AK, I think we pretty much agree, I just don’t think that even bringing even the most crack engineering corps around would have helped. So I don’t think it’s about “oh, bugger, I could have marched on Rome, but I didn’t bring engineers. My secretary screwed up! I didn’t write ‘elephants’, I wrote ‘engineers’!” I just don’t think it comes down to that. No one was doing this kind of thing quickly, and certainly not with a small force. If speed counted, you’d be boned. Even taking a small town would take time. And while Rome wasn’t yet the megapolis it would become, it was still a large city, with fortifications.
Although, I should mention that there is another way of going about this sort of thing, in rather particular circumstances. Specifically, if you’re Scipio, and you’re assaulting Carthago Nova while no one is home. I think there were, like, a thousand dudes there to defend it, and Scipio took it in an afternoon. So, weird stuff like that might happen.
You and me can be in the Legion of the Yellow Bellied together. Our motto is “Ain’t Nobody Got Time For That!” It sounds better in the original screaming.
BTW, can I just say that your use of bold in that quote is messing with my mind? I’m used to seeing bolded names referring to posters on the board. So now it looks to me like Scipio is a poster here. Which would be pretty weird. He could start one hell of an “ask me” thread, though.
I’ve been told that elephants, in general, are much overrated as a weapon of war. When they’re shot at or lit on fire, they freak out and trample their own side.
Properly trained war-elephants and their properly trained * operators*/*rider * would not. They were like the tanks of their day, impervious to most infantry weapons and made crunching sounds when going over infantrymen.
In many battles in the Med, one or more of the above were lacking. Then that happened.
Oh, *true *Scotsmen. AK, if you’re not too busy, could you show me a list of important battles won by use of elephants? Bonus points if those battles are against organized armies, such as Macedonians and Romans. I’ll wait.
Meanwhile, I’ll prepare a list of those where elephants were either pointless or a calamity. I’m thinking of Yakety Sax as the soundtrack. I’ll start with Thapsus.
I think this is basically backwards. Elephants weren’t the tanks of their day. They were just the elephants of their day. Who were the tanks? Well, who can walk through a storm of missiles, stand up to charges by large animals, and stomp all over lightly armored enemies? Who can cut their way through swarms of barbarians like they’re made of butter? Chuck Norris! OK, he wasn’t there. But who were pretty good at those things, minus the hyperbole? Heavy infantry. Starting with the hoplites, moving on to the Macedonian phalanx, and upgrading all the way to legionaries.
If your elephants suck unless you bubble wrap them in infantry, that should tell you something. And that something is probably that you should stop selling your product, and go into the bubble wrap business full time. People love that stuff! Popping it is great fun, and very soothing. It’ll sell like hotcakes! Wait, what was I talking about? Right. Infantry.
Are you familiar with the concept of force multipliers? If infantry with elephants is more effective than just plain infantry, then elephants are effective.
People always seem to critique military units and equipment in isolation, and they’re always wrong. A military force is a system, and the effectiveness of any component in it is measured not by how effective it is and and of itself, but how effective it is in conjunction with the other components. As you would say, tanks are the tanks of today - and tanks are almost useless without infantry, artillery and air support.
True, obviously. I was going to add: Don’t, for heaven’s sake, apply my advice to actual tanks.
Obviously, I’m aware of the concept of a mixed army. You support your heavy infantry. That’s what your light infantry, your skirmishers, your field artillery, your cavalry and your whatever bits and bobs are there for. They didn’t show up only for the sightseeing. I thought that was kind of implied, but I suppose that it wasn’t. Those guys, and… aha! Your elephants!
As I said, the elephants aren’t the tanks. The heavy infantry is. Elephants are support weapons, right? For one thing, you’re never going to have all that many of them. I suppose what I mean is that if you find yourself having to babysit your support with your main guys, you may have a problem. Support should run out there, and then be able to bugger off. Either that, or they should have range, to avoid contact.
Skirmishers that have to hide behind the infantry aren’t really working as they should, are they? Cav that can’t fight without the infantry coming along isn’t really working at all. Same thing with elephants. If you have to stick them behind your infantry line lest they cause havoc, they’re not an asset. They’re a pain in the ass.
I really have no idea. I was just trying to say that claiming that they’re useless without infantry to protect them is not a valid argument, as they were not intended to be deployed without infantry support.
Well. that’s one, bringing them level with scythed chariots.
But now I realize that I was asking the completely wrong question. They’re support, not the tanks. So it’s like asking for a list of battles won by skirmishers, light infantry or field artillery. Or by scythed chariots. (Cavalry, of course, being rather different.)
That’s right, I *was *being a bit stupid, after all. Live and learn. I suppose what gives them their bad rep, then, is mainly the calamity factor. It’s pretty unique, when you think about it. You’ll never have this problem with other parts of your army. Your skirmishers, cavalry, etc. may perform well, or poorly, or meh, but they don’t come crashing back into your line and stomp your own army.
Also, an expectation gap. Everyone assumes that elephants are supposed to be awesome. So whenever someone nullifies the elephant threat (which is, like, always) it’s actually pointed out.
And now I’m done ranting about elephants. Not sure why I started doing that in the first place. That being said, though, note that they’re still a calamity, and they still suck.
Actually, look at your link there, because this is actually pretty interesting. How were the elephants deployed decisively at Ipsus? Were they up front? Did they break the enemy line? No. Did they even pull a flanking move? No.
Here’s what happened, as far as I can tell: They weren’t even deployed, as such. They were at the back, apparently in “reserve” (cough stuffed way behind the infantry and out of everyone’s way cough), where they happened to block an enemy flanking force, by pure happenstance.
So, whoop-de-doo. Well, OK, fine. I suppose that’s one way to use them, If you want to bring a wall, though, I think more phalanx is probably a better option.
It seems very clear to me that elephants were not tanks, at least not like we think. They couldn’t smash through disciplined heavy infantry that knew how to deal with elephants.
The problem is that many wars were fought without much in the way of disciplined heavy infantry. And sometimes even when you had disciplined heavy infantry, you had never run into elephants before and didn’t know how to handle them.
So elephants worked like a heavy cavalry charge. Try charging headlong into the spearmen, and if they just keep the pointy bits pointing the right way, your cavalry charge is doomed. If they get nervous and start running away, you trample them. And elephants scare horses too.
So I’m pretty sure that elephants were very useful when the Carthaginians were romping around Hispania. And overawing the Gauls as you march through Transalpine Gaul to Italy.
But they’re a boggart that stops being effective when you stop being scared of it. Easier said than done of you’re a barbarian tribe. Easily done if you’re a Roman legion.
Again, Hannibal’s elephants are famous for only one thing: crossing the Alps. They disappear from history the day after they cross the Alps.
