Employing war elephants

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A wild shot into formations of men is probably as good as anything, adding to the terror the beasts them selves instilled! A bonus shot, really!

[hoplite14gr]

Really like your post Steven.

Have to say though what about casting javelins from the elephant?

Also in may cases a pike was used from the tower.
I belive that defending from a pike thrusting downwards and near a huge beast must a challenge.

Kind regards

[antiochus]

Have to say though what about casting javelins from the elephant?
Also in may cases a pike was used from the tower.I belive that defending from a pike thrusting downwards and near a huge beast must a challenge.

If you are sitting on the back of the elephant, firing a bow or throwing a javelin is easy. My analogy is if you are sitting on a surfboard with your legs dangling over the board, you can also throw a javelin and shoot a bow. Now try the same when standing on a surfboard. With the rising and falling of the sea, it becomes a completely different story. Even bracing myself in the corners of the towers still did not give me the stability I needed.

The Thais use long pikes with blades at the ends to attack an enemy mahout. Since my many elephant experiences I no longer believe in the tower being used to defend the elephant from enemy troops on the ground.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I can almost see these guys may have been kneeling in the towers on the back.
They seem too small for a man to stand in, IIRC.
Perhaps I am off though.

[Robert Vermaat]

The ability to fire a bow or javelin from the tower while the elephant is moving is a real hit or miss affair and is nothing more than a wild shot. It's not like you can use the Parthian horse archers firing method and fire when the two front legs of the horse are in the air. Sitting on the back of the elephant is more stable than in a tower. My conclusion is the tower and crew are there to protect the mahout, nothing more. Kill the mahout and you disable the elephant. The guys in the towers cannot protect the elephant, which is the role of the elephant escorts.

Interesting! And how about the defenders employing a long lance? Would archery be more realistic if the animal stood still, with the elephants being employed as archery platform at the back of a formation?

[philsidnell]

It seems clear that it would be easier to shoot from the back of a stationary elephant and so using them simply as a missile platform might seem logical. However, as always we must remember that just because something was possible or even sensible, that doesn't mean that is what happened. In the Western world at least all the literary evidence suggests the elephants themselves were the primary weapon, using their bulk for shock action (or the threat of it - their mere presence being an effective deterrent to cavalry - as at Ipsos). Besides, as I see it, each elephant represents a very big investment in logistical and financial effort (not to mention actual risk if the thing runs amok), just to give one or two archers a better view.

Phil Sidnell

[antiochus]

The elephant when stationary is a very stable firing platform. Tried to ford a river on the back of an elephant, but the elephant stopped to have a drink. Now when an elephant decides to have a drink, no mahout can make him move. So there I was with a traffic jam of eight elephants behind me. All one could do was wait it out.

So for me, and those Thai mahouts I talk to (albeit with my limited Thai), it’s killing the enemy mahout that disables an enemy elephant. The mahout is the steering wheel.

[philsidnell]

And a couple of the archers on the back of another elephant would be pretty handy for that during elephant on elephant action.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Phil,

It seems clear that it would be easier to shoot from the back of a stationary elephant and so using them simply as a missile platform might seem logical. However, as always we must remember that just because something was possible or even sensible, that doesn't mean that is what happened. In the Western world at least all the literary evidence suggests the elephants themselves were the primary weapon, using their bulk for shock action (or the threat of it - their mere presence being an effective deterrent to cavalry - as at Ipsos). Besides, as I see it, each elephant represents a very big investment in logistical and financial effort (not to mention actual risk if the thing runs amok), just to give one or two archers a better view.

Well, if you reaad Rance's article (Rance, Philip (2003): Elephants in Warfare in Late Antiquity, in: Acta Ant. Hung. 43, pp. 355-84), that's his conclusion - elephants were not so much used as shock troops but far more as command- or other platforms, or even in siege warfare.

Hi Steven,

So for me, and those Thai mahouts I talk to (albeit with my limited Thai), it’s killing the enemy mahout that disables an enemy elephant. The mahout is the steering wheel.

All the more reason to guard the poor driver with a battery of archers?

[philsidnell]

Hi Phil,

[Well, if you reaad Rance's article (Rance, Philip (2003): Elephants in Warfare in Late Antiquity, in: Acta Ant. Hung. 43, pp. 355-84), that's his conclusion - elephants were not so much used as shock troops but far more as command- or other platforms, or even in siege warfare.

I confess that I haven't read that article and also that my knowledge of the later period is less solid than for the Hellenistic/Republican Roman period, for which I think I have read most of the relevant ancient sources (but not modern interpretations/theories). But even for the late period, Ammianus describing the Persians outside Ctesiphon says of the elephants that 'their huge bodies threatened destruction to all who approached , and past experience had taught us to dread them' - doesn't sound like his experience was of seeing them at the back directing operations or adding a couple of archers each to the already high volume of Persian firepower.

In the battle in which Julian was killed he says the Roman left 'gave way because our men could not stand the smell and noise of the elephants...' but the situation was saved by Julian and some light infantry who 'took the offensive, hacking at the backs and legs of the Persians and their monstrous beasts as they turned tail' - which you could argue shows that elephants were in the thick of the fighting.

After Julian fell, the Persians then counterattacked 'and the elephants, who came on slowly in front of them, struck terror into man and beast by their immense size and the plumes crowning their awful heads'

And again during the Roman strategic withdrawal:

'the Persians attacked with the elephants in front. At first their smell and the horror of their approach threw horses and men into confusion, but the Joviani and Herculiani killed a few of the brutes...'

So at least one army of Late Antiquity was still using them to lead assaults, which is a pretty good definition of a shock role.

Would be interested to read that article and learn what evidence he puts forth.

Phil Sidnell

[Robert Vermaat]

That stuff about size, smell, noise and terror seems to be a topos used by many ancient authors who never saw an elephant and copied time and again an exactly similar description. Rance has made a note of that and challenges the supposedly realistic description in some accounts.

PM me your email and/or postal address, I'll see if I can send you a copy.

[philsidnell]

Fair enough, the exact forms of words and phrases he uses might be a topos, but Ammianus was an eyewitness to these events wasn't he? I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Phil Sidnell.

Will PM you my email address, many thanks.