Indian bagh nakh (tiger claws)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Rick

But the ergonomics of this thing are all wrong for most any use that I can imagine.
I would love to see an illustration of exactly how this is deployed as a weapon.

Seems pretty easy to visualize, you grasp the handle and punch or slash with it.

[Pukka Bundook]

But, there is nothing to stop it twisting in one's hand Eric. It's all wrong.

best regards,
Richard.

[Emanuel]

In my eyes this thing works just like a buckler you parry with it and stab,cut opportunistically.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jens, there is no rule that I know of that bagh nakh had to be hideable, many bagh nakh that I have seen could not actually have been hidden due to their size except maybe in the dark, some were smaller or had folding blades so it could be hidden but most that I have seen had several claws sticking out, not exactly something you could put into your front pocket. My bagh nakh is 5.25 in long with 1.5 in claws, not something you could easly hide. The word that Stone uses is "concealed", other descriptions do not mention "hidden" or "concealed" at all. Some bagh nakh did have blades attached making this form not hideable at all, these types maybe need a hyphenated name like the tabar-zaghnal but they are just as much a bagh nakh as a dagger.

A few references that do not mention "concealed" or "hidden".

On the left from "Chambers's Journal", W. & R. Chambers, 1892.

On the right from "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations" Richard Bentley, 1852.

On the bottom from George Stone.

When it comes to the wide spectrum of innovative and varying types of weapons in India, there really are no 'rules' or specific guidelines. What Jens was referring to with the bagh nakh corresponds more to its use as a 'weapon' by assassins which suggests an offensive (vs. defensive) and often 'concealed' item.
I think that the suggestion of being 'hidden' is one widely held, as seen by comments of numerous participants here.

The idea of this being 'ceremonial' I think corresponds well to that most unforgettable image of the 'prickly' executioner at durbar. It seems to me that these durbars, and exhibitions often during the reign of Queen Victoria in the Raj were the source for a good number of 'innovative' creations in weaponry intended to showcase the skills of Indian armourers.

In many cases these unusual weapons were meant to appear threatening or formidable, though their often vestigial features would likely have been quite impractical in actual combat or use.

I think that the item posted here in the thread topic is as has been noted, more aligned with a parry weapon, and with blades for thrust supported by the transverse grip as in katar. The bagh nakh is obviously intended for slashing and tearing, and clearly insufficient for any type of parry as would be expected in a covertly used weapon against unsuspecting victim.

While not large (as many 'bucklers' were small) this has arm guards akin to the vambrace, which could offer protection in degree as used. Many Indian shields had spear points at the boss used in much the same way.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by estcrh

It would be a brave man who would go up against an Indian warrior with a "tea plate" sized piece of metal.

Given the number of Indian shields in the 8" to 12" diameter range, there were plenty of men willing to go against Indian warriors with quite small shields. It's not a bad size for duels or other 1-to-1 fights. Not so good on the battlefield, since it doesn't offer as much protection against arrows. Against swords, a small shield is light and fast, doesn't get in the way of your own weapon, is less likely to get trapped/grabbed by the opponent, is less vulnerable to being hooked/pressed by the opponent's weapon. Also easier to carry around all day.

The popularity of little shields across multiple continents suggest that they work well enough.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

When it comes to the wide spectrum of innovative and varying types of weapons in India, there really are no 'rules' or specific guidelines. What Jens was referring to with the bagh nakh corresponds more to its use as a 'weapon' by assassins which suggests an offensive (vs. defensive) and often 'concealed' item.
I think that the suggestion of being 'hidden' is one widely held, as seen by comments of numerous participants here.

Jim, the impression that the bagh nakh was a hidden weapon comes from its most well known use, when Shivaji managed to kill Afzal Khan in 1659, it is said that Shivaji attacked with a bagn nakh hidden in his hand, but it is also said that he followed up with a bichawa dagger, which he had hidden in his sleeve. Proving that both of these weapons could be hidden in the right circumstances.

Where the bagn nakh came from and what it primary use was in not easy to identify. There are a few different accounts, some say that the bagn nakh was not used in warfare, while another says it was, some mention it as a concealed or hidden weapon, others do not, a couple of references mention its use in feuds or ritual fighting, which may be were it originated.

Here are a couple of quotes that mention this type of fighting with claws.

The first is from "My year in an Indian fort, Volume 1", Katharine Blanche, 1877.

The second is from "The Captivity, Sufferings, and Escape, of James Scurry: Who Was Detained A Prisoner During Ten Years, in the Dominions of Hyder Ali" (1824), James Scurry.

[estcrh]

Below is an print titled The Nucki-ka-koosti at Baroda: the Fight with Claws.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, the impression that the bagh nakh was a hidden weapon comes from its most well known use, when Shivaji managed to kill Afzal Khan in 1659, it is said that Shivaji attacked with a bagn nakh hidden in his hand, but it is also said that he followed up with a bichawa dagger, which he had hidden in his sleeve. Proving that both of these weapons could be hidden in the right circumstances.

Where the bagn nakh came from and what it primary use was in not easy to identify. There are a few different accounts, some say that the bagn nakh was not used in warfare, while another says it was, some mention it as a concealed or hidden weapon, others do not, a couple of references mention its use in feuds or ritual fighting, which may be were it originated.

Here are a couple of quotes that mention this type of fighting with claws.

The first is from "My year in an Indian fort, Volume 1", Katharine Blanche, 1877.

The second is from "The Captivity, Sufferings, and Escape, of James Scurry: Who Was Detained A Prisoner During Ten Years, in the Dominions of Hyder Ali" (1824), James Scurry.

It seems that we have been scurrying down the wrong path here concerning the notion of 'hiding' the bagh nagh. In rereading the post by Jens, I clearly misunderstood that what he actually said was that this weapon was 'hidden in the hand'......meaning the 'claws' were enclosed in the closed hand and projecting between the fingers.
It would seem that was indeed how the weapon was used, and has nothing to do with whether it was concealed prior to its actual use.
I just wanted to clarify that aspect of the discussion at this point.

I would like to thank you for the well thought out comments and especially the supporting and well cited material you add to your posts. I cannot emphasize how helpful that is in learning more on these weapons in these kinds of discussions. These entries are fascinating and really add to the various examples included by everyone on the thread!!!

Getting back to the concealment of weapons, as you well point out, there are really no set guidelines or expectations as far as incidental use or carry of these kinds of weapons. As far as these pitched combats using these clawed weapons, clearly these kinds of 'duels' using like weapons would be occasionally seen.
It seems that such 'combats' outside of normal warfare in more of a 'civilian' tone were well known in many cultures, and somewhat unconventional weapons augmented the more expected forms. In Africa, there were wrist knives, and finger knives worn like a ring to slash with much in the manner of the left hand dagger and rapier in European fencing.

The origins of many weapon forms is fascinating, especially in India, where it seems the deep associations with certain animal features is clear. The haladie parrying knives came from pairs of buffalo horns, which later became metal blades. The recurve on blade forms such as the bichwa seem to recall the curvature of these horns, though the term describing them in metaphor is 'scorpions sting' .
I have always been under the impression that the bagh nagh might have originally been intended to mask the dispatch of a victim by making it appear the work of a tiger. I was thinking of the covert actions of the mysterious thuggee in their unusual 'highwayman' activities, though they actually used strangulation and buried their victims with special axes and ceremony.
The idea was toward the assassination concept, to blame the death on the tiger etc but perhaps simply favoring the effective nature of the natural weapons of these animals as with the horns.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Given the number of Indian shields in the 8" to 12" diameter range, there were plenty of men willing to go against Indian warriors with quite small shields.

Timo, I agree, many Indian shields were small, but I can not remember seeing an 8 inch diameter one that was not a madu, do you have an image of one that size? I still think you would have to be quite brave to face an armed opponent in real combat with such a small sized shield.

Egerton lists one madu that is 7inches but of course madu have two long horns sticking out.

[Pukka Bundook]

Eric,

If a katar can be used for parrying, (which it definitely can!) then so can this mystery weapon with the 5-7 blades.
It would not be as effective as some, but you must remember that the scabbard of a barong is/was Also used for parrying.

Many European bucklers are very small and effective if one knows what he is about. No-one can deny that.

Richard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Eric,

If a katar can be used for parrying, (which it definitely can!) then so can this mystery weapon with the 5-7 blades.
It would not be as effective as some, but you must remember that the scabbard of a barong is/was Also used for parrying.

Many European bucklers are very small and effective if one knows what he is about. No-one can deny that.

Richard.

Richard, not everyone necesssarly agrees with what a parrying weapon is, I personally can not remember a kater being called a parrying weapon , I am not saying that you are wrong, it is just something I have not heard before.

Lord Egerton of Tatton in his book "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" described Indian shields as small as 10 inches as "dhal" but the madu is specifically described as being a "parrying shield".

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It seems that we have been scurrying down the wrong path here concerning the notion of 'hiding' the bagh nagh. In rereading the post by Jens, I clearly misunderstood that what he actually said was that this weapon was 'hidden in the hand'......meaning the 'claws' were enclosed in the closed hand and projecting between the fingers.
It would seem that was indeed how the weapon was used, and has nothing to do with whether it was concealed prior to its actual use.
I just wanted to clarify that aspect of the discussion at this point.

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.

Originally Posted by ariel

I am jumping in when all the relevant things were already said. Thus, just my personal opinion. This cannot be a Bagh Nagh, because it is not hidden.

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Gentlemen, I know little of these weapons, but as a bagh nakh is a concealed weapon, I do not think we can call the weapon in question by this name,

Jim, I think these quotes clearly show that there is a perception that the bagh nakh is a "hidden/concealed" weapon, as I stated this is in my opinion primarily due to the most well known and publicized use of the bagh nakh, which was in the killing of Afzal Khan in 1659 by Shivaji. There are many detailed 1800s essays on this event (all of which stress the "hidden/concealed nature of the bagh nagh used by Shivaji) and it was a very important point in Maratha history and National identity as well as the beginning of the Mughal decline.

Unfortunately there have not been a lot of images available online and/or research that is readily available on bagh nagh and other small Indian hand weapons, so how these weapons were used, when they were developed and who used them has been obscured by time.

Some detailed images of the claws.

[ariel]

The Bagh Nakh is truly a"hand-to-hand" weapon: it offers no advantage of distance. Because of that it was good as a "criminal" weapon. It also offered no protection to the user. The vambrace with blades shown here lacks both features.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

The Bagh Nakh is truly a"hand-to-hand" weapon: it offers no advantage of distance. Because of that it was good as a "criminal" weapon. It also offered no protection to the user. The vambrace with blades shown here lacks both features.

Exactly, which is why its 'concealment' , whether in its use 'hidden' in the hand (not very hidden with protruding claws) or in the folds or pockets of garment is very much a moot point. It was used in an unexpected attack, not pitched combat (usually except in the cases shown previously).

The vambrace of the thread with multiple blades I agree is more akin to 'durbar fashion', as in the prickly guy in post #17, and simply of this spectrum of the innovations of Indian armourers.

[estcrh]

The last refuge of claw fighting in Indian takes place in Mysore, the Vajramushti Kalaga is a centuries old traditional wrestling contest held in the courtyard of Mysore Palace during Dasara, each contest ends with the draw of first blood from one of the combatants participating in the duel. Vajra-musti (thunder fist/diamond fist) refers to a spiked, knuckleduster like weapon worn on the right hand.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

We are in agreement. That's exactly what I said about it: not very handy, hence very rare.

Even in India known for her abundance of bizarre forms, weapons that were mechanically unsound did not survive for long.

Bank with an over-curved blade is an example. Indians had a lot of imagination, but they were not dummies and a common sense always prevailed.

When you look at the bank sickle, the blade is very similar in shape with the claw of the bagh nakh. I have seen several bank being described as Maratha in origin. Considering how important the bagh nakh is in the history of the Maratha I wonder if there is some sort of symbolism there.

How common was the bank, who used it and how long was it around for?

Indian (central, Maharashtra) bank dagger/sickle, 19th century, steel, bronze, gold, jade, pearls, wood, velvet, overall length, 21.0 cm. The Feldman Collection.

[estcrh]

Here is an interesting example, it is from the Pitt Rivers Museum. Some effort went into making this bagh nakh look like jewelry instead of a weapon by covering the rings with copper/brass and adding gems to the top of each ring. The Museum also included an essay with some good information.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Timo, I agree, many Indian shields were small, but I can not remember seeing an 8 inch diameter one that was not a madu, do you have an image of one that size? I still think you would have to be quite brave to face an armed opponent in real combat with such a small sized shield.

Egerton lists one madu that is 7inches but of course madu have two long horns sticking out.

Here's one, from Auctions Imperial Arms & Armor 2014 (lot 232), 20.9cm diameter. 9" and 10" ones are easier to find.

There are two reasons why people might have carried such small shields: either they valued the convenience of a small shield, or they thought that it would probably be more effective. The 2nd isn't a sign of bravery. (But is likely to be a sign of skill.) Sometimes, no shield at all would be carried (and you can't get smaller than that!), and I don't believe such warriors were necessarily regarded as extra-brave.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Here's one, from Auctions Imperial Arms & Armor 2014 (lot 232), 20.9cm diameter.

Timo, thanks, 20.9cm would be 8.22 inches.