"Elephants" Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleUsing pink stuff for basework.
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor tries out this first-year gaming convention in the San Francisco Bay Area (California).
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
FatherOfAllLogic | 15 May 2019 9:07 a.m. PST |
So various Indian polities used elephants in warfare. Now an elephant looks like a very big target covered in sensitive skin and one would think that archers would destroy them. Yet they were used for ages. Did the Hindu religion and the requirement to not kill animals get in the way? Or are only some animals sacred? Am I totally wrong (not the first time)? |
Frederick | 15 May 2019 9:24 a.m. PST |
Hinduism holds all animals as important but there are different gradations of important – the elephant shares the top tier with a few other animals. The Hindu belief is that elephants characterize royalty, majesty, strength, divinity, abundance, fertility, intelligence, keenness, destructive power, and grasping power and are believed to have souls ready for evolution to a higher level. Elephants feature in dreams before the birth of an important person in Hindu myth. Interestingly, the elephant is considered kingly so the alpha male in an elephant herd is called the royal elephant Now that all being said, there is also a long tradition of the use of elephants in war so in that context there is no reason not to try to kill them; i think archers may not have been as effective against elephants as one might imagine |
JJartist | 16 May 2019 10:03 a.m. PST |
There may also be something else at play here. In earlier Indian warfare hierarchy of opponents is something adhered to. In works such as the Mahabharata heroes fight heroes and underlings fight underlings. It has long been a conundrum in war game armies that over values Indian long bows can obliterate anything- especially enemy elephants.In reality it seems something structural prevented this, as well as the effectiveness of the Indian long straight bow is over emphasized. I feel it is a combination of the two. The bow isn't as good as the Indians themselves claim, and their tactics followed hierarchical rules based on cultural norms that gamers would not want to be restricted by. When one tries to figure out the Hydaspes battle- it is easier to fathom the moves in terms of how the Indians did not know how to fight the invader because the foreigners were not following the rules where elephants fight elephants, chariots fight chariots, and infantry fight infantry. Porus' desire to fight Alexander in person goes straight back to the Mahabharata's sense of hierarchical combat, where heroes combat the opposing hero. Of course if that had occured at the start of the fight, Alexander may have been at a disadvantage on horseback up against Porus on an elephant. Most game rules do not factor in these types of rigid conformity to armies. |
FatherOfAllLogic | 17 May 2019 6:58 a.m. PST |
Interesting comment. Back in the day, Chainmail wargaming rules had a hierarchal list of targets for knights: other knights first, then other horse, then dismounted knights, etc. Rules of this nature 'force' players to play more 'realistically'. This would explain elephants. |
|