Elephant Victory 275 BC: Antiochus I Soter v the Galatians

[Jim Webster]

'The Elephant Victory' 275BC: Antiochus I Soter v the Galatians

The only account I know is from the works of Lucian. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl2/wl207.htm

So said Zeuxis, not in the best of tempers. Antiochus Soter had a somewhat similar experience about his battle with the Galatians. If you will allow me, I propose to give you an account of that event also. These people were good fighters, and on this occasion in great force; they were drawn up in a serried phalanx, the first rank, which consisted of steel-clad warriors, being supported by men of the ordinary heavy-armed type to the depth of four-and-twenty; twenty thousand cavalry held the flanks; and there were eighty scythed, and twice that number of ordinary war chariots ready to burst forth from the centre. These dispositions filled Antiochus with apprehension, and he thought the task was too hard for him. His own preparations had been hurried, on no great scale, and inadequate to the occasion; he had brought quite a small force, mostly of skirmishers and light-armed troops; more than half his men were without defensive armour. He was disposed to negotiate and find some honourable composition.

9Theodotas of Rhodes, however, a brave and skilful officer, put him in heart again. Antiochus had sixteen elephants; Theodotas advised him to conceal these as well as he could for the present, not letting their superior height betray them; when the signal for battle was given, the shock just at hand,

the enemy's cavalry charging, and their phalanx opening to give free passage to the chariots, then would be the time for the elephants. A section of four was to meet the cavalry on each flank, and the remaining eight to engage the chariot squadron. 'By this means,' he concluded, 'the horses will be frightened, and there will be a stampede into the Galatian infantry.' His anticipations were realized, thus:

Neither the Galatians nor their horses had ever seen an10 elephant, and they were so taken aback by the strange sight that, long before the beasts came to close quarters, the mere sound of their trumpeting, the sight of their gleaming tusks relieved against dark bodies, and minatory waving trunks, was enough; before they were within bow-shot, the enemy broke and ran in utter disorder; the infantry were spitted on each other's spears, and trampled by the cavalry who came scurrying on to them. The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of 'rumbling tumbling cars'; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and 'the lordless chariots rattled on,' their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims. Next came the elephants, trampling, tossing, tearing, goring; and a very complete victory they had made of it for Antiochus.

The carnage was great, and all the Galatians were either11 killed or captured, with the exception of a quite small band which got off to the mountains; Antiochus's Macedonians sang the Paean, gathered round, and garlanded him with acclamations on the glorious victory. But the King--so the story goes--was in tears; 'My men,' he said, 'we have more reason for shame; saved by those sixteen brutes! if their strangeness had not produced the panic, where should we have been?'


And on the trophy he would have nothing carved except just an elephant.


CommentaryI find this piece interesting for what it says about the Galatians as well as what it says about the army of the Seleucids.
Antiochus had an army composed of a majority of light armed troops, the Seleucid cavalry don't warrant a mention, and sixteen elephants are the trump cart.

The Galatians on the other had are wearing armour (perhaps captured or given) and fight in a formed manner, are disciplined enough to open their ranks to let chariots advance through them, and generally manage to dispel the cliches about naked warriors dangerous only for their wild charge.

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting, Jim.

A possible parallel account exists in 2 Maccabees 8:20

... and the time of the battle with the Galatians that took place in Babylonia, when eight thousand in all went into the affair, with four thousand Macedonians; and when the Macedonians were hard pressed, the eight thousand, by the help that came to them from heaven, destroyed one hundred and twenty thousand and took much booty.

If this refers to the same event (there cannot have been too many occasions when a large Galatian force was thrashed by the Seleucids) then we have a number for the 'Galatian' infantry (100,000), which if true would suggest that the army was Galatian-led and fronted but contained many local hangers-on.  Placing the battle in Babylonia would explain how elephants could be concealed in the middle of a battlefield - fruit trees were a feature of Babylonian farmland and could provide the required concealment, making the sudden appearance of the elephants that much more disconcerting.

4,000 Macedonians and 8,000 Jewish auxiliaries sounds about right for "a small force, mostly of skirmishers and light-armed troops" and suggests the invasion really did take Seleucus by surprise.

The Macedonians ascribed their victory to Theodotas and the elephants; the Jews ascribed it to the hand of God.  One could say that both were right, in their own way - and one finds the same dichotomy among wargamers and historians today, those who believe in generalship and those who believe in luck!

Patrick

[Jim Webster]

It is possible, but another theory is http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/christ/bruce/ColossianHeresy/Bruce-ColossianHeresy-Pt1-BS.pdf

"This tradition, which has doubtless lost nothing in the telling (particularly with regard to the numbers on the opposing side), probably refers to the earlier part of the reign of Antiochus
III. The Galatians habitually hired out their services as mercenaries; presumably on this occasion Galatian mercenaries were engaged on the side of some of Antiochus' enemies. The help
then given him by Babylonian Jews could well have moved him to settle a number of them in Phrygia and Lydia to safeguard his interests in those territories."

I'm not saying the article is right, I've barely read it, but it flags up another strong possibilty. So whilst Maccabees might refer to the Elephant victory, there are so many gaps and blind spots in Seleucid history that it isn't obliged to.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

To tell the truth, Jim, I do not see it happening in the day of Antiochus III - he and Ptolemy of Egypt were the main hirers of Galatians at the time, and I cannot think of anyone who would have had the clout and revenue to hire them against him, apart from the Pergamenes, and they and the Galatians famously did not get on, or so I understand.

Still, one should not close one's mind to possibilities - I am happy to leave the matter open in case a better fit emerges.

Keep up the good work!

Patrick
P.S. - Just noticed I put 'Seleucus' instead of 'Antiochus' in my previous post.  It was a long week ... 

[Jim Webster]

One possibility would be Achaeus
But the problem is that the source is vague enough to mean it happened after 279BC and before the Maccabean revolt. It doesn't have to be the Elephant victory.
The reign of Seleucius II is poorly enough known and one can imagine his situation being such that he had to improvise a force.
Jim