Elephants and V2 Romans

[ShrubMiK]

After contributing to this thread previously, I had a quick skim through the battle accounts in Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, and what I took from that was that heffalumps were a big part of Pyrrhos's successes*

* well at least they weren't defeats!

And then I got lazy and forgot to come back and post anything further

Another conclusion I have come to previously is that there was a brief period (relative to the whole of the period covered by the rules) in which heffalumps were genuinely scary, and battles revolved to some significant extent on efforts to explot that (if you had more or better of them), or counteract it with innovative equipment or tactics. But it seems at some point either the world ran out of elephants (clearly not true), they became somehow unfashionable (unlilely), or people stopped regarding them as elite weapon systems (much more lilely IMO).

So on that basis:
a) Using Sassanid accounts to justify how the combat should work in 2705bc is inherently flawed
b) Achieving a good representation of elephants in such an extended ruleset is always going to be tricky. Probably what we have is some sort of average effect, where many people complain elephants are not effective enough in their Helelnsitic era armies; whilst others complain they are too effective against Dominate Romans. I have no idea what could be done about that!

[azrael86]

Zocco mentioned Pyrrhus' success, and attributed it to the phalanx, which is odd as the Romans never had serious trouble with any phalanx other than Pyrrhus' -.

Where did you get this fact from?

If the Seleucids (and Mithradates) started arming argyraspids in the roman style instead of the traditional phalanx that implies that pikemen were seen as inferior to legions.

Also tha long list of heavy defeats of Roman armies by Hellenistics (which IIRC is roughly half Pyrrhus' doing).

[VMadeira]

As far as I know (which admittedly is not much), romans never lost an important battle against phalanxes, except for the first 2 against Pyrrhus, which can be atributed more to the novelty of facing elephants, than fighting pikes.

The point that several powers started to change pikemen to legionnaires, should be a very good hint that pikemen were seen as inferior to the legionnaires.

[philqw78]

If the Seleucids (and Mithradates) started arming argyraspids in the roman style instead of the traditional phalanx that implies that pikemen were seen as inferior to legions.

Also tha long list of heavy defeats of Roman armies by Hellenistics (which IIRC is roughly half Pyrrhus' doing).

So are you saying there is a long list or there is not?
Also changing to a system that defeated you, then still being beaten is not a good example, perhaps the seleucids, etc were going to be beaten anyway.
Did not most Roman authors believe they could not defeat the phalanx on even terms frontally?

[ethan]

The numbers of battles won and lost isn't necessarily a good measure of the relative strengths of Roman v Hellenistic military systems. The Romans are unlikely to take on the Hellenistics until they felt they had a reasonable chance of success. So in the early period the Hellenes may be both economicially and militarily stronger and they may well have declined in the century or so between Pyrrhus and the Romans taking them on successfully.

We don't know the outcome of an earlier hypothetical Roman v Seleucid war. I believe the Seleucids had a long slow decline as the Parthians ate up their eastern provinces for instance. Certainly the Ptolemaic army is never thought to be the same by the time of Cleopatra as it was at its height.

People tend to make war on those they think they can defeat, which is a function of a number of variables beyond just the relative military systems.

[Jhykronos]

Heh, also note that subsequent to the battles with Pyrrhus, the Romans weren't exactly in the habit of taking the phalanxes on straight up, either. A lot of enveloping maneuvers and shooting the snot out of the pikers in the Macedonian/Syrian/Mithriditic wars.

Replacement of the Pike phalanx probably had a lot more to do with the formation's complete uselessness outside of open field battles (which were the minority of military action in all periods), more than anything else.

[azrael86]

If the Seleucids (and Mithradates) started arming argyraspids in the roman style instead of the traditional phalanx that implies that pikemen were seen as inferior to legions.

Also tha long list of heavy defeats of Roman armies by Hellenistics (which IIRC is roughly half Pyrrhus' doing).

So are you saying there is a long list or there is not?
Also changing to a system that defeated you, then still being beaten is not a good example, perhaps the seleucids, etc were going to be beaten anyway.
Did not most Roman authors believe they could not defeat the phalanx on even terms frontally?

I think it is Pyrrhus twice, Philip V twice. The list of Romans beating phalanx armies is substantially longer, as I'm sure you know.

You think that making a change to a system that had been successful for 150 yrs would be done lightly? Or that Greece/Macedon, fiercely independent right up to the Romans arrived, just didn't fancy it?

[ShrubMiK]

How has this turned into what the direct interaction should be between pikes and legionaries?

>People tend to make war on those they think they can defeat, which is a function of a number of variables beyond just the relative military systems.

True up to a point, but I'm not sure that's a sound basis for any meaningful discussion.

Firstly, they may have thought wrongly.

Secondly, you should perhaps apply the same logic and allow equal free will to their opponents. Does it take two to make war, or only one? (And it is interesting to note that you do seem to be assuming Ethan in what you write that the choice to make war or not was only down to those nasty Romans, not the nice fluffy Hellenes )

And thirdly, plenty of wars arise from reasons which could not be characteristic as sound logical evaluation of chances and consequences. Just ask Helen.

[IanP]

From my understanding the end of the use of elephants in western armies can be attributed to the following.

Firstly, as any enemy becomes used to your tactics and technology you are forced to adapt, or even abandon certain weapons. That is always true, and probably had some effect. The fact though that some armies continued to use elephants until quite recent times suggests that this wasn’t the primary reason.

Secondly, elephants were expensive to maintain, and (for European armies) difficult to obtain. As the elephants were difficult to breed in captivity fresh blood was constantly needed, which leads directly to:

Thirdly, lack of supply. Elephants came from two sources, North Africa and India. At some point the North African species became extinct as I understand, or at least reduced to insignificant numbers, and in any case were always disadvantaged against Indian elephants. From around C200BC the Iranian trade routes were under the control of the Parthians (who did not use elephants) and later the Sassanids (who used elephants to a greater or lesser degree until their final defeat) neither of whom would be keen to supply their Hellenic and Roman enemies. Even after the spread of Islam we find Eastern armies continuing to use elephants, not only in India and SE Asia, but by the Ghaznavids and Timurids amongst others.

What exactly this means for the correct balance of POAs in game terms is debateable, but does perhaps go to support the point that the abandonment of a weapon or tactical system can’t be viewed just as a reflection of its effectiveness against their opponents.

[caliban66]

I quite like changes on elephants. 3 dice at impact+-1 for loosing impact phase+-1 loosing against Elephants should dry opponent´s mouth when charged by them, what, in the way I see, is all this about: the feeling. I´m sure that legionaires did not think: "Great! Elephants in front of me! Sure they will explode due to death rolls and open a gap in their lines". They should pray their ancestors instead of that, and still have a good chance of beating them if survived the initial charge.

[ShrubMiK]

>but does perhaps go to support the point that the abandonment of a weapon or tactical system can’t be viewed just as a reflection of its effectiveness against their opponents.

Agreed. But the problem is that we can make the converse argument too - the fact that the weapon system continued to be used by some armies much linger could be attributed to factors other than continued effectiveness. Maybe if you have loads of elephants trampling your shurbbery and a bunch of cheap mahouts, they are not so expensive to add to your army after all, perhaps cheaper than chariots or even good cavalry. Perhaps they are terror weapons - not really that good except against irresolute/less well trained opponents. Maybe they are status symbols, and the low cost-effectiveness in combat is therefore unimportant. Maybe the leaders in question just liked having elepahts around - I know I would if my garden was bigger

This is all circumstantial argument...which is (ideally) where a detailed look at performance in battle would fill the gap.

And IMO this brings us right back to the fact that the Sassanids had the monopoly in the Mediterranean and Mediterranean-bordering world of this weapon system, who it is suggested above maybe inhibited their Mediterranean enemies from getting their hands on this presumably effective and scary weapons system...and yet did not seem to use it effectively against them. Which begs the question - why not?

Perhaps they made much more successful use of elephants against their Eastern enemies, and we are just lacking accounts of these campaigns and battles. That would also beg for an explanation. Maybe well trained and determiend close fighting infantry were no longer susceptibel to elephants, but they still had a big role to play against mounted and less disciplined foot?

And I know this is still theory crafting

[philqw78]

- I know I would if my garden was bigger

Really?

[Strategos69]

I´m sure that legionaires did not think: "Great! Elephants in front of me! Sure they will explode due to death rolls and open a gap in their lines".

In fact, I think this is quite the point. In Western armies the elephants did not cover part of the line, not along with infantry except for the sole case we know with the disastrous effects it had. Elephants were usually deployed in front of the army, whether on the center or the wings. That brings me to (that is referred to Western warfare: Indian was quite different):
- Why Hellenistic armies can't have more elephants (at least as many as the Carthaginians) if we know they fielded even 200 hundred?
- Why elephants can form battle lines with heavy foot based solely in the example of Magnesia?
- Why all elephants are equal when there are specific descriptions that point out that they were not?

If FoG has a general approach into battles, I find that the actual and usual use of elephants does not match any historical deployment, and that does not seem quite right.

[pezhetairoi]

I have yet to see a game system that handles elephants in a perfect historical manner.
The "spreading-out" as a line in front of the main battle line has never really worked.
With an elephant per base, how many figures would you need to cover a pike line? For my preferred phalanx array, I'd need at least nine of them! Feasible for Classical Indians etc, but not Hellenistic armies. Elephant models are expensive and to cover the appropriate frontage you'd need a very high proportion of them compared to the rest of your army, and it starts to get silly, especially since you might only have 8 CV bases.
Additionally, elephants need to be on a very deep base to accommodate the large figures, and this also causes problems with tabletop representation and movement distances.

I feel the current system does represent concentrated elephant battlegroups suitably -- perhaps the elephants are not destructive enough, and should have increased effect on undrilled troops, I'm not sure yet. Needs testing.

I could possibly see integrating elephants into other battlegroups for the "spread-out" tactic, but how would that work? As a capability? Elephant support?
Just throwing ideas out there:
Elephant screen capability -- fight impact as elephants (POAs and dice), disorder mounted, but risk early autobreak?
Elephant support capability (think sassanids) -- BG now counts as rear supported, disorders mounted, and gets a few shooting dice at impact?

Hmmmmm.

[ShrubMiK]

In the spirit of throwing random ideas out there without lots of thought...

>With an elephant per base, how many figures would you need to cover a pike line?

Have dispersed elephants mounted singly on larger frontage bases. That would also make them look "right" in comparison to the concentrated elephant BGs we know and love today.

Game mechanics to handle this...I don't know. But I feel they are not a million miles from the "expendables" idea from another ruleset that shall not be mentioned, although obviously the game mechanics are very different so implementation would have to differ as well.

But basically I agree the right sort of behaviour is that they should die very easily (e.g. take away the plus for being an elephant when making death rolls, so there's a good chance of them disappearing quickly against any decent, steady opponent that can dish out reasonable damage in return).

In return, they have enhanced ability to cuase some casualties and cohesion loss, even in a combat that the elephants lose, and even are destroyed in. Make the opponents take a cohesion test even if the draw or win the combat. Don't allow them the +2 on death roll even if they won or drew.

Result: the elephants can be used in a potentially sacrifical manner to damage and break up the formation of the enemy, allowing the battle troops following up behind them to take advantage and win the battle.

One long "dispersed elephant" base is an independent BG, otherwise they would be too inflexible. (This also removes one of the potential problems with allowing elephants to be superior at the moment - loss of one bases wouldn not cause a superior elephant BG to auto-break)

And while we ar at it - don't scythed chariots need reworking, possibly along similar lines?

[ShrubMiK]

- I know I would if my garden was bigger

Really?

That looks nothing like the cute baby elephants being bottle fed I saw out in Sri Lanka.

In Zimbabwe I've also visited the house of somebody who occasionally had elephants wandering through her garden (strangely, in the middle of a quite heavily built up area, and up near the top of a considerable hill).

So I'm sorry, I don't believe your malicious scaremongering and evil slandering of those lovely cuddly heffalumps

[Strategos69]

I could possibly see integrating elephants into other battlegroups for the "spread-out" tactic, but how would that work? As a capability? Elephant support?
Just throwing ideas out there:
Elephant screen capability -- fight impact as elephants (POAs and dice), disorder mounted, but risk early autobreak?
Elephant support capability (think sassanids) -- BG now counts as rear supported, disorders mounted, and gets a few shooting dice at impact?

Interesting point and I agree that most wargames do not address the Western ones properly.
What about a mixed formation elephants-light foot with the elephants fighting as elephants and the light foot as such? It could be one elephant per 2 bases and deployed side by side. that would make too the same depth and represent a thinned unit with a larger front but without needing more elephant miniatures. That would improve the elephants on the side of the autobreak (let's say they first remove light foot and then elephant bases)

Have dispersed elephants mounted singly on larger frontage bases. That would also make them look "right" in comparison to the concentrated elephant BGs we know and love today.

I think it is a quite neat idea too for only elephant units. You can have them based as battle waggons, for example. That would allow more mini dioramas too. And for those not willing to rebase, just put a blank base next to them

Game mechanics to handle this...I don't know. But I feel they are not a million miles from the "expendables" idea from another ruleset that shall not be mentioned, although obviously the game mechanics are very different so implementation would have to differ as well.

But basically I agree the right sort of behaviour is that they should die very easily (e.g. take away the plus for being an elephant when making death rolls, so there's a good chance of them disappearing quickly against any decent, steady opponent that can dish out reasonable damage in return).

In return, they have enhanced ability to cuase some casualties and cohesion loss, even in a combat that the elephants lose, and even are destroyed in. Make the opponents take a cohesion test even if the draw or win the combat. Don't allow them the +2 on death roll even if they won or drew.

Result: the elephants can be used in a potentially sacrifical manner to damage and break up the formation of the enemy, allowing the battle troops following up behind them to take advantage and win the battle.

One long "dispersed elephant" base is an independent BG, otherwise they would be too inflexible. (This also removes one of the potential problems with allowing elephants to be superior at the moment - loss of one bases wouldn not cause a superior elephant BG to auto-break)

I suggested a while ago that elephants should disorder heavy and medium foot and heavily disorder cavalry. Maybe this could be restricted when they are not steady, but the overall idea is that they fight on their own. That way they could just fight with light foot as they did historically, even thinking about mixed formations for some Hellenistic armies. And for those willing to play Magnesia, just special scenarios rules should be convenient. Right now all Western elephants fight as those in Magnesia, and that does not seem quite right.

And while we ar at it - don't scythed chariots need reworking, possibly along similar lines?

I also agree. There is not much wild behavoiur on them and they rout as normal troops from fire, which does not seem right either.

[DeadKraken]

just like to point out the amount of Elephants ever used in battle was pitifully small against Romans or any other western army, Elephants were succesful in thousands of battles as well as not being successful and in FOG most East Asian armies, where the Elephant was used for thousands of years, in FOG are not HF but MF.