Elephant swords

mahratt · 11th December 2018, 06:31 AM

Sometimes just need to carefully look at the miniatures that were drawn at the time when war elephants were used. On the images everything is clearly visible. Although, of course, it would be better to have the opportunity to refer to the recollections of eyewitnesses, who themselves saw the peculiarities of the use of war elephants.

ariel · 11th December 2018, 01:12 PM

Regretfully, all the materials discussed here suggest very strongly that that the miniatures showing fancy trunk swords and kilometers of leg chains are .. ehhh.. how to say it mildly? ..artistic license and that Nikitin’ et al accounts of 100-500 kg tusk swords are physically impossible. Travelers to new and exotic places always exaggerate and fantasize: men with dog heads, armed monkeys, half-men/half-boars, stone forts on animal’s backs, numbers of gorgeous women they had sex with, size of fish they caught, casino winnings etc

As they say, show me the money, i.e. physical examples. Up till now we saw short-bladed tusk daggers and nothing more.

mahratt · 11th December 2018, 02:02 PM

photo

fernando · 12th December 2018, 01:23 PM

This is more in a way to distinguish what period chroniclers 'saw' and what they were only 'told' of, and their candid posture about such difference.

The actual Magnum Opus of this brilliant phisician was not the "ASIA" decades but Colóquio dos simples e drogas he cousas medicinais da Índia, published in Goa in 1563. Composed of 57 coloquiums where he answers questions asked by a ficticious visitor, Dr. Ruano, about his acquired knowledge of India.
In colloquy 21 - Do Ebur ou marfim e do elefante ...
Ruano: From what disease elephants die and what is their use in these lands ?
Orta:They are very melancholic and more afraid in the night than during the day and when they sleep at night it seems as they see fearful things and set themselves free, the way to prevent it is their naires (*) to sleep on top of them and keep speaking to them so that they don't fall asleep. They have several camaras (**): many times and other times strong jealousy and fall great fury in that they brake their chains and do a lot of damage through where they go by ..... As per their service besides the work of carrying and move the artillery from one place to another they serve the Kings in battle, and there are Kings who have 1 000 elephants and others less and other times they go to war armored .... here comes the part already mentioned of the tusks weapons resembling plow irons and all .... i saw them battling what i saw them doing wrong is not other thing than put people in disorder and make them flee, some times i am told they run away and cause more disruption on their own that in the opponents, this i haven't seen.
Ruano: Is there another way they fight ?
Orta: Yes, but this is one by one with their naires that teach them trained on top of them and is a very crude battle, where they wound each other with their teeth, one attacking and the other parrying they wound each other bravely and often they may be seen striking such great blows that they hurt their foreheads that one of them falls death on the ground, and there is a Portuguese worth of faith (***) who told me he saw a very powerful elephant die from a thrust that one other gave him. They also fight if they get them drunk (****) and flee, an they sometimes grab a man with their trunk an make him in pieces, as i saw a few times.

(*) As they call the elephant's master/tamer in the Malabar. In the Deccan they call them Peluane.
(**) In modern Portuguese this means chambers, but i don't figure out what it means in this context.
(***) Reliable.
(****) Jens, not drugged but ...

Jens Nordlunde · 12th December 2018, 03:46 PM

Thank you Fernando.
The picture is an elephant fight before Muhammad Shah c. 1730-40.
Mughal Paintings. Art and Stories, The Cleveland Museum of Art, 2016, p. 252.

ariel · 13th December 2018, 08:07 AM

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.

fernando · 13th December 2018, 12:47 PM

Points taken Ariel ... and undisputed; restraining chains for captivity and restricted movimentation, such as parades or fighting sessions.
This brings a question; how do they 'store' elephants ? We can follow Alvaro Velho's description of how they teach the female to go find a male and entices him to follow her and falls into the disguised trapping pit; where he spends six days before they start feeding him, firstly with little food and more each following day until he starts coming to eat. This goes on for a month, when they start bringing him food while they soften him, up to when they lay (with him) on the pit ground. And this they do for as many days as needed to lay their hands on his teeth. After which, they go down and throw some gross chains on his feet, in having them placed they teach him so well that nothing they miss except to talk. And then they keep them in stables, like horses; and a good elephant is worth 2 000 cruzados.

Could the term used by Garcia de Orta, camaras (chambers) be equivalent to Velho's stables ?

However if we consider such stables resource to be consistent with the needs to lodge a couple civilian animals for working purposes, how would they do with a thousand war ones ? Open air, chains by the thousand ... pegged ?

Another subject yet to be (more) clarified is that of the use of whipping chains in war elephants trunks. It might be pure fantasy but, there is no smoke without fire ... or is there ?

PS:
Time to remind that, ongoing translations are passive of unwilling flaws; some of the posted episodes are picked from the original post-medieval scripts which contain, for a non expert, several 'awkward' expressions; and still one has to interpreter them and then convert them into a non native idiom; no language degree here. Efforts go for a reasonable transmission of the essential parts in context.

11th December 2018, 02:02 PM	#3
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	photo Attached Images

12th December 2018, 01:23 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Back with Garcia de Orta ... This is more in a way to distinguish what period chroniclers 'saw' and what they were only 'told' of, and their candid posture about such difference. The actual Magnum Opus of this brilliant phisician was not the "ASIA" decades but Colóquio dos simples e drogas he cousas medicinais da Índia, published in Goa in 1563. Composed of 57 coloquiums where he answers questions asked by a ficticious visitor, Dr. Ruano, about his acquired knowledge of India. In colloquy 21 - Do Ebur ou marfim e do elefante ... Ruano: From what disease elephants die and what is their use in these lands ? Orta:They are very melancholic and more afraid in the night than during the day and when they sleep at night it seems as they see fearful things and set themselves free, the way to prevent it is their naires () to sleep on top of them and keep speaking to them so that they don't fall asleep. They have several camaras (): many times and other times strong jealousy and fall great fury in that they brake their chains and do a lot of damage through where they go by ..... As per their service besides the work of carrying and move the artillery from one place to another they serve the Kings in battle, and there are Kings who have 1 000 elephants and others less and other times they go to war armored .... here comes the part already mentioned of the tusks weapons resembling plow irons and all* .... i saw them battling what i saw them doing wrong is not other thing than put people in disorder and make them flee, some times i am told they run away and cause more disruption on their own that in the opponents, this i haven't seen. Ruano: Is there another way they fight ? Orta: Yes, but this is one by one with their naires that teach them trained on top of them and is a very crude battle, where they wound each other with their teeth, one attacking and the other parrying they wound each other bravely and often they may be seen striking such great blows that they hurt their foreheads that one of them falls death on the ground, and there is a Portuguese worth of faith (*) who told me he saw a very powerful elephant die from a thrust that one other gave him. They also fight if they get them drunk () and flee, an they sometimes grab a man with their trunk an make him in pieces, as i saw** a few times. () As they call the elephant's master/tamer in the Malabar. In the Deccan they call them Peluane. () In modern Portuguese this means chambers, but i don't figure out what it means in this context. () Reliable. (**) Jens, not drugged but ...

12th December 2018, 03:46 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you Fernando. The picture is an elephant fight before Muhammad Shah c. 1730-40. Mughal Paintings. Art and Stories, The Cleveland Museum of Art, 2016, p. 252. Attached Images

11th December 2018, 06:31 AM	#1
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Sometimes just need to carefully look at the miniatures that were drawn at the time when war elephants were used. On the images everything is clearly visible. Although, of course, it would be better to have the opportunity to refer to the recollections of eyewitnesses, who themselves saw the peculiarities of the use of war elephants.

11th December 2018, 01:12 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Regretfully, all the materials discussed here suggest very strongly that that the miniatures showing fancy trunk swords and kilometers of leg chains are .. ehhh.. how to say it mildly? ..artistic license and that Nikitin’ et al accounts of 100-500 kg tusk swords are physically impossible. Travelers to new and exotic places always exaggerate and fantasize: men with dog heads, armed monkeys, half-men/half-boars, stone forts on animal’s backs, numbers of gorgeous women they had sex with, size of fish they caught, casino winnings etc As they say, show me the money, i.e. physical examples. Up till now we saw short-bladed tusk daggers and nothing more.

13th December 2018, 08:07 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

13th December 2018, 12:47 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Points taken Ariel ... and undisputed; restraining chains for captivity and restricted movimentation, such as parades or fighting sessions. This brings a question; how do they 'store' elephants ? We can follow Alvaro Velho's description of how they teach the female to go find a male and entices him to follow her and falls into the disguised trapping pit; where he spends six days before they start feeding him, firstly with little food and more each following day until he starts coming to eat. This goes on for a month, when they start bringing him food while they soften him, up to when they lay (with him) on the pit ground. And this they do for as many days as needed to lay their hands on his teeth. After which, they go down and throw some gross chains on his feet, in having them placed they teach him so well that nothing they miss except to talk. And then they keep them in stables, like horses; and a good elephant is worth 2 000 cruzados. Could the term used by Garcia de Orta, camaras (chambers) be equivalent to Velho's stables ? However if we consider such stables resource to be consistent with the needs to lodge a couple civilian animals for working purposes, how would they do with a thousand war ones ? Open air, chains by the thousand ... pegged ? Another subject yet to be (more) clarified is that of the use of whipping chains in war elephants trunks. It might be pure fantasy but, there is no smoke without fire ... or is there ? PS: Time to remind that, ongoing translations are passive of unwilling flaws; some of the posted episodes are picked from the original post-medieval scripts which contain, for a non expert, several 'awkward' expressions; and still one has to interpreter them and then convert them into a non native idiom; no language degree here. Efforts go for a reasonable transmission of the essential parts in context.