|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 16, 2016 7:38:39 GMT 5
Anancus was a gomphothere with tusks that could be 4 meters long. As you can see, this thing had tusks that were very long for its size.  At first glance, you may think that tusks this long would have been very effective, lethal weapons. But I have a question: were they actually too long for them to really be practical weapons? Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 16, 2016 12:14:32 GMT 5
they seem too long to me
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 16, 2016 16:33:13 GMT 5
The sarissa and pike were very effective weapons despite being extremely long. It all depends on what they are used against, but in a frontal assault those tusks would function much like polearms and keep opponents at a distance. They might also be useful to deal with smaller animals by simply swiping to the sides. They only become impractical once something comes in close, but that’s easier said than done, and simply preventing that from happening seems like a good defensive adaption.
Of course that doesn’t mean they were primarily for defense, they rather strike me as a sexually selected trait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 16, 2016 17:54:04 GMT 5
^That's a good point you bring up, but I'm not too sure about swinging to the sides to swat a smaller animal. Those straight 4 meter tusks are going to have a lot of rotational inertia to them and it wouldn't help if the neck muscles weren't particularly strong or fast-twitching in the lateral plane. And all of this may make it hard to hit much smaller animals (e.g. predators) that are probably too agile to get hit by these swings. I think mammoth tusks are better suited for this; at least their long tusks are curved (which would reduce rotational inertia) and they probably wouldn't have any other option anyway (as many mammoths had tusks too curved for goring).
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 17, 2016 0:00:45 GMT 5
The sarissa and pike were very effective weapons despite being extremely long. It all depends on what they are used against, but in a frontal assault those tusks would function much like polearms and keep opponents at a distance. They might also be useful to deal with smaller animals by simply swiping to the sides. They only become impractical once something comes in close, but that’s easier said than done, and simply preventing that from happening seems like a good defensive adaption. Of course that doesn’t mean they were primarily for defense, they rather strike me as a sexually selected trait. you cant compare the two, they are being used on a massively different scale. if you slapped giant pole arms on an elephants face they would snap like twigs any time they faced off against another male, these tusks face a very similar issue. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 17, 2016 2:12:21 GMT 5
^That’s why I specified "to deal with smaller animals". So no, they aren’t necessarily used on a massively different scale. Sure enough they would be prone to fracture when hitting a multiton elephant, that doesn’t mean they’d be too fragile to deal a dangerous blow to a predator that would perhaps be in the lower hundreds of kilos.
That being said, you’re right that they seem poorly suited for intraspecific fighting, not because I don’t think they’d be able to hurt each other with them (how do you think war elephants were dealt with in antiquity?), rather because of it (though of course using them to slap each other on the face is rather ridiculous). I thought I made it clear that when considering use as a weapon I was thinking along the lines of defense against predators.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 17, 2016 2:47:19 GMT 5
^So do you think that if it used its tusks against other, similarly large animals (namely conspecifics), it could have negative consequences for both individuals (bad for the attackee because it was gored and bad for the attacker because its tusks most likely just broke)?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 17, 2016 3:10:20 GMT 5
Not necessarily both at the same time, but that would be the risks I see with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 17, 2016 4:17:01 GMT 5
^That’s why I specified "to deal with smaller animals". So no, they aren’t necessarily used on a massively different scale. Sure enough they would be prone to fracture when hitting a multiton elephant, that doesn’t mean they’d be too fragile to deal a dangerous blow to a predator that would perhaps be in the lower hundreds of kilos. That being said, you’re right that they seem poorly suited for intraspecific fighting, not because I don’t think they’d be able to hurt each other with them (how do you think war elephants were dealt with in antiquity?), rather because of it (though of course using them to slap each other on the face is rather ridiculous). I thought I made it clear that when considering use as a weapon I was thinking along the lines of defense against predators. Yes they are on a massively different scale because what the tusks are hitting are only half the equation the other half is what is swinging them, and using them to bat at smaller animals is a terrible idea, because the elephant is likely going to want to keep the predators at distance but the closer to the tip that contact actually is made the more stress will be applied to the tusk and given their size they would have to be swung with significant force to have any sort of speed. They simply would not be effective weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 17, 2016 4:44:58 GMT 5
Why would a tusk swung at a target experience more stress than a similarly-dimensioned wooden pole if the force excerted on the target is identical?
or in other words, if I could swing a wooden pole at someone and knock them out, why would an an Anacus not be able to do the same with its similar-sized tusks? They look fragile compared to mammoth tusks, that doesn’t mean they were unable to withstand loads that similar objects made of wood can endure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 17, 2016 5:01:37 GMT 5
Why would a tusk swung at a target experience more stress than a similarly-dimensioned wooden pole if the force excerted on the target is identical? or in other words, if I could swing a wooden pole at someone and knock them out, why would an an Anacus not be able to do the same with its similar-sized tusks? They look fragile compared to mammoth tusks, that doesn’t mean they were unable to withstand loads that similar objects made of wood can endure. What I said had nothing to do with something being made of wood or not. You simply are ignoring that a polearm is swung around by a much smaller and weaker animal with a massively nearly incomparably smaller amount of force. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 17, 2016 16:30:22 GMT 5
What you said may not have anything to do with it, but the fact that dentine is a lot stronger than wood is certainly relevant. By your logic an adult human shouldn’t be able to use a flyswatter.
Just because the elephant is large and strong, it doesn’t necessarily have to use all of that strength if doing so would endanger it. And it’s not as if it was swinging at a wall, even if it swings with all its strength, smaller animals simply don’t offer enough resistance to cause the kind of impact force that would break the tusks. e.g. using those tusks to swipe at a human would be unlikely to damage the tusks no matter how hard the swing was, because it’s the human that would break, not the tusk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 17, 2016 23:20:08 GMT 5
What you said may not have anything to do with it, but the fact that dentine is a lot stronger than wood is certainly relevant. By your logic an adult human shouldn’t be able to use a flyswatter. Just because the elephant is large and strong, it doesn’t necessarily have to use all of that strength if doing so would endanger it. And it’s not as if it was swinging at a wall, even if it swings with all its strength, smaller animals simply don’t offer enough resistance to cause the kind of impact force that would break the tusks. e.g. using those tusks to swipe at a human would be unlikely to damage the tusks no matter how hard the swing was, because it’s the human that would break, not the tusk. Expect fly swatters are made of plastics and metal, which tend to bend instead of break. If not swung with substantial force the tusk would be too slow to really hit Anything. People don't break, we are much too squishy for that and most animals that are going to take a cracks at this kind of big game hunting are much bigger than people. If anything I think the tusks were mostly for show, both in defense and in intraspecific conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 18, 2016 2:02:54 GMT 5
All materials behave elastically up to a certain point before they fail, some more than others. In any case I can effordlessly snap a fly swatter, irrespective of how elastic it is, ergo I should not be able to use it against flies, because I’m too powerful for it. That’s your logic, not mine. If I weren’t capable of using any instrument that I have the physical strength to break I’d be in a lot of trouble.
And you think those tusks would be unable to withstand the force necessary for their own accelleration? May I ask what do you think those tusks were composed of? Rotting wood? They consist of solid dentine, they should be quite capable of surviving being swung around. If not, how come it’s no problem to accelerate a wooden stake or club to velocities sufficient to hit stuff? Granted, ivory is heavier than wood, but it’s also stronger. The two should even out. If anything, having more mass will make them more effective as bludgeoning tools in the end. And as for the impact, I think you’ve already reached the conclusion yourself on that matter as to why it’s not going to produce sufficient force to break the tusks in any realistic scenario where the animal would use them to swipe.
Exactly, they are squishy. So how are they gonna break the elephant’s tusks? Can you break bones by hitting something squishy?
But you get what I meant. People certainly do break. I bet that if somehow an Anacus turned up and decided to swipe at a person, the result would be a fairly impressive array of fractures.
The same goes for other "small" animals.
There’s nothing about them strong enough to pose a real danger, because the force necessary to deform or break the tissues and bones in their bodies is lower than that necessary to break the tusk, and larger forces than those necessary for failure of the weaker material simply don’t occur in an impact (think car design). In other words, they are only going to hit "squishy stuff" and bones that are far smaller and more fragile than the tusks, so why should it be the tusk that breaks?
They would certainly be excellent for that purpose. Which doesn’t mean they weren’t functional, or that Anacus wouldn’t use them to defend itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 18, 2016 7:33:45 GMT 5
All materials behave elastically up to a certain point before they fail, some more than others. In any case I can effordlessly snap a fly swatter, irrespective of how elastic it is, ergo I should not be able to use it against flies, because I’m too powerful for it. That’s your logic, not mine. If I weren’t capable of using any instrument that I have the physical strength to break I’d be in a lot of trouble. And you think those tusks would be unable to withstand the force necessary for their own accelleration? May I ask what do you think those tusks were composed of? Rotting wood? They consist of solid dentine, they should be quite capable of surviving being swung around. If not, how come it’s no problem to accelerate a wooden stake or club to velocities sufficient to hit stuff? Granted, ivory is heavier than wood, but it’s also stronger. The two should even out. If anything, having more mass will make them more effective as bludgeoning tools in the end. And as for the impact, I think you’ve already reached the conclusion yourself on that matter as to why it’s not going to produce sufficient force to break the tusks in any realistic scenario where the animal would use them to swipe. Exactly, they are squishy. So how are they gonna break the elephant’s tusks? Can you break bones by hitting something squishy? But you get what I meant. People certainly do break. I bet that if somehow an Anacus turned up and decided to swipe at a person, the result would be a fairly impressive array of fractures. The same goes for other "small" animals. There’s nothing about them strong enough to pose a real danger, because the force necessary to deform or break the tissues and bones in their bodies is lower than that necessary to break the tusk, and larger forces than those necessary for failure of the weaker material simply don’t occur in an impact (think car design). In other words, they are only going to hit "squishy stuff" and bones that are far smaller and more fragile than the tusks, so why should it be the tusk that breaks? They would certainly be excellent for that purpose. Which doesn’t mean they weren’t functional, or that Anacus wouldn’t use them to defend itself. I honestly doubt it, you would undoubtedly have to put effort into breaking a fly swatter, as they are often made of low carbon steel, smack it against something as hard as you want, it won't break, it will bend. The issue the tusks have is their massive length,the part doing the actual hitting will likely be far away from where the tusk is actually rooted. Here is a simple example, try to break in half progressively shorter sticks, you will notice the longer they are the easier it is. This is the issue these tusks have. It's the very design and size of the tusks that makes them ineffective, not what they are made of. You are underestimating how much stress the design of the tusks places them under in the event of there use. You used a halberd as an example but these tusks would be like using a halberd by holding it only by the bottom 30ish cm It's not about they are made of, it's not about what their targets are made of, it's about the scale of the tusks and how much stress their own design places them under should they hit Anything too far away from their roots |
|
