Elephant swords

[Jens Nordlunde]

These are seldom seen, at least I have only seen them in books, or read about them - like in The Book of the Sword by Richard F. Burton.
Another place where I have found them mentioned is in Athanasius Nikitin description of his travel to India in the 15th century - here is the description.
"The big elephants are mounted by tvelwe men. Each animal has two large probortys and a heavy sword, weighing a kentar (three pouds, about 100 lb.) attached to its tusks, and large iron weights hanging from the trunk."
Somewhere else I read that the war elephants had heavy chains in their trunks.
The attached picture is from the MET accession number 2015.103. Length 61 cm.

[fernando]

Great picture, Jens.
Indeed citations of weapons mounted on elephant tusks may be read here and there but, seeing a picture of one of those, is a rare opportunity.
Probably there were more than one (sword) version; Alvaro Velho, for one, (1297-1490) speaks of (SIC)"a wooden house, in which four men fit in. And this elephant brings in each tooth five armed swords; so that in both teeth brings ten armed swords. The way they walk frightfuly, no one that can run will wait for them. And everything that they are ordered to do by the ones on top of them, they do it so thorougly like a rational creature; in a way that, if they are told to kill that one or do this or that, so they do it".
Whreas Grcia de Orta (1501-1568) speaks of adorned weapons similar to plow irons.

[Ren Ren]

Another place where I have found them mentioned is in Athanasius Nikitin description of his travel to India in the 15th century - here is the description.
"The big elephants are mounted by tvelwe men. Each animal has two large probortys and a heavy sword, weighing a kentar (three pouds, about 100 lb.) attached to its tusks, and large iron weights hanging from the trunk."

Let me offer my version of the translation from the Old Russian language. Sorry for my english.

"А к слоном вяжут к рылу да к зубом великие мечи по кентарю кованых, да оболочат их в доспехи булатные, да на них учинены городкы, да в городкех по 12 человек в доспесех, да все с пушками да с стрелами."

"Elephants have great forged swords tied to their trunk and tusks, weighing Kentar (Arabic: Kantar). Elephants are dressed in wootz armor. On their backs arrange turret. In each turret are 12 men in armor, all armed with cannons and arrows."

«да триста слонов наряженых в доспесех булатных да з городки, да и городкы окованы. Да в городках по 6 человек в доспесех, да и с пушками да и с пищалми, а на великом слоне по 12 человек. Да на всяком по два проборца великых, да к зубом повязаны великые мечи по кентарю, да к рылу привязаны великыа железныа гири».

«And three hundred elephants dressed in wootz armor with turrets on their backs. The turrets are bound with metal. In the turret there are 6 men in armor with cannons and guns. And on a great elephant for 12 men. On each elephant there are two great “proborets”, the great swords weighing Kentar are tied to their tusks, and a great iron weight is attached to the trunk.»

P.S. I do not know what “proborets” means, but I will try to find out.

[mahratt]

Kentar

Kentar - Russian measure of weight, introduced in the 15th century, which is equal to 2.5 poods (approximately 41 kg)

[Richard Furrer]

I have seen them in India in rural museums. I will try to located the photos. They were massive in scale and thickness.

[ariel]

Max Fasner’s dictionary: “ According to Prokopius, Kentar equaled 100 liters, and from the end of XVI century to 2 1/2 poods. A.K.Kazambek defines kentar as a unit of weight between 1 1/2 to 10 1/2 poods”,
.
Pood ( Russian пуд) as a unit of weight unofficially equals 40 pounds i.e. 18,1 kg , but was officially defined in 1899 as equal to 38.05 pounds, i.e.17.2 kg.

The hooker is which pound?
The very word funt came to Russia after English word pound.

Classical British pound is 453 gram, but official Russian pound ( funt) is only 405 gram, and Russian pharmacy pound ( funt) is 354 gram.

Thus, we really do not know the actual weight Nikitin referred to. Obviously, he could not use 2 1/2 poods as a kentar, since this was defined about 100 years after his death and we do not know precisely what kentar meant in the XV century. Was it 100 kg ( 100 liters) or 1.5 poods i.e. around 24 kg?

I am leaning to much lower numbers: from the practical point of view there is no need to create a super heavy cutting blade. It should be just massive enough to sustain any mechanical stress. Second, and most important, Fernando’s quote of 5 such swords on each tusk ( I.e. 100 up to 500 kg) would likely break it.

Richard’s info of actual presence of these implements in Indian museums gives the best way to figure it out: just weigh them:-)))

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you for the interesting posts on the weight.
I should have added that the sword shown from the MET weighs 5lb 3oz. - 2362g.
I see no reason why the swords should be so heavy, that the elephant could hardly lift it, or that the elephant would easily be tired.

[fernando]

...Second, and most important, Fernando’s quote of 5 such swords on each tusk ( I.e. 100 up to 500 kg) would likely break it...
As i started by saying, these things don't have to be all of the same format, especially in such vast territory, and by the time there was no armour standardization ;) .
Certainly five swords in a set must be composed with units much smaller than a single one; completely a different apparatus ... not excluding that the narrator (who was in loco) had not taken his medication or the natives who told him about it were cheating.
You have in the other hand a different chroniclar comparing the ones he saw to plow irons. I assume this one 'saw' them (not told about), as natives would not use the plow iron term.

...I should have added that the sword shown from the MET weighs 5lb 3oz. - 2362g.
I see no reason why the swords should be so heavy, that the elephant could hardly lift it, or that the elephant would easily be tired...
I don't know.These guys can carry a whole tree trunk in their tusks; i wouldn't think 2 1/2 Kilos is a great deal for them. Besides, them not being properly keen in fencing arts, these 'swords' must resist violent thrusts.

[ariel]

Jens,

I fully agree.

Afanasij Nikitin was a trader from Tver and, like all traders,was likely to exaggerate the weight of things he was trying to “sell”, be it at the market or recollection of Oriental marvels to his readers :-))))) Kind of physical or mental “ finger on the scale”.
I also cannot understand what was the purpose of attaching these cutting/slashing things to the tusks. Slashing/cutting requires lateral movement , so the trunk would be ideal.
I saw some examples of tusk swords, and they were straight like spears, which makes sense to me: stabbing function.

But.... Indian arms and Armour often defy our logic.

Fernando,
I actually witnessed elephants carrying tree trunks in Thailand. They do not put then on the tusks: they wrap their trunks around the object and carry it. I would guess that a day or two of carrying heavy objects on their tusks would break the ivory.

[fernando]

You are obvious right, Ariel; my bad :o


Here is what thy called The battle of Pashan begins ...


-

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel, about breaking the ivory. Ivory from the African elephant was sought for rather than ivory from the Indian elephant - as it was said to be stronger.


Fernando, nice miniature. I have seen pictures of these 'daggers' as well, but only pictures.

[ariel]

Yes, that is what I was talking about: a single stabbing thingie on each tusk.

African ivory might have been stronger for making sword handles, but regretfully to have stronger ivory of a battle elephant they would have to drag the entire living creature from Africa.
Taking into account that any respectable Indian army had to have 500-800 battle elephants , that would have been a major undertaking:-))))

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ren Ren, thank you for the translation.
I have, in different papers, seen mentioned, that the towers on the elephants had from four to twelve men. If the twelve men is correct it would be a weight of about nine hundred kilo, plus the tower and the armour.
I would suggest that the number of men were less than twelve. First of all they would not have much room for movement, and secondly the weight to carry for the elephant, over many hours, might have been too much - although the elephants are very strong.
Not all the old authors are giving the correct numbers, some of them tend to overdo it a 'bit'.


Ariel, I do see you point. Even to day it would be a wee bit problematic to move maybe 30,000 elephants from Africa to India.

[fernando]

And the Mughal Empire style; suggesting pointless tusks ...

.

[ariel]

Agree.

These two examples introduce a mild doubt in the veracity of Nikitin’s and Velho’s descriptions of elephant swords. But, as I said, stranger things were happening in India.

The use of elephants as war machines might have been devastating to both sides. There are description of many battles in which the defenders conducted massive arrow ( and later firearm) “bombardments” against the elephants thus were turning them around and destroying their own forces. Not till WWI was this problem solved by the introduction of tanks. Although Leonardo left behind blueprints of the first tank-like contraption: a large turtle- like wooden/metal shell with multiple embrasures for several cannons hidden inside.

[fernando]

...I have, in different papers, seen mentioned, that the towers on the elephants had from four to twelve men. If the twelve men is correct it would be a weight of about nine hundred kilo, plus the tower and the armour.
I would suggest that the number of men were less than twelve. First of all they would not have much room for movement, and secondly the weight to carry for the elephant, over many hours, might have been too much - although the elephants are very strong.
Not all the old authors are giving the correct numbers, some of them tend to overdo it a 'bit'...
Alvaro Velho speaks of five men, Cristovão da Costa mentions the same number and adds the mahout, Barbosa describes three or four men fitting in the castle, armed with bows, muskets and other weapons and Castanheda, recalling Cambay, also emphasizes the wooden castles, in which go four or five archers and musketeers.
On the other hand in a letter sent by King Dom Manuel to Pope Leão X announcing the conquest of the Melaka, the elephant towers are mentioned and, in a libretto written in Italian, from when the famous obedience embassy to the Pope took place, where an elephant was included as a gift:
le legname grossissimo un castello
e venti homini armati aum trato in quello.
Obviously twenty men is a gross exageration from the King; but Kings can cheat!
And so can the Portuguese anonimous painter in this XVI century watercolour, part of the Casanatense codice.

.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Fernando,
:-) there seem to be fifteen men in the 'tower' - the poor elephant - stone tower men and all.

[fernando]

Hi Fernando,
:-) there seem to be fifteen men in the 'tower' - the poor elephant - stone tower men and all.
And what a view from the top floor :eek: .
Mind you, this is an early XVI century depiction; there is no other work of the kind from this period.

[fernando]

The example in the Met, viewed from different angles; what a beast. I keep thinking they "trimmed" the poor animal's tusks to better fit these things !


.

[Jens Nordlunde]

No I dont think they 'trimmed' the trunk - but imagine to be hid by such a 'sword' at a high speed.
Some of the war elephants seemd to have had heavy chains to 'move' the enemy with.

[Jim McDougall]

This is a most interesting and arcane topic, and I checked the articles in Royal Armouries Yearbooks:
"The Elephant Armour" by Thom Richardson & Donna Stevens, Vol.1, 1996
and,
" The Elephant Tusk Swords" Thom Richardson, Vol. 4, 1997

According to these sources, examples of tusk swords are extremely rare, with the only examples are the pair in the Royal Armouries (XXVIM.40) which are from Powis Castle and deemed 16th century. It is not known what provenance these are from, but according to Robert Elgood, he believes they are Hindu.

The other pair, from the now dispersed Mysore arsenal of Maharajah Krishnaraja Wadiyar III (1794-1868) are obviously later and with weak construction clearly intended for ceremonial use.
While this pair is Mughal, it is suggested in the text that Mughal use in combat is unlikely, explaining (1997, p.133) that ,

"....athough there are numerous records of the use of tusk swords in the literature, there seem to ge no contemporary illustrations of them. This may be linked to the lack of reference to tusk swords for elephants in the detailed listing of all types of elephant equipment in the Ain i Akbari of Abu'l Fazi. Possibly they had ceased to be used by the 16th century. If this is so, of course the tusk swords belong to an earlier period when very few illustrations of war elephants survive".


It is curious what the various records of tusk sword use are, and whether they are from Hindu sources or other. As noted, the comprehensive illustrated Mughal guide Ain I Akbari does not include these, which seems significant.


Also, it seems curious that the tusks of the elephant are naturally deadly without the augmentation of sword blades. In the material I have referenced, apparently Pant notes something called 'tusk protectors' which are blunt coverings for the ends of the tusks. The 'tusk swords' shown in this discussion seem to be for 'blunted tusks' as noted as they could not be mounted on a full length and pointed tusk. Perhaps these are a kind of cover for tusks which have been rendered 'safe' in such manner?


I am wondering, with the noted volatility and power of the elephant if they could be effectively controlled in combat situations, and my understanding of the ankus used by the mahout was not only for prodding but 'ending' the animal if it became out of control. It has been noted it seems that these animals could be as deadly to the forces using them as to the enemy.

If contemporary references note the use of tusk swords, then of course they may have been used. However there does not seem to be nearly the support for these mentions that typically remain for the armour used on elephants nor existing examples in number of these tusk swords.


I am unsure of the example shown here from the Met, and would like to know more on its provenance etc. as it seems to be out of range of the authors of these articles which cite only the two extant examples.

[ariel]

Jim,
Tusk swords ceased to be used quite some time ago and, just like all very old things that outlived their purpose, they are unquestionably rare. The two examples you refer to are in European museums, but Richard saw more of them in India.
Perhaps the best argument in favor of their actual existence are the contemporaneous miniatures coming from both native and European artists.
Testimonies of Nikitin and Velho are also valuable, although the weights are uncertain.
I am sure they existed at some times, but the introduction of firepower, artillery especially, made “living tanks” and their metal arms obsolete and relegated elephants to the role of impressive royal vehicles.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Ariel. I guess the question is, while they certainly must have existed in some degree, and given the Indian penchant for innovation in weaponry, it does not seem unlikely they did. ...but just how much so?
The extreme absence of them in armouries and collections suggest they were more a novelty than regularly seen weapon.

I was under the impression they were not found in contemporary miniatures or art, which was why such doubt was expressed on use after 16th c. and it was suggested they did not appear in earlier art.

[fernando]

As shown in my post #10, an elephant with tusks armed with (so called) swords is illustrated in "The Battle of Pashan begins", from the Shahnama (Book of Kings) by Shah Tahmasp 1530-1545.

Alvaro Velho, a chroniclar, has been in India in 1498 with Vasco da Gama, and came back in the same fleet.

Garcia de Orta was a Portuguese intelectual (Physician) Jew. He departed to the Orient in 1534, appointed Captain-Mor of the India Sea, having died in Old Goa in 1568. He was a brilliant Botanist, Pharmacologist,Tropical Medicine specialist and Antropologist. After his death, the Inquisiton started chasing his family, having soon condemned his sister to be burnt alive in a Auto-de-Fé in Goa in 1569. Garcia himself was condemned to the fire for Judaism, his remnants being exhumed for the purpose.
I don't think such personality would have copied Alvaro Velho's router notes.
Actually his wider description of the war elephant subject reads: (before my previous quotation) they (elephants) go to war armoured, especially in the forehead and chest, like harnessed horses; they put pending bells in their flanks ...; (after my previous quotation) ... bring hooks and bisarmas (large bills) abnd lately they bring meios berços (small cannons) and panelas de polvora (period fashion gun powder pans).

Admitedly hundreds, possibly thousands of elephant swords may have existed in the past, only four pairs and the single example in the Met are known to survive today.
One may easily realize that as, not all elephants were engaged in war, most certainly not all war elephants carried swords in their tusks. Maybe this was a fashion adopted only by certain sectors; and maybe they turned out to manifestly cumbersome.

But, as the Spaniard says:
Yo no creo en brujas, pero que las hay, las hay !
which in an easy tranlation means:
I don't believe in witches ... still they do exist !

[GIO]

Always Mughal

[Jens Nordlunde]

It seems as if some of the tusk sword survived, but what about the trunk sword?
As said before, I have read that the war elephants carried either sword or heavy chains in their trunks. Does anyone have pictures of thesee swords or chains?

[fernando]

...Does anyone have pictures of thesee swords or chains?
What about this FANTASY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpx4QTeMKk) ?

[Jim McDougall]

What about this FANTASY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpx4QTeMKk) ?


This is a good point......just how much fantasy or hubris laden license is included in the art depicting events and battles of hundreds of years before?
We know that many famous artworks depicting important battles were often painted many years after the events, and more current research has often revealed profound differences in actual circumstances vs. the portrayal in art.

In the articles cited here, the Shahnama (of Shah Tahmasp written c. 1590) is said to depict the Battle of Pashan in a painting which shows elephants using tusk swords, but it is noted that the event took place hundreds of years before. Other references claim that the use of tusk swords go back over a thousand years. It is here usually noted that these times precluded miniatures which might have illustrated these tusk swords contemporarily.

Richardson suggests that by lack of inclusion of tusk swords in the well known Mughal records of arms in the Ain-I-Akbari also c. 1590s may well have been because these were out of use by then. Perhaps also, they were not significantly used enough to warrant inclusion in this comprehensive record.


Is it possible that the dangerously deadly tusks of the elephants were compared to swords as they attacked in battle? and this became construed into actual swords attached. Why would a sword be used to supplant an already dangerous natural weapon? I think of descriptions of weapons in India's array of innovative weapons which are described using many animals natural defenses such as bagh-nakh; bichwa; tigers tail; and others.....could such converse portrayal be the case?


With the fact that survival of so many weapon forms, particularly of the 15th c. onward, why would only several of these pairs of tusk 'swords' be left? especially if 'thousands' of them were produced.

This situation reminds me very much of the case in the 17th c. of the famed "Winged Hussars of Poland", and the curious wings mounted on the backs of their cuirass. It was supposed that these would make terrifying noise as these hussars charged in battle, and of course many artworks depicted these fantastic warriors in battle with their wings. However, it seems that research suggests these were primarily a parade device, and worn ceremoniously, a case of course often debated still.

Could these tusk swords have been in the same way, ceremoniously used and their fearsome appearance extended into artwork depicting earlier battles where elephants were used in battle?

Regarding the use of a sword on the trunk, that as we discussed in 2008 here, would be disastrous, as if the tusk swords would not be trouble enough. Elephants are remarkably intelligent animals and fearfully volatile. This I believe is one of the purposes of the weapon/implement called the ankus. The mahout can use it as a goad but it is bladed as well allegedly to dispatch the elephant if out of control.
I am unclear on the use of weights on the trunk as these would be as deadly as the other.

[shayde78]

I wonder if an enterprising chap was inspired to invent the pata upon studying one of these.

[Jim McDougall]

Looking further into this, regarding the interesting example shown here now in the Royal Armouries and the subject of the article by Thom Richardson (op.cit. 1999, p.133) it does appear these were to secure over the tusk, "...the inside of each socket tapers to a flat end, and is intended to fit over the sawn off tusk".

In the article it is stated these, like the elephant armor on display there, were acquired from Powis Castle, the items acquired by the Earl of Powis c. 1798 .
It is claimed that the armor dates from 16th c. but H.Robinson (1967, "Oriental Armour" p.119) says tradition claims it was taken by Clive at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
While it was suggested these items belonged together, Richardson doubts it and suggests perhaps the tusk swords are earlier.

In looking at these tusk swords, the distinct fuller system is remarkably similar to the blades of Vijayanagara weapons of the 16th century, which is in my opinion possibly why Robert Elgood considers these Hindu, and I think this fullering supports the 16th century notion.


While these were it seems most probably Hindu examples, it does seem that Mughals did adopt tusk weapons in some degree.


In Robinson (1967) it is noted that "...the tusks of the beasts were tipped with metal points".


To this reference to points, Richardson notes from the Zafarnama of Sharaf ud-Din Yazdi the battle between Timur and the Delhi Sultan in 1398 (theaccount written 1424)..."...the enemies great reliance on war elephants - noting sharp poisoned points fastened to the tusks'.

The later accounts (1468-74) of Athanasius Nikiton in "Voyage to India" describing the Bahmani armies at Bidar having "...large scythes attached to the tusks and trunks of the elephants".

This account is suspect in my opinion as I have previously noted, the idea of bladed weapons attached to the trunk of an elephant seems insane.
Further these accounts describe swords of 100 lbs attached to the tusks and heavy weights on the trunk.
Why would ANY sword weigh 100 pounds? and put this enormous weight on the tusks? and THEN put heavy weights on the trunk?

I would better receive the notions of steel tips on the tusks than these huge blades...though the poison is a bit dramatized as often the case I think.

[Jim McDougall]

I wonder if an enterprising chap was inspired to invent the pata upon studying one of these.



Good observation Shayde!

Actually the pata evolved from the hooded/gauntlet hilt katars of Vijayanagara in 16th century, and ironically Elgood (Hindu Arms and Ritual", 2004, p.257)notes that in the Tanjore Armoury (1860, #830) was a 'puttah', double edged sword to be held in an elephants trunk.

As I noted in my previous post, it is interesting that the channeling in the blade of the Royal Armouries example of 'tusk sword' bears a striking resemblance to the katar blades of 16th c. Vijayanagara.

So your suggestion has most interesting associations :)


attached Tanjore katar

[fernando]

Looking at the Mughal examples shown here so far, one could easily beleive those were only tusk adornments for parade. Yet the example from the Met looks like the real thing; both absence of decoration and the brutality of its blade profile, hardly constitute an embelishment accessory. Do i understand this one had moved to the Royal Amouries ? Reason why i didn't stumble over it when i was at the Met in 2014 :shrug:.

In the so called Book of Duarte Barbosa, a traveller and navigator who has been in the Orient between 1500 -1516/17, having been a scrivener in Cananor, and some times interpreter of the local language (Malaiala); one who has later joined Fernão de Magalhães in the world circum-navigation, i can read in my transcription of his original old Portuguese version, a little hard to read and a little harder to translate:

" Reino de Cambaia, delRei de Guzarate.
The King of Guzarat is a very great Lord, so of people as of great estate and very rich land. He is a Moor, and so are his men of arms, brings a great court and gross cavalry. He is the owner of many horses and elephants, these which they come from Ceylon and the Malabar to sell in his reign, as horses there are plenty in his lands, so that with the elephants and horses he makes great war to the gentiles of of Guzarat, so called Resbutos (from sânscrit râjâputrâ), who still don't obey him, and there are also other Kings with whom some times he makes war; and in top of the elephants they build a wooden castle, that bring bows, arrows, muskets and other weapons, from where they fight their enemies, and are the said elephants so well taught in this that, as they engage fight with their tusks they wound the horses and people so hard that many soon run away and disrupt eachother, as also those from his own side. Of these, has continuously the King of Cambay four hundred, five hundred elephants (sic), very big and handsome, which cost 1 500 cruzados each, a little less a little more (sic) in the sea ports they bring them for sale."

On the other hand, although i could (could) admit that Alvaro Velho's version could be questioned, on basis on having 'bought' some local tale, i wouldn't question Garcia de Orta's integrity of facts.


.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Maybe the reason why so few tusk swords can be found is, that they were useless centuries before the swords.
So many of the tusk swords were likely melted down, and forged into sword blades.

[fernando]

Maybe the reason why so few tusk swords can be found is, that they were useless centuries before the swords.
So many of the tusk swords were likely melted down, and forged into sword blades.
Well, one perspective :cool: .

[Jim McDougall]

In accord with Jens' 'perspective':
From "Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths" ( Unsal Yucel, Istanbul, 2001, pp.10-11);

"...the problem of preservation was further exacerbated by the fact that five hundred years ago most medieval European and Islamic swords were valued primarily for their metal.
Little did they know then that these weapons would be deemed of immense historical importance today. Indeed it is pure chance that some even survived. In those days, good steel for swords was an extremely valuable commodity, obtainable only at great expense and effort. Therefore it is not surprising that it was customary among the Ottoman's to MELT DOWN AND REFORGE swords acquired as booty during war, or that they subjected the swords of their ancestors to the same fate".

It is noted further that during the reign of Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39) as he disbanded Janissaries to develop a new, more Europeanized standing army, the Arsenal (in Istanbul) lost its function and became a storehouse for old weapons. As mail and swords etc. were giving way to firearms and artillery, these materials which had been stored rather than being melted down simply sat rusting and in sorry state. It seems I read that often there were heaps of armor etc used as ballast in ships where on arrival in America the metal was simply scrapped. Many fortunate collectors grabbed this stuff for literally pennies.

While swords and edged weapons of earlier times were as noted, melted down, good numbers of still serviceable weapons were stored away in arsenals for possible ersatz use in future call. Unusual items such as the tusk swords, which would have been more in a novelty category would not have been considered worth keeping, especially as elephants in warfare had waned.
If these existed in any number, as has been suggested, it is most likely they fell into the scrap heap, and any which survived (QED) are few.

Regarding the very munitions grade example of apparent tusk sword shown as from the MET, every indication is that these would indeed be in accord with usable weapons. Whether effective or not, their character suggests they were intended for attachment to a tusk. As has been noted earlier, these are quite different than the other examples which seem more for parade or ceremonial use, particularly the Mughal examples from Mysore, which are so noted in Richardson (1999).

It does seem that, again using the term 'perspective' , as noted in one of my earlier posts an item from Elgood (2004) describing item #830 from the Tanjore armory which was apparantly a 'pata' (puttah) and thought to be wielded in an elephants trunk. Clearly the author of this notation had little understanding of Indian arms, and as discussed previously, the notion of an elephant with a sword in its trunk is fanciful, of not in my opinion, ridiculous.

How many contemporary writers might have seen swords such as pata, and presumed them to be elephant swords, and other writers carrying the notion further, presumed them to be mounted on tusks?

[fernando]

The history of war elephants is vast, as vast is the Indian territory. Adding those to the exuberance of Indian rulers, there definitely are elephant weapon implements for all tastes.
While the pair at the Royal Armouries is apparently functional and visibly (and admitedly) made to fit sawn-off tusks, there are two pairs from the dispersed Mysore arsenal which, besides being rather smaller and with embellished sockets, are built in such weak manner that show they only played a decorative role.
On the other hand, a pair of tusk covers with blades belong in the collection of the Junilee Museum in Bikaner, their date attributed to the XVIII century. This reminds me, as already previously did, the citation by Alvaro Velho of the multi-sword version; instead of being big sized single swords in each tusk, would be some socket-like device with a series of smaller blades.
One other pair with substantial features, certainly from an earlier period, formed part of the Moser-Charlottenfels collection, shown in the 1912 Leipzig catalogue.

Aparently the tusk swords at the Royal Armouries are part of a resident (partly restored) colossal elephant armour, acquired in India between 1798 and 1800, by the wife of the then Governor of Madras. I wouldn't know the reason why they are exhibited in a separate scenario.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Well noted on the 'weakly' but embellished pair from Mysore, as shown and described by Richardson (1999), which were apparently vestigial examples reflecting the heritage of the 'war elephant'.

From what I have understood, again in the very informative article by Thom Richardson in the "Royal Armouries Yearbook" of 1999 the elephant armour that was on display there came from Powis Castle collection, and the tusk swords were acquired from there later. It is noted that the armor and the pair of tusk swords were regarded as from different periods, and the sense was that the swords were likely notably earlier (the armor acquired mid 18th c.).
I think that perhaps as these were not of the same period it was deemed more prudent to display them separately.

It is interesting that having established that the tusks were sawn off, the term 'tusk covers' may well have been used whether they were just covers for exposed tusk or embellished with formidable appearing blades. The case seems unclear.

I had not noticed the instance with multiple blades, which again well displays the innovation of these Indian armourers, who always sought to impress their patrons with novelty weaponry.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I remember that Sunde, maybe fifty years ago, told me that he had an elephant armour in an Indian storehouse, but they would not let it go.

[ariel]

I am reasonably OK with the idea of tusk swords, provided they were just extensions of the tusk: they would improve on the penetrating ability of the tusk and at the same time would protect the tips of the tusks from mechanical damage inflicted on them by the contact with enemy’s metal protective devices. I agree with Jim’s disbelief in the veracity of Nikitin’s description of tusk swords.

But the more I imagine curved trunk swords and especially the chains attached to the trunk the more I doubt the wisdom of their use. Inevitably, wild dangling of either ( or both) such contraptions would run a significant risk of injuring elephant’s legs and tusks. War elephants were a).not easily replaceable and b). any painful injury to them would run a risk of running away from the enemy and squishing their own soldiers.

[fernando]

... 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.

[ariel]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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)...
Stay focused, Dmitriy ;) . Why the challenging tone ? Any astute one would see that Ariel's expression was not connected with your post !

[mahratt]

Stay focused, Dmitriy ;) . Why the challenging tone ? Any astute one would see that Ariel's expression was not connected with your post !

I apologize, but in my message there was no "challenging tone." Perhaps this is the inaccuracy of Google Translator. 1) I didn’t address specifically to Ariel, I turned to all participants 2) I really don’t see any monsters on the first image, but maybe this is due to lack of experience 3) I don’t understand why some participants see one image where the sword is clamped in the elephant trunk, and the image where chains are attached to the elephant trunk is ignored :)

[fernando]

... 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.

[fernando]

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 :cool:.


.

[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]

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?



Actually I think the term monsters perhaps is a sedgeway from the common practice in many references describing figures such as makara and yali on weaponry in India and other associated regions as 'grotesque'. These in iconography with the key mythological circumstances depicted are meant to be seen as 'fearsome' presumably in accord with religious dogma instances.


Here I do not beleive 'monsters' was meant in any pejorative way but as a manner of description much aligned with the 'grotesque' term often used.
What was clearly being described was the mythological figures being noted.


On the case of the chains on the elephants trunk, again we face the same dilemma as questioning why in the world chains and weights any more than swords or any weapon would be put on an elephants trunk. This is even more an effective question in the case of battle, where elephants could easily run amok and threaten anyone in their path. These are herd animals who are remarkably intelligent and if one should break lose, it would not be hard to imagine others following quickly.......regardless of human attempts to control.


I believe the notion of chains and weights used on elephant trunks presumably as flails is perhaps as much fantasy as that of a sword being wielded in that manner. The elephant was used primarily as a powerful transport for fighting men as well as a destructive shock action animal by its sheer bulk.....not as a trained fighting animal as many war horses were.

In my thinking the tusk swords are examples of Indian innovation in weaponry and used incidentally more as novelty elements in parade or ceremonial situations. As with many cases with certain weapons of unusual character, these were oftrn seen in diplomatic or embassy situations where the object was to impress the visitor....who then presumed the weapons (tusk swords in this case) to have actually been widely used in combat.


Many depictions of battles and events are artistically rendered by by artists who were not present and often years later. Typically they rely on the often embellished accounts of persons there or second to third hand information in addition to the license required to add effect to the images by the artist.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

......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]

….noting I had not yet seen these CREATIVE artists showing blazing cannon from an elephants howdah...
Just say the word ;) :D .


.

[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?

[fernando]

I think it is fantastic what we have found out about the elephant armouring, a lot due to Fernando - thank you very much...
My pleasure, Jens; i have also learnt a lot myself :cool:.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Although I do love the miniatures Fernando shows, you should be aware of, that they are not always correct - the miniatures. As there can always be the artistical elemnt, but the later miniatures are mostly correct - I think.

[fernando]

It is like some times artists have a combined manner to do things wrong in a standard way. You take the Simpsons cartoons, for one; they are designed with four fingers in their hands but the artists know they should have five.

[ariel]

Re: image of trunk sword in Moser 1912.
I have 1925 and 1955 editions: nothing there.

Anybody here has 1912 edition ?

I also went through a Russian book by K.S. Nosov “ Traditional weapons of India” EKSNO, Moscow 2011.

Apparently, the author visited several museums in India and the Leeds Armoury. He photographed mainly the entire glass-covered panels of various weapons and some individual examples. Virtually all photos are very small, and details are not discernible. A lot of pictures are republished from other sources ( quite a lot from Elgood) without attribution.
There is one drawing of a trunk sword of unknown provenance, dimensions and details. It looks just like one in Post # 14.
The text is intriguing:
( Translation is mine)

“Afanasij Nikitin reported that Indians attached big and heavy swords to trunks and tusks of elephants. Such practice is confirmed by other sources. For example, even at the beginning of the VI century one Sun Yun, a Chinese traveler, reported the existence of swords attached to the trunks of war elephants (Kistler, “War elephants”, Westport- London, 2006). In addition, other implements tied to the trunks were maces, scythes and even chains. Chains were as terrible as swords. Imagine an elephant swinging a trunk to which two or three segments of chain weighing about 100 kg each! The tusk swords were not less dangerous. There are known instances when an elephant was throwing its victim high in the air and then cut it in half with sword blades. Additionally, tusk swords were often covered with poison to frighten enemy combatants who did not dare to approach the elephant.
....Chains were also tied to elephant’s legs and those allowed “pegging” the animal to the ground if it started panicking” ( the latter refers to the image shown in Post #41)


Well, we have discussed fantastic stories coming from ancient authors. Regretfully, the modern ones are not better....

[silberschatzimsee]

This perhaps a more refutable version !


.


i feel sad for that animal :(

[fernando]

Re: image of trunk sword in Moser 1912.
I have 1925 and 1955 editions: nothing there.
Anybody here has 1912 edition ?...
I guess Jens has a copy !

[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.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Did they drug the elephants, like they did with the soldiers?


Moser 1912, plate XXIX, nos512-513. Weapon, to mount of the tooths of elephants.
Sorry for the bad quality.

[fernando]

Did they drug the elephants, like they did with the soldiers?...
Maybe not Jens. Not that they wouldn't consider doing so but, drugs often result in an unpredictable mode, like inverting their effects, which with such huge guys it would be rather inconvenient.

... Moser 1912, plate XXIX, nos512-513. Weapon, to mount of the tooths of elephants.
Sorry for the bad quality.
Still a good picture ... and certainly an enlightening one ... Ariel ?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Like Ariel, I too have the Moser 1955 catalogue, but although the dscriptions are in details sizes, and weights, the authors does not mention from where the weapons are, nor do they write anything about their age - a bit strange for a museum catalogue.

Another strange thing is, when you read the rules under which the collection was given - it should be on exhibit all the time, but so far, to my knowledge, it has been taken down twice for years - and still is.

[ariel]

I'd like to see people nailing chains with some kind of stakes to the ground while dealing with panicky animal running in each and every direction at maximal speed:-)
IMHO, the stakes would be pulled out withing a second, and the " nailers" would be squished.

[ariel]

Like Ariel, I too have the Moser 1955 catalogue, but although the dscriptions are in details sizes, and weights, the authors does not mention from where the weapons are, nor do they write anything about their age - a bit strange for a museum catalogue.

Another strange thing is, when you read the rules under which the collection was given - it should be on exhibit all the time, but so far, to my knowledge, it has been taken down twice for years - and still is.

The minute any object is given to the museum every wish of the donor goes out of the window. Putting objects in storage is the least of the unpleasantries: we see all the time "decommissioned" items sold left and right.

[fernando]

I'd like to see people nailing chains with some kind of stakes to the ground while dealing with panicky animal running in each and every direction at maximal speed:-)
IMHO, the stakes would be pulled out withing a second, and the " nailers" would be squished.
You are underestimating the intimacy between these animals and their tamers; soon as feel they are about to panic, they transmit them a body sign: hold (peg me) me or i'll run the heck out of here :eek:.

Now seriously, did you know elephants can be taught up to 1,000 oral commands ? Alvaro Velho, when describing how females are 'instructed' to entice males to fall into the traps, mentions the catchers speaking up such commands to them.

[fernando]

Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure :shrug:.

[mahratt]

Further elaborating in Dmitriy's post #41, either the same description of this 40X48 cms. work has found echo all over the Web or there is some consistence in the chains subject as per various sources. Other than the trunk chains, the bells, the armoured protection, all is accordingly. Also the chains in the animal's legs, to peg him to the ground in case he panics and tries to escape, are not an unique approach.
.

fernando, I don't think the chains were used much to tie the elephant. Most likely, the chain simply restrict elephant in motion (as it is now being with the horses). That is, did not give the elephant to run fast. Thus, the mahaut (driver elephant) was easier to control the elephant.

[mahratt]

Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure :shrug:.

Absolutely right! :)

[ariel]

Like Ariel, I too have the Moser 1955 catalogue, but although the dscriptions are in details sizes, and weights, the authors does not mention from where the weapons are, nor do they write anything about their age - a bit strange for a museum catalogue.


To understand it, we need to pay attention to the circumstances of Moser’s acquisition of items.

In Central Asia he was accompanied by Russian troops, the real rulers of the defeated Khanates. Locals were coming to him in droves with items for sale hoping to curry his favors in dealing with the Russians and by definition with local Khans. He did not know local languages and fully relied upon translators, especially his secretary, one Abbas Mirza. I referred to this situation and to its potential shortcomings long ago, when I looked at the origins of the word “karud”.
The 1955 edition is the most detailed one, utilizing Moser’s personal notes. But for example in the section of Persian arms many swords labeled as “Persian” are likely local Central Asian based on their baldrics. No doubt, the blades were bought in Persia, but the rest was done on the spot.

Moser’s sources did not have ( and were not interested in) academic provenancing and accurate dating. But the allure to present your stuff in the best ( most profitable) light to sell it to a poorly informed but rich and influential customer is universal and Moser was in the same position as Prince Saltykoff and countless European tourists in India. In a way, we might be grateful to the writers of his catalogue for omitting some information and sparing us many “ Arabian nights”- type entries.

Perhaps, a reassessment of his collection might be in order by specialists of Elgood’s class.

[ariel]

Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure :shrug:.

Perhaps. No doubt elephants were used as war machines and the means to control then were necessary and thus reasonably well developed. However, we are talking about the veracity of the descriptions of these methods.

I could find no mention of restricting their stride by adjusting chain length. On the contrary, leg chains were clearly described as “pegged” or “nailed” to the ground which, IMHO, is highly doubtful taking into account massive bulk and strength of the animals. I have read that when the animal went berserk, the mahout just severed his spinal cord adjacent to the skull.

My question, therefore, is whether we can discard these “ humane” descriptions? Do we have a right to propose ( or invent) alternative techniques ( chain length manipulation) in the absense of any evidence to their existence?

Pics in Post #77 have important relation to our topic, i. e. India. They are from SE Asia, where real war elephants were used as battle machines as late as 1895 against French.

Recommended book: Michael W. Charney “Southeast Asian Warfare 1300-1900”
Has a big chapter on war elephants.
Another technique would be, not pegging (as per caption author's conclusion) but shorten the chain within a quick sliding system, so that the animal can not run due to not being able to stretch his legs enough to a faster moving. This would not be an unprecedented procedure :shrug:.

Perhaps. No doubt elephants were used as war machines and the means to control then were necessary and thus reasonably well developed. However, we are talking about the veracity of the descriptions of these methods.

I could find no mention of restricting their stride by adjusting chain length. On the contrary, leg chains were clearly described as “pegged” or “nailed” to the ground which, IMHO, is highly doubtful taking into account massive bulk and strength of the animals.
My question, therefore, is whether we can discard these descriptions? Do we have a right to propose ( or invent) alternative techniques in the absense of any evidence to their existence?

Book by M.W. Charney” Southeast Asian Warfare 1300-1900” has a very big chapter about war elephants.
Salient points:
-mad elephants either wrecked havoc on their own troops and ran away from the battlefield or were killed;
- no mention of any nailing to the ground or adjusting the length of leg chains as a means of control;
-at ~1650 the use of tusk swords ( Pikes) was recorded;
- Bowery ( 1905) mentions that Sumatran animals had a 4.5-6 m chain tied to their front leg and the elephant coiled it around his trunk. That was their only weapon. Flinging the armored trunk laid low both men and horses. No free-hanging chains are mentioned;
- riders might have been armed with muskets or small swivel-guns;
- their use was limited by their skittishness and predictability: one society after another ceased to employ them as war machines;
-introduction of large caliber firepower eliminated the use of war animals by 18 century;

[mahratt]

Sometimes just need to carefully look at the miniatures that were drawn at the time when war elephants were used. On the images everything is clearly visible. Although, of course, it would be better to have the opportunity to refer to the recollections of eyewitnesses, who themselves saw the peculiarities of the use of war elephants.

[ariel]

Regretfully, all the materials discussed here suggest very strongly that that the miniatures showing fancy trunk swords and kilometers of leg chains are .. ehhh.. how to say it mildly? ..artistic license and that Nikitin’ et al accounts of 100-500 kg tusk swords are physically impossible. Travelers to new and exotic places always exaggerate and fantasize: men with dog heads, armed monkeys, half-men/half-boars, stone forts on animal’s backs, numbers of gorgeous women they had sex with, size of fish they caught, casino winnings etc

As they say, show me the money, i.e. physical examples. Up till now we saw short-bladed tusk daggers and nothing more.

[mahratt]

photo

[fernando]

This is more in a way to distinguish what period chroniclers 'saw' and what they were only 'told' of, and their candid posture about such difference.

The actual Magnum Opus of this brilliant phisician was not the "ASIA" decades but Colóquio dos simples e drogas he cousas medicinais da Índia, published in Goa in 1563. Composed of 57 coloquiums where he answers questions asked by a ficticious visitor, Dr. Ruano, about his acquired knowledge of India.
In colloquy 21 - Do Ebur ou marfim e do elefante ...
Ruano: From what disease elephants die and what is their use in these lands ?
Orta:They are very melancholic and more afraid in the night than during the day and when they sleep at night it seems as they see fearful things and set themselves free, the way to prevent it is their naires (*) to sleep on top of them and keep speaking to them so that they don't fall asleep. They have several camaras (**): many times and other times strong jealousy and fall great fury in that they brake their chains and do a lot of damage through where they go by ..... As per their service besides the work of carrying and move the artillery from one place to another they serve the Kings in battle, and there are Kings who have 1 000 elephants and others less and other times they go to war armored .... here comes the part already mentioned of the tusks weapons resembling plow irons and all .... i saw them battling what i saw them doing wrong is not other thing than put people in disorder and make them flee, some times i am told they run away and cause more disruption on their own that in the opponents, this i haven't seen.
Ruano: Is there another way they fight ?
Orta: Yes, but this is one by one with their naires that teach them trained on top of them and is a very crude battle, where they wound each other with their teeth, one attacking and the other parrying they wound each other bravely and often they may be seen striking such great blows that they hurt their foreheads that one of them falls death on the ground, and there is a Portuguese worth of faith (***) who told me he saw a very powerful elephant die from a thrust that one other gave him. They also fight if they get them drunk (****) and flee, an they sometimes grab a man with their trunk an make him in pieces, as i saw a few times.

(*) As they call the elephant's master/tamer in the Malabar. In the Deccan they call them Peluane.
(**) In modern Portuguese this means chambers, but i don't figure out what it means in this context.
(***) Reliable.
(****) Jens, not drugged but ...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Fernando.
The picture is an elephant fight before Muhammad Shah c. 1730-40.
Mughal Paintings. Art and Stories, The Cleveland Museum of Art, 2016, p. 252.

[ariel]

Jens and Fernando,
I think we ought to take into account that handling of elephants during peace or war must have been different.
For example, post #97 shows animals in holding pens/ stables or entertainment- driven pitched fights. It would be reasonably logical to assume that the ambience was directed at keeping them as controlled as possible. Chains were truly needed. One does not want to lose a precious animal just for fun.

However, on the battlefield aggression was prized, even at the expense of potential danger of loss of control. Freedom of movement was necessary, blood-thirsty behavior was encouraged. In this regard elephants were not different from human soldiers: tightly controlled, marching up and down in unison on the parade, but whipped to the point of frenzy during the real battle. In the latter case the attacking force could not and should not be restrained.
This explains Charney’s mention of elephants being “ drunk or drugged” (sic!) before the battle to reduce their sensitivity to fear and pain. Restricting their movements was counterproductive ( just like humans). The price was high: multiple sources report loss of control, turning around with destruction of one’s own forces in an attempt to flee the battlefield etc. If that happened, it was cheaper and unavoidable to kill them rather than administering gentle psychological interventions. Again, it was not different from from human fighters: soldiers on the battlefield are presumed to be killed anyway and are expendable. Sacrificing a unit for some tactical advantage or for preventing general panic and rout was and often still is routine at all times. One did not think about saving and re-educating fighters for the next battle: the current one is what counts.

Controlling frenzied elephants is an exercise in futility: they are too big and strong. This is why males in rut and “musth” were not used during the war: even in peaceful times they were held in isolation and tight confinement for up to 3 months every year ( again, Charney).

Thus, I am very doubtful about the use of movement restricting leg chains during real battles: an attacking elephant should be given maximal freedom to speedily strike the enemy, but an animal posing danger to its own army has to be neutralized on the spot. War is not a time for niceties. That is why sources mention the final task of mahout: putting a stake into uncontrollable animal’s brain or severing its spinal cord.

[fernando]

Points taken Ariel ... and undisputed; restraining chains for captivity and restricted movimentation, such as parades or fighting sessions.
This brings a question; how do they 'store' elephants ? We can follow Alvaro Velho's description of how they teach the female to go find a male and entices him to follow her and falls into the disguised trapping pit; where he spends six days before they start feeding him, firstly with little food and more each following day until he starts coming to eat. This goes on for a month, when they start bringing him food while they soften him, up to when they lay (with him) on the pit ground. And this they do for as many days as needed to lay their hands on his teeth. After which, they go down and throw some gross chains on his feet, in having them placed they teach him so well that nothing they miss except to talk. And then they keep them in stables, like horses; and a good elephant is worth 2 000 cruzados.

Could the term used by Garcia de Orta, camaras (chambers) be equivalent to Velho's stables ?

However if we consider such stables resource to be consistent with the needs to lodge a couple civilian animals for working purposes, how would they do with a thousand war ones ? Open air, chains by the thousand ... pegged ?

Another subject yet to be (more) clarified is that of the use of whipping chains in war elephants trunks. It might be pure fantasy but, there is no smoke without fire ... or is there ?

PS:
Time to remind that, ongoing translations are passive of unwilling flaws; some of the posted episodes are picked from the original post-medieval scripts which contain, for a non expert, several 'awkward' expressions; and still one has to interpreter them and then convert them into a non native idiom; no language degree here. Efforts go for a reasonable transmission of the essential parts in context.

[ariel]

Re. whipping chains:

I decided to conduct an experiment: found a thick rope, and held it in my right hand leaving about a foot loose. Then I started swinging my arm, left and right, up and down. About every third swing the rope hit my arm. Then I increased the length to ~ 2 feet: 2 out of 3 times I got hit in the head or in my right arm ( an equivalent of a trunk).

Thus, any elephant doing the same would hurt his trunk and head mercilessly.

Any forumite wishing to repeat the experiment with a medium size iron chain is welcome to it. Just do not say I did not warn you.

This is why Charney’s description of a chain attached to one leg, wrapped around the trunk with the end of it secured by the tip of the trunk seems more sound to me. In effect, the elephant would hit the enemy with a very heavy armored trunk without a risk of hurting itself by the free segment of the chain.

[fernando]

Ariel, what i admire more (most) in your endeavor is the risk you took to rupture your biceps ;) .
On the other hand, it could either be my poor(est) english or the method Mr. Charney described requires some juggling abilities from the part of the elephant :o.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel, it is an interesting experiment you have made.
When reading the description the old travelers give they are a bit loose, as to how the chain 'trick' was made, so it may have been as you say, the chain was wrapped around the trunk - an armoured trunk so to say.

[mahratt]

Very interesting experiment :) But the only thing he proves is that the person who does this experiment is not an elephant ;)

[ariel]

Fernando,
My guess is that the chain might have been wrapped around by the handlers, and teaching the creature to hold the free end in its trunk tip might have been relatively easier than teaching it to endure self-inflicted pain.

The bottom line, we shall never know exactly the particulars of elephants' training for war, their tactics, equipment, problems etc. We can only surmise and make our best guesses assuming that our logic is similar to the native one. However, when I try to read Elgood's book on Hindu rituals or discussions in our Kris Forum, I understand how far apart we are....

This art died more than 300 years ago, and we are left with only occasional hearsay accounts by European travellers and snippets of old local stories, both of unproven veracity. The locals did not leave us much: Charney ruefully describes virtual absence of written accounts from SE Asia due to humid climate and insects. Even more durable antiquities fare not better: I went to the Royal Palace in Bangkok to see their collection of old weapons. They were all nicely arranged outside in the open shelving and covered in red rust. Ain't no Louvre or British Library, folks....

[ariel]

Ariel, it is an interesting experiment you have made.
When reading the description the old travelers give they are a bit loose, as to how the chain 'trick' was made, so it may have been as you say, the chain was wrapped around the trunk - an armoured trunk so to say.

I learned the art of constructing an experiment from my mentor and the stories about Enrico Fermi: make it simple, stupid:-)

During the first test of atomic bomb Fermi stood some kilometers away from the explosion site with pieces of torn paper in his fist. He raised his hand and opened his fist at the moment of the arrival of the explosion wave : the paper pieces flew away. He looked how far away they flew, made a couple of calculations in his head and announced the power of the explosion. His answer was >10 kiloton. Actually, it was 18.6.

He was famous for his power of estimation of unknown phenomena using intuitive information. His most famous question to Ph.D. candidates in physics at the University of Chicago was: how many piano tuners are in Chicago? No Yellow Pages were allowed.

I learned a lot from these lessons, but still wish I was half as smart.....

[Ian]

This has been an interesting and "freewheeling" discussion but has strayed a long way from the original topic of "elephant swords." Chains and how to restrain elephants, etc. is some distance from the OP. Perhaps we could get back to Jens initial ideas.


Ian.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I agree with Ian, and hope the discussion will come back to the elephant swords.
How would an elephant hold a sword?
Could the sword have had a 'katar hilt', which would have been more natural for an elephant to hold?

[ariel]

Question:

Except for a cockamamie painting in post #42 ( the one with half-human monsters) and an even cockamamier tall tale that Afanasij Nikitin planned to tell his Tver neighbors in the middle of nowhere, do we have any reliable suggestion that trunk swords ever existed?

Again, I go to Wiki:

Kentar is an Indian and Arabic modification of Latin Centennarius further modified intoGreek kentenarion and Arabic kentar.
In different countries at different times it’s value was either 100 lbs or 100 kg.
Then, direct quote:
“ In India and Albania (kuintal), the quintal as equivalent to 100 kilogram was imported via Arabic influence and is a standard measurement of mass for agricultural products”

See post #6: estimate of Procopius was exactly the same.

So, are we to believe in 100 kg swords. attached to tusks and to trunk?

Any info on 100 kg patas or katars?

[mahratt]

It is very interesting for me, is the transmission of incorrect information - is it an inability to use the Internet or a conscious desire to distort the facts? (I am writing in advance for moderators that there are no insults in my words. This is a rhetorical question posed to the infinity of internet space :))

I do not dispute the fact that in some countries, the kentar could be 100 kg. But Afanasy Nikitin was a Russian and used the Russian measures of weight, recognised at the time.

Kentar is a Russian measure of mass, weight, introduced in the 15th century. In the 15-17 centuries, Kontar was equal to 2.5 pounds or 40.95 kg.
100 kg and 41 kg is a noticeable difference.

http://sainfo.ru/units/info.php?t=400215

[Jim McDougall]

I agree with Ian and Jens, the topic has freewheeled far from the original topic, which has often seemed troubling in many instances where aspects that indirectly applied to the topic at hand became the focus.

With the evidence for tusk swords apparently exhausted , I suppose it was inevitable that the scope expanded, but perhaps changing the title to 'use of elephants in warfare' would better serve the thread as it has evolved. The point is, just how much latitude should be extended in a discussion with ancillary factors brought in?

While the analogies of other instances of elephant weaponry were brought up it was primarily to test the feasability and credence of whether tusk swords were actually in abundant use, or fantasies appearing in art work.

As Jens has mentioned regarding the case for elephants holding swords in trunks, this seems very much an instance of either exaggeration or misconstrued account, much as most certainly the 'discussion' on erratic weights. If someone simply exclaimed.....the elephants HAD swords!!!!
Then how much would it take to PRESUME the elephant was holding a sword in its means of grasping. The exaggeration of weight of swords (either on tusks or held in the truck) would possibly be heavy in accord with the size and weight of these huge animals.

The question remains.......just how much EVIDENCE is there to support swords being used BY elephants? The profoundly digressed discussion has mostly revealed the questionability of the artwork and period accounts, but has not really provided much more on the tusk swords.

[fernando]

Jim i would be rather surprised if you didn't enter at this stage, as in moments that you usually find opportune.
I dare say that your attributing the posted topic colateral research findings a label of 'profound digression' is a bit 'over gauged', even judging by your own inferrement that the tusk sword theme was exhausted; that which takes a short step to discern that, the conversation would risk to drop dead if it weren't for the (quote) ancillary factors which were brought to discussion, to which punctual feedback from the thread author took place. For one who spent hours paging books and burn his brains trying to translate and bring historic material to the thread, this is rather frustrating.
Allow me to correct your assumption (in bold) that there is no evidence of the use of war elephant swords. This is not a recurrent approach only because there is such evidence, as here (and not only) well established; only its precise method, or multiple ones, remain to be clarified but, isn't that what so often occurs to us Westerners, with phenomena that took place in the Orient centuries ago ?

Your humbly ...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you for your posts so far, but I find it is time to stop now.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I know I asked that the posts should stop, but I find the text below too interesting not to post it.



In The Itinerary of Ludovico di Varthema of Bologna from 1502 to 1508. First published 1510. The Argonaut Press, 1928. This copy by Da Capo Press, published 1970.
The author describes below his travels in India [here from Vijayanagar] in the early 16th century, and on page 51 he describes elephants at war.
"When an elephant goes to battle he carries a saddle, in the same manner as they are born by mules of the kingdom of Naples, fastened underneath by two iron chains. On each side of the said saddle he carries a large and very strong wodden box, and in each box there go three men. On the neck of the elephant, between the boxes, they place a plank the size of half a span [about 10 cm], and between the boxes and the plank a man sits astride who speaks to the elephant, for the said elephant possesses more inteligence than any other animal in the world; so there are in all seven persons who go upond the said elephant: and they go armed with shirts of mail, and with bows and lances, swords and shields. And in like manner they arm the elephant with mail, especially the head and the trunk. They fasten to the trunk a sword two braccia long [one braccia is from 46 - 71 cm], and as thick and as wide as the hand of a man. And in that way they fight. And he who sits upon his neck orders him: "Go forward", or "Turn back", Strike this one", Strike that one", Do not strike any more", and he understands as though he were a human being."

[fernando]

Hello Jens,
I wonder whether you have suggested that it was time to stop posting in this thread beause of critics (read complaints) over freewheeling material or if you were yourself tired with such contextually inevitable digressions.

Now if i may ...Your present citation of Ludovico di Barthema describing war elephants in the kingdom of Bisnaga (Vijayanagara), while bringing nothing particulary new on the subject, confirms something that the skepticals would reject as being a real fact and, at same time, shows consistency with approaches alread contained (even quoting Barthema) in this very thread;the inteligence of the animal, his ability to understand human comand voices, the sword/s he carries in battle and all.
The difference in the manner the animal is sadlled, mounted and equiped with weapons (swords) may obviously depend upon the region of the Indin sub-continent where this takes place ... or even differ from one arsenal to another.

If this is not too soon, enjoy a Merry Christmas :cool: :).

[ariel]

Now, with these data ( and hints) we can approximate the weight of an “ elephant sword”.
Using Enrico Fermi’s approach ( guesses will correct each other), let’s assume that the average length of braccia is 55 cm, i. e. Blade 110 cm long, width of 10 cm ( width of human palm) and thickness 2 cm ( thickness of human palm), the volume of the blade will be ~2200 cm3. Steel has density of 7.85 g/cm3. Thus the weight of the sword is ~17 kg. Quite manageable, especially for the elephant, but massive enough to cut a soldier thru and thru.

Nikitin, as I suspected , exaggerated a bit even by Russian standards, but this is common to all travelers. Still, it was not an Indian kentar.

Now, we just need a Bollywood movie showing the elephant in action. Blood and gore galore, followed by song and dance on the body-strewn battlefield! I have popcorn ready.

[ariel]

If this is not too soon, enjoy a Merry Christmas :cool: :).

Fernando,
It’s never too soon for good wishes! Same to you and yours!

But... we have Thanksgiving coming next Thursday and are sentenced to chew on a mass of semidigested cardboard popularly known as “turkey”.

This year I am making Leg o’Lamb! With dried apricots and cherries, a touch of Jamaican Jerk ( don’t tell my daughter!), a lot of garlic ( do tell her that!) and a twig of rosemary on the side.
Side dish: basmati rice with real Persian saffron and a lot of almonds.

Our son is bringing over his fiancée. Proposed her month ago, and got enthusiastic “yes”. Yuoo-hooo!!!

Memo to myself: thou shall not overcook lamb.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, I could not bring anything other than what I have read. I am sorry if you dont find it interesting.
All the best for Christmas and New Year to you.



Ariel, yes your weight suggestion could be correct - about 17 kg.
I think most woud have lost their fighting spirit, if knocked at the body or on the head, by an elephant with such a sword.
The dish you are making sounds fantastic:-).

[fernando]

Do i see some misunderstanding with the braccia interpretation ?

One braccia, italian for fathom, is equivalent to approx. 1,83cm.
Reason why i commentd in my post #63 that two fatoms, allegedly mentioned by Barthema, was surely an exageration.
In a copy of this traveller's Itinerary translated to Castillian in 1526 by Christoval de Arcos, the author mentions 'dos codos' (two cubits) which gives us a more rational length for such swords; a cubit measuring 44-52 cms.

Hopefuly no criticism pops up for freewheeling entries :rolleyes: .


,

[ariel]

Kontar was equal to 2.5 pounds or 40.95 kg.


http://sainfo.ru/units/info.php?t=400215
Russian kentar was equivalent to 2.5 POODS , not pounds. Pound is 0.45 kg, ; Russian pood is 16 kg.

[ariel]

Fernando,
Your info re. Braccia as cubit just validates Fermi’s approach:-)
15-20 kg is a realistic number.

Personally, I like freewheeling entries. They relax the atmosphere and add some human touch. Second, quite often they turn discussions into unexpected and very productive directions: Jens quotation gave us an opportunity to quantify the size of elephant swords.

[fernando]

Ariel, i confess i wouldn't realize that being a Chef was within the range of your abilities. I take it that skipping the plastified turkey and opt for (not over) cooking leg of lamb is a strategy to captivate your future daughter in law ;).
We don't have Thanksgiving day over here ... but we do have lamb, basmati, lots of smashed garlic and lots of spices (that our navigators brought from India whereabouts).

[ariel]

Ariel, i confess i wouldn't realize that being a Chef was within the range of your abilities. I take it that skipping the plastified turkey and opt for (not over) cooking leg of lamb is a strategy to captivate your future daughter in law ;).
We don't have Thanksgiving day over here ... but we do have lamb, basmati, lots of smashed garlic and lots of spices (that our navigators brought from India whereabouts).

Yup, you guessed it:-)
And do not short-change Mozambique’s Piri-Piri!

[fernando]

... Thus the weight of the sword is ~17 kg. Quite manageable, especially for the elephant, but massive enough to cut a soldier thru and thru ...
A bit too heavy, though ... despite Fermi's formula. No hollow parts ?

[fernando]

... And do not short-change Mozambique’s Piri-Piri!... Which i and my wife* are fans of; half dozen varities in the spices chest.
*She is a Caucasian but has grown up in Moçambique ... were she caught me, during my army service.

[ariel]

A bit too heavy, though ... despite Fermi's formula. No hollow parts ?

Well, no real sword is an ideal rectangle. It might have been curved and narrowing toward the tip, might have had fullers, the “thickness” likely reflects the back and could have had narrowed down toward the edge etc.
You are correct: 17 kg might be an idealized maximum, that’s why I put a range 15-20 kg.

[kronckew]

For your continued enjoyement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpx4QTeMKk

[Jens Nordlunde]

Very funny Knocknew, you really must be a person with a lot of humor:-).


As none of us have an elephant sword, we are guessing, but when it comes to the weight, I think Ariel is close.


Fernando, you must temember that measurers/weights were more floating centuries ago - and we are speaking about the 16th century.

[fernando]

...Fernando, you must temember that measurers/weights were more floating centuries ago - and we are speaking about the 16th century...
You are right Jens; i am aware of that.
I was more focusing on the particularity that each interpreter mentions measure units that are so distant in length from each other. Braces have nothing to do with cubits, no matter their floating through time.


.

[fernando]

From Fernão Mendes Pinto (1509-83) "PEREGRINAÇÃO", page 184 ...
As went, two hundred elephants armed with castles, and war panouras, which are the swords that they carry in their tusks when they battle ...
It looks legitimate to conclude that, swords were either 'socketed' to their tusks. or fastened to their trunk... depending on the local fashion.


.

[ariel]

I am with Fernando.
Elephant tusk swords are well documented. But I have never seen an authenticated trunk sword.
Functionally, it makes sense: attaching a blade to a solid and immovable tusk eliminates the danger of self-injury.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In the quote in post 106 Ludovico di Varthema must have seen a trunk sword used according to the way he descrubes it.
I have not seen a trunk sword either, so maybe they were melted down when they went out of use, but the tusk swords may still have been used at parades - who knows?

[fernando]

Whether trunk swords were melted or are kept in private collections based on their rarity, or even forgotten in musem sub-basements, is something to admit.
Varthema is much too specific for us to reject the possibility/probability that such version also took place; neither its confusion with the dual tusk swords seems to be plausible.
Look at (my attempted) Castillian translation ...


" The weapon that the elephant carries is only his trunk; which they call Manum. On said trunk they tie an unsheathed sword, two cubits long, and fat and wide like the palm of a hand ... "

What do you say, Ariel ?

[ariel]

Beats me...
I just do not understand why don’t we have any physical “ trunk” swords?

We have living examples of outdated temple swords, super heavy training swords, exotic tribal swords, variety of sousson pattas, - i.e. by definition rare examples that were superseded by the widely used ones, but no “trunk” swords.

Fighting elephants were used for centuries and in humongous numbers. And still, we have physical examples of “ tusk” swords but not “ trunk “ ones.

Perhaps, the local medieval chapter of Indian PETA banned their use and destroyed all the specimens:-))))))

[kronckew]

Military Elephants when they die, like Vikings, must die holding their sword in their trunk and are thus buried with them in the elephant graveyard, secretly, by the other martial elephants, a place which no living human is allowed to discover. From there they Enter the elephant equivalent of Valhalla, where each Male elly has a herd of 72 Females and a horde of human servants to cater to his every whim. As long as they have a sword in their trunk, which is locked with a random 1024 character and number combination (with special symbols) password only the elephant can remember. Thus Elephant trunk swords do not seem to exist in the Human world. It is the will of Ganesh.

[fernando]

Wayne ... please !

[fernando]

... Fighting elephants were used for centuries and in humongous numbers. And still, we have physical examples of “ tusk” swords but not “ trunk “ ones...
Could it be that tusk swords had a more uniform shape, more subject of adornment and all, and lived longer due to their later use in parades and escorts ... and trunk swords were more of a raw and random implement, more doomed to disappear into scrap ?
Indeed without a living example we can only speculate.

On the other hand, some of these period chroniclars were sharp narrators; difficult to digest that they confused trunks with tusks.
Still we face situations like:

Linschoten, a Dutch adventurer that visited those areas aboard Portuguese ships (1570-80), from whom he 'borrowed' significant navigation notions:

...Those from Ceylon (Sri lanka) and Pegu (Burmania) use elephants in war; they bind swords to their teeth, and above them go five or six men with beasts, arches and pots of fire; but if an elephant goes back, the others follow and run over their own troops...

João Ribeiro, a Captain who has been in command of the Portugueses forces in the island (1685-93), having written "HISTORIC FATALITY OF CEYLON ISLAND"

... The King of Candia, when wiling to attack us, brought in the front of his army some elephants with whom he could break us, and they placed in their trunks shapeless swords the width of a hand and each brought on top two mahouts, so that we killed one, the other remained...


So here have two guys writing about the same island, both mentioning elephants warmed with swords, however with a distinct system.

.

[ariel]

Tough to argue with eye witnesses.

[Jim McDougall]

This is a good point......just how much fantasy or hubris laden license is included in the art depicting events and battles of hundreds of years before?
We know that many famous artworks depicting important battles were often painted many years after the events, and more current research has often revealed profound differences in actual circumstances vs. the portrayal in art.

In the articles cited here, the Shahnama (of Shah Tahmasp written c. 1590) is said to depict the Battle of Pashan in a painting which shows elephants using tusk swords, but it is noted that the event took place hundreds of years before. Other references claim that the use of tusk swords go back over a thousand years. It is here usually noted that these times precluded miniatures which might have illustrated these tusk swords contemporarily.

Richardson suggests that by lack of inclusion of tusk swords in the well known Mughal records of arms in the Ain-I-Akbari also c. 1590s may well have been because these were out of use by then. Perhaps also, they were not significantly used enough to warrant inclusion in this comprehensive record.


Is it possible that the dangerously deadly tusks of the elephants were compared to swords as they attacked in battle? and this became construed into actual swords attached. Why would a sword be used to supplant an already dangerous natural weapon? I think of descriptions of weapons in India's array of innovative weapons which are described using many animals natural defenses such as bagh-nakh; bichwa; tigers tail; and others.....could such converse portrayal be the case?


With the fact that survival of so many weapon forms, particularly of the 15th c. onward, why would only several of these pairs of tusk 'swords' be left? especially if 'thousands' of them were produced.

This situation reminds me very much of the case in the 17th c. of the famed "Winged Hussars of Poland", and the curious wings mounted on the backs of their cuirass. It was supposed that these would make terrifying noise as these hussars charged in battle, and of course many artworks depicted these fantastic warriors in battle with their wings. However, it seems that research suggests these were primarily a parade device, and worn ceremoniously, a case of course often debated still.

Could these tusk swords have been in the same way, ceremoniously used and their fearsome appearance extended into artwork depicting earlier battles where elephants were used in battle?

Regarding the use of a sword on the trunk, that as we discussed in 2008 here, would be disastrous, as if the tusk swords would not be trouble enough. Elephants are remarkably intelligent animals and fearfully volatile. This I believe is one of the purposes of the weapon/implement called the ankus. The mahout can use it as a goad but it is bladed as well allegedly to dispatch the elephant if out of control.
I am unclear on the use of weights on the trunk as these would be as deadly as the other.


Just wanted to bump this entry back up rather than to try to reiterate what I said before.
It seems to me the TUSK swords were in place in some degree, possibly more of a parade element, and not widely employed. Still the great paucity of surviving examples suggests they may have been 'recycled'.

With the TRUNK sword mystery, as I have noted, I cannot see the possible purpose of arming an elephant with a weapon which swung about at the whim or exacerbation of these huge animals would endanger both friend and foe. It does seem that weights and chains were placed on the trunks, perhaps to restrict the flailing of this appendage, but that sounds questionable as well given the strength of these.

While the period narratives added do suggest the elephants 'armed to the teeth' (pun intended) they certainly meant swords bound to the TUSKS not the teeth, and I wonder if similar misperception might apply in the next account pertain to swords held in TRUNKS. It seems well known that hyperbole laden descriptions are often describing events in exotic circumstances, so 'eye witness' accounts are not necessarily the most reliable evidence.

It does seem that most of the accounts of elephants in warfare agree that the volatility of the demeanor in these huge animals in the explosive nature of combat was a definite threat to all in the area. It was bad enough having them trampling back through the ranks WITHOUT a flailing sword in the trunk.

[kronckew]

...While the period narratives added do suggest the elephants 'armed to the teeth' (pun intended) they certainly meant swords bound to the TUSKS not the teeth, and I wonder if similar misperception might apply....

Tusks are elongated, continuously growing front teeth, usually but not always in pairs, that protrude well beyond the mouth of certain mammal species. They are most commonly canine teeth, as with warthogs, pigs, and walruses, or, in the case of elephants, elongated incisors.

Thus 'armed to the teeth' is correct :) especially with a chain of translations from indian languages to western ones and then to english here. Elephant swords were mounted on teeth, the TUSK ones, or front incisors if you want to be more precise.

[fernando]

Tusks are elongated, continuously growing front teeth, usually but not always in pairs, that protrude well beyond the mouth of certain mammal species. They are most commonly canine teeth, as with warthogs, pigs, and walruses, or, in the case of elephants, elongated incisors.

Thus 'armed to the teeth' is correct :) especially with a chain of translations from indian languages to western ones and then to english here. Elephant swords were mounted on teeth, the TUSK ones, or front incisors if you want to be more precise.
What a serious shot Wayne; i envy you for antecipating my entry.
In fact, there was no such thing as TUSKS at the time ... nor in context.The period term commonly used by those guys for those things portruding from the elephants (and others) mouth, was TEETH, as is still currently used today over here.The term used in Malay, the then local lingua franca, was [PALO], and in Calecut FALEY, terms familiar with Alvaro Velho, for one, who wrote them down in his work.
... Whether the versions written by the various travellers, chroniclars and soldiers of the time, some who have being close/st to such scenarios, each one at his time, were of fruit of their romantic imagination. Captain João Ribeiro was a soldier, who has actually faced war elephants; i don't think he needed to romanticize his description. Look at the thorough manner he describes, in the first person, the way to frighten the attacking elefants, by means of using 'fire lances' (the predecessor of rockets ) handled by tough soldiers who pointed at their eyes, so they would turn back and strike their own army in the same way they were attacking the enemy. We know from other historians that (quoting) for as much as they 'blanketed' the elephants to protect them from enemy's throwing lances etc, their eyes would have to be uncovered, as we also read about (quoting) losing ( don't recall which animals) in fire would result in their tumultuous retreat.
After reading all such exaustive enhances, not all of us are ready to assume that all these period folks were combined to transform into plausibilty the same recurrent hearsay/s, as they would have all been harvesting in the same grapevine.
As a fait divers, don't underestimate the elephant's TRUNK (another borrowed term) ability; considering that it is composed of up to 40 000 (forty thousand) mussles while us, vulgar humans, only have 600 in the whole body. So they sure would know how to handle and strike things (swords) in a 'professional manner'. I think of my sissi coleagues in the army whom, during hand greanade throwing trains, would damage their arms.

[Jim McDougall]

Tusks are elongated, continuously growing front teeth, usually but not always in pairs, that protrude well beyond the mouth of certain mammal species. They are most commonly canine teeth, as with warthogs, pigs, and walruses, or, in the case of elephants, elongated incisors.

Thus 'armed to the teeth' is correct :) especially with a chain of translations from indian languages to western ones and then to english here. Elephant swords were mounted on teeth, the TUSK ones, or front incisors if you want to be more precise.

Ahah!! Now that reveals my total lack of specific knowledge of mammal dental conditions Dr. Kronckew!!! :) I think this would constitute a 'fox paws (faux pas) on my part, and my pun was actually not so punny. I am puzzled by the note that these elongated teeth do not always extend in pairs though. Some mammals have only one tusk, or possibly more than two?

While my comments on the description of attaching swords (more accurately, blades ,as these are not technically with a hilt to be held by a human hand) are apparently incorrect as far as attachment to the teeth also known as tusks on elephants in particular......I believe my observations to the nasal extension (?) known as a trunk (in elephants) having any sort of 'sword' (blade) attached still apply.
It is great to learn more on this topic with these zoological elucidations! :)
Seriously, thank you Wayne, very well noted.

[fernando]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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 :D ).

[Jens Nordlunde]

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?

[fernando]

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 ...


.

[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.

[fernando]

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]

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.

[kronckew]

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]

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]

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.

[fernando]

... 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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[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 ?

[Jim McDougall]

This is a great discussion, and while not wishing to digress, often when involved in heavy research or discussion, I wander a bit for comic relief, I think much as Wayne does with his brilliant humor.
If this might be indulged for a moment :)

[fernando]

It is utterly undeniable that elephants have been used in battle per tot saecula. There are zillions of comprehensive records, no matter more or less fantasy spiced by writers.
... No matter with or without accessory apparatuses, or just running over people, whether marching towards the enemy or going into panic and reverse their march towards their own. After all, early cannons were so unpredictable that they would often wind up blasting the shooters and all around, but still they used them.

[Jim McDougall]

There is absolutely no dispute that elephants have been used in warfare for a VERY long time (great Latin phrase there tot saecula! love to learn). The only point I was trying to make is that there were certain concerns in using them given the potential for disastrous outcome in doing so.

The use of elephants in work situations, transport, hauling etc. is more logical in field logistics, while the volatility of combat effects virtually all involved, and the size of these animals rendered them a potent threat to all around.

Very good analogy on the cannon, which were indeed dangerous to the gunners themselves, much in the same manner that were most firearms to those firing them. Powerful explosions literally blowing up guns took a toll on the men using them in more cases than have surely ever been recorded.

There is I think substantial agreement here that elephants were indeed present in combat circumstances in degree, but in many accounts of their use as 'weapons' there have been 'backfires'. The case for blades being attached to tusks seems also agreed, in degree, with the only question being, just 'how much so' and were these more for parade purposes in later times in the manner of many weapon forms becoming more vestigially present.

Once again, I just continue wondering just how feasible or logical is putting a sword blade on the trunk of an elephant, despite suggestions in the literature. There is no doubt people did VERY questionable things as far as combative devices using creatures. ..
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.

[kronckew]

...
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.

[mahratt]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

... 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.

... 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 :shrug:


.

[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]

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]

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]

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!!!!! :)

[ariel]

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 :rolleyes: .


.

[fernando]

... 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 ;)

.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

... 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'!

[Milogow360]

The oldest mentioning of tusk blades was from Timur biography. Of his invasion of the Delhi Sultanates.

[ariel]

Can you post the text and its source?

[rysays]

I have some limited experience working with antique Indian & mammoth ivory and while it's very strong, it's also somewhat brittle. When ivory breaks, the cracks can chip & spread like a split log. I assume a elephant tusk broken close to the root would be as painful as a broken tooth is to a human.

In the scenario where tusks are being used as a weapon, the illustrations that show them blunted with metal caps & bands makes the most sense for me, since it would protect the tip from damage & the bands stop splitting. Blades on the ends of caps, while intimidating, could be big levers that would risk breaking the tusk in use. I wouldn't want to ride on top of an frenzied elephant with a toothache & my hypothesis is the bands/caps are to protect the tusks while they're used as bludgeons, and the rarity of tusk swords implies they were tried but abandoned outside parades.

[Ian]

Welcome to the Forum, rysays, and thanks for these comments.

[kronckew]

...it's also somewhat brittle. When ivory breaks, the cracks can chip & spread like a split log.

When I was stationed in Alaska, I bought a small Walrus Ivory Polar Bear carving from an Aleut. After a few decades, it started cracking. I soaked it in mineral oil, which was the recommendation back then, to stop it from further cracks. Oiling your elephant's tusks might help, if they let you. :D

[Milogow360]

Chinese monk account of sword attachments to the trunk. Artist representation of the same from Gandhara, 1st-2nd+ Century AD.

[fernando]

Most interesting, Milogow360. Thanks for sharing.

[Ren Ren]

A bas-relief from the Borobudur temple complex
https://sillynewsboy.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/a-very-unsystematic-look-at-borobudur-reliefs-as-a-source-for-military-history/#more-839
Thanks to A. G. Maisey

[fernando]

After all ... not so rare !!!

[Milogow360]

A bas-relief from the Borobudur temple complex
https://sillynewsboy.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/a-very-unsystematic-look-at-borobudur-reliefs-as-a-source-for-military-history/#more-839
Thanks to A. G. Maisey

You can see Elephants holding blades here as well. Gandhara art 1st-2nd+ Century AD.

Chinese monk Xuanzang mentions that emperor Harsha(7th century ad) had armored elephants with spurs attached to their tusks.

[fernando]

Great material. Just a pitty it didn't show up some 150 posts before in this tread :shrug: .

[Ian]

Great material. Just a pitty it didn't show up some 150 posts before in this tread :shrug: .We didn't have Milogow360 back then. Ah well, better late than never. Thanks Milogow.

[ariel]

It is a very interesting and informative reference that fully explains the " spur" from the Metropolitan shown by Jens in the very first post of this topic. Good job, Milogow360! Thanks!