Wootz afghan knife for komments

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Marius,
Please read my post carefully: “ massive reinforced tip”.
Your example has a tiny pimple, no more. It is most likely a tourist version, totally unsuitable for the job of armor/ mail piercing. Just like some examples shown by Mahratt.

Unless my eyes deceive me the original example shown by Rumpel9 has “ massive reinforced tip”. So it qualifies according to the definition of Stone, Elgood and Artzi. Perhaps the owner, Rumpel9, can tell us whether I am wrong about this feature. If the blade is not significantly reinforced in its terminal half/third but flat and plain throughout, I would admit my error.

The blade is just recurved, so I am also puzzled by your use of “ clipped”. You may use this term if you wish, but again it does not make a difference: see my post again, where I mentioned the irrelevance of the blade geometry ( straight, recurved), a feature not even mentioned by Stone and Elgood. In Artzi’s collection # # 1405 and 12604 are almost straight, and he still calls them ZB.

So, what is the purpose of this discussion/argument? To reach a correct conclusion or to inflate egos? If the latter, I am out. I am too old to need proving myself.

Hello Ariel,

I am saying that the knife in the original posting is by no means a Zirah Bouk because it does not have a reinforced/strengthened tip, but a tip shaped into a false edge/clipped. Besides that I consider it a Pesh-kabz.

And by the way, I am by no means the holder of the truth. Just that I am of the oppinion the shape of the knife does have importance, and it is the shape of the whole knife that defines the knife not just the tip alone.

Best regards,

Marius

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Ariel,

I am saying that the knife in the original posting is by no means a Zirah Bouk because it does not have a reinforced/strengthened tip, but a tip shaped into a false edge/clipped. Besides that I consider it a Pesh-kabz.

I have already asked Rumpel9 to tell us more about this feature. If he says there is no reinforced tip suitable for mail piercing, you will be correct, and I shall be wrong.

Simple as that.

[Rick]

Could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn; and that this might also be a contributing factor to the geometry of these blades?

Examples of this garb can be seen on the cover of Hopkirk's book The Great Game.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Rick

Could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn?

Yes, could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn. But this led to the widespread use of such a knife as a Karud. It is more convenient for penetration through dense and thick clothes.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Yes, could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn. But this led to the widespread use of such a knife as a Karud. It is more convenient for penetration through dense and thick clothes.

Absolutely!

From the mechanical point of view, the very narrow pointed triangular tip of the Karud or Pesh-kabz is the perfect armour piercing weapon, equalled only by the infamous Italian Stiletto. Note that the Japanese zirah bouk, the Yoroi Doshi, also has triangular pointed tip.

From the very same mechanical reason, the diamond thickened tip of some oriental zirah bouk knives is much less efficient, being too thick to penetrate chainmail.

Note that I used the term "zirah bouk" as an adjective together with "knife", in the sense of "armour piercing"..."knife."

And here I believe lays the confusion, as we can have zirah bouk Kard, zirah bouk Khanjar, zirah bouk Jambyia or zirah bouk Pesh-kabz. But calling all these, obviously very different types of knives, simply "Zirah Bouk" would be definitely extremely imprecise and confusing if not incorrect. As the term "zirah bouk" defines solely the purpose of the knife, without giving any information about its shape.

So there is one thing to say "zirah bouk + something" (like zirah bouk Kard), when we will immediately know that it is a straight-bladed, single-edged knife with armour-piercing reinforced tip, and

another thing to say "Zirah Bouk," when we will only know it is a knife or dagger with reinforced tip, and nothing more (is it single-edged? is it double-edged? is it straight? is it curved? Etc.).

And I think this difference is clearly noticeable in Artzi's examples, as he frequently uses the term "zirah bouk" as an adjective.

[rumpel9]

Honestly, I did not expect that my question would cause such a discussion. Concerning the end of the knife blade (the first one) I can say that it is not strengthened. As for the hilt, I have carefully examined it several times. Maybe it was mounted later. But if this was the case, then a long time ago.

[ariel]

Well, as I said earlier, if the distant part of the blade is not thickened, it is not a Zirah Bouk.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, as I said earlier, if the distant part of the blade is not thickened, it is not a Zirah Bouk.

What we wanted to prove

[rumpel9]

I little bit more about blade: From the place where the T-shaped spine ends, the section of the blade becomes diamond-shaped. But the thickness of the blade remainds alost the same. May be + less than one mm.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by rumpel9

I little bit more about blade: From the place where the T-shaped spine ends, the section of the blade becomes diamond-shaped. But the thickness of the blade remainds alost the same. May be + less than one mm.

Here is the normal thickness of the blade Zirah Bouk:

[ariel]

Well, the original picture told the truth: instead of being flat along the entire length, the blade becomes diamond-shaped. This, with even a mild thickening, converts it into a reinforced one and suitable for mail/ armor piercing.

Seems it is a Zirah Bouk after all.

[mahratt]

In the message No. 40 - uniquely Zirah Bouk

[ariel]

Marius,
Artzi never used " Zirah Bouk" as an adjective, ie Blue skies, Fat person, Tasty food etc. Thus, I am not sure that your proposal of : Zirah Bouk Kard", "Zirah Bouk Peshkabz" , "Zirah Bouk Katar" etc can be used.

In both examples not clearly labeled as Zirah Bouk as such, he uses
" diamond cross-section tip in a typical Zirah-Bouk (Mail Piercer) tip" . The degree of swelling varied from example to example.
As a matter of fact, Artzi's item # 5887 does not differ one bit from Rumpel9's one.

[mahratt]

It has long been clear that Artzi's item # 5887 is Pesh Kabz, with a tip like Zirah Bouk. (although you can wait for what Artzi himself will say).
But here is what is written on the website armsandantiques.com: "A fine example of a 19th C. Indian kard but with a large and hardened inserted tip ito create an armor piercing tip in the form of a zirah bouk dagger"

http://armsandantiques.com/19th-c-w...d-dagger-id1134

Here, on specific examples, it was shown what Zirah Bouk is. It's never too late to learn

[Ian]

Mahratt,

I can read Mr Yarom's text as supporting either you or Ariel in your different views--it is a little ambiguous. As I noted earlier, I think he may have changed his mind over time about the naming of this style of knife. That could be contributing to some of the confusion.

May I suggest that you email him and ask his opinion, then report what he said back here. You might also consider asking Mr Elgood what he thinks. That way we can have additional data from two respected authorities on which to form an opinion. Otherwise, you are locked into circular reasoning that is going nowhere at the moment.

Ian.

[ariel]

I found just now a wonderful example that was generously posted by Mahratt on a Russian forum : a 3-D photograph of a dagger from one of the Russian museums. It is defined as Zirah Bouk by the museum and Mahratt did not cast any doubt on this attribution.
Here it is:


https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/79/2328051.html

The beauty of it is that we can rotate it any way we wish. It is as close to " I hold it in my hands" as possible.

The distal half of the blade is diamond-shaped and just a tad thicker than the flat part of the blade, no different than Artzi's example and the one presented by Rumpel9.

Citing Stone: "A knife with a point thickened so that it is strong enough to be forced through mail. The name is given to any knife with the point reinforced"

Citing Elgood: " Dagger with a thickened point to pierce mail"

I might have contributed to the confusion of this discussion by using word
" massive" in reference to the reinforced part. Sorry for that. The degree of thickening could vary just to assure sufficient mechanical strenghtening, and a conversion from flat to diamond-shaped with even minor thickening is mechanically enough to create a stiffening rib and prevent lateral bending.

Thus, Runpel9's example is a Zirah Bouk.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ian

Mahratt,

I can read Mr Yarom's text as supporting either you or Ariel in your different views--it is a little ambiguous. As I noted earlier, I think he may have changed his mind over time about the naming of this style of knife. That could be contributing to some of the confusion.

May I suggest that you email him and ask his opinion, then report what he said back here. You might also consider asking Mr Elgood what he thinks. That way we can have additional data from two respected authorities on which to form an opinion. Otherwise, you are locked into circular reasoning that is going nowhere at the moment.

Ian.

Dear Ian.

In my humble opinion, it is not necessary to convey the words of the person who can tell what he thinks himself. Artzi reads the forum and can write what he meant.

But, I would like to ask a question personally to you, dear Jan. If there was not this fascinating discussion and you saw two of these daggers, would you decide that they are different from each other?

[mahratt]

It is very pleasant that Ariel reads my messages in the Russian forum Really, the beauty 3-D Zirah Bouk of it is that we can rotate it any way we wish.

But, unfortunately, Ariel watched the 3d image inattentively .... He somehow does not see the absence of the T-shaped backrest, which is typical for Pesh-kabza and is absent from Zirah Bouk. And now the massive tip that can be seen on the 3-D model Zirah Bouk for him is not so important

https://sketchfab.com/models/3...ain=share-popup

https://sketchfab.com/models/3d5ba8e...a0cd0e7f5b1fe1

[mahratt]

It's amazing how one can ignore the fact that in Pesh Kabz the reinforced tip reaches a maximum of 1/4 of the blade (in the unique case of 1/3), while in the Zirah Bouk the reinforced part of the blade is - 1/2 of the blade.

And of course it's strange to quote Stone's book and keep silent about what illustration he leads

Compare the illustration from Stone with Zirah Bouk and Pesh Kabz. The answer to the question that there is something that is easy to see.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Ian.
If there was not this fascinating discussion and you saw two of these daggers, would you decide that they are different from each other?

Even though the question was not addressed to me, I would humbly offer my thoughts.

Legalistically speaking, both are Zirah Bouks.
But the black handled one seems to be a real fighting example, while the white handled one is a decorative or tourist type. The pimple at the point does not appear to create a good stiffening rib to prevent lateral bending: Stone as an engineer emphasized “ strong enough”.


My pure IMHO and 5 cents worth....

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Even though the question was not addressed to me, I would humbly offer my thoughts.

Legalistically speaking, both are Zirah Bouks.
But the black handled one seems to be a real fighting example, while the white handled one is a decorative or tourist type. The pimple at the point does not appear to create a good stiffening rib to prevent lateral bending: Stone as an engineer emphasized “ strong enough”.


My pure IMHO and 5 cents worth....

The question really was not addressed to you. But, with all due respect to you, you can not remain silent
Thank you for your 5 cents. However, the respected Artzi clearly writes that both these items are Pesh Kabz. So do not fantasize.

[Ian]

Rumpel9.

Your thread has run off course. I hope you have been able to salvage some knowledge here. However, it's time to move on. This thread is closed.

Ian