"About elephants" Topic

My Punic army, not surprisingly, features elephants. To be honest, I stopped fielding them in Field of Glory:A #1 because they were essentially useless. With some tweaks in #2, I am going to bring the Nellies back to the battlefield.

I have been doing some research on them & have some questions.

As an historical weapon of war, how effective were they? They don't seem all that decisive in many of the battles they appear in. Equally, their famed ability to turn, maddened, on their owners seems also a little less common than popular story has it.

FoG BTW doesn't have a "berserk elephant" mechanism. When they are hit & killed, that's it. Equally, they don't seem to have a morale factor. Surely their ability to terrorise should be a factor? Or was this exaggerated too?

Pachyderm viewpoints are sought.

They were often decisive in the first battle of a campaign- less so after the other side lost its sense of awe and developed effective counter measures.

Something else to bear in mind is that they were used in different ways by different cultures; the Carthaginians (and Romans!) tended to charge with theirs, whereas the Successors favoured deploying theirs in a screen, with skirmishers, usually on the wings. The Indians (and Seleucids at Magnesia) embedded them in the main infantry line. I think these varied tactics are best represented by having different elephant "types" in the same way we have different types of infantry.

Elephants should be a risk to both sides and implemented in all rules this way. Just my take.

Seems to me Elephants were more of a surprise weapon, i.e. the first time they were encountered by troops not used to dealing with them they probably were much more successful.

Most armies that faced them on a regular basis would also develop tactics to deal with them.

Same with horses panicking, they don't like strange smells, but if they have been around elephants, they aren't strange smells anymore.

Related to the possibility to be massively destructive to their own side? Well if you had a gun with a barrel that was likely to turn around in battle and shoot you in the face, would you use it?

So did they rampage through their own troops from time to time? Probably, did they do it a lot? Not likely or armies would not have used them.

They must have been somewhat useful in battle or why bother with the massive effort to raise them, use them and possibly endanger them in battle if they were not?

Ammianus seems to have reckoned them.

Big question.

The bottom line is that ancient commanders didn't buy their armies off a budget list so didn't have to offset an elephant unit to a cohort or vice-versa. If they could field elephants, in most cases they would: see the deal Seleucus does with Chandragupta to get his elephants … see the efforts Hannibal made to get the elephants he already had into theatre for his Italian campaign.

Then it is a case of the enemy needing to counter them. Obviously if the counters to the elephants work, the elephants look a little less effective …

Most famously, the elephants helped Antiochus defeat the Galatians (the so-called elephant victory, now debated) … and perhaps equally, at Zama, a desperate Hannibal got no advantage from his mass of them …

But they do need to be countered, and advantage can come from that.

Phil

One thing I've noticed is that when elephants are deployed in a game they tend to become the focus of the enemy's attention. I've seen players change their deployment to focus on elephants – even when the elephants aren't actually doing anything. Things like shifting an entire wing of the army, just to make sure they have enough force facing 1 or 2 pachyderms.

I wonder if the actual battlefield impact of elephants was similar, in that they became a center of focus that could mess with the enemy's plans, even if the beasts themselves were not exponentially better or worse than other forces in actually killing large numbers of the enemy (which they don't seem to have been outstanding at).

Analogous to the WW2 "tiger effect" – they're big enough and have enough reputation to have an impact (through psychology) greater than their actual battlefield contribution.

I can't get to it at the moment,so someone can correct me,but Delbruck had a short chapter on elephants,examining the battles featuring them,which,if I remember correctly,seemed to show that,in general,the army with the most elephants lost.

I would concur with all the above posts. I would argue that elephants were probably an effective weapon since they were employed in battle for so little and by many different armies (Europe to southeast Asia and places in between). They created fear in those people and beasts that hadn't dealt with them before probably those that had. Empires made great effort to acquire them and the Romans put them to use against their enemies.

Indeed, Rome fielded elephants twice against Macedonia, and each time gained a decisive victory through their use. There are also the stories of Roman elephant use by Caesar and Claudius in Britain.

I like to mass my Classical Indian Army elephants. Here they are as work in progress:

15mm Museum Miniatures. Different, and stylised gaming pieces, but I like them.

Didn't Rome enforce defeated enemies to surrender elephants and not get more of them? Suggests they had uses.

As others said, elephants were often devastating against enemies who had not seen them before.
The Romans suffered at Bagradas in the 1st Punic War, Antiochus won the 'elephant victory' against the Galatians.
But they famously caused problems for their own side at Zama and Magnesia.

Scullard: "The elephant in the Greek and Roman world" is a good overview of the whole subject.

The knowledge of the military possibilities of the elephant first came to Europeans at the time of the invasion of India by Alexander the Great. At his battle on the Hydaspes (the Jhelum R.) against the Indian king Porus the elephants…proved a most formidable obstacle, and their value in war impressed itself especially upon the mind of Alexander's general Seleucus…at the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 30I B.C. the victory of Seleucus…was largely due to the victor's overwhelming superiority in elephants. Seleucus put no less than 480 into the field against the 78 of his opponents. Henceforward no Hellenistic power felt that it could afford to leave elephants out of its armament programme.

We only know of one battle in which the Ptolemaic African elephants took part. It was the battle of Raphia (near Gaza) in 2I7 B.C…Polybius, who gives a vivid account of the battle, especially of the way the elephants fought, tells us that most of the African elephants were frightened of the Indian elephants of Antiochus, and refused to face them. Like all other ancient writers, he says that the African elephant is inferior to the Indian in size and strength. This statement has been stigmatised as ignorant or inaccurate by modern historians; but there is good reason to believe that the races of African elephants available to Egypt and Carthage were in fact inferior in size, and probably also in training and discipline, to Indian elephants picked for war purposes.

At the time the struggle with Carthage began, the Romans had already had some experience of elephants. They had seen them for the first time in their war against Pyrrhus…At their first appearance the Romans were much perturbed, but by the end of the Pyrrhic war, after elephants captured from Pyrrhus had been paraded at Rome, the early apprehension had disappeared…Early in the first Punic war, in 262 B.C., Hanno took 50 elephants to Sicily in an attempt to raise the siege of Argentum…At the battle outside the city the elephants were apparently in the second line, for…"finally the Romans put to flight the advanced line of Carthaginian mercenaries, and as the latter fell back on the elephants and the other divisions in their rear, the whole Phoenician army was thrown into disorder and a complete rout ensued…The Romans captured most of the elephants." This was a matter of great elation in Rome. These were the first elephants the Roman army had encountered since those of Pyrrhus nearly 20 years before, and the result gave confidence to a new generation of soldiers. Too much confidence, perhaps; for at the battle of Tunis seven years later, the Roman forces under Regulus suffered a disastrous defeat by the Carthaginians, under their Spartan general Xanthippus. This time the elephants were in the Carthaginian front line. They charged the Roman centre which was in close order and deep formation – just what it ought not to have been…Such Roman legionaries as had managed to effect a passage through the oncoming elephants met the fresh and unbroken Carthaginian phalanx. Of the remainder numbers were trampled to death by the elephants…the Roman generals had learnt a lesson which they did not forget -- how formidable a spearhead to an attack on open and level ground was a force of well-trained elephants against heavy infantry in close formation.

…At Panormus (Palermo) in 250 B.C… the Carthaginian commander Hasdrubal unwisely used his elephants to attack an entrenched and fortified position. Unable to stand the shower of missiles poured on them by the defenders, they turned tail and played havoc with the ranks of the men behind them…Twenty-six elephants were killed and 104 were captured…They took part, in Rome, in Metellus' triumphal procession and were exhibited to the populace in the Circus. Finally they were all killed…to show the Romans how easily elephants could be killed by spearmen…they seem to have made up their minds from the first that elephants, if properly countered, were no serious danger to disciplined troops, and that on the whole they were more likely to damage their own side than their enemy. Herein they were not far wrong, but they might perhaps have taken a different view if they had had the facilities of the Seleucids for obtaining Indian elephants…Against "barbarians" elephants, as even the Romans realised, could always play a useful part. But they do not appear again in major warfare until Hannibal's famous invasion of Italy…At the battle of the Trebia he used the elephants as a screen for his own cavalry and they were of great effect against the Roman cavalry, whose unaccustomed horses would not face them…[but] Hannibal's most important victories in Italy – Lake Trasimene and Cannae -were won without the aid of elephants.

At Zama…Scipio had to face a formidable number of elephants…When Hannibal gave orders for the elephants to charge, Scipio ordered his whole line to make a tremendous blare with trumpets and horns, which startled the elephants…Some of them actually turned tail at once, rushing back on their own troops…The elephants captured after Zama were taken to Rome, and during the next ten years or so the Romans occasionally used some of them…The final appearance of the African elephant in any strength on the battlefield was at the battle of Thapsus…Caesar's archers, slingers and spearmen…successfully attacked the 64 elephants opposed to them, which, as usual, caused great confusion in their flight among the ranks of their own side.

- The African Elephant in Warfare, William Gowers
Source: African Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 182 (Jan., 1947)

According to Polybius and Livy, the elephants were coaxed onto camouflaged rafts and towed across, but panicked part way. They jumped off, drowning their mahouts…This account suggests that the operation was nothing short of a debacle…Livy and Polybius, however, are almost certainly inaccurate in their portrayal of the crossing….Elephants are actually very capable swimmers, and so could easily have crossed the 800 metre width …Indeed, elephants are acknowledged as being very useful in assisting river crossings, for they can be employed in lines both upstream to slow the current, and downstream to catch anyone who is swept away…

Elephants, in fact, are particularly sure of foot. They use their trunks to test the reliability of unfamiliar ground, and are able to walk along ledges where even mountain goats cannot pass. It seems likely that the elephants were themselves given the responsibility of clearing a path for the rest of the army, and that, rather than being a hindrance, they actually proved invaluable in crossing the Alps…

Zama, by rights, should have been the ultimate confrontation between two great generals, but this showdown never really eventuated; Hannibal's elephants ran amok and put him immediately on the back foot. When drawing up his formations before battle, Hannibal posted his elephants in one line in front of the rest of his troops. They were to be used in what can only be described as a crude charge at the enemy, an ill-advised practice which departed from the successful tactics used previously by Pyrrhus. This general, perhaps having recognised the elephant's fundamental unsuitability for pitched battle, used his elephants as impact weapons, holding them back until the fighting reached a crucial stage and then injecting them into the fray…

Hannibal could not force Rome into a pitched battle after Cannae, but he still called to Carthage for more elephants. Elephants have tremendous psychological value in warfare, and could have proved the difference in winning over the Latins and Gauls, or more likely scaring them into submission. Importantly, too, a significant elephant presence may have enabled Hannibal to deal with Rome's saviour, Fabius 'The Delayer'. The elephant's well-attested ability to devastate trees and crops, to operate at night, and to limit the activities of opposing cavalry, might have afforded Hannibal the freedom he required to stifle Fabius's harassing tactics…Hannibal may well have seen beyond the elephant's size and strength, and recognised its potential for success in the less confrontational aspects of war.

The Irony of Hannibal's Elephants
Author(s): Jacob Edwards
Source: Latomus, T. 60, Fasc. 4 (OCTOBRE-DÉCEMBRE 2001), pp. 900-905
Published by: Société d'Études Latines de Bruxelles

The status of Ptolemaic elephant size has been set into flux by genetic research…. which makes reaching back in time now appropriate to give kudos and recognition to @Greg Pitts, who argued here back in the day for the possibility of Savannah elephants in the Ptolemaic army-- and now it seems more likely for some of the Ethiopian elephants of that era to be larger beasts. That's the cool thing about ancients is that new stuff does get discovered, and sometimes it changes the paradigm.

That being said-- elephants are often very weak in games-- or too strong. FoG is one of the rule sets that sets them as mostly useless.

In the most general terms- elephants performed best at disordering enemy cavalry-- creating screens, and causing fear. As shock weapons they were mixed, with (as stated above) usually only good results against unprepared or foes that have never faced them.

In India and in the east this is somewhat different due in most part the to huge numbers of elephants available.

In the west, small numbers of elephants could garnish great success as both cavalry screens and shock weapons when judiciously used.But it seems that just as often using large numbers of elephants is detrimental.

They are harder to control than other troops once they are engaged. They can panic en masse and ruin their own army's day.

A lot of folks make out that Romans always had their way with elephants-- but not true… even later the Roman legions struggled with tactics of the Sassanids who carefully used their limited numbers of elephants to support their heavy cavalry and disrupt the Roman cataphracts.

WAB 1-1.5 had crazy elephant rules but they worked because they could be effective-- or awful… but it wasn't totally random- as judicious use reaped great rewards. Other rules often tone down the effectiveness and limit the random acts-- making them dull and thus ignored by the army builder .. sad as that might be.

All I know about elephants is what I have read. What I have read is articles derived from contemporary accounts of armies' experience with elephants. I haven't read any ancients wargames rules, so I have no idea how they treat elephants in general, nor are they a suitable source IMO.

My understanding is that elephants were highly effective against static infantry and potentially effective against cavalry unused to elephants. They seem to have been of doubtful value against entrenched troops or those able to manoeuvre defensively (eg to avoid or confuse the elephants), however, and apt to join in any nearby rout if large enough. They appear to have been useful shock cavalry in the right circumstances, eg against troops fixed in static formations (the Xanthippus example) or troops wavering at the crisis of a battle and in need of a nudge to send them over the edge. Wholesale panics seem rare – even at Zama the accounts state that some (not all) turned tail and ran among Hannibal's own troops.