View Single Post
Old 1st December 2019, 08:20 PM   #4
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,719
Default

Julien, this is I agree, a most interesting slant on the study of arms, but it is I'm afraid a bit of a strain in the scope of discussions here, as seen in the somewhat bizarre entries entertained in the elephant sword thread (my bat entry not withstanding ).

Actually the subject is best described as either animals used AS weapons or weapons added TO animals in warfare. Animals are of course usually afforded their own natural weapons, and use these instinctively. Therefore they do not need weapons as used by humans, nor would they be trained in the use of them.

It is ironic however, that early humans learned about weapons from those of the animals around them, and fashioned their own representations of these natural animal weapons, such as tusks, horns, fangs and claws to use in imitation of them.

Early weapons were often comprised of the actual animal parts, or fashioned in imitation of them. Eventually of course, these were fashioned of steel.

Examples of the madu in India, as well as the bichwa, curved blades of the various daggers, and bagh nakh (claws) are of course in mind.

Animals trained in combat such as the war horse were THE weapon, and they kick to unhorse riders, and bite against an enemy. The elephants were less reliable in maintaining the direction of their aggression as far as targets.

Good point by Ren Ren, as passive weapons, much like armor, were for defense. The spiked collar around the neck of dogs is so that they cannot be grabbed around the neck negating their biting ability, but as described on the hunting dogs as well with threat of the prey attacking.

I find only dismay in the description of blades on claws in cock fighting and in these kinds of cruel 'sport' using animals.
Jim McDougall is offline