Interspecies Conflict/mśmakķl

Advertisement


Question
"Mśmakķl - giant elephant from film Lord of the rings (size and capabilities the same as in the film)
I thought of this monster. Please look at the video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuJ1fGAxMD0 What is your estimate of the weight of this monster ??

vs

argentinosaurus (100t weight 35m lenght 10m hight)

Answer
Hello David.


The mūmakil, the huge elephant-like creatures from "The Lord of the Rings" movie, are probably close to 10 or 11 meters at the shoulder (they may be slightly smaller than this, but almost certainly no larger).  They are built more like mammoths than elephants (longer legs, sloping backs, smaller heads).  They likely weigh between 125-165t (an African elephant 10 or 11 meters at the shoulder would weigh between 145t and 190t, and a mūmak is a little less robust than an African elephant).  I calculated the approximate size of these creatures by comparing them and various parts of their bodies to the men and horses in the battle scenes.  In one scene one of the mūmakil steps on a horse and rider.  The foot of the mūmak is about 1.8m across (the leg is about 1.5m thick), and the height from the ground to the belly of each mūmak is about half of its shoulder height.  A man on a horse (depending on the man and the horse) can stand about 2.5m tall or more in some cases, and the height of many of the horses and riders in the movie were about half the distance from the ground to the belly of the mūmak (if I gauged it correctly).  The circumference (diameter multiplied by 3.1416) of the foot of an elephant is usually close to half of an elephant's shoulder height, so I used this calculation to help in my estimate.  It seems that the Argentinosaurus' body without its tail and neck will be similar in shape to the body of the mūmak without its head, so assigning the Argentinosaurus a higher weight if the shoulder heights are even isn't too far-fetched.  Still, the mūmak's head will be quite heavy considering a single tusk may weigh over 1000kg.  10m shoulder height for an Argentinosaurus is probably a bit much even for one 35m in length (an 8m shoulder height may be closer to being proportional) unless the height of the outstretched neck is where the 10m comes from.  It was hard to judge the exact dimensions of the mūmakil because of the constant action in the scenes and not being able to find a good place to pause where a mūmak was next to an object of known size at the same distance from the viewer.  My estimations for its size may be off a few tons (or a meter or so) as a result.

Mūmak vs Argentinosaurus: These massive animals may be reasonably close in weight if lower-end estimates for the mūmak's weight are used, but the mūmak will probably weigh about 45% more on average.  The mūmak is an aggressive, combative animal that is well-armed with long sets of tusks that can be used to gore, strike, or apply concussive force with a strong charge behind them.  Argentinosaurus was a huge sauropod with a long neck and a long tail.  Its skin may have been tough and hard to penetrate.  It's lengthy tail was its only real offensive weapon, and could have been used to strike attacking theropods (like Mapusaurus).  Argentinosaurus' size may have been a deterrent for most predators, and this dinosaur was likely peaceful and more apt to move away from danger than willfully engaging an adversary.  A battle between these 2 will favor the mūmak due to aggression and weaponry.  The mūmak's tusks will be in better position to inflict damage than the Argentinosaurus' tail, and the mūmak will likely have better overall mobility.  The huge elephant-like creature will also have more battle experience and better fighting instincts.  There's probably no land animal that has ever existed that would defeat a mūmak in a one-on-one battle.  Mūmak wins.


Interesting question!


Best regards.

Interspecies Conflict

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


BK

Expertise

Questions regarding animal conflicts within realistic or unrealistic settings are welcome; my strength lies in medium-to-large species. Small animals (including birds of prey), prehistoric animals, sea creatures, and domestic dog breeds are usually within my scope, but to a lesser degree. I can't confidently answer hypothetical questions about human vs animal, arachnids, insects, or amphibians, but I am willing to field them nonetheless.

Experience

From a young age, I have been interested in animals. Starting with the original Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom and World Book Encyclopedias, I have seen many animal shows and documentaries and have read multiple books on the subject. I have a solid understanding of the physiology of many animals and interspecies conflict in general.

Education/Credentials
Associate degree in unrelated field; biology classes in college.

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.