The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c10: Chapter VIII

The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c10

Language: English

Chapter VIII

c10.1

The cavalry seem to have carried a great variety of arms. The most relied on were those they styled the *kotah-yarāq* or short arms, that is, those used at close quarters, corresponding to the European "arme blanche." Probably the *kotāh silāḥ* of Budāonī, i, 460, (Ranking, 593) has the same meaning, and not as Ranking suggests that of a deficiency or shortness of weapons. These short arms may be ranged into five classes (I) Swords and shields, (II) Maces, (III) Battle Axes, (IV) Spears, (V) Daggers. Weapons for more distant attack were (A) the bow (*Kamān*) and arrow (*Tīr*) (B) the Matchlock (*bandūq* or *tufang*) and (C) the Pistol. Rockets were also used, but they were in charge of the artillery (*topkhānah*) and will come under that head.

c10.2

Out of the wealth of weapons, a description of which follows, it is not to be supposed that the whole were carried by any man at one time; but a great number were so carried, and, in a large army, all of them were to be found in use by some one or other. The great number of weapons that a man carried is graphically depicted by Fitzclarence, in the case of a petty officer of the Nizām's service, who commanded his escort (*Journal*, 134). "Two very handsome horses with superb caparisons belong to this jamadar, who is himself dressed in a vest of green English broad cloth¹ laced with gold, and very rich embroidered belts. A shield of buffalo hide with gilt bosses is hung over his back. His arms are two swords and a dagger, a brace of English pistols, and he has his matchlock carried before him by a servant." The following satirical description from Moor's *Narrative*, 98, also shows what a number of different weapons would sometimes be carried. "Many of the sardars" (i. e. of the Nizām's army in 1791) "were in armour, and none of them deficient in weapons of war, both offensive and defensive. Two swords, a brace to half a dozen pistols, a spear, a crees, and matchlock-carbine constituted the moving arsenal of most of them. One man was mounted upon a tall, thin, skeleton of a horse, from whose shoulders and flanks depended, as a barricading, twenty or thirty weather-beaten cows' tails: two huge pistols appeared in his capacious holsters, while one of still larger dimensions, placed horizontally upon the horse's neck and pointed towards his ears, which were uncommonly long, dreadfully menaced the assailants in front. His flanks and rear were provided with a similar establishment of artillery of different sizes and calibres; one piece was suspended on each side of the crupper of the saddle, and a third centrically situated and levelled point blank at the poor animal's tail . . . . The rest of his armament consisted of a couple of sabres, a spear, a matchlock and shield . . . . He wore besides a rusty coat of mail from the lower part of which a large red quilted jacket made its appearance." The variety of weapons is again dwelt on with great effect in Wilks, iii, 135, "no national or private collection of ancient armour contains a weapon or article of equipment which might not be traced in this motley crowd" i.e. Nizām 'Alī Khān's cavalry in 1791.

c10.3

¹ By Indian writers of the 18th century broad cloth of all colours is called *sqarlāt*, سقرلاط, i. e. scarlet.

I. Swords

c10.s1.1

As to the mode of carrying the sword, Fitzclarence, *Journal*, 69, describing some irregular horse in the Company's service (1817), says "they have a sort of foppery with respect to their sword-belts, which are in general very broad and handsomely embroidered; and, though on horseback, they wear them over the shoulder.” But the sword was not always carried in a belt hung from the shoulder. On plate 8 in B.M. Or. 375 (Rieu, 785), A‘zam Shāh carries his sword by three straps hanging from a waist-belt. The generic name of a sword was *tegh* (Arabic), *shamsher* (Persian) or *talwār* (Hindī). The Arabic word *saif* was also used occasionally. One kind of shortsword was called the *nīmchah-shamsher* (Steingass 1445). It was the weapon carried by Ibrāhīm Qulī Khān in 1137 H. (1725), when he made his attack on Ḥāmid Khan at the governor’s palace in Aḥmadābād (Gujarāt), *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī*, fol. 179*a*. It is also to be found in the *Akbarnāmah*, Lucknow edition, ii, 225, second line. I have not seen in Indian works the word *palārak* used for a sword in *Mujmil-ut-tārīkh ba‘d Nādirīyah*, p. 110, line 3.

c10.s1.2

Names of the various parts are (B.M. N°. 6599 fol. 84*a*), *teghah*, blade, *nābah*, furrows on blade, *qabẓah*, hilt, *jāe-narela* (?), *sarnāl* or *muhnāl* and *tahnāl*, metal mountings of scabbard, *kamrsāl* (the belt?)¹, *bandtār* (?). The quality or temper of a blade was its *āb* (water) or *jauhar* (lustre). One name of the belt was *ḥamāil* (Steingass, 430, plural of *ḥimālat*); and Khair-ud-dīn, *‘Ibratnāmah*, i, 91, uses the word thus, in repeating the speech of one Daler Khān and another man to Shāh ‘Ālam (1173 H.), “*fidwī az waqte kih sipar o shamsher rā ḥamāil kardah-em, gāhe ba dushman-i-khūd pusht na namūdah*”: “Since we hung from our shoulders sword and shield never have we shown an enemy our back.” Another word that I have seen used for a sword-belt is *kamr-i-khanjar*, see Steingass 1049; also Budāonī, text, 441, Ranking 566.

c10.s1.3

¹ This is described in *Qanoone Islām*, app. XXVIII, as a belt worn by women, consisting of square metal tablets hinged together. I find it named in native authors as part of men’s equipment.

c10.s1.4

*Shamsher*. This word when used with a more specific meaning, was applied to the curved weapon familiar to us as the oriental sword, or as it is frequently called, the scimitar. It is purely a cutting weapon, as its shape and the small size of the grip sufficiently demonstrate.

c10.s1.5

*Dhūp*. There was a straight sword, adopted from the Dakhin, of which the name was *dhūp*; it had a broad blade, four feet long, and a cross hilt. It was considered an emblem of sovreignty and high dignity, and was therefore displayed on state occasions, being carried in a gorgeous velvet covering by a man who held it upright before his master. It also lay on the great man's pillow when he was seated in darbār, engaged in the transaction of public business. This kind of sword was conferred as a distinction upon successful soldiers, great nobles, or court favourites, (*Seir*, i, 549, note 54; i, 551, note 55; ii, 95, note 80; iii, 172, note 39). The *dhūp* was also spoken of as *‘aṣā-shamsher*, i.e. staff-sword (*Dānishmand Khān*, 22nd Rajab, 1120 H.). Instances of its being conferred are found in the same historian (22nd Ramaẓān, 1119 H., twice, and 22nd Rajab 1120 H., once). Mr. Egerton, p. 117, Nº. 527, note, quotes from the *Āīn-i-Akbarī*, “Dhoup, straight blade, used by most of the Deccanees.” I am unable to verify the reference; I cannot find the passage in Vol. I, (translation), and the word is not in Mr. Blochmann’s index.

c10.s1.6

*Khandā*. This weapon is Nº. 2 of the list on p. 112, *Āīn*, Vol. I; and from figure 2 on plate xii it would seem to be identical with the *dhūp*.

c10.s1.7

*Sirohī*. The *Ma’āsir-ul-Umarā*, iii, 152, tells us that these blades obtained their good repute from the work done with them in 1024 H. (1615), during a fight at Ajmer between Rājah Sūraj Singh, Rāthor, and his brother, Kishn Singh. “Whoever was struck on the head by these Indian blades was cleft to the waist, or if the cut were on the body, he was divided into two parts.” Egerton, 105, says this sword had “a slightly curved blade, shaped like that of Damascus.” There is no specimen in the India Museum. Hendley, “Memorials of the Jeypore Exhibition,” 1883, Vol. II, plate xxix, N°. 4, has a sword from the Alwar armoury, which he calls a *Shikārgah* or *Sirohī gaj bail* (?). The blade appears slightly lighter and narrower than that of the ordinary *talwār*. Evidently the name is obtained from the place of manufacture, Sirohī in Rājputānah, of which “the sword blades are celebrated for their excellence now as formerly,” Thornton, 874. The town is situated in Lat. 24° 59′, Long. 72° 56′, 360 miles S. W. of Āgrah.

c10.s1.8

*Patta*. This is a narrow-bladed, straight rapier, and is to be seen now chiefly when twirled about vigorously by the performers in a Muharram procession. It has a gauntlet hilt. The specimens in Egerton are N°. 402, 403, 404 (p. 110), 515 (p. 117) 643 (p. 131). There are figures of N°. 403 and 404 on p. 104 of his catalogue.

c10.s1.9

*Guptī*. In the *Āīn*, i, 110, this is N°. 3, and was a straight sword having a walking stick as its sheath, the name being from H. *gupt*, concealed. See also figure 3 on plate xii of the same volume. Egerton’s entries are N°. 516, 517, 518, 519 (p. 117), 641, 642 (p. 131). The head or handle in Blochmann’s figure shows that the sword-stick and the fakir’s crutch were closely allied in appearance, and might at times be united. The crutch is depicted in Egerton, p. 47, and again on plate xiii (opposite p. 126) N°. 639 (p. 131), which is however only of dagger length. One of these crutches played a conspicuous part in the battle of Jājau in June 1707, A‘zam Shāh, one of the contenders for the throne, whirling his crutch frantically, as he stood up on his elephant to urge on his troops. Jonathan Scott, II, part IV, 34, note 4, calls it “a short crooked staff, about three feet in length, not unlike a crozier, used by fakeers to lean on when they sit, and often by persons of rank as an emblem of humility.”

c10.s1.10

*Shields*. Along with the sword naturally comes the shield, the two being almost as closely connected as the arrow and the bow. A shield (A. *sipar*, H. *ḍhāl*) was inseparable from the sword as part of the swordsman's equipment. It was carried on the left arm, or when out of use, slung over the shoulder. The shield appears at Nos 47 and 48 in the *Āīn*, i, 111, and is shown on plate xiii as Nos 40 and 41. They were of steel or hide, generally from 17 to 24 inches in diameter. If of steel, they were often highly ornamented with patterns in gold damascening; if of hide, they had on them silver or gold bosses, crescents, or stars. Egerton in a note to Nº. 695 (p. 133) gives a description of two magnificent steel shields which once belonged to the emperor Bahādur Shāh (1707—1712). The kinds of hide used were those of the Sāmbhar deer, the buffalo, the nīlgau, the elephant, and the rhinoceros, the last being the most highly prized. Brahmans who objected to leather had shields made of forty or fifty folds of silk painted red and ornamented (Egerton, 111, note to Nº. 434). More about shields can be seen in the same work, pp. 47, 48, 49. The specimens in the Indian Museum are numerous, see Egerton pp. 111, 118, 134, 139. The curious snake-skin (*nāgphanī*) shield, Nº. 365 (p. 103), is not a Moghul weapon.

c10.s1.11

*Chirwah* and *Tilwah*. — According to the *Āīn*, Blochmann, i, 252, these were the shields carried by the *Shamsherbāz*, or gladiators, groups of whom always surrounded Akbar on the march, *Akbarnāmah*, (Lucknow edition), ii, 225, second line.

c10.s1.12

*Fencing Shields*. Following the *ḍhāl* or shield the *Āīn*, i, 111, has Nº. 49, the *kherah*, كهرہ, but there is no figure of it. I presume that this is the same word as گروہ, *girwah* (Shaks., 1695) or گروہ *garwah* (Steingass, 1081), both meaning a shield. I can find no word *kherah* in the dictionaries, but it might be *gherā*, घेरा, a round, a circle (Shakes. 1759), with allusion to the form of a shield. Again Nº. 50 *Pahrī*, (*Āīn*, i, 111) is described by Blochmann, p. xi, as a plain cane shield. It is shown as Nº. 42 on plate xiii. This must evidently be *Pharī*, फरी, Hindi for a small shield of cane or bambu (Shakes. 580). The quaint implement, *mārū* or *singauta*, made of a pair of antelope horns tipped with steel and united at the butt-ends, Egerton, p. 111 and p. 133, also the *sainti* (id. 118 and plate x), may be classed as parrying shields.

II. The Mace

c10.s2.1

This formidable-looking weapon, the mace (*gurz*), usually formed part of the panoply of a Moghul warrior, at any rate if he were of any considerable rank. It appears as N°. 25 in the *Āīn* list, i, 111, and varieties of it are entered under N°. 26 (*shashbur*) and N°. 29 (*piyāzī*). Blochmann gives no figure of the latter, N°. 29, and from his remarks on p. x he seems a little doubtful as to what it was. The *gurz* is shown in figure 23, plate xii, of the *Āīn* as a short-handled club with three large round balls at the end. Another kind, the *shashbur*, or lung-tearer ¹, figure 21, has a single head, of a round shape; and from Egerton, 23, plate i, N°. 35, I should suppose that it was made up of semi-circular, cutting blades arranged round a centre. Of the *gurz*, or mace proper, there are three examples in the Indian Museum. N°. 466 (p. 115 and plate x) is 2 feet 7 inches long, with a many bladed double-head, that is one head above the other; N°. 574 (p. 123 and plate x) has a globular head of 3 inches in diameter and a shaft of steel gilt, length 2 feet 2 inches; N°. 616 (p. 130) is 2 feet 2 inches long and has a steel shaft with a six-bladed head. Other weapons of a similar kind named by Egerton are the *Dhara*, the *Garguz* and the *Khandlī-Phānsī*. The *Dhara*, N°. 468 (p. 115), has a six bladed head and octagonal steel shaft; it is 2 feet long, and came from Kolhāpūr. Of the *garguz* there are four specimens. Nos 373 and 374 (p. 108 and plate x) have eight-bladed heads and basket hilts, one is 2 feet 7 inches and the other 2 feet 8 inches long; Nº. 467 (p. 115) is 7-bladed with basket hilt, length 2 feet 4 inches; Nº. 469 (p. 115) is eight-bladed with a similar hilt, length 2 feet 10 inches. The *Khundlī Phānsī*, Nº. 470 (p. 115 and plate x), is 19 inches long, has a head of open scroll work, and is probably one of the *Bairāgī* crutches already referred to. *Phānsī* means a noose in Hindi, but I do not see the appropriateness of the name here, nor do I know what *Khundlī* can mean.

c10.s2.2

¹ Egerton, 21, says this weapon is mentioned by Bābar, but I have been unable to find the passage in P. de Courteille's translation of the “Memoirs.”

c10.s2.3

The Flail (H. *sānt*) is another weapon that may be classed with the Mace. These are two specimens in the Indian Museum, Egerton Nos 62, 63 (p. 78), and one is shown as Nº. 24 on plate i opposite p. 23. I should also class among maces the *Pusht-khār* or back-scratcher, *Āīn*, i, 111, Nº. 41, made of steel in the shape of a hand. It is shown as Nº. 35 on plate xiii of Blochmann’s volume. The same is the case with the *Khār-i-māhī*, or fishbackbone, of steel spikes projecting from each side of a straight handle, *Āīn*, i, 111, Nº. 41, and Nº. 37, plate xiii. The *Gajbāg* put among weapons in the *Āīn*, i, 111, Nº. 46, and Nº. 39, plate xiii, is only the common elephant goad or *ankus*.

III. The Battle Axe

c10.s3.1

The battle-axe (*tabar*) will be found at Nº. 28 of the *Āīn*, i, 111 and on plate xii, figure Nº. 22. This figure shows a triangular blade with one broad cutting edge. When the head was pointed and provided with two cutting edges, the axe was called a *Zāghnol*, or crow’s beak (id. Nº. 30, and plate xii, fig. 24). A double headed axe, with a broad blade on one side and a pointed one on the other side of the handle, was styled a *Tabar zāghnol* (id. Nº. 32, and plate xii, fig. 26). An axe with a longer handle, called *Tarangālah*, was also in use (id. Nº. 33 and plate xii, fig. 27, see also Egerton plate i, Nº. 22).

c10.s3.2

Of the *Tabar* there are seven entries 375, 376, 377 (p. 108), 711, 712, 713 (p. 137) and 746 (p. 144). There is a figure of N°. 376 on plate x opposite p. 114. The shafts of these range from 17 inches to 23 inches in length; the heads measuring from 5 to 6 inches one way and 3 to 5 inches the other way. Some of the heads are crescent shaped, and one of the shafts is hollowed and contains daggers. I omit Egerton’s *Parusa* (p. 7) and *Venmuroo* (N°. 89, 90) as not being Moghul weapons. There is also a weapon styled *Basolah*, N°. 31 of the *Āīn* list, i, 111. The name sounds as if it were derived from the Hindī *basūlā*, a carpenter’s adze, but the figure, N°. 25, plate xii, looks more like a chisel than any other tool.

c10.s3.3

Silver axes highly ornamented were carried for display by the attendants in the hall of audience (Egerton, note to N°. 375, p. 108). These attendants were the *Yasāwal*, and Anand Rām calls the axes they carried *Chamchāq* (*Mirāt-ul-Iṣtilāḥ*, fol, 193*b*). Besides this form of the word, we find also *Chamkhāq*, *Chakhmāq*, *Chakhmāgh*, Steingass, 388, 399, “a battle axe fastened to the saddle.”

IV. Spears

c10.s4.1

The usual generic name used for spears of all kinds was the Arabic word *sinān*, pl. *asnān*, Steingass, 60, 698. The head or point was called *sunain*, *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī* 176*a*, Steingass, 704; and the butt was the *bunain*, Steingass, id. There were several varieties of this class of weapon. The cavalry, however, seem to have confined themselves to the use of the lance (*nezah*), and the other kinds were used by foot soldiers and the guards surrounding the emperor’s audience hall. There is also some evidence for the use, at any rate among the Mahrattas, of a javelin or short spear, which was thrown (Journal As. Soc. Bengal, XLVIII, 1879, p. 101). The kinds of spear mentioned in the *Āīn-i-Akbari*, i, 112, are five the *Nezah*, N°. 20, *Barchhah*, N°. 21, *Sānk*, N°. 22, *Sainthī*, N°. 23, and *Selarah*, N°. 24.

c10.s4.2

*Nezah*. This is the cavalry lance, a small steel head with a long bambu shaft. Steingass, 1442, has *Nezah* “a short spear, demi-lance, javelin, dart, pike.” But this is not borne out by the usage of Indian writers, who by this word intend a long-shafted spear. It appears in the *Āīn*, i, 111, as N°. 20, and is shown at N°. 16 of plate xii. *Bhālā* I take to be only the Hindī equivalent for *Nezah*. Shakespear, 386, says *Bhālā* is from Sanskrit भल्ला, a spear about 7 cubits or 10 1/2 feet long, a lance with a narrow head. Including *Nezah*, *Bhālā* and spears (unclassed), I find nine entries in W. Egerton, vizt. 463 (p. 115) 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612 two (p. 130). Of these one has a small head and long bambu shaft; another a palmwood shaft and small triangular head; four have bambu shafts 12 to 15 feet in length, with heavy bossed butts and small heads; N°. 611, length 8 feet, head 16 inches; N°. 612 (two), length 9 feet and 9 feet 3 inches, head 21 inches.

c10.s4.3

The *nezah* or lance was so prominent a part of the Mahratta equipment that one writer Mḥd Qāsim, Aurangābādī, (*Aḥwāl-ul-Khawāqīn*, fol. 201*a* and elsewhere) instead of the usual “accursed enemy” (*ghanīm-i-laʿīn*) calls them *nezah-bāzān*, “lance-wielders.” He thus describes, fol. 205*b*, their mode of using the lance: “They so use it that no cavalry can cope with them. Some 20,000 to 30,000 lances are held up against their enemy, so close together as not to leave a span between their heads. If horsemen try to ride them down, the points of the spears are levelled at the assailants and they are unhorsed. While the cavalry are charging them, they strike their lances against each other, and the noise so frightens the horses, that they turn round and bolt.”

c10.s4.4

As to the usual mode of wielding the spear, we see in a picture of a battle, inserted between fol. 14*b* and fol. 15*a* of B.M., Or: 3610 (Rieu, Supp. p. 54, N°. 79) showing an attack on the elephant of Rafīʿ-ush-shān, that the man on horseback (ʿAbd-uṣ-ṣamad Khān) who is attacking the prince, held his spear uplifted above his head at the full length of his arm. In other pictures the same attitude is seen in the case of horsemen attacking horsemen.

c10.s4.5

*Barchhah*. This is a Hindī word, also spelt *Barchhā* and *Barchhī*. W. Egerton, note to N°. 461, p. 115, quoting Tod’s “Rajasthan,” says “the Mahratta lance is called ‘Birchha.’” This statement taken literally may be true; it is false, if taken as suggesting that the *Barchhah* is an exclusively Mahratta arm. We find the *Barchhah* in the *Āīn* list of Moghul arms, drawn up long before the Mahrattas had been heard of as a military power. It is a well known word and weapon all over Northern India, hundreds of miles from the Mahratta country. We have it figured as N°. 17 of plate xii of the *Āīn* (vol. I). Its distinctive feature is its being made wholly of iron or steel, shaft as well as head. See also Egerton’s description, p. 123, note preceding N°. 574, of two specimens in the Codrington collection. This heavy spear could hardly have been wielded by a man on horse-back, and was no doubt confined to the infantry.

c10.s4.6

*Sānk*. This form of the word is Blochmann’s transliteration, *Āīn*, i, 110, N°. 22. According to present day pronunciation it would be *Sāng*. The second mark over the letter *kaf* is very often omitted by scribes, and thus ک might easily stand for گ. *Sāng*, (Shakes. 1239) is from the Sanskrit शङ्कु or शक्ति, *shanku*, *shakti*. It was entirely of iron, but according to the figure in the *Āīn*, i, plate xii, fig. 18, it was much shorter than the *Barchhah*. On the other hand, those in the Indian Museum are 7 feet 11 inches in total length, of which the head occupies 2 feet 6 inches. They have long, slender, four-sided or three-sided heads, steel shafts, and the grip covered with velvet, (Egerton, N°. 72, p. 81, and figure on p. 79), N°. 461, two, (p. 115).

c10.s4.7

The Indian name for the modern bayonet is *sangīn*. This may probably mean a little *sāng*; and is possibly formed from *sāng* by a shortening of the vowel and the addition of the diminutive termination ں nasalized. The long, slender, three sided or four sided head of the *sāng* presents a resemblance to the shape of a bayonet; and in Hindī it is not uncommon, in the case of inanimate objects, to employ the feminine termination “*ī*” as a diminutive, thus *golā*, a ball, *golī*, a bullet, *hāndā* a cauldron, *hāndī*, a small pot, *chakkā* a wheel, *chakkī*, a hand-mill.

c10.s4.8

*Sainthī*. This is a Hindī word, also spelt *saintī*. Shakespear, 1370, defines it as a dart, javelin, short spear, bolt. It is N°. 23 in the *Āīn*, i, 111, and appears as N°. 19 on plate xii. The shaft is still shorter than that of the *sāng*. It is not given in Egerton. Has the name any connection with *senthī*, Hindī for a kind of reed?

c10.s4.9

*Selarah*. This is N°. 24 of the *Āīn* list, i, 111, and it is figured on plate xii (N°. 20) as a spear with a head and shaft longer than those of the *sainthī* but not so long as those of the *sāng*. There is no mention of it in Egerton, and outside the *Āīn* I have never either seen the weapon or come across the word. Possibly the word has some connection with the Hindī *sel*, سیل, a spear, said to be (Shakes. 1368) from Sanskrit शल.

c10.s4.10

*Other kinds of spears*. Four names, *Ballam*, *Pandī-ballam*, *Panjmukh*, and *Lānge* occur in Egerton as kinds of spears, though omitted from the *Āīn*.

c10.s4.11

The *Ballam* is well-known in moderm Hindī, and is defined, Shakes. 354, as a spear, pike, lance. Egerton has two specimens, N°s 27 and 28 (p. 78), which are described as having barbed heads and wooden shafts, total length 5 feet 11 inches, of which the blade takes up 18 inches. On p. 123, quoting from the Codrington catalogue, Mr. Egerton says the *Ballam* is a short spear with broad head, used by infantry.

c10.s4.12

*Pandī-ballam* (Egerton N°. 29, p. 78) is a hog-spear with leafshaped blade, and bambu shaft, total length 8 feet 3 inches (blade 2 feet 3 inches).

c10.s4.13

*Panjmukh* is described on p. 137 in a note to N°. 710, on the authority of the Codrington catalogue, as a “five-headed spear used by the people of Guzerat.” The derivation is, of course, panj, five, mukh, head.

c10.s4.14

Lānge is mentioned on p. 123 in a quotation from the Codrington catalogue, and it is suggested that the word is a corruption of “lance.” It has a four-cornered iron head with a hollow shaft.

c10.s4.15

Other designations for a spear are also to be found in Shakespear, vizt. :

c10.s4.16

Garhiyā, (col. 1705), Pike, javelin, spear;

c10.s4.17

‘Alam, (1458), Spear (properly a standard or banner);

c10.s4.18

Kont, (1637) spear from Sans. कुन्त.

c10.s4.19

‘Alam I have heard used, but I never met with the two other words. To complete the long list I may as well add the sort of bill-hook or pole-axe, gaṇḍāsā, a steel chopper attached to a long pole, which is the weapon of the modern chaukidār or village watchman.

V. Daggers and Knives

c10.s5.1

These were of various shapes and kinds, for each of which there was a separate name.

c10.s5.2

Kaṭār, kaṭārah, kaṭārī. This is a Hindī word, kaṭṭār (Shak., 1556), probably from the same root as the verb kāṭnā, to cut. The translator of the Seir (i, 549, note 53) thus describes it, “A poignard peculiar to India made with a hilt, whose two branches extend along the arm, so as to shelter the hand and part of the arm. The blade is very thick with two cutting edges, having a breadth of three inches at the hilt and a solid point of about one inch in breadth. The blade cannot be bent and is so stiff that nothing will stop it but a cuirass. The total length is 2 to 2½ feet, one half of this being the blade.” The hilt has at right angles to the blade a cross-bar by which the weapon is grasped, and it is thus only available for a forward thrust. It is named in the Āīn, i, 112, being N°. 10, and it is fig. 9 on plate xii. There the blade is slightly curved; Mustapha’s description corresponds perhaps more nearly to fig. 4 of the same plate, the *jamdhar*. There are about twenty five specimens entered in Egerton (pp. 102, 109, 116, 131) and five of these are shown on plates ix, x (two) and xiii (two). The blades are of various patterns, and the length varies from 9 to 17½ inches. One N°. 340 is forked or two-bladed. Yule, “Glossary” 815, refers to two from Travancore which had blades of 20 and 26 inches. Others of great length are described by Mr. Walhouse in the “Indian Antiquary,” vii, 193. The *Bānk* is called in Egerton, N°. 335, p. 102, the B. *katārī*, but the figure on plate ix shows it as being like a knife and without the handle characteristic of the *katār*. Stavorinus, quoted by Yule, “Glossary,” 816, speaks of a dagger, the name of which he translates as belly piercer. No one seems to know what Indian word was intended unless it were the *kaṭṭār*, which may be translated the “cutter” (quasi, “piercer”).

c10.s5.3

*Jamdhar*. This is N°. 4 in the *Āīn*, i, 112, and figure N°. 4 in plate xii. This figure has the same handle as a *kaṭṭār*; but the blade is very broad and straight, while the *kaṭṭār* is given a curved blade. On the contrary Mr. Egerton, p. 102, and plate ix, Nos 344 and 345, shows the *jamdhar katārī* with a straight blade and a handle to be held like one holds a table-knife or a sword. The etymology of the word as given by J. Shakespear, 1790, is *jam*, from the Sanskrit यम, death, and *dhar*, from धार, a sharp edge. But see also Yule, “Glossary”, 358, under “Jumdud” (*jamdad*).

c10.s5.4

*Khanjar*. We are told by Steingass, 476, that this is A., for dagger, poinard. There are eight specimens in the Indian Museum, Egerton, 502 to 506 (p. 116), 626, 627*a*, 627 (p. 131): two are shown on plate x (opp. p. 114). Most of these have doubly-curved blades, and are about 12 inches long. The *Khanjar* is N°. 5 in the *Āīn*, i, 110; and on plate xii, N°. 5, it is shown as a bent dagger with a double curve in the blade and a hilt like a sword.

c10.s5.5

Figures Nos 5 and 7 on W. Egerton's plate vi (opp. p. 53) appear to be Khanjar. Mustapha, Seir, i, 152, note 114, says that "the Khanjar is a poinard, with a bent blade, peculiar to the Turks, who carry it upright and on the right side; but it is occasionally worn by both Persians and Indians, the latter wearing it on the left side and inclined." Our word "hanger" is derived from Khanjar (Yule and Burnell, 312). Then we have the

c10.s5.6

Jamkhāk, Āīn, i, 110, Nº. 7, plate xii, Nº. 7. If it were not for the middle letter kāf ک, I would have suggested that this word was a misreading for chamkhākh چمخاخ, a battle axe (Steingass, 389), see ante, under iii, Battle Axes. The figure in the Āīn shows a dagger and not an axe. — Could it be intended for Chāqchāq, a kind of knife?

c10.s5.7

Jhambwah, Āīn, i, 110, Nº. 9, plate xii Nº. 9 and Egerton 106 (p. 82), 486—9 (p. 116), 798—9 (p. 145). He also gives figures on plate i, Nº. 29 (p. 23) and fig. 17 on p. 79. The Jambwah is also mentioned by him on p. 124 in a note to Nº. 581. Steingass, 373, only gives jambīyah, "a kind of arms or armour." Shakespear, 789, has "a dagger." There are also some interesting remarks by Yule, "Glossary", 357, under "Jumbeea." He inclines to a derivation from janb, A., the side.

c10.s5.8

Bānk, Āīn, i, 110, Nº. 8, and figure Nº. 7, plate xii; Egerton, Nos 480—1 (p. 115), and note to Nº. 581 (p. 124), figure 31 on his plate i, (opp. p. 23). The name evidently comes from its curved shape (बांक, a curvature, a bend, Shakes. 275a).

c10.s5.9

Narsingh moth, Āīn i, 110, Nº. 11 and figure 11, plate xii; Egerton, fig. Nº. 30 on plate i (opp. p. 23).

c10.s5.10

All four of these weapons seem of the same class as the Khanjar, though varying slightly in form. The same may be said of the Bichhwā and the Khapwah. Bichhwā, literally "scorpion", had a wavy blade. It is mentioned by Egerton, 27, and there are specimens in the India Museum, Nos 490—8 (p. 116), 628 (p. 131), and plate x (opp. p. 114). The *Khapwah*, N°. 6 in the *Āīn*, i, 110, must have been some sort of dagger; there is no figure of it on plate xii, but Egerton’s plate i, N°. 28, shows it as almost identical with the *jambwah*. May it not mean “the finisher, the giver of the *coup de grâce*,” from the H. verb *khapnā*, to fill up, to complete, as in the phrase, *den khap-gyā* “the debt has been liquidated?” The Persian word is *dashnah* (Steingass, 527). In some manuscripts of the *Akbarnāmah* (near the end of the 17th year), it is said, as Mr. H. Beveridge has pointed out to me, that Akbar when drunk ran after Shāhbāz Khān of Mālwah, and tried to strike him “with a *dashnah*, called in Hindī a *khapwah*”, because he refused to sing.

c10.s5.11

*Peshqabz*. The word is from P. *pesh*, front, *qabz*, grip. It was a pointed one-edged dagger, having generally a thick straight back to the blade, and a straight handle without a guard; though at times the blade was curved, or even double-curved. The *Peshkabz* is not in the *Āīn* i, 110—112, so I presume that it was included under one of the other kinds of dagger, perhaps under *kārd*, a knife, N°. 34 and fig. 28, Plate xii. In Egerton I find twenty three examples: 346 (p. 102), 381 (p. 108), 382 (p. 109), 484—5 (p. 116), 617—625 (p. 130), 717—724 (p. 138), 760 (p. 144). Of these there are 7 straight, 4 curved, and 2 double-curved blades; the shape of the rest is not stated. On plate xiv (opp. p. 136) he shows four, and on plate xv (opp. p. 140) one of these specimens. Some of the hilts have guards to them, others have none. N°. 624 is like the *khanjar* in the *Āīn*, fig. 6, plate xii; N°. 721 something like the *jambhwah*, fig. 8, same plate, and the others, Nos 712, 720, 760, more like the *kārd*, or knife, fig. 28, same plate.

c10.s5.12

*Kārd*. This was like a butcher’s knife and kept in a sheath. It was more especially the weapon of the Afghān. For an example, see Egerton N° 750 (p. 144) and the figure on plate xv, where the total length is 2 feet 6 inches, and that of the blade alone 2 feet. This was the sort of weapon with which, on the 8th October 1720, Mīr Ḥaidar Beg, Dughlāt, assassinated Sayyad Ḥusain ʿAlī Khān, Mīr Bakhshī, in the emperor’s camp between Fatḥpur Sīkrī and Amber (Jaipur), Mḥd Qāsim, Lāhorī, *ʿIbratnāmah*, I.O.L. Nº. 252, fol. 348. The author of the *Jauhar-i-Ṣamṣām*, fol. 138a, calls the weapon then used a *chāqchaqī-i-wilāyatī*. This word is related to چاقو, a knife, (Steingass, 386, from Turkish). We have also in the *Āīn*, i, 111, the *guptī-kārd*, or knife concealed in a stick (Nº. 35, and plate xiii, Nº. 29), the whip-shaped knife, *qamchī-kārd* (Nº. 36 and plate xiii, Nº. 30), and the clasp-knife or *chāqū* (Nº. 37 and plate xiii, Nº. 31).

c10.s5.13

*Sailābah-i-Qalmāqī* was the name for the knife used by the men from Kāshghar; it was as long as a sword, had a handle made of a fish-bone called *sher-māhī* (lion-fish), and was worn slung from a shoulder belt, Ashob, fol. 172b, 178b.