African Elephant: Size Question

[James Purefoy]

From EB unit description:
EB Unit Description

The Forest Elephant was smaller in size and strength compared to the Indian elephant. The battle of Raphia is often used as an example of the Indian elephant’s superiority, as Antiochos III elephants routed Ptolemaios IV elephants, yet it’s important to remember that Ptolemaios IV elephants were outnumbered at that battle.

A side effect of the Ptolemaic use of elephants caused the kingdom of Meroe to also start to tame and use elephants during the Hellenistic period, a practice they eventually taught to the Ethiopians as well. The forest elephants could be found in north-western and eastern Africa, but after the Romans conquered north-western Africa they hunted the forest elephant there to extinction due to their love for using them in circus and the arenas.

Yet from "The elephant in Ancient War" Richard Glover, 1944
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3292417

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So... who is right? My money is on EB, since the article is from 1944 (maybe new evidence surfaced that wasn't available to the original author).

p.s. I'm posting it here since any changes to units are more likely to happen in EB2 rather than EB

[Arjos]

The author's point is that they were bush elephants and not forest ones, if I got it right, but still that species was smaller than the indian...
I believe that in the comparison he had in mind the modern bush elephant...

[Brennus]

Another thing to consider is that Carthaginian mints may never have actually seen an elephant and were thus likely to basing their images on a general impression of what an elephant looked like (ask someone to draw an elephant for you, they will most likely draw a bush elephant). British coins from post-40BC also depicted elephants (amongst other things) and I don't think a British mint ever saw an elephant, instead the Britons based their images on Roman copies, it's possible the Carthaginians likewise based their depictions of elephants on other peoples' depictions.

[James Purefoy]

Another thing to consider is that Carthaginian mints may never have actually seen an elephant and were thus likely to basing their images on a general impression of what an elephant looked like (ask someone to draw an elephant for you, they will most likely draw a bush elephant). British coins from post-40BC also depicted elephants (amongst other things) and I don't think a British mint ever saw an elephant, instead the Britons based their images on Roman copies, it's possible the Carthaginians likewise based their depictions of elephants on other peoples' depictions.

This seems particularly unlikely. The Carthaginians employed elephants themselves (unlike the Britons), and had in fact easier access to them than the Seleucids or Ptolemies, who needed to go to considerable trouble to procure them (transporting in boats over rivers, or getting them through tribute from Indian Kings).


The African Elephant in Warfare, William Gowers
re Zama:

The author's point is that they were bush elephants and not forest ones, if I got it right, but still that species was smaller than the indian...
I believe that in the comparison he had in mind the modern bush elephant...

Yes, that's true, after some further reading it seems there was a bush elephant variety available to the Ptolemies and the Carthaginians, which must have been smaller than the Indian type, and is now extinct. So on that point the author of the article is mistaken (i.e. Polybious was correct, the Seleucids had the biggest elephants). He does have a fair point though on whether the Carthaginians used the forest elephant or not (so far it seems they did not).

[Arjos]

For the Britons and the elphants, Claudius brought with him pachyderms when he "conquered" Britain...

[Brennus]

This seems particularly unlikely. The Carthaginians employed elephants themselves (unlike the Britons), and had in fact easier access to them than the Seleucids or Ptolemies, who needed to go to considerable trouble to procure them (transporting in boats over rivers, or getting them through tribute from Indian Kings).

Yes but a Carthaginian mint is a very different proffesion from a Carthaginian mahout. It is beyond doubt that the Carthaginians had first hand access to elephants but I doubt they would have been brought into the city centres so that artisans could get an accurate idea of their anatomy.

For the Britons and the elphants, Claudius brought with him pachyderms when he "conquered" Britain...

These coins are pre-Claudian, they are based on examples minted by Mark Anthony and Octavian during the civil war and acquired during trade.

[Cyclops]

I think the quote in post #4 suggests Carthaginian elephants were a commonplace sight in Carthage so the artists depicting them may well have seen one in the flesh.

Its worth noting that coin makers sometimes stick with unrealistic depictions on their coins: in Australia it took decades for us to depict HM with an "old face" on our coins. Up ubnuitl the 1990's you'd swear she was still a sleek princess in her 20's.

So Brennus basic point that con art is not a fair guide to the reality of animal warfare stands. In fact if they were used to depictin the far more impressive bush elephant in their art then they might prefer it to the lower slung forest elephant. I much prefer the upright neck and long tusks over those shabby wood-skulking midgets, shambling around like old drunks with half a fag in their trunk, skin all wrinkled like unwashed pyjamas. And would it kill them to get a bath?

[abou]

From what I have read I am not in doubt that the Carthaginians and Ptolemies used the smaller L. cyclotis. Some authors argued that younger L. africana were utilized (e.g. Spinage), but I can't agree as people would be well aware of what a young vs full grown elephant would look like. Despite the biological inaccuracies in writers such as Pliny the Elder, they were aware of much about the animals since they strongly captured the attention of every culture in contact with them. Figuring in the likely historic ranges of the species (or subspecies) further bolsters the argument in favor of L. cyclotis.

[James Purefoy]

From what I have read I am not in doubt that the Carthaginians and Ptolemies used the smaller L. cyclotis. Some authors argued that younger L. africana were utilized (e.g. Spinage), but I can't agree as people would be well aware of what a young vs full grown elephant would look like. Despite the biological inaccuracies in writers such as Pliny the Elder, they were aware of much about the animals since they strongly captured the attention of every culture in contact with them. Figuring in the likely historic ranges of the species (or subspecies) further bolsters the argument in favor of L. cyclotis.

Thanks for the reply

What about Loxodonta africana pharaoensis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Elephant
This extinct species fits the bill a bit better than the modern forest elephant (provided it really existed).

[James Purefoy]

Ah, and a relevant article on the "Syrian Elephant", which also claims the Carthaginians used Loxodonta africana pharaoensis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Elephant

Of course, it's only wikipedia, but maybe through examining the references it could be verified as correct? Regional species of Elephants seem to have been present on the southern side of the Mediterranean, if that is the case then wouldn't it be better to use these extinct species instead of their modern African cousins?

[Lysimachos]

A good argument against both Loxodonta Africana and Loxodonta Cyclotis would be the fact that these - opposed to the Elephas Maximus who, especially his Indian subspecies, has been used as a working animal and war beast for millenia - are practically untamable. Why go through all the trouble of importing a kind of elephant that dwells far to the south and can hardly be trained at all?

[abou]

Neither of those subspecies seem to have existed so I don't know why Wikipedia has articles. The Syrian elephant is completely apocryphal as it is clear that the Seleukid elephants were brought in from India -- it even mentions that in the discussion tab on that page. The L. a. pharaoensis seems to be a completely unnecessary attempt to explain different populations of L. cyclotis.

[Cambyses]

Im conviced that the main use of elephants in ancient times was in the construction industry. There is plenty of evidence for this use in Roman Imperial literature. A practice that was surely copied from elsewhere.

As such elephants would have been present in major cities where a culture had access to them. Im not suggesting that they helped to build the acropolis for example... Anyway, i do not believe them to have been a rare or exotic animal in Carthage. Rather an expensive and powerful working creature.

Also, I must ask in an elephant v elephant battle what would be the decisive quality. Surely not the size of the elephants themselves? I would have believed the armour of the creatures, the weapons of the riders and most significantly the battle training, DISCIPLINE and experience of the rider/creature combination would all be far more important. To allow elephants to charge and fight another with platformed riders on board would be madness. Have you seen bull elephants fighting on nature programs?

[Iasonis]

Size matters when it comes to African Elephants