Save the elephant

[dave_r]

Which sources describe elephants breaking from combat and then disordering enemy and friends as they rout?

"When all was ready for battle on both sides, the Numidian horse having been skirmishing with each other for some time, Hannibal ordered the drivers of the elephants to charge the enemy. 2 When the trumpets and bugles sounded shrilly from all sides, some of the animals took fright and at once turned tail and rushed back upon the Numidians who had come up to help the Carthaginians, and Massanissa attacking simultaneously, the Carthaginian left wing was soon left exposed. p4933 The rest of the elephants falling on the Roman velites in the space between the two main armies, 4 both inflicted and suffered much loss, until finally in their terror some of them escaped through the gaps in the Roman line with Scipio's foresight had provided, so that the Romans suffered no injury, while others fled towards the right and, received by the cavalry with showers of javelins, at length escaped out of the field. 5 It was at this moment that Laelius, availing himself of the disturbance created by the elephants, charged the Carthaginian cavalry."
(Polybius, Hist. XV)

So you are talking about Zama, which was a special case anyway because the Elephants weren't trained for war. Even from your own evidence it shows that a lot of them weren't broken in hand to hand combat but by some trumpets blowing!

How is this not simulated by the elephants bursting through friends is beyond me.

I would also suggest that you need to post evidence of more than one battle. You said lots of accounts. In particular I would be interested to read any accounts of trained Indian elephants routing and disordering their own troops.

[Strategos69]

More to come:

"Caesar perceiving that the ardor of his soldiers would admit of no restraint, giving "good fortune" for the word, spurred on his horse, and charged the enemy's front. On the right wing the archers and slingers poured their eager javelins without intermission upon the elephants, and by the noise of their slings and stones, so terrified these animals, that turning upon their own men, they trod them down in heaps, and rushed through the half-finished gates of the camp."
(Caesar,African Wars, 83)

[dave_r]

More to come:

"Caesar perceiving that the ardor of his soldiers would admit of no restraint, giving "good fortune" for the word, spurred on his horse, and charged the enemy's front. On the right wing the archers and slingers poured their eager javelins without intermission upon the elephants, and by the noise of their slings and stones, so terrified these animals, that turning upon their own men, they trod them down in heaps, and rushed through the half-finished gates of the camp."
(Caesar,African Wars, 83)

And exactly how is this not simulated by the rules at they stand?

I note they still weren't broken in hand to hand combat. The Zama accounts also point towards the elephants getting frightened before they made contact. So I still can't see how your suggestion of making them rout in a random direction is helping matters? If anything it is making the elephants worse so adds complexity for little or no benefit.

It would help if you posted the battle name also. Some of the Roman accounts are sometimes written on a not quite flat playing field.

[Strategos69]

The battle before can only be Thapsus.

Another example
When the elephants charged the trench and began to be wounded by those who were shooting from the wall, while at the same time a rapid shower of javelins and spears fell on them from the fresh troops drawn up before the trench, 13 they very soon, finding themselves hit and hurt in many places, were thrown into confusion and turned on their own troops, p115trampling down and killing the men and disturbing and breaking the ranks. 14 Caecilius, on seeing this, made a vigorous sally and falling on the flank of the enemy, who were now in disorder, with his own fresh and well-ordered troops caused a severe rout among them, killing many and compelling the rest to quit the field in headlong flight. 15 He took ten elephants with their mahouts, and after the battle, having penned up the others who had thrown their mahouts, he captured them all. 16 By this exploit he was universally acknowledged to have caused the Roman land forces to pluck up courage again and gain the command of the open country.
(Polybius, I, 40)

And again I didn't say if I recall properly that elephants should only rout due to combat. Most of the examples that are found say javelins. As far as I know, throwing javelins (or even spears!) is not only from far distance in FoG, but also legionaries throw javelins when fighting with elephants (that was one of the two tactics the used). Would be velites only shooting to elephants whithin the shooting phase or rather in all combat phases? What I suggested is, first, routing elephants are not predictable. In Zama they ended up crossing the cavalry in both flanks! In Thapsus, they retired straight back as it seems to have happened the same in Panormus.

What would we get? First, a better depiction of what happened or could have happened. Second, less predictable use of troops that, reading the sources, seem to have been very powerful but instable.

So you are talking about Zama, which was a special case anyway because the Elephants weren't trained for war.

Well, since the very beginning I have been saying that not all elephants should be classified equally. I am glad we both agree.

Sorry, I can't say anything about Indian warfare as I am not interested in it and practically I know nothing about that.

[Strategos69]

(Battle of Raphia)
When Ptolemy and his sister after their progress had reached the extremity of his left wing and Antiochus with his horse-guards had reached his extreme right, they gave the signal for battle and brought the elephants first into action. 2 A few only of Ptolemy's elephants ventured to close with those of the enemy, and now the men in the towers on the back of these beasts made a gallant fight of it, striking with their pikes at close quarters and wounding each other, while the elephants themselves fought still better, putting forth their whole strength and meeting forehead to forehead. 4 The way in which these animals fight is as follows. With their tusks firmly interlocked they shove with all their might, each trying to force the other to give ground, until the one who proves strongest pushes aside the other's trunk, 4 and then, when he has once made him turn and has him in the flank, he gores him with his tusks as a bull does with his horns. 5 Most of Ptolemy's elephants, however, declined the combat, as is the habit of African elephants; 6 for unable to stand the smell and the trumpeting of the Indian elephants, and terrified, I suppose, also by their great size and strength, they at once turn tail and take to flight before they get near them. 7 This is what happened on the present occasion; and when Ptolemy's elephants were thus thrown into confusion p207and driven back on their own lines, Ptolemy's guard gave way under the pressure of the animals.
(Polybius, V, 84)

[Strategos69]

(Battle of Metaurus)

Having therefore collected his men from the right wing in p231the rear of the field he passed round the left of the Roman camp and attacked the Carthaginians in flank where the elephants were. 8 Up to now the victory had been disputed, for the men fought on both sides with equal bravery, as there was no hope of safety either for the Romans if defeated or for the Spaniards and Carthaginians. The elephants too had been of equal service to both sides in the battle; 9 for as they were shut in between the two armies and tormented by missiles, they threw both the Roman and the Spanish ranks into confusion.
(Polybius, XI, 1)

[Strategos69]

(Battle of Illipa)

But the general, regarding this as of small importance, devoted his intention to the really important object — outflanking the enemy — and he estimated rightly, 9 for a general should, of course, know the actual course of events, but employ those movements which are suited to an emergency.

24 In consequence of this attack the elephants, assailed by the missiles of the cavalry and velites and harassed on every side, were suffering much, and doing as much damage to their own side as to the enemy.

(Polybius, X1, 24)

[waldo]

Has it ever occurred to you that frequently ancient generals were very clumsy? I played a game a few weeks ago and some Elephants charged my Cavalry, I beat them 2-0 and they threw a one and broke. The unit behind went disordered as they watched it, then fragged as the elephants routed through them. They were there to provide rear support. It possibly was clumsy, but it was also unlucky.

Which sources describe elephants breaking from combat and then disordering enemy and friends as they rout?

The Warhammer method was rubbish, because if you threw three ones (or sixes) in a row then they turned around and then smashed through the enemy that just routed them. I have read that happen in a lot of sources.....

And they began to lose only when the prodomoi charge them in the back!!

Actually it does happen in FoG. I had to umpire the unfortunate incident where Mr Ruddock managed to breag a BG of elephants with his lancers and then they routed through the supporting foot

I would be interested to read the sources for cavalry defeating elephants in combat.

Walter

[nikgaukroger]

I would be interested to read the sources for cavalry defeating elephants in combat.

Walter

Try the Tabakat-i-Nasiri.

[philqw78]

Try the Tabakat-i-Nasiri.

Mixes well with gin

[nikgaukroger]

So you are talking about Zama, which was a special case anyway because the Elephants weren't trained for war.

Well, since the very beginning I have been saying that not all elephants should be classified equally. I am glad we both agree.

Given how Hannibal used them at Zama there is a good case for classifying those nellies as Scythed Chariots.

[Strategos69]

Try the Tabakat-i-Nasiri.

Mixes well with gin

[Lionelc62]

If elephants are an effective and valued troop type, why do you never see them?. Because nobody wants a bloody great hole appearing in their battle line in the middle of combat. No other troop type is as brittle or as expensive as elephants. Unles they are toughened up they will dissapear from the wargaming table and that will be a loss to the hobby.

You haven't fielded Battlewagons then. Lose a BG of them and you've got a gap an army can drive through.

To help El and other 2 bases BG, what about :

- A BG of 2 bases may choose to drop a cohesion level instead of losing a base if in good order

or make the disordering effect of El cumulative with Terrain disorganisation / Disrupted status (Disr + El = same effect as frag for combat)

Just my two cents
Lionel

[Polkovnik]

I've used elephants a few times (classical Indan, Carthaginian) and I'm reasonably happy with the way they work, but I agree the points are too high. I also like the suggestion that they should not be allowed too deviate at all when routing, and rout through friend and enemy units.
I also cannot see why different grades are not allowed, but this would mean chaging the army list books. Or at least if points were included for Poor and Superior they could be used for scenarios. I would start with something like :
Superior - 25 points
Average - 20 points
Poor - 15 points

[Strategos69]

I would be interested to read the sources for cavalry defeating elephants in combat.

Walter

Mee too, specially in the Mediterranean warfare.

[MatthewP]

So from reading the very interesting sources above is that the North African Forest Elephants used by the Carthaginians, Numidians are not so good and the Indian Elephants are much better which indicates the grading of elephants may be a way forward. It also appears that even the Forest Elephants were actively targeted by their opponents, so they must have been considered a threat. Any unit will rout if it is hit enough, this is not unique to elephants.

However allowing Elephants to be graded still wont change the fact that they are too brittle and liable to implode at any moment. Only giving them a -2 on death roles or bigger units will change that.

[Polkovnik]

However allowing Elephants to be graded still wont change the fact that they are too brittle and liable to implode at any moment. .

Yes but this should be the case so doesn't need changing. Reducing their points will make them a more attractive proposition even though they are brittle.

[timmy1]

Matthew - not saying that you are wrong but please provide historical evidence that Elephants are too brittle under FoG. They seem about right to me.

[ethan]

not sure this is a good idea...

but what if EL could charge through LF (simulating foot escorts)? perhaps on a list be list basis?

[nikgaukroger]

not sure this is a good idea...

but what if EL could charge through LF (simulating foot escorts)? perhaps on a list be list basis?

Overall I think, as I said before, that nellies are about right in FoG, but overpriced. Yes they are brittle, but they should be - their record isn't as good as some people seem to imagine they are. However, Ethan may be onto something with trying to represent the escort infantry a bit more - but I'd suggest letting LF support El as a possible mechanism. Escort infantry were certainly common in the Hellenistic armies and I don't think just screening them with LF quite cuts it for LF in that role.

Whilst I'm on this I'd note that LF escorts are not, as far as I am aware, a feature of far eastern elephant use. Instead they built "combat squads" of infantry and cavalry around an elephant and then combined a number of these into, for want of a batter word, battle group. They were very ponderous. I wonder if there is a nice elegant solution to representing this formation - we didn't really have a chance to investigate it when doing the FoG:AM lists.