However, it’s worth noting that although musth is an important condition and one that is often emphasised as a desirable trait for war-elephants in ancient Indian sources, it can also be very dangerous. (It’s also unlikely that all, or even most war-elephants were male).
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
I do not have the exact references to hand at this precise moment, but some scholars and those who work closely with elephants note that musth can be dangerous and lead to uncontrollable elephants. So it’s doubtful that this was actually a desirable condition for the battlefield.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Given the number of ancient battles that were lost because the elephants became uncontrollable, this is a reasonable concern. This also links to the idea about intoxicating elephants - is this really a wise decision? Calm, tractable elephants are probably more preferable.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Now it is true that the ancient Indian epics such as the Mahabharata and others often mention musth as the state that there elephants were in. Now this is certainly possible some of the time. However, it is important to recognise the rhetorical strategies at play here too...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
The prestige and strength of elephants is an important aspect of how they are presented in these poems. Since elephants were also kingly symbols this ties in to propagandistic elements and the general idea that you want to overawe your opponent with your power.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
So, whilst this is certainly not to say that ancient war elephants were never in musth during battle, we might want to question how far these depictions actually reflect historical military realities.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Another issues is that beyond the Arthashastra, we do not have any ancient Indian histories. Our other texts are typically poetic or religious in nature, so again we need to bear in mind any conventions of genre etc. The dates of all these sources is also highly complex.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
When we move to the Hellenistic world (which is my area of focus and what the article mainly addressed) the evidence for giving elephants wine before battle is incredibly sparse and problematic. (See article for more info here).
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
So, whilst I can go with the suggestion that maybe the “false” rating does not entirely cover everything, the issue is still incredibly complicated. And regardless, the answer to whether war-elephants were given wine before battle is still very probably not.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @WingedBookWyrm
Really good points! Absolutely it's a tricky issue. It seems like the preponderance of the source evidence suggests musth was important, but obviously those sources have the problems you outline here.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
In the end, I suppose the difference here really comes down to how inclined one is to offer the sources the 'benefit of the doubt' on difficult issues and that's a judgement call where I think absolutely reasonable historians may differ (as here).
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
Definitely! It’s just one of those issues that comes down to personal judgement in the absence of anything more concrete.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäysKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.