Elephant swords

Jim McDougall · 26th November 2019, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Elephants are either left- or right-tusked, and the dominant tusk is generally smaller because of wear and tear from frequent use.

I think if I were applying for a job as a mahout, I would have failed the entry application

With that, may I ask, are the rest of the elephants teeth also of ivory? or are teeth and tusks made of different biological material?

kronckew · 26th November 2019, 03:35 PM

I think there is differences in the 'tusk' teeth due to their continuing growth process, which is not seen in 'permanent' teeth. I'm guessing the root end of the 'tooth' would have the dentine, nerves, pulp and enamel like or own teeth.

Aha!, I was correct:
===============================================
The visible, ivory part of the elephant's tusk is made of dentine with an outer layer of enamel. Elephant ivory is unique which when viewed in cross-sections reveals criss-cross lines that form a series of diamond shapes (Schreger lines- see below). Elephants tusks never stop growing so some old bulls display enormous examples.
===============================================

One mammal that only grows only one toothy canine tusk is the Narwhal. It's ivory rapier can grow up to 9 feet (2.74 metres) long. It's spiralling tusk was frequently sold as a unicorn's horn in ancient times, thought to have magical powers. Didn't help the poor narwhal it came from in the end tho. They use them as clubs rather than spears, striking fish to stun them before eating them. They apparently are somewhat porous and the dentine has nerve endings which enable them to detect among other things, water salinity, Female pheromones, etc. males have a ritual get together where they clash their tusks together en-mass, but do not fight with them. Guess they are comparing the length of their toothy member rather like we compare other bits of our more visible anatomy (heir's is hidden in a sheath to cut down on water resistance

).

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.

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, 04:20 PM

Unlike humans, elephants change their teeth 6 times during their lives. Their teeth don’t grow upwards, like in humans, but horizontally. They start with the size of thumb nail.
When they grow old and find it difficult to chew hard food, they move to places with softer vegetation, such as swamps. Eventually they will die because of their weakness and will die near the water. This frequent ending is what originates the myths of elephant graveyards.
The fangs (tusks) of elephants are the incisors in the other mammals and appear as from the age of one year. The particularity of these is that they lack tooth enamel. When the fang pops out, it still has a small layer of enamel that will disappear with use, leaving a fang made basically of dentin.
Approximately 2/3 of the fang are visible and alive, this meaning that it has an inner cavity with pulp including blood vessels and nerves. This is why fangs are so sensitive to blows and force*. The last third of the fang is located in the lower part of the skulls.
When a fang breaks, it can cause serious complications to the elephant. In extreme cases the nerve, the pulp, is exposed and the animal dies due to suffering great pain.
* Something which doesn't concur with the idea of 'operational' tusk swords ...

.

26th November 2019, 03:35 PM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	I think there is differences in the 'tusk' teeth due to their continuing growth process, which is not seen in 'permanent' teeth. I'm guessing the root end of the 'tooth' would have the dentine, nerves, pulp and enamel like or own teeth. Aha!, I was correct: =============================================== The visible, ivory part of the elephant's tusk is made of dentine with an outer layer of enamel. Elephant ivory is unique which when viewed in cross-sections reveals criss-cross lines that form a series of diamond shapes (Schreger lines- see below). Elephants tusks never stop growing so some old bulls display enormous examples. =============================================== One mammal that only grows only one toothy canine tusk is the Narwhal. It's ivory rapier can grow up to 9 feet (2.74 metres) long. It's spiralling tusk was frequently sold as a unicorn's horn in ancient times, thought to have magical powers. Didn't help the poor narwhal it came from in the end tho. They use them as clubs rather than spears, striking fish to stun them before eating them. They apparently are somewhat porous and the dentine has nerve endings which enable them to detect among other things, water salinity, Female pheromones, etc. males have a ritual get together where they clash their tusks together en-mass, but do not fight with them. Guess they are comparing the length of their toothy member rather like we compare other bits of our more visible anatomy (heir's is hidden in a sheath to cut down on water resistance ). Attached Images Last edited by kronckew; 26th November 2019 at 04:14 PM.

26th November 2019, 04:21 PM	#4
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	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, 04:44 PM	#10
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	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, 04:20 PM	#13
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Unlike humans, elephants change their teeth 6 times during their lives. Their teeth don’t grow upwards, like in humans, but horizontally. They start with the size of thumb nail. When they grow old and find it difficult to chew hard food, they move to places with softer vegetation, such as swamps. Eventually they will die because of their weakness and will die near the water. This frequent ending is what originates the myths of elephant graveyards. The fangs (tusks) of elephants are the incisors in the other mammals and appear as from the age of one year. The particularity of these is that they lack tooth enamel. When the fang pops out, it still has a small layer of enamel that will disappear with use, leaving a fang made basically of dentin. Approximately 2/3 of the fang are visible and alive, this meaning that it has an inner cavity with pulp including blood vessels and nerves. This is why fangs are so sensitive to blows and force. The last third of the fang is located in the lower part of the skulls. When a fang breaks, it can cause serious complications to the elephant. In extreme cases the nerve, the pulp, is exposed and the animal dies due to suffering great pain. Something which doesn't concur with the idea of 'operational' tusk swords ... . Attached Images

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

26th November 2019, 04:10 PM	#3
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	#6
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	#8
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	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	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	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.