Chains attached to the elephant's trunk. 1750 year. India

Mythological plot. But ... Is the author just invented an elephant who has a sword, which is attached to the trunk? Or...

Mahratt, it is an interseting miniature you show, although I think the artist has taken over some of the details.
I have been wondering if the trunk sword was made like a kind of gauntlet sword, which would make it easier for the elephant to carry and use.

As a matter of fact, the original tusk sword shown here by Jens may reasonably well be called a scythe or plow iron.
What one needs for that is just some curvature or angling of the blade.
Attacking with slightly bent head would impale the opponent and raising the head back would lift or throw away the (already lifeless) body.

I agree the artist here in the miniature shown by Mahratt (post 42) clearly has employed certain license in the portrayal of mythological figures and the image of a sword in the elephants trunk should be regarded as inclusive in such theme. Actually in the accounts concerning the inventory of the Tanjore armoury in 1860 describes a 'puttah' (clearly a pata or 'gauntlet' sword') which the author perceives as a sword for an elephant to wield with his trunk.


With the sawing off of elephants tusks, I would consider, could it have been to render the elephant less threatening while in captivity/training by removing its natural weapons? While the thought comes to mind of using the ivory, it begs the question, was the Indian elephant ivory in the same kind of demand as that of African? are they of the same composition and quality?


The sawn tusks then may require 'covers' as noted by Pant, which might have simply been a cap of some sort, but then in certain cases having an embellishment of a blade...in the manner of a prosthetic device. It is clearly a subject that did not seem to warrant elaboration in period accounts.

All it takes is one writer to see an instance of such embellishment in a ceremony or parade, and taking off with it in perceptions, then their account becomes read by others, and it projects into lore and legend. Not that this is the case, but it is quite possible in considering various views in explaing these matters with elephant weaponry.

Very astute comment, Jim.
Iconographic material of “armed” elephants is extremely rare and some of it is clearly fantasy driven ( fight with monsters). Its evidentiary value is quite uncertain taking into account the well-known propensity of Indo-Persian artists to invent or simply “modify” the reality. All it takes is one or two images to transform an artistic license into pseudo - scientific conclusion. Moreover, as we see from this discussion, eyewitness testimonies are even less reliable.

Any person dedicated to collecting a sizable number of actual elephant arms would provide valuable service to the community.

I do not see the monsters in this image (post 41) ... (Maybe someone from the more astute participants of the topic will help me find them). However, I see chains on an elephant's trunk, which were clearly used as weapons. If you can tie a chain to the trunk, what prevents you from doing the same with a big sword?

Stay focused, Dmitriy ;) . Why the challenging tone ? Any astute one would see that Ariel's expression was not connected with your post !

I apologize, but in my message there was no "challenging tone." Perhaps this is the inaccuracy of Google Translator. 1) I didn’t address specifically to Ariel, I turned to all participants 2) I really don’t see any monsters on the first image, but maybe this is due to lack of experience 3) I don’t understand why some participants see one image where the sword is clamped in the elephant trunk, and the image where chains are attached to the elephant trunk is ignored :)

Perhaps should the eyewitnesses condition be worthy of interpretation; don't we read some (most) of them them saying what they 'knew' instead of what they 'saw' ?. As they relied on verbal local descriptions, certainly owners of unclipped imagination wings.

Good shot :cool:.


.

Hmmm - interesting comparison.
Travellers in India in the 15th century mentions the many war elephants being used, armed with swords on the trusks and the trunks, but they also mention guns and canons - not to speak about the rockets, of which the elephants were very afraid.
Whether these early rockets were made of wood or maybe of lacquered paper is unknown to me, but Tipo had taken them a step further as he made them of iron, and he had several different kinds of rockets.
What we dont know is, if the elephant sword at the MET has been bend, or if it was made the way it look to day.

That the evolution of weaponry was also 'shared' with elephants is an indisputable fact; Garcia de Orta, for one, was positive about that. We can read out there about Indian lords in the XVI century putting a culverin on their elephants.
But while with the previous weapons elephants were themselves the 'handlers', with the later they were only the 'carriers'.
Is this the real thing ?

.

Actually I think the term monsters perhaps is a sedgeway from the common practice in many references describing figures such as makara and yali on weaponry in India and other associated regions as 'grotesque'. These in iconography with the key mythological circumstances depicted are meant to be seen as 'fearsome' presumably in accord with religious dogma instances.


Here I do not beleive 'monsters' was meant in any pejorative way but as a manner of description much aligned with the 'grotesque' term often used.
What was clearly being described was the mythological figures being noted.


On the case of the chains on the elephants trunk, again we face the same dilemma as questioning why in the world chains and weights any more than swords or any weapon would be put on an elephants trunk. This is even more an effective question in the case of battle, where elephants could easily run amok and threaten anyone in their path. These are herd animals who are remarkably intelligent and if one should break lose, it would not be hard to imagine others following quickly.......regardless of human attempts to control.


I believe the notion of chains and weights used on elephant trunks presumably as flails is perhaps as much fantasy as that of a sword being wielded in that manner. The elephant was used primarily as a powerful transport for fighting men as well as a destructive shock action animal by its sheer bulk.....not as a trained fighting animal as many war horses were.

In my thinking the tusk swords are examples of Indian innovation in weaponry and used incidentally more as novelty elements in parade or ceremonial situations. As with many cases with certain weapons of unusual character, these were oftrn seen in diplomatic or embassy situations where the object was to impress the visitor....who then presumed the weapons (tusk swords in this case) to have actually been widely used in combat.


Many depictions of battles and events are artistically rendered by by artists who were not present and often years later. Typically they rely on the often embellished accounts of persons there or second to third hand information in addition to the license required to add effect to the images by the artist.

Well noted..............elephants carrying ordnance such as cannon, rockets were extremely well suited for carrying this equipment.........however as far as I have known these were of course not discharged FROM the animals back. Elephants were terrified by fire or such loud reports involving the inevitable flashes of powder etc. However, given the fanciful (in my opinion) themes of many of these miniatures pertaining the elephant weaponry, I wonder of there are works which show cannon being fired off elephant howdahs.

Incognito
 

My meaning was that they didn't operate firearms but they carried them for those in the howdahs to do it, not carry them only as cargo; although it is known that such other version also took place.
But as for my previous humble mention, what we know or think we know is a grain in such ignored universe. Yes, elephants were unpredictable on what touches great noises but then, weren't they also unpredictable whilst battle contact, so much for tusk swords, chains and all other apparatuses. Remember Duarte Barbosa when he says (#32) that, during battle melee, they run over both adversary as also their own. This takes me to agree (at least partly) with some blogger when he says:

" I don't think the elephant would respond to the sound of gun firing right behind the ears too well. The military efficacy of elephants is overblown. They are slow and cumbersome.They don't bring much to the battlefield; not speed and not maneuverability. On top of other liabilities in battle they are more dangerous to soldiers around them than the enemy. I certainly would not like to be in the vicinity of one in a battlefield. If he got injured or startled he would end up trampling over his entire squad. The only positive attribute i can think of, is psychological effect on the enemy but even that would wear off very quickly.
India was invaded half a dozen times by waves of Muslim conquerors from Iran/Afghanistan/Central Asia but i can't think of once any of these waves being defeated by the elephants that the Indians had in large numbers."

Now, how's that for an approach ?


,

What I meant regarding discharging cannon from the back of the elephant was aimed toward the artists creating these miniatures which depict elephants wielding swords in their trunks, tusk swords and weighted chains on the trunks...…….noting I had not yet seen these CREATIVE artists showing blazing cannon from an elephants howdah.

Most of what I have been TRYING to illustrate is that given the very unpredictable nature of elephants it would be dangerous to arm them in these ways......rather like given a loaded shotgun to a three year old child in effect (I hope that analogy will not cause too much dismay).

I find Fernando's quote very interesting.


" I don't think the elephant would respond to the sound of gun firing right behind the ears too well. The military efficacy of elephants is overblown. They are slow and cumbersome.They don't bring much to the battlefield; not speed and not maneuverability. On top of other liabilities in battle they are more dangerous to soldiers around them than the enemy. I certainly would not like to be in the vicinity of one in a battlefield. If he got injured or startled he would end up trampling over his entire squad. The only positive attribute i can think of, is psychological effect on the enemy but even that would wear off very quickly.
India was invaded half a dozen times by waves of Muslim conquerors from Iran/Afghanistan/Central Asia but i can't think of once any of these waves being defeated by the elephants that the Indians had in large numbers."

I also think this could have been the reason why theystopped using elephantsfor war, and only the generals who needed an overview sat on the elephants.

I have to make an admission: I like Wikipedia ( some snobbish dog whistles notwithstanding:-))).
Most articles were written by people who carefully researched the subjects and supported them by references and illustrations.

So, Wiki to the rescue!

Entry " Mughal artillery"

"Elephants carried two pieces of "elephant barrel" (gajnal and hathnal) artillery and two soldiers to fire them. The elephants served only to transport the weapons and their crew, however; they dismounted before firing. "Camel guns" (Shutarnal) and "swivel guns" zamburak, on the other hand, were carried on camel-back and were fired while mounted.[14]" ( Irvine W. (1903). The Army Of The Indian Moghuls: Its Organization And Administration. Luzac. pp. 113–159.)

Entry " War elephant" provides exhaustive review of the topic from Carthage to WWII with multiple contemporaneous iconographic sources.
Interestingly, none of them ( except for the picture of the the Met example) show any trunk or tusk implements.

On the other hand, entry " Camel artillery" ( in addition to Mr. Irvine's book) reviews old and new ( WW I and II) participation of camel-mounted artillery. Obviously, camels were not as skittish as elephants.

So were elephants "armed"? Yes. Was this practice even modestly wide spread? No. It might have been tried early on, but the skittishness of the animals and the development of successful countermeasures, including guns, arrows, spears, torches and even squealing pigs, often leading to turning the animals around and squishing their own forces quickly convinced the Rajahs to use these giant creatures only as monstrously impressive transportation vehicles with ( often) lavishly decorated howdahs to sit in well behind the battle lines.

Just say the word ;) :D .


.

Not only this elephant carries a stone fort with 4 cannons on his back, but he also emits fire and brimstone from his trunk. That’s what I call irrefutable evidentiary value of iconography :-)

In The Encyclopedia of the Sword by Nick Evangelista I found the text below on p. 203.
Some of the old texts mention trunk swords, while other mention tusk swords, and some of the measurers/weights mentioned must be wrong, although I think the tusk swords might have been heavier than the trunk swords.

The whole description in Stone's work reads, in page 216:

"ELEPHANT SWORD.
Many of the early travelers in the East speak of elephant swords. Ludovici di Varthema (1501-1568) says that they were two fatoms* long and attached to the trunk. More reasonable accounts describe them as blades projecting from sockets slipped over the tusks. (Burton Sword 216). Moser illustrates a pair of the latter description."

* twelve foot. Obviously an exorbitance.

Amazing you guys!!!
These entries carry perfectly what I was trying to say. These entries could not say it better. The 'license' employed in these artworks and embellishment in these accounts illustrate the metaphors and simile often present in metaphysical and elaborate accounts of figures and events.

I really appreciate all these great references, and it really adds a lot to getting to the bottom of all these tales and lore. A stone fort on an elephants back firing cannon!! and 12 foot swords on an elephants trunk!!!......weights!!…..100 pound swords on the tusks!!!??????? really???? :)

Thank you guys!

The great historian João de Barros (1496-1570) author of "ASIA", in decade III, Book IV, Chaper IV, narrating a war between the Kings of Narsinga and Hidalcan, mentions:

Of all his people of war, those on horses wore cotton laudeis (lamelar cushion vests) both in body as in head and arms, all so hard that would defend any spear blow, as if they were iron blades.
And the harnessed horses were also armed in the same manner, and equally the elephants, each one carrying his castle, from which four men fought, and in the teeth (tusks) were placed opposed bisarmas (bulky bills), hence so slicers that nothing could bear them.


Although i used the Web to easier locate this part, i have my own three tome 1945 edition ;).


.

I think it is fantastic what we have found out about the elephant armouring, a lot due to Frenando - thank you very much.
It is a part of the Indian wars, especially the earlier wars, of which we know very little, but it is fascinating all the same.
Now it would be just as fascinating to get a view of the early Indian weapons. I know they are few, but does someone have some to share?

My pleasure, Jens; i have also learnt a lot myself :cool:.

Although I do love the miniatures Fernando shows, you should be aware of, that they are not always correct - the miniatures. As there can always be the artistical elemnt, but the later miniatures are mostly correct - I think.

It is like some times artists have a combined manner to do things wrong in a standard way. You take the Simpsons cartoons, for one; they are designed with four fingers in their hands but the artists know they should have five.

Re: image of trunk sword in Moser 1912.
I have 1925 and 1955 editions: nothing there.

Anybody here has 1912 edition ?

I also went through a Russian book by K.S. Nosov “ Traditional weapons of India” EKSNO, Moscow 2011.

Apparently, the author visited several museums in India and the Leeds Armoury. He photographed mainly the entire glass-covered panels of various weapons and some individual examples. Virtually all photos are very small, and details are not discernible. A lot of pictures are republished from other sources ( quite a lot from Elgood) without attribution.
There is one drawing of a trunk sword of unknown provenance, dimensions and details. It looks just like one in Post # 14.
The text is intriguing:
( Translation is mine)

“Afanasij Nikitin reported that Indians attached big and heavy swords to trunks and tusks of elephants. Such practice is confirmed by other sources. For example, even at the beginning of the VI century one Sun Yun, a Chinese traveler, reported the existence of swords attached to the trunks of war elephants (Kistler, “War elephants”, Westport- London, 2006). In addition, other implements tied to the trunks were maces, scythes and even chains. Chains were as terrible as swords. Imagine an elephant swinging a trunk to which two or three segments of chain weighing about 100 kg each! The tusk swords were not less dangerous. There are known instances when an elephant was throwing its victim high in the air and then cut it in half with sword blades. Additionally, tusk swords were often covered with poison to frighten enemy combatants who did not dare to approach the elephant.
....Chains were also tied to elephant’s legs and those allowed “pegging” the animal to the ground if it started panicking” ( the latter refers to the image shown in Post #41)


Well, we have discussed fantastic stories coming from ancient authors. Regretfully, the modern ones are not better....

i feel sad for that animal :(

I guess Jens has a copy !

Fernando,
Re. elephant-mounted machine gunner.
AFAIK, every elephant required a mahout, i.e. driver. This person straddled elephant's neck and controlled the animal with an ankus.

Somehow I wouldn't like to work as a mahout in the situation shown in the above photo, with the barrel of a large caliber machine gun right behind the back of my head:-)

Something is fishy here: either this is a:
1. staged picture,
2. stationary and uncontrolled elephant ( which beats the purpose of machine gun's mobility), or
3. the army is in the process of hiring a new and still breathing mahout.

Here are two interesting photos.

Did they drug the elephants, like they did with the soldiers?


Moser 1912, plate XXIX, nos512-513. Weapon, to mount of the tooths of elephants.
Sorry for the bad quality.

Maybe not Jens. Not that they wouldn't consider doing so but, drugs often result in an unpredictable mode, like inverting their effects, which with such huge guys it would be rather inconvenient.

Still a good picture ... and certainly an enlightening one ... Ariel ?

Like Ariel, I too have the Moser 1955 catalogue, but although the dscriptions are in details sizes, and weights, the authors does not mention from where the weapons are, nor do they write anything about their age - a bit strange for a museum catalogue.

Another strange thing is, when you read the rules under which the collection was given - it should be on exhibit all the time, but so far, to my knowledge, it has been taken down twice for years - and still is.

I'd like to see people nailing chains with some kind of stakes to the ground while dealing with panicky animal running in each and every direction at maximal speed:-)
IMHO, the stakes would be pulled out withing a second, and the " nailers" would be squished.

The minute any object is given to the museum every wish of the donor goes out of the window. Putting objects in storage is the least of the unpleasantries: we see all the time "decommissioned" items sold left and right.

You are underestimating the intimacy between these animals and their tamers; soon as feel they are about to panic, they transmit them a body sign: hold (peg me) me or i'll run the heck out of here :eek:.

Now seriously, did you know elephants can be taught up to 1,000 oral commands ? Alvaro Velho, when describing how females are 'instructed' to entice males to fall into the traps, mentions the catchers speaking up such commands to them.