Elephant swords

ariel · 13th December 2018, 08:07 AM

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.

13th December 2018, 08:07 AM	#30
ariel 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.