Elephant swords

[Ian]

This has been an interesting and "freewheeling" discussion but has strayed a long way from the original topic of "elephant swords." Chains and how to restrain elephants, etc. is some distance from the OP. Perhaps we could get back to Jens initial ideas.


Ian.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I agree with Ian, and hope the discussion will come back to the elephant swords.
How would an elephant hold a sword?
Could the sword have had a 'katar hilt', which would have been more natural for an elephant to hold?

[ariel]

Question:

Except for a cockamamie painting in post #42 ( the one with half-human monsters) and an even cockamamier tall tale that Afanasij Nikitin planned to tell his Tver neighbors in the middle of nowhere, do we have any reliable suggestion that trunk swords ever existed?

Again, I go to Wiki:

Kentar is an Indian and Arabic modification of Latin Centennarius further modified intoGreek kentenarion and Arabic kentar.
In different countries at different times it’s value was either 100 lbs or 100 kg.
Then, direct quote:
“ In India and Albania (kuintal), the quintal as equivalent to 100 kilogram was imported via Arabic influence and is a standard measurement of mass for agricultural products”

See post #6: estimate of Procopius was exactly the same.

So, are we to believe in 100 kg swords. attached to tusks and to trunk?

Any info on 100 kg patas or katars?

[mahratt]

It is very interesting for me, is the transmission of incorrect information - is it an inability to use the Internet or a conscious desire to distort the facts? (I am writing in advance for moderators that there are no insults in my words. This is a rhetorical question posed to the infinity of internet space )

I do not dispute the fact that in some countries, the kentar could be 100 kg. But Afanasy Nikitin was a Russian and used the Russian measures of weight, recognised at the time.

Kentar is a Russian measure of mass, weight, introduced in the 15th century. In the 15-17 centuries, Kontar was equal to 2.5 pounds or 40.95 kg.
100 kg and 41 kg is a noticeable difference.

http://sainfo.ru/units/info.php?t=400215

[Jim McDougall]

I agree with Ian and Jens, the topic has freewheeled far from the original topic, which has often seemed troubling in many instances where aspects that indirectly applied to the topic at hand became the focus.

With the evidence for tusk swords apparently exhausted , I suppose it was inevitable that the scope expanded, but perhaps changing the title to 'use of elephants in warfare' would better serve the thread as it has evolved. The point is, just how much latitude should be extended in a discussion with ancillary factors brought in?

While the analogies of other instances of elephant weaponry were brought up it was primarily to test the feasability and credence of whether tusk swords were actually in abundant use, or fantasies appearing in art work.

As Jens has mentioned regarding the case for elephants holding swords in trunks, this seems very much an instance of either exaggeration or misconstrued account, much as most certainly the 'discussion' on erratic weights. If someone simply exclaimed.....the elephants HAD swords!!!!
Then how much would it take to PRESUME the elephant was holding a sword in its means of grasping. The exaggeration of weight of swords (either on tusks or held in the truck) would possibly be heavy in accord with the size and weight of these huge animals.

The question remains.......just how much EVIDENCE is there to support swords being used BY elephants? The profoundly digressed discussion has mostly revealed the questionability of the artwork and period accounts, but has not really provided much more on the tusk swords.

[fernando]

Jim i would be rather surprised if you didn't enter at this stage, as in moments that you usually find opportune.
I dare say that your attributing the posted topic colateral research findings a label of 'profound digression' is a bit 'over gauged', even judging by your own inferrement that the tusk sword theme was exhausted; that which takes a short step to discern that, the conversation would risk to drop dead if it weren't for the (quote) ancillary factors which were brought to discussion, to which punctual feedback from the thread author took place. For one who spent hours paging books and burn his brains trying to translate and bring historic material to the thread, this is rather frustrating.
Allow me to correct your assumption (in bold) that there is no evidence of the use of war elephant swords. This is not a recurrent approach only because there is such evidence, as here (and not only) well established; only its precise method, or multiple ones, remain to be clarified but, isn't that what so often occurs to us Westerners, with phenomena that took place in the Orient centuries ago ?

Your humbly ...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you for your posts so far, but I find it is time to stop now.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Kontar was equal to 2.5 pounds or 40.95 kg.


http://sainfo.ru/units/info.php?t=400215

Russian kentar was equivalent to 2.5 POODS , not pounds. Pound is 0.45 kg, ; Russian pood is 16 kg.

[ariel]

Fernando,
Your info re. Braccia as cubit just validates Fermi’s approach:-)
15-20 kg is a realistic number.

Personally, I like freewheeling entries. They relax the atmosphere and add some human touch. Second, quite often they turn discussions into unexpected and very productive directions: Jens quotation gave us an opportunity to quantify the size of elephant swords.