Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 13th December 2018, 08:07 AM   #30
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Jens and Fernando,
I think we ought to take into account that handling of elephants during peace or war must have been different.
For example, post #97 shows animals in holding pens/ stables or entertainment- driven pitched fights. It would be reasonably logical to assume that the ambience was directed at keeping them as controlled as possible. Chains were truly needed. One does not want to lose a precious animal just for fun.

However, on the battlefield aggression was prized, even at the expense of potential danger of loss of control. Freedom of movement was necessary, blood-thirsty behavior was encouraged. In this regard elephants were not different from human soldiers: tightly controlled, marching up and down in unison on the parade, but whipped to the point of frenzy during the real battle. In the latter case the attacking force could not and should not be restrained.
This explains Charney’s mention of elephants being “ drunk or drugged” (sic!) before the battle to reduce their sensitivity to fear and pain. Restricting their movements was counterproductive ( just like humans). The price was high: multiple sources report loss of control, turning around with destruction of one’s own forces in an attempt to flee the battlefield etc. If that happened, it was cheaper and unavoidable to kill them rather than administering gentle psychological interventions. Again, it was not different from from human fighters: soldiers on the battlefield are presumed to be killed anyway and are expendable. Sacrificing a unit for some tactical advantage or for preventing general panic and rout was and often still is routine at all times. One did not think about saving and re-educating fighters for the next battle: the current one is what counts.

Controlling frenzied elephants is an exercise in futility: they are too big and strong. This is why males in rut and “musth” were not used during the war: even in peaceful times they were held in isolation and tight confinement for up to 3 months every year ( again, Charney).

Thus, I am very doubtful about the use of movement restricting leg chains during real battles: an attacking elephant should be given maximal freedom to speedily strike the enemy, but an animal posing danger to its own army has to be neutralized on the spot. War is not a time for niceties. That is why sources mention the final task of mahout: putting a stake into uncontrollable animal’s brain or severing its spinal cord.
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.