Elephant swords

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

......however as far as I have known these were of course not discharged FROM the animals back. Elephants were terrified by fire or such loud reports involving the inevitable flashes of powder etc.... I wonder of there are works which show cannon being fired off elephant howdahs...

My meaning was that they didn't operate firearms but they carried them for those in the howdahs to do it, not carry them only as cargo; although it is known that such other version also took place.
But as for my previous humble mention, what we know or think we know is a grain in such ignored universe. Yes, elephants were unpredictable on what touches great noises but then, weren't they also unpredictable whilst battle contact, so much for tusk swords, chains and all other apparatuses. Remember Duarte Barbosa when he says (#32) that, during battle melee, they run over both adversary as also their own. This takes me to agree (at least partly) with some blogger when he says:

" I don't think the elephant would respond to the sound of gun firing right behind the ears too well. The military efficacy of elephants is overblown. They are slow and cumbersome.They don't bring much to the battlefield; not speed and not maneuverability. On top of other liabilities in battle they are more dangerous to soldiers around them than the enemy. I certainly would not like to be in the vicinity of one in a battlefield. If he got injured or startled he would end up trampling over his entire squad. The only positive attribute i can think of, is psychological effect on the enemy but even that would wear off very quickly.
India was invaded half a dozen times by waves of Muslim conquerors from Iran/Afghanistan/Central Asia but i can't think of once any of these waves being defeated by the elephants that the Indians had in large numbers."

Now, how's that for an approach ?


,

[Jim McDougall]

What I meant regarding discharging cannon from the back of the elephant was aimed toward the artists creating these miniatures which depict elephants wielding swords in their trunks, tusk swords and weighted chains on the trunks...…….noting I had not yet seen these CREATIVE artists showing blazing cannon from an elephants howdah.

Most of what I have been TRYING to illustrate is that given the very unpredictable nature of elephants it would be dangerous to arm them in these ways......rather like given a loaded shotgun to a three year old child in effect (I hope that analogy will not cause too much dismay).

[Jens Nordlunde]

I find Fernando's quote very interesting.


" I don't think the elephant would respond to the sound of gun firing right behind the ears too well. The military efficacy of elephants is overblown. They are slow and cumbersome.They don't bring much to the battlefield; not speed and not maneuverability. On top of other liabilities in battle they are more dangerous to soldiers around them than the enemy. I certainly would not like to be in the vicinity of one in a battlefield. If he got injured or startled he would end up trampling over his entire squad. The only positive attribute i can think of, is psychological effect on the enemy but even that would wear off very quickly.
India was invaded half a dozen times by waves of Muslim conquerors from Iran/Afghanistan/Central Asia but i can't think of once any of these waves being defeated by the elephants that the Indians had in large numbers."

I also think this could have been the reason why theystopped using elephantsfor war, and only the generals who needed an overview sat on the elephants.

[ariel]

I have to make an admission: I like Wikipedia ( some snobbish dog whistles notwithstanding:-))).
Most articles were written by people who carefully researched the subjects and supported them by references and illustrations.

So, Wiki to the rescue!

Entry " Mughal artillery"

"Elephants carried two pieces of "elephant barrel" (gajnal and hathnal) artillery and two soldiers to fire them. The elephants served only to transport the weapons and their crew, however; they dismounted before firing. "Camel guns" (Shutarnal) and "swivel guns" zamburak, on the other hand, were carried on camel-back and were fired while mounted.[14]" ( Irvine W. (1903). The Army Of The Indian Moghuls: Its Organization And Administration. Luzac. pp. 113–159.)

Entry " War elephant" provides exhaustive review of the topic from Carthage to WWII with multiple contemporaneous iconographic sources.
Interestingly, none of them ( except for the picture of the the Met example) show any trunk or tusk implements.

On the other hand, entry " Camel artillery" ( in addition to Mr. Irvine's book) reviews old and new ( WW I and II) participation of camel-mounted artillery. Obviously, camels were not as skittish as elephants.

So were elephants "armed"? Yes. Was this practice even modestly wide spread? No. It might have been tried early on, but the skittishness of the animals and the development of successful countermeasures, including guns, arrows, spears, torches and even squealing pigs, often leading to turning the animals around and squishing their own forces quickly convinced the Rajahs to use these giant creatures only as monstrously impressive transportation vehicles with ( often) lavishly decorated howdahs to sit in well behind the battle lines.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

….noting I had not yet seen these CREATIVE artists showing blazing cannon from an elephants howdah...

Just say the word .


.

[ariel]

Not only this elephant carries a stone fort with 4 cannons on his back, but he also emits fire and brimstone from his trunk. That’s what I call irrefutable evidentiary value of iconography :-)

[Jens Nordlunde]

In The Encyclopedia of the Sword by Nick Evangelista I found the text below on p. 203.
Some of the old texts mention trunk swords, while other mention tusk swords, and some of the measurers/weights mentioned must be wrong, although I think the tusk swords might have been heavier than the trunk swords.

[fernando]

The whole description in Stone's work reads, in page 216:

"ELEPHANT SWORD.
Many of the early travelers in the East speak of elephant swords. Ludovici di Varthema (1501-1568) says that they were two fatoms* long and attached to the trunk. More reasonable accounts describe them as blades projecting from sockets slipped over the tusks. (Burton Sword 216). Moser illustrates a pair of the latter description."

* twelve foot. Obviously an exorbitance.

[Jim McDougall]

Amazing you guys!!!
These entries carry perfectly what I was trying to say. These entries could not say it better. The 'license' employed in these artworks and embellishment in these accounts illustrate the metaphors and simile often present in metaphysical and elaborate accounts of figures and events.

I really appreciate all these great references, and it really adds a lot to getting to the bottom of all these tales and lore. A stone fort on an elephants back firing cannon!! and 12 foot swords on an elephants trunk!!!......weights!!…..100 pound swords on the tusks!!!??????? really????

Thank you guys!

[fernando]

The great historian João de Barros (1496-1570) author of "ASIA", in decade III, Book IV, Chaper IV, narrating a war between the Kings of Narsinga and Hidalcan, mentions:

Of all his people of war, those on horses wore cotton laudeis (lamelar cushion vests) both in body as in head and arms, all so hard that would defend any spear blow, as if they were iron blades.
And the harnessed horses were also armed in the same manner, and equally the elephants, each one carrying his castle, from which four men fought, and in the teeth (tusks) were placed opposed bisarmas (bulky bills), hence so slicers that nothing could bear them.


Although i used the Web to easier locate this part, i have my own three tome 1945 edition .


.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I think it is fantastic what we have found out about the elephant armouring, a lot due to Frenando - thank you very much.
It is a part of the Indian wars, especially the earlier wars, of which we know very little, but it is fascinating all the same.
Now it would be just as fascinating to get a view of the early Indian weapons. I know they are few, but does someone have some to share?

[silberschatzimsee]

Originally Posted by fernando

This perhaps a more refutable version !


.

i feel sad for that animal

[ariel]

Fernando,
Re. elephant-mounted machine gunner.
AFAIK, every elephant required a mahout, i.e. driver. This person straddled elephant's neck and controlled the animal with an ankus.

Somehow I wouldn't like to work as a mahout in the situation shown in the above photo, with the barrel of a large caliber machine gun right behind the back of my head:-)

Something is fishy here: either this is a:
1. staged picture,
2. stationary and uncontrolled elephant ( which beats the purpose of machine gun's mobility), or
3. the army is in the process of hiring a new and still breathing mahout.

[mahratt]

Here are two interesting photos.