A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Thank you Aqtai !
btw, since we are briefly at the subject of mamluk there are two things I could not clear up, no matter how I tried, so I would really appreciate:

1. There is a book by Hottko, which approaches the subject of circassian mamluk from prospective of circassian traditions (i.e. paganism). I have not read the book, but I've read the reviews. It claims for example that ordinary mamluks were not buried but their bodies were placed on trees (which is a circassian tradition). The book seems to be filled with things like these.

It contradicts everything I've read on Mamluk Sultanate, which seems to clearly indicate their strict adherence to sharia. However the same being said about neo-mamluks and its enough to read Rustam's autobiography to question it.

Did someone see something on this issue ?

2. It seems that pre 1250 mamluk history and weaponry is simply a dark hole. On many occasions I heard from historians that pre-mamluk sultanate mamluk history is not being studied. Is it true or there are some sources out there ?

Sincerely yours,

K.Rivkin

Hi Rivkin, I have never heard this story about Circassian mamluks being buried in trees, from what I know of the mamluks and the Mamluk sultanate, I think it would be highly unlikely. For all their frequent lapses (such as murdering each other, drinking wine and qumiz, love of fine clothing and over-taxing the native peoples of their kingdom ) the mamluks were pretty orthodox and overall quite sincere Muslims. Those kind of pagan practices would simply not have been tolerated. I don't know were the ordinary mamluks were buried, but certainly Cairo is littered with the splendid tombs of emirs and sultans, many of which I have visited. I assume the tombs of ordinary mamluks would have ressembled those of their contemporary middle-class Egyptians. In fact there is a lot we don't know about mamluks.

I'm not sure what you mean by pre-Mamluk era? certainly until the reign of the penultimate Ayyubid Sultan Es-Salih Ayyub, Mamluks would have been a tiny elite minority in an army made up largely of free-born Turks, Kurds and the occasional Arab tribesman. Even during Ayyub's reign the Bahri mamluks would probably only have numbered a couple of thousand at most. What distinguished Ayyub is he promoted his mamluks over the heads of free-born emirs. Indeed by the time he died all the emirs seem to have been of Mamluk origin. What also distinguished the Bahris is that they were nearly all of Qipchaq Turkish origin and were extremely loyal to each other as well as their sultan, whereas previously mamluks came from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds and included Turks, Armenians and Slavs. With regards to Armour and weapon virtually nothing survives which can be positively identified as Ayyubid or early Mamluk. As far as I know the earliest swords and helmets, apart from the sword of Ayyub, date to the late 13th and early 14th century.

This picture of a helmet and aventail comes from an Arabic translation of L. A. Mayer's "Mamluk Costume", A book I would love to own but which is terrifyingly expensive. The helmet is early 14th century and is attributed to Sultan Muhammad ibn Qalawun. If that mail is genuine (which I doubt), then it is the earliest piece of Mamluk mail I know of. These 2 pieces were in the Porte de Hal museum in Brussels.


I've not heard of Rustam's autobiography, what is it?

[Rivkin]

I was also puzzled by this tree story. I'll try to get my hands on the book and see if he provides any references.

Rustam's memoirs unfortunately have not been translated into english (to my knowladge), it's an autobiography by Napoleon's mamluk bodyguard. While it's relatively short it was extremely educating for me, for it's may be the only autobiography of this kind I know about. There is a french version:

Roustam Raza
"Souvenirs de Roustam, mamelouck de Napoléon", 1er.
Introduction et notes de Paul Cottin. Préface de Frédéric Masson (Paris, 1911) 302p.

Here is Napoleon with Roustam in the background:
http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/nap...g/8NIII058.jpg

[Aqtai]

That would be an interesting book to read. I think in terms of material culture however early 19th century mamluks would have been more influenced by Ottoman culture than 13th-16th century Mamluke sultanate culture. Certainly the costumes worn by the mamluks of this period were Ottoman.

I'll see if I can get hold of it. My French is bit rusty now, but hopefully i should still be able to read a book .

BTW what language were the mamluks speaking among themselves in Rustam's time? Were they still speaking Qipchaq?

[Rivkin]

Roustam says they spoke kartli (mainstream georgian). Concerning the influence, it's in some sence truly hard to see the connection with earlier sultans in this ragtagged force, filled with russian POWs from 1779 war, french deserters from Napoleon's army, german gangsters and so on. However it's interesting that till the very end mamluks retained the exclusive status of their units under the Ottomans, being separated from sipahis or yeni chari. There is an information that during 1779 war it was said that mamluks retained old education - instead of being send to the front there were performing archery and lanceship for the sultan.

Concerning mamluks in pre-mamluk period I would reference the collection of articles of Ayulon "Malmluk studies ...", who goes into long discussions. He says that while typical number of mamluks per se in the army of Baghdad Caliph/Sultans appears small at the first sight (500 personal mamluks of Salahdin) he makes the case that it can be deceptive:

a. Mamluks numerically never were able to exceed certain number even during the sultanate, with rest being filled with free turkoman and kurds, halqa and bedouin irregulars.
b. Nevertheless there are some references that even at that time mamluks were considered the decisive force in battle - being elite squadron there were specifically meant to make the day.
c. No one mentions the ratio of mamluks to non-mamluks in the pre-sultanate armies, usually limiting oneself to simply describe the number of royal mamluks.
d. It's often that while 500 or 1000 mamluks are specifically mentioned, the rest of the army is not mentioned at all. For example, it's repeatedly mentioned how many mamluks Salahadin inherited, while for the rest of the army (supposedly inherited as well), one does not see even an explicit size estimate.

Now to the topic of mails - it's well reported ("Turkish archery" by Klopsteg) that turkish bow penetrated nearly all the armor. Together with mamluk training, emphasizing shooting at small targets while riding a horse, one can see not only standart "anti-horse" use of bows, but the great danger for the rider as well.

[Tim Simmons]

I would have to agree with Aqtai that these heavy bladed knives and katars may have originated as mail piercing weapons but became just other versions of bladed weapon that to us are of unusual form. Something I proposed on page one. This water colour of an unidentified, unarmoured, middleaged nobleman painted circa 1750? illustrates quite well. Tim

[B.I]

i think the problem is that the study of indian arms is difficult, and cannot be put into the same dating structure as european arms.
you may well be right about the katar, but the problem is we will never really know. i think this is why these posts veer off in a tangent, as there is only so much you can speculate without running out of actual information.
the miniature you show is moghul, and 18thC. the painting shows court wear, and not armour. unfortunately, moghul is not the whole of india, and their style of dress and tactics of war differ from other regions of india of the same period. also the katar was so widely used in india, buy different races, over different centuries and for both full battle and court/social scenes.
we can only look at what survives, in written accounts, actual pieces and iconography. the written accounts (european) rarely ventured past the trading ports, or into the battlefield. when they did (Tavernier, for example) it was normally with the mughals. the 'local' accounts rarely described past terminology. of miniatures, we only really have the moghul and rajput style, both of which were very similar, despite the difference in religion. the deccani sultanates showed their own style of miniature, which, until very recently was ignored. there is very little drawn accounts of india, past the moghul and deccani dynasties. there is a 'culture' of maharatha frescos, but these are way too crude to offer any real information. there is early sculpture, and this is really all we have to try and fill in the gaps, especially in hindu southern india.
the katar existed in its fully developed form in the 16thC, both in moghul miniatures and southern hindu sculpture. none of this shows the point as being armour piercing, but this isnt conclusive as the katar was always a secondary weapon in art and the nature of indian miniatures is to draw flat on, and not in perspective. so we know the katar existed in the 16thC. the early 17thC offers pieces that have survived, and some of the these were thickened at the tip to reinforce the blade. whether the earlier examples were can only be speculative.
the southern examples shown in 16thC sculpture in the tamil nadu region were not thickened but reinforced with thickened ribs along the length of the blade, as actual examples do exist of the same style.
indian armour itself seems to lead many people astray. the post on the other forum just went in circles, as it was dominated by renegade academics and european armour enthusiasts, all of which, by their own admission, had no experience with indian pieces. this means that they can only see with european eyes and so their assumptions hold no merit at all. this mode of thinking says that early armour was plate and riveted mail, which developed into lighter fabric and butted mail. the difference in armour is not stated, and when chainmail is mentioned, the style, type and date is forgotten. this is where they fell flat, in roping all chainmail in one category.
there were heavy mail and plate shirts in the 16thC, by i think these were influenced directly by the ottoman armour of the same style. the influence existed in culture, so why not arms.
i dont think the moghuls ever wore heavy armour, even in the 16thC. if they did, it is not shown in the miniatures which have survived in abundance. the moghul style of armour was heavily padded, with possibly a scale or mail undershirt. the char aina was not really introduced until the 18thC, although the late 16th and into the 17th depictions show rounded plates sewn onto fabric armour, which was probably where they were influenced from.
so, both padded fabric and mail and late existed at the same time. also, full riveted chainmail shorts existed, which could possibly have been worn under the fabric armour, hence the absence of 'metal' torso armour in mughal miniatures.
one thing that has been ignored it the structure of the armour used, and that of the weapons in question (ie the katar).
Islamic armour was well constructed, but the actual metal was not of a great hardened quality. wootz, by its very nature is of much harder quality. if you think that most katars are made of wootz, and virtually all early mail/plate was weaker steel, than the picture becomes slightly different. there are tests being done, but a diagnosis has been done on various styles of ottoman armour which i believe were a direct influence on the slightly later deccani shirts. if you transfer these results to the indian shirts, then the european view goes completely out of the window.
whether the katar was first made to pierce armour is something that can only ever be speculated. it appeared in its fully developed form, and if an earlier transitional form showed itself, then the question can be taken further.
the question of whether it can actually pierce chainmail is pointless. the answer is of course it can. the question itself leads to extremes, and if you take an exceptionally thickened and sturdy katar, made from high quality wootz and tried to pierce an inferior quality mail shirt, made of un-hardened steel then the answer is clear. any other variations can only be speculative, without destructive tests, which themselves will never be conclusive and will always lend themselves to doubt.
Tim, i agree that the katar could have been constructed for ultimate penetrative use, but it is only an opinion, and i am always willing to listen to others. the last decade or so has unearthed information, theories and conclusions that have been overlooked for many years before. so, its by bringing up the same questions over and over again, that we may one day yield something new. the best thing about this forum is that we can do this, without academic bullies and bruised egos.
incidentally, mail production was still being done in the Sudan in the late 19thC. it is recorded that one armourer and 6 assistants took 12 days to make one shirt. the pitt rivers have examples taken from the sudanese wars and they were crude examples of armour.
also, the are 18thC accounts of the cuirass being the only able to repel the thrust of these daggers. by the cuirass, we can assume it was the char aina, which were mostly made of wootz, hence the hardened ability to withstand the daggers.

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by B.I

...incidentally, mail production was still being done in the Sudan in the late 19thC. it is recorded that one armourer and 6 assistants took 12 days to make one shirt. the pitt rivers have examples taken from the sudanese wars and they were crude examples of armour...

Whoa! That sounds pretty fast. Are we talking rivetted or butted mail here? I have seen sudanese mail, and don't know what the quality was like metalurgically, but a lot of it doesn't look particularly crude.

This is an old photo of a 19th century Sudanese mail shirt, taken when the Royal Armouries were still in the Tower of London.

[B.I]

what happened to katars and INDIAN chainmail??

i am not complaining as i have a good interest in ottoman and mumluk armour and am enjoyng reading the posts, but its a shame that, as always, indian pieces are overlooked or sidelined.
i know jens is on a road trip but jim??

aqtai and krill, please dont stop but i hope others will pick up the indian side.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Brian,
I have to admit I've been pretty much 'out of the loop' on this oustanding discussion on mail and katars the past week, although I have read this thread as well as the one on the other forum. I think your discussion on Indian armour was very nicely stated and well placed, bringing up material on this armour that illustrates that there was a distinct spectrum of quality in the forms found. This suggests of course that some Indian armour certainly did parallel European quality. I think Ham made a particularly important comment concerning the validity of comparisons when significant difference in period are involved. Weapons and armour of later period that maintain certain traditional style or form vestigially, as their expectation of meeting the combat situations intended for original design is negligible, seem hardly worthy of such comparison.

The study of armour has admittedly been far outside my field of study, but in reviewing these discussions I cannot help but become profoundly intrigued and realize how important and relevant its study is to our more focused study on ethnographic weapons. The paper "Demystifying Chain Mail and Ring Mail" by Dan Howard that is linked in the thread is nicely written and beautifully referenced, informative and most helpful in getting the proper perspective in understanding this topic from the European forms. I agree with your note that most study of weaponry and armour does defer to Ottoman and Mamluk material when 'Eastern' examples are discussed, while Indian forms are relegated to broad assumptions and nearly cliche' interpretations. I think one of the most important qualities of Robert Elgood's magnificent new book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (London, 2004, ISBN 81-88204-44-7), is that he brilliantly examines how to understand the symbolism imbued in the weapons and armour, an extremely important perspective that has typically eluded the scope of arms and armour study in the west. His work will stand as the renaissance of the study of Indian weaponry.

Returning to the topic of mail and katars, on the mail I would defer to the advanced knowledge of you and the others on these threads, and hope the discussions will continue as the material is fascinating and its great to learn more on this!
On the katar and it's use as a mail piercing weapon. You, Jens and I have of course discussed these often, and there have been countless posts over the years on these forums. With the limited material available on these, most of the discussion is naturally speculative. The suggestion that the katar was not intended for use against mail needs qualification. This is a weapon that evolved over a long period and seems to have remained indiginous to the Indian sphere, however with the development came of course variations. It seems to me that in its development in Southern India it was likely not meant to pierce armour originally. Much like the pata, its gauntleted sword big brother, it was used in slashing manner as much as in thrusting. It is important to note that the Mahratta versions after the arrival of Europeans often used the straight broadsword blades from Europe. These blades would have not been suited for mail piercing in India any more than they would have been in Europe.

In later development of course, encroaching influences brought the well known reinforced points seen on many of these katars that would suggest the potential for armour piercing. Obviously such a feature would not guarantee that it would be used for such purpose any more than it would preclude its use in any manner dictated by circumstances. With that consideration, it seems worthy of note that the absence of combat damage on existing katar examples that would indicate contact with armour does not necessarily provide evidence that such use was not intended. It must be remembered that most Indian weapons that survive are typically those found in collections acquired during the British Raj, and these were often armoury items or from gatherings from diplomatic interaction. The weaponry of the rank and file and with combat history typically ended up in scrap heaps and were disposed of. This severely impedes the possibility of combat damage on examples found for examination, much as in considerable weaponry usually found by collectors. It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage.

I think that the katar was a weapon form that like most others, experienced variation, and while there were certainly examples that carried blades that were reinforced for mail piercing, this was not an exclusive consideration.
As far as the most effective attack against mail, it seems that in the heat of combat, the most instinctive action in the melee would be a powerful blow with a zaghnal, battle axe or mace. It would seem that in using blades against mail the primary concern would be in the blade breaking. Here I would ask those more advanced in armour...would there have been a construction location in the coats or shirts that were more vulnerable? It is of course said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Also, would heavy blows from mace or axe sufficiently weaken areas of the mail to allow better penetration of a bladed weapon?

This has been an outstanding discussion, and I very much admire the prudent demeanor employed by you and everyone on this thread in discussing a concurrent thread from the other forum and avoiding direct criticism of its participants. Very nicely done!

With all best regards,
Jim

[Aqtai]

Sorry for going off-topic. My fascination with the mamluks got the better of me .

I have to admit I also know hardly anything about Katars so I didn't feel qualified to comment on that part of the the discussion. I think one would have to go to descriptions of battles fought in the Mughul era and Indian equivalents of the Mamluk Furuseya manuals to get more info. I must concur with Jim that to me personally the katar has never really "felt" like a military weapon. It has struck me more as a weapon to be used in streetfights, self-defense and by assasins. In battle I personally can only envision it as a secondary weapon. I would imagine the main hand-to-hand weapons used on the battlefield would have been the lance, axe, mace and Tulwar. The longer reach of these weapons would have made a man armed only with a katar very vulnerable. But like I said, what do I know .

The only real way to test it would be to stab a mannequin wearing an antique Indian mail shirt and gambeson with a katar. Frankly that would be absolutely criminal and the worst sort of vandalism!

[not2sharp]

It is truly a 'conquest' to find a 'dark warrior' that carries genuine combat damage.

This should be a topic for discussion on its own. Spotting abuse is straight forward, but trying to find legitimate combat damage is difficult at best.

n2s

[Jim McDougall]

Aqtai and N2S,
Thanks very much for the responses
What Aqtai notes on the katar is well placed, it does seem a secondary weapon, although not specifically military it likely was found in such situations. The secondary weapon was important in close quarters melee as combatants closed on each other and there was limited space for momentum oriented use of weapons. It is interesting to note the possible use as an assassins weapon also, most presumably of course the smaller and short bladed examples. It seems there have been discussions on a number of edged weapons that have been suggested were too small or 'fragile' to have been actually used as weapons. I think one of them was the 'lohar' of Afghan regions. While these were relatively small and seemed unlikely for combat weapons, it is known that many NW frontier tribes favored stealth attacks in the night and even such a small weapon would be extremely effective against a nondefensive victim.

The katar also has been the topic of many discussions here concerning its use in the hunt. Here it seems likely as a secondary weapon also, although there have been accounts of displays of prowess in using the weapon to hunt tigers for one example. Many katars carry shikarga motif with hunting scenes.

N2S, absolutely!! Such a topic as genuine combat damaged weapons would be fascinating. I still have visions of one guy who had an outstanding Caucasian shashka and his son had it in the back yard whacking weeds with it! auugghh!! Such is probably the source of much of the 'combat' damage found on many collected weapons.
Again, returning to the katar, it would be interesting to find examples of early katars to find evidence of combat use. As discussed, these will be hard to find as these were those souveniers brought home by soldiers and later travellers from bazaars, typically now lost in obscure private estates. Every so often someone will find one of these treasures, and hopefully will be shared here.

All the best,
Jim