Elephant swords

[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?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Well, there you go Ariel, being rational!!!

Jim, a sprinkle of rationality always enlivens a discussion:-)


My mentor during my fellowship years always taught me to conduct an experiment aimed at destroying my theory. Only if it failed was I allowed to publish a paper.

Regretfully, we cannot have a model of an elephant wielding a trunk sword and use it in testing our beliefs. But at the very least we are obligated to ask rational questions and expect rational answers. That’s how inquiry is supposed to be conducted.

[fernando]

Guys, where is the line, and how fine it is, that separates rationality from skepticism ? The worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see .


.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim, a sprinkle of rationality always enlivens a discussion:-)


My mentor during my fellowship years always taught me to conduct an experiment aimed at destroying my theory. Only if it failed was I allowed to publish a paper.

Regretfully, we cannot have a model of an elephant wielding a trunk sword and use it in testing our beliefs. But at the very least we are obligated to ask rational questions and expect rational answers. That’s how inquiry is supposed to be conducted.

Excellent Ariel!!! Indeed it does, and the best part of our discussions here are the ratiocination well applied in examining the evidence shared in thread entries. That is the greatness of a good thread, exchange of information and ideas, and ultimately the revision of ideas and previously held views.

I admire what you clearly well learned in these applications in your education and it shows!

While I have not learned these methods in a formal setting, I feel that I have learned a great deal from you and others here in these discussions, and very much continue to do so constantly, I note with gratitude.

I have pretty much wavered in my positions from skepticism to acceptance of reasonable plausibility several times on various elements discussed here on these talking points, and certainly have much broader perspectives on the topic than I began with. I do hope those reading enjoy the same.

Fernando, excellent graphics!!! That really does convey the message.
I have always appreciated that well worn axiom, none so blind as those who will not see, and will share one of my favorites I have long observed.

"...discovery consists of seeing what everybody else has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought".

This axiom for me has been applicable not only in the instances where I was the one 'doing the seeing', but more often in the vision of others who have shared their 'eureka' moments with myself and others openly.

Thank you guys!

[kronckew]

Having posted the narwhal tusk in post 137, I note that one was used this week at the latest London Bridge attack by a knife weilding terrorist, where a chef at the nearby fish market grabbed a 5 ft. narwhal tusk off the wall to confront and pin the knifeman down, assisted by someone with a fire extinguisher until the police could deal with him.

Probably the only use of a spear in combat in recent history, and a tusk one at that! Sometimes reality IS stranger than fiction.

[Jim McDougall]

Now thats amazing! Who says history is not alive and kickin.
Great share Wayne, and truly interesting ......I hope they dont outlaw narwhals now. After all, they have outlawed guns here in many degrees, but INCREDIBLY the crime and shootings continue. It would appear that criminals are not obeying the law

On that note, returning top elephant weaponry, I had this excerpt I forgot to include earlier:

"...even the best trained elephant was liable to be panicked by the sights, sounds and smells of battle, especially by incendiary devices, and might be joined by its companions, turn into a common enemy, trampling friend and foe alike.
From the 16th century, the use of gunpowder in battle made it considerably easier to bring down the animals, diminishing their effectiveness and bringing an end to their use on the battlefield. However they continued to be used for transportation and logistics in warfare right up to WWII."
Online: "The War Elephant in history"
Andrew Griffiths
In: Articles in History.com

Re: Fernandos note on the application of a sword to the snout, I agree they could still breath even if some constraint to the trunk was applied. There is still some plausibility of trunk 'swords' having been used in SOME fashion, as suggested in corroborating period accounts from varied sources observing them in real time.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... There is still some plausibility of trunk 'swords' having been used in SOME fashion, as suggested in corroborating period accounts from varied sources observing them in real time.

However Jim, given the recurrent spicing poured into accounts, left to us by authors with imagination, and period paintings being not the same as photographs (and even those), we wind up swapping hypothesis in a loop mode.
On the other hand, it looks as if the increasing reach for peripheral resources, namely within the zoologic area (horses, dogs, bats, narwhals, foxes), is bringing this second thread chapter to compete with the Ark of Noah .
Until then ...

[Jim McDougall]

Well said in your inimitable and intriguing manner Fernando!!! The 'spicing' of these accounts and the artwork which evolved in the same themes by imaginative and creative writers and artists have presented us with a challenging task, to break through these colorful veneers to find the truth.
Absolutely perfectly placed analogy to this chapter of the topic, which has indeed become reminiscent of Noah and his ark in degree in its zoologic periphery.

It has indeed been a lively and thought provoking discussion, and personally I think some great perspectives have been gained on this topic and the related situations with animals in warfare. Its always amazing what can be learned when thinking, and discussion, can move 'outside the box'!