Wootz afghan knife for komments

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Ariel,

I am saying that the knife in the original posting is by no means a Zirah Bouk because it does not have a reinforced/strengthened tip, but a tip shaped into a false edge/clipped. Besides that I consider it a Pesh-kabz.

I have already asked Rumpel9 to tell us more about this feature. If he says there is no reinforced tip suitable for mail piercing, you will be correct, and I shall be wrong.

Simple as that.

[Rick]

Could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn; and that this might also be a contributing factor to the geometry of these blades?

Examples of this garb can be seen on the cover of Hopkirk's book The Great Game.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Rick

Could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn?

Yes, could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn. But this led to the widespread use of such a knife as a Karud. It is more convenient for penetration through dense and thick clothes.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Yes, could we consider that dress in these mountainous areas could be quite tough to penetrate even without chain armor being worn. But this led to the widespread use of such a knife as a Karud. It is more convenient for penetration through dense and thick clothes.

Absolutely!

From the mechanical point of view, the very narrow pointed triangular tip of the Karud or Pesh-kabz is the perfect armour piercing weapon, equalled only by the infamous Italian Stiletto. Note that the Japanese zirah bouk, the Yoroi Doshi, also has triangular pointed tip.

From the very same mechanical reason, the diamond thickened tip of some oriental zirah bouk knives is much less efficient, being too thick to penetrate chainmail.

Note that I used the term "zirah bouk" as an adjective together with "knife", in the sense of "armour piercing"..."knife."

And here I believe lays the confusion, as we can have zirah bouk Kard, zirah bouk Khanjar, zirah bouk Jambyia or zirah bouk Pesh-kabz. But calling all these, obviously very different types of knives, simply "Zirah Bouk" would be definitely extremely imprecise and confusing if not incorrect. As the term "zirah bouk" defines solely the purpose of the knife, without giving any information about its shape.

So there is one thing to say "zirah bouk + something" (like zirah bouk Kard), when we will immediately know that it is a straight-bladed, single-edged knife with armour-piercing reinforced tip, and

another thing to say "Zirah Bouk," when we will only know it is a knife or dagger with reinforced tip, and nothing more (is it single-edged? is it double-edged? is it straight? is it curved? Etc.).

And I think this difference is clearly noticeable in Artzi's examples, as he frequently uses the term "zirah bouk" as an adjective.

[rumpel9]

Honestly, I did not expect that my question would cause such a discussion. Concerning the end of the knife blade (the first one) I can say that it is not strengthened. As for the hilt, I have carefully examined it several times. Maybe it was mounted later. But if this was the case, then a long time ago.

[ariel]

Well, as I said earlier, if the distant part of the blade is not thickened, it is not a Zirah Bouk.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, as I said earlier, if the distant part of the blade is not thickened, it is not a Zirah Bouk.

What we wanted to prove