"Osprey War Elephants..." Topic

Very interesting. I think that the root problem is stated very well in your own words,
"I gave the book an average review, based on the many conclusions that are passed off as facts that conveniently fit the thesis. Fabrications are when an author makes up sources, or uses sources (like Polyaenus) without criticism."

First of all you are quite correct that you were upset by my conclusions, because you think they are wrong. When you write a book you do try to draw conclusions. After all the research you try to figure out what it means, and offer that educated opinion to others.

However, you apparently do not like that system, because you include under "fabrications" the use of sources without proper criticism.

That is a really poor idea you have there. Do you have any other dictionaries or authors who include the non-critical use of sources as fabrication? Fabrication is intentional deception, or lies. It is not a lie to quote sources without making thorough attempts to discredit them first. My book was an attempt to discuss many points of view and why they exist, and quoting the sources is not lying.

What you object to, and you now admit to, is my conclusions. In other words, you believe you have properly critiqued the ancient sources and decided they mean elephants at Hydaspes had no towers. Fine, as you say, Holt and Scullard may agree with you, also fine. You can conclude anything you like. But my concluding differently does not make me a liar or fabricator.

I drew many conclusions in the book. That was my job as an author. I enjoyed it. Doubtless some are wrong. The critics are free to disagree with me. Just don't call me a liar for giving my own opinion.

One reason to believe elephants at Hydaspes may have had towers is historical; there were towers on elephants within 20 years of Hydaspes (at Paraitacene). So you could say that the Greeks were a lot smarter than the Indians and invented out of whole cloth, or you could say that their Indian riders brought the idea or knowledge with them. I tend to think the later. You can think the former. So what?

Writers in order to complete a task must eventually give up on editing and correction in order to publish. Although I am sorry that the source I used on Perseus was dreadfully wrong, there is also no way that I could double check every source, particularly on what should be an "easy fact" like man's father or brother…

I made a number of conclusions that folks may not like or agree with. I said Rome used elephants more than Carthage. I said elephants were often an effective weapon in an army. I said elephants carried weapons in their trunks (occasionally). Lots of things in there to argue about, and I am happy to do so.

I do appreciate your coming out to say hello and explain your view. I just hope that one day you will distinguish between calling a book fabrication and disagreeing completely with its conclusions.

I give myself only a fifty/fifty chance of being correct on Hydaspes. It was a toss up, but I figured it would do no harm to challenge some "common wisdom" and make the case for a different idea. People become too certain of their own correctness sometimes, and thus their preconceived notions frame all the arguments ahead of time, and they may never learn a truth that counters their opinion. I do try to challenge that at times. And I have my own notions challenged too. I hope I can be open to that.

I am glad you pointed out the problem regarding Perseus, and if you see others I hope I can correct them if there is another edition of War Elephants!

Have a good day,
John K

There's times when the book says "perhaps" before a statement of conjecture, those are identified as opinions. Then there are times when things are stated as fact with no perceptible collaboration with sources… those areas are what I call 'fabrications', because the conclusions are not supported.

I agree if your book was called "My opinion on war elephants throughout history" then as an extended essay I would then tackle your points in context with both text and artifacts as sources.

My opinion does not matter…. I prefer to agree with Scullard, and Holt, and Head, for their view balanced by historical and archeological evidence, and academic study.

I reckon we could argue what Arrian 'implied' in Greek till our heads spin off and all the TMP popcorn has been munched….

(But if I wanted to translate it again, I could point out he never says the elephants were towered, they seemed as if they were bastions….)….

page: xiv

"Because elephants have been employed by armies for thousands of years on a fairly continuous basis, War Elephants is to a degree, a history of warfare."

As a history of warfare, I would have preferred more of a structured apporach with sources, rather than opnion.

That's why I grade it a "C"… otherwise is a comprehensive book on the subject. It's not bad by my reccomendation, I just felt that the areas that are not in my field of interest were less believable as a whole, because of the errors and conjecture I found in the areas I do know a small bit about.

Hell, many folks hate my book too.. lol…. goes with the territory I reckon.

I just like the Osprey book, since the nice illustations of Indian elephants fit well with the sources, and archeological references from Sanchi…… and other reliefs.
JJ

What is your book, or is it unrelated to ancient warfare?

I get positive feedback about 3 to 1, about a fourth don't like my books. Trouble is it is easier to remember the negatives than the positives!

One of the tensions in writing is regarding the audience and the publishers wishes. Osprey is particularly concise and illustrated because of the nature of the audience, modellers who want pictures and details.

My publisher wanted a combination of audiences, for the book to be both researched and popular. So we used endnotes rather than footnotes, and I was encouraged to expand at length on debatable areas for the sake of less informed readers. In others words, I was basically to target a high school reading level, though the subject is mainly of scholarly interest. I used my own royalties money to buy the illustrations (the ones that weren't copyright expired) so that there would be some pictures to help.

I suspect that a lot of the problems when we get critiqued on a book are from people who buy the book with different expectations than the normal "target" audience. Thus the scientific historical types don't like my high school level explanations, but any strictly pleasure readers may not like my detailed explanations as too tedious.

The old adage is true, being in the middle makes you the enemy of both sides. That is one reason I wanted to do the Osprey War elephants, so I could condense to a more scholarly level. I am also tempted to try a child's version, but maybe not politically correct since animals killing people is not really a popular subject…

John K

"What is your book, or is it unrelated to ancient warfare?"

This is my book, (it is not an academic source either):

link

This is my website as a reminder:

ancientbattles.com

JJ

UPDATE:
I presented an 8 page document with side by side comparisons of my book to Nossov's book to my publisher Praeger and his Osprey.

Osprey agrees that Nossov was "over reliant" on my work and that some passages are copies or very close to it. They agree that the future editions will make a large note of my large contributions to the work, and footnote particularly the passages that were mine.

I have given you a page of them below if you are curious.

It also seems clear that there were other sources such as Scullard that Nossov copied heavily from in similar manner. Many of the quotations below I gathered and footnoted from sources that Nossov does not acknowledge in his Works Cited, so either they came from my book, or he did not give them credit, either way… not proper.

Nossov P4, 2nd paragraph, "In the 18th-19th centuries, the British used hundreds of elephants as artillery haulers; the Royal Engineers employed them in the Indian Army until 1895."
Kistler P225, 1st paragraph, "The British… commanded 1500 elephants, mainly as artillery haulers, in the late 18th century. The Royal Engineers used elephants in the Indian Army until 1895."

Nossov P4, 4th paragraph, "In Syria and Mesopotamia herds of elephants were nearly gone by the 8th century BC…"
Kistler P2, 2nd paragraph, "The herds of elephants in Syria and Mesopotamia were nearly gone by the eighth century BC."

Nossov P6, 1st paragraph, "Pure `white' albino elephants commanded the highest value owing to their extreme rarity. Elephants were often called `white' when they had a pale coloration at certain points on the body. Such elephants were believed to be favoured by the gods and were often claimed by Asian kings. To be acknowledged as white, an elephant required not only beautiful coloration, but it also had to undergo special testing on its physique and temperament."
Kistler P178-9, "In reality, only an albino elephants, which is extremely rare, is actually white. The more common white elephant simply has pale colorations at certain spots and other characteristics deemed to be auspicious and beautiful. When a white elephant is discovered, experts study the beast for months to check every aspect of its physique and temperament before officially declaring it to be white. All white elephants were
claimed by a king or ruler and were believed to be specially blessed by the gods."

Nossov P8, 2nd paragraph, "In the 16th century trainers in Sri Lanka slaughtered animals before their eyes to accustom elephants to the sight of blood."
Kistler P137, 6th paragraph, "In Sri Lanka, elephant trainers of the sixteenth century slaughtered animals in front of new war elephants to accustom these gentle giants to the noise and blood of war."

Nossov P14, 2nd paragraph, "European armies operating within South Asia quickly realized that a single shot from a 4-pdr at an elephant carrying the commander could win the day- with the commander dead, an army usually took to flight."
Kistler P220, 4th paragraph, quoting a source that Nossov did not cite, `Europeans these forty years past (1745-1785) gained many a battle by pointing a four-pounder at the main elephant…'. Once a long range weapon killed the Asian commander, the army fled."

Nossov P20, 2nd paragraph, "Eumenes positioned his elephants diagonally to countercheck flanking manoeuvres."
Kistler P52, 2nd paragraph, "Eumenes' elephants had lined up diagonally to prevent any flanking maneuvers."

Nossov P35, 4th paragraph, "In 506 BC a Wu army surrounded a Chu city. The Chu tied lighted torches to elephants' tails and drove them, panic stricken, at the besiegers. The assault caused certain confusion but not the besiegers retreat."
Kistler P21, 2nd paragraph, "The neighboring Wu army assaulted Chu with great success in 506 BC and surrounded the fortified city in siege… the Chu attached lighted torches to the tails of many elephants, which in panic charged out of the gate and through the enemy blockade. The plan did cause some consternation and confusion but did not break the siege." I cited an old article, Nossov did not cite.

Nossov P38, 2nd paragraph, "Meanwhile the Arabs thought of a second, ingenious strategy. They dressed some of their camels in fantastic housings and covered their heads with flowing vestments. The sight was so fearful that the Persian horses took to flight."
Kistler P179, 5th paragraph, entirely a quote from an online source not cited by Nossov, "In order to counter the deficiency that the elephants of the Persians placed against the Muslims, Qaqa came up with a very ingenious device. He had some camels enveloped in fantastic housings and covered their heads with flowing vestments which gave them a strange and frightening appearance. On whichever side these artificial mammoths went, the horses of the Persians shied and became uncontrollable."

Nossov P39, 2nd paragraph, "War elephants equipped with armour, tusk swords and flame throwers on their backs participated in his (Timur) subsequent campaigns…"
Kistler P205, 2nd paragraph, "Timur's elephants wore armor, tusk swords, and carried men using `flame throwers' on their backs." My source is not cited by Nossov.

Nossov P43, 1st paragraph, "Special anti-elephant corps were created… The soldiers received special training and were unusually equipped: they wore helmets displaying sharp spikes and carried shields also fitted with sharp spikes. The spikes were to protect the men from elephants' trunks, which are very sensitive and easily hurt. In addition, shields with spikes could be thrown under an elephant's feet as simple caltrops."
Kistler P148, 3rd paragraph, "The Greeks prepared history's first corp of anti-elephant infantry! Their armor and weaponry were designed specifically to repel pachyderms, as the spiked helmets and shields would pierce the elephant's sensitive trunks if the beasts attacked these soldiers. In fact, if the men tossed their spiked shields on the ground in front of the elephants, the shields would acts as a simple caltrop to wound the elephant's soft feet."

Nossov P44, 3rd paragraph, "At night, Laotian scouts penetrated the enemy camp and cut of the tails of several elephants. The animals became frenzied and began to rush about the camp, creating chaos. At that moment, the Laotian army attacked the enemy and made them retreat."
Kistler P207, 2nd paragraph, "The opponent in Lamphun hired Laotian spies to sneak into the Thai camp, where they cut off the tails of several war elephants. The beasts ran amok and while the camp was in chaos, the enemy attacked, forcing the army to retreat." I used a source not cited by Nossov.

Nossov P45, "elephantomachai – Greek word for soldiers specially armed and trained for fighting war elephants." Also P45, "koonkie – an elephant, usually female, specially trained for catching other elephants."
Kistler P289, "Elephantomachai. Greek word for soldiers specially trained and armored to fight against elephants." P290, "Koonkie. An elephant (usually female) specially trained to assist in capturing wild elephants."

Thanks to Mr. Kistler for proving his point. I was reluctant to believe his claim at first, as it was his burden to prove. I agree with Osprey's assessment, that their author was over reliant on his text.
Now I look forward to seeing a revised version of his book with some of the facts tidied up.

Too bad the illustrations are so nice in the Osprey book, since that's what most folks look at. I continue to feel that Mr. Nossov has it correct that Indian elephants did not use towers in combat, until a later period than Alexander's era, based on contemporary sources and artwork.

I'm still looking for the source for the passage in Kistler's book, where a reliable ancient source states that "Most of the elephants carried wooden towers"….

Sources do state that the elephants made the foot in between them look like walls buttressed by the elephants as towers… this is a metaphor, something the Greeks and Romans used often as embellishment for their readers, which can be lost when pecking through the Greek, or Latin, with a lexicon.

I offer:

"Porus drew up his infantry battalions on a wide central front, stationing an elephant every hundred feet or so to strengthen them. (Our ancient sources say this produced the appearrance of a castle, with the elephants as towers and the infantry as curtain-walls"
page 396, Peter green, Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A historical narrative

Diodorus 17.87.4-5:
"His whole array looked very much like a city, for the elephants resembled towers, and the soldiers between them curtain walls"

QC 8.14.10-13
Curtius says the same thing as above.

Arrian 5.15.4-7
Arrian, uses the fortress metaphor when the Indian cavalry falls back behind the elephants for refuge.

Descriptions like these, and the lack of description of towers by Kautilya, and artwork from this period and a hundred years later which don't show towers on elephants, seem to be clear evidence for the lack of towers. These are reasons why I was antagonized by some of the more fanciful theories of the Kistler book.
But I will not throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet.. as I haven't gotten out my Curtius yet…
JJ

I will be starting a Pyrrhic army soon. Is there any valuable information that I need to know on their elephants in either of these books (pictures etc.) I know they were supposed to have two man towers and the men were javelin equipped. The also were supposed to be unarmored Indian elephants. Anything else I need to know?

For Pyrrhic elephants you seem to have it on the nose.

Indian elephants, mahout astride neck, two men in small tower with javelins (and probably other weapons).

Sadly this thread descended into an author trying to defend is book against a critic who didn't like it (a no win scenario). If you want to get more information on war elephants in general you need to go past the books referenced so far and look at the numerous primary and secondary sources published in India (almost all in English, or English and Sanskrit).

Having skim read this in a bookshop i am a little confused as to why so much space has been give to roman use of the beasts but (as far as i can find) none has been given to the Sasanid Persians extensive use of them.

Thank you tadamson.

Anyone with even a passing interest in war elephants should obtain a copy of the Thai film ……SURYOTHAI
also if it ever becomes available

Naresuan………….

I have copies of the first

barrycarter70@hotmail.com

Stealth elephants? kewl!

"Sadly this thread descended into an author trying to defend is book against a critic who didn't like it (a no win scenario)."

-----> That may have been how it came off, but was not my intent. The Kistler War elephant book has factual errors dealing with India and the Successors, otherwise it is a comprehensive account of war elephants through the ages. The difficulty begins when one is laying out the factual errors on a forum, rather than listing them, which is a job in itself, one which I sadly did not have the time to lay out clearly. I plan to, or did plan to until the reaction Mr. Kistler made me feel the point was irrevelent.

I liked the illustrations in the Osprey, and they are based more on archeology and modern interpretations. Mr. Kistler claimed the Osprey had plagiarized his work, and gave some examples, and offered that Osprey had admitted some editorial errors. But Ospreys are more useful for their illustrations than text.

So both books are flawed.

The Osprey book has a line drawing of the Capua plate that is identified as an Epirote elephant:

picture

The Kistler book uses a 19th century print to illustrate an Epirote elephant.

JJ