Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 8th December 2018, 03:23 PM   #1
Jens Nordlunde
Member
 
Jens Nordlunde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
Default

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.
Jens Nordlunde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2018, 04:15 PM   #2
fernando
(deceased)
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
Default

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 ?

.
Attached Images
 
fernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2018, 04:46 PM   #3
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,659
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 ?

.


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.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2018, 07:31 PM   #4
fernando
(deceased)
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
Default Incognito

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
......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 ?


,

Last edited by fernando; 8th December 2018 at 07:47 PM.
fernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2018, 08:34 PM   #5
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,659
Default

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).
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2018, 09:06 PM   #6
Jens Nordlunde
Member
 
Jens Nordlunde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
Default

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.
Jens Nordlunde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2018, 01:36 AM   #7
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

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.

Last edited by ariel; 9th December 2018 at 06:59 AM.
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2018, 01:59 AM   #8
fernando
(deceased)
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
….noting I had not yet seen these CREATIVE artists showing blazing cannon from an elephants howdah...
Just say the word .


.
Attached Images
 
fernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2018, 06:53 AM   #9
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

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 :-)
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.