I know there is some evidence that Claudius transported some elephants to Britain during his visit, but is it likely that he would have ridden one - even on just on a triumphal entry?
My feeling is not, but I'd welcome some other more informed views.
The reason for asking is that is has been suggested it as part of an "app" on the history of Colchester.
Not knowing his personal preference in the matter it is hard to say. It would have been possible to provide him with a specially designed howdah, a trained elephant and a helpful crew had he wished to do so, but it really comes down to what we think he might have done in light of what we know of his personality.
My own reading is that he would have been tempted by the idea because it would impress the native with the grandeur of Rome (and Rome's emperor) while at the same time a bit worried in case it all went horribly wrong. If he could have been reassured on this point, I think he would have done it: he was always keen on spectacle, witness his 'realistic' naval battle on the Fucine Lake, and Suetonius (Claudius, 30) writes that he "had a certain majesty and dignity of presence" when he was seated, standing still or in repose - all of which might encourage him to ride an elephant rather than try to manage a horse or bump along in a chariot.
The elephant would also distance him more from the spectators which should add to the dignity of the occasion, so like Patrick, I think he'd have given it a go ;)
Jim
Against, if he did, wouldn't that be likely to be mentioned explicitly? Riding a nellie would seem the sort of thing to attract remark?
Also, in the West (as in, west of India), elephants are distinctly rare as mounts for top commanders. The only instance that comes to mind is Ptolemy Keraunos*.
So, not saying it definitely didn't happen, but I'd incline to suspect not.
* If indeed he did - we're all familiar, I guess, with the idea he fell of his elephant in battle with the Galatians, but I just looked through a number of ancient sources mentioning his death (Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Plutarch, and Justin), and none seem to mention anything pachydermal in connection therewith. Anyone know where the story comes from?
It's Memnon of Herakleia, as preserved in Photios:
QuoteHe committed many other crimes over a period of two years, until a band of Gauls left their country because of famine and invaded Macedonia. He joined battle with these Gauls, and was killed in a manner befitting his own cruelty, being torn apart by the Gauls, who had captured him alive after the elephant on which he was riding was injured and threw him off.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_06bibliotheca.htm (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_06bibliotheca.htm)
Thanks. 8)
My own feeling when I first heard the idea suggested was that it was extremely unlikely due to a combination of the following factors which reflects earlier comments:
a) It could have been prone to complete failure if it had gone wrong which seems out of keeping with his whole approach to his participation in the invasion.
b) Romans of this period were not famous elephant users so I'm not convinced any of the elephants would have been well enough trained to be a safe ride, especially in an unfamiliar and recently conquered country.
c) We don't hear too much about the elephants being ridden in such away either in Britain nor in Rome and I'm sure we would have if they had.
An interesting if slightly off usual subject matter discussion!
All of which is certainly true - up to a point.
Claudius would not have brought over elephants that were untrained: a high level of training and understanding would have been necessary to get the creatures across the English Channel in the first place, not to mention using them in battle without mishap. We can safely assume that had Clau-Clau wanted to ride one then a reliable beast and crew would have been available, so it really comes down to a question of whether we think he would have wanted to do so, or be persuaded to it by his favourites.
The Romans were not great builders of large ships or users of thunder-and-lightning machines, but this did not stop Caligula having these made and used. If Claudius had wanted to ride an elephant then every effort would have been put into making one suitable for him to ride, whatever it took. Hence my feeling that it comes down to whether he would actually have felt like doing so. His aversion to insecurity would say no; his appreciation of spectacle would say yes.
So would he? Knowing him as I do (largely through the pages of Suetonius) I think he would, but that is just my opinion. :)
Have people seen this discussion - http://rogueclassicism.com/2010/07/28/first-elephant-in-britain/ (http://rogueclassicism.com/2010/07/28/first-elephant-in-britain/) - or is that perhaps what sparked this current thread?
And while I think of it, is there any source for the claim that Claudius brought along camels as well - for instance, http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A5855448 (http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A5855448) - or is that entirely down to Robert Graves?
Cassius Dio (LX.7) makes reference to camels earlier in Claudius' reign:
"In the Circus there was one contest with camels and twelve with horses, and three hundred bears and the same number of Libyan beasts were slain."
Dio's (LX.21) account of Claudius' British campaign refers to 'extensive forces [strateia polle] including elephants', but does not specifically mention camels.
"Shortly afterwards Togodumnus perished, but the Britons, so far from yielding, united all the more firmly to avenge his death. Because of this fact and because of the difficulties he had encountered at the Thames, Plautius became afraid, and instead of advancing any farther, proceeded to guard what he had already won, and sent for Claudius. 2 For he had been instructed to do this in case he met with any particularly stubborn resistance, and, in fact, extensive equipment [sic], including elephants, had already been got together for the expedition.
When the message reached him, Claudius entrusted affairs at home, including the command of the troops, to his colleague Lucius Vitellius, whom he had caused to remain in office like himself for a whole half-year; and he himself then set out for the front. 3 He sailed down the river to Ostia, and from there followed the coast to Massilia; thence, advancing partly by land and partly along the rivers, he came to the ocean and crossed over to Britain, where he joined the legions that were waiting for him near the Thames. 4 Taking over the command of these, he crossed the stream, and engaging the barbarians, who had gathered at his approach, he defeated them and captured Camulodunum, the capital of Cynobellinus. Thereupon he won over numerous tribes, in some cases by capitulation, in others by force, and was saluted as imperator several times, contrary to precedent; 5 for no man may receive this title more than once for one and the same war. He deprived the conquered of their arms and handed them over to Plautius, bidding him also subjugate the remaining districts. Claudius himself now hastened back to Rome, sending ahead the news of his victory by his sons-in‑law Magnus and Silanus."
So unless they were travelling anonymously as part of the 'extensive forces', camels are not mentioned by Dio. Robert Graves may have put two and two together from the above passages to assume the availability and use of camels and/or may have been subconsciously influenced by a book (http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Uncle-Claudius-Camel-P-Martin-Jonathan/1166417831/bd?oo=0) current at the time. ;)
Yes Duncan it was Colchester Castle's claim (advised by a different route) that sparked my question. Given that the town's "centurion" emblem is also somewhat suspect (fore-aft crest with ponytail on an attic helmet) I wasn't too sure about this claim either.
I suppose we can now expect to see the Essex version of an Imperial Roman army to include elephants - but only if as the mount of the Emperor, with flash paint job on the howdah, spoilers and fluffy dice.
And girls? ;)
One aspect that no-one has mentioned is that he would have wanted to align himself with Julius Caesar who famously used an elephant as one of his symbols of victory (either for the Civil Wars or over Galllia depending on who you read). There is also Polyaenus (Strat 8:23) claiming that Caesar had a single armoured elephant in Britannia though this is not mentioned in Caesar's Gallic Wars so may be erroneous (but then again perhaps Caesar would not want to mention that his success was based on the Celts fear of a strange beast rather than his military prowess). But as Caesar was the the only other "emperor" to invade Britannia, the parallels cannot be coincidental in my opinion. Given that Claudius was not fleet of foot (as it were), being mounted in a howdah would have also symbolised his mastery over the elephant. Personally, I don't think obtaining a well trained African elephant for the role would have been that hard given Rome's control and influence in eastern North Africa. Elephants were easily moved across to Spain even if it is considered that extensive sea travel (such as to Italy) was problematic.
Good point, Rhys.
The reference to J Caesar's use of an elephant in Britain is mentioned in the link that Duncan provided. If elephants had frightened Celts would they not have also frightened Gauls and we might have heard more about them being more widely used in this period?
That would depend upon when Caesar first got his hands on a trained and congenial elephant - and what happened to it following the invasions of Britain. If he actually used one, it would have been during the second invasion (54 BC), following which he took his troops - with or without the elephant - back to Gaul for the winter. As elephants and European winters do not mix, he would have had to send it back to Italy or stable it in a warm building with plenty of fodder, and not move it during the Gallic revolt that occurred during the winter. The extent of the revolt suggests that even if Caesar had an elephant on hand it was not seen as much of a problem by the Gauls.
Best guess: if Caesar did take an elephant to Britain in 54 BC it would have needed a specialised vessel for transporting it; this vessel probably became a victim of the storm noted in Gallic War V.10, and although in V.11 he orders new ships to be built in Gaul, in V.23 he makes the return journey with just the ships he has to hand. This would have caused him to abandon the elephant in Britain.
If Caesar did take an elephant for this campaign, then Claudius' decision to bring elephants had a suitable precedent.
Caesar's own account of the Thames crossing raises more questions than it answers.
Caesar, discovering their design, leads his army into the territories of Cassivellaunus to the river Thames; which river can be forded in one place only and that with difficulty. When he had arrived there, he perceives that numerous forces of the enemy were marshaled on the other bank of the river; the bank also was defended by sharp stakes fixed in front, and stakes of the same kind fixed under the water were covered by the river. These things being discovered from prisoners and deserters, Caesar, sending forward the cavalry [praemisso equitatu = the mounted troops sent first or ahead], ordered the legions to follow them immediately. But the soldiers advanced with such speed and such ardor, though they stood above the water by their heads only, that the enemy could not sustain the attack of the legions and of the horse, and quitted the banks, and committed themselves to flight. - Gallic War V.18
So how did the cavalry, advancing though the water against stake obstacles, convince Cassivellaunus' men to run? Adding an elephant to the equation makes the course of the action much more comprehensible, and an elephant could be concealed within the designation 'equitatus', the mounted force.
Quote from: dwkay57 on February 20, 2014, 07:04:49 PM
The reference to J Caesar's use of an elephant in Britain is mentioned in the link that Duncan provided. If elephants had frightened Celts would they not have also frightened Gauls and we might have heard more about them being more widely used in this period?
They certainly did frighten Gauls: not only did Hannibal's elephants discomfit Rome's Cenomani allies at Trebia, and Antiochos I's terrify the Galatians, but Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus used elephants in Gaul in 121 BC in the campaigns that led to the establishment of the province of Transalpine Gaul:
Quote from: Orosius V.13.2The proconsul Gnaeus Domitius also defeated the Allobrogian Gauls in a severe battle near the town of Vindalium. The principal reason for his victory was the terror that the strange appearance of the elephants aroused in the horses of the enemy and in the enemy themselves, causing them to flee in every direction. Twenty thousand of the Allobroges, according to report, lost their lives there and three thousand were captured.
There are still elephants in Colchester (at the zoo) but I doubt if we can prove any descendency from beasts possibly left behind by Caesar or Claudius.
When I first started this thread, I thought I would get replies along the lines of "not on your nelly" and it would quickly be dismissed as a hoax, however it still seems to be running as a serious discussion so it brings forth two further questions:
1) Why did the Imperial Romans use elephants just in Britain and just on those two occasions? Were our Celtic ancestors really that much more of "hicks from sticks" to warrant the additional hassle of transporting them across the Channel? Given that Vespasian and other notables were present in Britain during the invasion (or with Caesar) and would have known of their use and presumable success would they have thought of using them at other times?
2) What were these elephants doing before being shipped to Britain? Do we have any record of their earlier (or later) use in say parades, games, or other activities? I seem to recall that some wargamers were accused of hiding elephants down rabbit holes so they couldn't be shot at, but what were the Romans doing with them before shipping them to the most northerly and probably most inhospitable bit of their empire?
Remember that for Claudius, getting elephants there would add to the kudos :-)
Jim
In response to Chuck's questions, my best guesses:
1) Elephants were deemed effective for an initial campaign of conquest; while it might have been possible to build centrally-heated elephant houses with huge stockpiles of fodder for the winter, one does notice that Claudius' elephants accompanied his person so they seem to have been honorary Imperial bodyguards, so to speak. Ordinary generals and legions did not get them to play with. While using them against the Parthians would have been eminently logical, the habit never really caught on, and Nero seems to have been more interested in circuses than in thinking of ways to defeat the Parthians. Vespasian and his immediate successors did not have a serious Parthian war (from Domitian to Trajan Rome's most serious opponent was Dacia; whether Trajan used elephants against the Dacians or Parthians is a conjecture from silence) so the novelty appears to have died out with the Caesars.
Even under Nero there seems to have been no question of shipping elephants to Britannia to quell Boudicca's revolt, so it looks as if the fashion died out with Claudius. Nero may have had much to do with this: he preferred the stage to the battlefield.
2) What the elephants may have been doing before being shipped to Britain can only be conjectured, but the Caesars did provide ever more lavish games, and one suspects without being able to prove it that Caesar may have 'borrowed' an animal originally intended for the arena, plus a trainer, and Claudius would have done much the same thing, but more systematically, in advance of his Britannia campaign. Numidia was fielding war elephants as late as 45 BC so with the right connections Caesar could have acquired the genuine article; Claudius would most probably have had to retrain animals intended for the arena unless Mauretania had some war beasts on strength.
Actually they may not have needed the central heating
http://www.upali.ch/snow_en.html
Probably a roof to keep the rain off would be appreciated :-)
Jim
Quote from: dwkay57 on February 23, 2014, 08:52:36 PM1) Why did the Imperial Romans use elephants just in Britain and just on those two occasions?
One - Caesar's still under the Republic.
QuoteWhat were these elephants doing before being shipped to Britain? Do we have any record of their earlier (or later) use in say parades, games, or other activities?
Elephants were apparently readily available in Italy, whence Caesar obtained some to train his troops before Thapsus:
Quote from: Bellum Africanum 72Here, however, was one problem to which he had found an answer; for he had ordered elephants to be brought across from Italy to enable our troops not only to become familiar with them, but also to get to know both the appearance and capabilities of the beast, what part of its body was readily vulnerable to a missile and, when an elephant was accoutred and armoured, what part of its body was still left uncovered and unprotected, so that their missiles should be aimed at that spot. He had also this further object in mind, that his horses would learn by familiarity with these beasts not to be alarmed by their scent, trumpeting or appearance. From this experiment he had profited handsomely: for the troops handled the beasts and came to appreciate their sluggishness; the cavalry hurled dummy javelins at them; and the docility of the beasts had brought the horses to feel at home with them.
Much later, Didius Julianus tried to use circus elephants against Severus in AD 193:
Quote from: Herodian 2.11In the city he made what preparations he could for the battle with Severus. All the elephants used by the Romans in parades were trained to carry men and towers on their backs. It was hoped that the elephants would terrify the troops from Illyricum and stampede the enemy cavalry when these huge beasts, which the horses had never seen before, appeared on the field.
Quote from: Cassius Dio 74.16Great was the turmoil on the part of the various forces that were encamped and drilling, — men, horses, and elephants, — and great, also, was the fear inspired in the rest of the population by the armed troops, because the latter hated them. 3Yet at times we would be overcome by laughter; for the Pretorians did nothing worthy of their name and of their promise, for they had learned to live delicately; the sailors summoned from the fleet stationed at Misenum did not even know how to drill; and the elephants found their towers burdensome and would not even carry their drivers any longer, but threw them off, too.
I was just basing that aspect off of what has been previously written by other authors both recent and classical. Personally I think it is unlikely that Caesar had one. Whether Caesar did or didn't have an elephant though, is to my mind, not that important. The importance of Claudius having them is in the association of Caesar's "emblem" being an elephant and Caesar having invaded Britannia. The Caesar elephant coin was supposedly the third most minted coin in the Republican era, so the association between Caesar and an elephant would have been very widely appreciated. Subsequent emperors were often keen to tie their actions to the legacy of Caesar or Augustus as a propaganda tool, and Claudius being a Julian, is likely to be even more inclined to do it.
It also needs to be remembered that training elephants for war is a complicated and long process. This is one of the main reasons for their failure at Zama. Not only were Scipio's troops prepared but the elephants had only recently been harvested (the time between Hannibal being recalled and issuing orders for an elephant corps to be obtained, and their use at Zama is too short).
I suspect that the diminution of Roman elephant use in war is due to a certain extent, to a progressive lack of obtainable North African forest elephants, their relative small size and thus lesser effectiveness in war and the Parthian Empire blocking land access to the East. As such, large numbers were not available and small numbers really aren't very effective. The elephants reputation for being a liability to me is a bit of a historical misnomer. They were very often poorly deployed which led to problems. Elephants need open spaces and escort troops to be most effective and work best against massed troops. When well deployed they were generally very successful but deploy them in a city or just throw them at the enemy or deploy them against a highly mobile/tactically flexible force and the outcome wont be good. The same can be said about WW2 tanks. They were very effective tools of war... but deploy them in a city or in a forest without infantry support and they were easily and quickly neutralised.
Which brings me to another reason, I suspect, for their decline in use....the need for light/med infantry support and this didn't fit in well with the Marian/Imperial modus of combat (which was far more aligned to flexible heavy shock infantry tactics). Plus, the main enemies of Rome after Hannibal were predominantly Celts / Gauls / Germani and other Romans - all quite mobile (compared to sarrissa blocks and their flank troops) and thus less likely to be adversely disordered by elephants, especially small ones.
Oddly enough, there seems to be nothing in our sources to support the idea that Hannibal's elephants at Zama were untrained/poorly trained. After the battle Carthage had to hand over the elephants in its possession, which perforce means elephants which were not at Zama were being surrendered: these would have been the ones not yet trained.
Scipio's success against Hannibal's elephants seems to have come more from divining Hannibal's plan and preparing his troops to nullify their effect by giving them 'escape corridors' (the Romans could have had problems if the pachyderms had been used against their cavalry instead of their infantry).
One may note in passing that the Republican Roman successes against Pyrrhus at Beneventum, Philip V at Cynoscephalae, Antiochus III at Magnesia and Perseus at Pydna all used elephants to break part of the phalanx and allow the legionaries to engage successfully. On two of these occasions the elephants were used, and on the other two cunningly abused, by the Romans ...
Quote from: Citizen6 on February 24, 2014, 12:29:21 PM
The elephants reputation for being a liability to me is a bit of a historical misnomer.
Inclined to agree. My own observations are that they were usually devastatingly effective against troops who had never encountered them (see Lucian's account of the 'elephant victory' in
Zeuxis and Antiochus) but when troops were well-trained at dealing with them their effectiveness was rather limited (
vide Thapsus).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 24, 2014, 01:33:02 PM
Oddly enough, there seems to be nothing in our sources to support the idea that Hannibal's elephants at Zama were untrained/poorly trained.
Getting off topic here - because the basic point that elephants need a good deal of training is a sound one - but this idea seems to have arisen from Polybios' statement (XV.16.2) that Hannibal had collected the elephants "hastily", plus the fact that they panicked. I agree with Patrick that this isn't really enough to suggest that they were inadequately trained.
I think the descriptions in P and L of the elephants performance does suggest more than just a bad day though
- some of them stream off at trumpet blasts alone. acclimatising animals to battlefield noise is one of the first stages of military animal training.
that they were noted to have been hastily raised, and then noted to have performed well below expectation surely necessitates accepting a causal link - namely a lack of time for satisfactory training - and the resulting bad performance.
ditto the likelihood that the mahouts were also inadequately trained in both animal handling and in knowledge of the individual animals - for surely it was basic training to know to put a spike through the back of the head when they were panicking.
I would be inclined to put the elephants' less than sparkling performance down to Scipio's countermeasures: it is perhaps not too great a leap to suggest that these would have been effective against elephants of any level of training, simply because there was a considerable element of the unexpected - the noise, the concentrated javelin volleys as opposed to the customary panicky sprinkling and most of all the lanes down which the majority of the elephants went without causing damage to the Roman heavy infantry.
So the 'causal link' I see as being good and effective anti-elephant measures, which we are told about, rather than assumed poor training, which we are not.
Quote from: Mark G on February 24, 2014, 05:33:23 PM
ditto the likelihood that the mahouts were also inadequately trained in both animal handling and in knowledge of the individual animals - for surely it was basic training to know to put a spike through the back of the head when they were panicking.
This has been ascribed to Hasdrubal, but does not by any means seem to have become universal or even standard practice.
Quote from: Mark G on February 24, 2014, 05:33:23 PM
ditto the likelihood that the mahouts were also inadequately trained in both animal handling and in knowledge of the individual animals - for surely it was basic training to know to put a spike through the back of the head when they were panicking.
I've often wondered about this, a lot will depend on the relationship between the mahout and the elephant and how well he knows his elephant.
'Panicking' and 'rampaging in berserk fury' are probably different things. A panicking elephant may not present a risk to the mahout (who you'd hope would be the best person to judge this).
Kill the elephant too soon and you're just an unarmed man on foot in front of the enemy lines, whereas if you can get it to the rear and calm it down, firstly you're at the rear, and secondly you've an elephant to ride away on if the army gets defeated :-)
Jim
I agree we're well off topic now - but I don't know if I can quote in a new topic. Maybe we should start a Zama elephant topic as this is quite interesting (to me anyway).
Quote from: Duncan Head on February 24, 2014, 02:00:22 PM
this idea seems to have arisen from Polybios' statement (XV.16.2) that Hannibal had collected the elephants "hastily", plus the fact that they panicked. I agree with Patrick that this isn't really enough to suggest that they were inadequately trained.
It's not surprising though that Polybius would not mention poorly trained animals. It would diminish the magnitude of the Roman victory and he is unlikely to do that given the he was a close friend of Scipio Aemillianus.
My assertion is based on Polybius but also on Appian Libyca VIII 3.9
"When the Carthaginians learned these things they sent Hasdrubal, the son of Cisco, to hunt elephants..." [In reference to the Senates decision to send Scipio to Africa]
Here Appian specifically says hunt (though as my Latin is self taught and quite poor and my Greek non-existent, I have to rely on English translations). So while the elephants at Zama may have been trained they, in my opinion, can't have been well trained.
The problem I have with the loud noise being the main reason for the rout of the elephants is two-fold. Firstly, why did it not also affect the Carthaginian horses (horses also being notoriously skittish); and secondly many of the elephants ran through the Roman lines where Scipio had his men form lanes to allow their passage. Now animal behaviour shows this is unlikely....panicking animals do not run toward a stimulus which is frightening them especially when the stimulus would worsen the closer they got. I suspect the javelin showers and associated loss of mahouts was a far greater motivator. Javelins would come from all sides and would explain why the elephants spread out the way they did. For me, the elephant failure was a combination of small poorly trained elephants and Scipio's excellent use of javelins and his prior training of the troops.
According to the sequence in Appian, Hasdrubal is sent to hunt elephants once news arrives of Scipio's preparations in Sicily, but before Scipio sails for Africa. Scipio crosses to Sicily in 205, and thence to Africa in 204, but I'm not sure (without checking sources for Scipio's timetable) if we can date it closer than that. Does Scipio sail in the spring of 204 as one might expect? Anyway, it looks as if Hasdrubal's safari starts at some time in 205. The battle of Zama is in 202, normally dated to October. So to catch and train (at least the first batch of) these elephants, the Carthaginians have about three years.
What sources do we have on how long it takes to train a war-elephant? Arthasastra II.31 suggests perhaps five years (if elephants are to be captured at the age of 20 but are "of the lowest class" but presumably fit for service at 25). I suspect that in 2-3 years the elephants could be adequately trained, though by no means veterans.
There is a lot of detail in the ancient battles thread on Zama from last year which is worth looking through.
I read it that some panicked early - trumpets etc - and ran to the edges of the battle line, where they were a significant contributor to the numidians scarpering far sooner than was expected.
The rest did stay and fight, were given a hard time by the javelins, and when they charged (or more accurately, re charged, since it was clearly a combat flurry sort of affair), often found they ran down a blind alley, where they were shot by javelins on all sides.
I don't see a simple elephant attack, loud noise, elephants run.
nor do I see a simple elephants all charge down the lanes and die
I think there was a good bit of fighting, but after the worst trained ones fled at the trumpet blasts (taking the numidians with them), it was just a matter of not-too-great time .
But my reading does concur with yours on Appian about training.
And Pat and I fundamentally disagree on most things on this battle.
The Roman point of view (which may not be an expert opinion) is given in African War 27.
"Scipio meanwhile began to train the elephants in the following way. He drew up two battle lines. One was of slingers, to face the elephants in the role of the enemy and fire small stones against the front line formed by the beasts. Then he drew up the elephants in a line and posted his own battle-line behind them, so that when the fire of stones began from the enemy side and the elephants wheeled round in terror towards their own side, his men should throw stones at them and drive them back again towards the enemy. This is a slow and painful process; for elephants are unruly beasts who can be trained only with difficulty, by dint of many years' teaching and prolonged practice; and even then, when they are brought out into the battle line they are a menace to both sides."
Aulus Hirtius' gloomy assessment seems a little pessimistic, but he seems to think that 'years' (plural) are needed, which would make one wonder why Scipio would even bother with Caesar expected at any time. It looks as if Scipio may have been attempting a crash course, a departure from normal training methods, in the hope of achieving in weeks what would normally take rather longer.
As it happened, when committed to battle the elephants followed their training with absolute fidelity. The Battle of Thapsus opened with Caesar's slingers and archers sending their missiles at the dense mass of elephants on Scipio's left, which accordingly caused them to turn in the direction of their own troops. These, however, did not emit the shower of stones customarily used in training - and so the elephants simply kept on going and caused havoc to their own side, which perhaps prompted Hirtius' comment.
Scipio Africanus did indeed set sail in the spring of 204 (Appian Punica III/13). Hasdrubal's elephant hunt is mentioned in Punica II.9 and hence occurred in 205 BC. Hence there would have been something like three years to train the new elephants.
I should probably change my wording a tad. I will say insufficiently trained rather than poorly trained as the latter implies something of the quality of the mahouts and we have no information either way in that regard.
I would suggest though that three years is the absolute maximum but it's more likely two to two and a half years. First the elephants have to be found and caught. This is a slow process in itself. There is reasonable evidence to suggest that the elephant population in North Africa was already in decline (keeping in mind that war was a very secondary industry to ivory). It would take a couple of months for the elephant to recover to a point where it could start working with a mahout due to the neck wounds and starvation that were part of the standard method of capture. Even today elephants require at least a year of conditioning to get to a point where they can be taken out and start learning work skills. Most of that year is used getting the elephant accustomed to the mahout and the routine noise of living around cars and people. Now the more the animal is afraid of something the more time will be required. So I think it safe to assume that battlefield and combat sounds and sights would take longer. Intensification or quicker training does not work as it makes the animals more likely to rebel and thus ruin the bond with the mahout, who effectively has to start all over to rebuild trust.
Elephants are young when captured and like humans are not as emotionally stable until in their twenties. Duncan refers to a source stating five years to train but there are Indian sources (which I can't put my hand on at the moment) that say ten or even fifteen to do it properly. This puts the elephants in their early twenties (assuming the average capture age of five to ten years which apparently is ideal). So while the elephants may have been trained to carry infantry and be comfortable around masses of people they were likely quite young on average and well short of what is considered ideal in terms of training duration. As such, I am far from convinced that they were anything more than the equivalent of recruits in the Pacific in WW2 with four weeks of basic training under their belts. That is, casualties waiting to happen. Especially when you factor n the superior preparations of Scipio.
Quote from: Citizen6 on February 27, 2014, 07:48:46 AMElephants are young when captured and like humans are not as emotionally stable until in their twenties. Duncan refers to a source stating five years to train but there are Indian sources (which I can't put my hand on at the moment) that say ten or even fifteen to do it properly. This puts the elephants in their early twenties (assuming the average capture age of five to ten years which apparently is ideal).
Arthashastra suggests that they should be captured at the age of twenty; so we may have differences within the Indian sources. Not thatthat is likely to have had very much bearing on Hasdurbal, who more likely just grabbed what he could get.
It is also true that, even if Hasdrubal had three years, this only applies to the first batch of elephants he acquired. Did he capture 80 beasts all at once, or are we to assume several captures over the period 205-04? If so, then even if there was time to train the first batch of elephants acquired, later "recruits" won't have had as long.
Quote from: Citizen6 on February 27, 2014, 07:48:46 AM
... I am far from convinced that they were anything more than the equivalent of recruits in the Pacific in WW2 with four weeks of basic training under their belts. That is, casualties waiting to happen. Especially when you factor n the superior preparations of Scipio.
I would respectfully disagree: the very fact of Scipio's preparations indicates the seriousness with which he treated the elephants' combat potential. The problem at Zama seems not to have been that the elephants or their training were deficient, but that Hannibal's battle plan went awry, as a result of which the elephants were not closely supported by the Celtic and other troops in the first line, who as far as I can establish were meant to follow them closely and take advantage of the gaps they created.
The question of Hannibal's battle pan has been discussed elsewhere on this site, but in a nutshell my understanding is that Scipio fooled Hannibal into believing that the latter was superior in cavalry, keeping Masinissa's arrival secret, and so Hannibal planned what was essentially a replay of Bagradas with refinements and variations plus a double envelopment with his line of veterans. The elephants and Celts were supposed to go in together, followed and closely supported by the citizen spearmen, who would catch 'leakers' as their counterparts did at Bagradas. Meanwhile Hannibal's cavalry would deal with Laelius' outnumbered and perhaps even outclassed troops and clear the way for a decisive envelopment on both flanks by the veterans. All this went out of the wiindow when Hannibal suddenly realised as the armies finished drawing up that not only was he not superior in cavalry, he was actually outnumbered.
His cavalry were therefore unable to perform their part, and he seemed unable to improvise a new plan. With the Carthaginian cavalry hesitating the Celts seemed to advance hesitantly, too, leaving the elephants unsupported, and when the Carthaginian cavalry withdrew the Carthaginian spearmen seem not to have moved at all, leading eventually to ructions with the Celts in the first line.
Had Hannibal been joined at the last minute by Vermina, who was en route with several thousand cavalry reinforcements, then Hannibal could have operated what I see as his original plan and the Roman and Numidian cavalry would have had their hands too full to bother with concentrated volleys at elephants. Looking at the description of Hasdrubal's elephants at the Metaurus (Polybius XI.1):
"
The elephants too had proved to be of no more service to one side than to the other, for as they were hemmed in between the two armies and exposed to a hail of missiles, they threw both the Roman and the Spanish ranks into disorder."
These, we may note, are elephants whose length of service and degree of training has not been questioned. Their behaviour seems, if anything, less controlled than that of Hannibal's elephants at Zama, most of which actually stayed on course despite all the distractions.
You do seem to be assuming one draft of elephants.
I would expect a small cadre retained in Carthage at all times. a call comes in to get more, quickly, and a large hunt is sent out. but I would also expect more (smaller) drafts of hunts coming in on a fairly regular basis.
given the depth of the emergency with scipio landing in Africa, all of these assets would have been sent out, and hence, varying degrees of training and hence also, varying degrees of success - some (less trained) running at the noise, others making a decent fist of it (there is no indication this was over that quickly), and some having a bit of local success.
Probably a fair point, though there were still elephants in Carthaginian hands to be surrendered following Zama, indicating that even when making a 'maximum effort' they did not cut corners to include everything they had. Hannibal of all people would appreciate that a poorly-trained elephant is a disaster waiting to happen.
We may note that Bagradas saw about 100 elephants fielded (just under) - this may have been Hannibal's own target figure, but it seems he had to be satisfied with about 80.
I cannot, despite a significant search, find the Indian sources I referred to in an earlier post. As such I'm not sure if they were an actual quote of an Indian source or a modern second hand interpretation of a source. Therefore the information can be ignored as having no evidentiary value for this discussion.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 27, 2014, 10:57:28 AM
I would respectfully disagree: the very fact of Scipio's preparations indicates the seriousness with which he treated the elephants' combat potential.
I'm not sure this really indicates anything about the elephants. It does indicate that Scipio, as a good commander, prepared well. He would have known he would face elephants, or at least had a high expectation of such, given that the Carthaginians had deployed them in every other theatre. A good commander does not train to the level of the enemy. Training is carried out to improve strengths and exploit enemy weaknesses while maximizing enemy losses and minimizing your own. So I doubt Scipio would have prepared any differently, irrespective of what he thought of the elephant quality.
I totally agree with Mark's comment. There would have been some experienced elephants and I have generalized in my posts for the sake of brevity. But were they a significant number? I was reading Appian on Zama (Book VIII.43) and he gives a slightly different version to Polybius. Stating that the elephant wings folded quickly to the cavalry but the centre penetrated the Roman lines and caused some havoc and deaths amongst the armoured troops until Scipio brought up more cavalry and velites to assail them with javelins. This deployment is what I would expect, in that Hannibal would place his strongest elephants in the centre given he (if my understanding of his intended strategy is correct) was aiming to break through there.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 27, 2014, 10:57:28 AM
Looking at the description of Hasdrubal's elephants at the Metaurus (Polybius XI.1):
"The elephants too had proved to be of no more service to one side than to the other, for as they were hemmed in between the two armies and exposed to a hail of missiles, they threw both the Roman and the Spanish ranks into disorder."
These, we may note, are elephants whose length of service and degree of training has not been questioned. Their behaviour seems, if anything, less controlled than that of Hannibal's elephants at Zama, most of which actually stayed on course despite all the distractions.
To me, and I realize this is easy to say in hindsight from the comfort of my back verandah in the 21stC, Hasdrubal's deployment was a prime example of what not to do with elephants. He deployed a small number of elephants in an enclosed valley with narrowly deployed troops in front and behind. That, in and of itself, would be stressful to an elephant, as they would not be able to ascertain a clear means of retreat. Once the javelins started flying, it would only take two or three of such a small herd to panic for that to become a rout. Personally, I think he'd have been far better off using them to deny a flank rather than offensively.
Most of the sources (if not all) we have on training elephants are from the east and apply to a different species completely. We know both through the ancient sources and modern experience that the same techniques can be used for both species but that doesn't mean that both species are equally bold in combat. Scipio at Magnesia kept his sixteen elephants in reserve because he knew they would not compete with the Seleucid Indians. Due, in part, to the size differential but also to North African elephants supposedly being more timid. If this is true it might explain some of the elephant outcomes in the Punic wars. But, a consequence of such timidity, if it exists, is that North African elephants would take longer to train to war quality than Indians, all other things being equal. I have been unable to find any good information in this regard. It may be true, but it may a falsehood that has been repeated so many times that it becomes "truth". For example, the assertion that African elephants are harder to teach than Indians...it just isn't correct.
While there may have been some well trained / veteran elephants at Zama (probably in the centre), the Carthaginian's repeated deployment of small numbers of elephants (eg. 10 at Metaurus, 14 at Utica, 16 on each flank at Ilipa) as compared to the 70, 80 or even 140 that they regularly fielded a generation before in the First Punic War suggests they were struggling to keep up supply. It just seems a bit odd to me that two authors would specifically mention the Carthaginian effort to obtain more elephants for Scipio's invasion if this new batch didn't contribute significantly to their present pool of Punic pachyderms. ;D
Funnily enough, Appian (Punic Wars III/13) has Hasdrubal with 140 elephants in 204 BC.
"Hasdrubal, Syphax, and Masinissa encamped not far from each other near the city of Utica, to which Scipio had been driven by the winds, and he also was camped hard by. Not far from him was Hasdrubal with an army of 20,000 foot, 7000 horse, and 140 elephants."
This is before Scipio's night attack on Hasdrubal's and Syphax's camps during a truce.
The small numbers of elephants in armies outside Carthage seem to have been a reflection of the difficulty of shipping them rather than the difficulty of training them.
The fact that it was the elephants on the ends of the line which broke away towards the cavalry I see as being more down to their position at the ends of the line, which left them with a quick way out of the 'noise zone', than any difference in training. If anything, the ones at the end of the line would presumably be the best-trained, because they are acting as 'markers' for the rest and keeping them in line by the example of their presence.
Out of interest, how would you have expected Hannibal's elephants to have behaved at Zama if trained to the limit possible? How would such elephants have reacted differently?
The same as they did at bagradad
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PM
Funnily enough, Appian (Punic Wars III/13) has Hasdrubal with 140 elephants in 204 BC.
There's a couple of possibilities to this. Firstly, they are the newly captured elephants from his hunt that go on the be the 80 at Zama. Not all elephants are suitable for training so maybe they rejected 60 for battle. I don't buy this as a solution but I have seen it suggested (in Kistler I think). Secondly, and I don't know if anyone has even stated this previously, though to me it is more the far more likely, is an error in the text. Given Appian is relatively highly regarded as an author, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I suspect that there may have been a copyist's error somewhere along the line. I find it a little too coincidental that the number of elephants captured and/or killed in Scipio's night attack against Hasdrubal and Syphax adds up to 14 (8 killed and 6 captured - Livy XXX 6.7-9).
"Both of the generals, however, made their escape, and out of so many thousand armed men two thousand infantry and five hundred horsemen escaped half-armed, many of the men wounded and scorched by the flames. [8] Slain or burned to death were some forty thousand men, more than five thousand captured, many Carthaginian nobles, eleven senators. [9] Of military standards a hundred and seventy-four were taken, of Numidian horses over two thousand seven hundred. Six elephants were captured, eight destroyed by sword or by fire." Also, I cannot see how pretty much the entire army could have been slaughtered in this attack and yet 126 elephants somehow managed to escape (and then aren't subsequently noted as doing so by either Appian or Livy).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PMThe small numbers of elephants in armies outside Carthage seem to have been a reflection of the difficulty of shipping them rather than the difficulty of training them.
Not at all...Hanno has 50 at Heraclea (Polybius I.19); Hasdrubal has 140 (new) elephants at Lilybaeum (I.38); and supposedly Hasdrubal (son-in-law) had ~200 in Spain (Diodorus XXV.12). So shipping doesn't seem to have been too much of an issue during the First Punic War and the subsequent interbellum.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PM
The fact that it was the elephants on the ends of the line which broke away towards the cavalry I see as being more down to their position at the ends of the line, which left them with a quick way out of the 'noise zone', than any difference in training. If anything, the ones at the end of the line would presumably be the best-trained, because they are acting as 'markers' for the rest and keeping them in line by the example of their presence.
But to argue this would surely suggest that the best elephants (on the flanks) did the worst (fled without contact) while the worst elephants (centre) performed the best (penetrating and heavily disrupting the principes). (As per Appian)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PM
Out of interest, how would you have expected Hannibal's elephants to have behaved at Zama if trained to the limit possible? How would such elephants have reacted differently?
There's no way of knowing how that might have turned out. I suspect that Scipio's preparations were such that even veteran elephants would have had difficulty but the fact that a significant number got through in the centre and caused havoc suggests that the Romans may have had a worse time for it...probably not enough to lose but certainly not the rout that it was. I don't base my opinion on the outcome of Zama so much as the peripheral information that I've outlined. One thing that I haven't brought up yet but also contributes to my opinion, albeit as corroborating rather than direct evidence, is the difficulty that Ammianus Marcellinus has with the Persian elephants (History XXV.3.11).
"11. On the other hand the Persians, fighting with increased spirit, shot forth such clouds of arrows, that we could hardly see the shooters through them; while the elephants, slowly marching in front, by the vast size of their bodies, and the formidable appearance of their crests, terrified alike our horses and our men."
Admittedly these are Indians and some are armoured but both he and Julian (and presumably other senior officers) would have been very well versed in military history as part of their classical education and as such, in known anti-elephant tactics. Other parts of the
History shows they employed many of these tactics and yet still had much trouble with the elephants.
Quote from: Citizen6 on March 01, 2014, 10:48:55 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PM
Funnily enough, Appian (Punic Wars III/13) has Hasdrubal with 140 elephants in 204 BC.
Personally, I suspect that there may have been a copyist's error somewhere along the line. I find it a little too coincidental that the number of elephants captured and/or killed in Scipio's night attack against Hasdrubal and Syphax adds up to 14 (8 killed and 6 captured - Livy XXX 6.7-9).
Step one in these circumstances is to look at the Greek, which gives
elephantas hekaton epi tessarakonta (one hundred and forty elephants), and I cannot see how this could possibly be a copyist's error for
elephantas dekatessera (fourteen elephants).
Quote
Also, I cannot see how pretty much the entire army could have been slaughtered in this attack and yet 126 elephants somehow managed to escape (and then aren't subsequently noted as doing so by either Appian or Livy).
The structures that would have trapped humans would just be so much matchwood for panicked elephants. Considering that an assumed 126 elephants with various degrees of a) scorching and b) induced paranoia about military camps presumably got away, I think the Carthaginians would have done well if they did retrieve 80 which proved sufficiently tractable to once again accompany an army. Granted the lack of explicit mention means we have no direct confirmation that 100+ elephants were extant following the conflagration, but neither Livy nor Appian seemed particularly interested in their welfare. Conversely, had Scipio bagged over a hundred roasted elephants, I would have expected some mention.
Quote
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PMThe small numbers of elephants in armies outside Carthage seem to have been a reflection of the difficulty of shipping them rather than the difficulty of training them.
Not at all...Hanno has 50 at Heraclea (Polybius I.19); Hasdrubal has 140 (new) elephants at Lilybaeum (I.38); and supposedly Hasdrubal (son-in-law) had ~200 in Spain (Diodorus XXV.12). So shipping doesn't seem to have been too much of an issue during the First Punic War and the subsequent interbellum.
All of which is very true, but we were considering the
Second Punic War, in which fewer elephants seem to have been transported for whatever reasons were the case. My suspicion (and this is just a guess) is that following the First Punic War the cash-strapped Carthaginians cut back heavily on elephant transports, so that Hasdrubal in Spain could have received a succession of small shipments during peacetime but large-scale shipments over any distance during wartime were out of the question whether the Romans were contesting the routes or no.
Quote
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PM
The fact that it was the elephants on the ends of the line which broke away towards the cavalry I see as being more down to their position at the ends of the line, which left them with a quick way out of the 'noise zone', than any difference in training. If anything, the ones at the end of the line would presumably be the best-trained, because they are acting as 'markers' for the rest and keeping them in line by the example of their presence.
But to argue this would surely suggest that the best elephants (on the flanks) did the worst (fled without contact) while the worst elephants (centre) performed the best (penetrating and heavily disrupting the principes). (As per Appian)
It is not (as I see it) a matter of better or worse performance as of some elephants having a discernible way out to the flank and the rest having none.
Quote
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PM
Out of interest, how would you have expected Hannibal's elephants to have behaved at Zama if trained to the limit possible? How would such elephants have reacted differently?
There's no way of knowing how that might have turned out. I suspect that Scipio's preparations were such that even veteran elephants would have had difficulty but the fact that a significant number got through in the centre and caused havoc suggests that the Romans may have had a worse time for it...probably not enough to lose but certainly not the rout that it was. I don't base my opinion on the outcome of Zama so much as the peripheral information that I've outlined. One thing that I haven't brought up yet but also contributes to my opinion, albeit as corroborating rather than direct evidence, is the difficulty that Ammianus Marcellinus has with the Persian elephants (History XXV.3.11).
"11. On the other hand the Persians, fighting with increased spirit, shot forth such clouds of arrows, that we could hardly see the shooters through them; while the elephants, slowly marching in front, by the vast size of their bodies, and the formidable appearance of their crests, terrified alike our horses and our men."
Admittedly these are Indians and some are armoured but both he and Julian (and presumably other senior officers) would have been very well versed in military history as part of their classical education and as such, in known anti-elephant tactics. Other parts of the History shows they employed many of these tactics and yet still had much trouble with the elephants.
True: Alexander's men at the Hydaspes also handled elephants quite effectively, but did they like it? Assuredly not!
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 11:17:09 PM
Step one in these circumstances is to look at the Greek, which gives elephantas hekaton epi tessarakonta (one hundred and forty elephants), and I cannot see how this could possibly be a copyist's error for elephantas dekatessera (fourteen elephants).
The structures that would have trapped humans would just be so much matchwood for panicked elephants. Considering that an assumed 126 elephants with various degrees of a) scorching and b) induced paranoia about military camps presumably got away, I think the Carthaginians would have done well if they did retrieve 80 which proved sufficiently tractable to once again accompany an army. Granted the lack of explicit mention means we have no direct confirmation that 100+ elephants were extant following the conflagration, but neither Livy nor Appian seemed particularly interested in their welfare. Conversely, had Scipio bagged over a hundred roasted elephants, I would have expected some mention.
In light of that I'm more than happy to concede that it's not a transcription error, like I stated earlier, my Latin is poor and my Greek non-existent. Sadly when I went to school classics were considered pointless and weren't taught. I'm not attached to a university in any way and so rely heavily on my own library of English translations and to a lesser degree on the Lacius Curtius website. Appian could still be mistaken, but I have no evidence at all to back that up. It was only a theory, now dead, like so many elephants ....c'est la vis. :)
I must admit I hadn't thought of 60 being wounded sufficiently to preclude them from Zama and that is a very real possibility. So maybe Kistler's source is correct after all. Though it really just takes us back to where we began with a bunch of elephants captured by Hasdrubal of debatable quality. I still find it very odd that they aren't mentioned subsequently especially as the cavalry and infantry escapes are. And there is no chance that the fire consumed them totally. It's just not possible.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 05:24:25 PM
All of which is very true, but we were considering the Second Punic War, in which fewer elephants seem to have been transported for whatever reasons were the case. My suspicion (and this is just a guess) is that following the First Punic War the cash-strapped Carthaginians cut back heavily on elephant transports, so that Hasdrubal in Spain could have received a succession of small shipments during peacetime but large-scale shipments over any distance during wartime were out of the question whether the Romans were contesting the routes or no.
I had thought of the Roman domination of the sea and the difficulty of moving a large fleet of elephants about. But given how long Hannibal was in Italy and the fact that the Romans didn't dominate the sea near Spain, even if the Carthaginians did have to ferry elephants in small loads they had more than enough time to build up a very large reserve force in Spain (and to my understanding there just isn't evidence that they did compared to a generation before). The First Punic War ends in 241, Hamilcar dies in 228 and Hasdrubal in 221 so the 200 elephants must have been there somewhere in those seven years (but certainly well after the first war - though where they all went is a mystery as subsequent engagements only account for about 100 of them).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 11:17:09 PM
It is not (as I see it) a matter of better or worse performance as of some elephants having a discernible way out to the flank and the rest having none.
But there isn't anything to suggest that they turned around en masse and fled away from the Romans which would surely be the most likely thing for a fleeing elephant (such as the left flank ones did). Once they were amongst the Roman lines and heavily pressured by javelin fire, Scipio's lanes provided a clear path out. But the flanks don't even make it this far. Ultimately though, here we are conjecturing about the mindset of another species in an unusual situation (and of the inherent nature of that situation, we really know quite little beyond some limited accounts). Maybe if we're really lucky that new discovered Macedonian city off the coast of Egypt will have a complete history of the Hannibalic wars from a third party perspective carved in stone.....but I'm not too expectant. :P
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 11:17:09 PMTrue: Alexander's men at the Hydaspes also handled elephants quite effectively, but did they like it? Assuredly not!
But they did have sarrisas, and from a personal perspective I think I'd much rather face elephants in close combat as part of a pike phalanx then with short swords. :D
At the end of the day I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, though it has been an interesting and engaging debate.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 01, 2014, 11:17:09 PM
Conversely, had Scipio bagged over a hundred roasted elephants, I would have expected some mention.
A vote of thanks to the caterers perhaps?
;-)
Jim
One of your best so far, Jim. ;D
Quote
... even if the Carthaginians did have to ferry elephants in small loads they had more than enough time to build up a very large reserve force in Spain ...
True, Rhys. I suspect that the elephant pool established in Spain by Hasdrubal was his private menagerie, so to speak, and not supported - or, more significantly, replenished - by the Carthaginian state. The latter would have built up their own inventory in Africa, which may account for Appian crediting Hasdrubal with 140 at the time Scipio dropped in.
There is one more aspect I would wish to consider before we close and agree to differ: what would have been the reaction of untrained (or patently under-trained) elephants to Scipio's serenade package?
My own thinking is that they would have turned tail
through their own troops. Interestingly, not one did - granted, those on the ends went through friendly cavalry after receiving concentrated volleys of javelins from Scipio's cavalry, but their
initial reaction was to head towards what looked like a more congenial enemy target - the cavalry - rather than to about-face and leave.
Interestingly, Alex at the Hydaspes seems to have handled Porus' elephants with his missile troops.
"
The elephant drivers brought their beasts to meet the opposing cavalry, while the Macedonian phalanx [phalagx]
, in turn, advanced against them, some shooting the drivers [akontizontes]
while others stood around the beasts hurling missiles [ballontes]
at them from all sides." - Arrian V.17.3
Anyway, as you say, a good discussion. :)
Reverting (not to Claudius, but) to Julius Caesar and his uncertainly-attested British elephant, I find a claim that Caesar actually crossed a river on the back of this dubious beast - "Julius Caesar is said to have ensured his safe crossing over the Thames at Brentford on the back of an elephant" (http://www.theresident.co.uk/people-and-places/local-people/the_battle_of_brentford_1_2024063). I suspect this is just a "Colchester-style" amplification of our one source, Polyainos, but maybe there's something else out there?
It looks as if an elephant story is ricocheting around the half remembered history of South East England, and I'd guess that it comes from a mixture of novels and amateur antiquarians
I'd also guess that it comes initially from the same sources as Claudius
Jim
To add to the mythology, I was in the Museum of London last weekend and noticed one of the display boards in the Roman Britain section showed a reconstruction of a Roman assault crossing of a river with Claudius' elephants taking pride of place. Each was crewed by three dark skinned men in loincloths armed with javelins and seated astride the elephant. If reputable museums are buying into a combat role for these elephants, either they have sources we don't (which I doubt) or they are happy to "print the legend".
Incidentally, I also noticed in a pile of stonework what looked like a military tombstone which rather surprisingly showed the soldier with the classic squared oval scutum with central spine. I'd thought these had gone out of use by the time the Romans reached London. Unfortunately, the individual stones in this display weren't labelled so no idea of context.
Given the recent "call to keyboard" to produce more Slingshot material, I thought it might make an interesting or at least different article to summarise this discussion.
Initial draft attached and I'd welcome any comments or suggestions for corrections (to avoid looking too much of a fool) before submitting.
Thanks.
Well done that man! I had been thinking along the same lines myself, but fortunately you beat me to it.
I think it might be worth quoting the original sources - certainly Cassius Dio on Claudius, probably Polyaenus on Caesar - so people can see what (or how little...) the ancient sources actually do tell us.
Thanks for the feedback Duncan.
I can either amend one of the paragraphs slightly or happy for you to add an erudite postscript and submit it.
Well, Patrick quoted Cassius Dio, the source for Claudius' elephant, on the first page of this thread, so it should be simple for you to incorporate that. I thought that someone had quoted the text of the Polyaenus anecdote too, but apparently not. So it is:
Quote from: Polyaenus, Stratagems, 8.23.5When Caesar's passage over a large river in Britain was disputed by the British king Cassivellaunus, at the head of a strong body of cavalry and a great number of chariots, he ordered an elephant, an animal till then unknown to the Britons, to enter the river first, mailed in scales of iron, with a tower on its back, on which archers and slingers were stationed. If the Britons were terrified at so extraordinary a spectacle, what shall I say of their horses? Amongst the Greeks, the horses fly at the sight of an unarmed elephant; but armoured, and with a tower on its back, from which missiles and stones are continually hurled, it is a sight too formidable to be borne. The Britons accordingly with their cavalry and chariots abandoned themselves to flight, leaving the Romans to pass the river unmolested, after the enemy had been routed by the appearance of a single beast.
From the highly useful Attalus site: http://www.attalus.org/translate/polyaenus8A.html (http://www.attalus.org/translate/polyaenus8A.html)
Might I suggest that: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Getty_Villa_-_Collection_(5305376768).jpg
would make a good companion illustration. its from Wikimedia Commons so should be free to use, we just have to attribute,
Has the advantage of being around 70 AD
Roy
Thanks Duncan - I think the quote about Caesar's elephant was in the link you sent to the dodgy history site which ended up discussing whether Claudius could mount an elephant. I've added both quotes as a postscript.
Re-reading the description of the elephant again, I'm reminded of the early Minifgs model which was described as being an elephant in quilted pyjamas.
I did find in the Osprey book The Roman Army (editor Chris McNab) a reference to elephants at the battle of Thapsus (46BC) where it says "Caesar had no intention of employing his own elephants in battle - he is said to have considered the lumbering, tusked bull elephant a menace to both sides." The implication of this being that Caesar did have some elephants available of use.
Quotes added and article submitted!
Good work - look forward to seeing it.