What was a best use for Elephants in the ancient world?

[Copaczin]

War Elephants have been a controversial subject. One the one hand, they're cool and terrifying proto-tanks that can rout entire armies out of fear. On the other hand, they're outrageously expensive to maintain in significant numbers, and many of the large nations of antiquity developed reliable counter-tactics to them.

So with the benefit of hindsight, what would the best role for the kin of Dumbo have been, from a grand strategic perspective? Was it even worth it to use them at all? What role could they have filled to best benefit the armies of Persia, India, Greek Successor States, Rome, and Carthage?

 

[wcv215]

Elephants were fine as a shock force so long as the enemy didn’t know how to counter them. Once they did the elephants were useless, and often as much a danger to your own side as to the enemy. Smaller animals (horses) were a better use of resources.

 

[Wendell]

Not marching on Rome. That's for sure!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The best use of elephants is as beasts of burden not weapons of war. War Elephants were as likely to run amuck and turn on your own troops as attack the enemy. This was so common the drivers had spikes to drive into the brains of rogue elephants.

 

[DocJamore]

Mediterranean civilizations never mastered the use of Elephants. They tried to use them as a form of shock calvary. Elephants are not horses and they should not be used that way but the Mediterraneans never grasped that.

In Southeast Asia, where the animals were native, they used them correctly, as an infantry support unit. A squad of troops would walk alongside each elephant, bolstering their ranks and escorting them where they needed to go. When used this way, they were fairly effective weapons of war.

 

[TRH]

Mediterranean civilizations never mastered the use of Elephants. They tried to use them as a form of shock calvary. Elephants are not horses and they should not be used that way but the Mediterraneans never grasped that.

In Southeast Asia, where the animals were native, they used them correctly, as an infantry support unit. A squad of troops would walk alongside each elephant, bolstering their ranks and escorting them where they needed to go. When used this way, they were fairly effective weapons of war.

Yeah, people always insist that elephants were worthless against prepared enemies, but that really doesn't explain why the cultures that lived with and understood them the most used them the longest. And we selectively remember their failures like Zama rather than the times they were effective even against experienced foes, like at Ipsus.

 

[Minchandre]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that the best use of elephants would have been for heavy construction projects. Elephants can lift and manipulate 200kg+ with their trunks as well as hauling immense loads, and have been used for this in Southeast Asia and India. Such elephants would also have longer lifespans - carrying loads on their backs is not great for elephant health.

 

[Taimur500]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that the best use of elephants would have been for heavy construction projects. Elephants can lift and manipulate 200kg+ with their trunks as well as hauling immense loads, and have been used for this in Southeast Asia and India. Such elephants would also have longer lifespans - carrying loads on their backs is not great for elephant health.

Absolutely
Elephants are great as organic cranes.

 

[wcv215]

Yeah, people always insist that elephants were worthless against prepared enemies, but that really doesn't explain why the cultures that lived with and understood them the most used them the longest. And we selectively remember their failures like Zama rather than the times they were effective even against experienced foes, like at Ipsus.

Actually in Elephants and Kings Trautmann lays out the case that even there elephants weren't used for reasons of practicality but of status. Powerful kings used elephants as status symbols, and fielding large numbers of them was a sign of the king's power. The spread into Southeast Asia came from India, as the same ideals were imported from there, but not developed independently. And critically states without kings did not field elephants the way the monarchs did.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Actually in Elephants and Kings Trautmann lays out the case that even there elephants weren't used for reasons of practicality but of status. Powerful kings used elephants as status symbols, and fielding large numbers of them was a sign of the king's power. The spread into Southeast Asia came from India, as the same ideals were imported from there, but not developed independently. And critically states without kings did not field elephants the way the monarchs did.

Sure, status was undoubtedly a reason. But I still don't think that elephants would have remained in use if there was an easy counter to them. There's not much status to be gained in having your elephants all get slaughtered by enemy skirmishers, after all.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The Romans proved that their investment was not worthwhile, Caesar faced off against these in the civil wars. I don't get it, wouldn't elephants be great for carrying something heavy? I'm sure there would be a use for elephants aside from being giant pets.

 

[wcv215]

Sure, status was undoubtedly a reason. But I still don't think that elephants would have remained in use if there was an easy counter to them. There's not much status to be gained in having your elephants all get slaughtered by enemy skirmishers, after all.

Flashy displays of wealth, power, and status are an extremely important part of any King’s rule. Elephants just don’t seem to be that useful in battle despite what games and instinct would have us think. Certainly not for t cost. They might provide an advantage, but they don’t win battles the way infantry or cavalry do, and for the sheer cost of them that’s not good enough. Elephants were abandoned everywhere except India with multiple states with major resources, the Romans and Chinese in particular, either never adopting them (China) or actively abandoning them (Rome).

Hell, the Ipsus example above specifically about elephant successes isn’t actually that at all.The elephants were decisive just because they scared the enemy horses too much to allow an advance. Which just means that the horses weren’t trained to be around elephants.

 

[Magnum]

The decisive battle between Rome and Macedon was decided by Roman elephants

 

[suul'ken]

The decisive battle between Rome and Macedon was decided by Roman elephants

What, are you sure?
Source please?

 

[Iacobus]

I can imagine that Elephants would've been a useful mobile platform for ranged units. Like DocJamore said earlier, in India they had squads of escort infantry actually stop the enemy getting too close and startling the elephant. Meanwhile while the infantry on the ground were engaged in melee, archer or musketeers could sit atop the elephant and shoot from above at enemy units.

Other than that I think Elephants are most useful logistically, lugging heavy logs about for building fortifications and bridges etc.

 

[wcv215]

The decisive battle between Rome and Macedon was decided by Roman elephants

No it wasn't. Cynoscephalae was decided because the Macedonian left never managed to form up properly, leaving them prey to a Roman counterattack. Yes the elephants were the spear of this attack, but there was also the entire Roman right. And this infantry force then wheeled around and smashed the Macedonian right, which had formed up properly but was now flanked. The legionairres alone would have accomplished the same thing.

 

[anotherlurker]

Would it be useful to have the elephants pull a cart full with archers? You move the elephant and cart towards the enemy and then turn left or right and retreat again, exposing the archers to the enemy but keeping them always at a safe distance from the enemy. Foot soldiers will never catch up with the elephants and the archers in the cart can be protected from enemy archers by shielding wooden planks.

 

[Magnum]

No it wasn't. Cynoscephalae was decided because the Macedonian left never managed to form up properly, leaving them prey to a Roman counterattack. Yes the elephants were the spear of this attack, but there was also the entire Roman right. And this infantry force then wheeled around and smashed the Macedonian right, which had formed up properly but was now flanked. The legionairres alone would have accomplished the same thing.

I was talking about Pydna.

The elephants allowed the Roman right to crush the Macedonian left, even though there were ample amounts of peltasts present.

This allowed both the infantry to the flank the left of the Macedonian phalanx, and the cavalry and elephants to strike the Macedonian rear.

Without the elephants, things could have easily gone the other way

 

[wcv215]

I was talking about Pydna.

The elephants allowed the Roman right to crush the Macedonian left, even though there were ample amounts of peltasts present.

This allowed both the infantry to the flank the left of the Macedonian phalanx, and the cavalry and elephants to strike the Macedonian rear.

Without the elephants, things could have easily gone the other way

Yeah, the elephants were so useful. Which is of course why Livy praises them so highly:

"For as new contrivances generally make an important figure in the words of men, but on being put in practice ofttimes prove vain and ineffectual, so on that occasion the elephants in the line of battle were a mere name, without the least use."

The Latin allies broke the line at Pydna. The elephants accomplished diddly.

 

[Gwyain]

Would it be useful to have the elephants pull a cart full with archers? You move the elephant and cart towards the enemy and then turn left or right and retreat again, exposing the archers to the enemy but keeping them always at a safe distance from the enemy. Foot soldiers will never catch up with the elephants and the archers in the cart can be protected from enemy archers by shielding wooden planks.

A horse drawn chariot already does a lot of that for you though, at a faster speed, and with an easier to manage animal.

I have to agree with the consensus that elephants are probably best used as beasts of burden, a role which I think they would excel at.