Indian & African war elephants in EB

[Conqueror]

Just something I'm curious about.

I of corse expect the elephant units in EB to have the appropiate models (African elephants being smaller but with bigger ears than the Indian ones) for the different factions: Seleucids train the Indian war elephants and Karthadast trains the African ones. But what happens if the Seleucids crush the Ptolemies and expand into Northern Africa? Will they be able to train elephant units there? And if so, can those units be made to use the African elephant model?

[Steppe Merc]

Not sure. But Indian elephants were better anyway, so why use African ones?

[jerby]

i think an interesting question also arises with the ptolemy's..

in teh beginning their 'path' to importing indian ellies is blocked. will they be able to recruit ellies as soon as they drive out teh seleukids from their 'route' to india? would really help for depth..since the player (as seleukids) could choose to block of teh ptolly's ellies..

[Conqueror]

I meant that any elephant units trained in Africa should use the African elephant model, since they'd be drawn from the native elephant population there. To use Indian elephants in Africa you'd need to move them a long ways, which would take much time. It would be easier for the Seleucids to use the local elephants.

[khelvan]

Of course, all units can be recruited in only certain areas.

However, some well-known elephant stables were established, and our recruitment system will reflect this, to a point.

[tk-421]

Not sure. But Indian elephants were better anyway, so why use African ones?

I'm pretty sure that that is at least partially a myth. I'm not an expert on this, but I wrote a paper and did a lot of research about war elephants last year in school. African elephants are usually larger and stronger than indian elephants. There isn't any reall proof that Indian elephants are better fighters, either. Lots of people look at the battle of Raphia, in which african elephants and indian elephants fought each other, as proof that Indian elephants were better. That's not a fair assumption because there were far more Indian elephants at Raphia than African ones. African bush elephants are usually larger than indian elephants

[metatron]

Not sure. But Indian elephants were better anyway, so why use African ones?Because it's easier than moving a herd across a continent?

[metatron]

IIRC, the elephants that Carthage used are now extinct?

[Reverend Joe]

I think so. The main fertile areas they lived in were destroyed by desertification, and by a migration of sheep through the area, who cleared out the grass and allowed the topsoil to erode. Or I could be completely wrong. I usually am. :disappointed:

[Conqueror]

African bush elephants are usually larger than indian elephants
But it's a different species than the (extinct) one that was used as war elephants by the Punics. Those ones were smaller than the Indian elephants.

[tk-421]

Yes, the Carthaginians mainly used the African forest elephant, which is smaller. I'm talking about the bush elephants and the Syrian elephants that the Ptolemies used. And forest elephants aren't completely extinct. They still live in some regions in southern Africa.

[Krusader]

The Carthaginians & Ptolemeies used African Forest Elephants which are smaller than the Indian ones. The Ptolemeies got theirs from Ethiopia, while the Carthies got theirs mainly from Atlas mountains it seems.

At Raphia, the Ptolemaic elephants routed since the Indian elephants were bigger.

[tk-421]

Like I said, I'm no expert, but from what I've read the Ptolemies didn't exclusively use the small forest elephants. They used some larger African elephants as well. And the African elephants didn't rout because they were so much smaller, they routed because they were greatly outnumbered.

[Greek_fire19]

From what I understood from other sources the larger african plains elephant (the one we now know as the african elephant) was imossible to discpline and could not be used in battle- aside from the obvious logistical problems of bringing a large elephant across the sahara desert.

[metatron]

From what I understood from other sources the larger african plains elephant (the one we now know as the african elephant) was imossible to discpline and could not be used in battle- aside from the obvious logistical problems of bringing a large elephant across the sahara desert.Yep.

I looked it up: The Carthaginians used a now extinct variant of the Forest Elephant or a fourth species. Scientists aren't sure, but they must've looked alike.

[Dux Corvanus]

There are three main species -apart from many subvariants:

- African forest elephant: Mostly extinct, although a variant still survives in small numbers. Small, and able to be tamed, usually carried just one of two people.

- African bush elephant (Loxodonta spp): The biggest of living terrestrial animals, these beasts are very big. They have big ears, and a two-hump forefront. Although they could carry a full variety of things, including archer towers and several guys, they were but very rarely used, because they're hard to tame, easily enragered animals, very dangerous both for friends and foes -which usually they didn't distinguish.
- Indian elephant (Elephas spp): The most versatile of all, they were smaller than bush elephants but bigger than forest ones. Small ears, one-hump forefront, very intelligent and easy to tame and teach. They could carry a small tower and up to three guys, including the driver. However, they could also panic and charge against their own troops in close battle.

[tk-421]

I retract all of my statements about the Ptolemies using African bush elephants. I have done some more reading and I was wrong. I still don't think that Asian elephants were better though.

[Sarcasm]

The simple fact that they were more easily trained for battle is by itself an enormous advantage that the indian elephants had (there are reports of indian elephants not fleeing the battle even with cannon and arquebus fire during the Portuguese expansion in India).

As the African Bush Elephant is largely untamable, a confrontation with the indian's would invariably result in the less desciplined force routing through its own lines. The African Forest Elephant was smaller, less powerfull than the indian specie and this too (even if they were equally tamable) would make the indian elephants come out on top during confrontations when all other conditions were equal.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

the indian elephants didn't run away from cannons because they were dead... elephants become main and very big targets for guns and they are quite easily brought down with grape-shot or musket fire

[Sarcasm]

I'm talking early 16th century...no grape shot aboard ships or muskets yet. Most cannons fired stone shots, some were still made of iron instead of bronze, and the arquebus was the main firearm which still shared it's use with arlabests.

Though all that is besides the point, *before* they died...(geeez...:rolleyes:) they didn't run, except when their drivers told them to do so. Indians had cannons and firearms too btw...long before the Portuguese ships arrived there.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

oh.... i was talking pre-penisula war when the british attacked the maharatta (sp?) the maharattas used elephants once (i think :book: ) and they all got shot to pieces by british cannon :oops: .....

but anyway all elephants should have low morale to show that they are easily scared by loud noises

[Vlad-Tudor]

It's because the Indian elephants had more swag. And the ability to turn invisible at will.