Elephant swords

Jim McDougall · 6th December 2018, 07:43 PM

Well noted on the 'weakly' but embellished pair from Mysore, as shown and described by Richardson (1999), which were apparently vestigial examples reflecting the heritage of the 'war elephant'.

From what I have understood, again in the very informative article by Thom Richardson in the "Royal Armouries Yearbook" of 1999 the elephant armour that was on display there came from Powis Castle collection, and the tusk swords were acquired from there later. It is noted that the armor and the pair of tusk swords were regarded as from different periods, and the sense was that the swords were likely notably earlier (the armor acquired mid 18th c.).
I think that perhaps as these were not of the same period it was deemed more prudent to display them separately.

It is interesting that having established that the tusks were sawn off, the term 'tusk covers' may well have been used whether they were just covers for exposed tusk or embellished with formidable appearing blades. The case seems unclear.

I had not noticed the instance with multiple blades, which again well displays the innovation of these Indian armourers, who always sought to impress their patrons with novelty weaponry.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

6th December 2018, 07:43 PM	#27
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	Well noted on the 'weakly' but embellished pair from Mysore, as shown and described by Richardson (1999), which were apparently vestigial examples reflecting the heritage of the 'war elephant'. From what I have understood, again in the very informative article by Thom Richardson in the "Royal Armouries Yearbook" of 1999 the elephant armour that was on display there came from Powis Castle collection, and the tusk swords were acquired from there later. It is noted that the armor and the pair of tusk swords were regarded as from different periods, and the sense was that the swords were likely notably earlier (the armor acquired mid 18th c.). I think that perhaps as these were not of the same period it was deemed more prudent to display them separately. It is interesting that having established that the tusks were sawn off, the term 'tusk covers' may well have been used whether they were just covers for exposed tusk or embellished with formidable appearing blades. The case seems unclear. I had not noticed the instance with multiple blades, which again well displays the innovation of these Indian armourers, who always sought to impress their patrons with novelty weaponry.