Category talk:Indo-Persian weaponry
"Indo-Persian" has never been "a general category containing weapons from Persia, India, the Ottoman Empire, and surrounding areas". This would seem to imply that all weapons from India and/or Persia are automatically Indo-Persian. The term is in fact used descriptively for aspects of Persian culture which have been absorbed into southern Asia. This includes Indo-Persian architecture, music, art, literature, and of course arms and armour. This term, and this definition, is commonly used in cultural studies of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I can verify this with sources, in fact every single reliable and authoritative source I have checked and ever come across all use this definition. It is further corroborated by the Indo-Persian culture article which, by the way, I never edited even once. The term Greco-Roman is used in a similar way. It is defined as "of or having both Greek and Roman characteristics" or "pertaining to a style of fine arts developed in Rome, chiefly categorised by an apparent indebtedness to Greek forms". In other words, not everything Greek or Roman is Greco-Roman. Similar terms exist such as Perso-Arab, Sino-Korean, etc, all of which designate one culture's influence on the other. For example, Indo-Japanese refers to aspects of religion and mythology which Japan adopted from India, but does not include convergent similarities between the cultures. In some cases, such as Indon-Malay or Malayan-Thai, it refers not to influence but shared aspects of culture often stemming from the same source. The term Indo-Chinese refers neither to India nor China but to Southeast Asia. In spite of these varied meanings, I can't think of a similar term that carries the definition of "everything from both cultures".
In South Asian studies or Indian studies, the term Indo-Persian is useful in that it designates that which originated in Persia from otherwise. For example, Indian armour and Indo-Persian armour are noticeably different. But what use is there to have a single term for all weapons from both countries? How will this make things easier when all it's doing is creating confusion between what's Indian, what's Persian, and what's Indo-Persian. While the correct definition of the term is consistently used in academia and literature, the incorrect "everything Indian and Persian" usage only exists online and is never done by professionals but lay enthusiasts who assumed their usage was correct simply because it has never been corrected until now. Mistakes can and are sometimes included in articles if they become common enough. For example, the martial arts article mentions the common misconception of martial arts being Asian. The incorrect definition of Indo-Persian has not reached such a level of commonality that it should be included in an article. And even if it had, it would have been included in a full article, not a category description. Morinae (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Morinae: Almost no one watches these spaces, if you have a suggestion or compliant you would do better to post them on the talk pages for the Chinese, Indian, or Military history Wikiproject, as those name spaces are watched. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Moved it[edit]
I just moved the page to a proper naming~(Mughal weaponry) as there is simply no such thing as Indo-Persian weaponry. Pure historical nonsense/bogus. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are wrong, Mughal is very narrow and prescriptive. There were states outside of the Mughal Empire that used weapons that were also found inside it. Plus the Mughal Empire varied hugely in its size through history. As a sword collector, who has published articles on British cavalry swords, I can state categorically that the term 'Indo-Persian weapons' is very widely used - yes, out there in the real world. Urselius (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)