A Strange Discussion on Indian Weapons

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thanks.
We must remember that before 14-15 centuries the word "talwar" for the Indians meant ... sword khanda. Without any thrust or parrying.
Mughals (mongols and Turkic peoples), "afghans" and other people of North and West who came in India they used thrust and parrying with saber. Indians themselves only by the 18th century, when in village and city communities the military training systems became mixed.

Excellent insight. Indeed I recall the word talwar is pretty much generally a term for sword not otherwise specified, but perhaps you can fill us in on the proper etymology use of the word. While the hilt form we are familiar with with disc pommel etc. is called Indo-Persian tulwar......we know there are hilts with 'shamshir' like hilts (again the word is simply Persian for sabre)....and these in India are also called Tulwar.
In the British Native cavalry units the British regulation swords used by them are also commonly referred to as 'tulwar'.

I was not aware that the Turkic and Steppes tribes or the Mongols engaged in sword to sword combat, and thought the cut and run method using the sweeping draw cut was thier way, if I am understanding what you are saying.

Of course with the EIC presence in the 18th century, European style sword combat methods became known, but not too sure that tribal warriors bought into it.

In Maratha India, there are examples of 'khandas' with European rapier blades, but I am pretty certain the Hindu basket hilt khanda was not used in fencing.

In the south the term khanda refers to sword in a general sense much in the way tulwar is used in the north, but these became called Hindu basket hilts with the larger hilt used post contact (with Europe in 16th c but not clarifying other possible contacts etc. ).

[ariel]

As far as I remember, stories about Indian swordplay ( no parrying, just shield and jumping) came from the Brits as well.
But I am not sure it has any relations to the topic of this discussion. Aren't we talking about stabbing competence of katars with reinforced points?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

As far as I remember, stories about Indian swordplay ( no parrying, just shield and jumping) came from the Brits as well.
But I am not sure it has any relations to the topic of this discussion. Aren't we talking about stabbing competence of katars with reinforced points?

Exactly, well noted Ariel, we have digressed from that topic enough. Back to the dynamics of the katar in use for penetration.

[ariel]

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.


Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Kinda bad taste to toot one’s own horn, but I shall do it anyway. One of the points in my post #73 closed the discussion: a dagger with reinforced point was called Zirah Bouk, mail piercer.

Here is the voice from the past telling us loud and clear that such daggers were manufactured for a particular purpose: penetration of body defence, be it mail or padding.


Katar, a quintessentially stabbing weapon, with identical engineering feature was also created to fulfill the same function.

No amount of intellectual contortions can beat this trump ace.

Well! Alrighty then!!!!

[Mercenary]

I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated .
And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt.

[Mercenary]

It would also be useful to find such a dagger before the 19th century at least. Although "to penetrate armor" already in the second half of the 18th was hardly necessary.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

I am sorry jentlemen but there is a little problem: who, when and where called such a knife as "zirah bouk"? Ain-i-Akbari did not know this "term". As well as the Urdu language did. I think it's an artificial term and an imaginary name. This question needs to be researched but not to be stated .
And one more little point. In USSR the police (milicia) did not consider the knife as the cold weapon if it did not have the crossguard because without crossguard the palm could slipped on the blade without penetrating the body. The body, not the mail shirt.

Do not despair. It is in the Glossary in the Jaipur book by Elgood. Since his academic credentials are not too shabby, I tend to rely on him more than I would on Russian policemen. I agree it is a an artificial term: it describes not the object itself, but its function. By the same token, as per Khorasani, a Pesh Kabz with straight blade was popularly called a Shotorkosh, i.e. camel killer, in Iran.

And if we have touched this topic, Russian policemen would have hard time proving that Zirah Bouk had no protection against hand sliding: the same construction (bolster only ) is seen in each and every Pesh Kabz and Afghani Ch'hura. And your buddy Mahratt argued repeatedly that Karud ( Shotorkosh:-)) was designed for armour piercing, while Ch'hura was good for penetrating padded garb. I could never understand the logic of it, but be it as it may.

Although my experience with Russian policemen was admittedly limited, I have no doubt they could prove anything in the Russian court:-) But would the judge accept their claim that Caucasian kindjal is also not a weapon? After all it also had no crossguard.

You cannot blame Urdu for not having a word Zirah Bouk: it is in Persian. Different languages, you know....