01-14-2008, 03:09 PM
Thanks for that nice little bibliography, I see two references I have never read (I thought I had them all!).
I cannot say there is a consensus just because a lot of people offer their opinions without really studying the issue. Many modern historians look down on ancient historians as silly and just quoting rumors and making up stuff. So many scholars still think the ancients were wrong in saying that Asian elephants were larger and better than Africans. But those sources are also unfamiliar with the modern re-discovery of the African Forest elephant species.
The problem is that the Romans annihilated the Forest elephants from Africa during the ivory lust of the first and second centuries AD, when Carthage and Egypt were little more than staging grounds for ivory hunts. It is also quite clear not just from the literature but from art works and sculpture that the African elephants were not huge in size compared to their riders, but in fact were just somewhat larger than big horses.
So I would say that modern scholars who are now re familiarized with the existence of a north african elephant species of smaller size would agree that the ancients are correct, regarding size.
Regarding quality is a different matter. The ancients believed the african elephants to be inferior in a qualititative way just because of one or two ancient historical battles, in which the africans lost. From then on the "common wisdom" was that africans were worse. But the one major battle with Asian elephants (by Antiochus the Great) versus Africans (vs one of the Ptolemies of Egypt) is a tough battle to make such judgments.
The Ptolemies were new to elephants, so their riders were likely inexperienced and their mounts only trained in mediocre fashion. The Asians had real India mahouts and previous experience. So throwing in a bunch of rookie elephants with rookie riders into battle was hardly fair for assessing the usefulness of the whole species. Further, Antiochus had a numeric advantage also, thus no one should be surprised that his elephants won their battle. Yet Antiochus lost the battle in spite of the elephant victory.
The Ptolemies pretty much gave up on war elephants after that, so just the Romans used them in Spain and Greece afterwards. They had very good results, but never faced Asian elephants in battle (they avoided placing their africans against Antiochus' Asians and just used archers and infantry instead).
So I would say there is no real proof that Asians are better, since the one good case is inconclusive at best. But the size is certainly settled, in my opinion.
John Kistler
I cannot say there is a consensus just because a lot of people offer their opinions without really studying the issue. Many modern historians look down on ancient historians as silly and just quoting rumors and making up stuff. So many scholars still think the ancients were wrong in saying that Asian elephants were larger and better than Africans. But those sources are also unfamiliar with the modern re-discovery of the African Forest elephant species.
The problem is that the Romans annihilated the Forest elephants from Africa during the ivory lust of the first and second centuries AD, when Carthage and Egypt were little more than staging grounds for ivory hunts. It is also quite clear not just from the literature but from art works and sculpture that the African elephants were not huge in size compared to their riders, but in fact were just somewhat larger than big horses.
So I would say that modern scholars who are now re familiarized with the existence of a north african elephant species of smaller size would agree that the ancients are correct, regarding size.
Regarding quality is a different matter. The ancients believed the african elephants to be inferior in a qualititative way just because of one or two ancient historical battles, in which the africans lost. From then on the "common wisdom" was that africans were worse. But the one major battle with Asian elephants (by Antiochus the Great) versus Africans (vs one of the Ptolemies of Egypt) is a tough battle to make such judgments.
The Ptolemies were new to elephants, so their riders were likely inexperienced and their mounts only trained in mediocre fashion. The Asians had real India mahouts and previous experience. So throwing in a bunch of rookie elephants with rookie riders into battle was hardly fair for assessing the usefulness of the whole species. Further, Antiochus had a numeric advantage also, thus no one should be surprised that his elephants won their battle. Yet Antiochus lost the battle in spite of the elephant victory.
The Ptolemies pretty much gave up on war elephants after that, so just the Romans used them in Spain and Greece afterwards. They had very good results, but never faced Asian elephants in battle (they avoided placing their africans against Antiochus' Asians and just used archers and infantry instead).
So I would say there is no real proof that Asians are better, since the one good case is inconclusive at best. But the size is certainly settled, in my opinion.
John Kistler
John Kistler
writer, businessman, elephant lover
writer, businessman, elephant lover
