Elephant swords

Jens Nordlunde · 26th November 2019, 04:10 PM

I think it must be relatively save to say, that the tusk swords and the trunk swords were not used at the same time, or the elephant may have cut the trunk while wildly fighting.
Trunk swords would have been effective against foot soldiers, just like when the elephants had a chain in the trunk, but would tusk swords not have been more effective against riders/horses?

kronckew · 26th November 2019, 04:21 PM

Nordelunde; Elly armour appears to at least partially cover the trunk, but leaves the working more flexible and controllable end free. Should protect him from self harm as well as from the enemy.

fernando · 26th November 2019, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

Nordelunde; Elly armour appears to at least partially cover the trunk, but leaves the working more flexible and controllable end free. Should protect him from self harm as well as from the enemy.

Migrating the old saying: he (an elephant) may be an animal but he is not stupid. I would reject the idea that such inteligent and skilled animal would inadvertly cause self damage. It is all about protecting him from enemy's atempts to take him down.

Jens Nordlunde · 26th November 2019, 04:42 PM

Yes I know the elephant armours, but the underside of the trunk was not protected.
Someone I knew in Denmark, had once bought an elephant armour in India - years ago, but it was confiscated by the Indians.

fernando · 26th November 2019, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Yes I know the elephant armours, but the underside of the trunk was not protected.
Someone I knew in Denmark, had once bought an elephant armour in India - years ago, but it was confiscated by the Indians.

The armour in the picture doesn't have to be the real whole thing; more a parade version ?

kronckew · 26th November 2019, 04:59 PM

Yup, could have also had a sleeve of maille protecting the whole trunk - except the grasping bit, or even a hauberk and maille leggings and padded arming coat under the lamellar bits, for when things got more serious.

Jim McDougall · 26th November 2019, 05:32 PM

Very well responded gentlemen, as well as great descriptions and explanations. I will say that for me personally, my understanding of these factors in elephants as well as 'tusked' mammals has been greatly expanded.
If ever there was a case to illustrate the wide scope and diversity of studies and knowledge required to study arms and armor, this thread serves well.

The subject of the trunk swords still eludes me, and it would seem that the dental/tusk factor has been extremely well explained, while justifying or understanding the possible attachment of any bladed weapon to the trunk remains a baffling question for me.

It is well understood that the elephant is about the farthest thing from a brutish or dumb beast, and their intelligence is extolled constantly.

It seems that extra precautions were taken to ensure that male elephants would not be in situations in use during the musth period to ensure that their behavior would not become an issue. However, when in groups it would seem that the elephants' own herd characteristics would prevail outside any sort of conditioned training, regardless of gender.

In warfare this certainly was the case, and it seems that I had read somewhere that the use of elephants in actual combat was often avoided for this reason. Combat can result in insurmountable fear and reaction with any being animsl or human, and the sheer size of the elephant creates a terrible situation if they react adversely and unfortunately indiscriminately.

In my understanding, the elephant could essentially serve as a kind of 'tank' in knocking down enemy fortifications, but I do not see them being ridden into direct interaction of massed forces such as cavalry. Which brings me again to the case of the 'trunk sword'. Elephants of course would not wildly harm themselves with a bladed weapon, nor would they use this in the dexterous manner required of a sword obviously. Yes, they have used items in blunt force against threat or even perhaps as a tool in necessary action, and the strength of the tusk I think Fernando well illustrated.

However, I personally think the tusk 'swords' were an element 'worn' in parade or events to impress. While the tusks of course, would not need 'improvement' in their natural and instinctive use, but I believe that these were cut off while these animals were in captivity to avoid aggressive action from them. The 'swords' were in my view, a kind of cap, serving as an impressive addition to the armor. It would seem on maneuver in battle they might have been worn accordingly .

While heavy chains are described as placed on trunks, it seems they might have served in effect as a 'wrecking ball' against emplacements, but again I feel concerned that any adverse disturbance among elephants might have produced a threatening situation for all in their presence. Any sort of bladed weapon would equally have been a nightmare.

Most of the time it seems that accounts of battles and such events are embellished and or distorted to serve the intended effect of the material, and often far from the actuality of the details which actually occurred.
I think it is prudent to assume there is a degree of license involved as we use these sources to investigate subject matter in focus. That was the point I was trying to make earlier toward these descriptions.

Jim McDougall · 26th November 2019, 06:38 PM

This is a great discussion, and while not wishing to digress, often when involved in heavy research or discussion, I wander a bit for comic relief, I think much as Wayne does with his brilliant humor.
If this might be indulged for a moment

kronckew · 26th November 2019, 04:44 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCowQ6XLEB4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJSgB96Udo0

here we see an elly using it's dominant tusk to eat a tree! - Note the end is broken...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ0R01X6t5E

they seem to have no qualms about using their tusks fro digging, shredding trees, moving stuff, or using them as weapons. (more info on tusk interiors in this one too)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX8rE-d1Fxc

We now are all elephant experts!

fernando · 26th November 2019, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

... they seem to have no qualms about using their tusks fro digging, shredding trees, moving stuff, or using them as weapons...

Still they can have a determined degree of sensivity ... and eventually crack. Only that they know how to use them ... angle and all. As you showed, a significant part of their length is hollow ... and that counts.

fernando · 26th November 2019, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Still they can have a determined degree of sensivity ... and eventually crack. Only that they know how to use them ... angle and all. As you showed, a significant part of their length is hollow ... and that counts.

Having a second look to the video and watching others showing similar action, it looks as if they push each other with their foreheads ... and doing no use of the tusks. They are showing strength in such number, not atempting to perforate each other's bodies... right ?

fernando · 26th November 2019, 07:27 PM

It is utterly undeniable that elephants have been used in battle per tot saecula. There are zillions of comprehensive records, no matter more or less fantasy spiced by writers.
... No matter with or without accessory apparatuses, or just running over people, whether marching towards the enemy or going into panic and reverse their march towards their own. After all, early cannons were so unpredictable that they would often wind up blasting the shooters and all around, but still they used them.

Jim McDougall · 26th November 2019, 10:08 PM

There is absolutely no dispute that elephants have been used in warfare for a VERY long time (great Latin phrase there tot saecula! love to learn). The only point I was trying to make is that there were certain concerns in using them given the potential for disastrous outcome in doing so.

The use of elephants in work situations, transport, hauling etc. is more logical in field logistics, while the volatility of combat effects virtually all involved, and the size of these animals rendered them a potent threat to all around.

Very good analogy on the cannon, which were indeed dangerous to the gunners themselves, much in the same manner that were most firearms to those firing them. Powerful explosions literally blowing up guns took a toll on the men using them in more cases than have surely ever been recorded.

There is I think substantial agreement here that elephants were indeed present in combat circumstances in degree, but in many accounts of their use as 'weapons' there have been 'backfires'. The case for blades being attached to tusks seems also agreed, in degree, with the only question being, just 'how much so' and were these more for parade purposes in later times in the manner of many weapon forms becoming more vestigially present.

Once again, I just continue wondering just how feasible or logical is putting a sword blade on the trunk of an elephant, despite suggestions in the literature. There is no doubt people did VERY questionable things as far as combative devices using creatures. ..
In analogy , I think of the case of bats used in New Mexico in WWII as flying incendiary bombs with combustible devices attached. Unfortunately, they when released flew back to the hangers where they had been held, and of course they burned to the ground. Instincts are far more powerful than any human training in far too many instances.
I think there was one where the Chinese tried tying torches to the tails of elephants, with unexpected adverse result.

26th November 2019, 04:21 PM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,237	Nordelunde; Elly armour appears to at least partially cover the trunk, but leaves the working more flexible and controllable end free. Should protect him from self harm as well as from the enemy. Attached Images

26th November 2019, 06:38 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,453	On a lighter note: This is a great discussion, and while not wishing to digress, often when involved in heavy research or discussion, I wander a bit for comic relief, I think much as Wayne does with his brilliant humor. If this might be indulged for a moment Attached Images

26th November 2019, 04:44 PM	#9
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,237	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCowQ6XLEB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJSgB96Udo0 here we see an elly using it's dominant tusk to eat a tree! - Note the end is broken... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ0R01X6t5E they seem to have no qualms about using their tusks fro digging, shredding trees, moving stuff, or using them as weapons. (more info on tusk interiors in this one too) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX8rE-d1Fxc We now are all elephant experts! Last edited by kronckew; 26th November 2019 at 04:55 PM.

26th November 2019, 07:27 PM	#12
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	One thing is certain ... It is utterly undeniable that elephants have been used in battle per tot saecula. There are zillions of comprehensive records, no matter more or less fantasy spiced by writers. ... No matter with or without accessory apparatuses, or just running over people, whether marching towards the enemy or going into panic and reverse their march towards their own. After all, early cannons were so unpredictable that they would often wind up blasting the shooters and all around, but still they used them.

26th November 2019, 04:10 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I think it must be relatively save to say, that the tusk swords and the trunk swords were not used at the same time, or the elephant may have cut the trunk while wildly fighting. Trunk swords would have been effective against foot soldiers, just like when the elephants had a chain in the trunk, but would tusk swords not have been more effective against riders/horses?

26th November 2019, 04:42 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes I know the elephant armours, but the underside of the trunk was not protected. Someone I knew in Denmark, had once bought an elephant armour in India - years ago, but it was confiscated by the Indians.

26th November 2019, 04:59 PM	#6
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,237	Yup, could have also had a sleeve of maille protecting the whole trunk - except the grasping bit, or even a hauberk and maille leggings and padded arming coat under the lamellar bits, for when things got more serious.

26th November 2019, 05:32 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,453	Very well responded gentlemen, as well as great descriptions and explanations. I will say that for me personally, my understanding of these factors in elephants as well as 'tusked' mammals has been greatly expanded. If ever there was a case to illustrate the wide scope and diversity of studies and knowledge required to study arms and armor, this thread serves well. The subject of the trunk swords still eludes me, and it would seem that the dental/tusk factor has been extremely well explained, while justifying or understanding the possible attachment of any bladed weapon to the trunk remains a baffling question for me. It is well understood that the elephant is about the farthest thing from a brutish or dumb beast, and their intelligence is extolled constantly. It seems that extra precautions were taken to ensure that male elephants would not be in situations in use during the musth period to ensure that their behavior would not become an issue. However, when in groups it would seem that the elephants' own herd characteristics would prevail outside any sort of conditioned training, regardless of gender. In warfare this certainly was the case, and it seems that I had read somewhere that the use of elephants in actual combat was often avoided for this reason. Combat can result in insurmountable fear and reaction with any being animsl or human, and the sheer size of the elephant creates a terrible situation if they react adversely and unfortunately indiscriminately. In my understanding, the elephant could essentially serve as a kind of 'tank' in knocking down enemy fortifications, but I do not see them being ridden into direct interaction of massed forces such as cavalry. Which brings me again to the case of the 'trunk sword'. Elephants of course would not wildly harm themselves with a bladed weapon, nor would they use this in the dexterous manner required of a sword obviously. Yes, they have used items in blunt force against threat or even perhaps as a tool in necessary action, and the strength of the tusk I think Fernando well illustrated. However, I personally think the tusk 'swords' were an element 'worn' in parade or events to impress. While the tusks of course, would not need 'improvement' in their natural and instinctive use, but I believe that these were cut off while these animals were in captivity to avoid aggressive action from them. The 'swords' were in my view, a kind of cap, serving as an impressive addition to the armor. It would seem on maneuver in battle they might have been worn accordingly . While heavy chains are described as placed on trunks, it seems they might have served in effect as a 'wrecking ball' against emplacements, but again I feel concerned that any adverse disturbance among elephants might have produced a threatening situation for all in their presence. Any sort of bladed weapon would equally have been a nightmare. Most of the time it seems that accounts of battles and such events are embellished and or distorted to serve the intended effect of the material, and often far from the actuality of the details which actually occurred. I think it is prudent to assume there is a degree of license involved as we use these sources to investigate subject matter in focus. That was the point I was trying to make earlier toward these descriptions.

26th November 2019, 10:08 PM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,453	There is absolutely no dispute that elephants have been used in warfare for a VERY long time (great Latin phrase there tot saecula! love to learn). The only point I was trying to make is that there were certain concerns in using them given the potential for disastrous outcome in doing so. The use of elephants in work situations, transport, hauling etc. is more logical in field logistics, while the volatility of combat effects virtually all involved, and the size of these animals rendered them a potent threat to all around. Very good analogy on the cannon, which were indeed dangerous to the gunners themselves, much in the same manner that were most firearms to those firing them. Powerful explosions literally blowing up guns took a toll on the men using them in more cases than have surely ever been recorded. There is I think substantial agreement here that elephants were indeed present in combat circumstances in degree, but in many accounts of their use as 'weapons' there have been 'backfires'. The case for blades being attached to tusks seems also agreed, in degree, with the only question being, just 'how much so' and were these more for parade purposes in later times in the manner of many weapon forms becoming more vestigially present. Once again, I just continue wondering just how feasible or logical is putting a sword blade on the trunk of an elephant, despite suggestions in the literature. There is no doubt people did VERY questionable things as far as combative devices using creatures. .. In analogy , I think of the case of bats used in New Mexico in WWII as flying incendiary bombs with combustible devices attached. Unfortunately, they when released flew back to the hangers where they had been held, and of course they burned to the ground. Instincts are far more powerful than any human training in far too many instances. I think there was one where the Chinese tried tying torches to the tails of elephants, with unexpected adverse result.