Should War Elephants be Pants in Rules?

[Cat]

Not all elephant roads lead to Rome.
 
They are also central to the Southeast Asian armies.
 
In DBA terms, the elephant armies already have it pretty tough because elephants eat command pips and are highly penalised in bad going — which is where they live and fight in Southeast Asia...
 
But dang, the armies are very pretty!

[DaveCrow]

It is worthy of note that Hannibal Barca thought enough of them to venture the tremendous undertaking of bringing them across the Alps to attack Rome.  We all know that they didn't actually accomplish anything, but it would have been sooo much easier too just leave them home.

[FierceKitty]

Curious, the DBA terrain bit. I live in SE Asia, and it's widely held that an elephant is the ultimate in all-terrain transport.

[Cat]

Curious, the DBA terrain bit. I live in SE Asia, and it's widely held that an elephant is the ultimate in all-terrain transport.

Curious indeed.  They get lumped in with "all mounted" for terrain modifiers.

[SteveBurt]

Curious indeed.  They get lumped in with "all mounted" for terrain modifiers.

There is a big difference between one elephant and a unit of elephants.

[ithoriel]

There is a big difference between one elephant and a unit of elephants.

Other than a wider strip of trampled vegetation and a larger quantity of environmentally friendly fertiliser I'm not convinced there is when it comes to interaction with terrain.

[Arrigo]

One of the issues here is that some secondary sources tend to assume things that are not said by the primary ones. An then build on that. Then this creeps into rules. Like the fact that Ptolemaic African Elephants are smaller than Seleucids Indians... while now the scientific consensus is that they were the big African ones still extant, rather than Tarn's small African forest.

Prestige is certain. Nothing says 'I am powerful' more than an elephant corps. Yet if it was just prestige they would not have been employed so often in combat. They had their use and several generals exploited them well. Hannibal Elephants worked well at the Trebbia (so no they did indeed accomplished something). Zama is not a really relevant case because all our sources agree these elephants were untrained. It is worth noting that elephants did much better in well trained army than cobbled together ones.

As people points out Elephants were a primary element in South East Asian armies, and even today they are considered all terrain transports. And no I doubt they have problem in what DBA call rough going, but again it was Phil Barker taking over the then current consensus, in turn based on lot of guesses (charitable version of what was considered the truth).  My opinion is that plenty of rules got them wrong focusing on useless African vs Indian rather than trained vs untrained. Rampaging elephants are fun but again... in the sources they looks more as anecdotes to add pathos to a story rather than serious tactical refelctions. Yes they could happen, but how regularly?

[sukhe_bator]

It is significant I think that Elephants became replaced by heavy artillery in the later medieval period. They did also act as a weapons platform for swivel guns etc but were ultimately too vulnerable to rocket and heavy musket fire etc. Kings, and Commanders used them as elevated command and control platforms but often towards the rear. Both elephants and artillery were expensive and intimidating so status and morale effect were I believe major considerations. The military arms race of the Successors made them 'must haves' on the field - if only to negate those of the opposition. It was not wise to turn up without them, just in case, and elaborate ruses were often resorted to deceive the enemy in their absence even if their actual effectiveness in the field was dubious.

[Jjonas]

Note that the Romans used elephants in their victories over the Successor kingdoms. Both Cynoscephalae and Pydna had the Roman elephants decisively hit parts of the Macedonian line. The sources play this down in favor of the legionaries.

Even in the climactic battle against the Seleucids, the Romans had elephants. In that battle at Magnesia the Romans held their elephants in reserve in camp because the Seleucid elephant outnumbered them. It seems to me they were involved in repulsing Antiochus’ cavalry at the gates of the Roman camp- but as usual they get no coverage.

Elephants are best against undisciplined troops that are not used to them or trained in counter measures. The Seleucid elephants at the so called “elephant victory” over the Galatians occurred because the elephants struck the Galatian cavalry and chariots and panicked them into the infantry routing them in turn. There are not a lot of details but this is the best indicator of the best use of elephants- blocking or routing cavalry which can then panic the main battle line.
There is an important delineation between bad elephant tactics and whether elephants themselves are ineffective. Also it’s keenly important to remember that Indian elephants in Indian armies were extremely well trained and had generations of skillful handling behind them. The successors never had that level of training for their war elephants. Even Hannibal succumbed to using poorly trained elephants in a desperate rush ahead tactic at Zama, which the savvy Roman commander anticipated with special tactics for dealing with them.

[Easy E]

Note that the Romans used elephants in their victories over the Successor kingdoms. Both Cynoscephalae and Pydna had the Roman elephants decisively hit parts of the Macedonian line. The sources play this down in favor of the legionaries.

Thank you for pointing this very common bias in the remaining sources.  The Legionaries are played up and every other part of the army is played down.  It is almost a trope.

[SteveBurt]

One of the issues here is that some secondary sources tend to assume things that are not said by the primary ones. An then build on that. Then this creeps into rules. Like the fact that Ptolemaic African Elephants are smaller than Seleucids Indians... while now the scientific consensus is that they were the big African ones still extant, rather than Tarn's small African forest.

The info about African elephants being smaller comes from Polybios, in his account of Raphia so it is a primary source.
I’ve not seen any consensus about the use of the big African elephants, which as far as I know have always been confined to sub-Saharan Africa, not the northern part. Where did you get that information?

[Arrigo]

There were several scholarly articles.

The crux of the matter is this bit:

"Ptolemy's elephants, however, declined the combat, as is the habit of African elephants; for unable to stand the smell and the trumpeting of the [Asian] elephants, and terrified, I suppose, also by their great size and strength, they at once turn tail and take to flight before they get near them."

and if you red it twice you get the impression Polybius was basically guessing. Recently the thing has been discussed in:


Elephants at Raphia, reinterpreting Polybius
War Elephants Myth debunked by DNA
Again on the elephants of Raphia : re-examining Polybius' factual accuracy and historical method in the lignt of a DNA survey

Hope that this help.

[SteveBurt]

Thanks. Well, I read those articles, and I’m not at all convinced. They prove that Eritrean elephants are the savannah species. But there’s no evidence that Ptolemy got his elephants from there; he traded with Eritrea, sure. But why would he get elephants from there? Forest elephants were native to North Africa in ancient times; it is far more likely that he got them locally. After all, there is no suggestion that the Carthaginians got their elephants from Eritrea.
I’m still inclined to believe Polybios.

[modelwarrior]

Been reading all up on war elephants and have discovered elephants have a secret kryptonite. Apparently its war pigs

[sukhe_bator]

The achilles heel of elephants is just that... Alexander used axe wielding troops to great effect, but the biggest counter is caltrops. Despite their size ellies have very sensitive feet.