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.


.

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.


.

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.

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?

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 ?

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We have living examples of outdated temple swords, super heavy training swords, exotic tribal swords, variety of sousson pattas, - i.e. by definition rare examples that were superseded by the widely used ones, but no “trunk” swords.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

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.

Wayne ... please !

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.

.

Tough to argue with eye witnesses.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 ).

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?

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 ...


.

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.

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.

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! ;)

The armour in the picture doesn't have to be the real whole thing; more a parade version ?

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.

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.

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.

Mind you ...
 

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 ?

On a lighter note:
 

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 :)

One thing is certain ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I stand corrected, thanks.

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.

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.

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:


.

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.

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?