with a katar!

So the idea that a man with one of these deadly daggers could dispatch a 400 pound vicious killing machine tiger is perhaps feasible in such light. However, in my thinking if the tiger is close enough to stab, his teeth are likely firmly emplaced in some part of the guys body, not to mention the weight overpowering him. It is hard to imagine the presence of mind to thrust in such a situation, especially to a 'kill' rather than wounding spot.

Still, how can we dispute such compelling evidence? as well as the fact that the northern Indian tiger was driven into extinction by tiger hunts by katar wielding royal and court figures. If I understand correctly only these people were permitted the priviledge of hunting....the average guy was only 'hunted' by the tigers, and not having katars of course, were just fair game.


I have indeed seen 'shikargar' (=hunting scenes) on katars in some limited degree, so certainly again this must be proof of their use accordingly. We already know that shamshirs and tulwars were for hunting as such motif is seen on them as well. ....at least in following with that theory.
I dont think I have ever seen a katar with a battle scene though..........does this mean they were not used in battle?


Most interesting perspective.

[Mercenary]

You are right. I was incorrect. If we speak about tulwar and tulwar-shikargar we must comparing simple katars and katars decorated with the hunting scene. But I know a lot of paintings where katars were used during the hunt and only two where they were used in the battle. Of course the number of hunts was much more than the number of battles.

[kai]

Hello Jim,

So the idea that a man with one of these deadly daggers could dispatch a 400 pound vicious killing machine tiger is perhaps feasible in such light. However, in my thinking if the tiger is close enough to stab, his teeth are likely firmly emplaced in some part of the guys body, not to mention the weight overpowering him. It is hard to imagine the presence of mind to thrust in such a situation, especially to a 'kill' rather than wounding spot.

Looking at those paintings, I get the impression that a majority of the depicted hunters were not entirely happy: even if they managed to fatally wound the tiger or lion (some already wounded during hunting them down), most are shown getting severely scathed and some probably killed. (I rather doubt these paintings were meant as photographic evidence and there may be an element of exaggeration and even display of so-called heroism expected from the artists...

It certainly needs a lot of courage to face any dangerous and cornered animal with close-distance weapons only. However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...

BTW, despite ample hunting from Indian and English nobility, the tiger was not extinct in northern India during the 19th century.

Regards,
Kai

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Jim,


Looking at those paintings, I get the impression that a majority of the depicted hunters were not entirely happy: even if they managed to fatally wound the tiger or lion (some already wounded during hunting them down), most are shown getting severely scathed and some probably killed. (I rather doubt these paintings were meant as photographic evidence and there may be an element of exaggeration and even display of so-called heroism expected from the artists...

It certainly needs a lot of courage to face any dangerous and cornered animal with close-distance weapons only. However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...

BTW, despite ample hunting from Indian and English nobility, the tiger was not extinct in northern India during the 19th century.

Regards,
Kai

Thank you Kai, and I could not agree more with your observations! Of course my note on the use of paintings and other art work as evidence was meant rather tongue in cheek. Art depicting these kinds of themes is invariably based on accounts from persons long after the events and as always, surely embellished as most stories in the telling. I have researched many art works of famous events and the accuracy is ranging from altered to severely compromised, sometimes outlandish.


As you well note, these pictures are clearly well slanted toward the prowess of the 'hunter' and do not portray the probable true character of such an event. I very much like, and agree with your comment ...that only humans kill for sport or to show 'bravery', but in my view such acts of hunting with such an obviously inadequate weapon alone is simply foolhardy. While I can understand that in some cultures these things are viewed differently, I must rely on my own perspective in how I see it personally.


The note on 'extinction' of the North Indian tiger was simply an extension of the quip by Ariel in 2016 about same. Obviously the diminished state of the species was more to natural circumstances, but not during the 19th c.



Mercenary, well noted, the use of the katar, or at least presence of them, was far more common on hunts than in battle. Again, this may have been due to the fact that the Royals and entourage were the ones hunting, and these were favored accoutrements in this group. I can see the katar used as weapon used in a coup de grace type manner, perhaps thus bringing the accounts of 'killing a tiger with a katar'. True, this was the final closure, but after the tiger was down.


Close quarters weapons were not intended as attack weapons for initial impact, but as secondary arms used in close quarters melee or if otherwise compromised as far as I have understood.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kai

... However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...

Well, we may not forget it but, it makes no harm to remind it now and then.