Elephant swords

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...
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.

The Soviets in WW2 trained dogs to run under tanks with backpacks on, Their first test engagement against a line of German panzers they put anti-tank mines with a vertical contact fuse on the dogs, and released them towards the German tanks, they promptly turned around and ran under the Soviet tanks, which all blew up. They'd trained them with soviet tanks...Project sancelled.

Canidae get Abused in more ancient times as well:

Judges 15: (Christian Bible Old testament)
Then he went out and caught 300 foxes. He tied their tails together in pairs, and he fastened a torch to each pair of tails.
Then he lit the torches and let the foxes run through the grain fields of the Philistines. He burned all their grain to the ground, including the sheaves and the uncut grain. He also destroyed their vineyards and olive groves.

The Romans apparently were fond of doing this to foxes.

Ovid hints at its archaic, brutal nature of the Cerealia (held for seven days from mid to late April) when he describes a nighttime ritual; blazing torches were tied to the tails of live foxes, who were released into the Circus Maximus. The origin and purpose of this ritual are unknown; it may have been intended to cleanse the growing crops and protect them from disease and vermin, or to add warmth and vitality to their growth. Ovid suggests that long ago, at ancient Carleoli, a farm-boy caught a fox stealing chickens and tried to burn it alive. The fox escaped, ablaze; in its flight it fired the fields and their crops, which were sacred to Ceres. Ever since, foxes are punished at her festival.

[fernando]

Let us not digress by that road, in such exppressive manner... please ?

[ariel]

Jim,
I see your point about trunk swords and deep inside I am on your side. Moreover, their physical absence in museum collections is disturbing.


However, we have several separate accounts of their existence and I just cannot bring myself to ignoring them.

Yet, by the same token, several medieval travelers described their actual encounters with men with dog heads .

In short, it’s a conundrum that will be solved only if we find a physical example.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
I see your point about trunk swords and deep inside I am on your side. Moreover, their physical absence in museum collections is disturbing.


However, we have several separate accounts of their existence and I just cannot bring myself to ignoring them.

Yet, by the same token, several medieval travelers described their actual encounters with men with dog heads .

In short, it’s a conundrum that will be solved only if we find a physical example.

Ariel, thank you so much for the very kind recognition, and agree that the physical absence of these in museums makes their actual existence somewhat suspect. However, you are right in that cross references which occur in various unrelated literature do greatly increase the probability that these may well have existed.
Perhaps it is that it was simply an ersatz application in which a weapon was attached to the trunk with conventional means, as described in some of the accounts, (i.e.)'they attached swords to the trunks'.

If this were the case, they were not a specifically designed weapon as the tusk 'caps' were, and simple lashings or other holding methods. If this were the case, then the sword/blades etc. would have simply been gone after use. Therefore, no actually 'designed' weapon would remain.

It is noted that many times the elephants were with heavy chains attached to the trunks, well described in numerous accounts, however, we do not have examples of these among museum holdings either.

So at this point, I would concede that there must of have been instances of either swords or some sort of blade conventionally attached to the trunks of elephants in the same manner as the chains, but these items were not designed in particular for such use. The term 'trunk sword' therefore would be 'situational' and in that sense, they probably did exist.

The 'tusk swords' appear to be a very different case, in which caps placed over the stumped tusk of elephants which carried a blade extending from them. These do not seem to have widely used either, but appear to have become used with elaborate elephant armor which became used in parade, court and impressive displays after the decline of elephant use in warfare post 16th c. The advent of guns is described as the primary reason for such decline in their use after that time.

Much as the widespread 'recycling' of edged weapons in these later times, it seems apparent that these tusk swords likely fell to the massed destruction of many weapons as they were damaged or simply no longer used. Of these, select items were saved for preservation in princely armories.

Regarding previous posts on animals being used in unfortunate manner as weapons, I regret my analogy on bats in my earlier post, and very much agree, this digression is best left out of this discussion further.
Our discussion is on weapons used BY animals, not animals used AS weapons.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Perhaps it is that it was simply an ersatz application in which a weapon was attached to the trunk with conventional means, as described in some of the accounts, (i.e.)'they attached swords to the trunks'... If this were the case, they were not a specifically designed weapon as the tusk 'caps' were, and simple lashings or other holding methods. If this were the case, then the sword/blades etc. would have simply been gone after use. Therefore, no actually 'designed' weapon would remain ...

This would be a rather pertinent approach, Jim; bladed 'devices' fit to strike the enemy ranks.
Rmember Captain João Ribeiro saw the Ceylon specimens and describes them as (literally) disform (unformed, monstruous, disproportionate) traçados * or swords the width of a hand.
The term sword as recorded could refer to their intended purpose and not to their actual typology. Surely no guard, or hilt comprehended; maybe not even (so) sharp edged. But, in the need to write about them, sword would be the 'appropriate' name.
*Currently terçado, a straight short sword; but these could have fallen into a different typology in the period.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Regarding previous posts on animals being used in unfortunate manner as weapons, I regret my analogy on bats in my earlier post, and very much agree, this digression is best left out of this discussion further. Our discussion is on weapons used BY animals, not animals used AS weapons.

It is only fair that you regret it, Jim. Remember your previous post in this thread in which you concurred with criticisms on freewheeling ? Well, worse than that is, opening the door to ... badwheeling


.

[ariel]

A tiny question: how were these swords tied to the trunks?
Unless we use tight belts, they will turn and hit the enemy not with the edge, but with the flat of the blade. And if we tie them very hard, the elephant will not be able to breathe.
Also, even forgetting the above limitation, human swordsman can deliberately adjust the axis of the blade to hit always with the edge. Elephant moves its trunk in all directions, and the likelihood of flat blow is many times higher than that with the edge.
Hope I explained it well:-((((

Tusk swords were used mainly for piercing, so it was not a problem.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

A tiny question: how were these swords tied to the trunks?
Unless we use tight belts, they will turn and hit the enemy not with the edge, but with the flat of the blade. And if we tie them very hard, the elephant will not be able to breathe.
Also, human swordsman can deliberately adjust the axis of the blade to hit always with the edge. Elephant moves its trunk in all directions, and the likelihood of flat blow is many times higher than that with the edge.
Hope I explained it well:-((((

Tusk swords were used mainly for piercing, so it was not a problem.

Well, there you go Ariel, being rational!!!
As far as is known, there are no elephant fencing manuals, and my questioning the attaching of blades (even if termed swords) to elephant trunks was in line with the questions you pose here (and yes, VERY well explained).

I notice that the huge corpus of narratives and accounts describing 'swords' attached to the trunks of elephants leave out the key detail of how this was done as well as what these 'swords' looked like. In the miniature shown earlier it seems the elephant is 'holding' the sword with the trunk, rather than being attached. Then there is the account from Stone (1934) claiming 12 FOOT SWORDS were ATTACHED to the trunks!!!

If we are to take these impressions and accounts literally and seriously we must believe that the elephant has tremendous strength as well as dexterity in its trunk. I remain a bit skeptical on these images.

As you note, the tusks were a natural weapon on elephants so their use was in accord with instincts, and the caps with blades (termed swords) were a prosthetic extension over tusks apparently sawn off in captivity. On that note, perhaps the blades used with trunks were plow irons?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

... And if we tie them very hard, the elephant will not be able to breathe...

Could they really choke them, despite all those thousands of trunk muscles ... So that they wouldn't be able to respire through their snorkel

.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by kronckew

The Soviets in WW2 trained dogs to run under tanks with backpacks on, Their first test engagement against a line of German panzers they put anti-tank mines with a vertical contact fuse on the dogs, and released them towards the German tanks, they promptly turned around and ran under the Soviet tanks, which all blew up. They'd trained them with soviet tanks...Project sancelled.

Although this information is not related to the topic, I must note that this is false information.
Dogs destroyed up to 300 German tanks during the period from 1941 to 1945.
The German source mentions the destruction as a minimum of one German tank in October 1941 on the outskirts of Karachev.
In the summer of 1943, in the battle of Kursk, 12 German tanks were destroyed with the help of dogs.
Dogs were a problem for the Germans, because the tank machine gun was located high enough and hardly got into a dog moving quickly near the surface of the earth. The German command ordered every soldier to shoot any dog ​​that appears in sight. Killing dogs was prescribed even to pilots of Luftwaffe fighters - from airplanes.
Over time, the Wehrmacht soldiers began to use flamethrowers installed on tanks against dogs, this turned out to be a fairly effective countermeasure, however, some dogs still could not be stopped.

[kronckew]

I stand corrected, thanks.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by kronckew

I stand corrected, thanks.

Don’t feel bad: the above info was lifted verbatim from the Russian version of Wikipedia. The reliability of that source is limited, to put it mildly.


For example, the blurb here states that during the Kursk battle ( summer 1943) dogs destroyed 12 German tanks. But another reference ( not cited) mentions that already by 1942 the dogs for some reasons became less reliable and, instead of jumping under German tanks, preferred to go back to Russian positions, wrecking havoc there. As a result, their use was swiftly terminated. The only German description refers to an incident in October of 1941. And another reference from the Russian Wiki ( also not cited) avers that the entire program was not effective altogether.

The story about Luftwaffe hunting any dogs was taken from some Russian radio program, never documented, just like the use of flamethrowers.

Overall, don’t feel sad and guilty: we are dealing with a cockamamie story.

The idea of using animals as suicide bombers was briefly revived at the end of 20th century: dolphins. The program was shut down anon.

On the other hand, there were well documented cases of patriotic Russian soldiers throwing themselves with explosive devices under German tanks. The only thing it proves is that Pavlovian brainwashing works better on humans than on dogs. Dogs seem to be smarter.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Don’t feel bad: the above info was lifted verbatim from the Russian version of Wikipedia. The reliability of that source is limited, to put it mildly.

I will be very grateful if you provide serious evidence that the Wikipedia article contains erroneous information.

[Jim McDougall]

Yeah!!!! How bout them trunk swords!!!!!