Indian bagh nakh (tiger claws)

[estcrh]

I just ran into some unusual examples, if anyone has some other images I would like to see them.

[Iliad]

Images of my two Tiger Claw Daggers.
Best regards to all.
Brian

[Emanuel]

Hello,

I think the top piece with the half-gauntlet is more of a parrying weapon like the saintie than a bagh nakh.

Emanuel

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Hello,

I think the top piece with the half-gauntlet is more of a parrying weapon like the saintie than a bagh nakh.

Emanuel

Emanual, a tiger claw emulates the claws of a tiger, a saintie is more of a spear. The one you question is listed by the owner as bagh nakh type weapon, it looks to me like it has more in common with a bagh nakh than either a saintie or sainti but it could have its own seperate name that I am not aware of.

Here are images of a saintie (lt) and a sainti (rt), both rather rare parrying weapons. Then you have the haladie (bottom).

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Iliad

Images of my two Tiger Claw Daggers.
Best regards to all.
Brian

Brian really nice examples, the one with the folding side blades looks a lot like the one I posted.

[Emanuel]

The example I question is a basically a small shield with blades on it. The bagh nakh is a small "glove" with claws hidden in the hand. One is a parrying weapon, the other is a small concealed weapon.

Santie/saintie may not be the name for it, but it is a parrying weapon.

I won't repost them here but I think you added some awesome parrying weapons on your Pinterest. They do seem to vary a lot, some more like the madu or the haladie, others more like jamadhar.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

The example I question is a basically a small shield with blades on it. The bagh nakh is a small "glove" with claws hidden in the hand. One is a parrying weapon, the other is a small concealed weapon.

Santie/saintie may not be the name for it, but it is a parrying weapon.

I won't repost them here but I think you added some awesome parrying weapons on your Pinterest. They do seem to vary a lot, some more like the madu or the haladie, others more like jamadhar.

Emanuel, Indian parrying weapons have one thing in common, side bars for parrying, the weapon you are questioning has no side bars so how can you parry a weapon with it. To me it appears to be an evolved type of bagh nakh, it has five blades instead of claws and it is grasped by bars instead of rings and and it shields the holders hand but its basic purpose seems to be the same.

[Emanuel]

I disagree with you Eric but I'll leave it at that.
It remains that these are fascinating weapons

[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, and as it would appear to be a secondary weapon, with say a longer blade in the other hand, I would say its use was for parrying.

I do hope other examples of this type can be found, as I have never seen one in Egerton or Elgood or anywhere else. There surely had to be a name for this, as it does appear to have some age to it.

Best regards Richard.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
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.

[estcrh]

There seems to be some difference in how people define a "parrying weapon", to me it needs to have a long blade or bar to parry a sword such as the example below.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
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.

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.

[VANDOO]

HERE ARE A FEW MORE I HAVE PICTURES OF NONE OF THEM ARE MINE.
#1. bagh nakh circa 1800
#2 " " 20 th. century, 12 cm.
#3. & #4. " " circa 1900, 10.2 cm.
#5. " "
#6. " " ready for use.
#7. & #8 bagh nakh two that belonged to Lew.
# 9. a picture of a weapon similar to the one you show i had it listed as a 5 bladed armored hand and forearm with a katar type grip.
# 10, #11. & #12. a odd India weapon with multiple blades and a katar grip and hand guard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

# 9. a picture of a weapon similar to the one you show i had it listed as a 5 bladed armored hand and forearm with a katar type grip.

Artzi has an even different description for his.

This very rare form of dagger is Indian, probably 18 century, from the family of the kattar push daggers. It employs five heavy blades 4 and 8 inches long, with thickened armor piercing tips, riveted to a semi cylindrical shaped handle 14 inches long. The two holding bars are mounted inside the handle. Bothe the blades and the handle are forged from very fine laminated steel. A fine rare piece in very good condition.

[Emanuel]

Concealed or not is ultimately irrelevant Eric.

The bagh nakh is held in the hand and basically mimics a tiger's paw and claws.

The weird thing we're arguing about is likely held like a buckler but maybe also like a gauntlet, used to block, catch enemy's sword, parry, stab, similar to European parrying daggers and sword catchers. The jamadhars with side blades are a similar concept, as are some of the madu. Something to block/parry with, that also has an offensive element to stab or cut with when the opportunity arises.

If anything, this reminds me of Santal shields or even European Renaissance lantern shields.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

I do hope other examples of this type can be found, as I have never seen one in Egerton or Elgood or anywhere else. There surely had to be a name for this, as it does appear to have some age to it.

Best regards Richard.

Richard here is one more, this has seven pattern welded blades. These hybred type weapons are a bit hard to categorize.

[Emanuel]

Beautiful example Eric!

We're getting farther from the bagh nakh discussion but I wonder if this multi-bladed thing wasn't part of some ceremonial accoutrements like the garb of the High Executioner at the Delhi Durbar (attached pic). His arm guards look similar.

These things look very well built and to be made entirely from crucible steel must say something about their importance.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

We're getting farther from the bagh nakh discussion

Emanuel, the bladed bagh nakh were mentioned, there are some that were definately bagh nakh with a blade added, then there are daggers with bagh nakh type claws, its fairly easy to distinguish between the two types. I have not seen a bagh nakh with a fixed blade at both ends but there are examples with two fixed blades, one in the middle and one at the end. Bottom right, George Stones description of bichwa-bagh nakh.

[machinist]

Here is a fairly unusual one, the pic is a webfind, I forgot where from. I suppose it could possibly have a more domestic use but I think it is a weapon. I think bagh nakh are best used not to make a killing blow but to secure and hold a victim while your partner in crime finishes him.

[Roland_M]

I wonder how the first weapon will be used.


One of my books says, that the intention of the bagh nakh is to simulate a tiger attack, to hide an assassination.


Roland

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by machinist

Here is a fairly unusual one, the pic is a webfind, I forgot where from. I suppose it could possibly have a more domestic use but I think it is a weapon. I think bagh nakh are best used not to make a killing blow but to secure and hold a victim while your partner in crime finishes him.

This is the only one I have seen with a single claw, the image is from a 2012 auction, here is the description. They are ofen described as having four to five claws but Brian posted an image of one with two large claws and a third smaller one, his also has a small side blade.

http://auctionsimperial.hibid.com/lo...ian-bagh-nakh/

A RARE NORTH INDIAN BAGH NAKH
An authentic example, very rarely encountered. Finely handforged throughout, with a robust hooked central blade that emulates the tiger’s claw for which it is named, flanked by two rings. With a profiled central plate, hinged and set with an eyelet to allow it to be lashed to the palm. Latter 17th century. Patinated overall. The Maratha ruler Shivaji famously defended himself against an assassination attempt by the Bijapur general Afzal Khan, using a baghnakh in 1659. Overall length 9.2 cm.

As for being a killing weapon, I think that in the right circumstances, such as taking someone by surprise and raking the unprotected neck area, arm, etc these would be effective, you would just have to inflict a damaging wound and step back until the victim bled to death.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

I wonder how the first weapon will be used.


One of my books says, that the intention of the bagh nakh is to simulate a tiger attack, to hide an assassination.


Roland

Roland I have read this is a couple of 1800s references. If you were an Indian national and you planned on killing a Britich national it would have made sense to try to make your crime look like the work of an animal.

I have also read that the bagh nakh was used in a type of one on one ritual combat.

"The Art of Attack: Being a Study in the Development of Weapons and Appliances of Offence, from the Earliest Times to the Age of Gunpowder", by Henry Swainson Cowper W. Holmes, Limited, Printers, 1906.

Wagnakhs are described by Rousselet (1864) as being used in combats held by the Gaekwar of Baroda. The antagonists were nude, intoxicated with hemp, and tore each other so that they often bled to death.

[ariel]

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


Some strange mix of a parrying shield, bazu band and multi blade katar.
India is full of bizarre combination weapons. Perhaps, this one was not very handy and the pattern withered away; hence the rarity.

Might have been devilishly hard to invent a name for such a mutt. Maltipoo or goldendoodle must have been child plays in comparison:-)

It has its charm, however.

[estcrh]

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 Nakh, because it is not hidden.

Ariel, there is no rule that bagh nakh have to be hidden, while some are small enough to wrap a hand around others are not, I do not believe that the ability to hide one in your hand determines whether a weapon is a bagh nakh/bagh nakh varient.

Manner of using the wagnuk, from: "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations", Richard Bentley, 1852.

[Pukka Bundook]

Dear Estcrh,

I see no reason for you insisting that the weapon in the opening post of this thread is a bagh nakh, as it bears no resemblance to the small hidden devices by that name.
Neither can such a weapon be used as is a bagh nakh. Totally different.

Best wishes,
Richard.

[Rick]

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 Nakh, because it is not hidden.


Some strange mix of a parrying shield, bazu band and multi blade katar.
India is full of bizarre combination weapons. Perhaps, this one was not very handy and the pattern withered away; hence the rarity.

Might have been devilishly hard to invent a name for such a mutt. Maltipoo or goldendoodle must have been child plays in comparison:-)

It has its charm, however.

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.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Dear Estcrh,

I see no reason for you insisting that the weapon in the opening post of this thread is a bagh nakh, as it bears no resemblance to the small hidden devices by that name.
Neither can such a weapon be used as is a bagh nakh. Totally different.

Best wishes,
Richard.

Richard, I could ask why you insist that the bagh nakh is a small hidden weapon, many are not that small and can not be hidden at all.

I am not insisting that the weapon you are referring to is a bagh nakh, to me it looks like an Indian weapons maker invented a souped up bagh nakh, replacing the claws with blades, the rings with a bar and adding a shield, thats how I see it, one mans evolved, improved version of the bagh nakh.

The one Artzi sold was 14 inches long, which means that there would 7 inches on each side of the handle, this is not long enough to be an effective parrying weapon but some people insist that it is a parrying weapon, that is how they see it.

That is the purpose of forum discussions, people post their theories, references, research etc, which helps put a lot of information on a particular subject in one place, sometimes nothing is solved other times the results are quite good.

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you for your reply Eric.

To me this weapon appears made for parrying, but with a sting attached!
Bucklers can be Very small, some the size of a tea -plate, and yet are (Were) used for parrying.
Whatever is was called, it cannot have been common.
I Theorize (!) that it could have been made to keep a Prince or wealthy man happy. A man who owned all other weaponry already!

Must state again though, I see No connection to the tiger claw weapon, other than the fact it has more than one cutting edge............Actually!...(and here I wander off into fantasy)....
I suppose under this category also fits my old sickle mower!

Best wishes,
Richard.

[ariel]

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.

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.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Bucklers can be Very small, some the size of a tea -plate, and yet are (Were) used for parrying.

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