![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
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 ... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
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 ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|