Elephant swords

[mahratt]

Here are two interesting photos.

[Jens Nordlunde]

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.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

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

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

[Jens Nordlunde]

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.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

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.

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.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

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.

To understand it, we need to pay attention to the circumstances of Moser’s acquisition of items.

In Central Asia he was accompanied by Russian troops, the real rulers of the defeated Khanates. Locals were coming to him in droves with items for sale hoping to curry his favors in dealing with the Russians and by definition with local Khans. He did not know local languages and fully relied upon translators, especially his secretary, one Abbas Mirza. I referred to this situation and to its potential shortcomings long ago, when I looked at the origins of the word “karud”.
The 1955 edition is the most detailed one, utilizing Moser’s personal notes. But for example in the section of Persian arms many swords labeled as “Persian” are likely local Central Asian based on their baldrics. No doubt, the blades were bought in Persia, but the rest was done on the spot.

Moser’s sources did not have ( and were not interested in) academic provenancing and accurate dating. But the allure to present your stuff in the best ( most profitable) light to sell it to a poorly informed but rich and influential customer is universal and Moser was in the same position as Prince Saltykoff and countless European tourists in India. In a way, we might be grateful to the writers of his catalogue for omitting some information and sparing us many “ Arabian nights”- type entries.

Perhaps, a reassessment of his collection might be in order by specialists of Elgood’s class.

[ariel]

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.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

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.

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 .

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.

[fernando]

Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure .

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by fernando

Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure .

Absolutely right!

[ariel]

Originally Posted by fernando

Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure .

Perhaps. No doubt elephants were used as war machines and the means to control then were necessary and thus reasonably well developed. However, we are talking about the veracity of the descriptions of these methods.

I could find no mention of restricting their stride by adjusting chain length. On the contrary, leg chains were clearly described as “pegged” or “nailed” to the ground which, IMHO, is highly doubtful taking into account massive bulk and strength of the animals. I have read that when the animal went berserk, the mahout just severed his spinal cord adjacent to the skull.

My question, therefore, is whether we can discard these “ humane” descriptions? Do we have a right to propose ( or invent) alternative techniques ( chain length manipulation) in the absense of any evidence to their existence?

Pics in Post #77 have important relation to our topic, i. e. India. They are from SE Asia, where real war elephants were used as battle machines as late as 1895 against French.

Recommended book: Michael W. Charney “Southeast Asian Warfare 1300-1900”
Has a big chapter on war elephants.

Originally Posted by fernando

Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure .

Perhaps. No doubt elephants were used as war machines and the means to control then were necessary and thus reasonably well developed. However, we are talking about the veracity of the descriptions of these methods.

I could find no mention of restricting their stride by adjusting chain length. On the contrary, leg chains were clearly described as “pegged” or “nailed” to the ground which, IMHO, is highly doubtful taking into account massive bulk and strength of the animals.
My question, therefore, is whether we can discard these descriptions? Do we have a right to propose ( or invent) alternative techniques in the absense of any evidence to their existence?

Book by M.W. Charney” Southeast Asian Warfare 1300-1900” has a very big chapter about war elephants.
Salient points:
-mad elephants either wrecked havoc on their own troops and ran away from the battlefield or were killed;
- no mention of any nailing to the ground or adjusting the length of leg chains as a means of control;
-at ~1650 the use of tusk swords ( Pikes) was recorded;
- Bowery ( 1905) mentions that Sumatran animals had a 4.5-6 m chain tied to their front leg and the elephant coiled it around his trunk. That was their only weapon. Flinging the armored trunk laid low both men and horses. No free-hanging chains are mentioned;
- riders might have been armed with muskets or small swivel-guns;
- their use was limited by their skittishness and predictability: one society after another ceased to employ them as war machines;
-introduction of large caliber firepower eliminated the use of war animals by 18 century;

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by fernando

Further elaborating in Dmitriy's post #41, either the same description of this 40X48 cms. work has found echo all over the Web or there is some consistence in the chains subject as per various sources. Other than the trunk chains, the bells, the armoured protection, all is accordingly. Also the chains in the animal's legs, to peg him to the ground in case he panics and tries to escape, are not an unique approach.
.

fernando, I don't think the chains were used much to tie the elephant. Most likely, the chain simply restrict elephant in motion (as it is now being with the horses). That is, did not give the elephant to run fast. Thus, the mahaut (driver elephant) was easier to control the elephant.