Fighting Techique?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Stan S.

It is known that in traditional Indian hand to hand combat a sword (tulwar) was usually accompanied by a defensive side arm, usually a shield, less friquently a katar, or some other dagger. It is also my understanding that due to a greatly varied quality of blades and a rather questionable defensive attributes of a tulwar hilt, Indians did not block with their swords. In other words, tulwar is a strictly offensive weapon. The question is, what did they do in a fight when the shield/katar was lost, damaged, or otherwise not available? Any opinions?

Salaams Stan S. I imagine that losing ones shield could have disastrous results since not only was the defence not available but the balance of the swordsman dramatically altered. If no buckler is available the arab technique employed especially in the UAE was to use a sandal to deflect incoming strikes. I suspect more fighters lost their sword than their shield..but in either case .. not good.

Regards Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Stan S.]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Stan S. I imagine that losing ones shield could have disastrous results since not only was the defence not available but the balance of the swordsman dramatically altered. If no buckler is available the arab technique employed especially in the UAE was to use a sandal to deflect incoming strikes. I suspect more fighters lost their sword than their shield..but in either case .. not good.

Regards Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

A sandal, eh? How interesting! Somehow I get this mental image of Jackie Chan using all these ordinary objects (like shoes) in a fight scene in one of his movies But seriously, this makes perfect sense, and is not unlike European manuscripts showing fencers from the Renaissance times using a cape wrapped around a left hand to deflect opponent’s blows.

Would it be safe to assume that when not on the battlefield, a man carried a sword without a shield (such as during the peace times in an urban setting), and the contingency plan was to use an article of clothing in combination with a sword should he come under attack?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Stan S.

A sandal, eh? How interesting! Somehow I get this mental image of Jackie Chan using all these ordinary objects (like shoes) in a fight scene in one of his movies But seriously, this makes perfect sense, and is not unlike European manuscripts showing fencers from the Renaissance times using a cape wrapped around a left hand to deflect opponent’s blows.

Would it be safe to assume that when not on the battlefield, a man carried a sword without a shield (such as during the peace times in an urban setting), and the contingency plan was to use an article of clothing in combination with a sword should he come under attack?

Salaams,
The interesting question relates to when was the shield dispensed with ? The sword became Iconic and carried as a badge of office thus the shield was seldom carried on normal visits for example to the Royal Court or meetings with dignatories.. Rather than carry a hefty great weapon( and shield) into meetings of court I imagine that the term court sword (for the lightweight court sword worn more for show than anything else) evolved. In the event of a weapons encounter anything would be better than nothing and a cloak could be a useful parrying device or another short sword or perhaps bollock dagger in the shield hand.. thus fighting with 2 blades which I believe was a style of combat.

An entire combat technique formed around sword and buckler use in Europe (and in fact, though differently, in Oman) and that combination would often be carried.

bhushan_lawate ... Salaams,Very interesting to read of the battle you depict...

Regards Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[KuKulzA28]

I don't practice any Indian martial arts, but fighting is fighting...

One can use footwork, spacing, and timing to avoid being struck - and deflections/blocks with the blade if necessary. When at a diagonal to the enemy, you aren't in their optimum striking area and they must adjust to both attack and defend most effectively - there they are vulnerable. One can use spacing by being just within range of the enemy, then leaning back (like a pendulum affect) to avoid being struck and then leaning back in to destroy the enemy. And timing... angling away while striking at the enemy arm, wrist, hand, knee, etc. while their strike is coming is a good "buzz kill" for your opponent. Of course blocking and deflecting with blades isn't ideal but there's different techniques for that as well. And of course, do not forget kicks to the groin, knees, and shins when close. If you have a superior angle, timing, and cripple the enemy's rooting - it's hard for them to effectively attack you. Also, anyone mid-movement or in transition is vulnerable to an attack - thus if your timing is on point, you can catch them at the moment they are least prepared to defend. Fakes and feints are also useful. THere's a whole arsenal of tactics and principles - obviously however, a shield would help a lot, though it makes it harder to grab.

In Chinese martial arts, when concerning the dao/saber, they say when dan dao (single) watch out for the free hand ('cause of grabbing), and when shuang dao (double sabers) watch the feet...

But then again, in military settings Chinese have often used shields - it's usually in civilian settings and late-Qing/early Republican that swords were used without shields

How do you think the katar-tulwar warriors do it? Katars aren't the ideal blocking tool either...

[Lew]

How do you think the katar-tulwar warriors do it? Katars aren't the ideal blocking tool either...[/QUOTE]

Well I think the katar was used as a parrying dagger much like the European left handed dagger was used in a duel. In fact the scissor katar may have come from this type of trident left handed dagger?

[KuKulzA28]

Originally Posted by Lew

Well I think the katar was used as a parrying dagger much like the European left handed dagger was used in a duel. In fact the scissor katar may have come from this type of trident left handed dagger?

If that's the case then I am unfamiliar with parrying-daggers, etc.
I was also under the impression that the three-section daggers/katars were more fragile?

I also thought that there were forms/techniques for using the long blade to tie-up or get past the opponent's main weapon and using the katar to finish them. However, I'm sure there were many many different styles and preferences as far as shield, katar, or both in same hand, left-handed dagger, dual tulwars, single tulwar, etc.

Might be time to do more research and learn even more

[fearn]

Here's a suggestion for the use of shields.

They're much better than swords at blocking arrows.

Once decent muskets came along, effective shields became unmanageably heavy, as did armor. Lugging a flintlock and a shield for hand-to-hand combat is a bit awkward, and I'm willing to bet that this is when shields were largely discarded.

F

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by Lew

How do you think the katar-tulwar warriors do it? Katars aren't the ideal blocking tool either...

Not of the same era but the Tanjore Katar are an awesome defense and the hooked monster head terminal on the guard makes for a great catcher of blades too, to have one in each hand awesome.

When one looks at the hand straps on the back of the dahls/bucklers, anyone could well hold both a Katar and a buckler....then there are those Bengal shields with the spikes/blades too.

I have seen one of these 'tri bladed' EU parrying daggers that open to three blades adapted for or made in Eastern style, I think it is seen in Islamic Arms and Armour from private Danish Collections....will need to check when I am with my books though.

Great thoughts on the scissor Katar Lew.

Gav

[Stan S.]

Originally Posted by freebooter

When one looks at the hand straps on the back of the dahls/bucklers, anyone could well hold both a Katar and a buckler....then there are those Bengal shields with the spikes/blades too.

Good one! I never thought of that but you are right - the handle assembly on a dhal is not unlike a katar grip. I can now see how one coudl hold both in the left hand with only the tip of katar extending past the edge of the shield crating a deadly point. Perhaps this is how madu shield came to be? And speaking a madu, this is trully a defence with which you don't even need a sword!

[KuKulzA28]

Originally Posted by fearn

Here's a suggestion for the use of shields.

They're much better than swords at blocking arrows.

Once decent muskets came along, effective shields became unmanageably heavy, as did armor. Lugging a flintlock and a shield for hand-to-hand combat is a bit awkward, and I'm willing to bet that this is when shields were largely discarded.

F

Good observation! You're right. Shields began to dwindle as firearms became more prevalent. Dedicated hand to hand weapons started to diminish when firearms got even more effective.

Originally Posted by freebooter

Not of the same era but the Tanjore Katar are an awesome defense and the hooked monster head terminal on the guard makes for a great catcher of blades too, to have one in each hand awesome.

Just curious, what time period were those most prevalent?

[bhushan_lawate]

Hi all,

This reminds me of the famous battle of "Sinhagad" near Pune, Maharashtra, India fought between the Mughals led by Udaybhan and the Marathas led by Tanaji Malusare.

In a fierce dual that started between Udaybhan and Tanaji; Tanaji's dhal(shield) broke and he was unable to get another one on time. So he started taking the attack of Udaybhan on his left hand on which he had tied a shela (a long cloth usually used as a waist band).

It is worthy to note that both Udaybhan and Tanaji died of battle wounds and Tanaji had lost his left hand owing to the severe strikes of sword...!!!!!!

[laEspadaAncha]

Originally Posted by bhushan_lawate

Hi all,

This reminds me of the famous battle of "Sinhagad" near Pune, Maharashtra, India fought between the Mughals led by Udaybhan and the Marathas led by Tanaji Malusare.

In a fierce dual that started between Udaybhan and Tanaji; Tanaji's dhal(shield) broke and he was unable to get another one on time. So he started taking the attack of Udaybhan on his left hand on which he had tied a shela (a long cloth usually used as a waist band).

It is worthy to note that both Udaybhan and Tanaji died of battle wounds and Tanaji had lost his left hand owing to the severe strikes of sword...!!!!!!

Fascinating post, Bhushan, and thank you for that bit of Indian history.

Interesting to note the parallel between this bit of recorded history and Stan's post recalling the use of one's cape or cloak during the Renaissance. I guess tactics are tactics, or as KuKulzA28 succinctly put it, fighting is fighting.

Has anyone ever encountered a small dhal that exhibits obvious signs of having been struck?