Elephant swords

fernando · 8th December 2018, 04:15 PM

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 ?

.

Jim McDougall · 8th December 2018, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

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 ?

.

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.

fernando · 8th December 2018, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

......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.... I wonder of there are works which show cannon being fired off elephant howdahs...

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 ?

,

Jim McDougall · 8th December 2018, 08:34 PM

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).

Jens Nordlunde · 8th December 2018, 09:06 PM

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.

ariel · 9th December 2018, 01:36 AM

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.

fernando · 9th December 2018, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

….noting I had not yet seen these CREATIVE artists showing blazing cannon from an elephants howdah...

Just say the word

.

.

ariel · 9th December 2018, 06:53 AM

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 :-)

Jens Nordlunde · 9th December 2018, 03:53 PM

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.

Jim McDougall · 9th December 2018, 05:28 PM

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!

silberschatzimsee · 10th December 2018, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

This perhaps a more refutable version !

.

i feel sad for that animal

8th December 2018, 04:15 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	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 ? . Attached Images

9th December 2018, 01:36 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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. Last edited by ariel; 9th December 2018 at 06:59 AM.

9th December 2018, 03:53 PM	#9
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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. Attached Images

8th December 2018, 08:34 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,453	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).

8th December 2018, 09:06 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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.

9th December 2018, 06:53 AM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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 :-)

9th December 2018, 05:28 PM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,453	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!