Elephant swords

[ariel]

Jim,
Tusk swords ceased to be used quite some time ago and, just like all very old things that outlived their purpose, they are unquestionably rare. The two examples you refer to are in European museums, but Richard saw more of them in India.
Perhaps the best argument in favor of their actual existence are the contemporaneous miniatures coming from both native and European artists.
Testimonies of Nikitin and Velho are also valuable, although the weights are uncertain.
I am sure they existed at some times, but the introduction of firepower, artillery especially, made “living tanks” and their metal arms obsolete and relegated elephants to the role of impressive royal vehicles.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Ariel. I guess the question is, while they certainly must have existed in some degree, and given the Indian penchant for innovation in weaponry, it does not seem unlikely they did. ...but just how much so?
The extreme absence of them in armouries and collections suggest they were more a novelty than regularly seen weapon.

I was under the impression they were not found in contemporary miniatures or art, which was why such doubt was expressed on use after 16th c. and it was suggested they did not appear in earlier art.

[fernando]

As shown in my post #10, an elephant with tusks armed with (so called) swords is illustrated in "The Battle of Pashan begins", from the Shahnama (Book of Kings) by Shah Tahmasp 1530-1545.

Alvaro Velho, a chroniclar, has been in India in 1498 with Vasco da Gama, and came back in the same fleet.

Garcia de Orta was a Portuguese intelectual (Physician) Jew. He departed to the Orient in 1534, appointed Captain-Mor of the India Sea, having died in Old Goa in 1568. He was a brilliant Botanist, Pharmacologist,Tropical Medicine specialist and Antropologist. After his death, the Inquisiton started chasing his family, having soon condemned his sister to be burnt alive in a Auto-de-Fé in Goa in 1569. Garcia himself was condemned to the fire for Judaism, his remnants being exhumed for the purpose.
I don't think such personality would have copied Alvaro Velho's router notes.
Actually his wider description of the war elephant subject reads: (before my previous quotation) they (elephants) go to war armoured, especially in the forehead and chest, like harnessed horses; they put pending bells in their flanks ...; (after my previous quotation) ... bring hooks and bisarmas (large bills) abnd lately they bring meios berços (small cannons) and panelas de polvora (period fashion gun powder pans).

Admitedly hundreds, possibly thousands of elephant swords may have existed in the past, only four pairs and the single example in the Met are known to survive today.
One may easily realize that as, not all elephants were engaged in war, most certainly not all war elephants carried swords in their tusks. Maybe this was a fashion adopted only by certain sectors; and maybe they turned out to manifestly cumbersome.

But, as the Spaniard says:
Yo no creo en brujas, pero que las hay, las hay !
which in an easy tranlation means:
I don't believe in witches ... still they do exist !

[GIO]

Always Mughal

[Jens Nordlunde]

It seems as if some of the tusk sword survived, but what about the trunk sword?
As said before, I have read that the war elephants carried either sword or heavy chains in their trunks. Does anyone have pictures of thesee swords or chains?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

...Does anyone have pictures of thesee swords or chains?

What about this FANTASY ?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

What about this FANTASY ?

This is a good point......just how much fantasy or hubris laden license is included in the art depicting events and battles of hundreds of years before?
We know that many famous artworks depicting important battles were often painted many years after the events, and more current research has often revealed profound differences in actual circumstances vs. the portrayal in art.

In the articles cited here, the Shahnama (of Shah Tahmasp written c. 1590) is said to depict the Battle of Pashan in a painting which shows elephants using tusk swords, but it is noted that the event took place hundreds of years before. Other references claim that the use of tusk swords go back over a thousand years. It is here usually noted that these times precluded miniatures which might have illustrated these tusk swords contemporarily.

Richardson suggests that by lack of inclusion of tusk swords in the well known Mughal records of arms in the Ain-I-Akbari also c. 1590s may well have been because these were out of use by then. Perhaps also, they were not significantly used enough to warrant inclusion in this comprehensive record.


Is it possible that the dangerously deadly tusks of the elephants were compared to swords as they attacked in battle? and this became construed into actual swords attached. Why would a sword be used to supplant an already dangerous natural weapon? I think of descriptions of weapons in India's array of innovative weapons which are described using many animals natural defenses such as bagh-nakh; bichwa; tigers tail; and others.....could such converse portrayal be the case?


With the fact that survival of so many weapon forms, particularly of the 15th c. onward, why would only several of these pairs of tusk 'swords' be left? especially if 'thousands' of them were produced.

This situation reminds me very much of the case in the 17th c. of the famed "Winged Hussars of Poland", and the curious wings mounted on the backs of their cuirass. It was supposed that these would make terrifying noise as these hussars charged in battle, and of course many artworks depicted these fantastic warriors in battle with their wings. However, it seems that research suggests these were primarily a parade device, and worn ceremoniously, a case of course often debated still.

Could these tusk swords have been in the same way, ceremoniously used and their fearsome appearance extended into artwork depicting earlier battles where elephants were used in battle?

Regarding the use of a sword on the trunk, that as we discussed in 2008 here, would be disastrous, as if the tusk swords would not be trouble enough. Elephants are remarkably intelligent animals and fearfully volatile. This I believe is one of the purposes of the weapon/implement called the ankus. The mahout can use it as a goad but it is bladed as well allegedly to dispatch the elephant if out of control.
I am unclear on the use of weights on the trunk as these would be as deadly as the other.

[Jim McDougall]

Looking further into this, regarding the interesting example shown here now in the Royal Armouries and the subject of the article by Thom Richardson (op.cit. 1999, p.133) it does appear these were to secure over the tusk, "...the inside of each socket tapers to a flat end, and is intended to fit over the sawn off tusk".

In the article it is stated these, like the elephant armor on display there, were acquired from Powis Castle, the items acquired by the Earl of Powis c. 1798 .
It is claimed that the armor dates from 16th c. but H.Robinson (1967, "Oriental Armour" p.119) says tradition claims it was taken by Clive at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
While it was suggested these items belonged together, Richardson doubts it and suggests perhaps the tusk swords are earlier.

In looking at these tusk swords, the distinct fuller system is remarkably similar to the blades of Vijayanagara weapons of the 16th century, which is in my opinion possibly why Robert Elgood considers these Hindu, and I think this fullering supports the 16th century notion.


While these were it seems most probably Hindu examples, it does seem that Mughals did adopt tusk weapons in some degree.


In Robinson (1967) it is noted that "...the tusks of the beasts were tipped with metal points".


To this reference to points, Richardson notes from the Zafarnama of Sharaf ud-Din Yazdi the battle between Timur and the Delhi Sultan in 1398 (theaccount written 1424)..."...the enemies great reliance on war elephants - noting sharp poisoned points fastened to the tusks'.

The later accounts (1468-74) of Athanasius Nikiton in "Voyage to India" describing the Bahmani armies at Bidar having "...large scythes attached to the tusks and trunks of the elephants".

This account is suspect in my opinion as I have previously noted, the idea of bladed weapons attached to the trunk of an elephant seems insane.
Further these accounts describe swords of 100 lbs attached to the tusks and heavy weights on the trunk.
Why would ANY sword weigh 100 pounds? and put this enormous weight on the tusks? and THEN put heavy weights on the trunk?

I would better receive the notions of steel tips on the tusks than these huge blades...though the poison is a bit dramatized as often the case I think.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

This is a good point......just how much fantasy or hubris laden license is included in the art depicting events and battles of hundreds of years before?
We know that many famous artworks depicting important battles were often painted many years after the events, and more current research has often revealed profound differences in actual circumstances vs. the portrayal in art.

In the articles cited here, the Shahnama (of Shah Tahmasp written c. 1590) is said to depict the Battle of Pashan in a painting which shows elephants using tusk swords, but it is noted that the event took place hundreds of years before. Other references claim that the use of tusk swords go back over a thousand years. It is here usually noted that these times precluded miniatures which might have illustrated these tusk swords contemporarily.

Richardson suggests that by lack of inclusion of tusk swords in the well known Mughal records of arms in the Ain-I-Akbari also c. 1590s may well have been because these were out of use by then. Perhaps also, they were not significantly used enough to warrant inclusion in this comprehensive record.


Is it possible that the dangerously deadly tusks of the elephants were compared to swords as they attacked in battle? and this became construed into actual swords attached. Why would a sword be used to supplant an already dangerous natural weapon? I think of descriptions of weapons in India's array of innovative weapons which are described using many animals natural defenses such as bagh-nakh; bichwa; tigers tail; and others.....could such converse portrayal be the case?


With the fact that survival of so many weapon forms, particularly of the 15th c. onward, why would only several of these pairs of tusk 'swords' be left? especially if 'thousands' of them were produced.

This situation reminds me very much of the case in the 17th c. of the famed "Winged Hussars of Poland", and the curious wings mounted on the backs of their cuirass. It was supposed that these would make terrifying noise as these hussars charged in battle, and of course many artworks depicted these fantastic warriors in battle with their wings. However, it seems that research suggests these were primarily a parade device, and worn ceremoniously, a case of course often debated still.

Could these tusk swords have been in the same way, ceremoniously used and their fearsome appearance extended into artwork depicting earlier battles where elephants were used in battle?

Regarding the use of a sword on the trunk, that as we discussed in 2008 here, would be disastrous, as if the tusk swords would not be trouble enough. Elephants are remarkably intelligent animals and fearfully volatile. This I believe is one of the purposes of the weapon/implement called the ankus. The mahout can use it as a goad but it is bladed as well allegedly to dispatch the elephant if out of control.
I am unclear on the use of weights on the trunk as these would be as deadly as the other.

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.