![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,911
|
![]() Quote:
It is precisely this common knowledge that very often can be fundamentally flawed as it was based on flawed original information. Now what if Rainer Daehnhardt is wrong about this information (I don't say that he is)?! You get one piece of information like this from here, one from there and have a well founded and accepted opinion that may be considered by some as irrefutable truth... yet, be fundamentally wrong. I do not challenge that many Tulwars or Pulwars have European blades, as they were common blades that could be used with diferent mounts, and thus it would be normal to be widely traded as a much demanded commodity. Moreover, at the time this trade occurred, much of Indian local production was shut down by the deliberate colonial policy. However, with the Pata is something particular: it requires a particular type of blade, and a blade that isn't useful in any other mount and fighting style. So I find highly improbable the Indians invented the Pata and the fighting style associated to it while having to rely on imports from Europe of precisely that type of blades, made to order... ... all while they had at hand, capable bladesmiths and know-how to produce those blades themselves. And I believe that here is a mistake in over generalizing. If many European blades were imported in India and mounted in local mounts, does this automatically imply that this is true for the Patas as well?! Based on what since Elgood seems to refer to blades in general?! And there is a long way between a generic sabre blade and Pata. Dubito, ergo cogito. ![]() Last edited by mariusgmioc; 2nd August 2016 at 11:01 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|