Kosmo Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 A nice article about Alexander's elephants http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/MilHist.html sparked my interest about roman use of elephants. At Thapsus Scipio used some 120 forest african elephants against Caesar, but Caesar's men defeated them. An elefant's life it's 50 years, so, they were still around for the next rounds of civil war. Any information about their fate (I presume that they survived the routing)? This was the only recorded roman use of them in battle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Another excellent site. Nice work Kosmo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted February 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm you humble servant, Propreator! :notworthy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Seems to me they would just be huge targets for archers and javelin throwers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 I've done a bit of research on the cavalry arm of the Republican army and Thapsus is the only time I know of where the Romans utilized elephants. They faced them a number of times, Trebia, Zama, and vs. Pyrrus, for instance. IIRC, the velites and other light troops were usually deployed to counter elephants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Elephants in war really doesn't seem like a good idea. They're every bit as dangerous to their own side as to the enemy. As Ursus said they are simply big targets; and when injured, an elephant tends to go on an insane rampage. They are rather slow moving, extremely tall (making it difficult to reach your enemy from that height, unless you are using the height as an advantage for archery or spear throwing or something) and about the only thing they are good for is intimidation (which may or may not be a worthwhile advantage. It seems to me that the cost is too great for a little intimidation.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 At Zama, Scipio opened his ranks to let the elephants through. They were attacked on their sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 At Zama, Scipio opened his ranks to let the elephants through. They were attacked on their sides. Strangely enough that was the same tactic Alexander used at Gaugamela to defeat King Darius' chariots. As for elephants in battle, the Romans showed that they were easy to counter, which led to them becoming obsolete. Even so, Claudius brought elephants with him on the campaign in Britain in AD 43. So they were still good at terrifying peoples who had never encountered them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Its very much a case of swings and roundabouts concerning elephants. They're easily panicked, eat humungous amounts of forage, and aren't really suited to warfare. However, they happen to be large obedient animals that make short work of any human being who gets nasty with it. In a sense, the elephant serves the same role as a tank. For all their faults, elephants were repeatedly used by ancient armies and therefore were considered to have military value. If they were useless, no-one would have bothered. Besides, they make labouring at the camp something of a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted February 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Claudius brought elephants with him on the campaign in Britain in AD 43. This means that the imperial army still had an elephant cavalry arm. I've seen some images of male elephants fighting and they were not something I want to make angry. The elephants used by Hannibal and Scipio were smaller from a Maghreb species now extinct, so hight was not a problem. Anyway, larger elefants were considered better. If generals like Alexander (had but not used himself), Antigonos, Seleucos, Pyrhhus and Hannibal used them i'm sure that they were not worthless especially against a phalanx. Maybe romans that left gaps in formations and all had pila were better at fighting them then the phalanx, but still they were very cautios about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 The main thing about elephants is prestige. Why ? Because they were big, powerfull, and connected with far away lands. Having them cost a lot, they were of fragile health, but they terrified enemy soldiers on the battlefield with their noise, size, and the damages they could do to tightly packed infantry. Also horses were afraid by them, thus making them a good counter cavalry force. About the prestige value of elephant I suggest you look at the main roman use of elephants : games. Pompey wanted to enter Rome on a vehicle drawn by elephants and was only deterred when it was shown the triumph arcs in the city were too low to give way to such a convoy. Then in the imperial time they were mostly taken for games in the arena. This image of prestige did survive for centuries, as shown by Charlemagne's request of an elephant from the muslim caliph in Baghdad, elephant he used ( and lost ) during campaigns in northern Holland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thanks for posting the great link Kosmo! After reading around the site I've decided to add it to my favourites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divi Filius Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) This was the only recorded roman use of them in battle? No, the Romans used elephants were used to supplament the Roman right wing at the battle of Pydna. Also, the elephants were probably used by the Romans during the Second Punic War, whenever they were captured. For all their faults, elephants were repeatedly used by ancient armies and therefore were considered to have military value. If they were useless, no-one would have bothered. Besides, they make labouring at the camp something of a breeze. Their effectiveness against the hellenistic world was probably questionable. There are plenty of ways to incapacitate the beast; worst of all you have the fear that they could very well turn on you. I think their value was more in the effect than in the use. Unless ofcourse you were a Bactrian king, considering you could mass up great numbers of large Indian elephants. The fact that Hannibal lost the beasts very shortly after Trebia, when he was still to reach his peak, meant that he must not have considered them very helpful in the Italian campaign*. Alexander never had the chance of using the elaphants, I suspect that he would have made good use of the massive Indian ones in his other campaigns. *Perhaps he never really intended them for heavy use against the Romans. Maybe he brought them just to scare off aggressive tribes along the way. Strangely enough that was the same tactic Alexander used at Gaugamela to defeat King Darius' chariots. Whenever a large hard-to-manuever object is coming at you.... simply step to the side... Edited March 11, 2007 by Divi Filius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.