Elephant swords

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

... I agree with Jim’s disbelief in the veracity of Nikitin’s description of tusk swords. ...

The full citation being:
"...large scythes attached to the tusks and trunks of the elephants".
I would drop the 'trunk' part as being the author's 'flowering' the narration. But the 'scythe' term sounds not so distant to Garcia de Orta's 'plow iron'.
I, for one, realize that, all we can say about these things based on the infinitesimal part that we know compared to whatever happened, is perhaps rather reducing.
Notwithstanding the fun of enjoying such appealing conversation.

And a little question:
What was the primary purpose to saw their tusks ?

[mahratt]

Chains attached to the elephant's trunk. 1750 year. India

[mahratt]

Mythological plot. But ... Is the author just invented an elephant who has a sword, which is attached to the trunk? Or...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mahratt, it is an interseting miniature you show, although I think the artist has taken over some of the details.
I have been wondering if the trunk sword was made like a kind of gauntlet sword, which would make it easier for the elephant to carry and use.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Mahratt, it is an interseting miniature you show, although I think the artist has taken over some of the details.
I have been wondering if the trunk sword was made like a kind of gauntlet sword, which would make it easier for the elephant to carry and use.

I agree the artist here in the miniature shown by Mahratt (post 42) clearly has employed certain license in the portrayal of mythological figures and the image of a sword in the elephants trunk should be regarded as inclusive in such theme. Actually in the accounts concerning the inventory of the Tanjore armoury in 1860 describes a 'puttah' (clearly a pata or 'gauntlet' sword') which the author perceives as a sword for an elephant to wield with his trunk.


With the sawing off of elephants tusks, I would consider, could it have been to render the elephant less threatening while in captivity/training by removing its natural weapons? While the thought comes to mind of using the ivory, it begs the question, was the Indian elephant ivory in the same kind of demand as that of African? are they of the same composition and quality?


The sawn tusks then may require 'covers' as noted by Pant, which might have simply been a cap of some sort, but then in certain cases having an embellishment of a blade...in the manner of a prosthetic device. It is clearly a subject that did not seem to warrant elaboration in period accounts.

All it takes is one writer to see an instance of such embellishment in a ceremony or parade, and taking off with it in perceptions, then their account becomes read by others, and it projects into lore and legend. Not that this is the case, but it is quite possible in considering various views in explaing these matters with elephant weaponry.

[ariel]

Very astute comment, Jim.
Iconographic material of “armed” elephants is extremely rare and some of it is clearly fantasy driven ( fight with monsters). Its evidentiary value is quite uncertain taking into account the well-known propensity of Indo-Persian artists to invent or simply “modify” the reality. All it takes is one or two images to transform an artistic license into pseudo - scientific conclusion. Moreover, as we see from this discussion, eyewitness testimonies are even less reliable.

Any person dedicated to collecting a sizable number of actual elephant arms would provide valuable service to the community.

[mahratt]

I do not see the monsters in this image (post 41) ... (Maybe someone from the more astute participants of the topic will help me find them). However, I see chains on an elephant's trunk, which were clearly used as weapons. If you can tie a chain to the trunk, what prevents you from doing the same with a big sword?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

... Moreover, as we see from this discussion, eyewitness testimonies are even less reliable...

Perhaps should the eyewitnesses condition be worthy of interpretation; don't we read some (most) of them them saying what they 'knew' instead of what they 'saw' ?. As they relied on verbal local descriptions, certainly owners of unclipped imagination wings.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by fernando

The full citation being:
"...large scythes attached to the tusks and trunks of the elephants".
I would drop the 'trunk' part as being the author's 'flowering' the narration. But the 'scythe' term sounds not so distant to Garcia de Orta's 'plow iron'.

As a matter of fact, the original tusk sword shown here by Jens may reasonably well be called a scythe or plow iron.
What one needs for that is just some curvature or angling of the blade.
Attacking with slightly bent head would impale the opponent and raising the head back would lift or throw away the (already lifeless) body.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

As a matter of fact, the original tusk sword shown here by Jens may reasonably well be called a scythe or plow iron...What one needs for that is just some curvature or angling of the blade...

Good shot .


.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hmmm - interesting comparison.
Travellers in India in the 15th century mentions the many war elephants being used, armed with swords on the trusks and the trunks, but they also mention guns and canons - not to speak about the rockets, of which the elephants were very afraid.
Whether these early rockets were made of wood or maybe of lacquered paper is unknown to me, but Tipo had taken them a step further as he made them of iron, and he had several different kinds of rockets.
What we dont know is, if the elephant sword at the MET has been bend, or if it was made the way it look to day.

[fernando]

That the evolution of weaponry was also 'shared' with elephants is an indisputable fact; Garcia de Orta, for one, was positive about that. We can read out there about Indian lords in the XVI century putting a culverin on their elephants.
But while with the previous weapons elephants were themselves the 'handlers', with the later they were only the 'carriers'.
Is this the real thing ?

.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

That the evolution of weaponry was also 'shared' with elephants is an indisputable fact; Garcia de Orta, for one, was positive about that. We can read out there about Indian lords in the XVI century putting a culverin on their elephants.
But while with the previous weapons elephants were themselves the 'handlers', with the later they were only the 'carriers'.
Is this the real thing ?

.

Well noted..............elephants carrying ordnance such as cannon, rockets were extremely well suited for carrying this equipment.........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. However, given the fanciful (in my opinion) themes of many of these miniatures pertaining the elephant weaponry, I wonder of there are works which show cannon being fired off elephant howdahs.

[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 ?


,