I've adopted another orphan.

Shavru said:
Interesting, Very good eye Davidf99. If you look at the 3rd picture you see a couple of pretty wicked chips/rolls in the edge just below the centre of the blade...
Click to expand...

there are no nicks or rolled edge. what you are seeing is an artefact of the photo caused by the pile of the grey carpet it is laying on (or is it lying on?) overlapping the edge a bit.

(details repeated so you don't have to go back upwards) the weapon is 680 grams (1.5lb.) in weight. the haft is 62 cm. (24 in.) long and 2 cm. (3/4") in diameter.with a decorated steel tube over the butt area and just below the firmly attached axe head socket. the spike is 10 cm. (4in.) long, the blade is 20 cm. (8in.) tip to tip.

the koftgari (silver decoration) is worn thru use. the edge is sharp on the axe blade and spike edges. the top point is indeed slightly further off centre than the lower one, it's made that way. the lower point is about a 1/4" from the haft.

i wouuld assume there was once a grip wrap & lanyard of some sort to keep your hand from sliding toward the head & endangering your fingers. i speculated elsewhere that the design and small diameter haft favoured a draw/push cut type of use similar to that enforced by large disk pommels on tulwars rather than a direct straight impact, tho the curve would aid such a blow as the initial contact area is small, increasing as it penetrates, unlike a straight edge. it was likely an officer's model. i once owned a double bladed indian axe similar to this, engraved but no silver, that was a parade axe, and was much lighter. indian weapons are designed for the lightly armoured (or unarmoured) opponents they were likely to find in the hot steamy climates of india. even western troops of the period they were likely to encounter were not armoured any more. during this period, edged weapons were more of a secondary side arm for close combat when you didn't have the time to reload your firearm, which was likely a muzzle loader.

in many respects it is a heavier version of the light bullova "moustache" axe favoured in north eastern india where it was used by the lightly clothed tribes there in a slashing style.

my bullova for comparison:

View attachment 492555

View attachment 492556
 
Last edited:
any ideas on why europe had such a strong focus on armor ? was it just because of the iron deposits? or was it a cultural thing? I always understood india to have some of the best iron in the world, but climate is a good reason for the armor difference.
 
yes, armour gets hot inside, it's not only the steel on the outside, but the padding inside. cooler european and asian climes made more and thicker armour practical. on campaign, you'd be wearing it most of the day, and possibly into the night as well. medieval armies travelled from water source to water source. the recent movie 'kingdom of heaven' had that as a background topic. sladin went where the water was, the european army went straight across the desert and arrived exhausted, and with a good part of the army dehydrated , ill or dead from lack of water. when the europeans had plenty of waterfor themselves and their thirsty horses they creamed their lighter armoured foes, when they did not, they lost.

think of it like a modern ballistic armour vest, not only do you have the kevlar (padding) but the ceramic impact plates. back on the old stuff, maille was good for slashes, but needed padding under it for impact protection. sometimes padded clothing itself was used as cheap armour. some was layered linen & padding that could astop arrows as well as cutting weapons. sometimes a coat of plates was layered on top of everything, a sleeveless leather vest with iron/steel plates riveted inside. plate armour itself, also lined and padded would be quite warm in the sun. the helmets especially in the age of jousting and english archers had teeny openings to see out of and breathe through, and can get not only hot but hard to breathe.

the armed armoured knight did not exist in a vacuum. he was part of an evolved weapons system with a losgistical backup to supply the army with food, water and equipment for the nobles, knights, their horses, men at arms, archers, cooks, servants, camp followers, drovers, etc.

and it was only the knights and nobles, and some men at arms or professional soldiers, that could afford armour, most others couldn't afford it, infantry was largely unarmoured. medievil battles if documented only list the nobles knightly casualties, possibly with the mention of 'others'. the british still have the notion of officers and 'other ranks' rather than 'enlisted'.

gunpowder also played a role so by the eighteenth century most european army's were not armoured, except for currasiers (heavy cavalry). eglish cavalry complained that their swords in the crimean war when thrust or caut at russian greatcoated soldiers were ineffective, on thrust the blades would bend rather than go in, and the cut would be absorbed and muffled by the heavy wool. the british soldiers also noted that during the sepoy revolt in india that the indian tulwars were much sharper and cut better than their own swords/sabres. funny thing was the indian's weapons were mostly recycled from british 1796 light cavalry sabres, which they sharpened better than the english did. the 1796 lc is (argueably) one of the finest cavalry sabres ever. the brits and americans finally degenerated to a thrusting only sabre in the early 20th century, no good for cuts, efectively a short lance.

oddly, we have gone back to infantry wearing armour again. the wheels of history turn in circles back to where they started and carry on. weapons and defences angainst them seesawing from one to the other as the wheels turn. the only constant seems to be the grunt on the ground is still needed to actually hold territory, in spite of all the fancy drones and aerial weapons. and he is agaiin armoured like the legions of rome. (and carrys about the same weight load of equipment).
 
Last edited:
very cool man thanks , makes sense, same for all those tropical tribes that used almost no armor, just was not practical even if you had ironworking because of heat and movement
 
another generic thought popped into my mind. germany invaded russia, like napoleon, with better equipment and armour. also much like napoleon, the winter caught them unprepared. the germans had never lost a battle until kursk, where they had the better tanks. the russians had more of them tho. the german ones were complex hi tech and could not be produced quickly. the russians had a decent tank that was mass produced. a tiger could kill dozens of t34's but they had hundreds. same with airplanes. russians had fairly primitive ones, but lots of them. evry german loss hit hard, russians didn't care, they just threw more cannon fodder into the flames. the russians held, and the germans never eally won a battle again, especially after stalingrd were retreating all the time til the end.

even alexander noted when he was confronted by his first indian army in battle that they had vast numbers barely armed and only lightly armoured if at all. numbers made up for the lack of equipment. alexander retreated from india in the end. alex got badly wounded and his heavy and (for then) high tech armoured phalanx and cavalry just got swamped. he also never won a battle again and died at an early age, in his mid thirties.

history travels in cycles. even gen. schwartkopf based his invasion plan in iraq on hannibal's victory at cannae a few hundred years b.c.
 
Last edited:
exactly why I find history and archaeology pretty much amazing and interesting subjects; the history of war figures heavily into the history of mankind in general; I am pretty sure almost if not every war college still studies art of war by sun tzu and many of the old battles, some things just remain true
 
I offer for your review and consideration a NOVA program on PBS, and available for down-load (I think) entitled THE GHOST ARMY. It is a comprehensive study of the times, politics, and (for me) the most detailed discussion of the terra cotta warriors of the first Chinese Emporer (Qin, pronounced "Chin") and his vast production and supply system for weapons (lots of bronze triggered crossbows, with interchangeable parts), other weapons, GREAT show and tell on the different metallurgy of arrow heads, and spearheads, and basically, how he conquered and united China for the first time, two thousand two hundred years ago.

Extensive discussion of armour, with illustrations, as Kronkew described, and showing arrows shot at such armour.

Really neat evaluation and explanation of the weapons, warriors, and times.
 
+1 Kismet

Watched it a couple days ago. It is fascinating. I agree whole heartedly that it is must watch to anyone interested in this sort of thing. Though I think they over simplified some small things and over emphasized a bit in other places to sensationalize a tiny bit. But, over all incredibly well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top