Was Hannibal's Reliance On Elephants In The Second Punic War
Elephants in War:
Was Hannibal’s Reliance on Elephants in his armies Directly Related to the Fall of Carthage to Rome in the Second Punic War?
By: Cameron McCurdy
History
Saint John High school
February 23, 2014
Candidate: 000320 0014
Advisor: Ms Maryanne Lewell
Word Count: 3055
Abstract:
This essay, which examines all the available evidence for Hannibal 's use of elephants in the Second Punic War, refutes the contention that Hannibal was especially successful in his tactical use of the beasts. In addition, greater reliance on elephants and their many flaws would have hindered Hannibal in his lengthy campaign against Rome. The article also contends that Hannibal 's use of massed elephants at Zama highlights the degree to which he was accustomed to take chances in the field, and …show more content…
exemplifies how the risks he took on the battlefield would ultimately only help his foe. To fully examine the effectiveness of elephants on the battlefield a number of battles must be looked at to show their faults in war. These included their unpredictability, and their cost to maintain in a mobile army.
Abstract word count: 132 McCurdy 000320 0014, 1
Table of Contents
Introduction
Elephants in war……………………………..………………………………………page 1 Horses in war………………………..……………………………………………pages 2-3 Dogs in war……………………………………………………………………….pages 3-4
Battle of Hydaspes Pre battle psychology………………………………………………………....….pages 5-6 The battle……………………………………………………………….………...pages 6-8
Battle of Ilipa The logistical background…………………………...……………………….......pages 8-9 The battle……………………………………………...……………………………page 10
Battle of Zama The batlle……………………………………………………………………….......page 11 Outcome……………………………………………………………………………page 12
Evaluation of Sources………………………………………………………………….pages 12-13
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….………page 13
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………...…pages 14-15 McCurdy 000320 0014, 2
Most people today are familiar with the elephant at the zoo, and it is curious to recall that this vast, flabby creature was first seen by western men as an irresistible weapon of war. They were seen for the first time in the war with King Pyrrhus, seven years after this sighting they appeared at Rome1. This is not the last time that Rome would face elephants however as “Hannibal, the enemy of Rome”2 used them consistently in his personal army. Hannibal lead a Carthaginian campaign against Rome and “it was more than a daring revolutionary concept of strategy, involving the use of elephants”3. But who benefitted from Hannibal’s use of elephants? Carthage or Rome. Although “Hannibal of Carthage was probably the most brilliant and original military genius of all time”4, his unusual war tactics and weapons may have been his downfall in the end. His most extravagant military technique was his use of elephants and his dependence on these animals would lead to his crushing defeat to the Romans in not only the war of attrition but also the battle of Zama, Ilipa and Hydaspes. These animals are not suited for war and this will be explored in this paper. That’s not to say that animals have no place in war, as they have been seen used alongside humans in ancient times but also in modern day, although their uses have changed quite a bit. The most stable and consistent animal seen in warfare is without a doubt the horse. Historians believe that horses were used alongside man for tasks such as pulling things at around McCurdy 000320 0014, 3
3000B.C but say military use at around 2500B.C by the Mesopotamians in a chariot form5. Horses are excellent in warfare. They are fast and maneuverable, and are generally used to quickly charge or flank an enemy and make a hasty retreat. They are strong enough to carry a lot of weight while still reaching high speeds and very little can survive a direct it from a charging knight with a lance6. With the invention of gunpowder, horses were no longer a viable military tactic, they were too easily killed and by World War 1, tactics and strategy of war had changed. They still saw much action in World War 1 however as their ability to transport materials to the front was invaluable7. Aside from being used for transportation of materials today horses are mostly used as a symbol of power. Generals and other leaders will ride on them to show their power and command.
In the modern day an animal that is used very common in the face of not only war but also in crime fighting is the dog. The dog’s keen sense of smell and hearing makes it a very good companion for humans. Historian Titus Livius Patavinus writes that war dogs were used in combat as early as 600BC8 in the battle between Alyattes, King of Lydia and the Cimmerians. In this battle they were deployed as their own unit and “fell upon invaders and tore many of them to
McCurdy 000320 0014, 4 pieces and put others to flight”9. Even with the invention of gunpowder and the other advancements in technology, dogs are still used in minor combat, mostly with crime stopping, to catch up and immobilize a target. The elephant is different. It is tempting to compare the elephant to a tank, but historian Aelianus Tacticus believes that this comparison is not close. The tank with its armor is immune to the ordinary weapons of infantry and can smash through field fortifications, the elephant has neither of these qualities. It instead has a nervous system that can be easily upset, and so it is more like Cavalry10. The elephant –much like Cavalry- had two main functions in battle, “the shock of the charge, which knocked men down, and the sabre with which his rider ran through the enemy who faced him or ripped up those who fell”11. Not only was the elephant larger than a horse, he had weapons of his own with which he fought making his shock value tremendously larger to the enemy. It is said that Alexander the Great’s men refused to follow him beyond the river Hyphasis in 326BC, and one of their chief causes of fear was the other side owned courageous elephants12. Even though they had recently won against the Porus on the river of McCurdy 000320 0014, 5
Hydaspes, they did not want to face them again. This is because an elephant would trample men with their monstrous size and gore them with their tusks, “or he might kick, and an elephant’s kick, as quick as a pony’s, will send a man flying”13. In addition to just the elephant itself as a weapon, it would be carrying a mahout as a driver and up to three more riders armed with ranged weapons such as bows and spears, similar to Cavalry. Many years before Hannibal’s campaign against Rome, elephants were introduced to the field of war. It was the Indians who used their native Indian elephant in battle first and they made their first major appearance in the battle of Hydaspes against Alexander the Great. Historians estimate that King Porus of India had approximately 40 00014 infantry including 1000 chariots and between 100 and 200 war elephants whereas Alexander had a mere 6000 infantry and 5000 cavalry15. “The main threat to Alexander was obvious for all to see. Porus himself on guard against a backdrop of no fewer than 200 war elephants massed in single file”16 with the sole intention of disrupting the very traditional Greek phalanx employed numerous times by Alexander the Great. They also had another great utility that thwarted Alexander; his horses were terrified of their smell. Even getting within a few hundred feet of them would spook his McCurdy 000320 0014, 6 cavalry17. “Once out of control they could not be landed across the river in any sort of battle formation, and any form of disarray might lead to defeat18, so these elephants caused Alexander to change his tactics and strategy even before the battle broke out. Not only did they play a big role in the psychology in the pre-battle, they had an even larger impact on the outcome of the battle.
The Indians had a clear advantage with the sheer size of their army in comparison to Alexander the Great’s19 and their threatening cavalry, the elephants. This gave Porus, the Indian leader a false confidence which shows in his battle strategy as he charged his army in a single line with their elephants charging and disrupting the Greek phalanxes. This allowed Alexander the great to divide his cavalry into two flanks that would go to each side of the battlefield to be met be the lesser equipped chariots of the Indians. With Alexander the Great leaving his infantry in the center in phalanx formations, Porus saw this as the perfect chance to cause disruption amongst the Macedonians by charging his elephants straight the for the opponents infantry line20. This worked well for Porus as the elephants were “large, ferocious, great tusks for stabbing, huge feet for trampling, not to mention the javelin men and bowmen riding on board and. . . Alexander 's men had not faced anything like them
in McCurdy 000320 0014, 7 the eight years of the Macedonian conquest, and were frankly frightened on the beasts”21. The elephants did cause disruption and casualties for the Macedonians but despite this Alexander the great had a plan to counter them, a tactic that would be used by the Greeks against elephants for many years. He has special groups of well-trained archers advance “These specialists then began pelting the pachyderms with arrows and javelins, aiming for the animals ' eyes, as well as the drivers”22, he also had his men target the undersides of the elephants around their very tender legs and bellies, not to kill or maim the beasts but simply to disrupt them23.
Despite all the Macedonians ' efforts, when the Indian elephants impacted the Macedonian phalanx, it was massive carnage. The scene is described by the historian Diordorus Siculus in the translation of chapter 88 of his 17th book: “Some of the Macedonians were trodden under foot, armor and all, by the beasts and died, their bones crushed. Others were caught up by the elephants ' trunks and, lifted on high, were dashed back down to the ground again, dying a fearful death. Many soldiers were pierced through by the tusks and died instantly, run through the whole body. Nevertheless the Macedonians faced the frightening experience manfully. They used their long spears to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephants, and kept the battle even. Then, as javelins began to find their marks in the sides of the great beasts and they felt the pains of the wounds, the Indian riders were no longer able to control their movements. The McCurdy 000320 0014, 8 elephants veered and, no longer manageable, turned upon their own ranks and trampled friendly troops"24. As this carnage was breaking out in the center of the battlefield, Alexander and his cavalry were flanking the Indians on both sides effectively surrounding them and their elephants25. The now surrounded elephants panicked and wreaked havoc on both friend and foe causing many casualties on the Indian side. This led to the Indians withdrawing and surrendering. “The Indian losses were 23000 total with about 12000 dead and 9000 captured”26 in comparison to the mere 310 Macedonians killed27.
This catastrophic outcome for Porus –who had a sizeable advantage before the battle- can be seen as the result of his use of elephants. They did their job in disrupting the enemies formation with their charge but they are simply too unreliable for combat. The elephant acts as a much larger horse in the sense that it can be spooked and disrupted by the enemy but unlike a horse, an elephant can cause many casualties to both parties on the battlefield. This is the first time that this weakness is exposed and it will be used against them again in their history in war. Battles are not just lost on the battlefield, many are lost through attrition. The source and quantity of supplies readily available to an army can affect their performance greatly. This meant that traveling armies had to be efficient in their resource intake this generally limited the size of a McCurdy 000320 0014, 9 mobile army. Elephants were no exception, they had to always be near a source of drinkable water and ate about 300kg28 of food everyday whereas a foot soldier only needs about 1kg. Fortunately if there is greenery available for them to eat, they will but this slows down an army greatly, reduces an armies range and they must keep moving to new areas for new food. In the battle of Ilipa between Carthage and Rome, General Scipio Africanus uses these weakness of his opponent’s elephants to his advantage to win a decisive victory against Hasdrubal of Carthage. This battle has been called “Scipio’s Masterpiece”29 by the historian Franco Cavazzi, as it was a decisive victory where his opponent had him outnumbered and he won with minimal casualties. Scipio had a force of about 50, 000 infantry and 500 cavalry30 against Hasdrubal’s army of almost 70 000 infantry, 5000 cavalry and most notably 32 elephants according to Polybius31. They met outside the town of Ilipa in 206BC and established camps at the foot of opposing hills. Each day they would call their troops to formation, sizing each other up but neither commander deciding on any action32. This stalemate would have been much more taxing on the Carthaginians as they had a larger army and 32 elephants to maintain. Also, “there was almost no water in the camp, because the nearest river threaded the plain behind the Roman lines”33. Scipio is gaining and advantage as his soldiers are well nourished in the hot sun of Spain McCurdy 000320 0014, 10 whereas the Carthaginians are parched. When Scipio does finally decide to attack, he does so early in the morning34 after his soldiers are prepared and fed to catch the tired Carthaginians off guard, and it works. As Scipio’s forces rise early and take to the field, the “unfed and ill prepared Carthaginians”35 are forced to rush to their positions. This position is the same position that they had brought out in the last few days; the Libyan crack troops in the center with the less trained Spanish allies stationed on the wings. In front of the allies, elephants were positioned in order to protect the flanks36. Scipio had changed his formation to surprise the Carthaginians. He placed his strongest soldiers and cavalry on the wings and his own Spanish auxiliary forces formed the center. Now he advanced his wings quickly and flanked the Carthaginians on both sides. His wings then divided so the skirmishers could hit head on and the cavalry could continue to flank the sides37. “Hasdrubal’s elephants stationed on the wings soon panicked and stampeded into his own troops, spreading additional confusion. Hasdrubal’s Spaniards fought well, but hungry and outclassed, they were soon routed”38 thus giving the victory to Scipio. The casualties faced by Hasdrubal were huge, with only 6000 of his men actually escaping the battle. This means
McCurdy 000320 0014, 11 approximately 60000 of his men died either by his own elephants or through the confusion caused by the stampeding elephants. A few years later in 202BC Scipio had another battle with the Carthaginians at Zama for a final battle to decide the sovereignty of Libya39. The Romans traveled across the Mediterranean to put an end to the second Punic war and met Hannibal of Carthage in Zama, in foreign territory, on Hannibal’s terms. They brought an army of 35100 consisting of 29000 infantry and 6100 cavalry, and they met the larger army of Hannibal consisting of 36000 infantry and 4000 cavalry but most notably 80 of Hannibal’s war elephants40. This meant that Hannibal of Carthage had an advantage in not only size but in the location of war. Scipio recognized these elephants and accounted for them in his formation of his men. He created lanes in between his men for the elephants to charge through to counter through disruptive effect, once behind their lines they could be isolated and dealt with. He also had trumpets to startle the elephants and reverse their charge to charge the Carthaginian formation instead. This is exactly how it played out as Polybius states that: “Hannibal gave the word to the men on the elephants to charge the enemy. But as they heard the horns and trumpets braying all round them, some of the elephants became unmanageable and rushed back upon the Numidian contingents of the Carthaginian army; and this enabled Massanissa with great speed to deprive the Carthaginian left wing of its cavalry support. The rest of the elephants charged the Roman velites in the spaces between the maniples of the line, and while inflicting much damage on the enemy suffered severely themselves; until, McCurdy 000320 0014, 12 becoming frightened, some of them ran away down the vacant spaces, the Romans letting them pass harmlessly along, according to Scipio 's orders, while others ran away to the right under a shower of darts from the cavalry, until they were finally driven clear off the field”41.
The elephants in this battle were so easily countered and used against Hannibal and it costs him thousands of men, the battle and ultimately lost him the war. The Romans left the battle of Zama with an approximation of 2500 casualties whereas Hannibal has 20000 dead and another 20000 captured42. This decisive loss was a result of his use of elephants and Scipio’s brilliant ability to counter them. These gentle, vast, flabby creatures have no place in the thick of war, they are too unpredictable and too dangerous to not only the enemy but also to the man that uses them.
The sources used in this essay come mostly from translations of the many famous historians of this time such as: Aelianus Tacticus, Titus Livius Patavinus and Diodorus. These historians have biased however, mostly towards the Greeks. An example of this is Diodorus who worked in the house of Scipio’s descendants and had all of his information come from the Africanus household. This would have created certain biases in the size of the armies, the way the battle carried out and even the outcomes as there would be a clear bias towards Scipio. But a common trend can be seen in these historians’ writings: they were scared of elephants. The
McCurdy 000320 0014, 13 elephants certainly made a presence with the Greeks who they were not native to and this is easily seen within their writings. All of the sources seem to have a common trend in saying that the use of elephants is risky. Some applaud Hannibal for using this to his advantage and others criticize him for it, saying that it is why he could never take Rome. Elephants in war had their peak at around 200BC. They were a great advancement in war technology and created a new dynamic to the battlefield. The Romans chose never to use them however, even when they were captured after victories, whether this was in spite of their enemy, Carthage or they saw the elephants as an animal and not a tool of war, which is ultimately what they are. Elephants are too docile to be a killing machine and too unpredictable to be used effectively. They were forced onto the frontlines by submission through fear and this made them a huge liability. One that the Romans were able to capitalize on many times, effectively using them against their own armies. Hannibal’s reliance on these animals in his personal armies made him predictable -as elephants were only employed in one way- and restricted the mobility of his armies in Spain –due to the high cost of maintaining elephants- which stalled his attack on Rome and allowed them to win an overall war of attrition against him.
McCurdy 000320 0014, 14
Bibliography
Arrian. The Battle at the Hydaspes. England: http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book5a.asp (accessed February 18, 2014).
Bagnall, Nigel. The Punic Wars. London: Random Century, 1990.
Bosyock, John. "The Natural History. Pliny the Elder.." working paper., 1855. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=8:chapter=6.
Canter, H. The Character of Hannibal. The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/640834 (accessed February 2, 2014).
Cavazzi, Franco. Roman Empire.net, "The Battle of Ilipa." Last modified 08 02, 2005. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://www.roman-empire.net/army/ilipa.html.
Cottrell, Leonardo. Enemy of Rome. Camelot: Camelot Press.ltd, 1960.
Dupuy, Trevor N. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 BC to the Present, Fourth Edition. New York: HarperCollins, 1991.
Fildes, Alan. "Battle of Elephants." Alan Fildes, Egyptologist, historian, Author (blog), 04 17, 2006. http://www.alanfildes.com/battleelephants.php (accessed February 17, 2014).
Forster, Dogs in Ancient Warfare, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/641375?seq=1&Search=yes&searchText=animals&searchText=in&searchText=warfare&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?Query=animals+in+warfare&prq=battle+of+zama&hp=25&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&so=rel&racc=off&prevSearch=&resultsServiceName=null (accessed February 2, 2014), 114.
Lamb, Harrold. Hannibal. New York: Doubleday & Company Incb, 1958.
Lazenby, F. Hannibal 's War. England: Liberty Publishing, 1978.
Livy 28.13/ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/livy/livy28.html
McCarthy, Eugene. Macroevolution, "What do Elephants eat?." Last modified 11 10, 2011. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://www.macroevolution.net/what-do-elephants-eat.html
McCurdy 000320 0014, 15
Polybius 11.20/ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234:book%3D11:chapter%3D20
Richard Glover, The Tactical handling of Elephants, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/640834?seq=1&Search=yes&searchText=elephant&searchText=Hannibal&list=show&searchUri=/action/doAdvancedSearch?q0=Hannibal+elephant&f0=all&c1=AND&q1=&f1=all&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&Search=Search&sd=&ed=&la=&pt=&isbn=&prevSearch=&item=19&ttl=501&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null (accessed February 2, 2014), 1.
Richard Glover, Elephant in Ancient Warfare, ( The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, 2004)http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/view/3292417?&Search=yes&searchText=elephant&searchUri=/action/doAdvancedSearch?q0=Hannibal+elephant&f0=all&c1=AND&q1=&f1=all&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&Search=Search&sd=&ed=&la=&pt=&isbn= (accessed February 2, 2014), 257.
Trueman, Chris. History learning, "Horses in World War 1." Last modified June 2008. Accessed February 2, 2014. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/horses_in_world_war_one.htm.
Urdson, Sigg. American Legion, "Battle of the Hydaspes River: Alexander the Great Defeats Indian King Porus." Last modified 04 03, 2012. Accessed February 17, 2014. http://burnpit.legion.org/2012/05/battle-hydaspes-river-alexander-great-defeats-indian-king-porus.
Vincent, Shawn. Crystal Obelisk, "horses in History." Last modified november 14, 2003. Accessed February 2, 2014.
Webb, johnathon. "Battle of Ilipa." Second Punic War. The Art of Battle. compact disc, http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-ilipa-206-bc.htm.
Was Hannibal’s Reliance on Elephants in his armies Directly Related to the Fall of Carthage to Rome in the Second Punic War?
By: Cameron McCurdy
History
Saint John High school
February 23, 2014
Candidate: 000320 0014
Advisor: Ms Maryanne Lewell
Word Count: 3055
Abstract:
This essay, which examines all the available evidence for Hannibal 's use of elephants in the Second Punic War, refutes the contention that Hannibal was especially successful in his tactical use of the beasts. In addition, greater reliance on elephants and their many flaws would have hindered Hannibal in his lengthy campaign against Rome. The article also contends that Hannibal 's use of massed elephants at Zama highlights the degree to which he was accustomed to take chances in the field, and …show more content…
exemplifies how the risks he took on the battlefield would ultimately only help his foe. To fully examine the effectiveness of elephants on the battlefield a number of battles must be looked at to show their faults in war. These included their unpredictability, and their cost to maintain in a mobile army.
Abstract word count: 132 McCurdy 000320 0014, 1
Table of Contents
Introduction
Elephants in war……………………………..………………………………………page 1 Horses in war………………………..……………………………………………pages 2-3 Dogs in war……………………………………………………………………….pages 3-4
Battle of Hydaspes Pre battle psychology………………………………………………………....….pages 5-6 The battle……………………………………………………………….………...pages 6-8
Battle of Ilipa The logistical background…………………………...……………………….......pages 8-9 The battle……………………………………………...……………………………page 10
Battle of Zama The batlle……………………………………………………………………….......page 11 Outcome……………………………………………………………………………page 12
Evaluation of Sources………………………………………………………………….pages 12-13
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….………page 13
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………...…pages 14-15 McCurdy 000320 0014, 2
Most people today are familiar with the elephant at the zoo, and it is curious to recall that this vast, flabby creature was first seen by western men as an irresistible weapon of war. They were seen for the first time in the war with King Pyrrhus, seven years after this sighting they appeared at Rome1. This is not the last time that Rome would face elephants however as “Hannibal, the enemy of Rome”2 used them consistently in his personal army. Hannibal lead a Carthaginian campaign against Rome and “it was more than a daring revolutionary concept of strategy, involving the use of elephants”3. But who benefitted from Hannibal’s use of elephants? Carthage or Rome. Although “Hannibal of Carthage was probably the most brilliant and original military genius of all time”4, his unusual war tactics and weapons may have been his downfall in the end. His most extravagant military technique was his use of elephants and his dependence on these animals would lead to his crushing defeat to the Romans in not only the war of attrition but also the battle of Zama, Ilipa and Hydaspes. These animals are not suited for war and this will be explored in this paper. That’s not to say that animals have no place in war, as they have been seen used alongside humans in ancient times but also in modern day, although their uses have changed quite a bit. The most stable and consistent animal seen in warfare is without a doubt the horse. Historians believe that horses were used alongside man for tasks such as pulling things at around McCurdy 000320 0014, 3
3000B.C but say military use at around 2500B.C by the Mesopotamians in a chariot form5. Horses are excellent in warfare. They are fast and maneuverable, and are generally used to quickly charge or flank an enemy and make a hasty retreat. They are strong enough to carry a lot of weight while still reaching high speeds and very little can survive a direct it from a charging knight with a lance6. With the invention of gunpowder, horses were no longer a viable military tactic, they were too easily killed and by World War 1, tactics and strategy of war had changed. They still saw much action in World War 1 however as their ability to transport materials to the front was invaluable7. Aside from being used for transportation of materials today horses are mostly used as a symbol of power. Generals and other leaders will ride on them to show their power and command.
In the modern day an animal that is used very common in the face of not only war but also in crime fighting is the dog. The dog’s keen sense of smell and hearing makes it a very good companion for humans. Historian Titus Livius Patavinus writes that war dogs were used in combat as early as 600BC8 in the battle between Alyattes, King of Lydia and the Cimmerians. In this battle they were deployed as their own unit and “fell upon invaders and tore many of them to
McCurdy 000320 0014, 4 pieces and put others to flight”9. Even with the invention of gunpowder and the other advancements in technology, dogs are still used in minor combat, mostly with crime stopping, to catch up and immobilize a target. The elephant is different. It is tempting to compare the elephant to a tank, but historian Aelianus Tacticus believes that this comparison is not close. The tank with its armor is immune to the ordinary weapons of infantry and can smash through field fortifications, the elephant has neither of these qualities. It instead has a nervous system that can be easily upset, and so it is more like Cavalry10. The elephant –much like Cavalry- had two main functions in battle, “the shock of the charge, which knocked men down, and the sabre with which his rider ran through the enemy who faced him or ripped up those who fell”11. Not only was the elephant larger than a horse, he had weapons of his own with which he fought making his shock value tremendously larger to the enemy. It is said that Alexander the Great’s men refused to follow him beyond the river Hyphasis in 326BC, and one of their chief causes of fear was the other side owned courageous elephants12. Even though they had recently won against the Porus on the river of McCurdy 000320 0014, 5
Hydaspes, they did not want to face them again. This is because an elephant would trample men with their monstrous size and gore them with their tusks, “or he might kick, and an elephant’s kick, as quick as a pony’s, will send a man flying”13. In addition to just the elephant itself as a weapon, it would be carrying a mahout as a driver and up to three more riders armed with ranged weapons such as bows and spears, similar to Cavalry. Many years before Hannibal’s campaign against Rome, elephants were introduced to the field of war. It was the Indians who used their native Indian elephant in battle first and they made their first major appearance in the battle of Hydaspes against Alexander the Great. Historians estimate that King Porus of India had approximately 40 00014 infantry including 1000 chariots and between 100 and 200 war elephants whereas Alexander had a mere 6000 infantry and 5000 cavalry15. “The main threat to Alexander was obvious for all to see. Porus himself on guard against a backdrop of no fewer than 200 war elephants massed in single file”16 with the sole intention of disrupting the very traditional Greek phalanx employed numerous times by Alexander the Great. They also had another great utility that thwarted Alexander; his horses were terrified of their smell. Even getting within a few hundred feet of them would spook his McCurdy 000320 0014, 6 cavalry17. “Once out of control they could not be landed across the river in any sort of battle formation, and any form of disarray might lead to defeat18, so these elephants caused Alexander to change his tactics and strategy even before the battle broke out. Not only did they play a big role in the psychology in the pre-battle, they had an even larger impact on the outcome of the battle.
The Indians had a clear advantage with the sheer size of their army in comparison to Alexander the Great’s19 and their threatening cavalry, the elephants. This gave Porus, the Indian leader a false confidence which shows in his battle strategy as he charged his army in a single line with their elephants charging and disrupting the Greek phalanxes. This allowed Alexander the great to divide his cavalry into two flanks that would go to each side of the battlefield to be met be the lesser equipped chariots of the Indians. With Alexander the Great leaving his infantry in the center in phalanx formations, Porus saw this as the perfect chance to cause disruption amongst the Macedonians by charging his elephants straight the for the opponents infantry line20. This worked well for Porus as the elephants were “large, ferocious, great tusks for stabbing, huge feet for trampling, not to mention the javelin men and bowmen riding on board and. . . Alexander 's men had not faced anything like them
in McCurdy 000320 0014, 7 the eight years of the Macedonian conquest, and were frankly frightened on the beasts”21. The elephants did cause disruption and casualties for the Macedonians but despite this Alexander the great had a plan to counter them, a tactic that would be used by the Greeks against elephants for many years. He has special groups of well-trained archers advance “These specialists then began pelting the pachyderms with arrows and javelins, aiming for the animals ' eyes, as well as the drivers”22, he also had his men target the undersides of the elephants around their very tender legs and bellies, not to kill or maim the beasts but simply to disrupt them23.
Despite all the Macedonians ' efforts, when the Indian elephants impacted the Macedonian phalanx, it was massive carnage. The scene is described by the historian Diordorus Siculus in the translation of chapter 88 of his 17th book: “Some of the Macedonians were trodden under foot, armor and all, by the beasts and died, their bones crushed. Others were caught up by the elephants ' trunks and, lifted on high, were dashed back down to the ground again, dying a fearful death. Many soldiers were pierced through by the tusks and died instantly, run through the whole body. Nevertheless the Macedonians faced the frightening experience manfully. They used their long spears to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephants, and kept the battle even. Then, as javelins began to find their marks in the sides of the great beasts and they felt the pains of the wounds, the Indian riders were no longer able to control their movements. The McCurdy 000320 0014, 8 elephants veered and, no longer manageable, turned upon their own ranks and trampled friendly troops"24. As this carnage was breaking out in the center of the battlefield, Alexander and his cavalry were flanking the Indians on both sides effectively surrounding them and their elephants25. The now surrounded elephants panicked and wreaked havoc on both friend and foe causing many casualties on the Indian side. This led to the Indians withdrawing and surrendering. “The Indian losses were 23000 total with about 12000 dead and 9000 captured”26 in comparison to the mere 310 Macedonians killed27.
This catastrophic outcome for Porus –who had a sizeable advantage before the battle- can be seen as the result of his use of elephants. They did their job in disrupting the enemies formation with their charge but they are simply too unreliable for combat. The elephant acts as a much larger horse in the sense that it can be spooked and disrupted by the enemy but unlike a horse, an elephant can cause many casualties to both parties on the battlefield. This is the first time that this weakness is exposed and it will be used against them again in their history in war. Battles are not just lost on the battlefield, many are lost through attrition. The source and quantity of supplies readily available to an army can affect their performance greatly. This meant that traveling armies had to be efficient in their resource intake this generally limited the size of a McCurdy 000320 0014, 9 mobile army. Elephants were no exception, they had to always be near a source of drinkable water and ate about 300kg28 of food everyday whereas a foot soldier only needs about 1kg. Fortunately if there is greenery available for them to eat, they will but this slows down an army greatly, reduces an armies range and they must keep moving to new areas for new food. In the battle of Ilipa between Carthage and Rome, General Scipio Africanus uses these weakness of his opponent’s elephants to his advantage to win a decisive victory against Hasdrubal of Carthage. This battle has been called “Scipio’s Masterpiece”29 by the historian Franco Cavazzi, as it was a decisive victory where his opponent had him outnumbered and he won with minimal casualties. Scipio had a force of about 50, 000 infantry and 500 cavalry30 against Hasdrubal’s army of almost 70 000 infantry, 5000 cavalry and most notably 32 elephants according to Polybius31. They met outside the town of Ilipa in 206BC and established camps at the foot of opposing hills. Each day they would call their troops to formation, sizing each other up but neither commander deciding on any action32. This stalemate would have been much more taxing on the Carthaginians as they had a larger army and 32 elephants to maintain. Also, “there was almost no water in the camp, because the nearest river threaded the plain behind the Roman lines”33. Scipio is gaining and advantage as his soldiers are well nourished in the hot sun of Spain McCurdy 000320 0014, 10 whereas the Carthaginians are parched. When Scipio does finally decide to attack, he does so early in the morning34 after his soldiers are prepared and fed to catch the tired Carthaginians off guard, and it works. As Scipio’s forces rise early and take to the field, the “unfed and ill prepared Carthaginians”35 are forced to rush to their positions. This position is the same position that they had brought out in the last few days; the Libyan crack troops in the center with the less trained Spanish allies stationed on the wings. In front of the allies, elephants were positioned in order to protect the flanks36. Scipio had changed his formation to surprise the Carthaginians. He placed his strongest soldiers and cavalry on the wings and his own Spanish auxiliary forces formed the center. Now he advanced his wings quickly and flanked the Carthaginians on both sides. His wings then divided so the skirmishers could hit head on and the cavalry could continue to flank the sides37. “Hasdrubal’s elephants stationed on the wings soon panicked and stampeded into his own troops, spreading additional confusion. Hasdrubal’s Spaniards fought well, but hungry and outclassed, they were soon routed”38 thus giving the victory to Scipio. The casualties faced by Hasdrubal were huge, with only 6000 of his men actually escaping the battle. This means
McCurdy 000320 0014, 11 approximately 60000 of his men died either by his own elephants or through the confusion caused by the stampeding elephants. A few years later in 202BC Scipio had another battle with the Carthaginians at Zama for a final battle to decide the sovereignty of Libya39. The Romans traveled across the Mediterranean to put an end to the second Punic war and met Hannibal of Carthage in Zama, in foreign territory, on Hannibal’s terms. They brought an army of 35100 consisting of 29000 infantry and 6100 cavalry, and they met the larger army of Hannibal consisting of 36000 infantry and 4000 cavalry but most notably 80 of Hannibal’s war elephants40. This meant that Hannibal of Carthage had an advantage in not only size but in the location of war. Scipio recognized these elephants and accounted for them in his formation of his men. He created lanes in between his men for the elephants to charge through to counter through disruptive effect, once behind their lines they could be isolated and dealt with. He also had trumpets to startle the elephants and reverse their charge to charge the Carthaginian formation instead. This is exactly how it played out as Polybius states that: “Hannibal gave the word to the men on the elephants to charge the enemy. But as they heard the horns and trumpets braying all round them, some of the elephants became unmanageable and rushed back upon the Numidian contingents of the Carthaginian army; and this enabled Massanissa with great speed to deprive the Carthaginian left wing of its cavalry support. The rest of the elephants charged the Roman velites in the spaces between the maniples of the line, and while inflicting much damage on the enemy suffered severely themselves; until, McCurdy 000320 0014, 12 becoming frightened, some of them ran away down the vacant spaces, the Romans letting them pass harmlessly along, according to Scipio 's orders, while others ran away to the right under a shower of darts from the cavalry, until they were finally driven clear off the field”41.
The elephants in this battle were so easily countered and used against Hannibal and it costs him thousands of men, the battle and ultimately lost him the war. The Romans left the battle of Zama with an approximation of 2500 casualties whereas Hannibal has 20000 dead and another 20000 captured42. This decisive loss was a result of his use of elephants and Scipio’s brilliant ability to counter them. These gentle, vast, flabby creatures have no place in the thick of war, they are too unpredictable and too dangerous to not only the enemy but also to the man that uses them.
The sources used in this essay come mostly from translations of the many famous historians of this time such as: Aelianus Tacticus, Titus Livius Patavinus and Diodorus. These historians have biased however, mostly towards the Greeks. An example of this is Diodorus who worked in the house of Scipio’s descendants and had all of his information come from the Africanus household. This would have created certain biases in the size of the armies, the way the battle carried out and even the outcomes as there would be a clear bias towards Scipio. But a common trend can be seen in these historians’ writings: they were scared of elephants. The
McCurdy 000320 0014, 13 elephants certainly made a presence with the Greeks who they were not native to and this is easily seen within their writings. All of the sources seem to have a common trend in saying that the use of elephants is risky. Some applaud Hannibal for using this to his advantage and others criticize him for it, saying that it is why he could never take Rome. Elephants in war had their peak at around 200BC. They were a great advancement in war technology and created a new dynamic to the battlefield. The Romans chose never to use them however, even when they were captured after victories, whether this was in spite of their enemy, Carthage or they saw the elephants as an animal and not a tool of war, which is ultimately what they are. Elephants are too docile to be a killing machine and too unpredictable to be used effectively. They were forced onto the frontlines by submission through fear and this made them a huge liability. One that the Romans were able to capitalize on many times, effectively using them against their own armies. Hannibal’s reliance on these animals in his personal armies made him predictable -as elephants were only employed in one way- and restricted the mobility of his armies in Spain –due to the high cost of maintaining elephants- which stalled his attack on Rome and allowed them to win an overall war of attrition against him.
McCurdy 000320 0014, 14
Bibliography
Arrian. The Battle at the Hydaspes. England: http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book5a.asp (accessed February 18, 2014).
Bagnall, Nigel. The Punic Wars. London: Random Century, 1990.
Bosyock, John. "The Natural History. Pliny the Elder.." working paper., 1855. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=8:chapter=6.
Canter, H. The Character of Hannibal. The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/640834 (accessed February 2, 2014).
Cavazzi, Franco. Roman Empire.net, "The Battle of Ilipa." Last modified 08 02, 2005. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://www.roman-empire.net/army/ilipa.html.
Cottrell, Leonardo. Enemy of Rome. Camelot: Camelot Press.ltd, 1960.
Dupuy, Trevor N. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 BC to the Present, Fourth Edition. New York: HarperCollins, 1991.
Fildes, Alan. "Battle of Elephants." Alan Fildes, Egyptologist, historian, Author (blog), 04 17, 2006. http://www.alanfildes.com/battleelephants.php (accessed February 17, 2014).
Forster, Dogs in Ancient Warfare, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/641375?seq=1&Search=yes&searchText=animals&searchText=in&searchText=warfare&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?Query=animals+in+warfare&prq=battle+of+zama&hp=25&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&so=rel&racc=off&prevSearch=&resultsServiceName=null (accessed February 2, 2014), 114.
Lamb, Harrold. Hannibal. New York: Doubleday & Company Incb, 1958.
Lazenby, F. Hannibal 's War. England: Liberty Publishing, 1978.
Livy 28.13/ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/livy/livy28.html
McCarthy, Eugene. Macroevolution, "What do Elephants eat?." Last modified 11 10, 2011. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://www.macroevolution.net/what-do-elephants-eat.html
McCurdy 000320 0014, 15
Polybius 11.20/ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234:book%3D11:chapter%3D20
Richard Glover, The Tactical handling of Elephants, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/640834?seq=1&Search=yes&searchText=elephant&searchText=Hannibal&list=show&searchUri=/action/doAdvancedSearch?q0=Hannibal+elephant&f0=all&c1=AND&q1=&f1=all&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&Search=Search&sd=&ed=&la=&pt=&isbn=&prevSearch=&item=19&ttl=501&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null (accessed February 2, 2014), 1.
Richard Glover, Elephant in Ancient Warfare, ( The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, 2004)http://www.jstor.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/stable/view/3292417?&Search=yes&searchText=elephant&searchUri=/action/doAdvancedSearch?q0=Hannibal+elephant&f0=all&c1=AND&q1=&f1=all&acc=on&wc=on&fc=off&Search=Search&sd=&ed=&la=&pt=&isbn= (accessed February 2, 2014), 257.
Trueman, Chris. History learning, "Horses in World War 1." Last modified June 2008. Accessed February 2, 2014. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/horses_in_world_war_one.htm.
Urdson, Sigg. American Legion, "Battle of the Hydaspes River: Alexander the Great Defeats Indian King Porus." Last modified 04 03, 2012. Accessed February 17, 2014. http://burnpit.legion.org/2012/05/battle-hydaspes-river-alexander-great-defeats-indian-king-porus.
Vincent, Shawn. Crystal Obelisk, "horses in History." Last modified november 14, 2003. Accessed February 2, 2014.
Webb, johnathon. "Battle of Ilipa." Second Punic War. The Art of Battle. compact disc, http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-ilipa-206-bc.htm.